United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

MB-R3-01-7

January 2013

Programmatic

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests Land

Management Plan

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, 

and Navajo Counties, Arizona
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, Office 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 – January 2013
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan i

Programmatic 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Land Management Plan

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Corbin Newman, Regional Forester

U.S. Forest Service

333 Broadway Blvd., SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

(505) 842-3292

For Information Contact: Michelle Davalos, Forest Planner

P.O. Box 640

30 S. Chiricahua Drive

Springerville, AZ 85938

(928) 333-4301

(928) 333-6292 (TTY) 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf

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

occurred over the past 25 years, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests propose to revise the 

current land management plan (1987 plan). This programmatic draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) documents analysis of the impacts of four alternatives developed for 

programmatic management of the 2.1 million acres administered by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

The DEIS documents the analysis of all alternatives and the associated environmental 

consequences at a programmatic level. The preferred alternative (alternative B) analyzed in this 

DEIS and reflected in the accompanying “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Proposed Land 

Management Plan,” would guide all natural resource management activities on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. This alternative addresses new information and concerns received 

since the 1987 plan was published, and it meets objectives of Federal laws, regulations, and 

policies.

Comments: It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a 

way that 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 or judicial 

review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of 

those who comment, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments 

submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will 
ii Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial 

reviews.

Send Comments to: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests - Plan Revision Team

P.O. Box 640

Springerville, AZ 85938

Fax number: (928) 333-5966

Email: asnf.planning@fs.fed.us
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan iii

Summary

The Forest Service proposes to implement a new land management plan for the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests (Apache-Sitgreaves NFs or the forests). The area affected by the 

proposal includes the approximately 2.1 million acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands 

known as the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, located in Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo 

Counties in Arizona. This proposal does not include Apache National Forest lands located in New 

Mexico; those lands are managed according to the Gila National Forest land management plan. 

This action is needed because the National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires land 

management plans to be revised every 10 to 15 years, and the current management direction for 

the forests under the 1987 Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan (1987 plan) is 25 years old. It no longer 

addresses changes that have occurred to economic, social, and ecological conditions; new policies 

and priorities; and new information based on monitoring and scientific research. For example, 

invasive species are a current threat to forest health where invasive plants infest over 30,000 acres 

of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. At the time the 1987 plan was approved, invasive species were not 

a concern.

Extensive public involvement and collaboration on the revision of the 1987 plan preceded 

publication of this DEIS. Informal discussions with the public regarding needed changes to the 

1987 plan began with a series of public meetings during the summer of 2006. From 2006 to 2012, 

multiple meetings, correspondence, news releases, comment periods, and other tools were utilized 

to gather feedback from the public, forest employees, tribes, Federal and State agencies, and local 

governments. As a culmination of these public involvement efforts, the forests have developed 

this programmatic draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) to examine potential alternatives 

for a new land management plan.

The four alternatives evaluated include:

• Alternative A is the no action alternative and represents the 1987 plan, as amended. This 

alternative would continue to guide management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Alternative A emphasizes timber management as a primary tool for providing forest 

products for local and regional industrial and individual needs while meeting wildlife 

habitat needs.

• Alternative B is the proposed action (proposed plan) and the preferred alternative. This 

alternative was designed to address the needs for change by addressing the demand for 

wildlife habitat, community protection, commodity outputs, and recreation opportunities 

with an emphasis on ecological restoration.

• Alternative C responds to public comments that forest management should provide 

increased benefits to local communities through management emphasis on commodity 

outputs and motorized and developed recreation. There is an emphasis on contributing to 

local and regional economic sustainability through ecological restoration

• Alternative D responds to public comments that forest management should emphasize 

more natural processes and nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities. There is 

an emphasis on ecological restoration across all vegetation types.

This DEIS provides more detailed descriptions of each alternative and discloses the potential 

environmental consequences related to implementing each alternative. Based upon the effects of 

the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether to implement the preferred alternative 
Summary

iv Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

(alternative B), modify the proposed plan to meet the purpose and need through some other 

combination of management direction, select another alternative, or take no action at this time.
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan v

Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change................................................................................... 1

Document Structure................................................................................................................................1

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

Purpose and Need for Change ................................................................................................................3

Proposed Land Management Plan ..........................................................................................................8

Decision Framework...............................................................................................................................8

Scope of the Analysis.............................................................................................................................9

Land Management Plan Decisions .........................................................................................................9

Tribal Consultation ...............................................................................................................................10

Public Involvement...............................................................................................................................10

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action........................................................ 13

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................13

Alternative Development......................................................................................................................13

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.............................................................14

Alternatives Considered in Detail.........................................................................................................17

Main Differences Among Alternatives.................................................................................................19

Comparison of Alternatives..................................................................................................................29

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences................................... 41

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................41

Programmatic Framework of the Land Management Plan ...................................................................41

Environmental Analyses and Overall Assumptions .............................................................................41

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.......................................................................................42

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Consequences...........................................................................43

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...................................................................43

Adaptive Management..........................................................................................................................43

Climate Change ....................................................................................................................................44

Environmental Consequences of Each Alternative by Resource.........................................................44

Air.........................................................................................................................................................44

Soil........................................................................................................................................................51

Watershed .............................................................................................................................................63

Water Resources...................................................................................................................................70

Riparian ................................................................................................................................................82

Fisheries................................................................................................................................................90

Vegetation...........................................................................................................................................133

Forest Health ......................................................................................................................................185

Fire......................................................................................................................................................205

Wildlife and Rare Plants.....................................................................................................................220

Invasive Species .................................................................................................................................310

Recreation...........................................................................................................................................315

Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................331

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers....................................................................................336

Inventoried Roadless Areas................................................................................................................345

Wilderness Resources.........................................................................................................................351

Research Natural Areas ......................................................................................................................369

Scenic Resources................................................................................................................................377

Lands and Special Uses......................................................................................................................387

Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................................400

American Indian Rights and Interests.................................................................................................414

Forest Products...................................................................................................................................422

Livestock Grazing...............................................................................................................................448

Minerals and Energy...........................................................................................................................462

Socioeconomic Resources..................................................................................................................468

Other Required Disclosures................................................................................................................492
Contents

vi Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination............................................................................... 41

Preparers and Contributors.................................................................................................................493

Consultation and Coordination ...........................................................................................................495

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent...................498

Glossary...................................................................................................................................... 499

References.................................................................................................................................. 517

Appendix

A. Public Comments and Responses .................................................................................................541

B. Description of the Analysis Process..............................................................................................543

C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts.........................................................................583

D. Management Area Descriptions.....................................................................................................607

E. Other Supporting Documentation ..................................................................................................611

F. Collaboration and Public Involvement ..........................................................................................615

G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability ...........................................................................................625

H. Maps..............................................................................................................................................645

Index ........................................................................................................................................... 665

List of Tables

Table 1. Management area allocation (in acres and percent) for the no action alternative.........30

Table 2. Management area allocation (in acres and percent) for the action alternatives.............31

Table 3. Comparison of indicators by alternative........................................................................32

Table 4. Other plan objectives.....................................................................................................39

Table 5. Summary of 2018 projected visibility conditions1 ........................................................49

Table 6. Current and desired soil condition1 class as a 

percent of each PNVT; ( ) indicates desired condition..................................................53

Table 7. Estimated trends in soil condition during 

the planning period for each PNVT by alternative........................................................57

Table 8. Average annual mechanical treatment objectives (acres) for each alternative ..............58

Table 9. Annual burning treatments (acres) and estimated fire severity by alternative...............59

Table 10. Burn characteristics and effects to soil function by fire severity...................................59

Table 11. Motorized routes treatment objectives by alternative....................................................61

Table 12. Results of the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) for 

6th level HUC watershed condition by watershed basin (3rd level HUC) ......................65

Table 13. Priority watershed treatment objective, basis, and priority by alternative.....................67

Table 14. Riparian vegetation and soil condition trends ...............................................................83

Table 15. Riparian stream length and proportional extent by proper functioning 

condition class for 4th and 5th level HUC watersheds (Forest Service, 2008e)..............84

Table 16. Native fish species and their miles of occupied, critical, 

and recovery habitat on Apache-Sitgreaves NFS lands.................................................93

Table 17. Current and historical occurrences of native fish 

species by 4th and 5th level hydrologic unit code (HUC).............................................96

Table 18. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address 

fish species viability concerns for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs...................................109

Table 19. ESA species findings for all proposed alternatives .....................................................121

Table 20. Acres and percent of the forests by potential treatment type 

(mechanical and fire) by species drainage area and alternative...................................125

Table 21. Percent of species drainage area that is located in management areas 

where actions, including ground-disturbing activities, are most likely to occur .........129

Table 22. The 14 potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs ...135

Table 23. Acres and percent of forests by PNVT listed from largest to smallest........................136
Contents

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan vii

Table 24. Potential natural vegetation types (PNVT) and 

current departure (DI) percent from desired conditions..............................................136

Table 25. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) 

by alternative in the ponderosa pine PNVT.................................................................151

Table 26. Fifteen year (planning period) ponderosa pine PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H77..............................................151

Table 27. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at 

the end of the 15-year planning period within the ponderosa pine PNVT ..................153

Table 28. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by 

alternative in the wet mixed conifer PNVT.................................................................153

Table 29. Fifteen year (planning period) wet mixed conifer PNVT departure 

index (DI) by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is M54 ......................154

Table 30. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at 

the end of the 15-year planning period within the wet mixed conifer PNVT..............155

Table 31. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by 

alternative in the dry mixed conifer PNVT .................................................................156

Table 32. Fifteen year (planning period) dry mixed conifer PNVT departure 

index (DI) by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H67......................156

Table 33. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre 

at the end of the 15-year planning period within the dry mixed conifer PNVT ..........158

Table 34. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the spruce-fir PNVT.......159

Table 35. Fifteen year (planning period) spruce-fir PNVT departure index (DI) 

by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is M59 ........................................159

Table 36. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre 

at the end of the 15-year planning period within the spruce-fir PNVT .......................161

Table 37. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by 

alternative in the Madrean pine-oak PNVT.................................................................161

Table 38. Fifteen year (planning period) Madrean pine-oak PNVT departure 

index (DI) by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H61 .......................162

Table 39. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at 

the end of the 15-year planning period within the Madrean pine-oak PNVT..............163

Table 40. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by 

alternative in the piñon-juniper PNVT........................................................................164

Table 41. Fifteen year (planning period) piñon-juniper PNVT departure 

index (DI) by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is L26 .......................164

Table 42. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre 

at the end of the 15-year planning period within the piñon-juniper PNVT.................166

Table 43. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by 

alternative in the Great Basin grassland PNVT...........................................................167

Table 44. Fifteen year (planning period) Great Basin grassland PNVT departure 

index (DI) by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H66 .......................167

Table 45. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by 

alternative in the semi-desert grassland PNVT ...........................................................168

Table 46. Fifteen year (planning period) semi-desert grassland PNVT departure 

index (DI) by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H79 .......................169

Table 47. Annual treatment objectives (acres) by 

alternative in the montane/subalpine grassland PNVTs..............................................171

Table 48. Average annual treatment objectives (acres) by alternative in the riparian PNVT .....172
Contents

viii Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 49. Road treatment objectives (miles) by alternative in the riparian PNVT......................173

Table 50. Acres of aspen at the end of the planning period, by treatment objective 

level and alternative; desired condition is 50,000 acres or more of aspen ..................173

Table 51. Estimated percent of tree species infected with major diseases by ranger district1

.....193

Table 52. Percent of forested PNVT by bark beetle risk and alternative at the 

end of the planning period (year 15) compared to existing conditions........................198

Table 53. Percent of forested PNVTs by number of closed canopy levels and alternative 

at the end of the planning period (year 15) compared to existing conditions..............200

Table 54. Fire frequency and severity by PNVT1

compared to the 2011 Wallow Fire burn severities.....................................................209

Table 55. Fire regimes by PNVTs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs .............................................211

Table 56. Existing forestwide FRCC on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.........................................212

Table 57. Current FRCC by PNVT.............................................................................................212

Table 58. Comparison of alternatives and how much emphasis is 

placed on treating the hazards associated with the WUI .............................................214

Table 59. The average annual acreage by treatment type, 

planned by alternative across all PNVTs.....................................................................215

Table 60. Average acres treated by PNVT per year (percent of PNVT treated per year) ...........215

Table 61. Forestwide FRCC outcome by alternative in acres 

and percent of the forests after 15 years of treatment..................................................216

Table 62. Comparison of alternatives showing FRCC outcomes by PNVT after 

15 years and the trend from 15 to 50 years as represented by the arrows ...................217

Table 63. Forest F rankings for forest planning species (FPS)....................................................223

Table 64. Viability risk ratings reflecting species’ F rank and likelihood of habitat limitation ..224

Table 65. Description of relative management effect rating for alternatives...............................225

Table 66. PNVTs (coarse filter) and habitat elements (fine filter) of importance 

to species viability, showing associated forest planning species.................................227

Table 67. Description of fine filter habitat elements and risks....................................................229

Table 68. Aspen within forested PNVTs, existing condition in 2012 (post-Wallow Fire)..........232

Table 69. Existing understory/herbaceous condition of the riparian ecological indicator (EI) ...233

Table 70. Other factors of concern and affected forest planning species (FPS)..........................234

Table 71. FPS, their status, F ranking, associated PNVTs and habitat elements.........................235

Table 72. MSO habitat by PNVT and existing condition, noting estimated 

change in suitable habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire.......................................241

Table 73. MSO critical habitat by PNVT and existing condition, noting 

estimated change in suitable critical habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire ..........242

Table 74. Indicator habitat (PNVTs) for MSO showing existing condition and 

noting estimated change in suitable habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire ...........247

Table 75. Indicator habitat for Northern goshawk showing existing condition 

and noting estimated change in habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire ..................248

Table 76. Representative neotropical migratory birds 

considered, important habitat, and threats...................................................................250

Table 77. Existing Wildlife Quiet Areas (WQAs) and other similar functioning areas..............253

Table 78. Expected habitat limitations and management 

effect outcomes by alternative at 15 years...................................................................256

Table 79. Movement toward desired conditions at 15 and 50 years by alternative.....................257

Table 80. Expected viability risk rating outcomes for each 

species-habitat relationship by alternative at 15 years ................................................260

Table 81. Species for which habitat alone is sufficient to provide viability................................265

Table 82. Number of species-habitat relationships as an indicator of viability 

effectiveness by habitat element(s) for each alternative (subtotals and totals)............266

Table 83. Number of species-habitat relationships as an indicator 

of viability effectiveness by FPS group for each alternative .......................................267
Contents

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan ix

Table 84. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that 

address ESA species at the coarse and fine filter levels..............................................267

Table 85. Alternative A (1987 plan) ESA species findings 

from the 2011 biological assessment (BA)..................................................................268

Table 86. Modeled acres treated per year in MSO PNVTs (high treatment level)......................271

Table 87. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that 

address sensitive species at the coarse and fine filter levels........................................278

Table 88. Viability risk ratings described and converted ............................................................280

Table 89. Viability effectiveness for PPF sensitive species ........................................................281

Table 90. Viability effectiveness for DMCF sensitive species....................................................282

Table 91. Viability effectiveness for WMCF and SFF sensitive species ....................................283

Table 92. Viability effectiveness for MPOW sensitive species...................................................284

Table 93. Viability effectiveness for MSG sensitive species ......................................................285

Table 94. Viability effectiveness for GBG sensitive species.......................................................287

Table 95. Viability effectiveness for high water quality sensitive species..................................288

Table 96. Viability effectiveness for healthy riparian sensitive species......................................290

Table 97. Viability effectiveness for large tree sensitive species................................................291

Table 98. Viability effectiveness for dense low-mid 

canopy with ample ground litter sensitive species ......................................................292

Table 99. Viability effectiveness for permanent wet meadow-like areas sensitive species.........293

Table 100. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that 

address highly interactive species at the coarse and fine filter levels..........................294

Table 101. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that 

address other FPS needs at the coarse and fine filter levels ........................................296

Table 102. Other factors of concern and affected forest planning species (FPS)..........................297

Table 103. Management effect compared by alternative for each of the MIS indicator habitats..299

Table 104. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address migratory birds...............304

Table 105. Sections of the plan containing plan decision that address bald and golden eagles ....305

Table 106. Proposed additional wildlife quiet areas by alternative ...............................................306

Table 107. Number of occurrences and acres of WQA management 

areas that provide greater habitat security by alternative ............................................306

Table 108. Habitat connectivity indicator, estimated average 

distance in miles between management areas by alternative.......................................308

Table 109. Average annual acres of mechanical and fire treatments by alternative......................313

Table 110. Percent participation in activities and primary activities 

of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ recreation visitors (Kocis et al., 2002) ............................317

Table 111. Types and numbers of developed recreation sites 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 2011b)..............................................320

Table 112. Acres and percent of the forests in each ROS class by alternative..............................324

Table 113. Average annual treatment objectives (acres) in ponderosa pine, 

wet mixed conifer, and dry mixed conifer forested PNVTs by alternative .................326

Table 114. Acres suitable for future consideration of mechanized 

and nonmotorized travel by alternative .......................................................................328

Table 115. Acres and percent suitable for future consideration 

of new motorized areas and trails by alternative .........................................................328

Table 116. Approximate acres and percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

suitable for future consideration of new motorized areas, NFS roads, 

NFS motorized trails, and temporary roads1 ...............................................................335

Table 117. Eligible wild and scenic rivers by river classification .................................................337

Table 118. Suitable wild and scenic rivers by river classification.................................................340

Table 119. River Corridor Acres by Classification and Management Area for Alternative A......342

Table 120. River Corridor Acres by Classification and Management Area for the Action 

Alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) ......................................................................344

Table 121. Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) ...............................................................................346
Contents

x Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 122. Apache-Sitgreaves NFs wilderness areas....................................................................352

Table 123. Areas with wilderness potential...................................................................................358

Table 124. Acres recommended for wilderness by alternative1 ....................................................363

Table 125. Results of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ RNA evaluation ............................................371

Table 126. Number and amount of designated and recommended RNAs by alternative ..............376

Table 127. Status of grazing allotments containing recommended RNAs....................................377

Table 128. Crosswalk between visual management system and scenery management system.....382

Table 129. Amount of NFS land (acres and percent of forests) by SIL by alternative..................383

Table 130. Average annual acres of vegetation treatments by alternative ....................................386

Table 131. Land ownership within the boundaries of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.......................389

Table 132. Land ownership adjustments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs since 1987....................389

Table 133. Number and type of special use permits

issued on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs as of April 2011 .............................................393

Table 134. Acres suitable for future consideration of 

new energy corridors or energy developments by alternative .....................................398

Table 135. Acres and percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

suitable for future consideration of new communications sites...................................399

Table 136. Archaeological prehistoric site types1 .........................................................................401

Table 137. Historic-age activities and possible site types1

............................................................402

Table 138. Percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs surveyed for archaeological sites by PNVT...404

Table 139. Properties currently listed and properties that are 

priority for future nomination to the National Register of Historic Places..................405

Table 140. Activity effects and the number of sites impacted by activity.....................................407

Table 141. Annual burning treatments (acres) and estimated fire severity by alternative.............410

Table 142. Mechanical treatment objective (acres) and number of sites that could be impacted..411

Table 143. Estimated average annual cost for cultural resource 

compliance in proposed mechanical treatment areas by alternative............................412

Table 144. Acres and percent by forested PNVT in 

forested/overgrown or deforested/early development condition .................................424

Table 145. Criteria used to determine tentatively suitable timberlands in all alternatives............426

Table 146. Annual cutting and burning treatment acres for all 

PNVTs, suitable and nonsuitable timberlands, by alternative .....................................430

Table 147. Lands suitable and not suitable for timber production by alternative..........................431

Table 148. ASQ volume from suitable timberlands 

for the first decade (rounded to nearest thousand).......................................................438

Table 149. Estimated annual ASQ volume by decade 

by alternative (volumes rounded to the nearest thousand) ..........................................439

Table 150. Estimated ranges of annual wood product volumes potentially 

available to offer in decade 1, by alternative from all NFS lands 

(suitable timberlands and non-suitable).......................................................................441

Table 151. Average years required to treat all forested/overgrown 

acres with one entry by alternative..............................................................................444

Table 152. Acres and percent of NFS land suitable for livestock grazing by alternative..............451

Table 153. Woody species reduction treatments in both 

woodland and grassland PNVTs by alternative...........................................................459

Table 154. Number of active mining claims 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 2009b)..............................................463

Table 155. Minerals that may be found on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Galbraith and Brennan, 1970) .............................................464

Table 156. Acres that could be withdrawn from mineral entry in the future.................................467

Table 157. Apache-Sitgreaves NFs acres by county .....................................................................469

Table 158. Population change 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 ............................................................470

Table 159. Population density .......................................................................................................471

Table 160. Median age ..................................................................................................................472
Contents

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan xi

Table 161. Gender distribution......................................................................................................473

Table 162. Educational attainment, percent of persons age 25 and older......................................473

Table 163. Percent participation in activities and primary 

activities of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs' recreation visitors1

............................................474

Table 164. Per capita income in 2010 U.S. dollars .......................................................................476

Table 165. Median earnings for workers in 2010 U.S. dollars......................................................477

Table 166. Contribution of labor and non-labor income 

to total personal income, 2000 and 2009.....................................................................478

Table 167. Unemployment rate, 2010 annual, not seasonally-adjusted ........................................479

Table 168. Median value of owner-occupied homes in 2010 U.S. dollars....................................479

Table 169. Payments to states and counties from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs .............................483

Table 170. Race and ethnicity by counties, states, and Nation......................................................484

Table 171. Percent of persons living in poverty............................................................................485

Table 172. Employment by program area by alternative ..............................................................486

Table 173. Labor income by program area by alternative.............................................................487

Table 174. Annual Apache-Sitgreaves NFs program expenditures by alternative ........................487

Table 175. Annual Apache-Sitgreaves NFs program revenue by alternative................................488

Table 176. Present net value (PNV) by alternative and program area1 .........................................488

Table 177. Interdisciplinary team members for plan revision.......................................................493

Table 178. Summary of modeled annual treatment objectives 

(acres) by PNVT and alternative for the high, average, and low levels ......................548

Table 179. Acres by treatment type used to model the 

low and high annual treatment objectives ...................................................................551

Table 180. Criteria and acres used to identify lands 

as tentatively suitable for timber production ...............................................................557

Table 181. Net revenue, present net value, and benefit:cost ratio 

for ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer for strata 1 to 3..........................................559

Table 182. Lands suitable or not suitable for timber production...................................................560

Table 183. Alternative A timber production suitability determination..........................................561

Table 184. Alternative B timber production suitability determination..........................................562

Table 185. Alternative C timber production suitability determination..........................................563

Table 186. Average LTSY calculation for all suitable timberland PNVTs 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs by alternative..............................................................566

Table 187. Estimated ranges of annual wood product volumes potentially 

available to offer in decade 1, by alternative from all NFS lands 

(suitable and nonsuitable timberlands)........................................................................570

Table 188. Lands suitable or not suitable for livestock grazing ....................................................573

Table 189. Alternative A acres suitable for livestock grazing as identified in the 1987 plan .......574

Table 190. Acres suitable for livestock grazing by action alternative...........................................574

Table 191. Forest (F) rankings for forest planning species 

(FPS) on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs..........................................................................575

Table 192. Values used to classify future habitat abundance ........................................................576

Table 193. Values used to classify future habitat distribution.......................................................577

Table 194. Likelihood of limitation to FPS viability based on 

future habitat abundance and future habitat distribution .............................................577

Table 195. Definitions for likelihood of limitation to viability 

based on future habitat abundance and distribution ....................................................577

Table 196. Viability risk rating (VRR) values reflecting 

species' F rank and likelihood of limitation.................................................................578

Table 197. Description of relative management effect (ME) rating for alternatives.....................578

Table 198. Other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and American 

Indian tribes planning efforts considered in the plan revision process........................583

Table 199. Forest Highways located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs............................................597

Table 200. Potential impacts to forest management and their relationship to the proposed plan..600
Contents

xii Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 201. Activities on adjacent lands that may impact forest management...............................603

Table 202. Crosswalk showing the general comparison of the 

action alternatives and the no action alternative management areas ...........................607

Table 203. Other supporting documentation for the DEIS............................................................611

Table 204. Timeline of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ plan revision process..................................615

Table 205. Key actions related to the identification of the need for change .................................617

Table 206. Key actions related to the iterative development of the proposed plan .......................621

Table 207. Key actions related to the development of the DEIS...................................................623

Table 208. Species crosswalk for how plan decisions meet species’ viability needs....................626

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of ranger districts on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs...................................................2

Figure 2. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative A......................................................20

Figure 3. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative B......................................................22

Figure 4. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative C......................................................24

Figure 5. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative D......................................................26

Figure 6. Aerial view of Mount Baldy Wilderness 

Photo from ADEQ 2011 State Implementation Plan.....................................................49

Figure 7. Map of watershed condition rating for 6th level HUC across the forests.......................66

Figure 8. Map of Outstanding Arizona Waters and impaired streams and lakes..........................73

Figure 9. Map showing extent of the Coconino-De Chelly 

Aquifer (C Aquifer). (Robson and Banta, 1995)..........................................................75

Figure 10. Map of fish drainage areas – Sitgreaves NF..................................................................91

Figure 11. Map of fish drainage areas – Apache NF ......................................................................92

Figure 12. Location map of the ponderosa pine forested PNVT ..................................................137

Figure 13. Location map of the wet mixed conifer forested PNVT..............................................138

Figure 14. Location map of the dry mixed conifer forested PNVT..............................................138

Figure 15. Location map of the spruce-fir forested PNVT...........................................................139

Figure 16. Location map of Madrean pine-oak woodland PNVT ................................................140

Figure 17. Location map of the piñon-juniper woodland PNVT..................................................140

Figure 18. Location map of the Great Basin grassland PNVT .....................................................141

Figure 19. Location map of the semi-desert grassland PNVT......................................................142

Figure 20. Location map of the montane/subalpine grassland PNVT ..........................................143

Figure 21. Location map of the interior chaparral PNVT.............................................................143

Figure 22. Location map of the wetland/cienega riparian areas PNVT........................................144

Figure 23. Location map of the cottonwood-willow riparian forested PNVT..............................145

Figure 24. Location map of the mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forested PNVT ..................145

Figure 25. Location map of the montane willow riparian forested PNVT ...................................146

Figure 26. Location map of aspen across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.........................................147

Figure 27. Ponderosa pine PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............152

Figure 28. Wet mixed conifer PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............155

Figure 29. Dry mixed conifer PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............157

Figure 30. Spruce-fir PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............160

Figure 31. Madrean pine-oak PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............163

Figure 32. Piñon-juniper PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............165

Figure 33. Great Basin grassland PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............168
Contents

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan xiii

Figure 34. Semi-desert grassland PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............170

Figure 35. Percent of ponderosa pine PNVT with woody canopy cover 

greater than 30 percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ................................175

Figure 36. Percent of wet mixed conifer PNVT with woody canopy cover 

greater than 30 percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ................................176

Figure 37. Percent of dry mixed conifer PNVT with woody canopy cover 

greater than 30 percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ................................177

Figure 38. Percent of spruce-fir PNVT with woody canopy cover 

greater than 30 percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ................................178

Figure 39. Percent of Madrean pine-oak PNVT with woody canopy 

greater than 30 percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ................................179

Figure 40. Piñon-juniper PNVT departure index from desired condition 

trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............................180

Figure 41. Great Basin grassland PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............181

Figure 42. Semi-desert grassland PNVT departure index from desired 

condition trend, over a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level..............182

Figure 43. Map of White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim Ecoregion ................184

Figure 44. Map of Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) boundary .......................................185

Figure 45. Map of bark beetle activity in east-central 

Arizona by major forest and woodland types from 2000-2009 compiled from annual 

Forest Service aerial detection surveys .......................................................................189

Figure 46. Map of major defoliator activity in east-central Arizona from 

2000 to 2009 compiled from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys .............191

Figure 47. Map of forestwide aspen mortality in east-central Arizona 

2008-2009 compiled from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys.................192

Figure 48. Map of communities within vicinity of Federal lands that are at a 

high risk from wildfire and areas currently covered by CWPPs .................................207

Figure 49. Map of existing fire regime condition classes on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs based on PNVT departure.....................................................212

Figure 50. Maps of wildlife quiet areas (WQAs) and other management 

areas (MAs) providing more secure habitat for each alternative.................................307

Figure 51. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (Forest Service, 1990) ...................................319

Figure 52. Map of scenic byways and national recreation trails on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs .322

Figure 53. Acres by ROS class by alternative ..............................................................................324

Figure 54. Map of suitable and eligible wild and scenic rivers on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs...339

Figure 55. Map of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) – Sitgreaves NF ........................................347

Figure 56. Map of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) – Apache NF.............................................348

Figure 57. Map of existing wilderness and primitive areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.........353

Figure 58. Map of potential wilderness areas – Sitgreaves NF.....................................................360

Figure 59. Map of potential wilderness areas – Apache NF.........................................................361

Figure 60. Map of research natural area (RNA), botanical area, 

and recommended RNAs, alternative A......................................................................373

Figure 61. Map of research natural area (RNA), botanical area, 

and recommended RNAs, alternatives B and C ..........................................................374

Figure 62. Map of research natural area (RNA), botanical 

area, and recommended RNAs, alternative D .............................................................375

Figure 63. Map of three major existing landscapes on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.....................380

Figure 64. Percent of scenic integrity level by alternative............................................................383

Figure 65. Map of land ownership – Sitgreaves NF .....................................................................390

Figure 66. Map of land ownership – Apache NF..........................................................................391

Figure 67. Map of distribution of known archaeological sites 

on the forests in 2009 (adapted from Donaldson, n.d.) ...............................................403
Contents

xiv Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 68. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF................432

Figure 69. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative A – Apache NF ....................433

Figure 70. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF................434

Figure 71. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative B – Apache NF ....................435

Figure 72. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF................436

Figure 73. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative C – Apache NF ....................437

Figure 74. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF.................453

Figure 75. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative A – Apache NF .....................454

Figure 76. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternatives B and C – Sitgreaves NF .....455

Figure 77. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternatives B and C – Apache NF..........456

Figure 78. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative D – Sitgreaves NF.................457

Figure 79. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative D – Apache NF .....................458

Figure 80. Employment by industry in the study area (MIG, 2009).............................................480

Figure 81. Employment specialization (MIG, 2009)...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 82. Conceptual diagram of ideal cutting level 

for a sustainable forest and sustainable harvest...........................................................566

Figure 83. Total annual wood product volume estimates for decade 1 

(from both suitable and nonsuitable timberlands) .......................................................571

Figure 84. Viability Risk Rating outcomes and Management 

Effect outcomes that form the basis for environmental consequences........................579

Figure 85. Map of management areas, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF..........................................647

Figure 86. Map of management areas, alternative A – Apache NF..............................................648

Figure 87. Map of management areas, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF..........................................649

Figure 88. Map of management areas, alternative B – Apache NF ..............................................650

Figure 89. Map of management areas, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF..........................................651

Figure 90. Map of management areas, alternative C – Apache NF ..............................................652

Figure 91. Map of management areas, alternative D – Sitgreaves NF..........................................653

Figure 92. Map of management areas, alternative D – Apache NF..............................................654

Figure 93. Map of ROS, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF ...............................................................655

Figure 94. Map of ROS, alternative A – Apache NF....................................................................656

Figure 95. Map of ROS, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF ...............................................................657

Figure 96. Map of ROS, alternative B – Apache NF....................................................................658

Figure 97. Map of ROS, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF ...............................................................659

Figure 98. Map of ROS, alternative C – Apache NF....................................................................660

Figure 99. Map of ROS, alternative D – Sitgreaves NF ...............................................................661

Figure 100. Map of ROS, alternative D – Apache NF....................................................................662

Figure 101. Map of PNVTs – Sitgreaves NF..................................................................................663

Figure 102. Map of PNVTs – Apache NF ......................................................................................664
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this programmatic draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)

in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal

and State laws and regulations. This DEIS discloses the environmental consequences that would 

result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters

plus an appendix (consisting of multiple parts) and index: 

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change: This chapter includes information on the 

purpose and need for changing the 1987 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan (1987 

plan) and the Agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also 

details the scope of analysis, how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed 

action (proposed plan), and how the public responded. 

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

detailed description of the Agency’s proposed plan as well as alternative methods for 

achieving the stated purpose. The alternatives were developed based on issues raised by 

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

consequences associated with each alternative. 

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

describes the affected environment (current condition) for each resource. It also describes 

the environmental consequences (effects) of implementing each alternative. This analysis 

is organized by resource area. 

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

and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

• Appendix: The appendix consists of multiple parts and provides more detailed 

information to support the analyses presented in the environmental impact statement such 

as the public comments and responses and a description of analysis process.

• Index: The index provides page numbers by topic.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of resources may be found in the 

project record (the “Plan Set of Documents”) located in the supervisor’s office.

Introduction

The 2.1 million acre1 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (Apache-Sitgreaves NFs or the forests) 

are managed as a single administrative unit and are located in east-central Arizona. The ApacheSitgreaves NFs are managed by the Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). The forests are currently being managed under the 1987 plan. The ApacheSitgreaves NFs are proposing to revise the 1987 plan. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are situated in 

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties. Ranger district offices are located in Alpine, 

Clifton, Pinetop-Lakeside, Overgaard, and Springerville. The supervisor’s office is located in 

Springerville (figure 1).

 1 In addition, approximately 650,000 acres of the Apache National Forest are located in New Mexico. The Gila 

National Forest administers these lands and they are managed according to the Gila National Forest land management 

plan and are not included in this analysis.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

2 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 1. Map of ranger districts on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 3

Purpose and Need for Change

The purpose of this DEIS is to evaluate different programmatic strategies (or alternatives) for 

revising the existing land management plan (1987 plan) and disclose the potential environmental 

consequences of these alternatives. The purpose of a land management plan is to provide 

guidance for managing the forests’ resources in a manner that maintains or moves toward desired 

conditions.

The 1987 plan was approved in August 1987 and has been amended 14 times. The intent of the 

1987 plan was to guide forest management for 10 to 15 years. However, after 25 years, it no 

longer addresses changes that have occurred to economic, social, and ecological conditions; new 

policies and priorities; and new information based on monitoring and scientific research.

Using extensive public and employee collaboration and the Analysis of the Management 

Situation2 the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs identified several needs for change in the 1987 plan. The

needs for change are summarized below in three revision topics: (1) Maintenance and 

Improvement of Ecosystem Health, (2) Managed Recreation, and (3) Community-Forest 

Interaction.

There is a need to revise the 1987 plan to: (1) guide natural resource management activities on the 

forests for the next 10 to 15 years, (2) address public issues and the need for change as 

summarized in the three revision topics, and (3) meet the legal requirements of the National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 and the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule3 to revise 

the plan every 10 to 15 years.

Revision Topic 1: Maintenance 

and Improvement of Ecosystem Health

Conditions have changed since the 1987 plan was issued. Vegetation conditions (e.g., vegetative 

structure, composition, function) are divergent from reference conditions. Forest conditions 

indicate a substantial departure from the natural fire regime. There are plant and animal species 

that need further consideration in the plan revision process. There are also emerging issues not 

addressed by the 1987 plan (e.g., invasive plants and animals, climate change). 

Vegetation Conditions

Thirteen of the 14 potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs vary 

(sometimes substantially) in structure, composition, function, and natural disturbance processes 

 2 The Analysis of the Management Situation includes the “Comprehensive Evaluation Report” (Forest Service, 2008a), 

“Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2008e), “Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment” (Forest 

Service, 2009a), “Resource Evaluations” (Forest Service, 2008b), “CER Supplement to Meet AMS Requirements “ 

(Forest Service, 2010a), and the “Wallow Fire Changed Condition Assessment” (Forest Service, 2012y). These

documents analyzed and evaluated the need to change the 1987 plan and informed the development of the three 

revision topics.

3 The transition provision, 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), of the 2012 Planning Rule (77 FR 21162-21276) allows use of the 

provisions of the planning rule, commonly called the 1982 Planning Rule, to amend or revise plans.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

4 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

from desired conditions4. These include ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, spruce-fir, and wet 

mixed conifer forests; piñon-juniper and Madrean pine-oak woodlands; Great Basin, semi-desert, 

and montane/subalpine grasslands; mixed broadleaf deciduous, montane willow, and cottonwoodwillow riparian forests; and wetland/cienega riparian areas. Interior chaparral is the only PNVT

that is at or close to desired conditions.

Ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests are generally composed of dense groups of too 

many young, small trees prone to stand-replacing crown fires and insect and disease infestations. 

The desired condition is to have more open forests containing a variety of ages and sizes of trees. 

Surface fire would play an active role in maintaining desired conditions.

Spruce-fir and wet mixed conifer forested PNVTs generally have too many young and small 

trees, and have been impacted by insects and disease resulting in standing dead trees. These dead 

trees contribute to higher intensity wildfire. The desired condition is to have a closed canopy 

forest with more mature and large trees where stand-replacing fires occur infrequently. 

The presence of aspen in several PNVTs is declining because of insects, disease, overbrowsing by 

wildlife and livestock, absence of natural fire, and unnaturally dense stands of conifers that shade 

out and inhibit aspen growth. The desired condition is to have a sustainable amount of aspen on 

the forests because aspen stands have scenic values and provide wildlife habitat.

The Madrean pine-oak woodland has too many young and mid-aged trees grouped closer together 

compared to the desired condition to have medium to large trees with open canopy. The piñonjuniper woodland is fairly close to the desired condition, although some areas have too many big 

trees spaced close together and lack some grass and forb species. Within these woodlands, there 

are also areas with little ground cover contributing to unsatisfactory soil conditions and increased 

erosion and sedimentation.

Riparian areas are a focal point for use by humans, wildlife, and livestock. Over time, these 

stressors have caused changes in the riparian vegetation. The desired condition is to have more 

mature trees and saplings and the variety of species appropriate in these areas. Riparian areas are 

important because water is limited in the region. Although riparian areas cover less than 3 percent 

of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the forests contribute the major portion of these riparian PNVTs 

within the greater ecoregion (which extends beyond the forests’ boundaries).

The three grassland types have experienced dramatic changes over time, including encroachment 

by trees and shrubs, loss of perennial grass cover, and spread of nonnative species. Many areas of 

the forests that appear to be piñon-juniper woodlands are actually encroached grasslands. The 

desired condition is to have grasslands with less than 10 percent of the area in woody species 

canopy and with the appropriate species composition. Healthy grasslands are important habitat 

for a variety of wildlife species and are essential for maintaining pronghorn antelope populations. 

Healthy grasslands also contribute to the availability of rangelands for livestock grazing.

All 14 PNVTs are key components in sustaining terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and providing 

goods and services (e.g., water resources, recreation settings, wood products, rangelands, 

medicinal plants). Unhealthy vegetation conditions threaten the viability of plants and animals 

 4 In some vegetation types, desired conditions are the same as reference conditions; see the “Vegetation” section in 

chapter 3 for more information.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 5

and the forests’ ability to provide a sustained flow of goods and services. They also contribute to 

the occurrence of uncharacteristic wildfire which may, in turn, threaten towns and communities 

adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

There is a need to describe the desired composition, structure, cover, and fire regime of the 14 

PNVTs that will result in resilient, functioning ecosystems. In addition, there is a need to guide 

future vegetation management activities, including burning and mechanical treatments, to 

maintain or move toward desired conditions.

Wildlife and Fish Habitat

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule require habitat be managed to maintain viable 

populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate and plant species in the planning 

area. The Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to conserve and recover endangered 

and threatened species and their habitats. There are currently 13 animal and fish species listed or 

proposed for listing as threatened and endangered. Eight of these species have designated or 

proposed critical habitat located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. In addition, there are four 

candidate species. There is a need to incorporate management direction to guide future projects to 

maintain species diversity and viability across the planning area. In addition, there is a need to 

reevaluate and update the management indicator species (MIS).

Soil and Water

All watersheds have some areas with unsatisfactory soil condition and streams with reduced 

water quality. The soil condition rating is unsatisfactory or impaired on more than 30 percent of 

the forests, compared to the reference conditions of less than 5 percent. Diversions, 

impoundments, unnaturally dense forests, grazing, and prolonged drought have altered 

streamflow, water availability, and riparian conditions. There is a continuing need to improve soil 

and riparian conditions, prevent water quality deterioration, and acquire or maintain instream 

flow. Soil and water protection is mandated by law (e.g., National Forest Management Act, Clean 

Water Act) and Forest Service policy.

Invasive Species

Invasive species are a growing threat to native species, ecosystem function, and the quantity of 

forest goods and services. Invasive plants (e.g., mullein, tamarisk, yellow starthistle) currently 

infest at least 30,000 acres across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Invasive animals (e.g., crayfish, 

bullfrogs) prey on and outcompete native species and degrade habitats many native species 

depend on. There is a need to provide direction to control, treat, and eradicate invasive plant and 

animal species.

Revision Topic 2 - Managed Recreation

There are several concerns related to recreation not adequately addressed in the 1987 plan. These 

include more people recreating on the forests and the changing demographics of forest users. 

There are special areas (e.g., scenic byways) not mentioned in the 1987 plan, including the 25 

rivers that are eligible or suitable for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There may be 

NFS lands that could be recommended to Congress for designation into the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

6 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Recreation Opportunities

There is an increased demand for the number and type of recreation opportunities on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. 

More people use the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for outdoor recreation than for any other purpose. 

Activities include: relaxing and escaping the heat, fishing, hiking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

use, viewing natural features and wildlife, camping, driving for pleasure, picnicking, large group 

gatherings, and hunting. 

State highway improvements provide easier access to the forests from Arizona’s major 

metropolitan areas, increasing the number of visitors and demand for recreation. In addition, the 

demographics of the recreating public are changing. An aging and urban population and increased 

ethnic diversity contribute to a demand for varied recreation opportunities. Forest managers face 

major challenges in maintaining and developing quality recreation opportunities and a safe 

transportation system, while providing for resource protection. 

There is a need to update the spectrum of recreation opportunities to reflect current and projected 

recreation needs, natural resource impacts, and public input. This includes identification of areas 

that are developed for high use and areas that resemble more natural landscapes. There is also a 

need to identify the suitability of areas for motorized vehicle use and other recreational activities.

Recommended Wilderness

As required by the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, all Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands were 

evaluated for wilderness characteristics. Thirty-eight areas (totaling approximately 700,000 acres) 

were identified as potential wilderness which could be recommended to Congress for designation. 

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are home to three designated wilderness areas (totaling 

approximately 24,000 acres): Mount Baldy, Escudilla, and Bear Wallow. Wilderness areas are 

managed and their values protected according to the Wilderness Act of 1964. Wilderness areas 

provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. 

There is a need to recommend areas, if determined appropriate by the responsible official, to 

Congress for wilderness designation and provide interim management guidance.

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are 25 rivers with a combined 378 river miles eligible or suitable for inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The 1987 plan provides direction for only three of these 

rivers. Although current Agency policy (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Interim Management 

of Eligible or Suitable Rivers) provides guidance to protect the outstandingly remarkable values 

of these rivers, there is a need to provide direction for all 25 eligible or suitable wild and scenic 

rivers.

Recommended Research Natural Areas

Research natural areas (RNAs) are maintained in natural conditions insofar as possible to provide 

for research, observation, and study. There is a need across the Southwestern Region to designate 

RNAs which represent specific vegetative types (e.g., semi-desert grassland, montane and 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 7

cottonwood-willow riparian forests, wetland/cienega riparian areas, aspen) and aquatic habitats. 

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have the opportunity to contribute to these needs by recommending 

five eligible areas for RNA designation: Thomas Creek, Corduroy, Three Forks, Lower Campbell 

Blue, and Sandrock. 

Other Special Areas

There are other existing special areas not recognized in the 1987 plan such as the Heber Wild 

Horse Territory, scenic byways, and national recreation trails. There is a need to provide 

management direction for these special areas.

Revision Topic 3 – Community-Forest Interaction

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are literally the backyard for many residents in the White Mountains 

region of Arizona. Many communities adjoin the forests, while others are completely surrounded. 

Because of this close proximity, many communities and private landowners may be affected by 

forest management decisions. These entities, in turn, may affect forest management.

There are several social concerns that have prompted a need to change the 1987 plan. 

Communities are at risk from uncharacteristic wildfire. There are increasing demands for goods, 

services, and forest access from growing populations and urban development that borders the 

forests. Many communities are surrounded by the forests and can be affected by adjustment to the 

forests’ land ownership. Commodity use and forest product outputs have shown declines from the 

past. However, these forest outputs and associated uses contribute to sustaining the lifestyles and 

traditions of local communities. Energy resource demands also continue to grow. 

Contribution to Local Communities

Although local communities have shifted from commodity-based economies to service-based 

economies, there are still local benefits associated with wood harvesting, grazing, and gathering 

of forest products. 

There is a need to continue to provide a sustainable supply of forest and rangeland resources that 

is consistent with achieving desired conditions and supports local communities. There is also a 

requirement (per the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule) to determine the suitability of lands 

for timber production and the allowable sale quantity of timber.

Threat to Communities from Wildfire

Many nearby communities and portions of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are at increased risk from 

wildfires because vegetation conditions are divergent from desired conditions, including fuel 

loads at uncharacteristically high levels. The events surrounding the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire

and the 2011 Wallow Fire, the two largest fires in Arizona history, served as a catalyst for 

increased public concern. Following the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, communities developed 

community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs), which identify and prioritize treatment areas to 

reduce the wildfire hazard to communities. The 1987 plan does not recognize this increased threat 

from wildfire nor does it prioritize treatments to address the threat. There is a need to provide 

direction to address communities at risk from uncharacteristic wildfire, including describing the 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

8 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

appropriate vegetation desired conditions and fire regime and treatment of the wildland-urban 

interface.

Urban Interface Demands

Many communities are completely surrounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and are limited in 

the ability to expand. In the past decade, there has been a major increase in development on land 

adjoining and/or surrounded by the forests. Demands related to this growth include access to the 

forests, utility corridors, roads, special use permits, and recreation opportunities. There is a need 

to provide updated guidance for addressing urban interface demands and land ownership 

adjustments.

New Energy Development

There are three existing high power energy corridors located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Two 

corridors traverse the west side of the forests, one containing a 500 kV transmission line and one 

containing 345 kV transmission lines. One 345 kV transmission line runs through a portion of the 

Clifton Ranger District in the southeastern portion of the forests. There may be a need for 

additional energy corridors or developments (e.g., electric transmission lines, pipelines, wind 

turbines) because of the expected increased demand for electricity to serve the growing 

populations of Arizona and the Southwest. There is a need to provide guidance for the existing 

energy corridors and criteria for establishing new energy corridors or developments which was 

not provided in the 1987 plan. 

Proposed Land Management Plan

The Forest Service proposes to revise the 1987 plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The proposal 

updates the desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, special areas, suitability, and 

monitoring requirements that will guide management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for the next 

10 to 15 years. It also changes the description and allocation of the management areas to achieve 

forestwide desired conditions and to provide opportunities for a range of activities. The proposal 

addresses the need to change the 1987 plan related to the three revision topics listed above.

In response to the need for change, the regional forester of the Southwestern Region (the 

responsible official for this decision) and the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have developed the 

“Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Proposed Land Management Plan” (proposed plan). The 

proposed plan accompanies this document.

Decision Framework 

The regional forester for the Southwestern Region will make the final decision on the selected 

alternative for the revised land management plan. The regional forester will review the proposed 

plan, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences, then decide which plan 

alternative best achieves the desired conditions, multiple-use concept, diverse needs of people, 

and sustainable management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs as well as meeting the requirements 

of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act 

(MUSYA).
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 9

Scope of the Analysis

The programmatic analysis in this DEIS is limited to the potential environmental consequences 

associated with the need for change and on issues derived through public comment received 

throughout development of the proposed plan and its alternatives. Many topics are beyond the 

scope of the plan revision process and will not be considered in the DEIS. Projects implementing 

the land management plan will be analyzed in subsequent site-specific environmental documents. 

Project-level impacts are not disclosed in this document. For example, the designation of specific 

routes, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel will not be considered during the plan 

revision process but would be addressed in separate environmental analyses. Some topics (e.g., 

hunting regulations), although important, are beyond the authority or control of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and will not be considered. In addition, some topics, such as wild and scenic river 

suitability determinations, will not be undertaken at this time but would be addressed in the future

in separate analyses.

Because the proposed plan and other alternatives involve potential environmental consequences 

that could occur over a broad geographic region and time horizon, the depth and detail of the 

impact analysis is fairly general, focusing on major impacts in a qualitative manner.

Land Management Plan Decisions

The Forest Service makes two types of management decisions for National Forest System (NFS) 

lands: programmatic (or broad) and project level.

Programmatic decisions are made in the land management plan, and they are expressed as goals 

(identified as desired conditions), objectives, standards, guidelines, special areas, suitability, and 

monitoring. The land management plan provides a broad framework that guides project-level 

decisions but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any site-specific activities. Instead, the land 

management plan establishes limitations on what actions may be authorized and what conditions 

must be met during project-level decisionmaking. 

Project-level decisions are made for site-specific activities such as constructing a new trail or 

conducting a prescribed burn. Project-level decisions must comply with NEPA procedures and be 

consistent with the land management plan. 

Data collection, analysis, and public involvement are important to making management decisions; 

these steps guide development of the land management plan and the design of projects that 

implement the plan and culminate in the approval of project-level decisions. Monitoring and 

evaluation are also important to help inform future management decisions.

The primary decisions made in the land management plan include:

• Establishment of desired conditions and objectives that reflect the multiple-use concept 

central to the mission of the Forest Service;

• Establishment of standards and guidelines to apply to future activities;

• Identification of areas suitable or not suitable for various uses;

• Wilderness recommendations and other recommendations for special area designation;

and

• Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation strategy.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

10 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Tribal Consultation

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have consulted with nine tribes and one chapter that use the forests

for traditional, cultural, or spiritual activities. The following tribes and chapter were consulted: 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of 

Zuni, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe, and the Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation.

Tribes were initially informed about plan revision in October 2006 through a letter explaining the 

revision process and extending an open invitation to meet with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. A 

consultation letter was sent to the tribes in June 2009 asking for input on the working draft land 

management plan. In December 2009, the tribes were sent a letter that provided the revision 

status and upcoming publication of the notice of intent (NOI) and invited their comments and 

concerns. In addition to consultation, the tribes have been included in all public outreach efforts 

throughout the plan revision process.

Three tribes provided written responses: White Mountain Apache Tribe, Navajo Nation, and 

Tonto Apache Tribe. Consultation meetings were held with the San Carlos Apache Tribe (August 

and November 2006), White Mountain Apache Tribe (August 2006, March 2007, and April 

2010), Navajo Nation (August 2006, September 2008, and December 2009), Hopi Tribe (August 

2006 and November 2009), and Pueblo of Zuni (August 2006, September 2008, and July 2011).

Concerns identified by the tribes are discussed in the “American Indian Rights and Interests”

section in chapter 3. Concerns include tribal access to the forests and protection of sacred sites 

and archaeological sites as traditional cultural properties (TCPs), water sources, and plants for 

subsistence and medicine. These concerns are addressed in the proposed plan.

Public Involvement

Extensive public involvement and collaboration on the revision of the 1987 plan preceded 

publication of this DEIS. The plan revision effort has been on the forests’ “Schedule of Proposed 

Actions” (SOPA) quarterly since 2008. Informal discussions with the public regarding needed 

changes to the 1987 plan began with a series of public meetings during the summer of 2006. 

From 2006 to 2012, multiple meetings, correspondence, news releases, comment periods, and 

other tools were utilized to gather feedback from the public, forest employees, Federal and State

agencies, and local governments. Detailed information about the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs public 

involvement process can be found in appendix F and the public participation plan (Forest Service, 

2012e) in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The notice of intent (NOI) to revise the 1987 plan and prepare an environmental impact statement 

was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 68776-68779) on December 12, 2009. The NOI 

requested input on the needs for change and proposed action, specifically if any substantive issues 

or concerns were missing. In March and April 2010, four public meetings and an informal 

comment period were held to gather feedback on the initial set of draft alternatives.

The forests have received over 4,000 comments since initial scoping in 2006. Some comments 

were eliminated from detailed study because they were: (1) outside the scope of the proposed 

action, (2) already decided by law, regulation, or a higher level decision, (3) irrelevant to the 

decision to be made, or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Other 

comments fell into the following categories: forest health and restoration, treatment methods, 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 11

wildlife needs, recreation opportunities, wilderness resources, wild and scenic rivers, threats to 

communities from wildfire, contributions to local communities including availability of forest 

products and rangelands, land exchanges, and new energy corridors. 

Comments received early in the public involvement process were used along with science-based 

evaluations (e.g., “Analysis of the Management Situation”) to draft the initial proposed plan. 

Comments received later in the process were used to modify the proposed plan, where 

appropriate. In situations where a modification of the proposed plan could not adequately address 

a comment, consideration was given as to whether the comment represented an unresolved 

conflict or issue that would require development of an alternative to the proposed plan.

Issues that Served as the Basis for Alternative Development

The following items represent issues that resulted from unresolved conflicts during the iterative 

development of the proposed plan. These issues led to development of alternatives C and D (see 

chapter 2 for more information on alternative development).

• Strategy for Restoring Vegetation: Overall, during scoping, public comments 

supported the need to move toward desired conditions that are more healthy and resilient 

to anticipated future changes. However, opinions differed on what a “healthy” forest is, 

and the means to achieve it. For example, some people disagreed with the proposed plan 

vegetation treatment strategy and wanted to retain all old and large trees for wildlife 

habitat, while others felt it is important to remove more of these trees to contribute to the 

local wood industry. Also, some wanted the Forest Service to use more logging and 

thinning than what is identified in the proposed plan, while others desired an approach 

relying on natural processes such as fire.

• Amount of Wildlife Quiet Areas: Habitat security and connectivity is important for 

maintaining species viability. The proposed plan identifies a management area (Wildlife 

Quiet Area Management Area) to provide for specific species needs. Some comments 

indicated a need for more or less areas with reduced disturbances to wildlife. 

• Type and Amount of Recreation Opportunities: Public opinions are divided on the 

appropriate mix of different types of recreation settings and opportunities that should be 

provided. The proposed plan attempts to provide a balance of recreation opportunities. 

Some people wanted additional developed recreation facilities, while others wanted no 

new development and felt the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs should only maintain and improve 

existing recreation facilities. There were also conflicts over the amount of land that 

should be managed for motorized versus nonmotorized activities.

• Amount of Wilderness: There was a wide variety of opinions as to whether the ApacheSitgreaves NFs need more wilderness. The proposed plan recommends additions to two 

existing wilderness areas. There were some people who desired no additional wilderness,

while others wanted more. In addition, some people wanted the Blue Range Primitive 

Area designated as wilderness, and others wanted to remove the primitive area 

designation.

• Availability of Wood Products: There are varying opinions about how much 

commodity-type activities should occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The proposed 

plan would make a variety of wood products (e.g., logs, biomass, firewood) available for 

personal and industrial use. Some people wanted the forests to make more wood products 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

12 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

available, and other people wanted a substantial decrease in the amount of trees removed

from the forests.
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 13

Chapter 2. Alternatives, 

Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes each alternative considered for the revision of the 1987 plan. It also 

presents the alternatives in comparative form, describing the differences between each and 

providing a basis for choice among options for the responsible official. Some of the information 

used to compare alternatives is based on the land management plan decisions (e.g., objectives, 

suitability) and some of the information is based on expected outcomes of implementing each 

alternative (e.g., amount of forest products available). 

Alternative Development

The proposed plan (alternative B) was developed iteratively in a collaborative manner to address 

the needs for change. In August 2008, the forests released an initial set of draft desired conditions 

for public and forest employee review and feedback. After incorporating comments and refining 

the desired conditions, the forests released a working draft land management plan for review and 

comment in June 2009. These collaborative efforts between the Forest Service and external 

groups and individuals led to development of the proposed plan (alternative B). Two additional 

alternatives (alternatives C and D) were generated based on issues not addressed by the proposed 

plan. These issues are listed in chapter 1 under the section “Issues that Served as the Basis for 

Alternative Development.”

Alternative C was developed to respond to issues by placing more emphasis on treating 

vegetation mechanically to contribute to local and regional economic sustainability and maintain 

or move toward desired conditions. There is no emphasis to retain old growth to the greatest 

extent possible so that there are more opportunities to meet forest products desired conditions. 

There is less land allocated to the Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area. This alternative places 

an emphasis on developed and motorized recreation opportunities and recommends less acreage

for wilderness designation. This alternative identifies more land suitable for timber production 

and would offer more wood products.

Alternative D was developed to respond to issues by placing more emphasis on natural processes

(use of fire) as a restoration tool to maintain or move toward desired conditions. This alternative 

emphasizes the retention of all large and old trees. There is more land allocated to the Wildlife 

Quiet Area Management Area. This alternative places an emphasis on dispersed and 

nonmotorized recreation opportunities and recommends more acreage for wilderness designation. 

This alternative does not identify any lands as suitable for timber production and would offer

fewer wood products.

Drafts of the proposed plan and alternatives were shared with the public and Forest Service 

employees during the spring of 2010. Four public meetings, an informal comment period, and 

meetings with forest employees were held to gather feedback as to whether these alternatives 

addressed concerns and whether the range of alternatives was adequate.

The interdisciplinary team, taking into account this feedback, met with the forest supervisor and 

received direction to refine the initial draft alternatives. This is reflected in the action alternatives 

(alternatives B, C, and D) below.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

14 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

All action alternatives considered: (1) comments from the public, other agencies, forest 

employees, and tribal governments and (2) scientific information from the “Analysis of the 

Management Situation.” Each alternative had to meet the following criteria set by the forest 

supervisor and the forests’ leadership team:

• Alternatives must follow existing laws, regulations, and policies.

• The forests will be managed for multiple uses as suitable.

• The alternatives must be realistic, implementable, and able to be monitored within 

anticipated future budgets.

Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives not 

developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the need to 

revise the land management plan provided suggestions for alternative methods in achieving the 

desired conditions. Some of these may have been outside the scope of revision, duplicative of the 

alternatives considered in detail, or determined to cause unnecessary environmental harm. 

Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but they were dismissed from detailed 

consideration for reasons described below. 

June 2009 Working Draft Land Management Plan

The forests released a working draft land management plan for review and comment in June 

2009. This alternative, based on public and agency input, evolved into what is now the proposed 

plan. 

Initial Draft Alternatives

In March 2010, the forests released a set of three draft alternatives for public review and 

comment. These alternatives, based on public and agency input, evolved into the three action 

alternatives analyzed in this DEIS.

Alternatives with No Timber 

Harvest or Large Increase in Timber Harvest

These alternatives were considered to address public comments regarding whether timber 

harvesting should be allowed on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, and if so, at what level.

In the Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-517), Congress declared that national 

forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, 

and wildlife and fish purposes. The National Forest Management Act of 1974 (P.L. 94-588) 

reiterates this commitment to multiple use. Given these legal requirements, it was determined that 

an alternative to eliminate timber harvesting is inconsistent with the mission of the Forest 

Service. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 15

Timber harvesting is a necessary management tool to maintain and restore vegetation 

communities to desired conditions, produce commercial wood products, create and maintain 

varied wildlife habitat conditions, and treat areas identified in community wildfire protection 

plans. An alternative that eliminates timber harvest would not contribute to these purposes and,

therefore, is outside the scope of this decision. 

An alternative that called for large increases in timber harvest was also considered but not 

analyzed in detail, because maximizing timber production would not meet the desired condition 

to manage and protect other resources. The action alternatives provide a range of timber harvest 

amounts at levels that account for other uses and resource needs.

Alternatives with No Livestock Grazing 

This alternative was considered in response to public comments preferring no grazing on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

A no grazing alternative would not meet the legal requirements of the National Forest

Management Act or Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act which requires forests to be managed 

using multiple use, sustained yield principles. Also, it would not allow the attainment of the 

desired condition for livestock grazing to contribute to the social, economic, and cultural diversity 

and stability of rural communities. Therefore, a no grazing alternative is inconsistent with the 

mission of the Forest Service, the land management plan’s desired conditions, and outside the 

scope of this decision.

Stocking decisions (amount of livestock grazing authorized) for specific grazing allotments are 

beyond the scope of this analysis. Grazing is authorized through term grazing permits (a longterm authorization subject to forestwide standards and guidelines), allotment management plans, 

and annual operating instructions. Changes to these authorizations would be made through 

project-level analyses. 

See the “Livestock Grazing” section in chapter 3 for a discussion of rangeland suitability.

Minimum Management Alternative

This alternative was considered in response to public comments that there should be no or 

minimal human intervention in the management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

This alternative would not meet the legal requirements of the National Forest Management Act or 

Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act which require forests to be managed using multiple use, 

sustained yield principles. Active management is also needed to maintain or move toward desired 

conditions, including to restore forest ecosystems; maintain recreation opportunities; reduce the 

threat of uncharacteristic wildfires to communities; and maintain the availability of forest 

products.

Wilderness Alternatives

Requests for new wilderness areas were submitted by several groups.

These areas were considered in light of the evaluation of potential wilderness that was completed 

by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for the plan revision process. Portions of these external proposals 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

16 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

are further considered in alternatives B, C, and D. Other portions were dismissed from detailed 

consideration because they did not meet the criteria for potential wilderness. 

There are three potential wilderness areas (Nolan, Mother Hubbard, and Hells Hole) within the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs that border the Gila NF; they are to be considered for wilderness 

recommendation during the Gila NF plan revision process. They are not recommended for 

wilderness designation at this time, but they will be managed to protect their wilderness 

characteristics until a decision is made in the Gila NF’s revised plan.

Wildlife Conservation Area Alternative

Based on input from several groups, an alternative was considered to manage portions of the 

Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts as wildlife conservation areas. The wildlife 

conservation area proposal included various components such as existing and new wildlife habitat 

areas, wildlife corridors, core black bear and mountain lion habitat, Mexican spotted owl 

protected activity centers, northern goshawk post-fledging family areas, and rivers eligible for 

designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Although this alternative was considered, it was not further analyzed because many of its 

components are included in the three action alternatives. Protected activity centers and postfledgling family areas are managed in all alternatives to conserve these species. The action 

alternatives include additional wildlife habitat areas (i.e., Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area) 

to help address habitat connectivity across the Mogollon Rim. Other areas (e.g., Natural 

Landscape Management Area, Recommended Wilderness Management Area) identified in the 

action alternatives also limit impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Alternatives to Designate or Remove Wild and Scenic Rivers

These alternatives were considered in response to public comments that specific river segments 

should be designated or removed from the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Designation 

or removal of a wild and scenic river is a congressional action.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs do not have any rivers designated in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System; therefore, there are no rivers that can be removed. However, there are 25 rivers 

eligible or suitable for designation that must be managed to maintain or enhance their 

outstandingly remarkable values. Before a river can be recommended to Congress for designation 

into the system, a suitability study must be conducted. A suitability study for any additional river 

segments is beyond the scope of this plan revision process; it may be undertaken at some time in 

the future under separate analysis, as was done for KP Creek and the Blue River.

Changes to the Road and Motorized 

Trail System and Elimination of OHV use

These alternatives were considered in response to public comments to change the road and 

motorized trail system and eliminate the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs).

Some public comments requested that, during the plan revision process, individual roads or trails 

or all unauthorized roads/trails be evaluated and either added to or removed from the 

transportation system. The land management plan provides a framework to guide future changes 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 17

to the transportation system. Potential changes to the forests’ transportation system would be 

evaluated in separate analysis through implementation of the Travel Management Rule (73 FR 

74689). As a result, this alternative was dropped from detailed consideration.

Other public comments expressed a need to eliminate the use of OHVs across the forests. OHV 

use has historically been permitted on the forests; it is a contemporary use of the forests and 

provides access to various portions of the forests. Local counties, the State of Arizona, and nearby 

national forests also allow OHV use. Future analyses (e.g., implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule) will consider additional locations for OHV use and evaluate related resource 

impacts. As a result, this alternative was dropped from detailed consideration.

Expanding Existing Energy Corridors

Arizona Public Service, an Arizona electric utility company, recommended that the Forest Service 

establish designated corridors for all existing transmission facilities. In addition, they requested 

expansion of all existing corridors with high voltage and extra high voltage transmission facilities 

to a width of 3 to 5 miles.

Each of the action alternatives establishes an Energy Corridor Management Area that provides 

guidance for existing facilities. The management area boundary follows the existing rights-ofway. In order to increase the width of the corridor, further analysis and a project-level decision 

would be needed. It was determined that this is beyond the scope of this revision process and 

would not be considered in further detail.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

In addition to the no action alternative (alternative A or the 1987 plan) and the proposed plan 

(alternative B), the Forest Service developed two additional action alternatives (alternatives C and 

D) to respond to issues raised by the public.

Elements Common to All Alternatives

All four alternatives have a number of features in common. In particular, they:

• Comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies (see appendix D of the proposed 

plan which accompanies this document); 

• Contain plan decisions including desired conditions (or goals), objectives, standards, 

guidelines, special areas, suitability of areas, and monitoring; 

• Share the same desired conditions for the resources of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The 

desired conditions are described in detail in the proposed plan;

• Conserve soil and water resources and do not allow significant or permanent impairment 

of the productivity of the land;

• Provide protection for riparian areas; 

• Maintain air quality that meets or exceeds applicable Federal, State, and/or local 

standards or regulations;

• Provide for and maintain diversity of plant and animal communities consistent with 

overall multiple-use objectives;
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

18 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Provide for species’ viability by providing appropriate habitat that is well distributed 

across the planning area;

• Include measures for preventing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 

for threatened and endangered species;

• Use a common list of management indicator species (MIS). The list of 17 MIS used in 

the 1987 plan was reviewed and modified (see “Plan Set of Documents” for rationale). 

The following three MIS are used to compare and evaluate alternatives: Mexican spotted 

owl, northern goshawk, and pronghorn antelope;

• Protect cultural resources;

• Recognize the unique status of American Indian tribes and their rights retained by trust 

and treaty with the U.S., including consultation requirements; 

• Emphasize uneven-aged forest conditions, with allowance for some even-aged 

management, using a variety of vegetation management tools and methods;

• Use mechanical and fire (planned and unplanned) treatments to meet desired conditions;

• Provide sustained multiple uses, products, and services (e.g., wood harvesting, grazing, 

recreation uses) in an environmentally acceptable manner;

• Protect the outstandingly remarkable values identified for the 23 eligible and 2 suitable 

wild and scenic rivers;

• Retain existing designated areas (e.g., wilderness areas, Phelps Cabin Research Natural 

Area); and

• Manage the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential additions as a primitive area 

until a congressional decision on wilderness is made.

Conformance with the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA)

The 1982 Planning Rule regulations at 219.12(f)(6) require land management plans to respond to 

and incorporate program objectives from the Renewable Resource Planning Act (RPA). The last 

RPA Program was developed in 1995. In lieu of the RPA Program, the Forest Service Strategic 

Plan 2007 to 2012 provides broad, overarching national guidance for forest planning and national 

objectives for the Agency as required by the Government Performance Results Act. All of the 

alternatives in this DEIS address these broad strategic objectives. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Alternatives A, B, and D include management direction for inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) 

identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) that retains the undeveloped 

character of these areas. In alternative C, these areas would be managed according to 

management area guidance with no direction to retain their undeveloped character. Comments 

received in the scoping process and between the draft and final EIS will help the Agency 

determine the scope of issues related to roadless area management and guide the analysis of 

environmental effects.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 19

Main Differences Among Alternatives

The alternatives differ in how they respond to the issues as identified in chapter 1 under the 

section “Issues that Served as the Basis for Alternative Development.” The alternatives also vary 

in the number of recommended research natural areas (RNAs). No issue drove the change in the 

number of recommended RNAs. The change was based on the theme of the alternative (for 

example, alternative D allocates lands to recommended wilderness on some lands that could have 

been a recommended RNA).

See appendix H for management area maps of the alternatives.

Alternative A (1987 plan)

Under the no action alternative, the 1987 plan, as amended, would continue to guide management 

of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Alternative A emphasizes timber management as a primary tool for 

providing forest products for local and regional industrial and individual needs while meeting 

wildlife habitat needs. 

Priority for Restoration Treatments

Although not emphasized in the 1987 plan, current management emphasizes treatments around 

communities to reduce threats from wildfire and supply forest products through vegetation 

treatments, including the White Mountain Stewardship Project (a 10-year stewardship contract to 

thin primarily small diameter trees). Vegetation treatments have been implemented to restore 

forest health, reduce the risk of fire to communities, reduce the cost of forest thinning to 

taxpayers, support local economies, and encourage new wood product industries and uses for 

wood fiber. At least 20 percent of each forested and woodland PNVT is managed for, or toward, 

old growth.

Treatment Methods

Alternative A uses both mechanical and burning treatments for timber management and to reduce 

threats to communities from wildfire. 

On average, approximately 17,000 acres per year would be treated in the forested PNVTs, 

primarily in ponderosa pine. Very few grassland areas would be treated, averaging around 500

acres per year. Approximately 3,500 acres per year of piñon-juniper and Madrean pine-oak 

woodlands would be treated, primarily with fire. No specific treatments are planned to improve 

ecological conditions in riparian areas; they would be treated as opportunities arise. There is no 

planned treatment objective for interior chaparral since this PNVT currently meets desired 

conditions; however, treatments may occur only as opportunities arise.

Wildlife Quiet Areas

There are eight areas (totaling 45,506 acres) implemented under special closure orders that are 

managed as wildlife habitat or quiet areas. While not a 1987 plan management area, these areas 

implement plan direction to benefit wildlife habitat, soil, vegetation, water resources, and 

recreation (improved hunting experiences). These wildlife quiet areas include Beaver Turkey 

Ridge, Hulsey Bench, Middle Mountain, Open Draw, St. Peters Dome, Upper Coyote, Willow 

Springs-Horse Trap, and Woolhouse.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

20 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Recreation Opportunities

A variety of recreation opportunities are provided, including motorized, nonmotorized, 

developed, and dispersed. Construction of new recreation facilities to meet growing demand is an 

emphasis. 

Figure 2 displays the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes for alternative A: primitive 

(P), semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM), semiprimitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), 

roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (U). ROS is a framework for identifying the types of 

outdoor recreation opportunities on the forests that are available to the public. The ROS classes 

are described in the glossary.

Figure 2. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative A

Recommended Wilderness

The 1987 plan does not recommend any additional lands for wilderness. In 1971, the Forest 

Service submitted a recommendation to the President of the United States for the Blue Range 

Wilderness in New Mexico and Arizona. Congress has not acted on the Arizona portion of this 

recommendation. Until Congress acts, the 1971 recommendation remains in place. The Blue 

Range Primitive Area and Additions Management Area is managed to protect wilderness values.

Contribution to Local Communities – Wood Product Availability

Alternative A has 764,872 acres of land managed for timber production on a regulated basis with 

planned, scheduled entries. It is estimated that an average of 205,000 CCF1 of wood products, 

including sawlogs, biomass, and firewood, would be available annually for local and regional 

industry and individual use.

Research Natural Areas

The 1987 plan provides direction for one designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin RNA

(approximately 290 acres). It recommends four new research natural areas totaling 2,569 acres: 

Escudilla, Thomas Creek, Wildcat, and Hayground. To date, these recommended areas have not 

been formally designated. In addition, there are approximately 100 acres managed as a botanical 

area, the Phelps Cabin Botanical Area.

 1 CCF = 100 cubic feet
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 21

Alternative B – Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative B is the proposed action (proposed plan) and the preferred alternative. This alternative

was developed iteratively in a collaborative manner to address the needs for change identified in 

chapter 1. It is designed to address the demand for wildlife habitat, community protection, 

commodity outputs, and recreation opportunities with an emphasis on ecological restoration.

Priority for Restoration Treatments

Treatments are focused in priority watersheds and locations identified in community wildfire 

protection plans, including the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area2

. One of the main 

objectives of the proposed plan is to remove or mitigate degrading factors in at least 10 priority 

6th level HUC (hydrologic unit code) watersheds within the next 10 to 15 years. There is also 

management emphasis to reduce the threat to communities from uncharacteristic wildfire.

The proposed plan emphasizes the retention and development of old growth where needed to 

meet desired conditions by including the guideline:

“Where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late seral states 

and species composition on a landscape scale, old growth characteristics should 

be retained or encouraged to the greatest extent possible within the scope of other 

desired conditions (e.g., reduce impacts from insects and disease, reduce the 

threat of uncharacteristic wildfire).”

Treatment Methods

The proposed plan uses a mix of mechanical treatments and the reestablishment of natural 

processes, primarily burning (both planned and unplanned ignitions), to maintain or move toward

desired conditions of more resilient, healthy ecosystems.

Mechanical treatments would generally be followed by pile burning to remove residual fuels. As 

desired conditions are achieved, burning or mechanical treatments may be used on regular 

intervals to maintain conditions. The proposed plan focuses restoration treatments in those 

PNVTs that are most divergent from desired conditions. There is an emphasis to treat forests, 

grasslands, and riparian areas; there is less emphasis on woodlands and chaparral.

The majority of treatments, from 5,000 to 35,000 acres per year, in the forested PNVTs would 

occur in ponderosa pine, although there would be treatments in all forested PNVTs. Additionally, 

up to 25,000 acres per year of grasslands (primarily the Great Basin and semi-desert types) would 

be treated to remove encroaching woody species. Approximately 5,000 to 15,000 acres per year 

of woodlands (primarily Madrean pine-oak using fire) and 200 to 500 acres per year of riparian 

areas would be treated to improve ecological conditions. There are no planned treatment 

objectives for interior chaparral since this PNVT currently meets desired conditions; however, 

treatments may occur as opportunities arise.

 2 The Community-Forest Intermix Management Area makes up a portion of the wildland-urban interface (WUI). WUIs 

were identified in community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) and may be located in several management areas. A 

WUI includes areas around human development at imminent risk from wildfire.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

22 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Wildlife Quiet Areas

In addition to the eight existing wildlife quiet areas (approximately 45,500 acres), this alternative 

adds two more, Bear Springs and Cottonwood Seep, for a total of 50,173 acres. Unlike alternative 

A, all wildlife quiet areas in this alternative are assigned to a management area. Direction for 

these areas is identified in the Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area.

Recreation Opportunities

A variety and mix of recreation opportunities continue to be provided. New recreation 

developments are limited; the emphasis is on maintaining existing developments.

Figure 3 displays the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes for alternative B: primitive 

(P), semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM), semiprimitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), 

roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (U). ROS is a framework for identifying the types of 

outdoor recreation opportunities on the forests that are available to the public. The ROS classes 

are described in the glossary.

Figure 3. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative B

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative B recommends 7,074 acres for wilderness (figure 88 in appendix H). This includes

additions to both Escudilla (6,813 acres) and Bear Wallow (261 acres) Wilderness areas. These 

preliminary administrative recommendations would receive further review, including applicable 

NEPA analyses, and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of 

Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Congress has reserved the authority to make 

final decisions on wilderness designation. These areas are managed to protect wilderness values.

The Blue Range Primitive Area continues to be managed as a primitive area until Congress acts 

on the 1971 wilderness recommendation.

Contribution to Local Communities – Wood Product Availability

The proposed plan identifies 596,744 acres of land to be managed for timber production on a 

regulated basis with planned, scheduled entries. Most commodities, such as sawlogs, biomass, 

and firewood, would be available as a result of restoration treatments. It is estimated that an 

average of 263,000 CCF of wood products would be available annually for local and regional 

industry and individual use as a byproduct of restoration treatments.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 23

Research Natural Areas

The proposed plan carries forward the designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin RNA

(approximately 290 acres) and recommends adding the Phelps Cabin Botanical Area 

(approximately 100 acres) to it as a recommended RNA. In addition, this alternative recommends

designating five new research natural areas totaling 7,814 acres: Thomas Creek, Corduroy, Three 

Forks, Lower Campbell Blue, and Sandrock. Thomas Creek is currently managed as a 

recommended RNA under the 1987 plan. This alternative would withdraw existing RNA 

recommendations for Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground.

Alternative C

Alternative C responds to public comments that forest management should provide increased 

benefits to local communities through management emphasis on commodity outputs and 

motorized and developed recreation. There is an emphasis on contributing to local and regional 

economic sustainability through ecological restoration.

Priority for Restoration Treatments

Alternative C focuses treatments in the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area, forests

suitable for timber production, woodlands, and those grasslands encroached by woody species. 

There is an emphasis on reducing the threat to communities from uncharacteristic wildfire and on 

tree removal to contribute to commercial uses. 

To provide additional opportunities to meet forest products desired conditions, alternative C 

does not include the following guideline that appears in the proposed plan (alternative B).

“Where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late seral states 

and species composition on a landscape scale, old growth characteristics should 

be retained or encouraged to the greatest extent possible within the scope of other 

desired conditions (e.g., reduce impacts from insects and disease, reduce the 

threat of uncharacteristic wildfire).”

Treatment Methods

Alternative C primarily uses mechanical treatment methods, with less burning than alternative B, 

to maintain or move toward desired conditions of more resilient, healthy ecosystems. Mechanical 

treatments would generally be followed by pile burning to remove residual fuels. As desired 

conditions are achieved, burning or mechanical treatments may be used on regular intervals to 

maintain conditions. Restoration treatments are focused in forests, woodlands, and encroached 

montane/subalpine grasslands where there are commercial uses for trees removed. There is less 

emphasis to treat other grasslands, riparian areas, and chaparral.

The majority of treatments, from 5,500 to 55,000 acres per year, in the forested PNVTs would 

occur in ponderosa pine, although there would be treatments in all forested PNVTs. In addition, 

approximately 2,500 to 10,000 acres per year of woodlands would be treated using mainly 

mechanical treatments in piñon-juniper and fire in Madrean pine-oak. About 500 acres per year of 

montane/subalpine grasslands would be treated to remove encroaching woody species. No 

treatment acres are planned in riparian areas; they would be treated as opportunities arise. There 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

24 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

are no planned treatment objectives for interior chaparral since this PNVT currently meets desired 

conditions; however, treatments may occur as opportunities arise. 

Wildlife Quiet Areas

All eight existing wildlife quiet areas are carried forward in alternative C for a total of 44,373 

acres, although Beaver Turkey Ridge and Willow Springs-Horse Trap would be slightly smaller 

due to the configuration of other management areas. Unlike alternative A, all wildlife quite areas 

in this alternative are assigned to a management area. Direction for these areas is identified in the 

Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area.

Recreation Opportunities

A variety of recreation opportunities continue to be provided with an emphasis on motorized and 

developed opportunities. New recreation facilities would be considered where there is a need to 

meet increasing demand. 

Figure 4 displays the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes for alternative C: primitive 

(P), semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM), semiprimitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), 

roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (U). ROS is a framework for identifying the types of 

outdoor recreation opportunities on the forests that are available to the public. The ROS classes 

are described in the glossary.

Figure 4. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative C

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative C recommends additions to Escudilla Wilderness totaling 6,982 acres (figure 90 in 

appendix H). This area is slightly larger than the alternative B addition to Escudilla Wilderness. 

These preliminary administrative recommendations would receive further review, including 

applicable NEPA analyses, and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, 

Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Congress has reserved the 

authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation. These areas are managed to protect 

wilderness values. The Blue Range Primitive Area continues to be managed as a primitive area 

until Congress acts on the 1971 wilderness recommendation.

Contribution to Local Communities – Wood Product Availability

Alternative C identifies 604,746 acres of land to be managed for timber production on a regulated 

basis with planned, scheduled entries. Commodities such as sawlogs, biomass, and firewood 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 25

would be available as a result of restoration treatments. It is estimated that an average of 416,000 

CCF of wood products would be available annually for local and regional industry and individual 

use as a byproduct of restoration treatments.

Research Natural Areas

Alternative C carries forward the designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin RNA

(approximately 290 acres), and recommends adding the Phelps Cabin Botanical Area 

(approximately 100 acres) to it as a recommended RNA. In addition, this alternative recommends

designating five new research natural areas: Thomas Creek, Corduroy, Three Forks, Lower 

Campbell Blue, and Sandrock totaling 7,814 acres. Thomas Creek is currently managed as a 

recommended RNA under the 1987 plan. This alternative would withdraw existing RNA 

recommendations for Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground.

Alternative D

Alternative D responds to public comments that forest management should emphasize more 

natural processes and nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities. There is an emphasis 

on ecological restoration in all PNVTs.

Priority for Restoration Treatments

Treatments are focused in priority watersheds. One of the primary objectives of alternative D is to 

remove or mitigate degrading factors in at least 10 priority 6th level HUC watersheds within the 

next 10 to 15 years.

This alternative emphasizes the retention of old growth and large trees. It includes the following 

standard for forested and woodland PNVTs in all management areas, except the CommunityForest Intermix Management Area:

“Retain all large and old trees regardless of size or condition.”

In the forested PNVTs, large trees are generally 16 inches in diameter or larger. In the woodland 

PNVTs, large trees are considered to be generally 20 inches in diameter or larger. Trees are 

considered to be old if they predate European settlement (middle to late 1800s).

Treatment Methods

Alternative D emphasizes natural processes, primarily burning (planned and unplanned ignitions), 

with limited mechanical treatments to maintain or move toward the desired conditions of more

resilient, healthy ecosystems. Where mechanical treatments are used, they generally would be 

followed by pile burning to remove residual fuels. As desired conditions are achieved, burning 

would be the primary tool used on regular intervals to maintain conditions. Restoration treatments 

are distributed among all PNVTs in riparian areas, forests, grasslands, and woodlands. 

Mechanical treatments would be used around communities in the Community-Forest Intermix 

Management Area and, in some cases, as pretreatment for burning. The majority of treatments, 

from 7,500 to 50,000 acres per year, in the forested PNVTs would occur in ponderosa pine, 

although there would be emphasis to treat all forested PNVTs. Additionally, up to 24,000 acres 

per year of grasslands would be treated to remove encroaching woody species in all grassland 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

26 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

types. Approximately 5,000 to 30,000 acres per year of woodlands (primarily Madrean pine-oak 

using fire) and 300 to 600 acres per year of riparian areas would be treated to improve ecological 

conditions. There are no planned treatment objectives for interior chaparral since this PNVT

currently meets desired conditions; however, treatments may occur as opportunities arise.

Wildlife Quiet Areas

Alternative D includes seven of the eight existing wildlife quiet areas (minus Hulsey Bench), plus 

five more, Bear Springs, Cottonwood Seep, Carr Lake, Palomino, and Hidden Lake, for a total of 

58,379 acres. Unlike alternative A, all wildlife quite areas in this alternative are assigned to a 

management area. Direction for these areas is identified in the Wildlife Quiet Area Management 

Area.

Recreation Opportunities

A variety of recreation opportunities continue to be provided, with an emphasis on dispersed and 

nonmotorized opportunities. There is no emphasis on building new highly developed recreation 

facilities; however, recreation development that provides for dispersed recreation (e.g., trailheads, 

wildlife viewing areas, trails) may occur.

Figure 5 displays the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes for alternative D: primitive 

(P), semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM), semiprimitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), 

roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (U). ROS is a framework for identifying the types of 

outdoor recreation opportunities on the forests that are available to the public. The ROS classes 

are described in the glossary.

Figure 5. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative D

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative D recommends a total of 684,214 acres for wilderness (figures 91 and 92 in appendix 

H) on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This includes 24 new areas and additions to Escudilla, Bear 

Wallow, and Mount Baldy Wilderness areas (484,712 acres). It also recommends almost all of the

Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential additions (196,868 acres) for wilderness. 

The alternative D recommendation includes three areas that are also on other national forests, but 

because most of the acreages are on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the forests led the wilderness 

evaluation process. Small portions of these areas overlap the Coconino (2,981 acres) and Gila 

(3,607 acres) NFs; these 6,588 acres are not included in the above total. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 27

These preliminary administrative recommendations would receive further review, including 

applicable NEPA analyses, and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, 

Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Congress has reserved the 

authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation. These areas are managed to protect 

wilderness values. The Blue Range Primitive Area continues to be managed as a primitive area 

until Congress acts on the 1971 wilderness recommendation or this new recommendation.

Contribution to Local Communities – Wood Product Availability

Alternative D contains no land managed for timber production on a regulated basis. However, it is 

estimated that an average of 118,000 CCF of wood products including sawlogs, biomass, and 

firewood would be available annually for local and regional industrial and individual needs as a 

byproduct of restoration treatments.

Research Natural Areas

Alternative D carries forward the designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin RNA

(approximately 290 acres), and recommends adding the Phelps Cabin Botanical Area 

(approximately 100 acres) to it as a recommended RNA. In addition, this alternative recommends

designating two new research natural areas: Corduroy and Three Forks totaling 5,957 acres. This 

alternative would withdraw existing RNA recommendations for Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, 

Hayground, and Thomas Creek.

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives

The three action alternatives (alternatives B, C, and D) have the following 13 areas of similarity: 

1. Management Areas 

Management areas are used to allocate land for a unique emphasis. All of the action 

alternatives use the same basic set of 12 management areas (alternative A uses a set of 16

management areas). The alternatives differ in the total acreages and locations of the 

management areas. 

A description of the management areas considered in the action alternatives can be found in 

appendix D. Appendix D also includes a description of the management areas found in 

alternative A (1987 plan). Maps of the management areas can be found in appendix H.

2. Suitability of Uses

The criteria for the suitability of various uses (e.g., livestock grazing, timber production) are 

the same in all action alternatives. However, when the criteria are applied to the different 

alternatives, there may be variations in the amount of land suitable for certain uses (e.g., if an 

alternative has more land in the Natural Landscape Management Area, there could be less 

land suitable for timber production). The suitability criteria can be found in chapter 4 of the 

proposed plan.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

28 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

3. Standards and Guidelines

The action alternatives share the same standards and guidelines (i.e., constraints on projectlevel decisions). Where they do not, the differences are highlighted in the descriptions of the 

alternatives above. The standards and guidelines can be found in chapters 2 and 3 of the 

proposed plan.

4. Monitoring Strategy

All action alternatives include the same monitoring strategy as identified in chapter 5 of the 

proposed plan.

5. Wildlife and Fish

The action alternatives provide fish and wildlife habitat to help maintain species’ populations 

of existing native and desirable nonnative species. They further contribute to species’ needs 

by providing wildlife quiet areas and other management areas with limited disturbance (e.g., 

designated and recommended wilderness, natural landscape, designated and recommended 

research natural area). The amount (acres) of these areas varies by alternative.

6. Invasive Species

Each action alternative provides direction to control, treat, or eradicate invasive plant and 

animal species. 

7. Other Special Areas

The action alternatives provide management direction for those existing special areas not 

mentioned in the 1987 plan (e.g., Heber Wild Horse Territory, scenic byways, national 

recreation trails). They also include direction for the 25 eligible or suitable wild and scenic 

rivers.

8. Motorized Cross-Country Travel

The action alternatives limit motorized travel to a system of NFS roads and NFS trails3. They 

do not allow motorized cross-country travel, except where allowed by a written authorization 

(e.g., permit, rights-of-way) issued under Federal law or regulation or in designated 

motorized areas. The action alternatives do not designate motorized areas nor do they make 

changes to the current system of NFS roads or NFS trails. Any new designated motorized 

cross-country areas or changes to roads or trails would be evaluated in a separate NEPA 

decision. 

Alternative A does allow motorized cross-country travel4

.

The proposed plan provides the framework to guide future changes to the transportation 

system. Once the final decision on the proposed plan has been made, potential changes to the 

 3 As identified in the I-WEB database (2012n), there are approximately 2,900 miles of roads and trails open for public 

or administrative use.

4 Since alternative A allows motorized cross-country travel, if the responsible official selects alternative A, upon 

completion of the separate travel management planning process, the plan would be amended to limit motorized travel to 

designated roads, trails, and areas.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 29

forests’ transportation system will be evaluated under the plan’s framework and through 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule (73 FR 74689)5

. Upon completion of travel 

management planning, the associated motor vehicle use map (MVUM) will be printed. The 

MVUM will display the roads, trails, and areas that are designated for motorized vehicle use. 

Use inconsistent with those designations and inconsistent with this plan would be prohibited.

9. Threat to Communities from Wildfire

The action alternatives include the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area (1/2 mile 

buffer around communities at risk) to denote where fuels reduction treatments and 

maintenance are emphasized. 

10.Landscape Scale Disturbance Events

The action alternatives include direction to be used following landscape scale (greater than 

10,000 acres) disturbance events. These alternatives include standards and guidelines to 

protect existing resources and facilitate recovery of soil and vegetation components and 

improve ecosystem health.

11.Livestock Grazing

The action alternatives provide similar guidance for managing livestock grazing. The 

management focus is to “balance livestock grazing with available forage” on suitable grazing 

lands. The criteria for the suitability of livestock grazing are the same in all action 

alternatives. The amount of land suitable for livestock grazing would vary slightly between 

the action alternatives based on the number of recommended RNAs.

12.Urban Interface Demands

The action alternatives provide similar guidance (e.g., standards, guidelines) for addressing 

urban interface demands and land ownership adjustments.

13.New Energy Development

The action alternatives provide similar guidance (e.g., standards, guidelines, and suitability 

criteria) for the existing energy corridors and for establishing new energy corridors or 

developments. The acres of land suitable for consideration of new energy developments vary 

between the action alternatives.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a comparison of alternatives. The information focuses on activities and 

environmental consequences where differences can be distinguished quantitatively or 

qualitatively among alternatives. It includes a comparison of management area allocations, 

indicators, and other information.

 5 The Travel Management Rule was created to help address unmanaged motorized vehicle use. It requires each national 

forest to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicles where OHVs and other motor vehicles can 

be used. Once the system is designated, the rule will prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

30 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

It should be noted that acreages and mileages listed in the DEIS are approximate. They were 

calculated using the most current data available in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ Geographic 

Information System (GIS). As the GIS database is updated, these measurements may change.

Comparison of Management Areas

Tables 1 and 2 identify the acreage and percentage of each management area that make up each 

alternative. Descriptions of the management areas can be found in appendix D. Note that 

alternative A (1987 plan) uses a different set of management areas than the action alternatives; a 

crosswalk comparison can be found in appendix D.

Table 1. Management area allocation (in acres and percent) for the no action alternative

Management Area1 Acres2 Management Area1 Acres2

Forest Land 865,473 (43%) Black River 6,804 (<1%)

Woodland 766,495 (38%) Chevelon Canyon 10,643 (1%)

Grasslands 52,409 (3%) West Fork Black River 9,066 (<1%)

Riparian 42,645 (2%) East and West Forks 

Little Colorado River

1,927 (<1%)

Water 4,071 (<1%) Blue Range Primitive Area

and Additions

199,505 (10%)

Escudilla Demonstration Area 4,898 (<1%) Bear Wallow Wilderness 11,234 (1%)

Sandrock 26,596 (1%) Escudilla Wilderness 4,195 (<1%)3

Research Natural Area 2,549 (<1%) Mount Baldy Wilderness 6,842 (<1%)

Developed Recreation Sites (<1%)4 Total acres 2,015,352

1

See appendix D for descriptions of management areas. 

2

Acres are derived from the most current data available in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs GIS database; they may differ 

from the amount stated in the 1987 plan due to mapping techniques and changes in land ownerships.

3

Escudilla Wilderness does not reflect acreage of Escudilla Mountain RNA.

4

Developed recreation sites management area was not discretely mapped.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 31

Table 2. Management area allocation (in acres and percent) for the action alternatives

Management Area1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

General Forest 1,224,071 (61%) 1,599,357 (79%) 1,068,718 (53%)

Community-Forest Intermix 60,564 (3%) 60,564 (3%) 58,610 (3%)2

High Use Developed Recreation Area 16,549 (1%) 16,549 (1%) 16,549 (1%)

Energy Corridor 2,547 (<1%) 2,547 (<1%) 2,550 (<1%)3

Wild Horse Territory4 18,761 (1%) 18,761 (1%) 18,761 (1%)

Wildlife Quiet Area 50,173 (2%) 44,373 (2%) 59,379 (3%)

Natural Landscape 404,802 (20%) 35,408 (2%) 77,119 (4%)

Recommended Research Natural Area 7,814 (<1%) 7,814 (<1%) 5,957 (<1%)

Research Natural Area 261 (<1%) 261 (<1%) 261 (<1%)

Primitive Area5 199,502 (10%) 199,502 (10%) 199,502 (10%)6

Recommended Wilderness 7,074 (<1%) 6,982 (<1%) 484,712 (24%)

Wilderness 23,234 (1%) 23,234 (1%) 23,234 (1%)

Total acres 2,015,352 2,015,352 2,015,352

1

See appendix D for descriptions of management areas.

2

A portion of the land allocated to the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area in other alternatives is

recommended for wilderness in alternative D. 

3

The Energy Corridor Management Area acreage for alternative D is slightly greater than alternatives B and C 

because three small isolated parcels containing a road could not be included in the adjacent Recommended 

Wilderness Management Area.

4

The Wild Horse Territory, as designated by Congress, is approximately 19,700 acres; the difference in 

management area acres is due to the overlapping Community-Forest Intermix Management Area.

5

In 1971, the Forest Service submitted a recommendation to the President of the United States for the Blue Range 

Wilderness in New Mexico and Arizona. The president forwarded the recommendation to Congress, who eventually 

acted on a portion of the recommendation. In 1980 Congress designated, and the president signed into law, the Blue 

Range Wilderness in New Mexico. The Arizona portion of the presidential recommendation (166,591 acres) 

included 20,031 acres outside and along the west primitive area boundary. The Forest Service and presidential 

recommendations for the Blue Range Wilderness in Arizona has not been acted upon.

6

The majority of this area, except the road corridor, is also recommended for wilderness. 
32

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Comparison by Indicators

This section compares indicators of the need for change and issues for the four alternatives. Unless otherwise noted, the timeframe is the 

planning period and the outcomes are based on the average level of treatments identified in each alternative’s objectives. Table values are 

approximations.

Table 3. Comparison of indicators by alternative

Indicator Alt. A1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Type, priority, and amount of restoration treatments

Primary methods of restoration treatments A mix of mechanical and fire Primarily mechanical, 

some fire

Primarily fire, some 

mechanical

Priority2 (emphasis) for restoration 

treatments

-Treat areas around 

communities to reduce the 

threat from 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

-Provide wood products 

for the White Mountain 

Stewardship Project.

-Old growth 

characteristics are 

retained and/or 

encouraged.

-Treat priority 6th level 

HUC watersheds.

-Treat areas identified in 

community wildfire 

protection plans 

(CWPPs), including the 

Community-Forest 

Intermix Management 

Area to reduce the threat 

from uncharacteristic 

wildfire.

-Wood products are 

available as a result of 

restoration treatments.

-Old growth 

characteristics are 

retained and encouraged.

-Treat the CommunityForest Intermix (CFI) 

Management Area to 

reduce the threat from 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

-Treat lands suitable for 

timber production plus 

other forests, woodlands, 

and grasslands that can 

supply wood products.

-Does not contain 

guidance to retain and 

encourage old growth 

characteristics.

-Treat priority 6th level 

HUC watersheds.

- Treat the CFI 

Management Area to 

reduce the threat from 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

-Wood products are 

available as a result of 

restoration treatments.

-All large and old trees 

are retained, except in the 

Community-Forest 

Intermix Management 

Area.

Number of priority 6th level HUC 

watersheds where condition class is 

improved by removing or mitigating 

degrading factors

Opportunity3 10/planning period

Amount of treatments to enhance or 

restore priority 6th level HUC watersheds

Opportunity 350 acres/year
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 33

Indicator Alt. A1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Amount of treatments in forests 

(ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, wet 

mixed conifer, and spruce-fir)

17,000 acres/year 

primarily in ponderosa 

pine

5,000 to 35,000 acres/year 

primarily in ponderosa 

pine

5,500 to 55,000 acres/year 

primarily in ponderosa 

pine

7,500 to 50,000 acres/year 

primarily in ponderosa 

pine

Amount of treatments in woodlands 

(Madrean pine-oak and piñon-juniper)

3,500 acres/year in both 

types primarily using fire

5,000 to 15,000 acres/year 

primarily in Madrean 

pine-oak using fire

2,500 to 10,000 acres/year 

primarily mechanical in 

piñon-juniper and fire in 

Madrean pine-oak

5,000 to 30,000 acres/year 

primarily in Madrean 

pine-oak using fire

Amount of treatments in grasslands (semidesert, Great Basin, and 

montane/subalpine)

500 acres/year Up to 25,000 acres/year 

primarily in Great Basin 

and semi-desert

500 acres/year in 

montane/subalpine

Other grasslands, as 

opportunities arise

Up to 24,000 acres/year 

throughout all grassland 

types

Amount of treatments in interior chaparral Opportunity

Amount of treatments in riparian areas to 

restore desired composition, structure, and 

function 

Opportunity 200 to 500 acres/year Opportunity 300 to 600 acres/year

Minimum amount of NFS roads or trails 

that negatively impact streams or riparian 

areas to be relocated, repaired, improved, 

or decommissioned

Opportunity 4 miles/planning period Opportunity 4 miles/planning period

Average amount of unauthorized roads or 

trails that negatively impact streams or 

riparian areas to be removed

Opportunity 2 miles/year 3 miles/year

Amount of wet meadows or cienegas 

restored

Opportunity 5 to 25/planning period Opportunity 5 to 25/planning period

Amount of stream and riparian habitat 

treatments to restore structure, 

composition, and function of physical 

habitat for native fisheries and ripariandependent species

Less than 10 miles/year 5 to 15 miles/year Opportunity 5 to 15 miles/year

Average amount of riparian habitat treated 

to reduce animal damage to native willows 

and other riparian species

Opportunity 5 miles/year
34

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Indicator Alt. A1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Minimum number of projects to provide 

for aquatic and riparian-associated species 

and migratory species

Opportunity 5/planning period Opportunity 5/planning period

Amount of treatments to contain, control, 

or eradicate terrestrial invasive species

500 acres/year 500 to 3,500 acres/year

Minimum amount of treatments to contain, 

control, or eradicate aquatic invasive 

species

Opportunity 2 miles/year

Minimum number of unneeded structures 

removed to improve wildlife connectivity

Opportunity 5/year

Average number of dispersed campsites 

rehabilitated, stabilized, revegetated, or 

relocated 

Opportunity 5/year

Departure rating from desired conditions by PNVT, based on the average treatment objectives 

(see “Vegetation” section in chapter 3)

Ponderosa pine forest High Moderate High

Dry mixed conifer forest Moderate High

Wet mixed conifer forest Moderate

Spruce-fir forest High

Piñon-juniper woodland Low No Departure

Madrean pine-oak woodland Moderate

Great Basin grassland High No High No

Semi-desert grassland Severe High Severe High

Benefit to maintenance and reproduction of aspen 

(see “Vegetation” section in chapter 3)

Amount of aspen on the landscape (desired 

condition is at least 50,000 acres)

71,100 acres 68,200 acres 65,800 acres 65,500 acres
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 35

Indicator Alt. A1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Trend of riparian conditions and function toward proper functioning condition 

(see “Riparian” section in chapter 3)

Trend of riparian condition and function Away Toward Away Toward

Percent of grasslands where encroachment of woody canopy is reduced to less than 10 percent

(see “Vegetation” section in chapter 3)

Amount of Great Basin and semi-desert 

grasslands where woody species 

encroachment is reduced

1% 46% 1% 42%

Probability of nuisance smoke impacts to communities 

(see “Fire” section in chapter 3)

Probability of short-term smoke impacts

from planned and unplanned ignitions

Least High Moderate Highest

Probability of long-term smoke impacts 

from uncharacteristic wildfires

Highest Moderate High Least

Number of acres of wildlife quiet areas 

(see “Wildlife and Rare Plants” section in chapter 3)

Number of wildlife quiet areas 8 areas 10 areas 8 areas 12 areas

Amount of wildlife quiet areas 45,500 acres 50,200 acres 44,400 acres 59,400 acres

Acres and percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification

(see “Recreation” section in chapter 3)

Primitive (P) 228,954 acres 

(11%)

295,934 acres 

(15%)

232,233 acres 

(12%)

620,879 acres 

(31%)

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (SPNM) 452,486 acres 

(22%)

487,747 acres 

(24%)

422,932 acres 

(21%)

279,050 acres 

(14%)

Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM) 614,520 acres 

(31%)

575,572 acres

(29%)

662,116 acres 

(33%)

527,725 acres 

(26%)

Roaded Natural (RN) 686,435 acres 

(34%)

603,887 acres 

(30%)

645,056 acres 

(32%)

539,491 acres 

(27%)
36

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Indicator Alt. A1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Roaded Modified (RM) 0 acres 

(0%)

9,682 acres 

(<1%)

7,149 acres 

(<1%)

Rural (R) 32,853 acres 

(2%)

42,530 acres 

(2%)

43,333 acres 

(2%)

41,058 acres 

(2%)

Urban (U) 104 acres 

(<1%)

0 acres 

(0%)

Acres and percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs designated wilderness, primitive area, and recommended for wilderness 

(see “Wilderness Resources” section in chapter 3)

Amount of designated wilderness 23,234 acres4

(1%)

Amount of primitive area5 199,505 acres

(10%)

199,502 acres

(10%)

Amount of recommended wilderness 0 acres

(0%)

7,074 acres

(0.4%)

6,982 acres

(0.3%)

484,712 acres6

(24%)

Additional areas recommended for 

wilderness7

0 acres

(0%)

196,868 acres8

(10%)

Number and acres of designated and recommended research natural areas (RNAs)

(see “Research Natural Area” section in chapter 3)

Number of designated RNAs 1

Number of recommended RNAs 4 6 3

Amount of designated and recommended 

RNAs (percent of NFS land)

2,549 acres 

(<1%)

8,075 acres 

(<1%)

6,218 acres 

(<1%)
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 37

Indicator Alt.A

1 Alt

.B Alt. C Alt.D

Acres and percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs by Scenic Integrity Level (SIL)

(see “Scenic Resources” section in chapter 3)

Very high scenic integrity (unaltered) 210,769 acres 

(11%)

305,047 acres 

(15%)

303,723 acres 

(15%)

748,716 acres 

(37%)

High scenic integrity (appears unaltered) 490,464 acres 

(25%)

786,776 acres 

(39%)

676,394 acres 

(34%)

444,302 acres 

(22%)

Moderate scenic integrity (slightly altered) 835,979 acres 

(42%)

920,648 acres 

(46%)

1,032,351 acres 

(51%)

819,449 acres 

(41%)

Low scenic integrity (moderately altered) 405,470 acres 

(20%)

394 acres 

(<1%)

394 acres 

(<1%)

393 acres 

(<1%)

Very low scenic integrity (heavily altered) 35,008 acres 

(2%)

2,490 acres 

(<1%)

2,490 acres 

(<1%)

2,492 acres 

(<1%)

Economic contributions of forest management 

(see “Other Socioeconomic Resources” section in chapter 3)

Average labor income generated $117,600,000 $118,400,00 $129,300,000 $112,400,000

Average number of jobs contributed 3,768 3,793 4,120 3,610

Average present net value-$26,800,000-$26,400,000-$17,000,000-$28,200,000

Acres and percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs that are suitable for timber production

(see “Forest Products” section in chapter 3)

Amount of land suitable for timber 

production on a regulated basis

764,900 acres

(38.0%)

596,700 acres

(29.6%)

604,700 acres

(30.0%)

0 acres

(0%)

Annual average amount of sawtimber, pulp, and poles (5 inch or greater diameter)

(see “Forest Products” section in chapter 3)

Average amount of sawtimber, pulp, and 

poles (5 inch or greater diameter)

80,000 CCF 84,000 CCF 171,000 CCF 27,000 CCF
38

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Indicator Alt. A1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Annual average amount of firewood available

(see “Forest Products” section in chapter 3)

Average amount of firewood available 26,000 CCF 75,000 CCF 35,000 CCF 46,000 CCF

Annual average amount (tons) of biomass available

(see “Forest Products” section in chapter 3)

Average amount of biomass available 348,000 tons 364,000 tons 733,000 tons 156,000 tons

Acres and percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs suitable for new energy corridors or development

(see “Lands and Special Uses” section in chapter 3)

Amount of land suitable for new energy 

corridors or development

NA

(NA)

889,700 acres

(44%)

1,007,500 acres

(50%)

784,400 acres

(39%)

1 Alternative A, the no action alternative, has a different set of management areas than the action alternatives; a crosswalk, identified in appendix D, was used so that 

the alternatives can be compared.

2 The priority or emphasis of where treatments would occur varies by alternative.

3 Opportunity indicates that there would be no set objective for this alternative; treatments and accomplishments would occur as opportunities arise and conditions, 

funding, and staffing allow.

4 Alternative A acres include the Escudilla Wilderness Management Area and a part of the Research Natural Area Management Area (Escudilla Mountain RNA) that is

within the designated wilderness.

5 Acres in the primitive area differ between alterantive A and the action alternatives due to improved mapping techniques (i.e., mapping from the 1987 plan map 

compared to mapping with aerial photography as reference).

6 Alternative D also recommends 2,981 acres on the Coconino NF and 3,607 acres on the Gila NF.

7 There is a 1971 presidential wilderness recommendation of the Blue Range Primitive Area and additions that Congress has not acted upon. The Blue Range Primitive 

Area must be managed as a primitive area until Congress acts on the 1971 wilderness recommendation.

8 Alternative D would recommend the majority of the Primitive Area Management Area, except the road corridor, for wilderness designation.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 39

Comparison of Other Plan Objectives

This section compares other plan objectives for the four alternatives. 

Table 4. Other plan objectives

Indicator Alt. A1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Minimum number of new wildlife 

viewing opportunities created

Opportunity 10/planning period

Provision of wildlife-proof and accessible 

trash facilities in all developed sites where 

trash is collected

Opportunity Within planning period

Percent of developed recreation deferred 

maintenance backlog reduced

Opportunity 10%/planning period

Percent of NFS roads maintained 20% of passenger vehicle roads and 10% of high clearance vehicle 

roads / year

Percent of NFS motorized trails 

maintained

20%/year

Percent of NFS nonmotorized trails 

maintained

20%/year

Removal of the National Recreation Trail 

designation from the Escudilla trail to 

conform with agency policy

Initiate process within 5 years of plan approval

Average number of projects accomplished 

to enhance scenic resources

Opportunity 5/year

Average number of miles of NFS 

boundary surveyed and posted

Opportunity 2 to 5 miles/year

Average number of miles of NFS property 

boundary posted and corner monuments

placed

Opportunity 2 to 5 miles/year

Average number of existing trespass cases 

resolved

Opportunity 3/year

Schedule for inspecting National Register 

sites and priority cultural resources

Opportunity Every 2 years or according to SW Region 

Heritage Program

Minimum number of eligible cultural 

resources nominated to the National 

Register Historic Places

Opportunity At least 5/planning period

Number of Passport in Time (PIT) or 

other education project that provide 

opportunities for the public to learn about 

the past and cultural resources

Opportunity 1/year

Minimum amount of non-project cultural 

inventory completed

Opportunity 100 acres/planning period
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

40 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Indicator Alt. A1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Minimum number of MOUs renewed or 

established with culturally affiliated tribes

Opportunity 5/planning period

Average number of Christmas tree permits 

provided

5,000/year

Minimum number of forage reserves 

established on each ranger district

Opportunity 1/planning period

Minimum number of instream flow water 

rights applications prepared

Opportunity 1/year

1 Alternative A, the no action alternative, has a different set of management areas than the action alternatives; a 

crosswalk, identified in appendix D, was used so that the alternatives can be compared.
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 41

Chapter 3. Affected Environment

and Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

planning area and the environmental consequences to those environments that may occur by 

implementing each alternative. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the 

comparison of alternatives presented in chapter 2. More detailed information, including 

methodology and assumptions, can be found in the specific resource specialist report located in 

the “Plan Set of Documents” and available upon request.

Programmatic Framework of the Land Management Plan

The proposed plan and its alternatives do not authorize implementation of management activities 

described in the effects analyses. The proposed plan and its alternatives provide a programmatic 

framework that guide site-specific actions, but they do not authorize, fund, or carry out any 

project or activity. 

Because the proposed plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or activities 

(including ground-disturbing actions), there can be no direct effects. However, there may be 

implications or longer term environmental consequences of managing the forests under this 

programmatic framework. The proposed plan sets the stage for what future management actions 

are needed to achieve desired outcomes (desired conditions, objectives, special areas) and 

provides the sideboards (suitability, standards, guidelines) under which future activities may 

occur in order to manage risks to ecological, social, and economic environments. To actually 

implement site-specific projects, project- and activity-level planning, environmental analysis, and 

decisions must occur. For example, the proposed plan may contain direction to close or 

rehabilitate roads in order to benefit riparian areas; however, a subsequent site-specific analysis 

and decision must be made for proposals that involve road closures or decommissioning.

Environmental Analyses and Overall Assumptions

In development of the environmental analyses that follow, the best available science was 

considered and is documented in the “Plan Set of Documents.” The environmental analyses focus 

on the need for change and issues identified through the scoping process. 

Several overall assumptions were made in the analyses of alternatives. They include:

• The land management plan provides a programmatic framework for future site-specific 

actions. The actual site-specific location, design, and extent of these actions are not 

known at this time and would be developed through future project-level analysis.

• Land management plans may have implications, or environmental consequences, of 

managing the forests under a programmatic framework.

• The potential environmental consequences are only estimates. These environmental 

analyses are useful in comparing and evaluating alternatives on a forestwide basis but are 

not to be applied to specific locations on the forests.

• The plan decisions (i.e., desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, special 

areas, suitability, monitoring) would be followed when planning or implementing sitespecific projects and activities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Laws, regulations, policies, and applicable best management practices (BMPs) would be 

followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects and activities.

• Monitoring would occur and management practices would adapt to new information (see 

“Adaptive Management” section below).

• The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would be funded in future years at levels similar to the past 5

years.

• The planning timeframe (planning period) is 15 years; other timeframes may be analyzed 

depending on the resource.

• Resource management activities proposed by alternative would occur to the extent 

necessary to achieve objectives and maintain, move toward, or achieve desired 

conditions.

• Plan objectives are generally stated as a range (from low to high). The actual level of 

accomplishment would depend on environmental conditions, budgets, and staffing.

• As movement toward or achievement of desired conditions is made, forest ecosystems 

would become healthier and more resilient and would continue to provide for species 

diversity, goods, and services.

Terminology

Varied terminology is used throughout this document to represent key concepts in these analyses, 

including:

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting a degraded, damaged, or destroyed 

ecosystem in the recovery of its resilience and adaptive capacity. 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. In the Southwestern Region, achievement of desired conditions means that the 

ecosystem has been restored. Restoration treatments are those that move ecosystem

components toward desired conditions. This concept is also referred to as restoration or 

maintenance and/or improvement of ecosystems.

Potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) is the vegetation that would occur in the presence 

of natural disturbance processes such as frequent fire return intervals. 

Reference conditions are environmental conditions that infer ecological sustainability.

Reference conditions are often represented by the historic range of variation (i.e., the 

characteristic range of variation, not the total range of variation) for a particular attribute, 

prior to European settlement and under the current climatic period. For some ecosystems, the 

historic range of variation reflects native burning prior to settlement.

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; 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 43

Section 101). Short-term uses are those that generally occur for a finite time period. Long-term 

productivity refers to the ability of the land to produce a continuous supply of a resource.

The change in the programmatic management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs under any of the 

action alternatives would not provide for any short-term uses that would jeopardize the long-term 

productivity of the lands and resources of the forests because productivity is addressed at the 

project level. Descriptions of short-term and long-term environmental consequences can be found 

in the “Environmental Consequences of Each Alternative by Resource” section of this chapter.

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Consequences

The proposed plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does 

not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Therefore, decisions made in the proposed 

plan do not cause unavoidable adverse environmental consequences. The application of standards 

and guidelines during future project and activity decisionmaking would provide resource 

protection measures and would limit the extent and duration of any adverse environmental 

impacts. For a detailed discussion of types of environmental consequences expected from future 

activities, see specific resource topic areas in this chapter.

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 lost for a period but 

could be regained, such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas kept clear 

for use as a power line right-of-way or road.

Because the proposed plan does not directly authorize or mandate any site-specific project or 

activity (including ground-disturbing actions), none of the alternatives causes an irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources. Future project-level decisions under any of the 

alternatives may result in potential irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, which 

would be disclosed accordingly.

Adaptive Management

All alternatives assume the use of adaptive management principles. Forest Service decisions are 

made as part of an ongoing process, including planning, project implementation, and monitoring 

and evaluation. The proposed plan identifies a monitoring strategy. Monitoring the results of 

actions would provide a flow of information that may indicate the need to change a course of 

action or the plan. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also indicate the need to adapt 

resource management to new information. The forest supervisor will continue to annually 

evaluate the plan monitoring results to determine if any changes are needed in management 

actions or the plan itself. In general, annual evaluations of the monitoring information consider 

the following questions on a forestwide basis:

• What are the effects of resource management activities on the productivity of the land?

• To what degree are resource management activities maintaining or making progress 

toward the desired conditions and objectives set by the plan?

• What changes are needed to account for unanticipated changes in conditions?
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

In addition to annual monitoring and evaluation, the forest supervisor reviews the conditions on 

the land covered by the plan at least every 5 years to determine whether conditions or demands of 

the public have changed significantly. The land management plan is ordinarily revised on a 10- to 

15-year cycle. The forest supervisor may amend the plan at any time. 

Climate Change

Most 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 

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.

Appendix A of the proposed plan identifies the potential climate change trends and impacts to 

management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. For applicable resources, the possible environmental 

consequences associated with climate change are discussed in this chapter. 

Environmental Consequences of 

Each Alternative by Resource

All relevant resources were analyzed for anticipated environmental consequences from 

implementing each alternative. Unless noted, the effects of the 2011 Wallow Fire are incorporated 

into the affected environment descriptions. Specialist reports containing further documentation of 

the analyses and resulting consequences can be found in the “Plan Set of Documents” located at 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Supervisor’s Office in Springerville, Arizona. 

Air

This qualitative analysis describes general trends and projected conditions in relation to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Rule (EPA, 1999) as 

described in the State Implementation Plan (ADEQ, 2011). Any differences in projected 

conditions due to proposed forest activities are described in this section. Environmental 

consequences of air quality related to smoke are described in the “Fire” section. The full analysis 

for air quality can be found in the “Air Quality Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012b) 

available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

There are six pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that were 

reviewed in relation to sources within and outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (EPA, 1990):

• Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, tasteless, odorless gas produced primarily by 

motor vehicles. Other sources include wood burning stoves, fireplaces, wildfires, and 

industries that process metals or manufacture chemicals. High CO concentrations can 

occur in large urban areas and settle in mountain valleys. CO is poisonous at high levels 

and can damage the heart and central nervous system.

• Lead in the air exists primarily as particulates. The major source used to be gasoline, but 

it is currently metals processing. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and leadacid battery manufacturers. Lead particularly affects young children and infants and is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 45

found at high levels in urban and industrial areas. Lead deposits on soil and water and can 

harm animals. 

• Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) has a reddish-orange-brown color and a pungent odor. Nitrogen 

oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The 

primary sources are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, 

and residential operations that burn fuels. Some NO2 is emitted by wildfires through 

combustion of forest fuels. Once in the atmosphere, NO2 is easily converted to nitrates, a 

major component of acid rain, contributing to impacts on vegetation, visibility, and soil 

and water quality. Nitrogen dioxide also impairs human health. 

• Ozone is an unstable gas and has a characteristic odor. Ozone forms when hydrocarbons 

and nitrogen oxides chemically react in sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial 

emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and natural sources emit compounds that 

form ozone. Ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including permanent lung 

damage after long-term exposure. It can also damage plants and ecosystems. 

• Particulate Matter (PM) consists of particles of solid or semisolid materials in the 

atmosphere. Most human-made particles are 0.1 to 10 micrometers in diameter. 

Particulates less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) can cause respiratory problems;

while larger particulates settle out of the air. Airborne dust, or particle pollution, causes 

significant problems with human health and the environment. Particulates less than or 

equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) are generally created during combustion and are the 

major cause of visibility impairment. These fine particles can be moved over long 

distances by wind and settle on ground or water. High PM concentrations are often 

associated with large urban areas or mountain valleys where dust, smoke, and emissions 

are common. Health effects of PM include respiratory problems, decreased lung function, 

asthma, chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks, and premature 

death in people with heart or lung disease.

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas that easily dissolves in water to form acid. It is a 

major pollutant throughout the world and potentially carcinogenic. The main source is 

burning fossil fuels, but diesel fuel and gasoline also contribute to SO2 in the air.

In addition, Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth a national goal to prevent any 

future (and the remedying of any existing) impairment of visibility in Class I areas from humancaused emissions. The Regional Haze Rule, 40 CFR Part 51, calls for states to establish goals and 

emissions reduction strategies for improving visibility in all mandatory Class I national parks and 

wilderness areas. The national visibility goal for each Class I area is to return to natural visibility 

conditions by 2064. The nearest Class I airshed to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is located above 

Mount Baldy Wilderness; attainment of air quality standards are measured at this site.

For this analysis, air pollutants were separated into two categories: pollutants from sources 

outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and pollutants from sources within the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs. The impacts of these sources were analyzed based on whether the emissions would cause 

the Mount Baldy Class I airshed to be in nonattainment. 

Sources contributing some of the six pollutants from outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are 

nearby coal-fired power plant emissions, motor vehicle emissions, and regional haze contributors 

(particulate matter emissions) including road dust and smoke from nearby prescribed burning and 

road use. Sources contributing some of these six pollutants from within the Apache-Sitgreaves 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

NFs are motor vehicle emissions and regional haze contributors including road dust and smoke 

from prescribed burning.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• Outside sources of air pollutants would either stay constant or would improve (i.e., fewer 

emissions) during the planning period. 

• Proposed forest restoration activities would occur to the extent necessary to achieve the 

desired conditions and objectives of each alternative and would adhere to air quality 

standards as set forth by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 

Affected Environment

Existing Impacts of Air Pollution on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs from Outside Sources

Emissions of air pollutants from outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs come from nearby coal-fired 

power plants, motor vehicles, and regional haze. The emissions as measured at the Mount Baldy 

Class I airshed, are currently in attainment and are expected to stay in attainment or even improve 

(ADEQ, 2011). 

Coal-Fired Power Plants

Coal-fired power plants are located in the vicinity of the planning area. The Springerville 

Generating Station is about 14 miles away from the forests and about 31 miles from Mount Baldy 

Wilderness. The Coronado Generating Station is about 30 miles from the forests and about 45 

miles from Mount Baldy Wilderness. The Cholla Generating Station is about 30 miles from the 

forests and 80 miles from Mount Baldy Wilderness. They produce air pollution emissions 

recognized as contributors to degraded air quality impacting the planning area. Air pollution, in 

the forms of gases and aerosols, reaches ecosystems on the ground through atmospheric 

deposition. Pollutants deposited include oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, ozone, and particulates. 

These compounds can impair terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, impair visibility, and impact 

human health. Specific concerns include maintaining air quality sufficient to comply with 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as those related to degradation of 

visibility and increased deposition. While impacts of air pollution on visibility have been well 

documented, in many cases, the inventorying, monitoring, and research necessary to document air 

pollution effects on NFS ecosystems are insufficient.

Several components of air pollution can affect vegetation, but ozone generally results in the 

greatest amount of damage. Visible effects on leaves or needles can include stipple (dark colored 

lesions resulting from pigmentation of injured cells), fleck (tiny light-colored lesions on the upper 

layers of the leaf), mottle (degeneration of the chlorophyll that cause a blotchy appearance), 

necrosis (death of tissue), and in extreme cases, mortality. Ozone exposure can also decrease 

plant growth rates. Ponderosa pine is recognized as an ozone-sensitive species. 

Acidity in rain, snow, fog, and dry deposition can affect soil fertility and nutrient cycling and can 

result in acidification of lakes and streams. Sulfate deposition to sensitive watersheds results in 

increasing soil acidification and surface water acidification. Deposition of excess nitrogen (nitrate 

and ammonium) in both terrestrial and aquatic systems can acidify streams, lakes, and soils. 

Aquatic ecosystems in Arizona are generally well buffered and not subject to episodic or chronic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 47

acidification except at the highest elevations in and around Mount Baldy Wilderness 

(Blankenship, 1991). 

Motor Vehicles

Tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contributing air pollutants are considered negligible in 

relation to the Class I airshed at Mount Baldy. Dilution and air mixing reduces impacts within a 

short distance. Although vehicle pollution can pose a problem in confined areas, such as a city, 

the number of vehicles contributing emissions within the Mount Baldy Class I airshed is not 

deemed measurable. In addition, the majority of motor vehicles are approved to meet EPA 

emission standards, which reduce off-forest impacts further. 

Regional Haze

Regional haze is a contributor to visibility impairment and has been documented in all Class I 

airsheds in Arizona and New Mexico. In the Intermountain West, sulfate, organics, and elemental 

carbon are the main cause of visibility impairment. Sources of regional haze contributing to the 

Mount Baldy Class I airshed are dust and smoke in the form of particulate matter (PM). 

In the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress established the requirements to address 

regional haze. They gave EPA the authority to establish visibility transport commissions and 

promulgated regulations to address regional haze. The 1990 amendments also established a 

visibility transport commission (Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission or GCVTC) to 

investigate and report on regional haze visibility impairment in Grand Canyon National Park and 

nearby Class I areas (including Mount Baldy). The assessment (GCVTC, 1996) indicated that 

road dust is a large contributor to visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau which includes 

the northern half of Arizona. Road dust is generated on the forests as well as off the forests on 

private, State, and tribal lands. Most of the roads on the Colorado Plateau are not paved and 

contribute to visibility impairment.

Smoke is also a contributor to regional haze. The State has developed statutes for the 

management of smoke within each smoke management zone (airshed) and regulates smoke from 

prescribed burning. Smoke management zones include multiple jurisdictions and landowners. 

This coordination results in mitigation of the cumulative effects of smoke from burning activities 

(see “Fire” section). 

Existing Impacts of Air Pollution 

from within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs management activities do not appreciably contribute to the six pollutants 

identified by the EPA, except for particulate matter. The primary source of particulate matter from 

the forests comes from road and fugitive dust and emissions from smoke, contributing to regional 

haze. Motor vehicle use on the forests also contributes vehicle emissions. 

Motor Vehicles

Motor vehicle emissions from within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are deemed negligible in 

relation to the Mount Baldy Class I airshed. The number of vehicles operating across the forests 

is not considered to measurably impact air quality. Additionally, Mount Baldy is located upwind 

of all roads on the forests and has few nearby roads which receive little traffic. In addition, the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

majority of motor vehicles are approved to meet EPA emission standards, which reduce forest 

impacts further.

Regional Haze

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs do not currently fall within nonattainment areas for any of the listed 

pollutants (EPA, 2006). According to Arizona regulations, this eliminates the need to do complex 

modeling or projections for minor projects and activities that do not have regional significance10. 

Burning does have regional significance; therefore, modeling and projections are conducted for 

all burning projects. Counties and municipalities may invoke additional requirements for projects 

or activities that are a source of pollutants; however, none have been identified in lands associated 

with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Dust generated from vehicles driving on unpaved NFS roads can contribute to regional haze. 

There is no direct relationship between miles of roads on the forests and actual miles traveled by 

motor vehicles. This is more a function of peak usage times such as during summer holidays 

when the forests get high use. During winter, the same roads generate almost no usage by 

vehicles. Additionally, dust generated from unpaved roads generally settles out within a short 

distance (around 20 feet) of the point of generation. Larger particle sizes of road dust drop out 

within tens of feet, while smaller particles drop out within a quarter mile. Unless winds carry road 

dust a farther distance, dust generated on the forests does not leave the forests.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Impacts of Air Pollution on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs from Outside Sources

In relation to sources of air pollution from outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, emissions from 

coal-fired power plants would likely remain the same or decrease in all alternatives, as would 

emissions from motor vehicles. Some contributors to regional haze related to wildfire, road, and 

windblown dust would increase. The State’s source emission projections describe decreases in 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, elemental carbon, and volatile organic compounds. Increases are 

projected in organic carbon, ammonia, and fine and coarse particles (ADEQ, 2011). These haze 

pollutants are monitored near Mount Baldy by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) (Colorado State University, 2006) program. 

None of Arizona’s Class I areas, including Mount Baldy, are projected to meet the Uniform Rate 

of Progress (URP) for 2018; however, most would be below baseline conditions (table 5). Many 

of the air pollutants that affect Arizona originate from sources outside Arizona, such as Mexico, 

and surrounding states, and many are due to natural conditions. The State has a list of strategies 

(long-term strategy or LTS) to address regional haze visibility impairment in each Class I area in 

Arizona. For further information on the LTS, refer to the 2011 State Implementation Plan 

at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/plan/notmeet.html.

 10 The State Implementation Plan (40 CFR 51.309(d)(7)) (ADEQ, 2003) for Arizona from December 23, 2003, states

“road dust is not a measurable contributor on a regional level to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas. Due to 

this finding, no additional road dust control strategies are needed...”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 49

Table 5. Summary of 2018 projected visibility conditions1

Class I Area

20% Worst Days Visibility (dv2) 20% Best Days Visibility (dv)

Worst Day 

Baseline 

(2004)

2018 

URP3 Go

al

2018 

Projected 

Visibility

Best 

Days 

Baseline 

(2004)

2018 

Projected 

Visibility

2018 

Projected 

less than 

Baseline

Mount Baldy 

Wilderness

11.85 10.54 11.52 2.98 2.12 Yes

1

Information from ADEQ 2011 State Implementation Plan (p. 81).

2

A deciview is the change in the haze index which is derived using a complex calculation from measured particulate 

concentrations data. One deciview is considered a humanly perceptible change under ideal conditions, regardless of 

background visibility conditions (ADEQ, 2011).

3

The uniform rate of progress (URP) is the calculation of the slope of the line between baseline visibility conditions 

and the natural visibility condition over the 60-year period to 2064. For the first regional haze plan, the first 

benchmark is the deciview (dv) level that should be achieved in 2018 (ADEQ, 2011).

Impacts of Air Pollution from within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

There would be continued use of forest roads by motor vehicles, which is expected to increase 

over the next 15 years. Under all alternatives, the environmental consequences from motor 

vehicle emissions would be slightly higher than described in the affected environment due to 

increased forest use; however, emissions would not be expected to measurably impact air quality. 

The Class I airshed above Mount Baldy would continue to be in attainment of air quality 

standards and would continue to meet NAAQ standards as set by EPA. 

Use of motor vehicles on unpaved roads would also increase over the existing condition. This 

would result in the generation of dust, which is not expected to cause impairment in visibility and 

would not cause a measurable impact to the Class I airshed at Mount Baldy. Any proposed forest 

management activities that would contribute dust would adhere to air quality standards as set by 

EPA and ADEQ and the effects would be mitigated at the project level. 

Dust Generated from 

Mechanical Treatments

The soils of the forests’ undisturbed 

ecosystems resist wind through 

plant or litter cover, as well as 

naturally occurring crusts known as 

macrobiotic soil crusts. Soil crusts 

are fragile; however, they resist 

wind and help prevent dust particles 

from becoming airborne. When the 

crust is broken through mechanical 

activities or disturbance such as 

grazing, small particles can get into 

the air during the activity or later 

during high wind events. Under all 

Figure 6. Aerial view of Mount Baldy Wilderness 

Photo from ADEQ 2011 State Implementation Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

alternatives, all land disturbing activities, including burning, would have site-specific best 

management practices (BMPs) or soil and water conservation practices (SWCPs) (Forest Service 

Handbook 2509.23 R3) that prescribe measures to reduce or mitigate formation of fugitive dust 

either by preventing loss of protective ground cover or by requiring reestablishment of ground 

cover.

Dust generated from mechanical treatments would potentially be greatest under alternative C, 

which proposes the highest amount of mechanical treatment and associated road use, and it would 

be less in alternative B, then alternative D, where burning treatment acres are much higher than 

mechanical treatment acres and least in alternative D, then A. 

Road dust and dust generated from mechanized equipment would be largely dependent upon the 

season of use, the amount of traffic, rainfall patterns, and materials selected for road construction. 

This dust generally settles quickly, but it can become fugitive dust where conditions are typically 

dry and/or where roads are constructed from fine-grained materials and do not have a paved or 

gravel surface. Dust mitigation (e.g., road watering, surfacing, or chemical treatment) may occur 

in high traffic areas to improve road visibility and where activities are close to private land or 

large campgrounds to prevent impacts to human health. 

Dust Generated from Recreation Activities 

Recreation use of the transportation system can occur at varying levels of intensity in late 

spring/early summer and late fall months, when dust can be problematic. Recreation use can 

occur on any open road. One of the most popular recreation uses on the forests is driving for 

pleasure (Kocis et al., 2002). Dust abatement measures may not be applied on most system roads 

due to budget limitations, and they would not occur on non-NFS roads. Dust generated from 

recreation activities may increase in the long term as the general population increases in all 

alternatives; however, alternative C emphasizes motorized recreation opportunities more than 

the other alternatives; consequently, it would result in the highest level of dust generated from 

recreation activities. 

Dust Generated from Grazing Activities

Under all alternatives, grazing management use of the transportation system is limited and 

effects to air quality from this activity would not be measurable. Fugitive dust may be generated 

in areas with the highest livestock concentration or from vehicles accessing allotments to conduct 

livestock management. There is no measurable difference expected between alternatives as 

related to dust generated from livestock grazing activities. BMPs should be effective in retaining 

protective ground cover, reducing exposed soil susceptible to wind erosion, and creation of dust.

Dust Generated from Special Uses 

Under all alternatives, road use associated with mineral or energy development may require dust 

abatement measures. Implementation of dust abatement measures would reduce or eliminate 

impacts to air quality. There are no formal applications currently known. Effects of dust would be 

analyzed prior to issuance of each special use permit.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 51

Climate Change

Based on current climate models, the climate change factors that may influence smoke and dust 

are a projected increase in wildfire risk and a projected increase in national forest socioeconomic 

uses and demands. These indicate the need to improve forest health to reduce fire risk, as well as 

preparing for increased use of forest materials and greater demand for recreation. All alternatives

include desired conditions to manage for healthy, resilient forests, reduce uncharacteristic 

wildfire, and provide wood products and recreation opportunities. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative environmental consequences are spatially bounded by an area much larger than 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Some effects are limited to local airsheds which generally follow 

watershed boundaries. Others, such as those affecting visibility, can be generated as far away as 

Mexico or California. Long-range transport of pollutants were analyzed and displayed in the 2011 

SIP (ADEQ, 2011). 

Pollutants generated from off-forest activities that affect the forests’ visibility at the local 

watershed level include road dust, prescribed fires, and emissions from industrial sources. Road 

dust is generated off-forest on private, State, and tribal lands in addition to dust generated onforest. Most of the roads on the Colorado Plateau are not paved. Vehicle use off-forest combined 

with vehicle use on-forest would occur in all alternatives and could contribute to visibility 

impairment.

Prescribed fires on other lands within the same airshed may affect the ability of the forests to use 

prescribed fire under all alternatives due to the cumulative environmental consequences of 

smoke. Wildfires are exempt from this rule, but they also may affect the ability of the forests to 

use prescribed fire in other areas due to the cumulative environmental consequences of smoke. 

Smoke is also a contributor to regional haze.

In addition, coal-fired generating plants would continue to contribute pollutants known to degrade 

air quality as described in the affected environment. Emissions are closely monitored and 

generating plants are regulated by the State as meeting best available control technology when 

new units are constructed or old units are refurbished. Emissions such as sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxides are expected to be reduced as a result in the future (ADEQ, 2011). 

Soil

This section analyzes the soil resource by describing the current soil condition and projected 

trends in soil condition by alternative. It also describes the potential effects associated with 

management activities that could affect soil condition. The alternatives are compared using the 

average treatment level.

The forests use soil condition as a descriptive indicator of general soil health. Soil condition is 

based on the primary soil functions of soil hydrology, soil stability, and nutrient cycling. The 

current soil condition rating is described in the “Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest 

Service, 2008e) and is based on how departed soils are from the reference condition. The 

projected trends in soil condition are based on estimates of vegetative ground cover, soil 

productivity, and organic matter. The full analysis for soil resources can be found in the “Soils 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012w) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

The 2011 Wallow Fire had dramatic effects on soil conditions, including an estimated 29 percent 

increase in impaired and unsatisfactory conditions. Details can be found in the “Soils Specialist 

Report.” Estimated time for recovery to satisfactory conditions within the burned area depends on 

many factors including pre-burn conditions, burn severity, post-fire treatments, and management 

and weather patterns. Ground cover is expected to increase enough in high and moderate burn 

severity areas to bring erosion rates to a level where long-term soil productivity is no longer at 

risk within 5 years where soils are capable (Forest Service, 2008e; Forest Service, 2010j; Elliot, 

2001). Many areas treated with mulch and seeding have already stabilized. The forestwide soil 

condition trend estimates described in table 7 do not reflect changed conditions from the 2011 

Wallow Fire.

Affected Environment

Soils of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Soils are a physical element of the environment made up of mineral particles (e.g., sand, silt, 

clay), air, water, and organic matter. Soils form by the interaction between climate, organisms,

topography, parent material, and time. Soils store water, supply nutrients for plants, and provide a 

medium for plant growth. Soils also provide habitat for a diverse number of belowground 

organisms. Due to their slow rate of formation, soils are essentially a nonrenewable resource.

The forests soils are described in the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs” (TES) (Laing et al., 1987). The TES is the result of the systematic analysis, mapping, 

classification, and interpretation of terrestrial ecosystems, also known as ecological types, 

delineated in ecological units. It stems from decades of work and is the only complete mapping of 

vegetation and soils available across the forests that include field validated and correlated sites 

meeting regional and national protocol. Soils of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have developed 

primarily from sedimentary and volcanic origins. Soils range from very shallow to deep and old 

and well developed to recent and less developed. They occur on all slope ranges from nearly level 

to very steep. 

Soil Condition 

Soil condition is a descriptive indicator of general soil health. Soil condition is primarily 

determined by evaluating surface soil properties. This is the critical area where plant and animal 

organic matter accumulate, begin to decompose, and eventually become incorporated into soil. It 

is also the zone of maximum biological activity and nutrient release. The physical condition of 

this zone plays a significant role in soil stability, nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and energy 

flows. The presence and distribution of the surface soil is critically important to productivity.

Soil condition is based on an interpretation of factors which affect three primary soil functions: 

soil hydrology, soil stability, and nutrient cycling, all of which are interrelated. Soil condition is 

categorized by four classes: satisfactory, impaired, unsatisfactory, and inherently unstable. The 

following definitions describe each class:

• Satisfactory: Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is 

functioning properly and normally. The ability of the soil to maintain resource values and 

sustain outputs is high.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 53

• Impaired: Indicators signify a reduction in soil function. The ability of the soil to 

function properly and normally has been reduced and/or there exists an increased 

vulnerability to degradation. An impaired category indicates there is a need to investigate 

the ecosystem to determine the cause and degree of decline in soil functions. Changes in 

land management practices or other preventative measures may be appropriate.

• Unsatisfactory: Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred. Degradation 

of vital soil functions results in the inability of the soil to maintain resource values, 

sustain outputs, or recover from impacts. Unsatisfactory soils are candidates for improved 

management practices or restoration designed to recover soil functions. 

• Inherently Unstable: These soils have natural erosion exceeding tolerable limits and are 

eroding faster than they are renewing themselves, but they are functioning properly and 

normally.

Current soil condition was developed for the forests during this analysis, using TES ecological 

map units as a basis. It is summarized by PNVT to help describe conditions where past 

management activities and proposed treatments may be similar. Table 6 displays the percent of 

each current soil condition class (with the desired soil condition class percentage in parentheses) 

for each PNVT. 

Approximately half of the PNVTs have a majority of satisfactory soil conditions (6 out of 14 

PNVTs). Impaired soils are dominant on most of the remaining types (5 out of 14 PNVTs). There 

are three PNVTs with large extents of unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil conditions: 

Madrean pine-oak woodland, interior chaparral, and semi-desert grassland. PNVTs with 

satisfactory soil condition have natural overstory canopy cover levels to allow for the desired 

amount of plant and litter ground cover. They have unaltered or natural levels of soil hydrologic 

function, such as high infiltration rates, high capacity for soil moisture storage, strong structure 

and soil pores to aid transmission of water deeper into the soil profile. They are stable and readily 

cycle nutrients for improved plant growth. 

Woodland and grassland PNVTs with soil condition less than satisfactory tend to have unnaturally 

dense overstory canopy cover levels, reduced levels of vegetative ground cover, poor distribution 

of vegetative ground cover (plant basal area and litter), and reduced soil hydrologic function. 

They are generally not stable and may have reduced levels of nutrient availability. They also can 

be in areas where uncharacteristic wildfire has altered canopy and ground cover levels, altered 

infiltration rates, and high levels of soil erosion. 

Table 6. Current and desired soil condition1 class as a percent of each PNVT; ( ) indicates 

desired condition

PNVT

Soil Condition Class (Desired Soil Condition Class)

by Percent of Each PNVT

Satisfactory Impaired Unsatisfactory Inherently 

Unstable

Ponderosa Pine Forest 94% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

6% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 87% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

13% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT

Soil Condition Class (Desired Soil Condition Class)

by Percent of Each PNVT

Satisfactory Impaired Unsatisfactory Inherently 

Unstable

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 100% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Spruce-Fir Forest 100% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 4% 

(37–42%)

9% 

(0–5%)

29% 

(0%)

58%

(0%)

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 16% 

(85–90%)

74% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

10%

(10%)

Interior Chaparral 0% 

(14–19%)

0% 

(0–5%)

19% 

(0%)

81%

(81%)

Great Basin Grassland 5% 

(95–100%)

92% 

(0–5%)

3% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Semi-desert Grassland 7% 

(42–47%)

26% 

(0–5%)

15% 

(0%)

53%

(53%)

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 92% 

(95–100%)

8% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian 

Forest

25% 

(85–90%)

57% 

(0–5%)

8% 

(0%)

10%

(10%)

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest

28% 

(95–100%)

64% 

(0–5%)

8% 

(0%)

10%

(0%)

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 28% 

(95–100%)

68% 

(0–5%)

4% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 100% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

1 Condition is a pre-Wallow Fire estimate.

Soil Crusts

An important component that affects soil condition is the condition of soil crusts. Macrobiotic 

crusts are the community of organisms living at the surface of soils. Major component are 

cyanobacteria, green algae, microfungi, mosses, liverworts, and lichens. Biological soil crusts are 

commonly found in semiarid and arid environments and have been observed in coarse-textured 

soils predominantly in piñon-juniper woodlands, semi-desert grasslands, and desert communities 

on the forests, and to a limited extent, in other vegetation dryer than piñon-juniper woodlands. Of 

most importance is the role crusts play in maintaining productivity of the semi-desert and Great 

Basin grassland and woodland ecosystems. Mosses and other crust-forming organisms are found 

in wetter environments but are less important to overall soil productivity. 

Crusts are well adapted to severe growing conditions but poorly adapted to compressional 

disturbances. Domestic livestock and elk grazing and recreation activities (e.g., hiking and biking 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 55

cross country, motorized cross-country travel) place a heavy toll on the integrity of the crusts. 

Disruption of the crusts brings decreased organism diversity, soil nutrients, stability (and 

increased soil loss), and decreased organic matter and soil productivity. Studies of trampling 

disturbance have noted that losses of moss cover, lichen cover, and cyanobacterial presence can 

be severe (10 percent, 33 percent, and 50 percent respectively), runoff can increase by half, and 

the rate of soil loss can increase six times without apparent damage to vegetation. Ungulate 

grazing where crusts are present poses an unquantifiable risk to soil productivity and ecosystem 

diversity and those species that depend on soil crust habitat for their survival (Johnston, 1997).

According to Belnap et al. (2001), biological crusts are generally killed by hot ground fires, 

resulting in loss of biomass and visible cover (Johansen et al., 1993). Frequent burning prevents 

recovery of lichens and mosses, leaving only a few species of cyanobacteria (Whisenant, 1990). 

Damage and recovery of biological crusts depends on pre-fire conditions, as well as 

characteristics of the fire. Historic burning left small patches of unburned areas between 

bunchgrasses, or at larger scales, it left patches of unburned shrubs across the landscape. This left 

a mosaic of successional stages and provided regeneration material for fire damaged areas 

(Whisenant, 1990; Peters and Bunting, 1994).

In most areas where crusts have been observed, they currently cover less than 5 percent of the soil 

surface. There are areas within the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire within the ponderosa pine and 

piñon-juniper PNVTs that have developed macrobiotic crusts (up to 10 percent ground cover). 

Past Management Impacts on Soil Condition

Before European settlement, soil loss, soil compaction, and nutrient cycling would likely have 

been within functional limits to sustain soil function and maintain soil productivity for most soils. 

The exception to this could be relatively short-term effects of wildfire during times of drought. 

Soil condition would have been similar on similar soils throughout the range of the PNVTs both 

within and outside of the forests.

Much of the current soil condition is related to past management on the forests. Soil condition is 

impacted by activities that occur or recur at the same place over time. Permanent loss of soil 

productivity affects the future level of forest products and beneficial uses of the forests. 

Management activities that have affected soil condition include timber harvesting, prescribed 

fires, road construction and use, recreation facilities maintenance and use, grazing, and special 

uses. Some examples of impacts that have affected current soil condition on the forests include:

• Heavily compacted soils from forest restoration treatments, grazing, and recreation 

activities have caused or may cause reduced productivity for decades (Burger et al., 

1998). 

• Land disturbing activities have caused erosion of topsoil at rates greater than the soils 

natural ability to replace it (commonly referred to as soil loss tolerance rate) and resulting 

in permanent loss of soil productivity, as soils are considered a nonrenewable resource 

(Renard et al., 1997). 

• From 1902 to 1987, as more livestock numbers and acres were grazed, range condition 

(and soil condition) declined. As fewer number and acres were grazed, range condition 

and trends improved. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

56 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• According to Gori et al. (2007), livestock and large wildlife grazing removed fine fuels 

needed to carry surface and mixed-severity fires that likely maintained the more open 

structure and composition of piñon-juniper savannas and shrub woodlands historically. 

• Road corridors that make up the forests’ road system resulted in loss of soil productivity. 

• Mineral material extraction pits and mines resulted in permanent loss or reduction in soil 

productivity.

• Uncharacteristic wildfire resulted in erosion rates well beyond tolerance erosion rates.

• Areas within administration and recreation sites have reduced soil productivity.

• Permanent special use sites—such as communication towers and buildings—eliminated 

soil productivity within the footprint of such structures.

There are activities that have improved soil condition, as well as removed risk to soil productivity 

such as:

• Prescribed fire has removed fuels and undesirable plant material which impede 

vegetation growth and condition.

• Thinning dense forest, woodland, and invaded grassland canopy treatments have reduced 

light and water competition for desired understory grasses and shrubs.

• Channel restoration projects have restored bank and vertical streambed stability and 

reestablished groundwater table levels resulting in increased vegetation/soil productivity. 

• Closure of maintenance level 1 roads and decommissioning or removal of unneeded 

roads has resulted in revegetation of old roadbeds.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Soil Condition Trends

Generally, alternative A would trend away from desired conditions for soil condition and could 

result in additional areas with reduced soil function and increased vulnerability to degradation. 

The action alternatives would trend toward or would be static in most cases and would have the 

most areas where soil function is sustained and functioning properly and normally. 

Table 7 displays the projected trends in soil condition based on estimates of the soil condition 

indicators of vegetative ground cover, soil loss, and organic matter, by alternative. Soil conditions 

were estimated for each PNVT to determine whether conditions would generally trend toward, 

away, or remain static with the implementation of objectives of each alternative. Desired 

condition is described as satisfactory condition. Departure is the relative difference between 

satisfactory and either impaired or unsatisfactory condition. The estimated trends do not take into 

consideration the effects to soil condition from the Wallow Fire. The effects of the Wallow Fire 

were not included in this determination as conditions are quite variable by PNVT within the 

perimeter of the fire. The general trend would be that the area is improving at natural recovery 

rates. Current management within the Wallow Fire burned area ranges from complete avoidance

to active management. Plans are not currently in place to determine where future activities would 

occur.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 57

Table 7. Estimated trends in soil condition during the planning period for each PNVT by 

alternative

PNVT Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Current Departure 

From DC

Ponderosa Pine Forest Toward Toward Toward Toward Slight

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest Toward Toward Toward Toward Slight

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest Static Static Static Static None

Spruce-Fir Forest Static Static Static Static None

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland Static Toward Toward Toward Moderate

Piñon-Juniper Woodland Toward Toward Toward Toward High

Interior Chaparral Static Static Static Static Slight

Great Basin Grassland Away Toward Away Toward Very High

Semi-desert Grassland Away Toward Away Toward Moderate

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands

Away Away Static Away None

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian 

Forest

Away Toward Away Toward High

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Forest

Away Static Away Static High

Montane Willow Riparian 

Forest

Away Toward Static Toward High

Wetland/Cienega Riparian 

Areas

Away Static Static Static None

When PNVTs are closer to their desired conditions, they are more likely to contribute to 

satisfactory soil conditions. This is because the type and amount of ground cover provides 

resistance to soil erosion and enhances nutrient cycling and water infiltration by decreasing 

overland flow rates. A major consideration in predicting ground cover conditions is to compare 

the current departure of existing vegetative condition and the expected outcomes by alternative 

(see “Vegetation” section) to determine whether vegetative conditions are moving toward desired 

conditions, are static, or are moving away from them. 

Soil conditions within riparian areas are tied closely to proper functioning condition (PFC). 

Riparian areas that are functioning properly have satisfactory soil condition. These soils have 

adequate vegetation to withstand bank erosion from high flows and trap sediment to form stable 

floodplains. Functioning-at-risk or not functioning riparian areas generally do not have stable, 

productive soils. During high flows, ground cover and vegetation are generally not adequate to 

protect soils and the result is impaired soil condition. Soil condition trends in riparian areas are 

tied directly to the predicted riparian area trends (see “Riparian” section).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

58 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Soil Crusts

Macrobiotic crusts are affected directly through physical damage and alteration of habitat. 

Compressional forces compact the soils’ hydrologic function, which could provide less water and 

nutrients to biological crusts. Across all alternatives, it is estimated that ongoing, improved cattle 

management on the forests would benefit biological crusts through decreased trampling as 

allowable use is aligned with available forage and capacity of the land. In addition, estimated 

increases in forage would benefit crusts by reducing the pressure from grazing. In all action 

alternatives, because motorized cross-country travel would not be allowed, the elimination of 

most off-road use will benefit crusts by removing direct damage from compaction and soil 

displacement generated from wheeled vehicles. Alternative A does not eliminate recreational offroad use.

Fire is used in all alternatives and can kill biological crusts and alter soil properties. Individual 

ground-disturbing projects, including burning, will require site-specific analysis to mitigate 

effects to biological crusts, especially in the woodland and grassland PNVTs. 

Forest Restoration Activities

Mechanical Treatments

Mechanical treatments may impact soil hydrologic function, soil stability, and nutrient cycling 

through soil compaction and removal of ground cover. Alternative C proposes the most 

mechanical harvest treatments and, thus, the most risk to soil compaction and ground cover 

removal, followed by alternatives B, D, and A. See table 8 below for treatment objective levels 

(acres) of mechanical harvest treatments.

Table 8. Average annual mechanical treatment objectives (acres) for each alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

12,1821 19,591 23,997 15,954

1 Based on the past 25-year average of vegetation treatments.

The bulk of treatments in alternative C would be in the ponderosa pine PNVT on level to 

moderately steep landscapes. 

In all alternatives, soil compaction, which reduces the soils ability to absorb water and nutrients, 

could result from timber harvesting operations. The amount of soil compaction is dependent on 

harvest methods, amount of slash in traffic lanes, operator technique, and soil conditions and 

properties (Page-Dumroese et al., 2010). Project-level activities would follow BMPs and SWCPs 

and develop mitigations that would result in minimal soil compaction. 

Ground cover may be disturbed during mechanical treatments (including the removal of 

vegetation) and may, therefore, result in some exposure of mineral soil. Although timber 

harvesting operations may result in some local soil movement, soil displacement and soil erosion 

are expected to be minor because most harvest units are designed to have slopes that are not steep 

(less than 35 percent), with short slope lengths, and adequate ground cover and topsoil would 

remain intact. BMPs and SWCPs (Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 R3) are effective in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 59

mitigating ground disturbance as well as intercepting sediment in runoff. Slash distribution in cut 

units following timber harvesting may also protect exposed mineral soils from raindrop impacts 

and erosion.

Burning Treatments

All alternatives propose the use of prescribed fire for fuel reduction and ecosystem restoration. 

Use of prescribed fire allows the manager the opportunity to control the severity of the fire and to 

avoid creating large areas burned at high severity.

Alternative D prescribes the most fire for ecosystem restoration, followed by alternatives B, C, 

and then A (table 9). Fire treatments range from low severity broadcast burning for ground fuel 

reduction to mixed- or high-severity burns (in patches) designed to kill overstory vegetation and 

reduce canopy cover to a desired level. Alternatives B and D propose the most acres of mixedand high-severity burns. These generally may occur in priority watersheds away from urban 

interface areas. Alternatives A and C have the fewest acres of mixed- and high-severity burns in 

forested PNVTs; however, mixed- and high-severity fires in woodland PNVTs and grassland 

PNVTs that are encroached by piñon and juniper species are prescribed. Table 10 describes the 

environmental consequences to soil condition based on fire severity.

Table 9. Annual burning treatments (acres) and estimated fire severity by alternative

Estimated Fire 

Severity Alt. A1 Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Low Severity

6,844

3,770 3,350 7,570

Mixed Severity 29,630 10,300 47,250

High Severity 2,050 1,280 2,960

1 Based on the past 25-year average of burning treatments. No breakdown of burn type is available; however, 

the vast majority (95 percent) is estimated to be low severity. Burning planned in riparian areas not included.

Table 10. Burn characteristics and effects to soil function by fire severity

Low Severity Mixed Severity High Severity 

Burn 

Characteristics

Broadcast burns reduce 

fuel loading either for 

pre- or post- restoration 

treatment.

Removes some ladder 

fuels.

Reduces risk of crown 

fire. 

Some moderate and high 

severity in patches to 

improve structural 

diversity and open canopy.

Allows for regeneration of 

shade-intolerant species 

and restores ecologic 

condition in most PNVTs.

Some stand replacement, high 

severity burns in small stands to 

improve structural diversity and 

open canopy.

Allows for regeneration of shadeintolerant species and restores 

ecologic condition in selected 

PNVTs.

Effects to Soil 

Function

Little to no effect to soil 

functions at all scales.

Soil chemical, physical, 

and biological function 

retained in greater than 85 

percent within treated 

areas at the fine and mid 

scales.

Soil chemical, physical, and 

biological functions may be 

impacted and require rehabilitation 

treatments.

Soil function retained is >85 

percent within treated areas at the 

fine and mid scales.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Prescribed fires and wildfires managed for multiple resource objectives may negatively affect 

soil’s physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. The most important physical 

characteristic of soil that affects its hydrologic function and stability is soil structure. The organic 

matter component, which provides for loose, granular structure, can be lost at relatively low 

temperatures. The loss of soil structure increases the bulk density of the soil and reduces its 

porosity, thereby reducing soil productivity and making the soil more vulnerable to post-fire 

runoff and erosion. 

Loss of organic matter due to soil heating during fires negatively affects the most basic soil 

chemical properties (Neary et al., 2005). Soil organic matter plays a key role in nutrient cycling 

and exchange, and water retention in soils. When organic matter is combusted, the stored 

nutrients are either lost to the atmosphere or are changed into highly available forms that can be 

taken up readily by microbial organisms and vegetation. The available nutrients not immobilized 

are easily lost by leaching or surface runoff and erosion. Nitrogen is the most important nutrient 

affected by fire, and it is easily lost from the site at relatively low temperatures. The amount of 

change in organic matter and nitrogen is directly related to the magnitude of soil heating and the 

severity of the fire. High- and moderate-severity fires cause the greatest losses. Nitrogen loss by 

volatilization during fires is of particular concern on low-fertility sites because nitrogen can only 

be replaced by nitrogen-fixing organisms. 

Cations (soil nutrients) are not easily volatilized and usually remain on the site in a highly 

available form. An abundance of cations can be found in the thick ash layers (or ashbed) 

remaining on the soil surface following high-severity fires. Soils inherently low in nutrients and 

thin soils are most impacted by high-severity fires, as nutrients are lost. These fragile soils would 

be identified at the project level and protection measures would be prescribed. 

Soil biology is also affected by fire. How soil microorganisms respond to fire depends on 

numerous factors, including fire severity, site characteristics, and pre-burn community 

composition. Some generalities can be made. First, most studies have shown strong resilience by 

microbial communities to fire. Recolonization to pre-burn levels is common, with the amount of 

time required for recovery generally varying in proportion to fire severity. Second, the effect of 

fire is greatest in the forest floor (litter and duff). Fires such as prescribed burning, that consume 

major fuels but protect forest floor, humus layers, and soil, are recommended. (Neary et al., 2005)

Motorized Routes 

The road system that is analyzed is the same for all alternatives. The road system results in a net 

loss of soil productivity within the road corridor, including cut and fill slopes. Roads are the 

dominant source of erosion and sediment in forests (Swank, 1989; MacDonald and Coe, 2008). 

Some roads are located in areas more sensitive than others, such as along riparian areas or in 

areas of inherently unstable soils. Removal of roads in riparian areas would eliminate direct 

deposition of sediment and would allow for channel widening where needed, expansion of plants, 

and floodplain development. There are a large number of unauthorized routes contributing to loss 

of soil productivity as well. Table 11 displays objective levels for road removal by alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 61

Table 11. Motorized routes treatment objectives by alternative

Objective Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Minimum amount of NFS roads or 

trails that negatively impact streams 

or riparian areas to be relocated, 

repaired, improved, or 

decommissioned

Opportunity 4 miles/planning 

period

Opportunity 4 miles/planning 

period

Average amount of unauthorized 

roads or trails that negatively 

impact streams or riparian areas to 

be removed

Opportunity 2 miles/year 3 miles/year 3 miles/year

The road system (miles, management level, and location) is the same for all alternatives; 

however, use of roads and the additional amount of level 1 roads are estimated to be higher in 

alternative C followed by alternatives B, D, and then A, because alternatives C and B have 

the greatest percentage of timber harvest/mechanical restoration treatments of all alternatives. 

Motorized recreation is also emphasized in alternative C. 

New road construction is generally not required for timber harvesting within the planning area;

however, the reopening of level 1 (those roads placed in storage between intermittent uses) 

increases the amount of open roads and the amount of soil erosion that occurs during the life of a 

project. Occasionally, temporary road construction would also remove vegetation along the road 

corridor, expose mineral soil, and result in soil compaction along the roadbed. Typically, there is a 

pulse of erosion from roads during the first 2 years following road construction or reopening 

(MacDonald and Coe, 2008; Megahan, 1974). Slope failures and mass movement of soils may 

occur as the result of road construction. New roads or reopening closed roads may also provide an 

avenue for the invasion and establishment of invasive plant species. Temporary roads would be 

removed and revegetated following use. Road design, avoidance of problem soils, appropriate 

design criteria, and road closures would be implemented in order to minimize impacts to soils. 

Recreation Activities 

Recreation use and demand is estimated proportionately for all alternatives with the increase in 

population. Recreation uses shown to impact soils include camping, hiking, mountain biking, and 

horseback riding. All of these activities may result in erosion and compaction. Impacts tend to be 

minor and may occur on only a small percentage of the planning area. Implementing site-specific 

BMPs and SWCPs for recreation projects would minimize adverse soil impacts. The impacts 

from recreation could occur under all alternatives. No recreation development is specifically 

outlined in any alternative.

Alternative A would continue to allow motorized cross-country travel. Motorized cross-country 

travel would increase the potential for sediment delivery to streams, reduce soil productivity due 

to compaction and erosion, and destroy vegetative cover and natural ground litter. Cross-county 

motorized travel also could destroy biological soil crusts. The action alternatives would 

eliminate motorized cross-country travel. Erosion and sediment transport would be reduced as 

disturbed areas revegetate and there would be less physical impact to biological soil crusts. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Grazing Activities

Grazing would continue under all alternatives. Livestock and wildlife grazing has the potential 

to reduce soil condition through hoof compaction and the removal of protective vegetation and, 

subsequently, ground cover. The effects to soil condition would be reduced soil hydrologic 

function in highly compacted concentration areas and reduced soil stability from loss of ground 

cover wherever overutilization of available forage occurs. Grazing cattle would not be considered 

detrimental where sufficient herbaceous material remains to protect the soils during periods of 

intense summer rains or during spring runoff. Site-specific BMPs and SWCPs would provide 

protection from the effects of grazing and are prescribed in project-level analysis. 

Differences in soil condition, as related to grazing impacts between alternatives, are indirectly 

tied to the level of restoration treatments provided for each alternative. Decreased overstory 

canopy cover, as prescribed in the desired conditions, would potentially increase the understory 

vegetation, as treatments are implemented and maintained. The relationship between overstory 

cover and herbaceous production has been studied in Arizona forests (Jameson, 1967; Thill et al., 

1983). Increased understory vegetation would indirectly reduce grazing pressure as treatments 

progress across the forests, because it would increase available forage and allow range managers 

increased flexibility in management to favor rehabilitation or rest in areas currently not in 

satisfactory soil condition, such as found in riparian, grassland, and woodland vegetation. Direct 

impacts to soils from grazing are analyzed at the project level, and effects are mitigated and 

monitored.

All alternatives would prescribe treatments that improve the vegetation conditions on uplands to 

more open conditions. By reducing tree canopy, there would be an increase in available forage for 

grazing animals. This would provide an opportunity for reduced grazing pressure on riparian 

areas from both domestic and wild animals. Alternative B then D would provide the most 

opportunity for soil condition improvement or protection because of predicted forage increases in 

all open canopy PNVTs, as well as direct treatment objectives in riparian areas. Alternative C

would provide upland improvement in open forested and grassland PNVTs; however, it provides 

for less forage improvement in woodland or riparian PNVTs. Alternative A would provide 

improvements in soil conditions in open forested and grassland PNVTs. Grazing management 

plans would provide mitigation to protect sensitive areas from domestic use, including riparian, 

where often times, grazing exclusion is the only option. Wildlife impacts generally would not be 

mitigated. 

Special Uses 

Terms and conditions of special use permits would require site-specific BMPs to provide for 

maintenance of soil productivity in all alternatives. Therefore, there are no anticipated effects to 

soil condition from permitted special use activities.

Climate Change

Based on current climate models, some of the climate change factors that may influence soil 

condition are: 

• More extreme natural ecological process events, including wildfires, intense rains, flash 

floods, and wind events (Swetnam and Betancourt, 1997).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 63

• Greater vulnerability to invasive species, including insects, plants, fungi, and vertebrates 

(Joyce et al., 2006).

• Long-term shifts in vegetation patterns (Westerling et al., 2006; Millar et al., 2007).

• Cold-tolerant vegetation moving upslope or disappearing in some areas; migration of 

some plant species to the more northern portions of their existing range (Clark, 1998).

• Potential decreases in overall forest productivity due to reduced precipitation (Forest 

Service, 2008e).

• Potential lower vigor and productivity of forage plants and, thus, overall soil conditions. 

• Potential decrease in forage production and shortened growing and grazing season.

• Potential flashfloods and increased risk of animal disease could adversely affect the 

livestock industry (Joyce et al., 2001) dependent upon the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ forage 

resources. 

• Potential decline if adjustments to grazing numbers, based on allowable forage, are not 

made to respond to productivity decreases from climate change. 

In light of the changes indicated above, there is a need to reduce vulnerability by maintaining and 

restoring resilient native ecosystems. Restoring and maintaining resilience in forest, woodland, 

chaparral, grassland, and riparian ecosystems would be an outcome in alternatives B, D, C, and 

A (in order from greatest resilience to least). Restoring and maintaining resilience would likely 

improve the potential for ecosystems to retain or return to desired conditions after being 

influenced by climate change related impacts and variability. Management practices that sustain 

healthy plant and animal communities (e.g., thinning for age class diversity and structure and 

reclaiming and restoring native grasslands) and provide adequate nutrients, soil productivity, and 

hydrologic function promote resilience and reduce opportunities for disturbance and damage. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Potential cumulative environmental consequences from or to other land owners, when added to 

the environmental consequences listed above for all alternatives, include:

• Soil loss through wind or water erosion leaving the forests or sediment coming onto the 

forests could reduce soil productivity. 

• Airborne deposition of pollutants could reduce soil productivity; however, it is currently 

not contributing to a measureable reduction and it is not expected to in the future (see 

“Air Quality” section).

Watershed

Watershed condition is the state of the physical and biological characteristics and processes 

within a watershed that affect the hydrologic and soil functions that support aquatic ecosystems. 

For this analysis, watershed conditions were assessed at the 6th level HUC (hydrologic unit code) 

which was determined to be the most appropriate scale for programmatic planning. The initial 

assessment of watershed condition was conducted in March 2011 using the national watershed 

condition framework (WCF) and assessment tool (Potyandy and Geier, 2010). The WCF provides 

a consistent way to evaluate watershed condition at both the national and forest levels. The WCF 

consists of reconnaissance level assessments by individual national forests, implementation of 

integrated improvement activities within priority watersheds, monitoring of watershed condition 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

class changes, and aggregation of program performance data for national reporting. The specific 

watershed condition ratings by each 6th level HUC watershed can be found in the “Watershed 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012aa) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The environmental consequences section provides a qualitative assessment of forecasted trends in 

watershed conditions by alternative based on the concept of concentrating restoration treatments 

within priority watersheds and, in a more general sense, describing potential effects from forest 

restoration activities, recreation activities and roads, grazing, special uses, and climate change on 

watershed condition. The full analysis for watershed condition can be found in the “Watershed 

Specialist Report.”

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• Priority watersheds are designated where the primary purpose of restoration activities 

would be to improve watershed condition. The selection of these watersheds is ongoing; 

and, once selected, will be a major consideration for implementation of projects in some 

alternatives.

• The following sections qualitatively describe and compare the effects to watershed 

condition by the types of activities allowed under the description of the alternatives and 

how each alternative influences where work would be concentrated.

Affected Environment

Watershed condition reflects a range of variability from natural pristine (properly functioning) to 

degraded (severely altered state or impaired). Watersheds in properly functioning condition have 

terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems that capture, store, and release water, sediment, wood, 

and nutrients similar to their reference conditions. Properly functioning watersheds create and 

sustain functional terrestrial, riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats capable of supporting diverse 

populations of native aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. The greater the departure from the 

natural pristine state, the more impaired the watershed condition is likely to be, up to the point of 

being severely altered. 

Watershed condition classification is the process of describing watershed condition by discrete 

categories (or classes) that reflect the level of watershed health or integrity. Watersheds with high 

integrity are in proper functioning condition and represent ecosystems that show little or no 

influence from human actions.

There are three classes to describe watershed condition:

• Class 1 (Functioning): Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition and they are functioning properly. 

These are synonymous with functioning watersheds.

• Class 2 (Functioning-At-Risk): Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, 

and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition, and they are functioning, 

but at risk. These are synonymous with functioning-at-risk watersheds. 

• Class 3 (Impaired): Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition, and their function is impaired. These are 

synonymous with impaired watersheds. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 65

Table 12 below describes the number of 6th level HUCs within each watershed basin (3rd level 

HUC) by watershed condition class, and lists some of the common degrading factors that have 

resulted in reduced condition. According to the watershed condition framework, currently 32 

percent of forests’ one hundred and seventy 6th level HUCs are considered to be functioning 

properly (Class 1), 68 percent are functioning-at-risk (Class 2), and less than 1 percent are 

considered impaired (Class 3).

Table 12. Results of the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) for 6th level HUC 

watershed condition by watershed basin (3rd level HUC)

Watershed

Basin

Number of

6th Level 

HUCs1

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Common Degrading 

Factors

Little Colorado 

River

92 23 69 0 High road density, poor 

aquatic habitat conditions, 

poor fire regime conditions, 

poor aquatic biota conditions

Upper Gila River 55 20 35 0 Impaired soil conditions, 

poor fire regime conditions, 

poor aquatic habitat 

conditions

Upper Salt River 23 11 11 1 Poor aquatic habitat 

condition, poor fire regime 

conditions

Total

(Percent of Total)

170

(100%)

54

(32%)

115

(68%)

1

(< 1%)

1 Watersheds with minor amounts of NFS lands are not tallied.

Figure 7 shows the watershed condition rating across the forests. It displays watershed conditions 

prior to the 2011 Wallow Fire. Analysis of the watershed conditions within the burned area of the 

Wallow Fire will occur in 2012. There are 50 watersheds potentially affected. Some watersheds 

were heavily affected, resulting in a probable shift to a lower class. The effects of the fire to 

watershed condition in some of these watersheds were minimal. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 7. Map of watershed condition rating for 6th level HUC across the forests
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 67

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Alternatives are compared based on their ability to move watersheds toward properly functioning 

conditions. Ground-disturbing activities, such as restoration treatments, roads, recreation 

activities, grazing, and certain special uses have short- and long-term effects on watershed 

condition. 

Forest Restoration Activities

There are a variety of treatment methods prescribed in all alternatives that can improve the 

watershed condition, including several kinds of mechanical and fire treatments. Ecological 

condition is currently highly departed from desired conditions in many of the PNVTs. Vegetation 

ecological condition affects many of the attributes used to characterize watershed condition, such 

as soil and riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. 

Alternative A does not provide a focused approach to watershed restoration. Treatments would 

likely not be concentrated within priority watersheds and would not result in substantially 

removing degrading factors that cause functioning-at-risk or impaired watersheds to improve. 

Although the level of treatments is comparable or greater than other alternatives, it is unlikely that 

entire watersheds would be restored, except as opportunities arise. Alternatives B and D

concentrate treatments in priority watersheds which allows a better opportunity for restoring or 

maintaining watersheds across the forests. Alternative C also has an objective to treat priority 

watersheds. However, under alternative C, improvement of watershed conditions would be 

limited to those PNVTs that can contribute to economic sustainability (e.g., ponderosa pine that is 

on level terrain and near transportation routes) or within the Community-Forest Intermix 

Management Area (table 13).

Table 13. Priority watershed treatment objective, basis, and priority by alternative

Alternative

Number of Priority 

Watersheds Treated in the 

15-year Planning Period

Basis and Priority of Treatment Areas

Alternative A1 None Reduction of hazardous fuels around communities

Alternative B 10 Restore or maintain properly functioning 

watershed condition and ecosystems within 

priority watersheds

Reduce hazardous fuels within the areas identified 

in the Community Wildfire Protection Plans 

(CWPPs)

Alternative C 10 Contribute to economic sustainability

Reduce hazardous fuels within the CommunityForest Intermix Management Area

Alternative D 10 Restore or maintain properly functioning 

watershed condition and ecosystems within 

priority watersheds

1 1987 plan as currently implemented
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Motorized Routes and Recreation Activities

The road system analyzed is the same for all alternatives. Basic road maintenance is to be 

completed on at least 20 percent of passenger vehicle roads per year and 10 percent of all highclearance roads per year. Watershed condition would be affected by the miles of open road and 

the level of use. In addition, there are hundreds of miles of unauthorized roads throughout the 

forests. Restoration objectives would consider rehabilitating the network of unauthorized roads. 

Alternatives C and B have the highest potential, followed by Alternatives D and A, for 

increased traffic as well as the most open roads based on the amount of acres planned to be 

treated mechanically. Maintenance level 1 roads are opened only during management activities—

such as mechanical restoration treatments—to access and remove forest products. Opening these 

roads may increase up to 10 times the amount of roads open within a watershed, providing 

potential for increased sediment in the stream system. 

The action alternatives implement the most treatments within priority watersheds; while 

alternative A does not emphasize treatments in these watersheds. See table 3 in chapter 2, 

specifically under “Type, Priority, and Amount of Restoration Treatments.” Road needs would be 

analyzed for implementation of projects, and unauthorized motorized routes would be identified 

for removal. Road networks would potentially be reduced to decrease sediment and loss of soil 

productivity, thereby reducing the degrading factors within priority watersheds caused by too 

many roads or roads in poor condition.

The action alternatives have an objective to remove unauthorized roads which negatively impact 

streams or riparian areas. Alternatives B and D have an additional objective to relocate, repair, 

improve, or decommission NFS roads that negatively impact streams or riparian areas. These 

actions would reduce sediment input to streams as well as returning roadbeds to production 

primarily within priority watersheds. Alternative A does not contain a similar objective, thus 

sediment from roads may continue to impact streams or riparian areas.

During maintenance of structures and road surfacing under all alternatives, BMPs would be 

effective in reducing sediment and improving watershed conditions. The forests would implement 

BMPs for road maintenance to mitigate sediment and limit the road system footprint.

Recreation emphasis in alternative C would favor motorized recreation opportunities and 

developed campgrounds. Alternative D would favor nonmotorized recreation opportunities and 

dispersed camping. Alternatives A and B would provide a mix. Emphasis on motorized 

opportunities could result in more roads and routes available for use, with more potential for soil 

and water degradation. Concentration of recreationists may result in more site disturbance and 

impacts would be compounded. Dispersed camping would tend to spread these impacts over a 

larger area. 

Grazing Activities

All alternatives would prescribe treatments that improve the vegetation conditions on uplands to 

more open conditions. By reducing tree canopy, there would be a projected increase in available 

forage for grazing animals (see the “Vegetation” section on overstory/understory relationships).

This would provide an opportunity for reduced grazing pressure on uplands and riparian areas 

from both domestic and wild animals.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 69

Alternative A would result in the least long-term improved forage condition because it would 

have the fewest treatments to reduce canopy cover. Alternative C would improve condition in 

only a few PNVTs, generally the open forested PNVTs and piñon-juniper woodland. Alternative 

B and then alternative D would reduce canopy cover in all open canopy vegetation types, 

providing improved conditions in grasslands and woodlands as well as forested PNVTs. See the 

“Vegetation” section for detailed discussion of the relationship between the overstory/understory 

herbaceous vegetation cover.

BMPs and SWCPs are effective in retaining protective ground cover and would be implemented 

under all alternatives. General improvement of vegetation condition (e.g., reduced canopy cover, 

increased herbaceous cover) could allow for improved rangeland and watershed conditions. 

Special Uses 

The effects of special uses to watershed condition would be the same in all alternatives. Sitespecific BMPs would be prescribed and would be effective in mitigating effects to soil and water 

quality components of watershed condition. Impacts to watershed condition can occur from group 

events, power line and water transmission corridors, access roads, and mineral extraction.

Climate Change

Based on current climate models, the climate change factors that may influence watershed 

condition are changes in water distribution, timing of precipitation, availability, storage, 

watershed management, and human water uses. These indicate the need to improve forest health, 

conserve water, and reduce fire risk, as well as prepare for increased use of forest materials and 

the greater demand for recreation. Concentrating restoration treatments within watersheds reduces 

the risk to watershed and ecological condition within entire watersheds. The action alternatives

would move vegetation conditions toward desired conditions and reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire within priority watersheds. Alternative A would reduce the risk to lands 

treated, but not on a watershed basis, limiting the effectiveness of treatments to improve 

watershed condition. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Almost all of the watersheds associated with the forests have private in-holdings and areas the 

watershed boundaries extend to outside of the forests’ boundary (figure 7). Many of the impacts 

discussed above occur on lands of other ownership (e.g., unpaved roads, grazing, materials 

mining, fuel treatments) and could impact the forests’ watershed conditions and possibly result in 

reduced watershed conditions. Large-scale industry, such as industrial mining and power 

generating, as well as medium to large urban areas, require large quantities of water for their 

operations and can impact groundwater dependent resources. All alternatives would maintain or 

improve watershed conditions and help mitigate the effects of off-forest activities that are outside 

the Agency’s control. Management of priority watersheds emphasizes using an “all lands” 

approach to enhance coordination with external agencies and partners in watershed management 

and aquatic species recovery efforts.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Water Resources

This section describes the current condition and potential environmental consequences of 

implementing the alternatives to water quality, water yield, water rights, instream flow, and 

groundwater. The analysis relies on qualitative comparisons and describes potential 

environmental consequences by major ground-disturbing activities (e.g., forest thinning, animal 

grazing, roads, mining, burning). More detailed descriptions of these topics can be found in the 

“Water Specialist Report” (Forest Service 2012z) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Water quality has been assessed in major perennial stream reaches and lakes on the forests. The 

general classification used for surface water quality by Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ) designates each waterbody in one of five categories:

• Category 1: Attaining all designated uses.

• Category 2: Attaining some designated uses, and no use is threated or impaired.

• Category 3: Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated use is 

attained.

• Category 4: Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses, but a TMDL is not 

necessary because:

○ 4a – A total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment has already been completed.

○ 4b – Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in the 

attainment of the water quality standard.

○ 4c – The impairment is caused by pollution but not a pollutant.

○ 4n – The impairment is solely by natural conditions. 

• Category 5: Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by a pollutant, and a 

TMDL needs to be developed or revised.

The State of Arizona sets narrative and numeric surface water standards for water quality based 

on the uses people and wildlife make of the water. These “designated uses” are specified in the 

standards for individual surface waters, or if the surface water is not named in the rule, the 

designated uses are determined by the tributary rule. “Attaining” means that the water quality has 

met State and Federal standards to fully support the assigned designated use for a water body, and 

data used in the determination meets the credible data requirements of the Arizona’s Impaired 

Water Identification Rule (A.A.C. R18-11-602).

Water quality is assessed by comparing existing conditions (categories 1 to 5) with desired 

conditions (standards) set by the State of Arizona under authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

ADEQ is the regulating authority for water quality in Arizona as promulgated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Waters that are not impaired (those not on 303d11 list or 

in category 4 or 5) are providing for beneficial uses identified for that stream and can be 

 11 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 71

considered in a desired condition until further sampling indicates impairment. Waters in 

categories 2 through 5 require special attention during site-specific project analysis. 

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions and methodology include:

• Data used in this analysis represents forestwide conditions and may not represent water 

quality or flow conditions at any given point. Onsite inspections will be conducted for 

site-specific project assessments.

• Generally, reducing canopy cover in vegetation types within higher precipitation zones 

will generate more runoff. This change implies changes in water yield.

• Effects to groundwater availability are discussed qualitatively using regional studies and 

Forest Service policies. Between the alternatives, there would be little difference from a 

groundwater use or quality standpoint; however, slight differences are predicted in 

groundwater recharge potential from the forests.

• To provide a baseline for discussion of water produced from the forests, an analysis was 

performed to estimate the amount of water yield that reaches surface streams which leave 

the forests. The analysis does not attempt to account for waters on the forests that 

infiltrate deep aquifers. Estimates are made for water yield from NFS land by individual 

5th level HUC watersheds. These estimates are then aggregated to individual 4th level 

HUC watersheds. Similar estimates are made for the water yield from entire 5th and 4th

level HUC watersheds containing Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands. 

Affected Environment

Water Quality

Improvements to the Nation’s waters over the past 3 decades are largely due to the control of 

traditional point sources of water pollution. However, a large number of water bodies remain 

impaired and the goal of eliminating pollutant discharge and attaining fishable and swimmable 

waters is still unrealized. Nonpoint sources of pollution such as agriculture, construction, forestry, 

and mining are responsible for much of the Nation’s remaining water quality impairment. The 

desired condition is that water quality meets or exceeds Arizona State standards12 or EPA water 

quality standards for designated uses, and meets critical needs of aquatic species.

Currently on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the most prevalent nonpoint source of pollution is 

sediment generated from sources including: motorized routes in close proximity to drainages; 

residual effects of past, and in some cases, current livestock grazing; and short-term impacts of 

ground-disturbing activities such as timber harvest and higher severity fire. Before the initiation 

of BMPs in the 1980s, timber harvesting was widespread and was a nonpoint source of pollution 

in the form of sediment delivery into streams. Currently, the forests implement and monitor sitespecific BMPs for all activities that have the potential to pollute surface water. Forest Service 

policy directs compliance with required CWA permits, State rules and regulations, and the use of 

approved BMPs in adaptive management strategy to control nonpoint source pollution to meet 

applicable water quality standards and other CWA requirements.

The following lakes and stream reaches have been identified by ADEQ as those with the most 

severe water quality problems. Permit requirements for discharge into these waters are very strict, 

 12 Arizona Administrative Code Title 18. Chapter 11 Arizona Water Quality Standards.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

and ADEQ and the forests must make sure that any new discharges or modifications would not 

further degrade water quality.

• Category 4 “Not Attaining.” Waters include the following: Nutrioso Creek, Little 

Colorado River below the Greer Lakes, Luna Lake, Rainbow Lake, and Crescent Lake. 

These waters have approved TMDLs with recommendations that, when implemented, are 

believed to improve the water quality and the ADEQ would move them into lower 

categories. There are 27 miles of streams in this category.

• Category 5 “Impaired.” Waters currently on the 303d list include the following: Bear 

Canyon Lake, lower Blue River, and the San Francisco River below the confluence with 

the Blue River. These waters were not listed prior to 2006. There are 26 miles of stream 

within this category.

The remaining waters (about 422 miles) fall into categories 1, 2, and 3. Overall, forestwide water 

quality, based on data from 1987 to 2008, is improving.

The State of Arizona has also identified stream segments that are particularly pristine and where 

no degradation of water quality is allowed (see figure 8). These are called “Outstanding Arizona 

Waters,” formerly known as “Arizona Unique Waters,” nine of which are located in the high 

elevation regions east, south, and southeast of Mount Baldy Wilderness (ADEQ, 2009 and 2012):

• Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to the boundary of the San Carlos Indian 

Reservation;

• South Fork Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to Bear Wallow Creek; 

• North Fork Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to Bear Wallow Creek; 

• Hay Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River; 

• KP Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Blue River; 

• Lee Valley Creek, from its headwaters to Lee Valley Reservoir;

• West Fork Little Colorado River, above Government Springs; 

• Snake Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Black River; and 

• Stinky Creek, from the Fort Apache Indian Reservation boundary to its confluence with 

the West Fork of the Black River.

The 2011 Wallow Fire burned significant portions of the watersheds contributing to all of these 

streams except Lee Valley Creek. Potential effects to these streams include: additional sediment 

and nutrients, primarily from erosion of severely burned uplands; increased flood flow intensity 

and frequency, which may alter streambank and streambed stability; increased amounts of debris 

from mass wasting due to slope instability; and increased water temperature from loss of shading 

vegetation. The outstanding character of these streams was based on the need to protect water 

quality to support the cold water fisheries designated use (primarily for protection of Apache trout 

habitat). To date, the forests and ADEQ have yet to determine the current status of these streams 

or determine what actions may be required to mitigate the effects of the Wallow Fire. Wildfire is a 

natural event and natural recovery can be allowed based on the State’s antidegradation policies.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 73

Figure 8. Map of Outstanding Arizona Waters and impaired streams and lakes

Water Yield

Streamflow is directly dependent on annual precipitation, including snowpack. Overall, the 

current trend in water yield appears to be static or slightly reduced over time as tree density 

increases. Additionally, climate change predictions for the Southwest favor higher temperatures 

and increased drought occurrence. More evapotranspiration and earlier snowpack melt are 

predicted, which may affect available water in the forests.

Development in the Southwest has been primarily dependent upon technology to deliver water 

resources. The locations of most snowpack and upland reservoirs are on national forests in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Southwest (Smith et al., 2001; State of New Mexico, 2005). There are an estimated 3,771 surface 

acres of perennial lakes and ponds within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 2008e). 

The forests also contain many of the headwater streams for the Little Colorado, Salt, and Upper 

Gila River Basins. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs receives a large portion of Arizona’s annual 

snowpack. Current estimated water yields from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are roughly 384,650 

acre-feet per year (Forest Service, 2008e), the majority going to the greater Phoenix metropolitan 

area. 

Periodic flooding is a natural disturbance that is necessary for maintenance of stream channels 

and many riparian plant species. Occasionally, high flow causes damage to road infrastructure 

and other manmade structures. Flooding is more common after large wildfires, where protective 

vegetation is removed and soil structure is altered. In severely burned watersheds, studies show 

peak flows (the highest flow rate measured after a storm event) can be slightly to thousands of 

times higher than the pre-fire flow rate (Neary et al., 2005) as was observed during the summer 

rainstorms after the Rodeo-Chediski Fire near Heber, Arizona (Folliott and Neary, 2003). 

Other damaging flow events have occurred during very high intensity summer rainstorms or 

when a warm rainstorm falls over a melting snowpack, such as occurred in 1992 in the Willow 

Creek watershed east of Heber, destroying the concrete bridge at Wiggins Crossing. Flooding and 

debris flows have occurred as a result of the 2011 Wallow Fire, including extreme runoff events 

from summer thunderstorms within numerous small watersheds. Flood events may continue for 

many years, and even though damage is expected to be somewhat localized under normal rainfall 

conditions, the communities of Eagar, Nutrioso, Tal WiWi, Alpine, Blue, and Greer are at risk for 

flooding. 

Water Rights

The current trend of surface water use by the forests is static. The forests’ consumptive use is 

expected to remain static into the future, as surface water in Arizona is considered to be fully 

appropriated. Water rights adjudications are proceeding slowly, and will eventually dictate the 

amount and ownership of surface waters within the forests. According to Arizona Department of 

Water Rights (ADWR) Statement of Claim filings for water rights, there are over 2,240 stock tank 

claims located on the forests. The forests have a total of 3,547 forest owned claims and 

certificates. These claims include several watershed level reserved water right claims allowing 

use of water for firefighting and road maintenance. 

Instream Flow

Instream flow water rights are unique rights created by Arizona to protect the State’s fisheries and 

associated riparian resources in selected stream segments. They are fundamentally different from 

appropriated water rights since they are nonconsumptive. Under Arizona law, the instream flow 

water rights the Forest Service is applying for do not allow use from the stream, and the Forest 

Service cannot divert or interfere with surface waterflow and cannot affect any existing (senior) 

water rights. The Forest Service is applying for these rights to ensure minimum flows that are 

needed for fish, wildlife, and water-based recreation are protected from future claims on these 

waters. There is no other mechanism available to maintain sufficient flows in the streams, which 

are critical to protect wildlife habitats and tourism-based economies in rural Arizona. With 

instream flows provided for, the water may still be available for future appropriation; however, it 

must be taken after the water leaves the national forest boundary or only at a time when 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 75

streamflows are not below the minimum base flow levels set by the permitted right. The forests’ 

program to acquire instream flow rights is summarized in the “Water Specialist Report.”

Groundwater

Water resources are obtained from surface water 

runoff, shallow perched water-bearing zones 

(which generally do not provide a useful water 

source), and very deep regional aquifers. Although 

not well understood, groundwater is connected to 

surface water and where groundwater is pumped at 

a rate greater than recharge, connected surface 

waterflow is reduced. Groundwater recharge 

occurs throughout all watersheds but is greatest at 

higher elevations where precipitation is greater and 

in areas with heavily fractured rock units. 

Groundwater pumping outside of designated active 

management areas13 is not limited by current 

Arizona groundwater codes. One of the three 

basins (Little Colorado) associated with the forests 

have documented groundwater pumping to some 

level greater than inflow (ADWR, 2009a, 2009b, 

2009c; Feth and Hem, 1963; Freethey and 

Anderson, 1986; Hart et al., 2002). Reference 

conditions are described as being in a steady state, 

or where inflow equaled outflow. Continued or 

increased pumping may negatively affect base flow of streams directly connected to major 

aquifers, such as Chevelon Creek and Tonto Creek, which are tied to the Coconino-De Chelly 

Aquifer (C Aquifer) (Hart et al., 2002). Groundwater pumping within the C Aquifer may 

negatively affect aquatic habitat and the amount of water forest wells can access for stock 

watering and domestic use as groundwater levels are drawn down. See figure 9 for location of the 

C Aquifer. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Water Quality

Trend

The trend in all alternatives would be toward desired conditions. Water quality monitoring 

provided by ADEQ would continue to result in a reduction of Category 5 (impaired) reaches and 

lakes through completion of TMDL plans. Water quality was improving throughout the forests 

until the 2011 Wallow Fire occurred. Water quality monitoring is needed to determine new 

baseline levels and establish recovery rates for Arizona Outstanding Waters, as all but one was 

 13 The 1980 Arizona Groundwater Code recognized the need to aggressively manage the State’s finite groundwater 

resources to support the growing economy. Areas with heavy reliance on mined groundwater were identified and 

designated as active management areas (AMAs). There are five AMAs: Prescott, Phoenix, Pinal, Tucson, and Santa 

Cruz.

Figure 9. Map showing extent of the 

Coconino-De Chelly Aquifer (C Aquifer). 

(Robson and Banta, 1995)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

affected to some extent by the Wallow Fire. Implementation of BMPs would reduce water quality 

impacts from all land-disturbing projects and protect Outstanding Arizona Waters from long-term 

water quality degradation.

Forest Restoration Activities

Mechanical Treatments

Although much of the effects to water quality from mechanical treatments are mitigated through 

BMPs and soil and water conservation practices (SWCPs), there may be short-term sediment 

pulses from activity roads, skid trails, and landings. Alternative C would prescribe the most 

mechanical treatment and, therefore, would have the highest risk to water quality, followed by 

alternatives B, D, and then A. At the project level, site-specific mitigation would reduce impacts 

to water quality below significant levels under all alternatives. 

Timber harvest and restoration treatment activities have the potential to adversely affect water 

resources. Typical ground disturbance includes use and maintenance of motorized routes, skid 

trails, log landings, and stream crossings (Litzchert and MacDonald, 2009). In addition to erosion 

and sedimentation, impacts may include vegetation loss in riparian areas, effective extension of 

the channel network through roads and skid trails connecting upstream disturbances to streams, 

and channel damage from higher flows (generated from canopy reduction) within the contributing 

watershed area. 

Additional impacts from timber harvest, forest restoration activities, and prescribed fire may 

include the contamination of water or wetlands from chemical substances (e.g., gasoline, oil, 

hydraulic fluid) that leak from equipment used on the forests. There are also potential effects 

from chemicals (e.g., herbicides) used for site preparation, timber stand improvement, and 

treatment of invasive plants associated with timber harvest activities. 

Erosion that results from timber harvest activity is generally temporary and usually returns to preharvest erosion rates within 2 years. Effectiveness monitoring and research have shown that 

proper implementation of BMPs and SWCPs greatly reduce erosion, compaction, sedimentation, 

and other water quality impacts (Forest Service, 2007 and 2008; EPA, 2005). In addition, 

streamside management zones or vegetative filters would be prescribed for all streams to 

minimize impacts from all ground-disturbing activities. The width of these filter strips would vary 

based on stream order, type, slope, erosion hazard of adjacent uplands, and protection status (e.g., 

federally listed critical habitat, Outstanding Arizona Water) (Forest Service, 2008c).

Burning Treatments

Although much of the effects to water quality from fire treatments would also be mitigated 

through BMPs and SWCPs, there may be short-term sediment and ash pulses from higher 

severity burn areas within fire areas. Alternative D would prescribe the most burning treatment 

acres and, therefore, the greatest risk to water quality, followed by alternatives B, C, and then A. 

At the project level, site-specific mitigation would reduce impacts to water quality below 

significant levels under all alternatives. 

The effects of prescribed fire on water quality would vary depending on fire severity, type and 

amount of vegetation burned, soil moisture, proximity to streams, weather conditions, and 

burning techniques. The magnitude of the effects of fire on water quality is primarily driven by 

fire severity. Fire severity is a qualitative term describing the immediate effects of fire on 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 77

vegetation, litter, or soils. Moderate or high severity fires consume more fuel and release more 

nutrients than low severity broadcast burns. Additionally, areas affected by moderate and highseverity fires are more susceptible to soil erosion and releasing nutrients into streams where water 

quality can be degraded (Neary et al., 2005). BMPs are prescribed for all fires and have shown to 

be effective in reducing sediment to streams through the use of filter strips and implementation 

strategies. 

There is little evidence that sedimentation or water yield increases significantly in streams from 

forested lands burned according to a prescribed burning plan that is designed to meet resource 

objectives (e.g., wildlife, recreation, watershed, vegetation, ecological) (Neary et al., 2005). 

Burning under higher severity conditions can result in water quality degradation. Physical change 

of soil cover and structure would lead to additional runoff and sediment loss. Waterflows in 

watersheds with high-severity burn conditions are typically high volume and of short duration, 

which can increase channel erosion and loss of floodplains from extensive flooding (Neary et al., 

2005). High severity burning in riparian areas can remove protective vegetation and large wood 

needed to retain vertical and horizontal stability.

Motorized Routes 

Alternative C would provide the greatest potential for increasing sediment from roads as it has a 

higher proportion of mechanical treatments/harvest as well as increased emphasis in motorized 

recreation opportunities. Less mechanized harvesting and restoration treatment acres would be 

proposed in alternative B, followed by alternative D, where more burning and nonmotorized

recreation opportunities are emphasized, and finally alternative A.

Numerous studies have identified unpaved roads as a major source of sediment in forested 

watersheds (Elliot and Foltz, 2001; Burroughs and King, 1989). Roads near streams have the 

greatest impact on water quality, as there is less area to filter sediment. Increased road density 

(miles per unit area) increases drainage density and can also increase the size of peak flows as it 

reduces the time to concentration of flows. This increases the proportion of sediment delivered as 

water at higher flows has more energy to scour and carry sediment (Wemple et al., 2001; 

Troendle and Olsen, 1994). 

Road erosion can be reduced over native raw roads by surfacing with gravel, lining inside ditches 

with riprap, revegetating cut and fill slopes, and minimizing maintenance of road surfaces and 

ditches (Burroughs and King, 1989). Newer road designs include vegetative filter strips, more 

frequent drainage features, outsloping of the road surface to disperse road runoff, and narrower 

road surfaces to reduce the size of the road tread, cut slopes, and fill slopes. Whenever possible, 

roads would be relocated in upslope or ridgetop positions rather than along drainages. Temporary 

roads would be removed and revegetated following use.

Recreation Activities 

Recreationists are drawn to water as evidenced by the fact that most of the forests’ campgrounds 

are in close proximity to lakes and rivers. All alternatives emphasize maintenance of existing 

developed recreation sites. Managed campgrounds and picnic grounds are hardened and provide a 

more efficient setting for managed access to water, as well as human and animal waste, as 

compared to primitive camping. In the action alternatives, there is guidance to locate dispersed 

campsites away from streams or sensitive areas, and facilities or developments would be provided 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

for protection of the environment rather than the convenience of visitors. Alternative A does not 

contain this guidance and would allow campsites to be located in close proximity to the forests’ 

waters. This concentrated unmanaged recreation use would continue to cause damage to 

vegetation; soil compaction and erosion; and water pollution from human and animal waste, 

dishwashing, trash, and vehicle fluids.

Grazing Activities

The action alternatives would reduce pressure on riparian areas by improving upland vegetation 

condition (forage condition), thereby reducing impacts to water quality from grazing (see the 

“Vegetation” section on overstory/understory relationships). In addition, the action alternatives

would concentrate restoration efforts in priority watersheds. These alternatives would provide 

comprehensive restoration on a watershed basis and have the most opportunity for improving 

water quality. Alternative A would provide fewer opportunities for improved forage conditions 

that would relieve grazing pressure in and around the forests’ waters. 

Water quality can be affected by grazing activities in many ways. Consumption and trampling of 

vegetation and compaction or displacement from animal hooves in riparian areas reduces 

streambank stability and can change vegetation composition from the potential spread of noxious 

weeds. Loss of vegetation reduces the ability of a stream to trap and hold sediment in floodplains 

and may reduce shading of the stream. Defecation and urination into streams can reduce water 

quality. Overgrazing can diminish upland conditions, which in turn, may increase storm flows 

that potentially add sediment to streams reducing water quality. 

All of these factors are mitigated, to some extent, with the implementation and monitoring of 

BMPs and SWCPs for grazing. As allotment management plans are revised and BMPs are 

incorporated into daily livestock management, degrading factors (mentioned above) to water 

quality are diminished. 

Special Uses 

In all alternatives, terms and conditions of special use permits would require site-specific BMPs 

to provide for protection of water quality. All alternatives would allow the authorization 

occupancy and use of NFS lands based on public need when services or uses cannot be met on 

private or other Federal lands. 

Climate Change

Effects to water quality from climate change are similar to effects to soil condition. All 

alternatives would reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change by moving ecosystems 

toward vegetation desired conditions. Unlike alternative A, the action alternatives would 

provide an approach to restore priority watersheds, allowing opportunities to provide the highest 

quality water within those treated watersheds. Alternative A trends would move ecosystems 

toward desired conditions at the slowest rate.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 79

Water Yield and Water Rights

Trend

Industrial and municipal use of the Coconino-DeChelly Aquifer is estimated to be above the 

recharge rate (Hart et al., 2002.) and would be expected to continue under all alternatives. Water 

use is expected to remain static over the planning period, as water is considered to be 

overallocated in Arizona. The forests’ major water uses include firefighting, road maintenance, 

and domestic and wild ungulate watering, with minor amounts for administrative use. Water 

yields are expected to increase slightly because of implementation and maintenance of ecological 

restoration treatments that result in more open forests, and improved woodland and grassland 

conditions. 

Forest Restoration Activities

Alternative C would generate the most increased water yield, followed by alternatives D, B, 

and then A. Following timber harvest, there is a potential short-term increase in water yield or 

quantity in the harvest units. However, annual water yield for a watershed is only measurable 

when 25 percent or more of the timber volume in a watershed is removed, especially in areas 

receiving more than 18 inches of precipitation per year (Troendle and Olsen, 1994; Troendle et 

al., 2001; Grant et al., 2008; Brown et al., 1974; Rich and Thompson, 1974). Therefore, 

alternatives that reduce canopy cover in forested PNVTs will generate additional runoff. 

Generally, as the treatment areas revegetate and begin absorbing soil moisture, water runoff 

returns to pre-harvest levels. However, desired conditions for much of the forested PNVTs require 

converting the currently closed overstory condition to open. As these areas would be maintained 

at a much lower canopy cover over time, water yield increases should remain. 

Streamflow responses to prescribed broadcast fire would be smaller in magnitude than the 

responses to wildfire. Prescribed burning generally leaves portions of the organic soil surface 

(DeBano et al., 1996). Increases in streamflow discharges are much lower following prescribed 

fire than as those resulting from high-severity wildfires. 

Motorized Routes 

Since the road system (miles, location, and maintenance level) is similar for all alternatives, 

there would be no difference in water yield expected. 

Recreation Activities 

Across all alternatives, there are no new dams or other impoundments planned for recreation 

within the forests’ boundary that would require additional water use. Maintenance of existing 

dams would continue, which may involve rebuilding of spillways and sealing the core. However, 

no additional capacity is expected to be added. 

Grazing Activities

All alternatives would provide for some increase in water yield which may provide more reliable 

waters for livestock use, especially in areas with greater than 18 inches of precipitation. Areas in 

lower precipitation zones would probably not have much of an increase from restoration 

treatments. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

For a pasture to be available for grazing, it has to have sufficient, nutritious forage and adequate 

water availability. Some pastures rely on wells and developed springs to water livestock, but 

many utilize tanks built with native material to capture runoff from snowmelt and rainfall during 

periods of runoff for later use. During the recent droughts, many dirt tanks on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs dried up, making many pastures unusable for cattle even though forage may have 

been available. The 2,240 stock tanks have altered water supply to some of the forests’ streams. 

By far, most impoundments are found in ephemeral drainages. Many of these impoundments 

provide for sediment capture; however, their maintenance often releases or creates sediment that 

eventually travels to forest streams. 

Special Uses 

There are no projected differences between all alternatives for special uses. Easements and 

special use permits to transmit water from water sources, such as springs and streams, to private 

or public holdings are common on the forests. These are subject to terms and conditions that 

require demonstrating proof of water right ownership and monitoring of flows. Other terms 

require maintenance of structures and mitigation of possible resource damage. New special uses 

for water transmission would require mitigation of damage of downstream uses. 

Pumping of groundwater near streams has the potential to reduce streamflow (Forest Service, 

2008e). Forest Service policy states that groundwater tests are required to demonstrate whether 

groundwater dependent resources are affected. Special use permits may be denied or uses would 

be mitigated to prevent loss of riparian habitat or aquatic species. No new groundwater pumping 

projects are planned on the forests at this time. 

Climate Change

Changes in water distribution, timing of precipitation, availability, storage, watershed 

management, and human water uses may present some of the most important challenges of 

climate change and national forest management in the Southwest. Terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems and human socioeconomic systems depend on water. Two scenarios are discussed: 

wetter/warmer and drier/warmer. 

In wetter climate scenarios, the potential for flooding is very likely to increase because of earlier 

and more rapid melting of the snowpack, with more intense precipitation. Even if total 

precipitation increases substantially, snowpack would likely be reduced because of higher overall 

temperatures. However, it is possible that more precipitation would also create additional water 

supplies, reduce demand, and ease some of the competition among competing uses (Joyce et al., 

2001; Smith et al., 2001).

In contrast, a drier climate scenario is very likely to decrease water supplies and increase demand 

for such uses as agriculture, recreation, aquatic habitat, and power, thus increasing competition 

for decreasing supplies (Joyce et al., 2001). Overall, these trends would increase pressures on the 

already limited water supplies in the Southwest, increase energy demand, alter fire regimes and 

ecosystems, create risks for human health, and affect agriculture in the region (Swetnam and 

Betancourt, 1997; Sprigg and Hinkley, 2000).

Some studies predict water shortages and lack of storage capabilities to meet seasonally changing 

river flow and transfers of water from agriculture to urban uses, as critical climate-related impacts 

to water availability occur (Barnett et al., 2008). Without upland reservoirs and watersheds 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 81

important to Arizona’s largest metropolitan center (e.g., Little Colorado, Salt, and Upper Gila 

River Basins) managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, alternative water sources, water delivery 

systems, and infrastructure support for agriculture would need to be developed (Lenart, 2007).

Effects to water yield from climate change are similar to effects to soil condition and water 

quality. Reduced vulnerability to the effects of climate change is provided by returning ecosystem 

health to desired conditions. Alternatives that reduce canopy cover in higher precipitation zones 

would allow for more water storage and yield as there is less interception and transpiration loss. 

Alternatives D, B, and then C would move ecosystems toward vegetation with more open 

canopies, while alternative A would trend toward desired vegetation conditions at the slowest 

rate. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Water Quality

The cumulative environmental consequences are spatially bounded by an area much larger than 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Some effects are limited to local watersheds, while some can have 

effects downstream of the forests within the three major watershed basins: the Upper Gila, Little 

Colorado, and Salt River watersheds. The forests are considered headwaters to these major river 

systems.

Cumulative effects to water quality are the result of impacts in both time and space. Many of the 

kinds of impacts to water quality off-forest (e.g., private, local and State governments, or other 

Federal agencies) are similar to those on NFS lands, such as effects of roads, grazing, material 

removal, recreation, and fuel reduction/restoration treatments. Others impacts are not the same, 

such as urbanization, industrial mining, manufacturing, and power generation. Some are

considered point sources of pollution and must meet stringent requirements for release of 

pollutants. 

Acidity in rain, snow, fog, and dry deposition can affect soil fertility and nutrient cycling and can 

result in acidification of lakes and streams. Sulfate deposition to sensitive watersheds results in 

increasing soil and surface water acidification. Deposition of excess nitrogen (nitrate and 

ammonium) in both terrestrial and aquatic systems can acidify streams, lakes, and soils. Aquatic 

ecosystems in Arizona are generally well buffered and not subject to episodic or chronic 

acidification except at the highest elevations in and around Mount Baldy Wilderness. There are 

pollution sources around the forests known to emit elements that form acids of sulfur and

nitrogen. The forests’ waters are currently not impacted by airborne deposition to the extent there 

is a measureable reduction in water quality, and they are not expected to in the future (see the 

“Air Quality” section). 

Since the trend of water quality under all alternatives would be estimated to be toward desired 

conditions, this would reduce or dilute possible off-forest effects of potential pollutants and 

provide better water quality to downstream users. Alternatives B, D, C, and A, in order, provide 

for this overall water quality improvement.

Water Yield and Water Rights 

There are documented studies of effects of groundwater pumping on the Colorado Plateau 

predicting that streams and wells on the forests would be impacted. Projected population growth
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

would put higher demands on surface and groundwater resources and, therefore, more pressure to 

provide water could be placed on Federal managers. Implementation of all alternatives are 

expected to slightly increase the amount of water leaving the forests and provide more water for 

aquifer recharge due to the expected reduction of vegetation transpiration and interception 

(Brewer, 2008; Baker et al., 1999) and general improvement of watershed conditions.

Riparian

This section examines the current trend of riparian condition and function. A qualitative estimate 

of the riparian condition trend for each alternative is provided, as well as the potential effects 

from management activities.

Four riparian PNVTs are classified within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: cottonwood-willow 

riparian forest, mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forest, montane willow riparian forest, and 

wetland/cienega riparian areas. These PNVTs are described in detail in the “Vegetation” section. 

The full analysis of riparian condition and function can be found in the “Riparian Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2012u) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Since the mid-1990s, the forests have utilized the proper functioning condition (PFC) (BLM, 

1998 and 2003) protocol to determine condition of riparian areas. The protocol is a consistent 

approach to determine how well physical processes are functioning. It is a qualitative assessment 

based on quantitative science. 

Streams and wetlands are classified in the protocol as follows:

• Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): Riparian and wetland areas are functioning 

properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to:

○ dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality; 

○ filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid in floodplain development; 

○ improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge;

○ develop root masses that stabilize streambanks; and 

○ develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide habitat for fish, 

waterfowl and other uses, and support greater biodiversity.

• Functioning-at-Risk (FAR): Riparian and wetland areas that are in functional condition 

but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation.

• Nonfunctioning (NF): Riparian and wetland areas that clearly are not providing 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy 

associated with high flows, and they are not reducing erosion or improving water quality.

• Unknown: Riparian and wetland areas that managers lack sufficient information on to 

make any form of determination.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• Motorized cross-country vehicle use in riparian areas would be limited to occasional 

crossing on designated roads and trails in all alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 83

Affected Environment

Riparian areas are basic to the hydrologic function of watersheds. They are terrestrial ecosystems 

characterized by hydric (wet) soils and plant species that are hydrophilic or dependent on the 

water table or its capillary fringe zone. Riparian areas include springs, streams, ponds, lakes, and 

their associated wet areas and floodplains. Riparian areas collect and transport water, soil, and 

organic material from upslope and upstream. Even though they make up less than 3 percent of the 

forests’ land, they comprise the most potentially productive and diverse components of forest and 

range ecosystems. Fish, wildlife, and many plant species depend on riparian areas for their existence.

Many of the forests’ streams have been altered to the point where the change in stream channel 

morphology has resulted in a drop in water tables and loss of floodplains where excess sediment 

can be stored. This change negatively affects the abundance, distribution, and reproduction of 

native riparian vegetation, especially willows and cottonwoods. The effects of past activities have 

reduced the overall potential of the riparian resource to provide wildlife habitat needed for species.

The Wallow Fire in 2011 also affected riparian areas throughout its extent. The effects of the fire 

potentially degraded riparian areas directly as riparian vegetation was burned, and indirectly as 

fire removed protective vegetation and litter within the watersheds causing increased streamflow 

energy resulting in changes in stream channel stability. Observations in many riparian areas made 

to date reveal a range of little change from fire effects to severe degradation in specific riparian 

areas from channel cutting, sediment deposition, and in extreme cases, debris flow. Forest 

personnel are still evaluating the effects to riparian as funding and workload allow. It will take 

many years to understand the full effect of the Wallow Fire on riparian areas.

The current vegetation and soil conditions and trends in relation to desired conditions in all four 

riparian PNVTs are displayed in table 14 below. The trend is measured by the movement toward

or away from desired conditions. Trend is based on a qualitative analysis of threats and risks to 

riparian function for each riparian PNVT. Apparent trend is estimated for each PFC assessment 

discussed in the “Riparian Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012u). Desired conditions for 

riparian and wetlands are based on the function of riparian vegetation through hydrologic, 

vegetation, and erosion/deposition processes and attributes. In general, the desired condition for 

riparian areas and wetlands is to be in proper functioning condition.

Table 14. Riparian vegetation and soil condition trends

Riparian Vegetation (PNVT) Current Riparian Vegetation 

Condition Trend1

Current Riparian Soil 

Condition Trend2

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest

(15,876 acres)

Away Away

Mixed Broadleaf Riparian Forest

(9,657 acres)

Away Away

Montane Willow Riparian Forest

(4,808 acres)

Away Away

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas

(17,900 acres)

Away Away

1 See the “Vegetation” section

2 See the “Soil” section
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Riparian Areas Along Streams

There are over 2,800 linear miles of riparian areas on the forests. Approximately 24 percent of 

riparian areas are in proper functioning condition (PFC), 68 percent are functioning-at-risk 

(FAR), and 8 percent are nonfunctioning (NF) (table 15). Effects of past grazing, logging and 

roads, flooding, and periods of drought have degraded riparian conditions (Forest Service, 

2008e). Based on current trends, PFC areas are expected to remain in the same condition based on 

BMP implementation for road, timber, and grazing management. The FAR areas will remain 

static or show downward trend where negative effects of activities are beyond the forests’ control 

or show upward trend where BMPs and other mitigations are effectively protecting riparian 

values.

Although there is a public perception that riparian areas are fragile, current information indicates 

that riparian systems are often resilient. Once stresses (e.g., livestock grazing, wildfires, dirt 

roads) are relieved, these riparian systems can regain their equilibrium within a few years because 

of resilient, native, herbaceous, riparian plants (Baker et al., 1999). Nonnative bluegrass 

dominated riparian areas have converted to native sedges where stressors have been reduced 

(AZGFD, 2000–2010). In large systems where a large wood matrix is needed to overcome 

accelerated channel dynamics (e.g., the Blue River), the riparian system may take decades to 

reach PFC, even with the removal of direct impacts (National Riparian Service Team, 2000).

Table 15. Riparian stream length and proportional extent by proper functioning condition 

class for 4th and 5th level HUC watersheds (Forest Service, 2008e)

4th Level 

HUC 

Watershed

5th Level HUC 

Watershed

Riparian Condition1

(miles and percent of watershed)

PFC % FAR % NF % Total 

Miles

Little Colorado 

River 

Headwaters

Nutrioso Creek 58 42 81 58 0 0 139

South Fork Little Colorado 

River-Little Colorado River 

Headwaters

79 58 54 40 3 2 137

Coyote Creek 4 15 21 82 1 3 25

Carnero Creek-Little 

Colorado River Headwaters

2 15 10 85 0 0 12

Upper Little 

Colorado River

Big Hollow Wash 0 0 2 100 0 0 2

Oso Draw 5 10 50 90 0 0 55

Silver Creek Show Low Creek 4 7 53 88 3 5 60

Upper Silver Creek 0 0 11 54 10 46 21

Cottonwood Creek 8 5 136 80 27 16 171

Middle Little 

Colorado River

Phoenix Park Wash-Dry 

Lake

0 0 38 88 5 12 43

Upper Clear Creek 49 29 84 50 34 21 167

Lower Clear Creek 14 100 0 0 0 0 14
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 85

1 Riparian condition ratings are: PFC = proper functioning condition; FAR = functioning-at-risk; and NF = 

nonfunctioning

Wetlands

All wetlands on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have been mapped; however, not all wetlands have 

been assessed in detail. There are about 7,000 acres of wetlands on the forests. Conditions of a 

limited number of wetlands have been determined through the use of the PFC protocol. Others 

have been described and evaluated for suitability for waterfowl and threatened and endangered 

4th Level HUC 

Watershed 5th Level HUC Watershed

Riparian Condition1

(miles and percent of watershed)

PFC % FAR % NF % Total 

Miles

Chevelon 

Canyon

Upper Chevelon Canyon 123 53 92 40 16 7 231

Black Canyon 0 0 60 49 64 51 124

Lower Chevelon Canyon 0 0 3 74 1 26 4

Mangus CreekUpper Gila 

River

Apache Creek-Upper Gila 

River

8 29 19 71 0 0 26

San Francisco 

River

Centerfire Creek-San 

Francisco River

8 11 58 84 3 5 69

Upper Blue River 86 28 195 65 21 7 302

Pueblo Creek-San Francisco 

River

0 0 12 100 0 0 12

Lower Blue River 92 29 200 64 21 7 312

Mule Creek-San Francisco 

River

27 22 86 70 9 8 123

Chase Creek-San Francisco 

River

22 36 32 51 8 13 62

Upper Gila 

River-San 

Carlos 

Reservoir

Upper Eagle Creek 61 34 109 61 11 6 181

Lower Eagle Creek 56 43 66 51 7 6 129

Black River Upper Black River 54 15 299 81 14 4 368

Middle Black River 23 45 28 55 0 0 51

White River Upper North Fork White 

River

0 0 1 100 0 0 1

Upper Salt 

River

Canyon Creek 8 60 5 40 0 0 13

Carrizo Creek Carrizo Creek (local 

drainage)

0 0 3 100 0 0 3

Total Miles and Average Percent 791 24 1,808 68 258 8 2,857
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

species habitat. Many of the forests’ wetlands are small and only seasonally wet. Little more than 

anecdotal information is available to document the reference condition, extent, and conditions of 

wetland and riparian areas. However, Cline (1976) inferred that wetland conditions prior to EuroAmerican settlement (early 1800s) was probably dominated by proper functioning condition, 

because there was little human disturbance compared to today. Datasets from 1913 to 1915 

describe various areas known today as reservoirs—such as Sierra Blanca Lake—as large wetlands 

(Riblett et al., 1915). More recent aerial photo analysis (post 1940) indicates wetland extent then 

was about the same as it is today. Current disturbances are similar to those listed in the “Water 

Resources” section previously. Nonfunctional wetlands include those that have been artificially 

drained by the practice of creating pit tanks for livestock watering. Others have been enhanced 

through watershed and wildlife improvement projects over many years.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

In all alternatives, environmental consequences within the foreseeable future to riparian areas 

and wetland ecosystems resulting from management activities (timber harvesting/forest 

restoration) are expected to be minor. This is because project design incorporating BMPs, 

streamside management zones, and wildlife habitat mitigation would be implemented; riparian 

areas and wetland ecosystems would be avoided; and new road construction related to timber 

harvesting is not expected to occur. Livestock grazing would continue into the foreseeable future 

throughout the planning area; continued impacts to riparian areas and wetland ecosystems may 

occur. Continued monitoring and adaptive management applied to livestock grazing would aid in 

minimizing impacts to riparian areas and wetlands. 

Trend

The current trend is away from desired conditions in all riparian PNVTs. There are no specific 

objectives regarding treating the riparian vegetation structure or composition or treating roads that 

impact riparian condition in alternative A; therefore, the trend is estimated to be away. 

Alternatives B and D have objectives to treat riparian areas as well as remove roads that impact 

riparian condition; therefore, some positive trend is expected. Although alternative C does not 

have specific objectives to treat the riparian vegetation, it does contain an objective to remove 

unauthorized routes and unneeded maintenance level 1 roads; therefore, some positive 

improvement is expected. All alternatives, in most PNVTs, would result in improving upland 

watershed conditions, which would result in an improvement in riparian condition. See table 3 in 

chapter 2, specifically under “Type, Priority, and Amount of Restoration Treatments.”

Reduction in canopy cover is expected to improve forage conditions in most PNVTs (see the 

“Vegetation” and “Livestock Grazing” sections), resulting in less demand by grazers to use 

riparian areas. Alternatives B and D additionally would provide for direct treatment in riparian 

streams and roads currently impacting riparian areas. Alternatives A and C would provide for 

improvement of upland conditions which would indirectly contribute to riparian improvement.

Forest Restoration Activities

Improvements of 2 to 6 percent toward desired conditions in alternatives B and D are estimated 

due to planned treatments (mechanical and burning) in riparian areas; while no reductions in 

departure from desired conditions are expected in alternatives A and C which lack riparian 

treatment objectives. Improvements to riparian areas under alternatives A and C would occur as 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 87

opportunities arise and as a result of general vegetation and soil condition improvements in 

upland portions of watersheds.

Mechanical

Since all alternatives would have timber harvest and restoration treatment activities, there is the 

potential to adversely affect riparian habitats. Haul routes, skid trails, log landings, and stream 

crossings used to remove trees may impact riparian vegetation, soils, and stream function. In 

addition to erosion and sedimentation within the riparian area, these impacts can cause an 

effective extension of the channel network through the roads and skid trails connecting upstream 

disturbances to streams and can often overload the sediment filtering and storage ability of 

riparian areas. 

These effects are typically limited in duration due to the closed roads being reclosed after the 

project and the natural rehabilitation of skid trails. Effectiveness monitoring and research have 

shown that proper implementation of BMPs and SWCPs (Forest Service Handbook 2209.23) 

greatly reduces erosion, compaction, displacement, and loss of soil structure by limiting heavy 

equipment access in riparian areas. Streamside management zones or vegetative filters would be 

prescribed for riparian areas minimizing impacts from all ground-disturbing activities as they are 

currently. The width of filter strips varies based on stream order, type, slope, erosion hazard of 

adjacent uplands, and the existing riparian area condition (Forest Service, 2008c). 

Beneficial effects from mechanical treatments include: removal of competing, nonriparian 

vegetation to allow for reestablishment of native riparian species; treatment of invasive species; 

and potential removal of unneeded roads within riparian corridors. 

Burning

Fire would be used as a management tool in all alternatives. Fire is a common disturbance in 

riparian ecosystems and surrounding hill slopes (Neary et al., 2005). Fire may lead to burning of 

surrounding uplands within the watershed resulting in higher sediment input, a higher degree of 

stream damage from increased peak flows, and a general decrease in basin stability (Neary et al., 

2005). The magnitude of the effects of fire on riparian areas is primarily driven by fire severity. 

As fire burns across the landscape, burn severity is generally lower in riparian areas than 

surrounding upland vegetation because of the higher moisture content. Severe wildfires can cause 

profound damage to plant cover and can increase streamflow velocity, sedimentation rates, and 

water temperatures, as contrasted to low-severity fires, which have less severe consequences. 

BMPs are prescribed for all fires and have shown to be effective in reducing damage to riparian 

areas through the use of filter strips and implementation strategies. As an example, ignition 

techniques—such as mid-slope ignition—are used to protect riparian areas, allowing a lower 

intensity fire to burn downslope toward riparian areas and achieving other objectives upslope. 

Streamside management zones are also implemented for prescribed fire projects. The benefits for 

prescribed fire in riparian areas are similar to those listed for mechanical treatments.

Beneficial effects from burning would include the removal of light competing, nonriparian 

vegetation to allow for reestablishment of native riparian species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Motorized Routes

All alternatives address effects (listed below) from roads to riparian function to some degree. All 

alternatives provide standards and guidelines that reduce road impacts through BMPs and 

SWCPs. All alternatives strive to improve long term upland condition through forest restoration 

treatments, reducing the effects of high flows responsible for channel damage. Alternatives B 

and D provide an objective to decommission NFS roads that reduce the area of productive lands, 

thus reducing road sediment and allowing channels to reoccupy the width necessary to reduce 

stream energy. The action alternatives also provide for restoration of priority watersheds, where 

concentrated efforts to inventory, rehabilitate, and relocate roads can make positive change in 

riparian function. 

Traditionally, roads have often been located adjacent to water bodies and cross them frequently. 

Traditional road location, design, construction, and maintenance activities have considerable

negative impacts on riparian areas across the forests. Besides removal of productive riparian land 

to roadbed and ditches, some of these effects include (DeBano and Schmidt, 1989): 

• Riparian areas are dewatered due to lowered channel bed nick points and gully formation, 

and they advance upstream from compaction and reduction of effective channel width.

• Plant composition is changed, with a shift from riparian dependent plants to drier and less 

productive upland species.

• Runoff is accelerated, causing increased flood peaks and related damages.

• Base flows are decreased in volume and duration, causing streams to dry up earlier in the 

year.

• Perennial streams are reduced to nonperennial flow.

• Channel bed and bank erosion is increased.

• Downstream sedimentation is increased from eroded soil.

• Habitat for riparian dependent wildlife species is reduced.

Recreation Activities 

Common recreation activities within riparian areas include hiking, camping, fishing, swimming, 

biking, and motorized vehicle use. All of these activities can impact riparian condition by 

affecting vegetation and soils through soil compaction and displacement, and destruction or 

damage to riparian vegetation. Off-highway vehicle use is limited in riparian areas to occasional 

crossing on approved roads and trails in all alternatives. In the action alternatives, there is 

guidance to locate dispersed campsites away from streams or sensitive areas, and facilities or 

developments would be provided for protection of the environment rather than for convenience of 

visitors. Alternative A does not contain this guidance and would allow campsites to be located in 

close proximity to the forests’ waters. This concentrated unmanaged recreation use could cause 

damage to vegetation; soil compaction and erosion; and water pollution from human and animal 

waste, dishwashing, trash, and vehicle fluids.

Grazing Activities

All alternatives would prescribe treatments that improve the vegetation conditions on uplands to 

more open conditions. By reducing tree canopy, there would be an increase in available forage for 

grazing animals. This would provide an opportunity for reduced grazing pressure on riparian 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 89

areas from both domestic and wild animals. Many riparian areas are very resilient and respond 

quickly to removal or reduction of degrading factors such as overgrazing. Recovery of 

functioning-at-risk riparian areas could occur as a result within the planning period of 15 years in 

alternatives B and D if high treatment objective levels are implemented. Because there are no or 

few planned treatments to improve riparian conditions in alternatives A and C, there is less 

likelihood of recovering functioning-at-risk riparian areas.

Livestock (cattle and sheep) and wildlife grazing would continue in all alternatives and occur 

throughout many perennial streams, riparian areas, and some wetlands. Due to ample soil 

moisture, riparian and wetland areas have the capacity to produce very large amounts of forage. 

Riparian area conditions of high moisture content of forage, cool temperatures, and available 

water causes concentration of herbivore use and can lead to the overuse of vegetation. 

Overgrazing has been observed to reduce effective vegetative ground cover and riparian 

vegetation, which contributes to accelerated erosion and soil compaction (Forest Service, 1991; 

Tellman and Yarde, 1997; Knutson and Naef, 1997), as well as sedimentation into connected 

perennial waters. Elk grazing is largely uncontrolled and elk have been observed in riparian areas, 

especially in unfenced wetlands. 

All allotment management plans direct the use of best management practices (BMPs) and sitespecific mitigation to mollify direct effects to riparian function, such as compaction from 

trampling or overutilization of forage. Currently, the forests do not permit livestock grazing on 

Federal lands along the mainstem portions of the Blue and San Francisco Rivers and Eagle Creek. 

Many other grazing allotments have limited livestock use along perennial streams and limited 

livestock access to hardened areas or to times when grazing pressure does not adversely affect 

riparian area condition.

The height and density of herbaceous vegetation in riparian areas is important for maintaining 

streambank stability needed for proper riparian condition and function. Areas of high concern are 

those with actively eroding streambanks or high erosion potential. Restoring native species in 

riparian areas is important to long term riparian condition. As an example, Kentucky bluegrass 

and Canadian bluegrass have spread into many riparian areas as a result of widespread settlement 

and livestock management. These bluegrass species are far less productive than native grasses 

and willows, and they do not have root masses capable of withstanding streamflows required for 

streambank protection. 

Special Uses 

Water developments and road access are common special uses that affect riparian areas. In all 

alternatives, site-specific mitigations, BMPs, and maintenance requirements will be written into 

each permit along with periodic monitoring to protect riparian areas.

Climate Change

Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are expected to decline (due to reduced 

precipitation); thereby reducing water in riparian zones. Water losses are also likely to increase 

due to elevated evapotranspiration rates at higher temperatures and greater runoff losses 

associated with increased frequencies of high intensity convectional storms. Urban expansion 

would increase human demand for water and further reduce water availability for wildland 

ecosystems. Decreased water availability would affect riverine and riparian ecosystem function, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

due to modifications in geomorphological processes and an overall reduction in the availability of 

moisture to plant communities. 

Although riparian areas comprise less than 3 percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands, they 

provide important habitat for vertebrates, invertebrates, migratory birds, and other ripariandependent species. Reduced water inputs would cause riparian ecosystems to contract in size. 

Furthermore, lowered water availability would stress riparian plants and increase the ecosystem 

susceptibility to invasion by nonnative plants—such as salt cedar and Russian olive—which in 

turn would disrupt the natural wildlife community (Archer and Predick, 2008). Climate change is 

likely to alter wetland/cienega, fen, and bog ecosystems (Karl et al., 2009). Due to their ability to 

store and slowly release water, properly functioning wetlands/cienegas are imperative in periods 

of extreme droughts and may help mitigate the effects of climate change. 

In light of the changes indicated above, there is a need to reduce vulnerability by maintaining and 

restoring resilient native ecosystems. Restoring and maintaining resilience in all ecosystems are 

part of the basic elements of forestwide desired conditions, and objectives and management 

approaches would be most provided for by alternatives B, D, C, and then A, respectively. 

Restoring and maintaining resilience would likely improve the potential for ecosystems to retain 

or return to desired conditions after being influenced by climate change related impacts and 

variability. Management practices such as thinning for age class diversity and structure, and 

reclaiming and restoring native grasslands would help sustain healthy plant and animal 

communities. These practices would provide adequate nutrients, soil productivity, and hydrologic 

function to promote resilience and reduce opportunities for disturbance and damage. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Population growth impacts to riparian areas could increase, as demand for water and water based 

recreation grows. Restriction of vehicles to roads and travel ways would reduce impacts to 

riparian areas compared to existing conditions, where few restrictions are currently in place. 

Urban demand for water may increase pressure on the Agency to reduce on-forest water use, 

although obtaining instream flow water rights on the forests’ most valuable streams would help 

protect base flows to retain riparian function. Groundwater pumping is not regulated outside of 

Arizona’s active management areas in southern and western Arizona. There are documented 

studies of effects of groundwater pumping on the Colorado Plateau that predict that streamflow 

would be reduced which would affect water for riparian vegetation (Hart et al., 2002). 

Implementation of the action alternatives would be expected to slightly increase the long-term 

amount of water available for bank storage recharge and provide more water for aquifer recharge 

due to the expected reduction of upland vegetation transpiration and interception (Brewer, 2008; 

Baker et al., 1999). Alternative A would likely show only short-term gains in riparian 

improvement. 

Fisheries

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences to fish and their 

habitat on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs through implementation of a new land management plan. 

Four alternatives are analyzed, which include the current forest plan (1987 plan) and three new 

alternatives. This section also provides a summary of the fish species viability assessment and the 

identification and descriptions of the endangered, threatened, and sensitive fish species and their 

occupied, critical, and recovery habitats that occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Viability risks 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 91

to fish species were determined by evaluating their abundance and distribution, current habitat 

conditions, and potential impacts to species populations and habitats from management actions 

that could occur within the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population is defined as 

one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its 

continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. 

Figures 10 and 11 below display the drainage areas that were analyzed for fish species and their 

habitats.

Figure 10. Map of fish drainage areas – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 11. Map of fish drainage areas – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 93

Affected Environment

Fish Species of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

There are presently 14 native fish species located throughout the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (table 

16). Seven of the 14 native fish species are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); 4

are listed as endangered, and 3 are listed as threatened. The roundtail chub is a candidate species 

under the ESA and is also on the Southwestern Region Regional Forester’s designated sensitive 

species list dated September 21, 2007; along with five other fish species that are also considered 

sensitive. The speckled dace is not federally listed or classified as sensitive. The razorback sucker 

was introduced into Eagle Creek and the Blue River in the 1980s; these introductions were not 

successful and the species is not currently present within or downstream of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs, although designated critical habitat does occur approximately 7 to 15 miles south of the 

forests, in the Gila River.

Table 16. Native fish species and their miles of occupied, critical, and recovery habitat on 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFS lands

Species (Status) Occupied 

Habitat Critical Habitat Recovery Habitat1

Apache trout (threatened) 32.5 miles NA 34.5 miles

Gila chub (endangered) 5.5 miles 31.3 miles NA

Gila trout (threatened) 3.5 miles NA 28.5 miles

Loach minnow (endangered) 50.3 miles 110.2 miles NA

Razorback sucker (endangered) None None, downstream NA

Roundtail chub (candidate/senstive) 41.4 miles NA NA

Spikedace (endangered) Unknown 90.4 miles NA

Little Colorado spinedace (threatened) 28.9 miles 5 miles 33.7 miles

Bluehead sucker (sensitive) 79.6 miles NA NA

Desert sucker (sensitive) 168 miles NA NA

Little Colorado River sucker (sensitive) 41.6 miles NA NA

Longfin dace (sensitive) 104.7 miles NA NA

Sonora sucker (sensitive) 147.8 miles NA NA

Speckled dace (NA) 329 miles NA NA

1 Habitat that has been identified as necessary for recovery/restoration of the species.

Along with the native fish species, there are 24 nonnative fish species occurring on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Several of these species are cold water fish that generally do not occur below 

6,500 feet in elevation, especially the trout species. Most are warm water centrarchid (sunfish 

family) and cyprinid (minnow family) species that occur below 8,000 feet in elevation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Following is a list of nonnative fish species that occur within the forests:

Black Bullhead Channel Catfish Golden Shiner Black Crappie

Goldfish Green Sunfish Cutthroat Trout Flathead Catfish

Western mosquitofish Bluegill Rainbow Trout Brown Trout

Red Shiner Redear Sunfish Yellow Perch Brook Trout

Common Carp Smallmouth Bass Fathead Minnow Walleye

Northern Pike Largemouth Bass White Crappie Arctic Grayling

Native Fish Population, Distribution, and Habitat 

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs historically provided habitat for 14 native fish species, from high 

elevation cold water trout streams to lower elevation warm water streams with primarily cyprinid 

species. Together, these 14 species occur on approximately 477 miles (63 percent) of the 763 

miles of perennial streams that exist on the forests (Vander Lee et al., 2006).

Aquatic and riparian habitat on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is extremely limited (less than 3

percent of the forests) but provides for a wide array of aquatic biota and terrestrial flora and 

fauna. These habitats are critical to sustaining aquatic biota diversity in the Southwest. Overall, 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs account for 41 percent of the perennial streams and 38 percent of the 

stream reaches with native fish on national forests in Arizona (Vander Lee et al., 2006).

The speckled dace, Sonora sucker, and desert sucker have the largest distributions on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs; while the Gila trout, Gila chub, and spikedace have the smallest. All of the 

streams with loach minnow on national forests in Arizona are on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. In 

addition, within national forests in Arizona, over two-thirds of the stream reaches with the 

bluehead sucker (95 percent), Apache trout (80 percent), Gila trout (71 percent), Little Colorado 

sucker (70 percent), and Little Colorado spinedace (66 percent) are on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

(Vander Lee et al., 2006). 

Current information regarding aquatic and riparian habitats and aquatic biota primarily consists of 

surveys and studies completed by State and Federal agencies over the last 10 to 20 years. These 

surveys show that approximately 70 percent of the stream reaches that have been surveyed are not 

meeting a minimum habitat condition index (HCI) standard of 60 percent14. Where repeat surveys 

have occurred, conditions on approximately 50 percent of those stream reaches have declined in 

their HCI rating over the last 20 years, while the other 50 percent have increased in their HCI 

rating. 

Fish population surveys and sampling efforts have also shown declines (50 to 75 percent) for 

many species over the last 20 years. According to Robinson et al. (2006), most of Arizona’s 

 14 The 1987 plan provides management emphasis and monitoring for fish species and riparian habitat using the habitat 

condition index (HCI) and biologic condition index (BCI) for aquatic macroinvertebrates. The HCI is a multivariate 

rating of existing habitat conditions based on several factors: pool frequency and occurrence; substrate conditions and 

types; and streambank cover, soil, and vegetation stability. The HCI evaluates the streams existing habitat conditions 

relative to its potential. The BCI incorporates stream habitat, water quality, and environmental tolerances of aquatic 

macroinvertebrate community species. The BCI is a function of a Predicted Community Tolerance Quotient divided by 

the Actual Community Tolerance Quotient, and it evaluates a stream’s condition in relation to its own potential. As 

required in the forest plan, minimum conditions (values) for the HCI should be 60 percent and 80 percent for the BCI.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 95

stream length was assessed to be in the “most disturbed”15 ecological condition; 70 percent was in 

most disturbed condition based on the aquatic vertebrate index of biotic integrity (IBI) and 57 

percent was in most disturbed based on a macroinvertebrate IBI. 

Most streams and aquatic and riparian habitats have experienced considerable degradation and 

alteration from a variety of human and management related activities; their ability to recover and 

improve has been affected, especially as ongoing and new impacts occur. Habitat quality and 

complexity have resulted from loss of pool habitat, loss of large wood within streams, riparian 

area impacts, channel alterations, and down cutting. Increased sedimentation rates can adversely 

impact habitat and species through negative impacts to water quantity and quality. Fish 

population surveys and sampling efforts have also shown declines for some species, while some 

nonnative species have shown increases. 

Historic impacts (e.g., grazing, water developments and diversions, timber harvest and roads, fire 

suppression) that occurred 20 to over 100 years ago caused impacts to aquatic communities and 

their watersheds. The species and habitats of today have not yet recovered. Fish populations have 

been reduced from large interconnected populations to isolated populations within severely 

altered and degraded habitats. All the native species have lost much of their population 

redundancy16 within and outside the forests. This is reflected in the historic and recent (last 20 

years) population declines and fragmentation of fish species on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

(Forest Service, 2008e). Historically, 17 of the thirty-three 5th level HUC watersheds on the 

forests contained one or more fish species. Currently, only 12 of these watersheds contain native 

fish, and those that still contain native fish have lost one to several species. There are two 

watersheds on the forests where there were no fish historically present, but they are currently 

occupied by Apache trout (table 17).

 15 Most disturbed ecological condition for macroinvertebrates is defined as having lost more than 50 percent of the 

expected taxa (species naming hierarchy). For native aquatic vertebrates and habitat, it is the 5 percent most divergent 

relative to the reference condition.

16 Redundancy means having several distinct populations of a species, so that if some catastrophic event killed one 

population, the species would not become extinct.
96

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 17. Current and historical occurrences of native fish species by 4th and 5th level hydrologic unit code (HUC)

4th Level HUC 

Name

5th Level HUC 

Name

Longfin dace

Sonora sucker

Gila chub

Roundtail chub

Spinedace/

Spikedace

Apache trout

Gila trout

Desert sucker

Bluehead sucker

Speckled dace

Loach minnow

Little Colorado 

River Sucker

Razorback sucker

(Historic)

(Current)

Little Colorado 

River 

Headwaters

Nutrioso Creek H1 C2 H C C 5 3

South Fork Little 

Colorado RiverLittle Colorado 

River Headwaters

H C C C H 5 3

Coyote Creek C3 1

Carnero Creek-Little 

Colorado River 

Headwaters

0

Upper Little 

Colorado River

Big Hollow Wash 0

Oso Draw C3 1

Silver Creek Show Low Creek H H H H H 5 0

Upper Silver Creek H H H H 4 0

Cottonwood Creek H H H H 4 0

Middle Little 

Colorado River

Phoenix Park WashDry Lake0

Upper Clear Creek H H C C C 5 3

Lower Clear Creek H H C C C 5 3

Chevelon 

Canyon

Upper Chevelon 

Canyon

H H C C C 5 3
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 97

4th Level HUC 

Name

5th Level HUC 

Name

Longfin dace

Sonora sucker

Gila chub

Roundtail chub

Spinedace/

Spikedace

Apache trout

Gila trout

Desert sucker

Bluehead sucker

Speckled dace

Loach minnow

Little Colorado 

River Sucker

Razorback sucker

(Historic)

(Current)

Black Canyon H H H 3 0

Lower Chevelon 

Canyon

H H H H C 5 1

Mangus CreekUpper Gila 

River

Apache CreekUpper Gila River0

San Francisco 

River

Centerfire CreekSan Francisco RiverH H H H 4 0

Upper Blue River C C H H C C C C C 9 7

Pueblo Creek-San 

Francisco River

0

Lower Blue River C C H H H C C C H 9 5

Mule Creek-San 

Francisco River

C C C H H C C H H 9 5

Chase Creek-San 

Francisco River

C C H H H C C H H 9 4

Upper Gila 

River – San 

Carlos 

Reservoir

Willow Creek 0

Upper Eagle Creek C C C C C H C C C H 10 8

Lower Eagle Creek C C H H H C C H H 9 4

Black River Upper Black River C C C C C C 6

Middle Black River C C C C C 5
98

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

4th Level HUC 

Name

5th Level HUC 

Name

Longfin dace

Sonora sucker

Gila chub

Roundtail chub

Spinedace/

Spikedace

Apache trout

Gila trout

Desert sucker

Bluehead sucker

Speckled dace

Loach minnow

Little Colorado 

River Sucker

Razorback sucker

(Historic)

(Current)

White River Upper North Fork 

White River

0

East Fork White 

River

0

Upper Salt 

River

Canyon Creek 0

Carrizo Creek Corduroy Creek 0

Carrizo Creek (local 

drainage)

0

Tonto Creek Haigler Creek-Tonto 

Creek

0

1 H = historic occurrence only, no current occurrences of this fish species

2 C = current and historic occurrence of this fish species

3 C = current occurrence where there was no historic occurrence of this fish species
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 99

The native fish species and populations analyzed here (especially federally listed) lack the 

resiliency to survive environmental disturbances from either natural or anthropogenic actions 

(e.g., fire and suppression of fire, climate variation, degraded watersheds and aquatic habitat, 

altered hydrologic conditions, loss of riparian and aquatic habitat, recreation demands, nonnative

species introductions, roads). The watersheds and ecosystems that these aquatic species and their 

habitats depend on are also altered and departed from historical conditions; and while most of 

these impacts have occurred slowly over many decades, the individual and collective impacts still 

remain. Current conditions for fisheries at the 5th level HUC watershed can be attributed to many 

factors. Changes throughout vegetation types have altered fire regimes, successional structure, 

composition and cover classes, and processes from historic conditions. Several vegetation types 

also have impaired soil conditions. Additionally, riparian condition is predominantly functioningat-risk and hydrologic conditions (e.g., groundwater, water quality, streamflow) have also 

changed from historic conditions. See the “Vegetation,” “Soil,” “Water Resources,” and 

“Riparian” sections for more information.

The razorback sucker has not been found on the forests since the late 1980s, and the spikedace 

has not been found recently, although razorback sucker is considered extirpated (locally extinct) 

at this time, the spikedace is not. Spinedace, spikedace, and loach minnow are likely declining

rangewide. The roundtail chub, Little Colorado sucker, and the bluehead sucker have recently 

been included within a multistate conservation agreement in an attempt to improve their status 

and potentially prevent them from future listing under the ESA. The longfin dace, Sonora sucker, 

desert sucker, and speckled dace are also likely declining in their numbers and/or distributions 

across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Recent declines for the speckled dace are associated with 

chemical treatments of streams for Apache trout recovery projects. Although this has likely 

impacted large numbers of individuals and reduced distribution, no populations have been lost 

and the species is considered secure within the planning area. 

Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat

Apache Trout (Oncorhynchus apache)

The life history, ecology, historical distributions and abundances, habitat requirements, and other 

information relevant to this species are limited; and data and information that has been collected 

has primarily occurred on White Mountain Apache Tribal lands. Some of this information has 

been summarized and reviewed within the three Apache trout recovery plans, the first version 

completed in 1979 and the latest version in 2009. Recovery efforts for this species began as early 

as the 1940s on White Mountain Apache Tribal lands, and began later on NFS lands in the 1960s. 

Over the last 5 to 10 years, the Arizona Game and Fish Department with assistance from the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs has expended considerable efforts on recovery actions to improve the 

species status. These have primarily included barrier construction and maintenance, chemical 

treatments to remove nonnative fish, and the subsequent introductions of Apache trout. Despite 

these considerable efforts, recovery of populations has been very limited due to barrier and 

chemical treatment efficacy, and the genetic purity and availability of Apache trout to place into 

historical habitats on the forests. 

The historical distribution of Apache trout has been somewhat confused with that of Gila trout.

Originally, Apache trout were thought to have historically occurred and occupied the headwaters 

of the Little Colorado, Salt, and San Francisco Rivers. The more recent view is that the 

headwaters of the San Francisco River were historically occupied by Gila trout. Regardless, the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

former widespread distribution of Apache trout in the Black, White, and Little Colorado 

drainages is not disputed based on historical and more recent documented collections. The San 

Francisco River headwaters are now considered within historic range of Gila trout, although some 

Apache trout populations are still present from past recovery actions (i.e., Coleman, Grant, and 

KP Creeks).

Existing and potential Apache trout recovery populations occur on the forests and White 

Mountain Apache Tribal lands in Arizona within the historic range of the species. Outside of their 

historic range, several introduced populations occur on the Coronado NF and one occurs on the 

Kaibab NF. Existing and recovery populations on the forests included within this analysis are 

Bear Wallow Creek, Centerfire/Boggy/Wildcat Creeks, Coleman Creek, Conklin Creek, 

Coyote/Mamie Creeks, East Fork Little Colorado River (and Lee Valley Creek), Fish Creek, 

Grant Creek, Hannagan Creek, Hayground Creek, Home Creek, KP Creek, Mineral Creek, Snake 

Creek, Soldier Creek, South Fork Little Colorado River, Stinky Creek, West Fork Black River, 

and West Fork Little Colorado River.

The Apache trout was listed as threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act of 1966. A final rule was issued in the Federal Register on July 16, 1975, that 

determined the Apache trout is a threatened species as defined by the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. Discussion with the reasons for listing and threats to the species can be found within the 

three versions of the recovery plans, and the final rule “Threatened Status for Three Species of 

Trout” published in the Federal Register in 1975. Threats to the species include: the destruction, 

modification, and curtailment of its habitat or range; logging operations and the associated 

erosion, siltation, and increases in water temperatures; and the introduction of nonnative trout 

species that hybridize and compete with the Apache trout.

Gila Chub (Gila intermedia) and Critical Habitat

Life history, ecology, historical distributions and abundances, habitat requirements, and other 

information relevant to this species are limited; and data and information that has been collected 

has primarily occurred on populations outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Most of the available 

information for this species has been summarized and reviewed within the proposed and final 

rules for the “Listing Gila Chub as Endangered with Critical Habitat” completed in 2002 and in 

2005, respectively. This species is found in pools in smaller streams and cienegas ranging in 

elevation from approximately 600 to 1,675 meters. They are highly secretive, and adults prefer 

deeper water in pools and eddies below riffles or runs often remaining in cover from terrestrial 

vegetation, boulders, and fallen logs. Young use the shallow margins of pools with aquatic 

vegetation or debris for cover, while older juveniles may be found in higher velocity runs and 

riffles. Primary food items are aquatic and terrestrial insects and filamentous algae. Breeding 

primarily occurs in late spring to summer, males follow the larger females over beds of aquatic 

plants, and there is no parental care of the young. Temperature may be the primary cue for 

initiation of spawning.

Gila chub potentially occur within six streams on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: Eagle Creek, East

Eagle Creek, Dix Creek, Left Prong Dix Creek, Right Prong Dix Creek, and Harden Cienega 

Creek. These six streams are considered to be three distinct populations: Dix Creek, Eagle/East 

Eagle Creek, and Harden Cienega Creek. The Eagle/East Eagle Creek population is located 

within the upper portion of this watershed, and Eagle Creek drains off the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

before entering the Gila River approximately 15 miles downstream of the Apache-Sitgreaves 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 101

NFs’ boundary. Dix Creek and Harden Cienega Creek are located south of the San Francisco 

River, and both flow north directly into the San Francisco River. The Dix Creek watershed is 

entirely within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, while the upper portion of the Harden Cienega 

watershed is located in New Mexico on the Gila NF.

Gila chub was listed with critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered in 

2005. Gila chub are becoming rare, especially where land use practices such as overgrazing lead 

to incision of floodplains and lowering of water tables, which, in turn, drain marshlands and other 

stream-associated habitats. Threats to the chub include introduction of nonnative aquatic 

competitors and predators (e.g., fish, bullfrogs, crayfish), continued water use for development 

purposes, and habitat degradation due to improper land management on the watershed. Erosion 

from roads or off bare ground on the watersheds can fill in the deep pools needed by the species, 

thus degrading the habitat. Where it is still present, populations are often small, fragmented, and 

at risk from known and potential threats and from random events such as drought, flood events, 

and wildfire.

Critical habitat was designated for the Gila chub on November 2, 2005. Critical habitat for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs was designated in six streams for the three separate populations as 

follows:

• Eagle Creek and East Eagle Creek for 39.2 kilometers (24.4 miles) of creek extending 

from the confluence of Eagle Creek with an unnamed tributary upstream to its confluence 

with East Eagle Creek, and including East Eagle Creek to its headwaters just south of 

Highway 191. 

• Harden Cienega Creek for 22.6 kilometers (14 miles), beginning from its confluence with 

the San Francisco River and continuing upstream to its headwaters. Approximately 65

percent (9 miles) is located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• The Dix Creek critical habitat includes the portion of the creek beginning 1 mile 

upstream from the confluence with the San Francisco River at a natural rock barrier and 

continuing upstream for 0.9 kilometers (0.6 mile) to the confluence of the right and left 

forks of Dix Creek. The critical habitat also includes the Left Prong Dix Creek as it 

continues upstream 2 kilometers (1.2 miles), and the Right Prong Dix Creek as it 

continues upstream 4.8 kilometers (3 miles).

Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus gilae)

Life history, ecology, historical distributions and abundances, habitat requirements, and other 

information relevant to this species are limited; and data and information that has been collected 

has primarily occurred on the Gila NF in New Mexico. Some of this information has been 

summarized and reviewed within the four Gila trout recovery plans, the first version completed in 

1979 and the latest version in 2003. Over the last 5 to 10 years, the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have implemented some recovery actions to improve the 

species status on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, although most efforts have been focused on Apache 

trout recovery.

The historical distribution of Gila trout has been somewhat confused with that of Apache trout. 

Originally Apache trout were thought to have historically occurred and occupied the headwaters 

of the Little Colorado, Salt, and San Francisco Rivers. The more recent view is that the 

headwaters of the San Francisco River were historically occupied by the Gila trout. The San 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Francisco River headwaters are now considered within historic range of Gila trout, although some 

Apache trout populations are still present from past recovery actions (i.e., Coleman, Grant, and 

KP Creeks).

Existing and potential Gila trout recovery populations occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs within 

the Blue River and Eagle Creek drainages. Existing and recovery populations on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs included within this analysis are Castle/Buckalou Creeks, Chitty Creek, Grant 

Creek, KP Creek, Lanphier Creek, McKittrick Creek, and Raspberry Creek.

The Gila trout was listed as threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Preservation 

Act of 1966. Discussion with the reasons for listing and threats to the species can be found within 

the four versions of the recovery plans, and the final rule “Reclassification of the Gila Trout From 

Endangered to Threatened; Special Rule for Gila Trout in New Mexico and Arizona” published in 

the Federal Register in 2006. Threats to the species include: the destruction, modification, and 

curtailment of its habitat or range; livestock grazing; fire; timber harvest operations and the 

associated erosion, siltation, and increases in water temperatures; and the introduction of 

nonnative trout species that hybridize and compete with Gila trout.

The most recent version of the recovery plan has identified eight candidate streams on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for potential Gila trout introduction. These include one stream within the 

Eagle Creek drainage (Chitty Creek), and seven streams within the Blue River drainage 

(Castle/Buckalou Creek, Coleman Creek, Grant Creek, KP Creek, Lanphier Creek, McKittrick 

Creek, and Raspberry Creek). Some streams are also currently occupied by hybridized Apache 

trout, and Raspberry Creek is the only stream that could potentially have Gila trout present, as 

they were introduced into this stream in 2000. The eight populations being considered here cover 

approximately 51,686 acres and 25 miles of streams. The Arizona Game and Fish Department 

surveyed a portion of Raspberry Creek in 2006. Five fish were observed, and three were captured 

in electrofishing efforts. The current status is unknown, but if Gila trout have persisted, it is likely 

their numbers are very low. 

Little Colorado Spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) and Critical Habitat

The natural history of Little Colorado spinedace can be found in the “Little Colorado River 

Spinedace Recovery Plan,” and the “Final Rule to Determine Lepidomeda vittata (Little Colorado 

Spinedace) to be a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat.” The Little Colorado spinedace is a 

member of the Cyprinidae family and is typically less than 10 cm long. This species is 

predacious, feeding on aquatic and terrestrial insects, as well as filamentous algae. This species 

inhabits medium to small streams and is characteristically found in pools with water flowing over 

fine gravel and silt-mud substrates. Many of the streams are seasonally intermittent, at which 

times the Little Colorado spinedace persists in the deep pools that retain water. During flooding,

the spinedace redistributes itself throughout the stream. Spawning primarily occurs in early 

summer, but some spawning continues until early fall. Typical habitat ranges in elevation from 

4,000 to 8,000 feet.

Most of the existing and potential Little Colorado spinedace recovery streams or populations 

occur on and downstream of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the Coconino NF. Existing 

populations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are within Nutrioso Creek and one of its tributaries, 

Rudd Creek. On July 23, 2007, 95 fish were introduced into West Chevelon Creek. Potential 

recovery streams on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs also include Chevelon Creek and Willow Creek 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 103

(and its tributaries). Leonard Canyon is the boundary between the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the 

Coconino NF, and it is currently occupied by Little Colorado spinedace. Critical habitat occurs on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs within the lower 5 miles of Nutrioso Creek on the Springerville 

Ranger District, from Nelson Reservoir Dam downstream to the forests boundary. Primary 

constituent elements for critical habitat include clean, permanent flowing water, with pools and a 

fine gravel or silt-mud substrate.

Past threats and declines of this species have resulted from habitat alterations and loss due to 

impoundment, removal of water from streams, channelization, grazing, road building, urban 

growth, and other human activity. Their decline is also related to the introduction and spread of 

nonnative predatory and competitive fish species, and the use of pesticides (ichthyotoxins) in 

many of its native streams. Current threats to the survival of the species include changes in 

streamflow patterns, declines in water quality and quantity, modifications of watersheds (logging, 

dams, road construction), manipulations of fish populations (use of chemicals and other factors),

and interactions with introduced fishes and other aquatic species. 

Existing and potential recovery populations of Little Colorado spinedace occur in Chevelon 

Creek, Leonard Canyon, Nutrioso Creek, Rudd Creek, West Chevelon Creek, and Willow Creek 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs; all of these except Chevelon and Willow Creeks are currently 

occupied by the species. All of these streams are contained within three watersheds that all drain

into the Little Colorado River: the Nutrioso Creek, Chevelon Creek, and East Clear Creek 

watersheds. Recent impacts to the species are due to drought, nonnative species, and alteration of 

natural hydrographs in occupied habitat. Livestock and wild ungulate grazing have also been 

identified as contributing to poor watershed conditions which exacerbate the effects of drought 

and result in diminished habitat quality. Fuels reduction, forest restoration projects, and fire 

management actions have also contributed to altered hydrographs and sediment loads in streams 

occupied by spinedace.

Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) and Critical Habitat

Loach minnows are found in turbulent, rocky riffles of rivers and tributaries from approximately 

2,300 to 8,000 feet in elevation. Loach minnow are bottom-dwelling inhabitants of shallow, swift 

waters flowing over gravel and cobble substrates in mainstream rivers and tributaries. They use 

the spaces between, and the protective shelter of larger substrates for resting and spawning. The 

species is rare or absent from habitats where fine sediments fill the spaces between larger 

substrate. The first spawn of loach minnow generally occurs in their second year, primarily from 

March through May; and they may also spawn in the fall. Spawning occurs in the same riffles 

occupied by adults during the nonspawning season. The adhesive eggs of the loach minnow are 

attached under the downstream side of a rock that forms the roof of a small cavity in the 

substrate. Longevity is typically 15 months to 2 years, although loach minnow can live as long as 

3 years. Loach minnow feed exclusively on aquatic insects; and they are opportunistic bottomfeeding insectivores, feeding primarily on riffle-dwelling larval mayflies and midges. They 

actively seek their food on bottom substrates, rather than pursuing food items in the drift.

The loach minnow is endemic to the Gila River basin of Arizona and New Mexico and Sonora, 

Mexico. Its historic range included the basins of the Verde, Salt, San Pedro, San Francisco, and 

Gila Rivers. During the last century, both the distribution and abundance of the loach minnow 

have been greatly reduced throughout its range. Extant populations are geographically isolated 

and inhabit the upstream reaches of their historic range. Historically in Arizona, the loach 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

minnow occupied up to 1,400 miles of streams, but it is now found in less than 140 miles. The 

loach minnow is generally rare to uncommon where it is found in the following areas: Aravaipa 

Creek (Pinal and Graham Counties); limited reaches of the White River (Gila County) and the 

North and East Forks of the White River (Navajo County); Three Forks area of the East Fork 

Black River; throughout the Blue River; Campbell Blue Creek; Eagle Creek; and in the San 

Francisco River between Clifton and the New Mexico border.

The loach minnow is currently listed as an endangered species. On February 23, 2012, a final rule 

was published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to change the status to endangered and 

designate critical habitat for both spikedace and loach minnow. During the last century, both the 

distribution and abundance of loach minnow has been greatly reduced throughout the species 

range. Competition and predation by nonnative fish and habitat destruction have reduced the 

historic range of the loach minnow by about 85 percent. Both historic and present landscapes 

surrounding loach minnow habitats have been impacted to varying degrees by domestic livestock 

grazing, mining, agriculture, timber harvest, recreation, development, or impoundments. These 

activities degrade loach minnow habitats by altering flow regimes, increasing watershed and 

channel erosion and, thus, sedimentation, and adding contaminants to streams and rivers. As a 

result, these activities may affect loach minnow through direct mortality, interference with 

reproduction, and reduction of invertebrate food supplies.

Within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, loach minnow has been known to occur in the Three Forks 

area of the East Fork Black River; throughout the Blue River, lower Campbell Blue Creek, Eagle 

Creek, and the San Francisco River. All the populations listed above are experiencing low 

abundance and can be attributed to many factors. Recent surveys (last 5 to 20 years) have not 

documented the presence of this species within the East Fork Black River, Eagle Creek, or the 

San Francisco River populations; and it is likely that these populations may no longer occur on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Recent surveys on the Blue River have documented the continued 

presence of this species in this system, and this population is likely more stable than the others on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Approximately 110 miles of critical habitat was designated for loach minnow in the Blue River 

(45.3 miles), Campbell Blue Creek (6 miles), Little Blue Creek (3.1 miles), Eagle Creek (12.1 

miles), East Fork Black River (11.9 miles), North Fork East Fork Black River (4.4 miles), 

Boneyard Creek (1.4 miles), Coyote Creek (2.1 miles), and the San Francisco River (23.7 miles) 

within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and Critical Habitat

The razorback sucker, also known as the humpback sucker, is a member of the Catostomidae 

family. The species can grow more than 600 mm (2 feet) in length, weigh more than 3 kg (6 

pounds), and live over 40 years. Examination of stomach contents of adult razorback suckers 

from Lake Mohave indicates that the species is a bottom feeder, whose diet includes planktonic 

crustaceans, diatoms, filamentous algae, and detritus. Spawning occurs in the lower Colorado 

River basin from January through April; and in the upper basin, observation indicates that 

spawning occurs from late April through mid-June. Spawning occurs over mixed substrates that 

range from silt to cobble and at water temperatures ranging from 10.5 to 21 oC (51 to 70 oF). 

Razorback sucker inhabit riverine systems which provide a wide variety of habitats including 

backwaters, sloughs, oxbow lakes, and seasonally inundated floodplains, which are used to satisfy 

various life history requirements. Adult razorback suckers prefer shallow and swift waters of mid-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 105

channel sandbars (less than 12 feet in depth) during the summer months and slow runs, slack 

waters, and eddies in the winter. The “Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan” describes the life history 

and habitat use for this species in detail. 

Detailed information relative to the distribution and abundance of razorback sucker can be found 

in the recovery plan. Razorback sucker are listed as occurring in the Verde and Salt Rivers with 

designated critical habitat in both systems. Razorback sucker have been stocked in the Verde 

River on a regular basis since the 1980s. Stockings in the Salt River subbasin have not occurred 

since the early 1990s. Surveys do detect the species in the Verde River. However, a viable 

population is not thought to be extant. Razorback sucker are thought to no longer occur in Eagle 

Creek and in the Blue River on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These populations were stocked 

during the 1980s, and surveys conducted since stocking have failed to detect the species. It is 

likely that the razorback sucker is not currently present in the Salt River subbasin of the Gila 

River Basin.

Fifteen river reaches covering about 49 percent of the historic habitat of the razorback sucker 

(2,775 km; 1,724 miles) are designated critical habitat within the Colorado River Basin. The Gila 

River from the Arizona-New Mexico state line to Coolidge Dam is included within this 

designation. After leaving the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, both Eagle Creek and the San Francisco 

River enter this portion of critical habitat, approximately 15 to 20 miles downstream of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs boundary. Three primary constituent elements have been identified for 

razorback sucker critical habitat: water, physical habitat, and the biological environment. The 

water element includes consideration of water quality and quantity. Water quality is defined by 

parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, environmental contaminants, nutrients, 

turbidity, and others. Water quantity refers to the amount of water that must reach specific 

locations at a given time of year to maintain biological processes and to support the various life 

stages of the species. The physical habitat elements include areas of the Colorado River system 

that are or could be suitable habitat for spawning, nursery, rearing, and feeding, as well as 

corridors between such areas.

Decline of the razorback sucker has been associated with major changes in its riverine ecosystem 

including water diversion, water depletion, and construction and operation of dams. The species 

decline is also attributed to predation by green sunfish, warmouth, channel catfish, flathead 

catfish, threadfin shad, smallmouth bass, and largemouth bass. 

Razorback suckers were introduced into Eagle Creek and the Blue River on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs in the 1980s. There are no historical records of this species occurring in either of 

these streams, although it is more likely that they would have occurred historically within the San 

Francisco River on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. From 1983 through 1989, 335,506 razorback 

suckers were introduced into Eagle Creek within and downstream of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Within the Blue River on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs from 1986 through 1989, 167,457 razorback 

suckers were introduced. Only 5 to 10 individuals were ever recaptured, and these recaptures 

occurred within the stocking years of 1983 to 1989. The fate of these fish is unknown, but they 

are no longer considered to be present within either of these streams on or downstream of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs boundary.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) and Critical Habitat

Adult spikedace are 2.5 to 3 inches long; the eyes are large, the snout fairly pointed, and the 

mouth is slightly subterminal with no barbells present. The species is slender and somewhat 

anteriorly compressed. Spikedace can live up to 24 months, although few survive more than 13 

months; and reproduction occurs primarily in 1-year-old fish. Spawning extends from the middle 

of March into June and occurs in shallow riffles with gravel and sand bottoms and moderate flow. 

By the middle of May, most spawning has occurred, although in years of high waterflows, 

spawning may continue into late May or early June. Spikedace feed primarily on aquatic and 

terrestrial insects.

Spikedace occupy mid-water habitats usually less than 3 feet deep, with slow to moderate water 

velocities over sand, gravel, or cobble substrates. Adults often occur in shear zones along gravelsand bars where rapid water borders slower flow, quiet eddies on the downstream edges of riffles, 

and broad shallow areas above gravel-sand bars. The preferred habitat of the spikedace varies 

seasonally and with maturation. In winter, the species congregates along stream margins with 

cobble substrates. The erratic flow patterns of southwestern streams that include periodic and 

recurrent flooding are essential to the feeding and reproduction of the spikedace by scouring the 

fine sediment and keeping gravels clean. Spikedace larvae and juveniles tend to occupy shallow, 

peripheral portions of streams that have slow currents and sand or fine gravel substrates, but will 

also occupy backwater habitats. 

The spikedace is native to the Gila River drainage, including the San Francisco drainage, except 

in the extreme headwaters. The spikedace currently persists only in the upper Verde River and 

Aravaipa Creek in Arizona and portions of the Gila River in New Mexico. Although, spikedace 

have not been collected in the Verde River in recent years. In New Mexico the species is 

generally absent from the Gila River from the confluence of the West and East Forks downstream 

to the mouth of Turkey Creek, and occurs irregularly downstream from the mouth of the Middle 

Box of the Gila River to the Arizona-New Mexico state line.

The majority of historic habitat for spikedace has been drastically altered or destroyed by human 

uses of the rivers, streams, and watersheds. Causes of such alterations and degradation include 

damming, water diversion, channel downcutting, excessive groundwater pumping, lowering 

water tables, channelization, riparian vegetation destruction, erosion, mining, grazing, and other 

watershed disturbances. An increasing threat to spikedace includes the introduction and spread of 

nonnative species that compete or predate upon spikedace.

Distribution and abundance of spikedace has declined due to riparian degradation, water 

diversion, and groundwater pumping. Introduction and spread of nonnative predatory and 

competitive fishes also contributed to its decline. Resource activities that affect water quality—

such as removal of riparian vegetation, sedimentation, or control of water levels—can affect 

spikedace habitat quality. All of these activities have impacted the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to 

varying degrees. The only documentation of spikedace on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs has been in 

Eagle Creek; although it is likely historical habitat could have been within the San Francisco 

River. The species is still considered to be present within Eagle Creek, even though it has not 

been collected for over 20 years. 

Critical habitat for spikedace in the recently published Final Rule (February 23, 2012) designates 

approximately 90 miles of streams that includes the Blue River (45.3 miles), Campbell Blue 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 107

Creek (6 miles), Little Blue Creek (3.1 miles), Eagle Creek (12.1 miles), and the San Francisco 

River (23.7 miles) on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Sensitive Species

Roundtail Chub

Roundtail chub utilize slow moving, deep pools for cover and feeding. They are found in the 

main stems of major rivers and smaller tributary streams. Roundtail chub utilize a variety of 

substrate types (silt, sand, gravel, and rocks) and prefer murky water to clear. Habitat use varies 

by life stages (adult, juvenile, and young-of-year). Juveniles and young-of-year are found in quiet 

water near the shore or backwaters with low velocity and frequent pools rather than glides and 

riffles. Juveniles use instream boulders for cover, while young-of-year are found in gaps between

and under boulders or the slack-water area behind boulders. Adults generally do not frequent 

vegetation and avoid shallow water cover types, such as overhanging and shoreline vegetation. 

Adults are found in eddies and pools adjacent to strong current and use instream boulders as 

cover. Roundtail chub are carnivorous and opportunistic feeders, and food items include aquatic 

and terrestrial insects, fish, snails, crustaceans, and algae. 

Threats to roundtail chub include habitat alteration and degradation from water diversions, 

groundwater pumping, dewatering, mining, contaminants, urban and agricultural development, 

livestock grazing, and predation and competition by nonnative aquatic species. Only three 

populations are on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, and they occur in lower Chevelon Creek, Black 

River, and Eagle Creek. Although the historical distribution and reference conditions for this 

species on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are unknown, it is likely that the approximately 40 miles of 

occupied habitat for this species has been reduced. Trends in population and habitat for roundtail 

chub on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have decreased from historical levels; primarily resulting 

from the reduction in habitat quantity and quality, along with establishment of nonnative aquatic 

species.

Bluehead, Desert, Little Colorado River, and Sonora Suckers

Bluehead suckers tend to utilize swifter velocity, higher gradient streams than those occupied by 

Little Colorado River suckers. They are found in warm to cool streams with rocky substrates, and 

habitat use varies by life state. Larval and juvenile fish inhabit near-shore, low velocity habitats; 

and as they mature, they move to deeper habitats further from shore and with more cover. The 

Little Colorado River sucker occurs primarily in pools with abundant cover. Both of these sucker 

species occur within the upper Little Colorado River watershed, and their ranges and occurrences 

often overlap. For the bluehead sucker, approximately 80 miles of occupied habitat occurs on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and streams include Chevelon Creek, Leonard Canyon, Little Colorado 

River, Nutrioso Creek, and Willow Creek. The Little Colorado River suckers occupied habitat is 

approximately half that of the bluehead sucker (approximately 40 miles) and the streams 

occupied are Chevelon Creek and Leonard Canyon. Desert suckers are found in the rapids and 

pools, primarily over areas of gravel-cobble with sand-silt in between the larger substrate; and 

elevations range from approximately 500 to 8,500 feet. They occur within numerous streams 

within the planning area (168 miles) and are found throughout the Black River, Eagle Creek, Blue 

River, San Francisco River, and their tributaries. Sonora suckers are found in a variety of habitats 

from warm rivers to higher elevation trout streams between 1,500 and 8,750 feet. They also occur 

throughout the planning area in the same streams as the desert sucker, with a somewhat reduced 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

distribution of approximately 148 miles. Threats to these species and their habitats include the 

alteration and destruction of habitat from anthropogenic and management activities, and the 

introduction and establishment of nonnative aquatic species.

Longfin Dace

The distribution and habitat of longfin dace is wide ranging, from intermittent, hot, low desert 

streams to clear and cold streams at higher elevations. They tend to occupy relatively small to 

medium size streams with sand or gravel bottoms, and occupying eddies and pools near 

overhanging banks or other cover. They are rarely abundant in large streams or above 5,000 feet 

elevation. They are generally found in water less than 75 °F, but are tolerant of high temperatures 

and low dissolved oxygen. Occupied habitat on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is approximately 105 

miles; streams include Eagle Creek, San Francisco River and a few tributaries, and the Blue River 

and numerous tributaries. Threats to longfin dace are similar to those of the suckers, primarily 

being nonnative aquatic species and habitat destruction and alteration. 

Nonnative Species

Nonnative species currently present a significant threat to all native fish species. Prior to EuroAmerican settlement, nonnative species were not present. However, most of the streams and lakes 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) 

for, or contain, socially desirable nonnative species (e.g., sport fish). Crayfish are also widely 

distributed and are usually found in high densities, but they are considered a nondesirable, 

nonnative species. 

Fish Recovery Efforts 

Fisheries habitat improvement in streams began in the 1930s on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The 

efforts were probably in response to highly degraded habitat conditions (likely from livestock

grazing) and were focused on higher elevation trout streams to stabilize streams and provide pool 

habitat that had been reduced. Later efforts in the 1970s and 1980s focused on areas that had been 

impacted by past management activities and concentrated recreation use (e.g., East Fork of the 

Black River, West Fork of the Little Colorado River). Considerable efforts were made in the 

1990s to improve habitat conditions for Apache trout recovery by installing habitat improvements 

within several streams, primarily on the Springerville Ranger District. Recent efforts related to 

Apache trout recovery have focused on barrier maintenance and chemical treatment of streams to 

remove nonnative species. Efforts under current plan implementation to provide for other 

federally listed and other native fish species have been minimal and limited to the introduction of 

one Little Colorado spinedace population in West Chevelon Canyon and a recently completed 

analysis for construction of a fish barrier on the lower Blue River.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Fish Species Viability

The process to assess the diversity of ecosystems and wildlife for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

began prior to plan revision and was prepared in support of the “Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

Ecological Sustainability Report” that was completed in 2009. The ecological sustainability 

report summarized the diversity of ecosystems, including the diversity of animals and plants, on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. As a result of this report, species were initially identified as having 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 109

potential or possible risk to their viability, and the identification of these species and their 

potential viability risks helped with development of plan direction to address or reduce the risk. 

Since 2009, this list has been refined and updated, with a final list of 109 species considered 

“forest planning species” (i.e., species with potential risk to their viability). For more detail, see 

the “Iterative Update to Species Considered and Identification of Forest Planning Species Report” 

(Forest Service 2012m).

A total of 14 native fish species occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, of which 7 are listed as 

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and 6 are listed by the Regional 

Forester as sensitive. All 14 fish are considered as forest planning species. The other 95 nonfish 

forest planning species are discussed in the “Wildlife and Rare Plants” section.

As part of the revision process, plan decisions were developed that describe desired conditions for 

ecosystems, PNVT types, fire regimes, riparian and aquatic habitat, and wildlife within the 

planning area. For species determined to be at low risk, these “coarse filter” plan decisions (e.g. 

desired conditions and objectives) would provide and maintain viability for those species. For 

those species at some risk to their viability, additional “fine filter” plan decisions were developed 

(e.g., standards and guidelines) to contribute and provide for viability to a low risk. Table 18 

provides a summary of the plan decisions—at the coarse filter and fine filter level—for fish 

species that are necessary to reduce population viability concerns to a low risk level. A listing of 

the coarse filter plan decisions can be found below and the fine filter plan decisions can be found 

in appendix G. 

Table 18. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address fish species viability 

concerns for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Viability/Plan 

decision

Desired 

Conditions Objectives Standards Guidelines

Coarse Filter plan 

decisions that 

provide viability 

for: 

bluehead sucker, 

desert sucker, 

Little Colorado 

sucker, longfin 

dace, razorback 

sucker, Sonora 

sucker, and 

speckled dace, 

Apache trout, Gila 

chub, Gila trout, 

Little Colorado 

spinedace, 

roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spinedace

Ecosystem Health 

Soils 

Water Resources 

Aquatic Habitat and 

Species 

All PNVTs 

Riparian Areas 

Invasive Species

Ecosystem Health 

Soils 

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species 

All Forest PNVTs 

All Woodland 

PNVTs 

Grasslands 

Invasive Species 

Water Uses
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Viability/Plan 

decision

Desired 

Conditions Objectives Standards Guidelines

Fine Filter plan 

decisions that are 

in addition to the 

coarse filter plan 

decisions above 

that provide 

viability for: 

Apache trout, Gila 

chub, Gila trout, 

Little Colorado 

spinedace, 

roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

Water resources 

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species 

Vegetation 

Invasive Species 

Water Uses

Soils 

Water Resources 

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species 

Vegetation 

Riparian 

Invasive Species 

Landscape Scale 

Disturbance 

Events Motorized 

Opportunities 

Nonmotorized 

Opportunities 

Livestock Grazing 

Minerals and 

Geology

Coarse Filter

All alternatives would provide for the viability of all native fish species by maintaining and/or 

improving their habitat and populations through implementation of various plan decisions. The 

desired conditions below are the same for all alternatives and address viability concerns for all 

native fish species and their habitats that have primarily been impacted by habitat loss and 

alteration and the introduction and spread of nonnative fish and other aquatic invasive species.

The implementation of plan decisions for all alternatives may have some short-term indirect 

effects to aquatic habitat and fish populations, but would result in long-term benefits to the 

maintenances and improvement of aquatic habitat and species populations. Long-term benefits

would occur by moving overall conditions closer to reference conditions while increasing and 

improving ecosystem resiliency and, therefore, the aquatic habitat and fish species they contain

(see the “Soil,” “Watershed,” “Water Resources,” “Riparian,” “Vegetation,” and “Invasive 

Species” sections).

Desired conditions (coarse filter plan decisions) as described in the “Overall Ecosystem Health,” 

“Soil,” “Water Resources,” “Water Uses,” “Aquatic Habitat and Species,” “Vegetation,” 

“Riparian Areas,” and “Invasive Species” sections of the plan would provide for the viability for 

bluehead sucker, desert sucker, Little Colorado sucker, longfin dace, razorback sucker, Sonora 

sucker, and speckled dace as described in the next several paragraphs. These desired conditions 

would also contribute to the viability of Apache trout, Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, 

roundtail chub, loach minnow, and spikedace.

The desired conditions and objective in overall ecosystem health that contribute and provide for 

viability include: 

• Desired Condition: Ecological components are resilient to disturbances including human 

activities and climate variability.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 111

• Desired Condition: Natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, drought, wind, insects, 

disease, pathogens) return to their innate role within the ecosystem. Fire, in particular, is 

restored to a more natural function.

• Desired Condition: Natural ecological processes allow for a shifting of plant 

communities, structure, and ages across the landscape. Ecotone shifts are influenced at 

both the landscape and watershed scale by ecological processes. The mosaic of plant 

communities and the variety within the communities are resilient to disturbances.

• Desired Condition: Ecological conditions for habitat quality, distribution, and abundance 

contribute to self-sustaining populations of native and desirable nonnative plants and

animals that are healthy, well distributed, connected, and genetically diverse. Conditions 

provide for the life history, distribution, and natural population fluctuations of the species 

within the capability of the landscape.

• Desired Condition: Large blocks of habitat are interconnected, allowing for behavioral 

and predator-prey interactions, and the persistence of metapopulations and highly 

interactive wildlife species across the landscape. Ecological connectivity extends through 

all plant communities and ecotones.

• Desired Condition: Habitat configuration and availability allows wildlife populations to 

adjust their movements (e.g., seasonal migration, foraging) in response to climate change 

and promote genetic flow between wildlife populations.

• Desired Condition: Habitat quality, distribution, and abundance exist to support the 

recovery of federally listed species and the continued existence of all native and desirable 

nonnative species.

• Desired Condition: Healthy ecosystems provide a wide range of ecosystem services.

• Desired Condition: Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition.

• Objective: During the planning period, improve the condition class on at least 10 priority 

6th level HUC watersheds by removing or mitigating degrading factors.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would improve ecological conditions and 

move conditions closer to reference conditions for vegetation, watersheds, and riparian areas. 

Additionally, ecological processes across these areas and landscapes would improve overall 

ecosystem function and condition and reduce the potential for high-severity fire. Restoration 

treatments and management actions for these desired conditions would improve vegetation, soil, 

watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions within the planning area, and provide longterm benefits to maintaining and improving aquatic habitat and fish species populations (i.e., 

viability) across the forests. 

Desired conditions and objective for soils that contribute and provide for viability include: 

• Desired Condition: Ecological and hydrologic functions are not impaired by soil 

compaction.

• Desired Condition: Soil condition rating is satisfactory.

• Desired Condition: Soils are stable within their natural capability. Vegetation and litter 

limit accelerated erosion (e.g., rills, gullies, root exposure, topsoil loss) and contribute to 

soil deposition and development.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Desired Condition: Soils provide for diverse native plant species. Vegetative ground 

cover is well distributed across the soil surface to promote nutrient cycling and water 

infiltration.

• Desired Condition: Biological soil crusts (mosses, lichens, algae, liverworts) are present 

and reestablished if potential exists.

• Desired Condition: Soil loss rates do not exceed tolerance soil loss rates.

• Desired Condition: Logs and other woody material are distributed across the surface to 

maintain soil productivity. 

• Desired Condition: Vegetation and litter is sufficient to maintain and improve water 

infiltration, nutrient cycling, and soil stability.

• Objective: During the planning period, enhance or restore an average of 350 acres per 

year within priority 6th level HUC watersheds, including treating the causes of State 

designated impaired or threatened waters (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

2007) to improve watershed condition and water quality.

The improvement in soil conditions resulting from plan implementation toward these desired 

conditions would improve and move hydrologic function and conditions of watershed toward

reference conditions and greater resiliency. Soil condition improvements would improve water 

quality and aquatic habitat quality in the long term, as sedimentation and water quality from 

runoff are reduced as watershed conditions are improved. 

Desired conditions for all PNVTs that contribute and provide for viability include: 

• Desired Condition: Each PNVT contains a mosaic of vegetative conditions, densities, and 

structures. This mosaic occurs at a variety of scales across landscapes and watersheds. 

The distribution of physical and biological conditions is appropriate to the natural 

disturbance regimes affecting the area.

• Desired Condition: The vegetative conditions and functions are resilient to the frequency, 

extent, and severity of ecological processes, especially fire, insects and disease, and 

climate variability. The landscape is a functioning ecosystem that contains all its 

components, processes, and functions.

• Desired Condition: Natural processes and human disturbances (e.g., planned and 

unplanned fire ignitions, mechanical vegetation treatments) provide desired overall tree 

density, structure, species composition, coarse woody debris, and nutrient cycling. 

Natural fire regimes are restored. Uncharacteristic fire behavior is minimal or absent on 

the landscape.

• Desired Condition: Fire (planned and unplanned ignitions) maintains and enhances 

resources and, as nearly as possible, is allowed to function in its natural ecological role.

• Desired Condition: Native plant communities dominate the landscape.

• Desired Condition: The range of species genetic diversity remains within native 

vegetation and animal populations, thus enabling species to adapt to changing 

environmental and climatic conditions.

• Desired Condition: Vegetative connectivity provides for species dispersal, genetic 

exchange, and daily and seasonal movements across multiple spatial scales.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation characteristics (e.g., density, litter) provide favorable 

conditions for waterflow and quality.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 113

• Desired Condition: Organic soil cover and herbaceous vegetation protect soil, facilitate 

moisture infiltration, and contribute to plant and animal diversity and ecosystem function.

• Desired Condition: Diverse vegetation structure, species composition, densities, and seral 

states provide quality habitat for native and desirable nonnative plant and animal species 

throughout their life cycle and at multiple spatial scales. Landscapes provide for the full 

range of ecosystem diversity at multiple scales, including habitats for those species 

associated with late seral states and old growth forests.

• Desired Condition: Old growth is dynamic in nature and occurs in well-distributed 

patches that spatially shift across forest and woodland landscapes over time.

• Desired Condition: Old or large trees, multistoried canopies, large coarse woody debris, 

and snags provide the structure, function, and associated vegetation composition as 

appropriate for each forested and woodland PNVT.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation conditions allow for transition zones or ecotones between 

riparian areas, forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. Transition zones may shift 

in time and space due to changing site conditions (e.g., fire, climate).

• Desired Condition: Insect and disease populations are at endemic levels with occasional 

outbreaks. A variety of seral states usually restricts the scale of localized insect and 

disease outbreaks.

• Desired Condition: Stand densities and species compositions are such that vegetation 

conditions are resilient under a variety of potential future climates. 

• Desired Condition: Vegetation conditions provide hiding and thermal cover in contiguous 

blocks for wildlife. Native plant species are present in all age classes and are healthy, 

reproducing, and persisting.

• Desired Condition: Ground cover, density, and height of vegetation exist to protect the 

soil and support water infiltration. There is a diverse mix of cool and warm season grass 

and desirable forb species. Plant canopy cover and composition are within or moving 

closer to reference conditions.

• Desired Condition: Grasses, forbs, shrubs, and litter are abundant and continuous to 

maintain and support natural fire regimes.

• Desired Condition: The composition, density, structure, and mosaic of vegetative 

conditions reduce uncharacteristic wildfire hazard to local communities and forest 

ecosystems.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would move the PNVTs closer to their 

ecological composition, structure, and processes relative to reference conditions. The closer each 

PNVT is functioning to reference conditions, the more secure dependent species are within the 

associated habitats. PNVT improvements would reestablish the natural patterns and processes 

within these vegetation communities that allow for natural resiliency; especially important when 

faced with uncharacteristic wildfire, the presence of invasive species, and climate change. 

Desired deconditions for water resources and uses that contribute and provide for viability 

include:

• Desired Condition: Water quality, stream channel stability, and aquatic habitats retain 

their inherent resilience to natural and other disturbances.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Desired Condition: Water resources maintain the capability to respond and adjust to 

disturbances without long-term adverse changes.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation and soil conditions above the floodplain contribute to 

downstream water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitat.

• Desired Condition: Instream flows provide for channel and floodplain maintenance, 

recharge of riparian aquifers, water quality, and minimal temperature fluctuations.

• Desired Condition: Streamflows provide connectivity among fish populations and 

provide unobstructed routes critical for fulfilling needs of aquatic, riparian dependent, 

and many upland species of plants and animals.

• Desired Condition: Stream channels and floodplains are dynamic and resilient to 

disturbances. The water and sediment balance between streams and their watersheds 

allow a natural frequency of low and high flows.

• Desired Condition: Flooding does not disrupt normal stream characteristics (e.g., water 

transport, sediment, woody material) or alter stream dimensions (e.g., bank full width, 

depth, slope, sinuosity).

• Desired Condition: Floodplains are functioning and lessen the impacts of floods on 

human safety, health, and welfare.

• Desired Condition: Water quality meets or exceeds Arizona State standards or 

Environmental Protection Agency water quality standards for designated uses.

• Desired Condition: Water developments contribute to fish, wildlife, and riparian habitat 

as well as scenic and aesthetic values.

• Desired Condition: Apache-Sitgreaves NFs water rights are secure and contribute to 

livestock, recreation, wildlife, and administrative uses.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would ensure water quality, quantity, and 

connectivity occurs across the forests; along with improving watershed and hydrologic conditions 

necessary for maintaining and improving riparian areas and aquatic habitats. 

Desired conditions and objectives for aquatic habitat and species that provide viability for 

bluehead sucker, desert sucker, Little Colorado sucker, longfin dace, razorback sucker, Sonora 

sucker, and speckled dace include:

• Desired Condition: Streams and aquatic habitats support native fish and/or other aquatic 

species providing the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat within reference conditions.

• Desired Condition: Federally listed species are trending toward recovery. 

• Desired Condition: Streamflows, habitat, and water quality support native aquatic and 

riparian dependent species and habitat.

• Desired Condition: Habitat and ecological conditions are capable of providing for selfsustaining populations of native, riparian dependent plant and animal species.

• Desired Condition: Native fish, reptile, and amphibian populations are free from or 

minimally impacted by nonnative plants and animals.

• Desired Condition: Aquatic species habitat conditions provide the resiliency and 

redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and metapopulations.

• Desired Condition: Desirable nonnative fish species provide recreational fishing in waters 

where those opportunities are not in conflict with the recovery of native species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 115

• Desired Condition: Wetlands are hydrologically functioning and have sufficient 

(composing 50 percent of the wetland) emergent vegetation and macroinvertebrate 

populations to support resident and migratory wetland-dependent species.

• Objective: Annually, enhance or restore 5 to 15 miles of stream and riparian habitat to 

restore structure, composition, and function of physical habitat for native fisheries and 

riparian-dependent species.

• Objective: During the planning period, complete at least five projects (e.g., remove 

barriers, restore dewatered stream segments, or connect fragmented habitat) to provide 

for aquatic and riparian associated species and migratory species.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would improve aquatic habitat conditions 

for all native fish species, reduce impacts associated with nonnative species, and improve 

distributions and resiliency for threatened and endangered fish species. Conditions for all native 

fish species would improve by addressing habitat and loss and alteration of habitat by moving 

conditions closer to reference conditions.

Desired conditions for riparian areas that provide for viability include: 

• Desired Condition: Natural ecological processes (e.g., flooding, scouring) promote a 

diverse plant structure consisting of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species of all ages and 

size classes necessary for the recruitment of riparian-dependent species.

• Desired Condition: Riparian-wetland conditions maintain water-related processes (e.g., 

hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic). They also maintain the physical and biological 

community characteristics, functions, and processes.

• Desired Condition: Stream (lotic) riparian-wetland areas have vegetation, landform, or 

large coarse woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow.

• Desired Condition: Streams and their adjacent floodplains are capable of filtering, 

processing, and storing sediment; aiding floodplain development; improving floodwater 

retention; and increasing groundwater recharge.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation and root masses stabilize streambanks, islands, and 

shoreline features against the cutting action of water.

• Desired Condition: Ponding and channel characteristics provide habitat, water depth, 

water duration, and the temperatures necessary for maintaining populations of ripariandependent species and for their dispersal.

• Desired Condition: Lentic riparian areas (e.g., wet meadows, fens, bogs) have vegetation 

and landform present to dissipate wind action, wave action, and overland flow from 

uplands.

• Desired Condition: Wetland-riparian areas are capable of filtering sediment and aiding 

floodplain development that contribute to water retention and groundwater recharge.

• Desired Condition: The spatial extent of wetlands is maintained. 

• Desired Condition: Sedimentation and soil compaction do not negatively impact riparian 

areas.

• Desired Condition: Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species that support a 

wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive plant and 

animal species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Desired Condition: The ecological function of riparian areas is resilient to animal and 

human use.

• Desired Condition: Floodplains and wet meadows provide sufficient herbaceous cover 

(55 percent or greater) and height (9 inches or longer) to trap sediment, mitigate flood 

energy, and provide wildlife habitat.

• Desired Condition: Riparian areas that do not depend on geologic control features for 

stability have large coarse woody debris that provides key habitat for riparian-dependent 

species.

• Desired Condition: Stream bottoms that are predominantly composed of sand and gravel 

have large coarse woody debris which provides habitat and food and helps dissipate 

hydraulic energy.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would improve conditions for all native fish 

species by addressing habitat and loss and alteration of habitat by moving conditions closer to 

reference conditions.

Desired conditions and the objective for invasive species that provide for viability include:

• Desired Condition: Invasive species are in low abundance or nonexistent.

• Desired Condition: Undesirable nonnative species are absent or present only to the extent 

that they do not adversely affect ecosystem composition, structure, or function, including 

native species populations or the natural fire regime.

• Desired Condition: Introduction of additional invasive species rarely occurs and is 

detected at an early stage.

• Objective: Annually control or eradicate invasive species (e.g., tamarisk, bullfrogs) on at 

least 2 stream miles.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would improve conditions for all native fish 

species by addressing threats to those species from nonnative invasive species.

In addition to the above, objectives for all forested PNVTs, all woodland PNVTs, grasslands, and 

water uses would contribute to species viability by moving vegetation conditions closer to desired 

conditions and securing water rights. These include:

• Objective: Annually treat 5,000 to 35,000 acres to reduce tree densities, restore natural 

fire regimes, promote species habitat and ecosystem health, reduce fire hazard, maintain 

desired conditions, initiate recovery from uncharacteristic disturbance, and provide forest 

products, leaving a desired mix of species with the range of desired densities that are 

resilient to changing climatic conditions.

• Objective: Annually treat or maintain 5,000 to 15,000 acres to promote a highly diverse 

structure.

• Objective: Decrease or maintain the woody canopy cover at less than 10 percent by 

treating up to 25,000 acres annually.

• Objective: Annually prepare at least one instream flow water rights application until 

water acquisition needs are complete to sustain riparian areas, fish, wildlife, and waterbased recreation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 117

Fine Filter

While the above coarse filter desired conditions provide and maintain viability for numerous fish 

species, additional fine filter plan decisions were needed for those fish species with higher risk to 

their viability. These species include Apache trout, Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, 

roundtail chub, loach minnow, and spikedace. All of the plan decisions (i.e., fine filter standards 

and guidelines) discussed below are applicable and necessary for each and all of the six fish 

species listed. They are applicable to all six species as the potential impacts to watersheds, 

riparian areas, and aquatic habitats are similar, and the specific threats to all these species are also 

similar (e.g., sedimentation, nonnative species). 

The fine filter plan decisions are designed to address the threats and risks to these species, 

especially as they relate to potential short-term impacts. These standards and guidelines were 

developed to ensure species viability by improving and maintaining habitat and populations 

across the forests, while minimizing any potential short-term impacts associated with restoration 

treatments and management activities.

As these species are more vulnerable to short-term habitat impacts due to their lower population 

numbers and reduced distributions, these additional standards and guidelines would provide 

viability by addressing the primary concerns associated with habitat loss and alteration, nonnative

species, and uncharacteristic landscape-scale disturbances (e.g., uncharacteristic fire).

The standards and guidelines identified in the “Invasive Species,” “Landscape Scale Disturbance 

Events,” “Riparian Areas,” “Water Resources,” “Water Uses,” “Motorized Opportunities,” 

“Aquatic Habitat and Species,” and “Livestock Grazing” sections of the plan under all 

alternatives contribute and provide for viability for Apache trout, Gila chub, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, loach minnow, and spikedace. A list of these fine filter plan decisions 

can be found in appendix G.

Fine filter plan decisions for invasive species include: 

• Standard – “Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential for 

the introduction of new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or 

terrestrial nonnative populations.”

• Guideline – “Project areas should be monitored to ensure there is no introduction or 

spread of invasive species.”

• Guideline – “Treatment of invasive species should be designed to effectively control or 

eliminate them; multiple treatments may be needed.”

• Guideline – “Pesticide use should minimize impacts on nontarget plants and animals.”

• Guideline – “Projects and activities should not transfer water between drainages or 

between unconnected waterbodies within the same drainage to avoid spreading disease 

and aquatic invasive species.”

As nonnative species are negatively impacting all federally listed fish species, these plan 

decisions would reduce current impacts and ensure restoration treatments and management 

actions do not result in additional impacts associated with invasive species or actions taken to 

control existing populations. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Fine filter plan decisions for landscape scale disturbance include: 

• Guideline – “Erosion control mitigation features should be implemented to protect 

significant resource values and infrastructure such as stream channels, roads, structures, 

threatened and endangered species, and cultural resources.”

• Guideline – “Projects and activities (e.g., revegetation, mulching, lop and scatter) should 

be designed to stabilize soils and restore nutrient cycling, if needed, and establish 

movement toward the desired conditions for the affected PNVT(s).”

Due to their limited and/or reduced distributions and isolated populations, federally listed fish 

species are more susceptible to large-scale disturbances (e.g., fire) that can also negatively impact 

vegetation, watersheds, riparian areas, and aquatic habitat. When large-scale disturbances occur,

these guidelines would ensure that conditions required for the restoration of ecological functions 

and processes would be in place, and any potential impacts to streams and federally listed species 

would be minimized. 

Fine filter plan decisions for riparian areas include: 

• Guideline – “Storage of fuels and other toxicants should be located outside of riparian 

areas to prevent spills that could impair water quality or harm aquatic species.”

• Guideline – “Equipment should be fueled or serviced outside of riparian areas to prevent 

spills that could impair water quality or harm aquatic species.”

• Guideline – “Construction or maintenance equipment service areas should be located and 

treated to prevent gas, oil, or other contaminants from washing or leaching into streams.”

• Guideline – “Wet meadows and cienegas should not be used for concentrated activities 

(e.g., equipment storage, forest product or mineral stockpiling, livestock handling 

facilities, special uses) that cause damage to soil and vegetation.”

• Guideline – “Active grazing allotments should be managed to maintain or improve to 

desired riparian conditions.”

These guidelines would minimize potential impacts to riparian vegetation, water quality, aquatic 

habitat, and fish species associated with restoration treatments and/or management actions. 

Fine filter plan decisions for water resources and water uses include: 

• Guideline – “Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water 

should be protected from detrimental changes in water temperature and sediment to 

protect aquatic species and riparian habitat.”

• Guideline – “Streamside management zones should be in place between streams and 

disturbed areas and/or road locations to maintain water quality and suitable stream 

temperatures for aquatic species.”

• Guideline – “As State of Arizona water rights permits (e.g., water impoundments, 

diversions) are issued, the base level of instream flow should be retained by the ApacheSitgreaves NFs.”

• Guideline – “Constraints (e.g., maximum limit to which water level can be drawn down, 

minimum distance from a connected river, stream, wetland, or groundwater-dependent 

ecosystem) should be established for new groundwater pumping sites permitted on NFS 

lands in order to protect the character and function of water resources.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 119

• Standard – “Streams on NFS lands with high aquatic values and at risk from new water 

diversions shall be preserved and protected with instream flow water rights.”

• Standard – “Groundwater withdrawals shall not measurably diminish surface water flows 

on NFS lands without an appropriate surface water right.”

• Standard – “Consistent with existing water rights, water diversions or obstructions shall 

at all times allow sufficient water to pass downstream to preserve minimum levels of 

water flow which maintain aquatic life and other purposes of national forest 

establishment.”

Where water uses and management of resources occur, the potential to impact water quality, 

riparian areas and vegetation, aquatic habitat, and fish may occur. The standards and guidelines 

for water resources and uses would minimize and mitigate any potential impacts by protecting 

aquatic habitat and species from disturbance by implementing streamside management zones. 

Fine filter plan decisions for motorized opportunities include: 

• Guideline – “New roads, motorized trails, or designated motorized areas should be 

located to avoid meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and 

areas with high concentrations of significant archaeological sites. The number of stream 

crossings should be minimized or mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic species.”

• Guideline – “Roads and motorized trails removed from the transportation network should 

be treated in order to avoid future risk to hydrologic function and aquatic habitat.”

• Guideline – “As projects occur, existing meadow crossings should be relocated or 

redesigned, as needed, to maintain or restore hydrologic function using appropriate tools 

such as French drains and elevated culverts.”

• Guideline – “New trails and trail relocations should be designed and located so as to not 

impede terrestrial and aquatic species movement and connectivity.”

These guidelines for motorized opportunities would minimize potential impacts or conflicts to 

aquatic species and habitats by maintaining and improving hydrologic conditions and functions 

and avoiding riparian areas. 

Fine filter plan decisions for aquatic habitat and species include: 

• Guideline – “The needs of rare and unique species associated with wetlands, fens, bogs, 

and springs should be given priority consideration when developing these areas for 

waterfowl habitat and other uses.”

• Guideline – “Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic species and 

riparian vegetation.”

• Guideline – “Projects and activities should avoid damming or impounding free-flowing 

waters to provide streamflows needed for aquatic and riparian-dependent species.”

• Standard – “When drafting (withdrawing) water from streams or other waterbodies, 

measures will be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic organisms and the 

spread of parasites or disease (e.g., Asian tapeworm, chytrid fungus, whirling disease).”

• Guideline – “When new water diversions are created or existing water diversions are 

reanalyzed, measures should be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic 

organisms.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Guideline – “To prevent degradation of native species habitat and the incidental or 

accidental introduction of diseases or nonnative species, aquatic species should not be 

transferred through management activities from one 6th level HUC watershed to another.”

As stated previously, habitat loss and alteration and nonnative species are the primary concerns 

for most native and federally listed fish species. These standards and guidelines for aquatic 

habitat and species would provide for the habitat needs for fish species, while reducing and 

minimizing any potential impacts associated with nonnative species. 

Fine filter plan decisions for livestock grazing include: 

• Guideline – “Critical areas should be managed to address the inherent or unique site 

factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts.”

• Guideline – “New livestock troughs, tanks, and holding facilities should be located out of 

riparian areas to prevent concentration of livestock in these areas. Existing facilities in 

riparian areas should be modified, relocated, or removed where their presence is 

determined to inhibit movement toward desired riparian or aquatic conditions.”

• Guideline – “To minimize potential resource impacts from livestock, salt or nutritional 

supplements should not be placed within a quarter mile of any riparian area or water 

source. Salt or nutritional supplements should also be located to minimize herbivory 

impacts to aspen clones.”

• Guideline – “To prevent resource damage, trailing of livestock should not occur along 

riparian areas.”

The removal and/or relocation of livestock trailing, waters, holding facilities, salt, and nutritional 

supplements away from waters and riparian areas would reduce any potential negative impacts to 

riparian vegetation, water quality, and aquatic habitats. 

Overall Environmental Consequences

In all alternatives implementation of plan decisions (i.e., desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, suitability, special areas, and monitoring) may have both short-term and 

long-term environmental consequences that are positive, negative, or neutral on aquatic and 

riparian habitat and fish populations. Improvements in vegetation conditions, primarily through 

mechanical treatments and fire management activities, along with watershed improvements may 

result in long-term beneficial impacts that could improve aquatic habitat conditions and fish 

populations. These potential beneficial impacts would be dependent on the extent to which these 

treatments occur within watersheds occupied or identified for the recovery of fish species. 

Although ecosystem, watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions have varying departure 

from reference conditions, achievement or movement toward desired conditions would improve 

these conditions across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Vegetation, fuels, and fire restoration treatments can influence and improve aquatic habitat 

conditions across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat treatments 

would have the greatest potential to positively impact aquatic habitat. Through implementation of 

plan decisions (i.e., desired conditions and objectives) for ecosystem health, soils, water 

resources, aquatic habitat and species, vegetation, riparian areas, invasive species, and water uses, 

both the physical and biological processes for maintaining and improving aquatic habitat and fish 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 121

populations would move toward reference conditions across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and 

provide for viability and recovery for threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species.

Within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and areas downstream, management activities have the 

potential to impact fish species and their critical/potential habitat. Impacts to hydrologic 

conditions (i.e., changes in water quantity and quality) and riparian and aquatic habitats are due to 

vegetation alterations, soil erosion, and sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities. These 

include, but are not limited to: fire and mechanical treatments, timber harvesting, livestock 

grazing, road construction and maintenance, and recreation and developments. How watersheds, 

riparian areas, and streams respond to management impacts would be influenced by their geology, 

soils, vegetation conditions and cover, their existing conditions at the time of the impacts, and 

environmental conditions that exist after impacts have occurred. As mentioned in the previous 

section, all alternatives contain plan decisions to address and minimize any potential short-term 

negative impacts to all of the endangered, threatened, and sensitive fish species and their habitats 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat

In all alternatives the implementation of plan decisions related to ecosystem health, soils, water 

resources, aquatic habitat and species, vegetation, riparian areas, and invasive species may have 

short-term negative environmental consequences, but would also result in long-term beneficial 

environmental consequences to the maintenance and improvement of fish species populations and 

habitats on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Implementation of the action alternatives would provide 

and maintain viability for all seven of the endangered and threatened fish species on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs; and would also result in a “may affect” determination for the Apache trout, Gila 

chub and its critical habitat, Gila trout, Little Colorado spinedace and its critical habitat, loach 

minnow and its critical habitat, spikedace and its critical habitat, and the razorback sucker and its 

critical habitat. See table 19 below.

On April 6, 2011, the Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office completed a biological 

assessment (BA) for the ongoing implementation of the 1987 plan. On April 30, 2012, the 

USFWS issued a biological opinion (BO) that included ESA species on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs. The BA findings for fish species are shown in table 19 below; and these would be the effects 

should alternative A, the 1987 plan, continue to be implemented.

Table 19. ESA species findings for all proposed alternatives

Species Status 2011 BA Findings 

(Alternative A)

Findings 

Alternatives B, C, and D

Apache trout Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect May affect

Gila chub

Critical habitat 

Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect

May affect

Gila trout Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect May affect

Little Colorado 

spinedace

Critical habitat 

Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect

May affect
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Species Status 2011 BA Findings 

(Alternative A)

Findings 

Alternatives B, C, and D

Loach minnow

Critical habitat

Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect

May affect

Spikedace

Critical habitat

Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect

May affect

Razorback 

sucker1

Critical habitat

Endangered No effect

May affect

1 Razorback sucker was not analyzed in the 2011 BA or the 2012 BO.

While all alternatives provide for viability by moving habitat conditions closer to reference 

conditions, plan objectives vary between the alternatives, and their outcomes determine the 

potential for fish habitat and population improvements across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Plan 

decisions associated with ecosystems, soils, vegetation, and other restoration activities are not 

specifically discussed here, and more specific information on these actions and their potential 

environmental consequences can be found within these sections within this document.

• Stream and riparian habitat restoration treatment objectives for native fish species for 

alternatives B and C are 5 to 15 miles per year, less than 10 miles per year for 

alternative A, and on an opportunity basis for alternative C.

• Objectives for riparian habitat vegetation treatments are 5 miles per year for alternatives 

B, C, and D, and on an opportunity basis for alternative A. 

• Aquatic invasive treatment objectives are 2 miles per year for alternatives B, C, and D, 

and on an opportunity basis for alternative A. 

• Riparian restoration treatments for alternative D are 300 to 600 acres per year, 200 to 

500 acres per year for alternative B, and on an opportunity basis for alternatives A and 

C. 

• Road and trail restoration for streams and riparian areas are 4 miles over the planning 

period for alternatives B and D, and on an opportunity basis for alternatives A and C. 

The overall greatest improvements for all the endangered and threatened fish species are likely to 

result through implementation of alternative D. Alternative B would result in similar 

improvements, but to a somewhat lesser extent as compared to alternative D. Alternative C

would not restore conditions to the extent of either alternative D or alternative B, but would be 

greater than alternative A. 

Sensitive Species

In all alternatives the implementation of plan decisions related to ecosystem health, soils, water 

resources, aquatic habitat and species, vegetation, riparian areas, and invasive species for any of 

the alternatives may have short-term negative environmental consequences, but would also result 

in long-term beneficial environmental consequences to the maintenance and improvement of fish 

species populations and habitats on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The implementation of all 

alternatives would provide and maintain viability for all six of the sensitive fish species on the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 123

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs; and would also result in a “may impact individuals, but is not likely to 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability” determination for the bluehead sucker, 

Desert sucker, Little Colorado River sucker, longfin dace, roundtail chub, and the Sonora sucker.

While all alternatives provide for viability by moving habitat conditions closer to reference 

conditions, plan objectives vary between the alternatives, and these differences among outcomes 

would determine the potential for habitat and population improvements for fish species across the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Plan decisions associated with ecosystems, soils, vegetation, and other 

restoration activities are not specifically discussed here, and more specific information on these 

actions and their potential environmental consequences can be found within these sections within 

this document.

• Stream and riparian habitat restoration treatment objectives for native fish species for 

alternatives B and C are 5 to 15 miles per year, less than 10 miles per year for 

alternative A, and on an opportunity basis for alternative C.

• Objectives for riparian habitat vegetation treatments are 5 miles per year for alternatives 

B, C, and D, and on an opportunity basis for alternative A. 

• Aquatic invasive treatment objectives are 2 miles per year for alternatives B, C, and D, 

and on an opportunity basis for alternative A. 

• Riparian restoration treatments for alternative D are 300 to 600 acres per year, 200 to 

500 acres per year for alternative B, and on an opportunity basis for alternatives A and 

C. 

• Road and trail restoration for streams and riparian areas are 4 miles over the planning 

period for alternatives B and D, and on an opportunity basis for alternatives A and C. 

The overall greatest improvements for all the endangered and threatened fish species are likely to 

result through implementation of alternative D, and alternative B would result in similar 

improvements, but to a somewhat lesser extent as compared to alternative D. Alternative C

would not restore conditions to the extent of either alternative D or alternative B, but would be 

greater than alternative A. 

Restoration Treatment Activities

Under all alternatives, management actions to implement ecological restoration would include 

treating vegetation through fire, timber harvest, and mechanical treatments across the landscape 

over the planning period. Treatments could potentially result in some disturbances to watersheds 

through increased runoff, erosion, sediment, and streamflow that could impact aquatic habitat. All 

projects would minimize impacts to aquatic ecosystems and maintain habitat quantity and 

distribution within the planning area by implementing appropriate plan direction. All treatments 

are intended to improve ecological conditions by restoring the natural fire regime, improving 

vegetation health and conditions, and reducing the potential for high-severity wildfire. All 

treatments would result in improved watershed, soil, and vegetation conditions in the planning 

area and, thus, would have long-term benefits of maintaining and improving aquatic habitats and 

fish species populations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Watershed improvement projects would occur across the landscape across the forest, and these 

projects would move soil and vegetation conditions toward satisfactory conditions. Closing and 

obliterating unauthorized routes would improve watershed conditions and decrease erosion. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Improvements of stream crossings would reduce impacts to aquatic habitats from sedimentation. 

These projects would follow plan direction to minimize impacts to aquatic ecosystems and 

habitats, and would have long-term benefits of maintaining or improving aquatic habitats and fish 

species populations across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

The following sections provide further discussion and description of potential impacts. The 

severity of any unavoidable negative impacts may be reduced or minimized by designing 

mitigation measures for site-specific project implementation. Where management activities occur, 

some impacts cannot be avoided; therefore, some unavoidable impacts could occur to fish and 

aquatic habitats.

Table 3 in chapter 2 displays the restoration objectives, or planned treatment amounts, for each 

alternative. The restoration activities are used as indicators to compare the four alternatives 

relative to their potential impacts to fish and their habitats. Drainage areas were calculated for 

each species to aid these comparisons; and the acreages presented for each species contain all of 

the upland area that drains into occupied, critical, or recovery habitat for each fish species. By 

limiting the analyses to only those areas that can impact and influence each fish species, this 

allows for a more meaningful comparison of the potential environmental consequences for each 

individual fish species for each alternative.

Impacts Related to Mechanical, and Fire and Fuels Treatments

The primary vegetation management tools in all alternatives would be mechanical and fire 

treatments. While these activities would be implemented with the intent of restoring vegetative 

conditions (i.e., structure and composition) and natural fire regimes, their respective impacts and 

the potential short- and long-term environmental consequences could vary by the specific 

treatment types and combinations used. 

Table 20 below summarizes each alternative’s total acreages and percent of habitat for each 

species that could potentially be treated, during the planning period, by treatment type. The total 

potential treatment acres would not vary for any species by alternative, but the potential treatment 

types would vary. These are primarily a result of the relative emphasis on mechanical treatments 

and lands managed for timber production on a regulated basis (with a concurrent reduction in the 

use of fire) in alternatives A, B, and C. There is a reduction in overall mechanical treatment 

lands (with no lands being managed for timber production on a regulated basis), along with the 

increased use of fire in alternative D. The total treatment acres for each species is 100 percent of 

their drainage areas, which would likely result in all species being potentially impacted within the 

planning period by one or more treatment types.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 125

Table 20. Acres and percent of the forests by potential treatment type (mechanical and fire) by species drainage area and alternative

Species Drainage Area (acres1)

Alternative A2 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Apache Trout (109,986)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 85,746 78% 82,663 75% 82,788 75% 72,986 66%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 24,018 22% 27,323 25% 27,198 25% 37,000 34%

Bluehead Sucker (374,967)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 326,673 87% 333,539 89% 333,533 89% 288,061 77%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 46,780 13% 41,429 11% 41,434 11% 86,907 23%

Desert Sucker (847,535)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 387,631 46% 396,467 47% 396,549 47% 238,983 28%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 459,140 54% 451,068 53% 450,986 53% 608,553 72%

Gila Chub (92,705)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 51,105 55% 51,105 55% 51,105 55% 8,657 9%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 41,600 45% 41,600 45% 41,600 45% 84,048 91%

Gila Trout (51,615)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 15,644 30% 15,645 30% 15,645 30% 12,126 23%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 35,971 70% 35,970 70% 35,970 70% 39,489 77%

Little Colorado Spinedace (268,697)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 237,847 89% 243,409 91% 243,403 91% 204,344 76%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 30,240 11% 25,289 9% 25,294 9% 64,353 24%
126

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Species Drainage Area (acres1)

Alternative A2 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

LCR Sucker (180,663)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 166,424 92% 172,386 95% 172,387 95% 140,187 78%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 13,734 8% 8,276 5% 8,276 5% 40,476 22%

Loach Minnow (724,558)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 269,142 37% 279,439 39% 279,439 39% 131,468 18%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 454,651 63% 445,120 61% 445,120 61% 593,090 82%

Longfin Dace (634,010)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 201,812 32% 207,735 33% 207,734 33% 70,773 11%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 432,198 68% 426,276 67% 426,276 67% 563,237 89%

Razorback Sucker (637,401)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 203,907 32% 212,115 33% 212,115 33% 69,183 11%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 433,494 68% 425,286 67% 425,286 67% 568,218 89%

Roundtail Chub (543,293)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 416,913 77% 425,790 78% 425,872 78% 321,579 59%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 125,127 23% 117,503 22% 117,421 22% 221,715 41%

Sonora Sucker (847,535)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 387,631 46% 396,467 47% 396,549 47% 238,983 28%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 459,140 54% 451,068 53% 450,986 53% 608,553 72%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 127

Species Drainage Area (acres1)

Alternative A2 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Spikedace (653,098)

Lands where Mechanical Treatments or Fire Could Occur 209,436 32% 217,655 33% 217,655 33% 69,684 11%

Lands where Only Fire Treatments Could Occur 443,662 68% 435,444 67% 435,444 67% 583,414 89%

1

 The acres in parenthesis represents the drainage area that influences the occupied habitat for each species; these acreages do not change by alternative.

2 The sum of alternative A’s treatment acres do not equal the drainange area acres because the water management area is not included in this calculation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Mechanical treatments include vegetation treatments and associated skidding, road improvement 

and maintenance (e.g., road use, new construction, reconstruction, temporary construction of 

roads), log and/or biomass transportation, piling, and disposal/removal of slash, and site 

preparation. While these treatments could result in short-term impacts to the specific treatment 

sites and cumulatively within a watershed, standards and guidelines would ensure any short-term 

impacts are minimized. Mechanical and fire treatments improve forest health and vegetation 

conditions, restore a more natural fire regime, and reduce the potential for high-severity wildfire. 

These ecological restoration actions would have long-term benefits to maintaining and improving 

aquatic habitats and maintaining fish species populations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Alternatives A, B, and C would have the highest potential for short-term negative impacts to 

aquatic habitat and fish populations because they have the greatest area that could receive 

mechanical treatments. Negative impacts could occur when the hydrologic conditions, including 

increased rates of sedimentation, of watersheds and riparian areas are altered. Potential negative 

impacts from alternative D would be less than those under alternative A, B or C, as there are 

much fewer lands that could be mechanically treated. 

Potential long-term beneficial impacts would occur in all alternatives through the improvements 

in vegetation conditions. Additionally, beneficial impacts could occur through restoration of a 

more natural fire regime and reducing the potential for uncharacteristic wildfire that may benefit 

watersheds and desired conditions for riparian and aquatic habitat. All lands with potential to 

impact fish species and aquatic habitats have been identified as lands that can be treated either by 

mechanical or fire treatments, although the proportion of mechanical versus fire treated lands 

does vary for each fish species. While the proportion of treatment types varies between species, 

the outcomes associated with the treatments are similar for all species, as they would restore 

aquatic habitats and move toward desired conditions for all fish species.

Alternative A has the most acres (9 to 66 percent of species drainage areas) that would be 

managed as suitable timber production lands, followed by alternatives C and B. These lands 

would be subject to periodic mechanical entries over time, although it is likely there would be 

only one entry that would occur during the planning period. Potential negative environmental 

consequences could result from higher road densities and the associated watershed and 

hydrologic impacts from repeated entries that can result in impacts to water quality, riparian 

areas, and aquatic habitats. 

Alternative D has no lands suitable for timber production. In terms of fire-only treatments, 

alternatives A, B, and C would potentially treat the least amount of acres; therefore, they would 

likely result in the least amount of beneficial impacts. Alternative D would result in the greatest 

amount of beneficial impacts, as it could potentially treat 22 to 91 percent more acres within each 

fish species drainage area compared to alternatives A, B, and C. Fire-only treatments require 

fewer ground-disturbing impacts and infrastructure (e.g., roads, landings) as compared to 

mechanical treatments, and can reduce the potential for future wildfire impacts that can 

negatively impact watershed conditions, riparian areas, aquatic habitats, and fish populations 

from uncharacteristic amounts of moderate and high severity fire activity.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 129

Impacts Associated with Management Area Allocations

The fish species drainage areas are located in a variety of management areas. It is assumed that 

certain management areas have a higher probability of management activities, including grounddisturbing activities. 

For the action alternatives, these management areas include the General Forest, CommunityForest Intermix, High Use Developed Recreation Area, Energy Corridor, and Wild Horse 

Territory. Alternative A includes the Sandrock, Escudilla Demonstration Area, Forest Land, 

Grassland, Riparian, and Woodland Management Areas. Table 21 displays the percent species 

drainage area acres that occur in these management areas.

As management intensity (ground-disturbing activities) increases across the landscape, the 

likelihood of providing for the restoration of ecosystems and providing for ecological 

sustainability may be reduced. Increased management intensity can alter watershed and 

hydrologic process and functions, provide greater risks and threats to riparian and aquatic 

habitats, and limit and degrade aquatic habitat conditions and resiliency.

Table 21. Percent of species drainage area that is located in management areas where 

actions, including ground-disturbing activities, are most likely to occur

Species Drainage Area Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Apache trout 82% 70% 78% 69%

Bluehead sucker 93% 89% 92% 70%

Desert sucker 75% 35% 74% 30%

Gila chub 100% 30% 100% 13%

Gila trout 33% 26% 33% 24%

Little Colorado spinedace 94% 92% 93% 66%

LCR sucker 94% 93% 93% 57%

Loach minnow 72% 24% 69% 20%

Longfin dace 70% 18% 67% 13%

Razorback sucker (see spikedace) 70% 17% 68% 12%

Roundtail chub 95% 70% 95% 55%

Sonora sucker 75% 35% 74% 30%

Spikedace 70% 17% 67% 12%

Average of All Drainage Areas 79% 47% 77% 36%

The fish species in alternatives C and A are at higher risk of potential management activities. 

Alternatives D and B would have the least risk. Treatments and activities associated with 

vegetation, fire, recreation, specials uses, livestock grazing, and the transportation system can 

impact watersheds, riparian areas, aquatic habitat, and fish species. While the extent and 

cumulative and collective impacts of future actions cannot be determined at this time, recognizing 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

and minimizing these risks can help maintain existing conditions and reduce any potential 

negative environmental consequences.

Impacts Associated with Other Management Activities

Future activities would likely include the implementation of projects related to multiple-use 

management and would occur over most of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Activities likely to occur 

are recreation, livestock grazing, special uses authorizations, watershed and soils, fisheries and 

wildlife improvement projects, and the associated transportation infrastructure. 

Recreation

Potential impacts associated with recreation activities would be similar across all alternatives 

with the exception of alternative C, which would have a greater emphasis on motorized and 

developed recreation opportunities. Potential impacts could occur from recreation activities near 

or adjacent to ponds, lakes, streams, and riparian areas which could negatively impact these areas 

by reducing vegetation, increasing sedimentation, and altering water quality and aquatic habitat 

conditions. Increases in motorized recreation activities could also result in similar impacts, while 

also increasing the potential to transfer or introduce nonnative species that can negatively impact 

riparian areas and aquatic habitat.

Water plays a critical role in many aspects of recreation on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Lakes and 

streams attract visitors to the forests. The availability of water enhances and/or provides for most 

recreation uses and, conversely, recreation activities can have varying degrees of impacts on 

water, riparian, and aquatic resources.

Many developed and dispersed recreation sites are located on or near lakes and streams. This use 

typically results in trampling and altering of riparian areas and streambanks, damage to riparian 

vegetation, and soil compaction. Erosion and sedimentation can result, altering aquatic habitat 

and water quality. The risk of water pollution from human wastes, dishwashing, trash, fish 

cleaning, and livestock use can occur where recreationists congregate. These risks can be reduced 

by designing and locating recreation sites and trails to avoid riparian areas. Stream and drainage 

crossings must be minimized and routes should terminate a distance from water to avoid impacts 

to riparian areas and water quality.

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing activities in both uplands and riparian areas can have numerous impacts on the 

quality of aquatic resources and habitat. These impacts can be substantial and are a primary 

source of hydrologic alteration of watersheds, sedimentation, nutrient loading and changes to 

water quality, and fish habitat alteration and destruction.

The management strategy for livestock grazing does not vary by alternative; therefore, all 

alternatives would have similar impacts to hydrologic conditions, riparian vegetation, 

streambank conditions, and aquatic habitat within the allotments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Livestock also have the potential to introduce nonnative species, especially into riparian areas. 

The introduction of some nonnative plant species can displace native species, which can result in 

the loss of habitat diversity and alterations to the physical and biological components of the 

aquatic ecosystem. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 131

Special Uses

Special uses for the occupancy and use of NFS lands for both private and public purposes occurs 

through the issuance of special use authorizations and easements. Under all alternatives, a wide 

range of uses may be permitted, including but not limited to: water storage and transmission, 

electric transmission and distribution lines, communications sites, alternative and renewable 

energy generating facilities, research permits, outfitters and guides, recreation events, large group 

gatherings, collecting permits, recreation residences, and target ranges.

While most of these activities either currently exist or could occur within many management 

areas, based on the suitability analysis, the General Forest Management Area likely has the 

greatest potential for these types of actions to occur. Special use authorizations and easements are 

not likely to contribute any potential beneficial impacts to watersheds, riparian areas, or aquatic 

habitats and the native species present. Many of these activities are long term and many result in 

permanent alterations and impacts to various resources where they occur. 

Dams and diversions can have substantial impacts to riparian areas and aquatic species, while 

providing beneficial impacts to nonnative species that are not desired. Outfitters and guides, 

research permits, and road easement special uses occur within or adjacent to riparian areas and 

aquatic habitats and, depending on the activity, they can negatively impact these areas and alter 

riparian and aquatic habitat conditions through ground disturbance, sedimentation, vegetation 

alteration and removals, and impacts to water quality. Many of these activities are also highly 

conducive to promoting or spreading invasive plant species, especially those occurring within 

utility corridors or easements and riparian areas. 

Motorized Routes

Generally, new road construction may occur when access to a particular resource or private 

inholding is needed. These roads may be permanent, if intended for long-term use, or they may be 

temporary for a one-time use and then removed. Less than 10 miles of new NFS road 

construction has occurred over the past 5 years. It has been limited to relocation of poorly located 

roads (e.g., routes located in or near riparian areas, wet meadows) and developed campground 

construction. Temporary roads have been used for forest product extraction where a permanent 

road is not needed for future access.

All alternatives would include the continued use and maintenance of the existing motorized road 

and trail systems. The existing system currently impacts riparian and aquatic ecosystems through 

erosion, sedimentation, changes to channel morphology and, to some extent, the movement of 

fish and other aquatic organisms. This infrastructure and its continued use may be the primary 

source of impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. However, all alternatives include objectives, 

standards, and guidelines to reduce impacts over time and to reduce impacts from construction

and maintenance of motorized routes. Road and trail systems can often contribute to the 

introduction of invasive species—either aquatic or terrestrial plant species—by providing access 

to lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, and riparian areas. Road crossings of streams provide access 

for many types of recreation activities, which can also increase the likelihood of the introduction 

of invasive plant, invertebrate, and fish species.

While none of the alternatives proposes to increase the transportation system, it is likely that 

maintenance and reconstruction would occur in all alternatives. Alternatives A, B, and C would 

likely have the greatest potential to increase sedimentation, erosion, and alteration of hydrologic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

conditions due to its greater emphasis on mechanical vegetation treatments, commodity outputs, 

and the associated impacts from road maintenance and use, reconstruction, and temporary 

construction. Alternative D would likely result in the least amount of impacts associated with 

road reconstruction, temporary roads, and skid trail construction because it has a greater emphasis 

on fire treatments rather than mechanical treatments. 

Watershed/Riparian/Aquatic Habitat Restoration 

Watershed and riparian restoration objectives vary by alternative (see table 3 ”Type, Priority, and 

Amount of Restoration Treatments” in chapter 2). Although all watershed treatments would 

likely improve conditions for aquatic species and their habitats, restoration treatments within the 

riparian area and within aquatic habitats would likely result in the most beneficial impacts. 

Beneficial impacts should reduce sedimentation, improve riparian vegetation conditions, and 

increase the productivity of aquatic habitat. As alternative D has the greatest amount of total 

treatments, it would result in the most benefits to aquatic habitat followed by alternatives B, C, 

and A. 

Impacts Associated with Nonnative Fish Species

The presence of nonnative fish species has resulted in impacts across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

The harmful interactions are well documented and a primary cause of the current status of 

federally listed and sensitive fish species that are declining throughout the Southwest. There are 

approximately 25 nonnative fish species known to occur within or adjacent to the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Along with nonnative fish species, the deliberate or unintentional introductions of 

amphibians, invertebrates (e.g., crayfish, snails, clams, mussels), parasites and diseases, and 

aquatic invasive plants have also impacted aquatic communities and habitats. 

The potential impacts from nonnative fish would likely be similar across all alternatives, with 

possibly the exception of alternative C, which could result in greater access and increased 

developed and motorized recreation opportunities. Roads and trails can contribute to the 

introduction of invasive species, either aquatic or terrestrial, by providing access to ponds, lakes, 

streams, and riparian areas. Boats and trailers are a primary source of introductions into lakes; 

while road crossings at rivers and streams provide recreation and angler access that can also 

increase the likelihood of the introduction of nonnative fish, mollusks, crayfish, diseases, and 

parasites.

While watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat restoration treatments are necessary and beneficial, 

they must consider the potential to increase the spread of invasive species by providing increased 

connectivity and altering habitat. Improvement in habitat conditions may benefit some nonnative

species as well as native species. These interactions and interrelationships would also be 

considered when implementing restoration treatments.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The analysis area for fisheries cumulative environmental consequences includes lands managed 

by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, but it also considers lands of other ownership (e.g., State, tribal, 

private) that occur within and adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These other lands can also 

influence and impact the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and its management, as discussed below. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 133

Aquatic habitats are very unique and limited over the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Habitat alteration 

is likely the major cause of declines in native aquatic species. The most common physical habitat 

alterations are changes to stream channel and riparian vegetation, water impoundments (e.g., 

ponds, lakes), sedimentation and water quality changes, and streamflow changes. Additionally, 

other substantial human impacts include pollution, introduction and spread of invasive species

and, for some fish species, overharvesting. Under all alternatives, aquatic habitat quality and 

quantity is determined and influenced by all the activities that occur within the watershed and can 

also be influenced and impacted by actions occurring on private lands within the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and downstream outside the forests. 

For example, fish stocking on adjacent lands and private inholdings (e.g., ponds, streams, 

reservoirs) continues to impact native fish species and their aquatic habitats on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. While providing for extensive and highly desirable recreational fishing 

opportunities, AZGFD also continues to impact native fish throughout the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

through stocking and management of nonnative fish. Populations of nonnative species (existing 

and those stocked) on both the San Carlos and White Mountain Apache tribal lands also 

contribute to the spread and persistence of nonnative species and further degrade existing 

conditions for native fish species and aquatic habitats.

Private lands within and adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs can influence watersheds and 

aquatic and riparian habitat in many ways. Urban development and the associated infrastructure 

can impact water quantity and quality from water diversions and consumptive use, groundwater 

pumping, and septic and sewer systems. Roads and utility infrastructure can also impact 

watersheds, water quality, and aquatic habitat, and they can increase the spread of invasive 

species. All of these activities occur to varying degrees across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and 

within communities adjacent to the forests such as Alpine, Eagar, Heber, Forest Lakes, Show 

Low, and Springerville. In addition, numerous private inholdings, such as those on the Blue River 

and Eagle Creek, are located near riparian/aquatic corridors and have similar impacts to those 

discussed above.

Vegetation

This section describes and analyzes the 14 potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. All PNVT structure and cover data is post-2011 Wallow Fire. Acreage 

within each PNVT is static, because it is based on a combination of several factors such as 

topography, elevation, aspect, soil type, soils moisture and temperature, ambient air temperature, 

and associated biotic influences. However, the acreage within each PNVT structural state may

vary over time because of natural succession, management treatments, and other disturbance 

factors.

This section quantifies the extent each PNVT’s structure, size class, and canopy cover has 

departed from desired conditions using the measure of departure index (DI). It then predicts what 

the departure and trend would be after implementing the vegetation treatment objectives in each 

alternative. It discusses the threats and risks that have caused departures from desired conditions 

and may hinder progress toward desired conditions. This section also examines the state of aspen 

on the forests by estimating the current acres and potential reduction in the amount by alternative. 

The section also describes the relationship between overstory canopy and understory herbaceous 

vegetation using the amount (acres) of closed canopy cover.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

See the “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012x) in the “Plan Set of Documents” 

for more indepth discussion of these topics. The specialist report also discusses the relationship 

between current PNVTs on the forests, their reference condition, and the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

ecological contribution to the larger ecoregion.

Projected trends in the movement of vegetation between states (or transitions) were derived 

through the use of the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT)17. The following PNVTs 

were modeled using VDDT software: ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, wet mixed conifer, and 

spruce-fir forests; Madrean pine-oak and piñon-juniper woodlands; Great Basin and semi-desert 

grasslands; and interior chaparral. State and transition modeling was not conducted for 

montane/subalpine grasslands and the four riparian PNVTs. Additional information about the 

vegetative modeling methodology can be found in appendix B.

In most cases, desired conditions and reference conditions are the same. However, they are not 

for 5 of the 14 PNVTs. They are different in ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests to 

reflect contemporary landscape vegetation structural states important to northern goshawks and 

Mexican spotted owls. They are different in Madrean pine-oak woodland to reflect contemporary 

landscape vegetation structural states important to Mexican spotted owls. Desired conditions have 

also been altered from reference condition for the wet mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests to 

reflect areas absent the succession of aspen cover types, where even-aged conifer succession 

predominates. As an expression of socioeconomic sustainability, a minor percentage of areas 

without aspen cover types would be managed on shorter rotations than the historic stand 

replacement intervals (120 years versus 200+ years). This results in desired conditions that have a 

somewhat higher proportion of early successional vegetation structural states than reference 

conditions, a proportion of mid-successional vegetation structural states that is somewhat lower 

than reference conditions, and a proportion of late successional vegetation structural states that is 

somewhat lower than reference conditions.

The departure index (DI) is a rating based on departure from desired vegetation conditions. 

Determination of the amount of departure is based on comparison of forest structure, size class, 

and canopy cover. DI classes are: 

• No departure (0 to 20 percent): Composition and structure of vegetation is similar to 

desired conditions and the risk of losing key ecosystem components (e.g., native species, 

forest structure, soil) is minimal. Areas within this DI class can be maintained within 

their historical fire regime by such treatments as fire.

• Low departure (21 to 40 percent): Composition and structure of vegetation is somewhat 

altered from desired conditions and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. 

Areas within this DI class may need some level of restoration treatments (e.g., fire, hand, 

mechanical) to be restored to reference conditions. 

• Moderate departure (41 to 60 percent): Composition and structure of vegetation is 

moderately altered from desired conditions and the risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is moderate. Areas within this DI class may need moderate levels of 

restoration treatments (e.g., fire, hand, mechanical) to be restored to reference conditions.

 17 VDDT software is a nonspatial model that allows the user to model vegetation change over time as a series of states 

that differ in structure, composition, and cover. VDDT also specifies the amount of time it takes to move from one 

vegetation state to another in the absence of disturbance. VDDT Version 6.0.25 was used for this analysis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 135

• High departure (61 to 80 percent): Composition and structure of vegetation is highly 

altered from desired conditions and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. 

Areas within this DI class may need greater levels of restoration treatments (e.g., fire, 

hand, mechanical) to be restored to reference conditions.

• Severe departure (81 to 100 percent): Composition and structure of vegetation is 

extremely altered from desired conditions and the risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is pronounced. Areas within this DI class may need very high levels of 

restoration treatments (e.g., fire, hand, mechanical) to be restored to reference conditions.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• Because vegetation desired conditions have been identified at or near reference 

conditions, the closer the composition, structure, and processes of the individual PNVT is 

to desired conditions the more properly the PNVT is functioning. 

• Restoration will reestablish more natural patterns and processes within these vegetation 

communities that allow for natural resiliency. This is especially important when faced 

with potential changes in climate, uncharacteristic wildfire, and the presence of invasive 

plant species.

Affected Environment

Potential Natural Vegetation Types

Potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) are coarse-scale groupings of ecosystem types that 

share similar geography, vegetation, and historic ecosystem disturbances, such as fire, drought, 

and grazing by native species. PNVTs represent the vegetation type and characteristics that would 

occur when natural disturbance regimes and biological processes prevail (Vander Lee et al., 

2006). Tables 22 and 23 display the major PNVTs (Vander Lee et al., 2006) found within the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Maps displaying the spatial distribution of all PNVTs across the forests 

are located in appendix H.

Table 22. The 14 potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVTs)

Forests Woodlands Grasslands Chaparral Riparian Areas/

Riparian Forests

ponderosa pine Madrean pine-oak Great Basin interior wetland/cienega

wet mixed conifer piñon-juniper semi-desert cottonwood-willow

dry mixed conifer montane/subalpine mixed broadleaf

deciduous

spruce-fir montane willow
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 23. Acres and percent of forests by PNVT listed from largest to smallest

PNVT Acres of NFS Land Percent of NFS Land

Ponderosa Pine Forest 602,206 29.9%

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 394,927 19.6%

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 222,166 11.0%

Great Basin Grassland 185,523 9.2%

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 177,995 8.8%

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 147,885 7.3%

Semi-desert Grassland 106,952 5.3%

Interior Chaparral 55,981 2.8%

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 51,559 2.6%

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 17,900 0.9%

Spruce-Fir Forest 17,667 0.9%

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 15,876 0.8%

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 9,657 0.5%

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 4,808 0.2%

Table 24 lists the current departure index (DI), a comparison between the existing vegetation 

conditions and the desired conditions, for each PNVT. 

Table 24. Potential natural vegetation types (PNVT) and current departure (DI) percent from 

desired conditions

No Departure

(0–20 percent)

Low Departure

(21–40 percent)

Moderate Departure

(41–60 percent)

High Departure

(61–80 percent)

PNVT DI PNVT DI PNVT DI PNVT DI

cottonwood-willow 

riparian forest

20 wetland-cienega 

riparian area

36 spruce-fir 

forest

59 semi-desert 

grassland

79

interior chaparral 8 mixed broadleaf 

deciduous 

riparian 

forest

33 montane/subalpine 

grassland

54 ponderosa pine 

forest

77

piñon-juniper

woodland

26 wet mixed conifer 

forest

54 Great Basin 

grassland

67

montane willow

riparian forest

21 dry mixed conifer 

forest

67

Madrean pineoak woodland61
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 137

The following sections describe the setting, current DI, forest structure, size class, canopy cover, 

and threats to the PNVT. More detailed descriptions of each PNVT, including species 

composition, can be found in the proposed plan. For information on the fire regime and fire 

regime condition class (FRCC) for each PNVT, see the “Fire” section in chapter 3. See appendix 

B in the proposed plan for PNVT graphs that depict current and desired vegetation structural 

states.

Forested PNVTs – Ponderosa Pine

The ponderosa pine forest is widespread (figure 

12) and represents the largest PNVT and the 

largest forested PNVT. Current conditions 

within the ponderosa pine forest are highly 

departed from desired conditions. With a DI of 

77, this PNVT is the second most departed 

PNVT from desired conditions. 

With respect to DI, there is considerable 

overrepresentation (56 percent) of all size and 

age trees, single-storied or multistoried with 

closed canopy cover. There is also an atypical 

early developmental state (11 percent) that was 

created by uncharacteristic wildfire. 

Historically, this forested PNVT was characterized by open canopies, but currently there is an 

underrepresentation (58 percent) of medium to very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees 

with open canopy cover. Historically, these forests were dominated by shade intolerant shrub and 

tree species. 

Within the capable18 grazing lands (94 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the 

ponderosa pine forest, approximately 85 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to 

moderately low ecological condition19, while nearly 14 percent is in moderately high ecological 

condition. Low to moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels of 

herbaceous vegetation ground cover and pounds of vegetation growth, as well as species 

compositional changes, and possible changes in site potential.

The most important and far-reaching threats under Agency authority that have affected this 

forested PNVT include past livestock grazing which removed fine fuels needed for carrying 

frequent, low intensity surface fires; forest management practices (vegetation treatments) which 

 18 Grazing capability is a qualitative expression of the inherent ability of an ecosystem to support grazing use by 

various classes of livestock on a sustained yield basis; that is, maintaining the stability and productivity of the site. Soil 

stability determinations and site productivity evaluations are used in combination to determine and assign grazing 

capability. Capable areas are those which can be used by grazing animals under proper management without long-term 

damage to the soil resource or plant communities. Typically, this land is stable. Vegetative ground cover is maintaining 

site productivity and producing a minimum of 100 pounds of dried forage per acre per year. Soil loss as judged by 

available techniques is within tolerance. (USFS Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (revised 7/99)). 

Capability estimates are based on most current GIS range condition data.

19 Condition as evaluated and ranked by the Forest Service, is a subjective expression of the status or health of the 

vegetation and soil relative to the combined potential to produce a sound and stable biotic community. More 

information about ecological condition can be found in the “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012x).

Figure 12. Location map of the ponderosa 

pine forested PNVT
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

changed forest age class distribution, composition, density, and cover and greatly reduced 

understory productivity; and fire suppression which effectively ended the frequent fire regime 

typical of this forested PNVT. 

Forested PNVTs – Wet Mixed Conifer

The wet mixed conifer forest is found primarily 

on the Alpine, Black Mesa, and Springerville 

Ranger Districts (figure 13) and is the second 

largest forested PNVT. Current conditions within 

the wet mixed conifer forest are moderately 

departed from desired condition. The current DI 

is 54 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an overrepresentation 

(37 percent) of vegetation structural states that 

are lacking aspen regeneration due to elk 

browsing and an underrepresentation (38 

percent) of large to very large size, single-storied 

or multistoried trees with closed canopy cover. Historically, these forests were dominated by 

shade tolerant shrub and tree species.

Within the capable grazing lands (45 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the wet 

mixed conifer forest, approximately 75 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to 

moderately low ecological condition, while nearly 21 percent is in moderately high ecological 

condition. Low to moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels of 

herbaceous vegetation ground cover and pounds of vegetation growth, as well as species 

compositional changes, and possible changes in site potential.

The most important and far-reaching threats under Agency authority that have affected this 

forested PNVT are human-caused fires and forest management practices (vegetation treatments) 

which changed forest age class distribution, 

composition, density, and cover. 

Forested PNVTs – Dry Mixed Conifer

The dry mixed conifer forest is widespread 

(figure 14). Current conditions within the dry 

mixed conifer forest are highly departed from 

desired conditions. The current DI is 67 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an overrepresentation 

(56 percent) of all size and age trees, singlestoried or multistoried with closed canopy cover. 

In addition, there is an atypical early 

developmental state created by uncharacteristic 

wildfire (25 percent). Historically, this forested

PNVT was characterized by open canopies, but 

currently there is an underrepresentation (52 percent) of medium to very large size, single-storied 

Figure 13. Location map of the wet mixed 

conifer forested PNVT

Figure 14. Location map of the dry mixed 

conifer forested PNVT
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 139

Figure 15. Location map of the spruce-fir 

forested PNVT

or multistoried trees with open canopy cover. Historically, these forests were dominated by shade 

intolerant shrub and tree species. 

Within the capable grazing lands (71 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the dry 

mixed conifer forest, approximately 79 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to 

moderately low ecological condition, while nearly 19 percent is in moderately high ecological 

condition. Low to moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels of 

herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species compositional 

shifts, and possible changes in site potential.

The threats to dry mixed conifer are the same as those listed for ponderosa pine.

Forested PNVTs – Spruce-Fir

The spruce-fir forest is found on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts (figure 15). It is 

the smallest of the forested PNVTs. Current conditions within the spruce-fir forest are moderately 

departed from desired condition. The current DI is 59 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an overrepresentation 

(29 percent) of vegetation structural states that are 

lacking aspen regeneration due to elk browsing. 

There is an underrepresentation (43 percent) of 

large to very large size trees, single-storied or 

multistoried with closed canopies. Historically, 

these forests were dominated by shade tolerant 

shrub and tree species.

Within the capable grazing lands (12 percent of the 

total PNVT’s area) associated with the spruce-fir 

forest, approximately 24 percent of the herbaceous 

understory is in moderately low ecological 

condition, while nearly 22 percent is in moderately 

high ecological condition. Low to moderately low 

ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels 

of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower 

levels of growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in site potential.

The threats to spruce-fir are the same as those listed for wet mixed conifer. 

Woodland PNVTs – Madrean Pine-Oak

The Madrean pine-oak woodland is found primarily below the Mogollon Rim on the Alpine and 

Clifton Ranger Districts (figure 16). It is the largest of the woodland PNVTs and the second 

largest PNVT. Current conditions within the Madrean pine-oak woodland are highly departed 

from desired conditions. The current DI is 61 percent. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 16. Location map of Madrean 

pine-oak woodland PNVT

With respect to DI, there is an overrepresentation (59 

percent) of small to very large size trees with closed 

canopy cover. Historically, this woodland PNVT was 

characterized by open canopies which are now 

reflected in an underrepresentation (60 percent) of 

seedling, saplings, small, and medium to very large 

size, single-storied or multistoried trees with open 

canopy cover. Historically, these woodlands were 

dominated by shade intolerant shrub and tree species. 

Within the capable grazing lands (46 percent of the 

total PNVT’s area) associated with the Madrean pineoak woodland, approximately 49 percent of the 

herbaceous understory is in moderately low 

ecological condition, while nearly 51 percent is in 

moderately high to high ecological condition. Low to 

moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation 

ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species compositional shifts and possible 

changes in site potential.

The most important and far-reaching threats under Agency authority that have affected the 

Madrean pine-oak woodland include past livestock grazing which removed fine fuels needed for 

carrying frequent, low intensity surface fires; forest management practices which changed age 

class distribution, composition, density, and cover and greatly reduced understory productivity; 

fire suppression which effectively ended the frequent fire regime typical of this woodland; and 

the introduction of invasive plants.

Woodland PNVTs – Piñon-Juniper

The piñon-juniper woodland occurs primarily along the forests’ northern boundary (figure 17). It 

represents the third largest PNVT. Current conditions within the piñon-juniper woodland are at a 

low departure from desired conditions with a DI of 26 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an overrepresentation (19 

percent) of medium to very large size trees with open 

canopy cover and an underrepresentation (25 percent) 

of early successional, seedlings, saplings, and small 

size trees with open canopy cover. Historically, these 

woodlands were dominated by shade intolerant shrub 

and tree species. 

Within the capable grazing lands (96 percent of the 

total PNVT’s area) associated with the piñon-juniper 

woodland, approximately 91 percent of the 

herbaceous understory is in low to moderately low 

ecological condition, while nearly 8 percent is in 

moderately high ecological condition. Low to 

moderately low ecological conditions have resulted 

Figure 17. Location map of the piñonjuniper woodland PNVT
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 141

in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as 

species compositional shifts and possible changes in site potential.

The threats to piñon-juniper are the same as those listed for Madrean pine-oak.

Grassland PNVTs – Great Basin

The Great Basin grassland occurs primarily 

along the forests’ northern boundary, closely 

associated with piñon-juniper woodland (figure 

18). It is the largest of the grassland PNVTs and 

the fourth largest PNVT. Current conditions 

within the Great Basin grassland are highly 

departed from desired conditions with a DI of 67 

percent.

With respect to DI, there is an 

overrepresentation (66 percent) of encroaching 

shrubs and trees of all sizes with open and 

closed canopies and an underrepresentation (63 

percent) of open, dense stands of perennial 

grasses and forbs with less than 10 percent 

woody canopy cover. There is also an 

uncharacteristic state where various noxious 

weeds and invasive plants makeup a significant portion of the vegetation composition.

Currently, much of this grassland more closely resembles woodland than grassland. Overall, 

approximately 68 percent, or nearly 126,200 acres, of this grassland have been encroached by 

woody species, primarily piñon and juniper. According to Vander Lee et al. (2006) approximately 

70 percent of these encroached acres may be nonrestorable to their former grassland state. 

Historically, these grasslands were dominated by herbaceous vegetation.

Within the capable grazing lands (99 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the Great 

Basin grassland, approximately 90 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderately 

low ecological condition, while nearly 8 percent is in moderately high ecological condition. Low 

to moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation 

ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species compositional shifts and possible 

changes in site potential.

The most important threats under Agency authority that have affected this grassland include fire 

suppression which effectively ended the frequent fire regime typical of this grassland, woody 

species encroachment and establishment, human-caused fires and roads, highways and energy 

corridors, livestock grazing, and invasive plants. These threats result in modification of natural 

processes and habitats which have negative consequences to ecological composition, structure, 

function, and processes.

According to Gori and Enquist (2003), changes in the structure and function of grassland systems 

have been noted as the primary cause of the loss of native diversity within grasslands (Stacey, 

1995). Finch (2004) identified and summarized the major threats to grassland biological diversity 

Figure 18. Location map of the Great Basin 

grassland PNVT
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 19. Location map of the semidesert grassland PNVT

as the loss of natural fire cycles, overgrazing by livestock, prairie dog eradication, exotic grasses, 

shrub encroachment, erosion, and habitat fragmentation.

Grassland PNVTs – Semi-Desert

This grassland occurs primarily on the Clifton 

Ranger District closely associated with the Madrean 

pine-oak woodland (figure 19). Current conditions 

within the semi-desert grassland are highly departed 

from desired conditions with a DI of 79 percent; this 

PNVT is the most departed from desired conditions. 

With respect to DI, there is an overrepresentation 

(77 percent) of encroaching shrubs and trees of all 

sizes with open and closed canopies and an 

underrepresentation (81 percent) of open, dense 

stands of perennial grasses and forbs (late seral) 

with less than 10 percent woody canopy cover. 

There is also an uncharacteristic state where various 

noxious weeds and invasive plants make up a significant portion of the vegetation composition.

Currently, much of this grassland more closely resembles woodland than grassland. Overall, 

approximately 80 percent, or nearly 85,600 acres, of this PNVT has been encroached by woody 

species, primarily juniper and mesquite. According to Vander Lee et al. (2006) approximately 36 

percent of these encroached acres may be nonrestorable to their former grassland state. 

Historically, these grasslands were dominated by herbaceous vegetation.

Within the capable grazing lands (80 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the semidesert grassland, approximately 61 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderately 

low ecological condition, while nearly 35 percent is in moderately high ecological condition. Low 

to moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation 

ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species compositional shifts and possible 

changes in site potential.

The threats to semi-desert grassland are the same as those listed for Great Basin grassland. 

Grassland PNVTs – Montane/Subalpine

This grassland occurs primarily on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts (figure 20). It is 

the smallest of the grassland types. Current conditions within the montane/subalpine grasslands 

are moderately departed from desired conditions with a DI of 54 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an overrepresentation (50 percent) of mid-development (mid-seral), 

open canopy (herbaceous vegetation), encroaching shrubs and trees of all sizes with open and 

closed canopies, and an underrepresentation (41 percent) of late development (late seral), open 

canopy (herbaceous vegetation). There is also an uncharacteristic state where various noxious 

weeds and invasive plants make up a significant portion of the vegetation composition. Overall, 

approximately 10 percent or nearly 5,200 acres of this PNVT have been encroached by woody 

species, primarily mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and piñon-juniper (depending on elevation and 

slope aspect).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 143

Within the capable grazing lands (99 percent of the 

total PNVT’s area) associated with the 

montane/subalpine grasslands, approximately 20 

percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to 

moderately low ecological condition, while nearly 

80 percent is in moderately high to high ecological 

condition. Low to moderately low ecological 

conditions have resulted in lower levels of 

herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower 

levels of growth, as well as species compositional 

shifts and possible changes in site potential.

The threats to montane/subalpine grasslands are the 

same as those listed for Great Basin grassland. 

Chaparral PNVT – Interior Chaparral

Interior chaparral occurs primarily on the Clifton 

Ranger District (figure 21). 

Current conditions within interior chaparral are not 

departed from desired condition with a DI of 8 

percent. With respect to DI, there is a small 

overrepresentation (8 percent) of early development 

(early seral) open canopy herbaceous dominated 

conditions in a historically shrub dominated PNVT.

Within the capable grazing lands (44 percent of the 

total PNVT’s area) associated with the interior 

chaparral, approximately 45 percent of the 

herbaceous understory is in moderately low 

ecological condition, while nearly 52 percent is in 

moderately high ecological condition. Low to 

moderately low ecological conditions have resulted 

in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as 

species compositional shifts and possible changes in site potential.

The most important and far-reaching threats under Agency authority that has affected interior 

chaparral is human-caused fires, invasive species establishment, inappropriate livestock grazing, 

and loss of soil and soil productivity.

Riparian PNVTs

Riparian areas are of primary importance because of the scarcity of water in the Southwest. All of 

the riparian PNVTs are unique in that they represent a very small portion (less than 3 percent) of 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. However, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are responsible for the 

management of the majority of this type within the ecoregion. These areas on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs are a focal point for humans, terrestrial wildlife, and livestock activities, as well 

as species that are dependent on wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitats. Therefore, both demand 

Figure 20. Location map of the 

montane/subalpine grassland PNVT

Figure 21. Location map of the interior 

chaparral PNVT
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

and impacts are high. For more information about the condition of riparian areas, see the 

“Riparian” section in chapter 3.

Riparian PNVTs – Wetland/Cienega

Wetland/cienega riparian areas occur primarily on the 

Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts (figure 22). 

This PNVT is associated with perennial springs or 

headwater streams, bogs, and fens where 

groundwater intersects the surface and creates pools 

of standing water, sometimes with channels flowing 

between pools.

Current conditions within wetland/cienega riparian 

areas have a low departure from desired conditions 

with a DI of 36 percent. With respect to DI, there is 

an underrepresentation (27 percent) of middevelopment (mid-seral), open canopy (herbaceous 

vegetation) and an overrepresentation (37 percent) of 

encroaching shrubs and trees with open and closed 

canopies. Historically, these riparian areas were 

dominated by herbaceous vegetation.

Within the capable grazing lands (94 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with 

wetland/cienegas riparian areas, approximately 44 percent of the herbaceous understory is in 

moderately low ecological condition, while nearly 46 percent is in moderately high ecological 

condition. Low to moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels of 

herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species compositional 

shifts and possible changes in site potential.

Changes in the structure and function of wetland/cienega systems have been noted as the primary 

cause of the loss of biological diversity within these systems. The causes of adverse change in the 

ecological character of wetland/cienegas can be grouped in five broad categories: (1) changes to 

the water regime, (2) water pollution, (3) physical modification, (4) exploitation of biological 

products, and (5) introduction of invasive species (Bodner and Simms, 2008).

The most important threats under Agency management authority that have affected all of the 

riparian areas and riparian forested PNVTs include fire suppression which has allowed 

nonriparian species expansion into these communities below these structures, inundation 

(diversions, dams, and impoundments) which has allowed for dewatering and drying of these 

communities, human-caused fires, and roads, highways and energy corridors, inappropriate 

livestock grazing, and wild ungulates. These threat types include natural process modification and 

habitat conversion which have negative consequences to ecological composition, structure, 

function, and processes.

Figure 22. Location map of the 

wetland/cienega riparian areas PNVT
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 145

Figure 24. Location map of the mixed 

broadleaf deciduous riparian forested 

PNVT

Riparian PNVTs – Cottonwood-Willow

This riparian forest occurs primarily on the Alpine, 

Black Mesa, and Lakeside Ranger Districts along 

approximately 800 miles of rivers and streams 

(figure 23). Current conditions within the 

cottonwood-willow riparian forest are not departed 

from desired conditions with a DI of 20 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an underrepresentation 

(20 percent) of small size trees with open and 

closed canopies and an overrepresentation (16

percent) of medium to very large size trees with 

open and closed canopies. These conditions are 

indicative of an older stand structure which lacks 

young tree recruitment. Historically these forests 

were dominated by shade intolerant shrub and tree 

species with open canopies allowing for an 

abundance of herbaceous species.

Within the capable grazing lands (97 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the 

cottonwood-willow riparian forest, approximately 89 percent of the herbaceous understory is in 

low to moderately low ecological condition, while nearly 10 percent is in moderately high 

ecological condition. Low to moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels 

of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species 

compositional shifts and possible changes in site potential. 

The threats to cottonwood-willow riparian forests are the same as those listed for wetland/cienega 

riparian areas. 

Riparian PNVTs – Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous

This riparian forest occurs primarily on the 

Alpine and Clifton Ranger District along 

approximately 860 miles of rivers and streams 

(figure 24). Current conditions within the mixed 

broadleaf deciduous riparian forest are at a low 

departure from desired conditions with a DI of 

33 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an 

overrepresentation (31 percent) of seedlings, 

saplings, and small to medium size trees with 

closed canopies and an underrepresentation (29 

percent) of seedlings, saplings, and small to 

very large size trees with open canopies. 

Historically, these forests were dominated by shade intolerant to very shade intolerant shrub and 

tree species with open canopies allowing for an abundance of herbaceous species.

Figure 23. Location map of the 

cottonwood-willow riparian forested 

PNVT
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Within the capable grazing lands (85 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the mixed 

broadleaf deciduous riparian forest, approximately 62 percent of the herbaceous understory is in 

low to moderately low ecological condition, while nearly 39 percent is in moderately high to high 

ecological condition. Low to moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels 

of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species 

compositional shifts and possible changes in site potential.

The threats to mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forests are the same as those listed for 

wetland/cienega riparian areas. 

Riparian PNVTs – Montane Willow

This riparian forest occurs primarily on the Alpine, 

Black Mesa, and Springerville Ranger Districts 

along approximately 1,130 miles of rivers and 

streams (figure 25). It represents the smallest 

PNVT on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Current 

conditions within the montane willow riparian

forest are at a low departure from desired 

conditions with a DI of 21 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an overrepresentation 

(21 percent) of seedlings, saplings, and small to 

very large size trees with open and closed canopies 

and an underrepresentation (21 percent) of 

herbaceous vegetation, seedlings, and saplings with 

open canopies. Historically, these forests were 

dominated by shade intolerant shrub and tree 

species with open canopies allowing for an abundance of herbaceous species.

Within the capable grazing lands (85 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the 

montane willow riparian forest, approximately 84 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low 

to moderately low ecological condition, while nearly 16 percent is in moderately high to high 

ecological condition. Low to moderately low ecological conditions have resulted in lower levels 

of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species 

compositional shifts and possible changes in site potential.

The threats to montane willow riparian forests are the same as those listed for wetland/cienega 

riparian areas.

Threats and Risks to PNVTs

The threats to the forests’ PNVTs mentioned above in each PNVT discussion pose the following 

risks. Many of these risks, when combined, have compounding effects with negative 

consequences to ecological composition, structure, function, and processes. Specifically by 

affecting: 

• vegetation health (e.g., resulting in atypical composition, structure, and function of both 

the overstory and understory vegetation);

Figure 25. Location map of the montane 

willow riparian forested PNVT
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 147

• soil compaction, erosion, sedimentation, and loss of soil fertility;

• altered watershed and hydrologic functions;

• reduced water quality and quantity;

• riparian, aquatic, and terrestrial site loss and/or degradation and fragmentation of these 

habitats within these PNVT;

• altered fire regimes, uncharacteristic wildfire, and inability to reestablish natural wildfire 

processes;

• introduction and spread of invasive species;

• modification of natural processes and changes in ecological potentials; and

• species extinction and/or reduction in population(s) and/or habitat(s).

Additionally, climate influences a variety of ecological processes. However, the true 

consequences of the risks posed by the threats are unknown because of the unidentified aspects 

about the complex interactions between the spatial and temporal variability of climate, ecosystem 

processes, disturbance regimes, hydrology, and forest management activities.

Aspen

Quaking aspen (aspen) occurs as a species 

primarily within the conifer forested PNVTs 

(ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, dry mixed 

conifer, and spruce-fir) and is found primarily on 

the Alpine, Black Mesa, and Springerville Ranger 

Districts (figure 26). As a species, aspen is 

adapted to a much broader range of 

environmental conditions than most plant species 

associated with it. 

On the forests, this highly variable ecological 

community is comprised mostly of aspen 

(roughly 24,000 acres) or aspen codominating 

with few to several conifer species (roughly 

52,000 acres). The greatest number of aspen acres 

(50,335) is found in the wet mixed conifer PNVT. 

However; proportionally, the spruce-fir PNVT 

contains the largest aspen component at 33 

percent (5,875 acres) and the ponderosa pine 

PNVT contains the smallest aspen component at 

1 percent (5,988 acres).

Aspen may exist in single-storied or multistoried stands depending on disturbance history and 

local stand dynamics. Due to its high productivity and structural diversity, aspens are capable of 

supporting the broadest array of plant and animal species of any forested PNVT in the West and 

are considered second only to riparian areas in its support of biodiversity (Mueggler, 1985; Kay, 

1997; Chong et al., 2001). The understory structure may be complex with multiple shrub and 

herbaceous layers or simple with just an herbaceous layer. 

Figure 26. Location map of aspen across 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

According to Little (1976), aspens are very shade intolerant, form clonal thickets of relatively 

short-lived trees which are subsequently replaced by conifers, and grow in burned areas (pioneer 

trees). According to Bartos and Mueggler (1981), aspen reaches maturity in 80 to 120 years, with 

a few individual trees reaching 300 years or more in age (Jones and Schier, 1985). Relatively pure 

aspen stands may function as natural firebreaks across the landscape, support watershed stability, 

and contribute to scenic landscapes.

Aspen is a disturbance dependent species adapted to fire and windthrow. Without periodic fire or 

with high levels of herbivory, conifers will replace aspen. As a result, this type is significantly 

altered today and may be difficult to identify because of conifer encroachment. The presence of 

even a single aspen tree in a conifer stand provides strong evidence that the area historically 

supported aspen. As a direct result of the 2011 Wallow Fire, roughly 33 percent of the aspen 

overstory was eliminated and those acres are now being recruited into the seedling/sapling size 

class with open canopy characteristics, largely through clonal root sprouting (additional acres, 

previously unoccupied may be established through seed production and seedling recruitment). 

The majority of trees in the remaining aspen overstory are 10 inches or greater in diameter and 

exist in a closed canopy condition. This would indicate that most of the remaining aspen on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are mature trees and are being over-topped by conifers within the 

individual forested PNVTs.

The decline in aspen throughout its western range is an ecological concern. This declining trend 

has been noted for the past 50 years, but aspen mortality has become more pronounced since 

about 2002. Not only are trees dying, but their clonal root systems are dying as well. Several 

factors have been hypothesized as causal agents in the decline of aspen: climate change, fire 

suppression, conifer competition, ungulate browsing, drought, insects, and pathogens (UFRWG, 

2010; Crawford, 2011). As a consequence of the Wallow Fire, the acreage dominated by aspen is 

expected to increase on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. However, given all of the agents of decline 

mentioned, the longevity of this increase in aspen is unknown.

Large/Old Trees, Snags, and Coarse Woody Debris

In brief, large trees/old trees contribute to old growth forest conditions. According to Binkley et 

al. (2007), ecological processes are the driving forces behind any ecosystem, those processes are 

reflected and supported by the composition of the ecosystem, that is by the living and nonliving 

entities that exist in the ecosystem. Old growth forests, by definition, have old/large trees, but the 

presence of old trees is just the beginning of a description of the composition of an old growth 

forest (Binkley et al., 2007). Old growth forests are a significant and unique part of the diverse 

ecological web formed by natural forest landscapes. Human activities or natural disturbances in 

one part of the forest landscape can affect many other parts of the landscape (Silva Ecosystem 

Consultants, 1992). As an important part of the landscape ecology of natural forests, old growth 

provides unique resources for plants and animals (including people) within the landscape (Harris, 

1984; Franklin et al., 1986). Old growth forests are also important because we do not fully 

understand their functions, the life forms they support, or their importance to the ecology of 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Ecologically, a dead tree is as important to the forest ecosystem as a live one (Franklin et al., 

1989) and, according to Marcot (2002), provide several key ecological functions that influence 

the ecosystem through trophic relations, species interactions, soil aeration, primary cavity and 

burrow excavation, and dispersal of fungi, lichens, seeds, fruits, plants, and invertebrates. Snags 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 149

(standing dead trees) and rotting logs are essential to healthy forest ecosystems in several ways. 

Snags provide homes for birds that eat insects. When they fall and become coarse woody debris, 

they provide habitat for small animals and insects. When these logs rot they store water and 

provide nutrients for the continued growth of the forest. Dead wood rotting on the forest floor 

eventually gets incorporated into the soil. This underground wood feeds many insects and 

bacteria which provide nitrogen to feed the trees and other plants in the forest. Underground 

wood is the major source of nitrogen for dry forests.

The importance of coarse woody debris in forests has been partially documented, although much 

remains to be discovered (Stevens, 1997). What is known of these roles is divided into four, interrelated categories: (1) the role in productivity of forest trees; (2) the role in providing habitat and 

structure to maintain biological diversity; (3) the role in geomorphology of streams and slopes; 

and (4) the role in long-term carbon storage. The importance of each of these roles to an 

ecosystem varies throughout the forests by natural disturbance type, biogeoclimatic zone and 

moisture regime (Stevens, 1997).

Overstory/Understory Herbaceous Relationship

Since the arrival of Euro-Americans, herbaceous understory vegetation has been reduced by 

increasing densities of established forest and woodland stands and encroachment of new forest 

and woodland stands into grasslands (Clary, 1971; Allen, 1998). Herbaceous vegetation cover and 

production within all PNVTs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is departed from potential; anywhere 

from 1 to 87 percent and 8 to 91 percent for herbaceous cover and production, respectively. 

Overall, the least departure from potential in herbaceous cover and production has occurred in the 

spruce-fir forest, while the greatest departure from potential in herbaceous cover and production 

has occurred in the montane willow riparian forest20.

Historically, ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests and piñon-juniper and Madrean pineoak woodlands were generally characterized by open, 10 to 30 percent, canopies; Great Basin, 

semi-desert, and montane/subalpine grasslands were generally characterized by landscapes 

covered by grasses and forbs with less than 10 percent woody canopy cover.

Today, over 60 percent of the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests, 75 percent of the 

Madrean pine-oak woodland, and 20 percent of the piñon-juniper woodland have canopy cover 

greater than 30 percent. Approximately 85 percent of the Great Basin and 79 percent of the semidesert grasslands have woody canopy cover greater than 10 percent.

Understory herbaceous vegetation and grassland vegetation provide habitat, hiding, and thermal 

cover, nesting sites, and food sources for a myriad of plant and animal species. In addition, 

understory vegetation provides the fine fuels that maintain and support the natural fire regimes 

(relatively frequent, low-intensity fires) needed to renew these forested, woodland, and grassland 

PNVTs. 

Fire is the most influential force in inhibiting woody species encroachment (Daubenmire, 1968; 

Allen, 1984) into grasslands. The alteration of the natural fire regime by suppression, the 

introduction of livestock, shifts in climate, atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and reduced soil 

moisture have disrupted these ecosystems in many ways, including the extensive loss of grassy 

 20 Data was gleaned from Laing et al., 1987.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

vegetation. These actions have contributed to an increase in the distribution and density of 

overstory vegetation. 

Jameson (1967) found a greater than 2.3- to 3.4-fold increase in understory vegetation production 

between open (30 percent or less) and closed (greater than 30 percent) canopy sites in ponderosa 

pine forests in northern Arizona. Tree canopy closure in southwestern ponderosa pine old growth 

stands ranges from 17 to 30 percent (Laughlin et al., 2006), which suggests that understory 

patches may have comprised greater than 70 percent of the forested landscape. 

Moore and Deiter (1992) reported that understory vegetation response to the overstory reduction 

appeared to be dependent on understory plant type. They found that overstory density effects on 

understory production were most predictable for the herbaceous plants (i.e., grasses, sedges, 

forbs) while shrubs showed only a slight response to changing overstory density. The extent that 

understory vegetation responds to overstory removal also depends on the health and condition of 

the existing understory community and its ability to respond, and it depends on available seed 

bank and soil productivity. 

The desired conditions for understory vegetation within the forested, woodland, and riparian 

PNVTs have the composition, structure, and function of the herbaceous and shrub (where 

appropriate) layers to provide for species of all ages and size classes within these communities 

and promote a greater level of ecosystem health by moving them closer to desired conditions. The 

desired conditions for the grassland communities have the composition, structure, and function to 

promote a greater level of ecosystem health (moving closer to desired conditions) provided by 

grassland species of all ages and size classes, namely by removing woody vegetation and invasive 

species.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

The underlying assumption is that for each PNVT the closer their ecological composition, 

structure, and processes are to their reference conditions (having low departure indices21 (DI) 

versus a high DI), the more properly each PNVT is functioning and the more secure dependent 

species (plants and animals) are within the associated habitats. This is particularly important with 

potential changes in the climate. The intent is to reestablish the natural patterns and processes 

within these vegetation communities that allowed for natural resiliency; especially important 

when faced with uncharacteristic wildfire and the presence of invasive plant species, coupled with

climate change. More detailed descriptions of the environmental consequences, including 

expected changes to individual vegetation structural states, can be found in the “Vegetation 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012x).

 21 Departure index (DI) measures the degree to which the state composition, structure, and cover between current and 

reference conditions are dissimilar and it is being used as an inference of sustainability; the lower the DI, the closer to 

reference conditions and the greater the sustainability. The five DI classes are described at the beginning of this section. 

The higher the DI class number, the more altered the ecosystem is from reference conditions. The DI provides a 

quantitative value used for reference and comparison in discussions regarding the PNVTs. The current DI can also be 

compared to results derived from modeling potential change.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 151

PNVTs Modeled with VDDT

Ponderosa Pine Forested PNVT

Based on the treatment objectives for each alternative (table 25), the departure index (DI) is 

expected to vary by alternative (table 26).

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objective under alternative C would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 77 to 52 

(table 26). This is a change of one DI class, from high to moderate. Under this alternative there 

would be the greatest overall reduction in the representation of all size and age trees, singlestoried or multistoried with closed canopy cover, and it would have the greatest overall increase 

in representation of medium to very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees with open 

canopy cover. Reductions in overstory canopy cover favor shade intolerant and very shade 

intolerant species, including the herbaceous vegetation understory.

Table 25. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the ponderosa pine 

PNVT

Alt.

High Treatment Objective

Acres

Low Treatment 

Objective Acres

Average Treatment 

Objective Acres

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

A — — — — 7,119 3,150

B 11,025 11,025 1,552 1,575 6,289 6,300

C 24,255 10,187 2,426 1,040 13,341 5,614

D 9,450 22,050 1,417 3,308 5,434 12,679

Table 26. Fifteen year (planning period) ponderosa pine PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H77

Treatment Objective 

Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — H63 M52 H61

Average H65 H 63 M60 H66

Low — H69 H69 H70

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

The proposed average treatment objectives under alternative C would produce the second 

greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 77 to 60. This is also a 

change of one DI class, from high to moderate. The proposed high treatment objectives under 

alternative D would produce the third greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the 

current rating of 77 to 61. However, this would not change its high departure rating. The high and 

average treatment objectives under alternative B would produce the fourth greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. The low treatment objectives proposed under each of the action 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

alternatives and the average treatment objectives proposed under alternative D would provide 

less movement toward desired conditions than alternative A.

Figure 27 displays the long-term trend toward desired conditions for ponderosa pine based on the 

proposed average acre treatments. All alternatives produce reductions in departure from 

immediately, and continue to trend in movement toward desired conditions through all modeling 

periods (out to 50 years). All alternatives move from a high to moderate departure class. Overall, 

alternatives A, B and C produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, respectively; 

followed by alternative D. 

Figure 27. Ponderosa pine PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-

year time period, for the average treatment level

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, alternative C does more to 

address the threats and risks within the 15-year planning period followed by alternative B, 

then A, and finally D when assessing movement toward both. When assessing movement 

toward desired conditions over the 50-year modeling period for the proposed average acre 

treatment objectives, alternatives A, B, and C equally address the threats and risks more 

than alternative D.Large/Old Trees, Snags and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 27). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative A, alternative D proposed low 

treatment objectives, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, alternative B proposed 

high and low treatment objectives, and finally alternative C proposed high treatment objectives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 153

Table 27. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of 

the 15-year planning period within the ponderosa pine PNVT

Alternative

Vegetation 

Structural 

States E, I, 

K, M1

Across All Ponderosa Pine Vegetation Structural States

Number of 

Snags

≥ 18′′ 

d.b.h./acre

Tons of Coarse Woody Debris (diameter/acre)

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≤ 3′′ > 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ > 12′′ Total

Desired Condition 427,566 average 1–2 range from 3–10

Current 175,013 3.1 4.4 6.5 2.9 13.8

A 219,145 3.7 4.6 7.1 3.5 15.2

B High 202,935 3.5 4.5 6.9 3.4 14.8

B Average 206,655 3.6 4.4 6.7 3.4 14.5

B Low 201,048 3.5 4.6 7.0 3.3 14.9

C High 199,004 3.6 4.5 6.7 3.4 14.6

C Average 200,026 3.5 4.0 6.3 3.3 13.6

C Low 204,795 3.5 4.7 7.0 3.4 15.1

D High 270,289 4.1 4.7 7.4 3.6 15.7

D Average 241,884 3.8 4.7 7.5 3.8 16.0

D Low 213,478 3.6 4.7 7.2 3.4 15.3

1 See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Wet Mixed Conifer Forested PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 28), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 29).

Table 28. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the wet mixed conifer 

PNVT

Alt.

High Treatment 

Objective Acres

Low Treatment 

Objective Acres

Average Treatment 

Objective Acres

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

A — — — — 2,147 950

B 3,325 3,325 475 475 1,900 1,900

C 7,315 3,135 731 313 4,023 1,725

D 2,851 6,650 428 998 1,640 3,824
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 29. Fifteen year (planning period) wet mixed conifer PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is M54

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — M52 M56 M50

Average M49 M53 M56 M52

Low — M54 M55 M54

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the average treatment objectives under alternative A would produce 

the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 54 to 49 (table 29). 

However, this does not produce a change in the DI class; it would remain moderate. Under this 

alternative there would be the greatest overall reduction in the representation of vegetation 

structural states that are lacking aspen regeneration, and the greatest overall increase in 

representation of medium to very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees with open canopy 

cover. Reduction in overstory canopy cover would favor aspen and mixed shade tolerant species, 

including the herbaceous vegetation understory.

The proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D produce the second greatest 

movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 54 to 50. However, this does not 

produce a change in the DI class; it would remain moderate. The proposed high treatment 

objectives under alternative B and the average treatment objectives under alternative D would 

produce the third greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 54 to 

52. Again, this would not produce a change in the DI classes; they would remain moderate. The 

proposed alternative B low and average treatment objectives, all aspects of alternative C, and 

the proposed low treatment objectives in alternative D would produce less change or no change 

in the movement toward desired conditions compared to alternative A.

Figure 28 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for wet mixed conifer, 

based on the average treatment acres. Alternative A would produce the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions during the planning period and would continue throughout all modeling 

periods. Alternatives B and D would produce some movement toward desired conditions, while 

alternative C would continue to trend away throughout all modeling periods. However, it 

appears that around 30 years, trend changes very little in all alternatives and management 

changes would be needed to reset movement toward desired conditions within this PNVT.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternative A does more to address the threats and risks within the 15-

year planning period followed by alternative D, then B, and finally C. For the proposed average 

acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement toward desired conditions, within the 50-

year modeling period, alternative A does more to address the threats and risks followed by 

alternative D, then B, and finally C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 155

Figure 28. Wet mixed conifer PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 

50-year time period, for the average treatment level

Large Trees/Old Trees, Snags and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 30). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative C proposed high treatment objectives, 

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative A, alternative C proposed low 

treatment objectives, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, and finally alternative B

proposed low treatment objectives.

Table 30. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of 

the 15-year planning period within the wet mixed conifer PNVT

Alternative

Vegetation 

Structural 

States E, F, I, 

J, N, O, R, S1

Across All Wet Mixed Conifer Vegetation Structural States

Number of Snags

≥ 18′′ d.b.h./acre

Tons of Coarse Woody Debris 

(diameter/acre)

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≤ 3′′ > 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ > 12′′ Total

Desired 

Condition

80,543 1–5 range from 5–40

Current 20,058 9.8 8.2 16.6 10.5 35.3

A 36,004 10.0 9.5 18.6 12.7 40.7

B High 39,080 10.4 9.6 18.5 12.7 40.8

B Average 36,238 10.0 9.5 18.4 12.6 40.5

B Low 33,396 9.7 9.4 18.3 12.5 40.2

C High 39,966 10.7 9.2 17.7 12.3 39.3
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Alternative

Vegetation 

Structural 

States E, F, I, 

J, N, O, R, S1

Across All Wet Mixed Conifer Vegetation Structural States

Number of Snags

≥ 18′′ d.b.h./acre

Tons of Coarse Woody Debris 

(diameter/acre)

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≤ 3′′ > 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ > 12′′ Total

C Average 36,729 10.2 9.3 18.0 12.3 39.2

C Low 33,492 9.7 9.4 18.2 12.5 40.1

D High 41,950 11.0 9.7 19.2 13.3 42.2

D Average 37,689 10.4 9.6 18.7 12.9 41.2

D Low 33,428 9.8 9.4 18.3 12.6 40.3

1 See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Dry Mixed Conifer Forested PNVT 

Based on the treatment objectives for each alternative (table 31), the departure index (DI) is 

expected to vary by alternative (table 32).

Table 31. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the dry mixed conifer 

PNVT

Alt.

High Treatment 

Objective Acres

Low Treatment 

Objective Acres

Average Treatment

Objective Acres

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

— — — — 1,808 800

B 2,772 2,910 396 416 1,584 1,663

C 6,160 2,772 616 277 3,388 1,525

D 2,400 5,880 360 881 1,380 3,381

Table 32. Fifteen year (planning period) dry mixed conifer PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H67

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — M53 M49 M56

Average M57 M56 M54 M58

Low — M60 M59 M59

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 157

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative C would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 67 to 49 

(table 32). This would be a change of one DI class, from high to moderate. 

The proposed high treatment objectives under alternative B would produce the second greatest 

movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 67 to 53. This is a change of one 

DI class, from high to moderate. The proposed average treatment objectives under alternative C

would produce the third greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 

67 to 54. This is also a change of one DI class, from high to moderate. The low treatment 

objectives proposed under each of the action alternatives, and the average treatment objectives 

proposed under alternative D would provide less movement toward desired conditions than 

alternative A.

Figure 29. Dry mixed conifer PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 

50-year time period, for the average treatment level

As all alternatives move toward desired conditions, there would be an overall reduction in the 

representation of all size and age trees, single-storied or multistoried with closed canopy cover. 

There would be an increase in representation of medium to very large size, single-storied or 

multistoried trees with open canopy. Reduction in overstory canopy cover would favor shade 

intolerant and very shade intolerant species, including the herbaceous vegetation understory.

Figure 29 displays the long-term trend toward desired conditions for dry mixed conifer based on 

the average treatment acres. All alternatives would produce movement toward desired conditions 

immediately and would continue to trend in movement toward desired conditions through all 

modeling periods. They all would move from a high to moderate departure. Overall, alternative 

A would produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions over the other alternatives.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternative C does more to address the threats and risks within the 15-

year planning period followed by alternatives B, then A, and finally D. When assessing 

movement toward desired conditions over the 50-year modeling period for the proposed average 

acre treatment objectives, alternative A does more to address the threats and risks followed by 

alternatives B, then C, and finally D.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Large Trees/Old Trees, Snags and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 33). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative C proposed high treatment objectives, 

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative A, alternative B proposed low 

treatment objectives, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, and finally alternative D

proposed low treatment objectives.

Table 33. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of 

the 15-year planning period within the dry mixed conifer PNVT

Alternative

Vegetation 

Structural 

States E, I, K, 

M1

Across All Dry Mixed Conifer Vegetation Structural States

Number of

Snags

≥ 18′′ 

d.b.h./acre

Tons of Coarse Woody Debris (diameter/acre)

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≤ 3′′ > 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ > 12′′ Total

Desired 

Condition

84,295 average 3 range from 5–15

Current 17,618 4.9 10.1 10.5 5.4 26.0

A 30,071 7.9 7.3 11.5 6.3 25.2

B High 34,905 8.3 7.0 10.9 6.0 23.9

B Average 32,618 8.1 7.3 11.3 6.3 24.9

B Low 29,606 7.9 7.5 11.8 6.6 25.9

C High 36,116 8.4 6.8 10.4 5.7 22.9

C Average 31,648 8.0 7.2 11.2 6.2 24.6

C Low 27,179 7.5 7.6 12.0 6.7 26.3

D High 36,995 8.2 7.2 11.6 6.6 25.4

D Average 31,598 7.7 7.4 11.8 6.6 25.9

D Low 26,201 7.3 7.6 12.0 6.7 26.3

1 See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Spruce-Fir Forested PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 34), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 35).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 159

Table 34. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the spruce-fir PNVT

Alt.

High Treatment 

Objective Acres

Low Treatment 

Objective Acres

Average Treatment 

Objective Acres

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

A — — — — 108 100

B 95 606 14 87 55 347

C 208 892 16 93 112 493

D 36 964 6 145 21 555

Table 35. Fifteen year (planning period) spruce-fir PNVT departure index (DI) by alternative 

treatment objective levels; current DI is M59

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High - H 64 H63 H64

Average H68 H66 H 65 H 65

Low - H 68 H67 H 67

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure.

After one planning period, all alternatives would trend away from desired conditions and change 

one DI class, from moderate to high (table 35). Within the planning period, no alternative would 

produce a reduction in the representation of vegetation structural states that are lacking aspen 

regeneration or an increase in representation of medium to very large size, single-storied or 

multistoried trees with open canopy. In addition, there would be no reduction in overstory canopy 

cover to favor aspen and mixed shade tolerant species, including the herbaceous vegetation 

understory. 

However, of all of the alternatives, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative C

would produce the smallest increase in departure, from the current rating of 59 to 63. The 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternatives B and D would produce the next smallest 

increase, from the current rating of 59 to 64. The average treatment objectives under alternatives 

A and the proposed low treatment objectives in alternative B would produce the greatest 

departure, from the current rating of 59 to 68. As mentioned earlier, these are all changes of one 

departure class, from moderate to high.

Figure 30 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for spruce-fir based on the 

average treatment acres. At first, all alternatives would produce increases in departure from 

desired conditions immediately; however at year 10, the trend reverses and all alternatives would 

begin trending toward desired conditions throughout all modeling periods. At the end of the 

modeling period (50 years), alternative D would produce the greatest movement toward desired 

conditions. By the end of the modeling period, all alternatives would have moved from a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

moderate to a high departure rating. However, it appears that around 10 years management 

changes would be needed to reset movement toward desired conditions within this PNVT.

Figure 30. Spruce-fir PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-year 

time period, for the average treatment level

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternatives C and D equally do more to address the threats and risks 

within the 15-year planning period followed by alternative B, then finally A. When assessing 

movement toward desired conditions over the 50-year modeling period for the proposed average 

acre treatment objectives, alternative D does more to address the threats and risks followed 

equally by alternatives B and C, then finally A.

Large/Old Trees, Snags and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 36). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative C proposed high treatment objectives, 

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative A, alternative B proposed low 

treatment objectives, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, and finally alternative D

proposed low treatment objectives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 161

Table 36. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of 

the 15-year planning period within the spruce-fir PNVT

Alternative

Vegetation 

Structural

States E, F, I,

J, N, O, R, S1

Across All Spruce-Fir Vegetation Structural States

Number of

Snags

≥ 18′′ 

d.b.h./acre

Tons of Coarse Woody Debris (diameter/acre)

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≤ 3′′ > 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ > 12′′ Total

Desired 

Condition

7,067 1–3 range from 5–40

Current 1,829 8.4 10.1 20.7 7.4 38.2

A 3,660 13.1 12.8 25.4 11.4 49.7

B High 4,344 14.6 13.2 26.5 12.4 52.1

B Average 3,970 13.8 13.0 25.9 11.9 50.7

B Low 3,596 12.9 12.8 25.3 11.3 49.5

C High 4,525 15.1 13.2 26.7 12.8 52.6

C Average 4,029 14.1 13.0 26.0 12.0 51.0

C Low 3,533 13.0 12.7 25.3 11.3 49.4

D High 4,587 15.2 13.3 26.9 12.8 53.0

D Average 4,090 14.1 13.0 26.1 12.1 51.2

D Low 3,593 13.1 12.7 25.4 11.4 49.5

1 See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 37), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 38).

Table 37. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the Madrean pine-oak 

PNVT

Alt.

High Treatment Objective 

Acres

Low Treatment Objective 

Acres

Average Treatment 

Objective Acres

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

A — — — — 0 1,063

B 0 11,143 0 3,714 0 7,429

C 0 5,000 0 1,250 0 3,125

D 0 22,335 0 3,722 0 13,029
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 38. Fifteen year (planning period) Madrean pine-oak PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H61

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High - M41 M50 L28

Average M59 M47 M55 M41

Low M54 M59 M54

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 61 to 28 

(table 38). This would be a change of two DI classes, from high to low.

The proposed high treatment objectives under alternative B and the average treatment objectives 

under alternative D would produce the second greatest movement toward desired conditions, 

from their current ratings of 61 to 41. This would be a change of one DI classes, from high to 

moderate. The average treatment objectives under alternative A and the proposed low treatment 

objectives under alternative C would produce the least movement toward desired conditions, 

from the current rating of 61 to 59. However, this would provide a change in their DI class, from 

high to moderate.

As all alternatives move toward desired conditions, there would be an overall increase in the 

representation of seedling, saplings, small, and medium to very large size, single-storied or 

multistoried trees with open canopy cover. There would also be a reduction in closed canopy 

structural states. Reduction in overstory canopy cover would favor shade intolerant and very 

shade intolerant species, including the herbaceous vegetation understory.

Figure 31 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for Madrean pine-oak 

based on the average treatment acres. All action alternatives would produce reductions in 

departure from desired conditions immediately; however, alternative D has the greatest 

movement during the planning period and across the modeling period (at which point departure 

has dropped two classes). Alternatives B, C, and A lag behind, respectively, however, 

alternative B would also decrease two departure classes; while alternatives A and C would each 

decrease by one departure class.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, alternative D does more to 

address the threats and risks within both the 15-year planning and the 50-year modeling periods 

followed by alternative B, then C, and finally alternative A when assessing movement toward 

desired conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 163

Figure 31. Madrean pine-oak PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 

50-year time period, for the average treatment level

Large/Old Trees, Snags and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 39). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative D proposed low treatment objectives, 

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative B proposed low treatment 

objectives, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, alternative A, and finally 

alternative C proposed high treatment objectives

Table 39. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of 

the 15-year planning period within the Madrean pine-oak PNVT

Alternative

Vegetation 

Structural 

States D, G1

Across All Madrean Pine-Oak Vegetation Structural States

Number of

Snags

≥ 18′′ 

d.b.h./acre

Tons of Coarse Woody Debris (diameter/acre)

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≤ 3′′ > 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ > 12′′ Total

Desired 

Condition

222,147 1–2 1–3

Current 119,259 0.9 0.3 1.3 0.8 2.4

A 167,913 1.4 3.4 3.6 2.1 9.0

B High 176,473 1.3 2.8 3.0 1.8 7.6

B Average 176,088 1.4 3.1 3.2 1.9 8.2

B Low 175,703 1.4 3.3 3.5 2.1 8.9

C High 162,582 1.3 3.0 3.1 1.9 8.0
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Alternative

Vegetation 

Structural 

States D, G1

Across All Madrean Pine-Oak Vegetation Structural States

Number of

Snags

≥ 18′′ 

d.b.h./acre

Tons of Coarse Woody Debris (diameter/acre)

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≤ 3′′ > 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ > 12′′ Total

C Average 171,142 1.3 3.2 3.4 2.0 8.6

C Low 174,370 1.4 3.4 3.6 2.1 9.2

D High 178,991 1.3 2.4 2.5 1.5 6.4

D Average 178,695 1.3 2.8 3.0 1.8 7.6

D Low 178,399 1.4 3.3 3.5 2.1 8.8

1 See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Piñon-Juniper Woodland PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 40), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 41).

Table 40. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the piñon-juniper 

PNVT

Alt.

High Treatment 

Objective Acres

Low Treatment 

Objective Acres

Average Treatment 

Objective Acres

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

A — — — — 500 713

B 2,341 1,412 780 470 1,561 941

C 4,213 600 1,053 150 2,633 375

D 4,042 3,443 673 575 2,358 2,009

Table 41. Fifteen year (planning period) piñon-juniper PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is L26

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — N19 N18 N19

Average L21 N20 N19 N19

Low — N20 L21 N20

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 165

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative C would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 26 to 18 

(table 41). There would be a change in DI class from low to no departure. 

All proposed treatments under alternatives B and D, and the proposed average treatment 

objectives under alternative C would produce movement toward desired conditions, from the 

current rating of 26 to 19 and 20. These are all changes in departure index class from low to no 

departure. The average acre treatments under alternative A and the proposed low acre treatments 

under alternative C would not change departure class.

As all alternatives move toward desired conditions, there would be an overall increase in the 

representation of seedling, saplings, small, and medium to very large size, single-storied or 

multistoried trees with open canopy cover and a reduction in closed canopy. Reduction in 

overstory canopy cover would favor shade intolerant and very shade intolerant species, including 

the herbaceous vegetation understory.

Figure 32. Piñon-juniper PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-

year time period, for the average treatment level

Figure 32 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for piñon-juniper based on 

the average treatment acres. All alternatives would produce reductions in departure from desired 

conditions immediately; however, around 15 to 20 years, all alternatives would start trending 

away from desired conditions. 

Alternative D would maintain a lower departure trend than the other alternatives; while 

alternative A would maintain a higher departure trend than alternatives B and C. Alternative D

would maintain the lowest departure rating across the modeling period, followed by alternatives 

B, C, and then A. Only alternative D would end in a no departure class; while alternatives B 

and C would end in a low DI class, and alternative A would end in a moderate DI class. 

However, it appears that around 15 years trend changes all alternatives and management changes 

would be needed to reset movement toward desired conditions within this PNVT.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions alternatives C and D equally do more to address the threats and risks 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

by the end of the 15-year planning period followed by alternative B, and finally A. However, 

when assessing movement toward desired conditions by the end of the 50-year modeling period 

for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, alternative D does more to address the 

threats and risks followed by alternative B, then C, and finally A.

Large/Old Trees, Snags and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 42). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative C proposed high treatment objectives, 

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative D proposed low treatment 

objectives, alternative A, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, and finally 

alternative B proposed low treatment objectives.

Table 42. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (d.b.h.) 

per acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of 

the 15-year planning period within the piñon-juniper PNVT

Alternative

Vegetation 

Structural 

States D, G1

Across All Piñon-Juniper Vegetation Structural States

Number of

Snags

≥ 18′′ 

d.b.h./acre

Tons of Coarse Woody Debris (diameter/acre)

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≤ 3′′ > 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ > 12′′ Total

Desired 

Condition

99,971 1–2 2–5

Current 139,845 1.5 0.6 2.2 1.4 4.2

A 128,541 1.4 0.7 2.9 1.4 5.0

B High 128,307 1.4 0.7 2.4 1.3 4.4

B Average 129,806 1.4 0.7 2.6 1.4 4.6

B Low 129,844 1.4 0.7 2.7 1.4 4.8

C High 125,196 1.4 0.7 2.5 1.3 4.5

C Average 128,408 1.4 0.7 2.8 1.4 5.0

C Low 129,768 1.4 0.7 2.8 1.4 4.9

D High 124,493 1.4 0.6 2.1 1.2 3.9

D Average 128,357 1.4 0.6 2.4 1.3 4.3

D Low 128,508 1.4 0.7 2.7 1.4 4.8

1 See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 167

Great Basin Grassland PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 43), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 44).

Table 43. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the Great Basin 

grassland PNVT

Alt.

High Treatment 

Objective Acres

Low Treatment 

Objective Acres

Average Treatment 

Objective Acres

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

A — — — — 500 41

B 10,269 10,000 5,135 5,000 7,702 7,500

C 0 0 0 0 0 0

D 6,161 14,000 3,081 7,000 4,621 10,500

Table 44. Fifteen year (planning period) Great Basin grassland PNVT departure index (DI) 

by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H66

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — N9 H63 N8

Average H63 N17 H63 N19

Low — L24 H63 L29

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 67 to 8 

(table 44). This would be a change of four DI classes, from high to no departure. The proposed 

high treatment objectives under alternative B would produce the second greatest movement 

toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 67 to 9. This would also be a change of four 

DI classes, from high to no departure. The proposed average treatment objectives under 

alternative B would produce the third greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the 

current rating of 67 to 17. This would be a change of three DI classes, from high to low.

As alternatives D and B move toward desired conditions, there would be a reduction in woody 

vegetation encroachment and a return to historic grassland conditions (dense stands of perennial 

grasses and forbs with less than 10 percent woody canopy cover). Reduction in overstory canopy 

cover would favor shade intolerant and very shade intolerant herbaceous species.

Under alternatives A and C, Great Basing grassland would stay highly departed from desired 

conditions. It would continue to be encroached by shrubs and trees of all sizes with open and 

closed canopies and lack adequate stands of perennial grasses and forbs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 33 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for Great Basin grassland 

based on the average treatment acres. Both alternatives B and D would reduce departure from 

desired conditions immediately, from high to no departure. Alternative D would remain within 

the no departure class; while alternative B would move from the no departure class to the low 

departure class after 50 years. Both alternatives A and C would produce movement away from 

desired conditions.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternative B does more to address the threats and risks within both 

the 15-year planning period followed by alternative D, then equally by alternatives A and C. 

However, when assessing movement toward both desired conditions within the 50-year modeling 

period, alternative D does more to address the threats and risks followed by alternative B, then 

equally by alternatives A and C.

Figure 33. Great Basin grassland PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over 

a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level

Semi-Desert Grassland PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 45), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 46).

Table 45. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the semi-desert 

grassland PNVT

Alt.

High Treatment 

Objective Acres

Low Treatment 

Objective Acres

Average Treatment 

Objective Acres

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

A — — — — 0 27

B 0 3,000 0 2,000 0 2,500

C 0 0 0 0 0 0

D 0 3,000 0 2,000 0 2,500
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 169

Table 46. Fifteen year (planning period) semi-desert grassland PNVT departure index (DI) 

by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H79

Treatment Objective 

Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — H66 — H66

Average S84 H68 S84 H68

Low — H70 — H70

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the proposed high acreage treatments under both alternatives B and 

D would produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 78 

to 66 (table 46). However, there would be no change in DI class, and the grassland would remain 

highly departed. The proposed average treatment objectives under alternatives B and D would 

produce the second greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 78 to 

68. Again, there would be no change in DI class, and the grassland would remain highly departed. 

Under these alternatives, there would be a reduction in woody vegetation encroachment and some 

movement to historic grassland conditions. Reduction in overstory canopy cover would favor 

shade intolerant herbaceous species.

Under alternatives A and C, semi-desert grasslands would continue to trend away from desired 

conditions. There would still be encroaching shrubs and trees of all sizes with open and closed 

canopies and not enough open, dense stands of perennial grasses and forbs (late seral).

Figure 34 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for semi-desert grassland 

based on the average treatment acres. Both alternatives B and D would produce reductions in 

departure from desired conditions from high to moderate by year 30, and the DI class would 

remain the same throughout the long term. Alternatives A and C would produce movement away 

from desired conditions, and the PNVT would transition from highly to severely departed. 

Alternatives B and D would do more to address the threats and risks to the semi-desert grassland 

PNVT within the planning period than the other alternatives. However, it appears that around 40 

years trend changes very little in all alternatives and management changes would be needed to 

reset movement toward desired conditions within this PNVT.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternatives B and D equally do more to address the threats and risks 

to the semi-desert PNVT by the end of the 15-year planning period and the 50-year modeling 

period followed equally by alternatives A and C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 34. Semi-desert grassland PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over 

a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level

Summary of Modeling Results Relative to Desired Conditions

When comparing the alternative average treatment acreages after one planning period (15 years) 

and across all modeled PNVTs (this includes the four forested, two woodland, and two grassland 

PNVTs), the action alternatives display a reduction from high to moderate departure from 

desired conditions.

Numerically, all alternatives average treatment acres would produce some movement toward 

desired conditions within the planning period. Alternative D would produce the greatest 

movement toward desired conditions when considering the modeling results across all eight 

PNVTs (from 64 DI at existing condition to 48 DI after 15 years). Alternative B would produce 

the second greatest movement in the direction toward desired conditions when considering the 

modeling results across all eight PNVTs (to a 49 DI after 15 years). Qualitatively, these are both 

movements from high departure to moderate DI class.

Alternative C would produce the next greatest movement toward desired conditions when 

considering the modeling results across all eight PNVTs (to a 54 DI after 15 years). Alternative 

A would produce the least movement toward desired conditions (to a 57 DI after 15 years). 

Qualitatively, there would be no change in DI class for alternatives C and A when considering 

the modeling results across all eight PNVTs.

PNVTs Not Modeled with VDDT

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 

There are no specific objectives regarding this PNVT in alternative A other than a general 

statement on eliminating tree encroachment to maintain grasslands as suitable range. The action 

alternatives would treat approximately 500 acres per year to restore grassland conditions. Based 

on the treatment objectives (table 47), the vegetation outcome is described below.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 171

Table 47. Annual treatment objectives (acres) by alternative in the montane/subalpine 

grassland PNVTs

Alt. Average Treatment Objective Acres

Mechanical Treatment Burning Treatment

A 0 0

B 500 0

C 500 0

D 500 0

The action alternatives would provide equal benefit to the montane/subalpine grasslands. These 

alternatives have a 500-acre annual treatment objective through the planning period, specifically 

under alternative C for commercial tree removal where encroachment in the grasslands has 

occurred and under alternatives B and D for grassland restoration. Although not quantified, 

burning (planned and unplanned ignitions) would also be emphasized under alternatives B and 

D. At this rate, treating the 10 percent tree encroached area of this PNVT would take 

approximately 11 years to complete.

The departure from desired conditions within these grasslands is rated at moderate and trending 

away. While removal of encroaching trees would be beneficial, they are a minor contributor to 

overall departure. In a study conducted on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, White (2002) found 

significant changes had occurred in these grasslands between 1913 and 1998 that were not related 

to woody species encroachment. These changes were in soil surface cover, exposed soil, 

herbaceous vegetation composition and cover, and dominant species composition. White 

determined that ungulate grazing (both livestock and elk) were the principle causal factors 

responsible for these changes, followed by fire suppression. The proposed treatment objectives 

under the action alternatives would not change this PNVT’s departure class.

Changes in the structure and function of grassland systems have been noted as the primary cause 

of the loss of native diversity within grasslands (Stacey, 1995; Gori and Enquist, 2003). Finch 

(2004) identified and summarized the major threats to grassland biological diversity as the loss of 

natural fire cycles, overgrazing by livestock, prairie dog eradication, introduction of nonnative 

vegetation, woody species encroachment, erosion, and habitat fragmentation (White, 2002).

Interior Chaparral

There are no specific objectives regarding this PNVT in any of the alternatives. 

Since interior chaparral is rated at not being departed from desired conditions, the management 

approach under all alternatives would be to maintain this condition into the future, primarily by 

fire (planned and unplanned ignitions). There would be no variation in environmental 

consequences between alternatives. The overstory and understory structure, composition, and 

function of the interior chaparral ecosystem would be expected to remain similar to current 

conditions during the planning period.

Effects to the capable grazing lands associated with the interior chaparral are also estimated to 

remain similar to current conditions with approximately 45 percent of the herbaceous understory 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

retained in moderately low ecological conditions, while about half retained in moderately high 

ecological condition. Low to moderately low ecological conditions would result in lower levels of 

herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species compositional 

shifts, and changes in site potential. Lower growth levels would result in lower available forage 

for livestock and wildlife on those lands.

The interior chaparral has the lowest road density of all PNVTs. Effects to vegetation from roads 

are primarily from sediment leaving the road surface and concentration of road drainage causing 

rills and gullies resulting in loss of productivity. The road network would remain constant in all 

alternatives and would result in no difference in effects between alternatives.

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas and Riparian Forests

Based on the treatment objectives for each alternative (table 48), the vegetation outcome is 

described below.

Table 48. Average annual treatment objectives (acres) by alternative in the riparian PNVT

Alternative

Average Treatment Objective Acres

Mechanical 

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Number of wetland/cienegas 

restored

A 0 0 0

B 0 350 15

C 0 0 0

D 0 450 15

As mentioned earlier, wetland/cienega riparian areas and riparian forested PNVTs are rated as no 

departure to low departure from desired conditions. There would be no specific objectives 

regarding treating the vegetation structure and compositions of these PNVTs in alternative A or 

C. Alternatives B and D would propose to restore 200 to 500 acres and 300 to 600 acres 

annually. Alternatives B and D would also have an objective to restore 5 to 25 wetland/cienega 

riparian areas during the planning period and would, therefore, have a greater benefit than 

alternative A or C. 

If treatments include removal of nonriparian woody and herbaceous species, alternatives B and 

D would provide the greater benefit to all of the riparian PNVTs. The action alternatives propose 

to reduce animal damage on 5 miles of riparian area annually. This should reduce ungulate 

damage to willows and other riparian woody species. 

Again, alternatives B and D have an objective to restore 5 to 25 wetland/cienega riparian areas 

during the planning period and would, therefore, have a greater benefit than either alternative A 

or C.

The riparian areas and riparian forested PNVTs have some of the highest road densities on the 

forests, ranging from 1.8 to 3.4 linear miles of road per square mile. All action alternatives

would propose to remove unauthorized routes during the planning period. In this regard, 

alternative D would produce the greatest benefit by removing the most roads, followed by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 173

alternative B and then C. Since roads are the dominant source of erosion and sediment; removal 

would eliminate direct deposition of sediment into the riparian areas. Alternative A does not 

contain specific objectives to remove roads for the benefit of riparian areas, and there would 

continue to be the threat of erosion from existing roads and sedimentation into the riparian areas. 

See table 49 below.

Table 49. Road treatment objectives (miles) by alternative in the riparian PNVT

Objective Description

Alternative

A B C D

Minimum amount of NFS roads or trails that negatively impact streams or 

riparian areas to be relocated, repaired, improved, or decommissioned

0 4 0 4

Average amount of unauthorized roads or trails that negatively impact 

streams or riparian areas to be removed

0 2 3 3

Aspen

All alternatives would have the desired condition to retain aspen on the landscape. This would 

entail actions to maintain and regenerate aspen at the desired condition level of roughly 50,000 

acres or more during the planning period (compared to current condition of aspen at 76,500 

acres). Aspen readily regenerates with disturbance like fire. Actions to maintain aspen include 

fencing or other browsing controls and removal of conifer encroachment within aspen clones.

All alternatives would maintain aspen at desired conditions during the planning period (table 

50). The level of aspen, as a consequence of forest management and activities, could be further 

affected by actions outside of Forest Service control. Primary examples of aspen loss not related 

to forest management and activities, and commonly occurring now, include: ungulate browsing of 

aspen seedlings and saplings, insects and disease, and sudden aspen decline (SAD).

Table 50. Acres of aspen at the end of the planning period, by treatment objective level 

and alternative; desired condition is 50,000 acres or more of aspen

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

High — 65,696 61,049 61,793

Average 71,076 68,204 65,796 65,517

Low — 70,711 70,542 69,241

Overstory/Understory Herbaceous Vegetation Cover Relationship

One of the most distinctive features of frequent-fire forests, woodlands, and grasslands of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is the major contribution that the understory vegetation (grasses, forbs, 

shrubs) makes to ecosystem diversity and productivity. According to Laughlin and Grace (2006), 

in the absence of fire, the density of overstory trees increases which can reduce the diversity of 

understory vegetation 10 to 30 percent. Restoration efforts on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs focus 

on the enhancement and/or recovery of native herbaceous species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

This section summarizes the environmental consequences that would occur as overstory canopy 

cover moves toward or away from desired conditions. These consequences can be applied to 

alternative outcomes presented in the following sections. The following sections present potential 

changes in the relations between overstory (represented by canopy cover) and understory 

vegetation due to the different proposed alternative treatment levels. 

As overstory canopy cover moves toward desired conditions due to reduction in overstory canopy 

cover and reintroduction of periodic fire within the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests, 

Madrean pine-oak and piñon-juniper woodlands, and Great Basin and semi-desert grasslands, 

there would be an expected increase in understory species diversity, cover, composition, and 

production. Laughlin et al. (2005) found that, low intensity surface fire is an important ecological 

process in lower montane and subalpine forests that maintains understory communities within the 

range of natural variability and appears to promote species diversity. According to several authors 

(Bailey and Copeland, 1961; Blackburn et al., 1986; Knight, 1993), species composition is a clear 

indicator of hydrologic function. Hydrologic function is the capacity of a site to capture, store, 

and release moisture, and its ability to withstand and recover from capacity reducing events 

(Pellant et al., 2000).

The significance of changes in vegetation composition and structure is their relation to ecosystem 

function and process—litter and root biomass of herbaceous vegetation builds and enriches soils 

at a far greater rate than within adjacent forested or woodland sites (Aber and Melillo, 1991) or 

areas that are now occupied by tree encroachment. Within southwestern ponderosa pine forests, 

Kaye and Hart (1998) reported that net rates of nitrogen transformation beneath relict grassy 

openings were twice those beneath post-settlement pines. Other studies have identified some 

understory vegetation components that may function as major community and ecosystem drivers 

(Nilsson and Wardle, 2005).

As overstory canopy cover moves away from desired conditions (greater than 10 percent in 

grasslands and 30 percent in forests and woodlands), there would continue to be negative 

environmental consequences. Shifts in compositions that change the vegetative structure from 

herbaceous species to woody species have effects on levels of surface runoff and soil loss 

(McGinty et al., 1995). 

Ecologically, the most far reaching, long-term negative effect due to shifts in grass and woody 

plant abundance is loss of soil, soil productivity, and species diversity. For grassland soils, 10 to 

94 percent are in impaired and/or unsatisfactory condition, and much of this can be attributed 

directly to the loss of the herbaceous vegetation. According to Friedel (1991), once grass has been 

displaced, this alteration may result in conversion to woody vegetation that is difficult to reverse. 

Soil erosion can irreversibly alter the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil 

(CRC, 1994) and, in turn, alter the kind and amount of vegetation a site can support.

Vegetation species compositional shifts have occurred within all PNVTs (White, 2002; Vander 

Lee et al., 2006), including a decrease in understory species diversity. The effect of the loss of a 

species on an ecosystem is the result of both the loss of the direct effects of the organism on 

ecosystem functioning, and the response of other organisms to that loss. These effects and 

responses occur through numerous mechanisms (e.g., species can directly affect soil nutrient and 

water content through varying root mass). In addition, specific species can alter plant community 

composition through competition and associated effects which, in turn, may affect ecosystem 

function. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 175

Forested PNVTs

Ponderosa pine forest: Within the 15-year planning period, all alternatives would produce a 

reduction in closed canopy acres (figure 35). However, alternative C would reduce the closed 

canopy cover on the greatest number of acres, from 410,912 to 324,765 acres, a 21 percent 

reduction. Alternatives B, A, and D would result in 13, 10, and 8 percent reductions, 

respectively. At the end of 50 years, all the alternatives would have reduced closed canopy acres 

by 24, 21, 18, and 16 percent for alternatives C, D, B, and A, respectively. 

Understory vegetation cover has been directly related to time since fire and ponderosa pine basal 

area (Laughlin et al., 2005). As a result of canopy cover reductions through mechanical thinning 

and introduction of periodic fire on a regular basis, within this PNVT there should be an increase 

in understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity. With expected increases in 

herbaceous plant vigor through decreased competition for sunlight and moisture and more rapid 

nutrient cycling by fire, there could be greater herbage growth. Current average herbaceous cover 

ranging from 45 to 78 percent and average estimated production ranging from 255 to 387 pounds 

per acre have the potential to increase by as much as 27 and 39 percent for cover and production, 

respectively. Given the opportunity to respond to overstory canopy reduction, the existing 

understory state of affairs where low and moderately low ecological conditions or very poor and 

poor range conditions occur on more than 480,000 acres should enable some movement to higher

ecological levels and closer to desired conditions. 

Figure 35. Percent of ponderosa pine PNVT with woody canopy cover greater than 30 

percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

Wet mixed conifer forest: Wet mixed conifer is a naturally closed canopy forest and desired 

conditions are to have no more than 21 percent (37,379 acres) of this PNVT with open canopy 

cover. Within the 15-year planning period, all alternatives would produce an increase in closed

canopy acres (figure 36). Alternatives A, B, and D would increase closed canopy acres from 

101,457 to 113,917, a nearly 12 percent increase. Alternative C would result in a roughly 5 

percent increase in closed canopy acres, from 101,457 to 106,797 acres. At the end of 50 years, 

all alternatives would have increase closed canopy acres by 19, 18 and 14 percent, for 

alternatives B, A and D, and C, respectively. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 36. Percent of wet mixed conifer PNVT with woody canopy cover greater than 30 

percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

As a result of canopy cover increases within this PNVT, there is very little likelihood in a change 

occuring in understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity from current conditions. 

Current average herbaceous cover ranging from 73 to 94 percent and average estimated 

production ranging from 59 to 136 pounds per acre would not increase. Overstory canopy 

increase would facilitate minimal, if any, movement of the existing understory situation where 

low and moderately low ecological conditions occur on more than 60,000 acres to higher 

ecological levels and closer to desired conditions; in fact, the opposite is more likely to occur.

Dry mixed conifer forest: Dry mixed conifer is a naturally open canopied forest and desired 

conditions are to have 68 percent (100,562 acres) of this PNVT with open canopy cover. 

However, within the planning period all alternatives proposed average acre treatment objectives 

produce increases in closed canopy acres (figure 37). Alternative C yields the smallest increase 

in closed canopy acres, from 90,210 to 107,217 acres, a 19 percent increase (figure 37); 

alternatives B and A follow with 20 and 23 percent increases, respectively. At the end of 50 

years, all the alternatives have increased closed canopy acres by 20, 21, 22, and 26 percent for 

alternatives B, A, C, and D, respectively, from current conditions. It would appear that under all 

alternatives, insufficient acres would be treated within this PNVT to achieve the desired 

conditions. 

As a result of canopy cover increases within this PNVT there s is very little likelihood in a change 

occuring in understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity from current conditions. 

Current average herbaceous cover ranging from 57 to 89 percent and average estimated 

production ranging from 206 to 497 pounds per acre would not increase. Overstory canopy 

increase would facilitate minimal, if any, movement of the existing understory situation where 

low and moderately low ecological conditions occur on more than 81,000 acres to higher 

ecological levels and closer to potential; in fact, the opposite is more likely to occur.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 177

Figure 37. Percent of dry mixed conifer PNVT with woody canopy cover greater than 30 

percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

Spruce-fir forest: Spruce-fir is a naturally closed canopy forest and desired conditions are to 

have no more than 19 percent (3,357 acres) of this PNVT with open canopy cover. Within the 15-

year planning period, all alternatives would produce an increase in closed canopy acres (figure 

38). Alternative A would produce the greatest increase from 10,777 to 12,014 acres, an 11 

percent increase. Alternative B would increase closed canopy acres to 11,925, a nearly 11 

percent increase. Alternative D would increase closed canopy acres to 11,837, a nearly 10 

percent increase. Alternative C would increase closed canopy acres the least from 10,777 to 

11,749 acres, a 9 percent increase. Desired conditions for this PNVT are to have roughly 81 

percent or 14,310 acres with closed canopy cover. However, at the end of 50 years, all 

alternatives except A would have a decrease in closed canopy acres. Alternative A would have a 

2 percent increase. Alternative B would have a 3 percent decrease, alternative C would have a 4 

percent decrease, while alternative D would have a 7 percent decrease. Reduction in canopy 

cover is likely the result of the number of years that would be required to treat this entire PNVT 

under the various alternative proposed treatment objective acres: 83 years, 41 years, 28 years, and 

33 years for alternatives A, B, C, and D, respectively.

As a result of canopy cover increases through mechanical thinning and introduction of some 

underburning within this PNVT, there should be a small increase (at least in the short term) in 

understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity because of more rapid nutrient 

cycling by fire; there could be greater herbage growth. Current average herbaceous cover ranging 

from 90 to 95 percent and average estimated production ranging from 25 to 50 pounds per acre 

have the potential to increase by as much as 6 and 8 percent for cover and production, 

respectively. Overstory canopy decrease may facilitate minimal movement of the existing 

understory situation where low and moderately low ecological conditions occur on more than 500 

acres to higher ecological levels and closer to potential.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 38. Percent of spruce-fir PNVT with woody canopy cover greater than 30 percent 

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

Woodland PNVTs

Madrean pine-oak woodland: Madrean pine-oak is naturally an open canopy woodland and 

desired conditions are to have less than 21 percent (82,935 acres) of this PNVT with closed 

canopy cover. Within the planning period, all alternative proposed average acre treatment 

objectives produce reductions in closed canopy acres (figure 39). However, alternative D

reduces the closed woody canopy cover on the greatest number of acres, from 308,927 to 231,032 

acres, a 25 percent reduction, and alternatives B, C, and A follow with 15, 8, and 3 percent 

reductions, respectively. At the end of 50 years, all alternatives have reduced closed woody 

canopy acres by 42, 32, 24, and 6 percent for alternatives D, B, C, and A, respectively. Because 

this PNVT is predominantly roadless (93 percent) and has no suitable lands for timber production 

or mechanical harvest treatments, fire is the only management tool available. It would appear that 

under all alternatives, an insufficient number of acres would be treated, or fire treatments would 

be only partially effective within this PNVT to achieving the desired conditions. 

As a result of canopy cover reductions through thinning with periodic fire on a regular basis, 

within this PNVT there should be some increase in understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and 

heterogeneity. With expected increases in herbaceous plant vigor through decreased competition 

for sunlight and moisture and more rapid nutrient cycling by fire, there could be greater herbage 

growth. Current average herbaceous cover ranging from 6 to 35 percent and average estimated 

production ranging from 102 to 154 pounds per acre have the potential to increase by as much as 

43 and 79 percent for cover and production, respectively. Given the opportunity to respond to 

overstory canopy reduction, the existing understory state of affairs where low and moderately low 

ecological conditions or very poor and poor range conditions occur on more than 100,000 acres, 

should enable some movement to higher ecological levels and closer to desired conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 179

Figure 39. Percent of Madrean pine-oak PNVT with woody canopy greater than 30 percent 

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

Piñon-juniper woodland: The majority of the piñon-juniper on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is 

naturally open canopy woodland and desired conditions are to have less than 28 percent (62,204 

acres) of this PNVT with closed woody canopy cover. Within the planning period, all alternative 

proposed average acre treatment objectives produce an increase in closed canopy acres (figure 

40). However, alternative D yields the smallest increase in closed canopy acres, from 48,877 to 

64,428 acres, a 32 percent increase, and alternatives B, C, and A follow with 52, 61, and 82 

percent increases in closed canopy acres, respectively. By the end of the 50-year modeling period, 

all alternatives have increased closed canopy acres by as much as 70, 116, 145, and 191 percent 

for alternatives D, B, C, and A, respectively, from current conditions. It would appear that under 

all alternatives, insufficient acres would be treated within this PNVT to achieve the desired 

conditions over time. At the proposed treatment rates, it would take approximately 377 years, 79 

years, 74 years, and 53 years for alternatives A, B, C, and D, respectively, to treat the entire 

PNVT; natural regeneration and growth may be occurring at a greater rate than treatment 

removal.

As a result of canopy cover increases within this PNVT, there should be a decrease in understory 

plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity. With expected decreases in herbaceous plant 

vigor through increased competition for sunlight and moisture and slower nutrient cycling by fire, 

there should be less herbage growth. Current average herbaceous cover ranging from 17 to 37 

percent and average estimated production ranging from 101 to 224 pounds per acre have the 

potential to increase by as much as 60 and 73 percent for cover and production, respectively. 

Overstory canopy increase will not facilitate movement of the existing understory situation where 

low and moderately low ecological conditions occur on more than 192,000 acres, to higher 

ecological levels and closer to desired conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 40. Piñon-juniper PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-

year time period, for the average treatment level

Grassland PNVTs

Grasslands are areas dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, and/or forbs and are maintained in 

this condition by natural successional processes, primarily driven by drought and fire. Grasslands 

should not have a woody species component that contributes greater than 10 percent of the 

overall canopy cover. Herbaceous vegetation provides critical soil cover and hiding cover and 

shelter for small wildlife. In addition, open grasslands have the potential to produce from 6 to 110 

times the herbaceous biomass per acre as adjacent forested areas (Laing et al., 1987).

Great Basin grassland: Great Basin grassland is naturally an open herbaceous vegetation 

dominated PNVT and desired conditions are to have less than 22 percent (40,815 acres) of this

PNVT with closed woody canopy cover. Within the planning period, all alternatives proposed 

average acre treatment objectives produce reductions in woody canopy acres (figure 41); 

however, alternative B reduces the woody canopy cover on the greatest number of acres, from 

165,190 to 61,223 acres, a 63 percent reduction; alternative D follows with a 57 percent 

reduction in closed canopy cover. During the same period, under alternatives A and C closed 

woody canopy acres are reduced by 5 and 7 percent, respectively. By the end of the 50-year 

modeling period, all alternative proposed average acre treatment objectives produce reductions 

in woody canopy acres; however, alternative D reduces the woody canopy cover on the greatest 

number of acres, from 165,190 to 69,571 acres, a 58 percent reduction; alternative B follows 

with a 56 percent reduction in closed canopy cover. During the same period, under alternatives A 

and C closed woody canopy acres are reduced by 2 and 8 percent, respectively. It appears that 

under alternatives A and C insufficient acres would be treated within this PNVT to achieve the 

desired conditions over time. It also appear that around 40 years management actions under 

alternatives B and D would need to change in order to continue to reduce closed woody canopy 

acres. 

As a result of woody canopy cover elimination through mechanical thinning and introduction of 

periodic fire on a regular basis, within this PNVT there should be an increase in understory plant 

cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity. With expected increases in herbaceous plant vigor 

through decreased competition for sunlight and moisture and more rapid nutrient cycling by fire, 

there could be greater herbage growth. Current average herbaceous cover ranging from 23 to 45 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 181

percent and average estimated production ranging from 258 to 440 pounds per acre have the 

potential to increase by as much as 46 and 66 percent for cover and production, respectively. 

Overall, woody overstory canopy elimination should facilitate movement of the existing 

understory situation where low and moderately low ecological conditions occur on more than 

160,000 acres, to higher ecological levels and closer to desired conditions.

Figure 41. Great Basin grassland PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over 

a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level

Semi-desert grassland: Semi-desert grassland is naturally an open herbaceous vegetation 

dominated PNVT and desired conditions are to have less than 10 percent (10,695 acres) of this 

PNVT with closed woody canopy cover. By the end of the 15-year planning period, both 

alternatives B and D proposed average acre treatment objectives produce reductions in closed 

woody canopy acres (figure 42) from 84,492 to 70,588 acres, a 16 percent reduction. However, 

during the same period, under both alternatives A and C closed woody canopy acres increase by 

6 and 4 percent, respectively. By the end of the 50-year modeling period, both alternatives B 

and D have reduced closed woody canopy acres by 30 percent, while during the same period, 

under alternatives A and C closed woody canopy acres increased by an additional 19 and 16 

percent, respectively, from current conditions. 

As a result of woody canopy cover elimination through the introduction of periodic fire on a 

regular basis within this PNVT, under alternatives B and D there should be an increase in 

understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity. With expected increases in 

herbaceous plant vigor through decreased competition for sunlight and moisture and more rapid 

nutrient cycling by fire, there could be greater herbage growth. Current average herbaceous cover 

ranging from 7 to 16 percent and average estimated production ranging from 52 to 107 pounds 

per acre have the potential to increase by as much as 56 and 89 percent for cover and production, 

respectively. Overall, woody overstory canopy elimination should facilitate movement of the 

existing understory situation where low and moderately low ecological conditions occur on more 

than 44,800 acres, to higher ecological levels and closer to desired conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 42. Semi-desert grassland PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over 

a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level

Climate Change

Restoring and maintaining PNVT resilience would likely improve the potential for ecosystems to 

retain or return to desired conditions after being influenced by climate change impacts and 

variability (Forest Service, 2010h). The alternative that makes the most progress toward desired 

conditions and historic fire regimes would provide the most resiliency and adaptation to climate 

change for all 14 of the PNVTs on the forests. Climate change is likely to exacerbate the effects 

of natural and altered disturbance regimes, including wildfire, insect outbreaks, and flooding and 

erosion across all Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ PNVTs, and it may prompt abrupt ecological changes. 

Resilient and redundant resource conditions provide reasonable assurances of the ability of these 

PNVTs to adapt to the uncertainties of potentially changing climate. Modifying current forest, 

woodland, and grassland vegetation composition and structure toward their desired conditions 

and/or reference condition and restoring historic ecological process regimes should make these 

PNVTs more functional, enabling them to be more resistant and resilient in the face of uncertain 

future climate shifts and disturbance events. The closer ecological composition, structure, and 

process are to reference conditions, the more properly each PNVT is functioning and the more 

secure dependent species (plants and animals) are within the associated habitats. This is 

especially important with potential changes in the climate. The alternative that provides for the 

greatest moment toward desired conditions and, therefore, the greatest reduction in risk within the 

planning period is alternative B.

Reestablishing the ecological processes and patterns necessary to make these terrestrial 

ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under proposed restoration alterations and future 

climatic conditions is of primary importance to their continued existence or evolutionary ability 

to adapt. Based on this analysis when assessing each alternatives combined contribution toward 

achieving desired conditions (i.e., modeled movement toward desired conditions/reference 

conditions, acres of old/large trees, snags/acre, coarse woody debris, aspen retention, 

overstory/understory), alternative B would most provide for the greatest movement toward 

desired conditions. Alternative B would result in the greatest reduction in risk. It would also 

result in the greatest increases in resistance, resilience, and adaptive capacity of these PNVTs to 

absorb disturbances and to reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 183

same function, structure, identity, and feedback within the planning period. The other alternatives 

rank in order of most contribution are alternatives D, C, and A, respectively.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area boundary for this analysis is the White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim 

ecoregion (figure 43). This ecoregion shares common climatic and vegetation characteristics. 

The sum of past management actions over time has resulted in the departure of most PNVTs from 

their characteristic vegetation states on and around the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These departures 

are largely due to fire suppression, in conjunction with past, unsustainable timber and grazing 

practices, and other anthropogenic disturbances of natural processes. It has resulted in a dramatic 

increase in stand-replacing fires, particularly since the mid-1990s, decreases in water yields, 

degradation of aspen stands, and woody species encroachment of grasslands. Departures from 

reference conditions exist in all PNVTs on the forests, and most continue to trend further from 

reference conditions.

The Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NFs are currently in the process of updating their land 

management plans. Neighboring national forests, tribal, State, and BLM lands are located within 

this ecoregion and are also conducting vegetation treatments within vegetative communities very 

similar to those common to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Vegetation treatments include both 

mechanical (e.g., commercial harvesting, thinning, planting) and burning. One of the largest 

foreseeable projects is the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI), a planning effort designed to 

restore forest resiliency and function across four national forests in Arizona: Apache-Sitgreaves, 

Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto NFs (figure 44). The first restoration activities would occur on 

approximately 600,000 acres on the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. If successful, this effort could 

decrease susceptibility to large and uncharacteristic disturbances, increase water yields from 

winter snowfall through the creation of interspaces, and provide long-term carbon sequestration 

in large old trees at a scale meaningful to improving the resiliency and ability to adapt to climate 

change in the ponderosa pine type of the Southwest. The Gila NF is also managing for improved 

ecosystem health, movement toward reference conditions, and the reduction of fire risk. The 

White Mountain and San Carlos Apache Tribes also continue to manage their lands for multiple 

resource purposes. Management within these lands has been directed at reducing fire risks.

Agencies within the State of Arizona (i.e., Department of Transportation, Game and Fish 

Department) and neighboring Federal, state, and tribal land managers have programs to eradicate 

or limit the spread of invasive plants and animals.

The cumulative environmental consequences of proposed management under all alternatives in 

the context of the larger ecoregion would contribute to the movement of vegetation toward 

desired conditions. These efforts would contribute to landscape restoration, control of invasive 

species, a reduction in uncharacteristic wildfire across the broader landscape, and the resiliency of 

these PNVTs to adapt to climate change.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 43. Map of White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim Ecoregion
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 185

Figure 44. Map of Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) boundary

Forest Health

This section discusses the role and impact of tree dependent insects and disease on the forests’ 

health. It examines the risk of tree loss caused by insects and disease due to management 

activities or lack of management activities by alternative. For the purposes of this analysis, forest 

health concerns are grouped into these general categories: bark beetles, defoliators, aspen decline, 

persistent diseases, and new invasive species. This analysis covers the ponderosa pine, dry and 

wet mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forested PNVTs and piñon-juniper woodland PNVT. The 

analysis relies heavily on a consolidated report prepared by Lynch et al. (2010). The full analysis 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

for this topic can be found in the “Forest Health Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012i) 

available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Since no new insect-disease surveys have been conducted after the 2011 Wallow Fire, 

assumptions include:

• The percentages of affected lands stated in Lynch et al. (2010) include both ApacheSitgreaves NFs and Fort Apache Tribal Reservation lands across east-central Arizona 

which collectively are valid for application to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• The existing insect-disease activity described in Lynch et al. (2010) is assumed to still be 

representative for all forest and woodland acres not burned by high or moderate severity 

fire in the Wallow Fire. 

• Some portions of existing insect and disease populations were reduced directly by the 

Wallow Fire, or indirectly by the fire’s reduction of their obligate host tree species and 

forest structure. 

• All localized populations of insect-disease species were temporarily eliminated from 

areas that are now deforested.

• Dwarf mistletoe infection levels in trees which survived the Wallow Fire on moderate or 

low severity burned acres may be reduced due to scorched lower limbs (Conklin et al., 

2009).

• Some insects, like bark beetles, will thrive as they take advantage of fire-killed and/or 

fire-stressed trees. The resulting insect population irruptions could threaten more live 

trees within and adjacent to burned areas (Anhold, 2011; Parker et al., 2006).

• Existing insect-disease species and their hosts remain near the severely burned areas, 

such that reestablishment of infestation/infection would occur in burned areas as the host 

trees and conditions again become favorable.

• When the structure and tree species compositions for all vegetation states are in the 

desired condition proportions for each potential natural vegetation type (PNVT), native 

insects and diseases function in their natural ecosystem roles. All alternatives are 

designed to manage toward the same desired conditions.

Affected Environment

Approximately 22 percent of all forested PNVT acres are currently deforested as a result of 

severe wildfire and other uncharacteristic disturbances (see “Forest Products” section for more 

information). The following affected environment descriptions are for the other 78 percent of 

lands that currently still support tree cover, ranging from early developmental to mature 

vegetation structural states. 

Insects and Diseases

Insects and diseases are natural disturbance agents. Interactions can be very complex between 

them and their host tree species, the environment, and other pest species. Activity by these agents 

is always expected, although extent and severity of damage can vary spatially and temporally. 

Due to the episodic nature of insect outbreaks, damage is evaluated over an extended period 

before designating any shorter period as “unusual.” As documented by Lynch et al. (2010), a 

century-long record of insect and disease activity across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 187

adjacent Fort Apache Indian Reservation gives some information on which species impact forests 

in east-central Arizona, how often outbreaks of insects and transitory pathogens might occur, and 

how much damage may be expected from insects and diseases. 

All native insects and diseases play a natural role in the ecosystem with which they have evolved. 

When forest conditions are within their natural range of variability, native insects and diseases 

generally survive at endemic levels and, thus, generally are not considered pests because they act 

as natural thinning agents by killing individual trees or small to large tree groups.

Insect and disease activity that might be considered normal in forests of east-central Arizona, 

include:

• Bark beetle damage associated with localized tree disturbances (e.g., road building, 

harvesting, wind events, snow breakage, fire) in piñon-juniper woodland and ponderosa 

pine, mixed-conifer, and spruce-fir forests. 

• Periodic localized outbreaks of Dendroctonus bark beetles, particularly western and 

roundheaded pine beetles, in large diameter ponderosa pine. 

• Increased bark beetle activity during droughts in piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine, and 

to a lesser extent mixed conifer, where the timing and severity of damage is dependent 

upon host species, insect species, drought severity, length of drought conditions, and 

coincidence with other disturbance agents. 

• Persistence of dwarf mistletoe infestations, including spread and intensification. 

• Defoliation by native defoliating agents (e.g., western tent caterpillar, black leaf spot on 

aspen) and several defoliators in mixed conifer. Typically, except in aspen, damage from 

these agents is localized rather than widespread. 

When forest conditions are departed from their natural range of variability, native insects and 

diseases can take advantage of resulting opportunities to increase their population levels and 

expand into new territory. If this continues, epidemic population levels can be reached. In such 

cases, they inflict greater damage or damage at a faster rate than their normal role in the 

ecosystem. They are considered pests whenever tree mortality exceeds stated management 

objectives. Likewise, nonnative insect or diseases can find opportunities to move into areas of 

weakened forest conditions and become newly established in the absence of natural controls that 

would resist or restrain them. 

Insect activity in east-central Arizona’s forests has increased in the last couple of decades. In most 

vegetation types, the acreage affected is greater than what was damaged during the 1950s drought 

period (Lynch et al., 2010). Insect and disease populations have responded to changing forest 

character (especially forest structure and tree species composition) and variability in climate. 

Contemporary patterns of insect and disease activity in east-central Arizona appear to have 

changed from pre-1950s regimes. These changes include: 

• In ponderosa pine, Ips genus bark beetle species (pine engraver beetle and Arizona 

fivespined ips, which typically attack 3 to 12 inch diameter trees) became more prevalent 

and damaging than the drought responsive Dendroctonus genus bark beetle species 

(western pine beetle and roundheaded pine beetle, which typically attack 12 inch or 

greater diameter trees). The reverse was the case at the beginning of the 20th century. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Damage to white fir by bark beetles and defoliators has increased in all PNVTs where it 

occurs. The fir engraver beetle was not a significant damaging agent until the 1980s. 

• Damage in the spruce-fir PNVT is unprecedented in the historical record, both in terms of 

the severity of damage and the identity and variety of insects causing damage. 

Engelmann spruce has especially suffered unprecedented damage from several insects 

including: native (and previously innocuous) defoliators such as loopers, an invasive 

foliar aphid, and an aggressive bark beetle outbreak. These species’ populations may be 

influenced by warm temperatures. 

• Over the past decade, widespread mortality of mature aspen occurred due to a 

combination of drought, frost, and defoliation events, in conjunction with conifer 

competition and failure of aspen regeneration to recruit to larger sizes because of

herbivory and damage caused by domestic and wild ungulates such as Rocky Mountain 

elk. 

• For piñon-juniper woodlands in east-central Arizona, the size and severity of drought and 

Ips-related piñon mortality in the early 2000s was unprecedented. It was six times as 

large as the 1990 outbreak, which was the first notable outbreak recorded for this area. 

• Extensive areas of damaged piñon-juniper are becoming juniper woodlands or grasslands. 

• In areas not recently burned, dwarf mistletoe occurrence and severity of infection have 

increased in ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce. This increase is due to altered 

disturbance regimes and loss of forest openings and canopy gaps, resulting in more 

continuous forest canopy.

• Root/butt/stem decay diseases have become a problem in developed recreation areas due 

to tree overmaturity and stress from soil compaction. These diseases exist across all 

forested PNVTs at varying amounts, but they have only been surveyed and documented 

in developed recreation sites. 

Several of these changes in disturbance regimes appear to be responses to changes in forest 

structure and tree species composition that resulted from fire exclusion and past management 

practices. Drought is also a factor in modifying disturbance regimes. Warming climate has been a 

factor in spruce-fir forest health; however, its role in the other vegetation types is not yet known. 

All forest and woodland tree insects and diseases tend to capitalize on changes in stand conditions 

that stress trees and make them more vulnerable. Changes in stand conditions may be caused by 

environmental factors (e.g., lightning, wildfire) and human actions (e.g., logging, fire damage). In 

addition, infestation by one insect or disease may predispose trees to attack by other damaging 

agents. For example, heavy dwarf mistletoe infection of ponderosa pine increases their 

susceptibility to attack by Ips beetles during drought (Kenaley et al., 2008).

Bark Beetles

The most destructive forest insects in western coniferous forests are bark beetles (Furniss and 

Carolin, 1977). During the past decade, a widespread bark beetle outbreak in ponderosa pine 

impacted more than 200,000 acres across east-central Arizona (figure 45).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 189

Figure 45. Map of bark beetle activity in east-central Arizona by major forest and woodland 

types from 2000-2009 compiled from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys

Pine mortality during this time averaged approximately 9.6 percent by basal area and approached 

100 percent in some stands. Douglas-fir beetle and fir engraver affected about 2,000 to 8,000 

acres of mixed conifer annually, causing the mortality of entire groups of Douglas-fir and white 

fir (potential increases might be expected based on records of historical outbreaks). Nearly 40,000 

acres of spruce have been impacted by spruce beetle, with related tree mortality in the past 

decade. Piñon ips activity occurred on more than 150,000 acres in the same timeframe, where tree 

mortality reduced piñon stand density by approximately 60 percent. 

Numerous bark beetle species exist across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ forest and woodland 

ecosystems which can inflict serious attacks upon nearly all native conifer trees and some 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

hardwood trees. Beetle populations and corresponding tree mortality generally increase above 

endemic levels under the following conditions: drought; overstocked tree densities; stress caused 

by dwarf mistletoe, root decay fungi, or defoliating insects; and buildup of fresh, dead green 

wood as brood material across large areas. Brood material may result from logging/thinning slash 

left untreated onsite in consecutive years or from windthrow, fire, or other damaging agents.

Douglas-fir and spruce beetles are expected to increase attacks on large trees (12 inch or greater 

diameter) within and near the Wallow Fire burned area (Anhold, 2011) which will be a key 

concern for surviving patches of old growth, Mexican spotted owl habitat, and developed 

recreation sites in the mixed conifer and lower elevation spruce-fir PNVTs. 

Defoliators

Defoliators weaken and sometimes kill trees by consuming the green needles or leaves. During 

the past decade, various defoliators have seriously impacted over 300,000 acres across eastcentral Arizona (figure 46). Damage by native defoliators is typically localized rather than 

widespread, and recently it is most notable in the mixed conifer and spruce-fir types, especially 

on Mount Baldy and across the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts. 

Key defoliators include aphids, loopers, western spruce budworm, western tent caterpillar, and 

the larvae of other moths and sawflies, black leaf spot, tip moths, and shoot borers. They 

generally do not kill trees outright unless outbreaks are intense and persist under the right 

conditions. Defoliators contribute to tree stress and decline, predisposing trees to mortality by 

other agents like bark beetles. Conditions which can lead to the most damaging outbreaks include 

warmer and drier weather patterns and/or climate shifts; dwarf mistletoe infection; abundance of 

host tree species; uninterrupted multistoried or uneven-aged stand structure that occurs across 

large acreages; and host species encroachment into offsite vegetation types where they normally 

would not be found when natural processes are functioning correctly (Hanavan and Boehning, 

2010). 

Cumulatively, Mount Baldy Wilderness is the area most affected on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

by recent outbreaks of the several major defoliators. The high number of resulting dead trees has 

greatly increased the fire hazard in the wilderness. Portions of the other two wilderness areas are 

also affected but to a lesser extent. Mount Baldy Wilderness was the only wilderness area not 

burned by the Wallow Fire.

Aspen Mortality

Figure 47 illustrates nonwildfire aspen mortality from 2008 to 2009. Mortality is shown in 

context of aspen occurrence mapped across the area. In those 2 years, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

lost a total of 27,541 acres of aspen due to factors other than tree cutting or wildfire. Much of this 

mortality was mapped in previous years as aspen damage, indicative of true aspen decline. 

Numerous factors have been documented as contributors to aspen decline (see the “Vegetation”

section).

Although aspen trees typically mature after about age 80, they can persist for more than 200 years

in the West (DeByle and Winokur, 1985). Root systems can persist much longer, although no 

good method has been developed to determine the age of aspen roots. Pure aspen forests do not 

burn readily; however, aspen trees above ground can be easily killed by fire of even the lightest 

intensity due to their extremely thin bark (Debyle and Winokur, 1985). This species is adapted to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 191

Figure 46. Map of major defoliator activity in east-central Arizona from 2000 to 2009 

compiled from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys

fire because its extensive root system has the ability to survive ground surface heat and, 

afterward, produce root sprouts (known as suckers) to begin a new, young aspen stand. 

Occasionally, mature aspen can produce seed transported by wind to germinate new seedlings in 

post-fire bare soil. Therefore, a single fire event or treatment can be an excellent means to replace 

old trees with young aspen regeneration, provided all other conditions are ideal for long-term 

survival of the resulting new trees. Once successfully established, young and immature aspen 

clones benefit from a lack of fire until they reach maturity and are then ready to repeat the 

renewal process.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 47. Map of forestwide aspen mortality in east-central Arizona 2008-2009 compiled 

from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys

Persistent Diseases

Persistent pathogens (diseases like dwarf mistletoes, root/butt/stem decay fungi, and white pine 

blister rust) often cause substantial tree stress and growth losses over time. They diminish the 

mature trees’ ability to produce viable seed. They also threaten the ability of young trees to 

successfully reach maturity. They tend to intensify and/or spread infection beyond desired levels 

under the following conditions: excessively high forest densities, decline in site quality during 

drought; uniformity of host tree species; multistoried or uneven-aged stand structure 

uninterrupted across large acreages; host species encroachment into offsite vegetation types, 

including grassland and riparian PNVTs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 193

It can be inferred that dwarf mistletoe abundance was likely lower historically based on the 

present understanding of mistletoe ecology, increases in host abundance and canopy continuity 

over the past 150 years, and decreases in fire frequency. Table 51 shows known information about 

infections of major diseases on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs by ranger district. See the “Forest 

Health Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012i) for data sources.

Table 51. Estimated percent of tree species infected with major diseases by ranger district1

Major Diseases Black 

Mesa Lakeside Springerville2 Alpine2 Clifton3

Estimated 

Forestwide

Average

Dwarf 

Mistletoe 

by Tree 

Host 

Species

Pond. 

Pine

54–61% 39% 67% 51% NA 52%

DouglasfirPresent NA Present Present NA Approx. 

50%

Spruce 

Fir

NA NA Present Present NA Approx. 

60%

SW 

White 

Pine

Present NA Present, 

possibly 20–

30+%

Present, 

possibly 

30+%

NA Percent 

unknown

White Pine Blister Rust 

Known Infection 

Centers

Surveys in 

progress

Present, 

more 

surveys in 

progress

Present, more 

surveys in 

progress

Present, 

more 

surveys 

in 

progress

Surveys in 

progress

Percent 

unknown

Root/Butt/Stem Decay 

Fungi Infections 

Present Present Present Present Present Percent 

unknown4

1 NA = detailed information not available or not applicable. Air detection surveys are not designed to inventory or 

monitor these diseases. Ground visits, permanent monitoring plots, and reported district observations are used instead.

2 Data represents conditions prior to the 2011 Wallow Fire. Post-fire changed conditions have not yet been assessed. 

3 Persistent pathogenic disease levels are not well documented for the Clifton Ranger District due to a lack of road access 

for ground surveys, and limited commercially suitable acres. This category is not easily mapped from air detection 

surveys.

4 Levels of root/butt/stem disease infections are often missed during surveys because they are difficult to detect and 

mortality is often associated with bark beetles and/or dwarf mistletoe, so impacts on forest ecosystems may be 

underestimated.

Root rots can increase and spread to additional host trees when woody food sources are created 

and left onsite in the form of stumps and dead trees. Fires which do not create intense heat below 

the soil surface generally do not kill root diseases. Root diseases tend to be a particular problem 

when they persist in developed recreation sites and other areas of human use because they cause 

hazard trees and continuing loss of desired tree cover. This persistent problem makes it more 

critical for comprehensive vegetation management plans to be completed under site-specific 

(project level) NEPA analysis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Recent Arrivals of Invasive or New Pests

Establishment of new invasive insects and pathogens is a growing threat. Fairly recent arrivals of 

several nonnative pest species are of particular concern because natural resistance and control 

organisms for them may not exist or they are currently unknown in these ecosystems. White pine 

blister rust, an invasive disease, now infects Southwestern white pine. Numerous areas within the

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs provide suitable conditions for it to persist and spread. This is due to the 

prevalence of its required alternate host, Ribes (gooseberry and currant) bushes. Ribes bushes are 

common across the widespread area where white pines also occur. This disease is mostly found 

attacking host trees in very wet drainage bottoms in close proximity to permanent waters. Some 

infected trees identified within the Wallow Fire are known to have been killed by the burn as well 

as by many Ribes bushes near them. Spruce aphid is a nonnative insect that now infests 

Engelmann spruce and, to a lesser extent, Colorado blue spruce (Lynch, 2004). 

Several new insect and disease issues are also likely to develop with native insects and diseases. 

If warmer, drier climate trends continue as predicted, some insect and disease agents may become 

more prevalent and impact larger areas. Some localities may become more suitable for additional 

damaging insect and pathogen species. Insects and pathogens may expand their range into new 

territory or exhibit enhanced population dynamics under these new conditions due to factors such 

as increased growth rates or increased survival. Previously innocuous native insects and diseases 

that become serious problems are known as emerging pests. Recent examples of emerging pests 

are the loopers known as Janet’s looper and mountain girdle. These previously innocuous 

defoliators have severely damaged spruce-fir and mixed conifer forests across east-central 

Arizona. Prior to these events, Janet’s looper was known only from its taxonomic description, and 

neither had been recorded as causing any damage in the Southwest. These outbreaks may be 

associated with warm climate trends or altered forest character. Janet’s looper is well distributed 

throughout the Southwest and California, including northern Arizona, so an outbreak is quite 

possible. Outbreaks by other previously innocuous species are also likely in northern and eastcentral Arizona. 

Mountain pine beetle was not previously known to occur locally until its first discovery above the 

Mogollon Rim on the Alpine Ranger District in 2008. Its arrival was documented in association 

with fresh attacks on several Southwestern white pines that had survived the 2007 Chitty Fire 

(McMillin and Fitzgibbon, 2008; McMillin, 2009). Another example is southern pine beetle, 

which along with the Mexican pine beetle, damaged almost 12,000 acres of Chihuahua and 

Apache pine in the Chiricahua Mountains of southern Arizona in 2000. This was the first record 

of a southern pine beetle outbreak in Arizona. Southern pine beetle is part of the complex of pine 

bark beetles now present in north-central Arizona. Chihuahua pine is regenerating naturally and 

successfully on harsh sites deforested by the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire. The roles of southern 

and mountain pine beetles in future outbreaks are not clear. 

Future Trends

Prevalent pest problems are expected to change as forest structure and species composition and 

environmental conditions change. These changes may occur naturally and/or as a result of 

treatments. Many insects and diseases attack specific tree species and sizes or particular parts of 

trees. If small diameter ponderosa pine continues to be abundant, especially in dense stands, Ips

outbreaks would continue. If shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant tree species continue to proliferate, so 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 195

would their pests such as fir engraver, western spruce budworm, and root disease. Tip moth 

damage could be worse than in the past if warming temperature regimes are the future trend. 

Mortality would be elevated during droughts, perhaps dramatically. Based on observations of the 

recent severe drought, ponderosa pine and piñon mortality during future drought episodes should 

be greatest at middle to low elevations, in areas of poor site quality (e.g., shallow soils, southern 

aspects), and in high density stands. However, it should be noted that mortality on some of the 

high risk sites approached 100 percent in the recent outbreaks; therefore, those sites cannot 

experience the same severity of mortality until tree densities increase to pre-drought levels. 

During nondrought periods, ponderosa pine and piñon mortality should be higher in stands with 

high stand density indices and greater dwarf mistletoe infection. 

If ponderosa pine forests continue to be dominated by smaller diameter size classes, Ips species 

would probably continue to be of more significance than Dendroctonus species. This could be the 

case on new acres of pine sapling states resulting from wildfires. Conversely, where recent fuel 

reduction cuts, large tree retention strategies, aging stands, and proposed burns reduce smaller 

size classes and shift more of the average forest size to larger diameter classes, Dendroctonus

beetle species would be favored.

If trends continue toward warmer climate and increasing fire damage, tree stress will also 

intensify. Tip moth and shoot borer damage may also increase, particularly in large post-fire tree 

planting projects. Production of fewer cone crops with viable seed is possible, as are more insect 

attacks to cones and seed. These could cause indirect problems for reforestation potential and 

wildlife food supply. 

All aspen roots depend on plentiful green leaves above ground to produce good food supply for 

storage as root reserves. Newly formed aspen suckers depend on the parent root for nutrients and 

water (DeByle and Winokur, 1985). When mature aspen trees are replaced by suckers or new 

seedlings, the root system becomes most vulnerable to mortality by ungulate browsing and other 

defoliators. An increasing trend of widespread intense sucker browsing by ungulates has been 

well documented as killing persistent aspen root systems in less than 3 years after fire or aspen 

regeneration cutting (Fairweather, 2008; Shepperd and Fairweather, 1994; Rolf, 2001).

Aspen are known to readily resprout across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, both without and with 

disturbance (e.g., fire, tree cutting). Aspen regenerated prolifically after the 1951 Escudilla Fire 

and persisted onsite, growing into larger trees until 2011. However, the trend in survival of aspen 

suckers has been limited across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in the later portion of the 20th century, 

as evidenced by a widespread lack of the sprout/sapling and small tree sizes (generally less than 8 

inches in diameter) outside of the Wallow Fire burned area. Informal monitoring across the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs over the last 15 years has found substantial ungulate browsing of aspen 

suckers and barking (teething) of aspen trees’ photosynthetic bark during winter and spring, when 

herbaceous forage is unavailable or in a dormant (nonnutritious) state. This occurs when livestock 

are not on high elevation aspen and conifer forest sites. Given reduced snowfall over the last 2

decades, wild ungulates such as elk and deer, have remained on these high elevation sites during 

winter and spring for many of the last 20 years.

Across the Apache-Sitgreaves and other northern Arizona forests, where ungulates are fenced 

from aspen or where aspen occurs in very steep or rocky areas, its regeneration is persisting and 

thriving (Beschta and Ripple, 2010; Rolf, 2001; Shepperd and Fairweather, 1994; Rogers, 2008, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

2009, 2011; Stritar et al., 2010). One factor for aspen decline may be that the primary wild 

ungulate on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs today, Rocky Mountain elk, occurs in numbers far greater 

than the elk once native to the Southwestern U.S., Merriam’s elk, which became extinct by the 

first half of the 20th century (Thomas and Toweill, 1982).

Sudden aspen decline (SAD) has become a prevalent trend across the Southwest, including on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This phenomenon includes aspen trees dying above ground as well as 

mortality occurring below the ground of the clonal root system (Rogers, 2008, 2009, and 2011). 

Documented observations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs following wildfires and prescribed 

burning include: intensive sucker browsing, sapling girdling and toppling, and mature tree 

girdling (Rogers, 2011); residual aspen stands needing to be protected from further damage from 

slash pile and prescribed burning since excessive browsing by ungulates, particularly elk, is 

limiting successful regeneration of aspen (Fairweather, 2008); and preexisting clonal roots that 

were in decline before a wildfire not producing any suckers after the burn. Thus, aspen decline 

may be contributing to the inability of vulnerable clones to recover from fire.

This decline in clonal root system vigor is expected to continue as: conifers on unburned acres 

continue to dominate aspen clones and weaken them by outcompeting for limited soil moisture in 

a drying climate; insects, diseases, and localized weather extremes (like unseasonable frost 

events) cause damage; lack of characteristic fire and/or occurrence of uncharacteristic fire 

continue; and elk browsing and bark gnawing damage persist on the majority of acres accessible 

to these ungulates (Rogers, 2008; Beschta and Ripple, 2010).

Dwarf mistletoe populations would continue to spread and intensify in ponderosa pine and 

Douglas-fir, further affecting stand character, forest character, and bark beetle vulnerability. 

Increases in dwarf mistletoe infection would occur where understory trees are exposed to infected 

overstory trees. Decreases in infection levels would occur in areas exposed to fire, which tends to 

burn the lower, usually more heavily infected limbs. 

Invasive species and emerging pests would continue to present problems, and additional species 

would establish and become problematic. White pine blister rust would continue to expand into 

uninfected stands with topkill, branch dieback, and mortality of larger Southwestern white pine

on high hazard sites. Continued spruce aphid outbreaks would lead to diminished representation 

of Engelmann spruce. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Not all conditions that influence insects and diseases can be controlled by treatment actions. Yet 

even with uncertainty regarding future climate and insect and pathogen activity, general 

management recommendations for reducing susceptibility and vulnerability to insects and 

diseases remain the same. These recommendations are namely to improve tree vigor and promote 

forest health by maintaining natural species, size, age class distributions, and stocking densities. 

Proposed treatments are intended to restore forest health by incorporating these general 

management recommendations. 

Under any alternative, thinning and burning treatments combined would not be implemented on 

enough acres annually in the first 15 years to improve forest health trends forestwide. On the 

acres of ponderosa pine, dry and wet mixed conifer, and spruce-fir PNVTs, an average of 1.7 

percent each would be treated annually by alternative A, while alternative B would treat an 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 197

annual average of 2.2 percent in each forested PNVT, alternative C would treat 3.3 percent in 

each, and alternative D would treat 3.2 percent annually of each forested PNVT. At year 15, a 

total average of about 24 percent of each forested PNVT would be treated by alternative A, 

roughly 33 percent treated by alternative B, about 49 percent by alternative C, and 

approximately 47 percent by alternative D.

In the piñon-juniper PNVT, total thinning and burning treatments would average from just 0.5 

percent annually in alternative A (under 8 percent total by year 15), to 1.1 percent annually in 

alternative B (under 17 percent by year 15), 1.4 percent annually in alternative C (about 21

percent by year 15), and 2 percent annually in alternative D (about 30 percent by year 15).

All remaining forest and piñon-juniper acreages would be left untreated each year, with generally 

about a third of each of these PNVTs benefitting from treatments by year 15, regardless of the 

alternative. Thus, nature would continue to manage more acres than humans could in this 

planning period.

Future Trends for Treated Acres 

The following discussions pertain to factors that can be influenced by treatment actions and 

resulting consequences.

Bark Beetles

Risk of tree mortality due to bark beetles is most highly associated with four forest and woodland 

conditions that can be controlled by management activities: (1) high stand/forest density causing 

reduced vigor from intense tree competition; (2) activity created slash and/or windthrown trees 

left untreated onsite; (3) high dwarf mistletoe infections; and (4) trees stressed by fire damage 

(Parker et al., 2006; Fettig et al. 2007; Breece et al., 2008; Kenaley et al., 2008; Youngblood et 

al., 2009). Reduced dwarf mistletoe infection also reduces tree susceptibility to bark beetles.

High stand densities are correlated with higher beetle activity. Generally a change from higher 

density to lower density would reduce tree competition and improve tree resistance to bark beetle 

attack. Threshold basal areas are used in determining bark beetle risk rating, along with amount 

of host tree species, and bole diameters most used by certain beetle species (McMillin and 

Boehning, 2010). For beetles in dry/warm forested PNVTs like ponderosa pine and dry mixed 

conifer, the thresholds are lower than for the cold/moist forested PNVTs like wet mixed conifer 

and spruce-fir, because of differences in tree species shade tolerance.

The Southwestern Regional Office used regional and local forest inventory analysis plot data in 

the Forest Vegetation Simulator model to compute many biometric variables (e.g., basal area, 

number of canopy stories) for vegetation transition states in each forested PNVT (see the “Forest 

Health Specialist Report,” Forest Service, 2012i and Weisz et al., 2012). When the percentage of 

each vegetation structural state across the landscape is estimated by the Vegetation Dynamics 

Development Tool (VDDT) model for each alternative at a point in time, such as at year 15, the 

percentages of resulting basal area ranges can be tabulated. Using this approach, the following 

comparisons are made in table 52.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 52. Percent of forested PNVT by bark beetle risk and alternative at the end of the 

planning period (year 15) compared to existing conditions

Forested 

PNVT

Beetle Risk 

Rating2

Existing 

Percent1

Year 15 

Alt. A

Year 15 

Alt. B

Year 15 

Alt. C

Year 15 

Alt. D

Ponderosa 

Pine3

Low 26 20 21 23 19

Moderate 20 28 28 32 25

High 51 45 43 37 48

Dry Mixed 

Conifer3

Low 36 15 16 17 18

Moderate 2 9 10 11 6

High 61 56 44 55 56

Wet Mixed 

Conifer4

Low 36 5 5 6 7

Moderate 10 14 9 9 10

High 14 21 24 22 26

Spruce-Fir4

Low 34 5 10 10 11

Moderate 0 3 10 10 9

High 6 18 15 16 15

1 Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding differences in VDDT model results, and exclusion of model 

states little used by bark beetles.

2 The risk rating excludes states which are least utilized by conifer bark beetles. In the pine and mixed conifer 

PNVTs, the following states are excluded: seedling/sapling states B and F (<5′′ diameter). In the wet mixed conifer 

and spruce-fir states, the following states are excluded: The all size aspen state B, seedling/sapling/small states C, 

G, L, and P (<10′′ diameter).

3 Risk rating based on basal area: low (<80), moderate (80–120), and high (>120)

4 Risk rating based on basal area: low (<100), moderate (100–150), and high (>150)

As seen in the above table, all alternatives would reduce the amount of high risk acres in the 

ponderosa pine PNVT, with alternative C making the most improvement, followed by 

alternatives B, A, and D, respectively. Likewise, all alternatives would reduce the amount of 

high risk acres in the dry mixed conifer PNVT, with alternative B making the most 

improvement, followed by alternatives C, and then A and D, respectively. Alternative D would 

consistently retain higher density of larger diameter trees on mechanically-treated acres because 

of a 16-inch upper diameter cutting limit (although the total blended treatment includes much 

more prescribed fire on other acres so that the modeled state transitions disguise this). 

In the wet mixed conifer and spruce-fir PNVTs, all alternatives would increase the beetle risk 

with higher conifer dominated densities of trees 10 inches in diameter and larger, according to 

vegetation structural state transitions that result from the treatments modeled. This may be related 

to the higher densities that need to be retained over 9-inch diameter for legal compliance with the 

Mexican spotted owl recovery plan for existing protected habitat and target replacement habitat 

across the landscape. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 199

Based on treatment rates and amount of fire used, alternative C would have the least bark beetle 

risk in the short term (next 15 years and until all acres have received their first entry) followed by 

alternatives B, D, and A, respectively. Alternative C could possibly reduce risk the most 

because it would create the highest amount of open forest/woodland using mechanical treatments 

without using as much fire as the other alternatives. Alternatives B and D would also convert 

many acres to open density, but both would use more fire (especially moderate and/or high 

severity fire during this planning period) than alternative C. Alternative D would use the most 

fire, thereby stressing the most trees to bark beetle susceptibility. Alternative A would treat the 

least acres and use the least fire treatments of all the alternatives. 

The action alternatives include direction for prompt and appropriate treatment of tree cutting 

created slash and the prevention of accelerated windthrow where dense stands are thinned to open 

the canopy. Alternative A provides some direction to prevent bark beetle outbreaks, but it lacks 

direction on prevention of accelerated windthrow caused by overcutting.

Acres treated mechanically pose less threat than acres treated by fire because thinning operations 

should rarely harm residual trees left onsite and slash would be treated afterward. Fire tends to 

stress residual trees left onsite and the resulting tree mortality can become bark beetle brood 

material in 1 to 2 years, usually before it can be salvaged (Youngblood et al., 2009). Therefore, 

alternative D is expected to create and leave the most snags and untreated windthrow onsite as 

beetle brood material because it employs the most moderate and/or high severity fire while 

deemphasizing mechanical treatments. Alternatives C, B, and A, in this order, could create 

fewer snags and prevent or salvage more windthrow to reduce risk of activity created bark beetle 

outbreaks.

Alternative D would also preclude appropriate control of dwarf mistletoe by restricting cutting to 

trees under 16 inches in diameter, thereby leaving heavy infection where it occurs in large, 

stressed trees more susceptible to bark beetles. Alternatives A and B would also leave more 

infected trees to attract bark beetles than alternative C, but less than alternative D.

Defoliators

The risk of tree mortality by defoliators is highly associated with two forest conditions that can be 

controlled by management activities: (1) high stand/forest density that reduces tree vigor because 

of intense tree competition and (2) continuous multistoried canopies that allow defoliators free 

access to the most tree foliage food source at all canopy levels (Lynch et al., 2010; Hanavan and 

Boehning, 2010). Defoliators can use host trees of all sizes, especially when they are in very close 

proximity to many other host species trees, both horizontally and vertically. This means that large 

contiguous acreages of high density (closed canopy) states which are also multistoried (i.e., 

uneven-aged) are at greatest risk of successful defoliator outbreaks.

The percent of each forested PNVT in closed canopy, single-storied or multistoried structure as a 

result of proposed treatments in each alternative is displayed in table 53 below. This table uses the 

same methodology as table 52 above.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 53. Percent of forested PNVTs by number of closed canopy levels and alternative at 

the end of the planning period (year 15) compared to existing conditions

Forested PNVT Canopy Level 

Class1

Existing

Percent2

Year 15

Alt. A

Year 15

Alt. B

Year 15

Alt. C

Year 15

Alt. D

Ponderosa Pine

Single-storied 17 19 16 14 23

Multistoried 55 43 44 40 39

Dry Mixed 

Conifer

Single-storied 17 13 12 12 18

Multistoried 45 61 60 61 58

Wet Mixed 

Conifer

Single-storied 2 2 2 2 2

Multistoried 50 66 67 67 68

Spruce-Fir

Single-storied 48 44 36 34 34

Multistoried 17 39 38 38 37

1 In the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer PNVTs, all closed canopy states are included: F, G, H, I, L, M. In 

the wet mixed conifer and spruce-fir states, all closed canopy are included: B, C, D, E, F, L, M, N, O.

2 Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding differences in VDDT model results and exclusion of model 

states little used by defoliators.

Ponderosa pine is the only PNVT where all alternatives would reduce the amount of closed 

multistoried canopy acres. Alternatives D and C would create the least closed multistoried forest 

structure, with at least a 3 percent advantage over alternatives A and B. In both mixed conifer 

PNVTs and in spruce-fir, where defoliator outbreaks are presently the highest concern, all 

alternatives would increase the amount of closed multiplestoried canopy structure, partly 

consistent with the desired conditions for more uneven-aged forest. Defoliator risk would remain 

high, with no alternative standing out as causing the least risk increase because they all rank 

within 1 to 2 percent of each other. 

Acres impacted by conifer-defoliating insects would be reduced as shade tolerant tree species like 

white fir and spruce are removed from the dry mixed conifer PNVT. Prescribed cutting selection 

to reduce offsite shade tolerant tree species would reduce forest susceptibility to defoliator insects 

to a greater degree than burning treatments. Alternative C would have the greatest ability to 

remove offsite host trees, followed by alternatives B, A, and D, respectively. Alternative D

would rank lowest in this case because it would restrict cutting to trees less than 16 inches in 

diameter, thereby leaving seed cone bearing size, shade tolerant, and offsite tree species to 

perpetuate as a food source in the understory over time (Triepke et al., 2011).

As more acres of tree planting (see “Forest Products” section) occurs after wildfires and/or 

substantial bark beetle outbreaks, the risk would increase for pine tip moth and similar 

foliar/bud/shoot insects to easily attack numerous seedlings. Alternatives C, B, A, and D, 

respectively, would rank from highest to lowest with this risk, ranked by fastest to slowest 

proposed planting rates. This risk could be mitigated for all alternatives at the project level by 

designing plantations which are not continuously large areas of uniformly spaced trees of the 

same species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 201

Aspen Decline and Mortality

Risk of aspen mortality can be reduced by: (1) removing conifers to reduce competition with 

aspen for water and sunlight and thereby improving clone health, restoring root carbohydrate 

reserves, and extending the lifespan of trees above ground; (2) protecting trees above ground 

from serious damage by fire, ungulates, and mechanized equipment (Debyle and Winokur, 1985; 

Fairweather, 2008; Shepperd and Fairweather, 1994; Rolf, 2001; Burns and Honkala, 1990); and 

(3) protecting shallow lateral root systems that produce suckers from severe heat below ground.

Given the large existing acreages of aspen damage, mortality, and decline, the risk of long-term 

aspen loss would be the least in alternatives which provide the opportunity for aspen roots to stay 

healthy. Reducing conifer competition and minimizing return fire to acres already burned would 

be the most advantageous for long-term aspen tree and root maintenance (Fairweather, 2008; 

Debyle and Winokur, 1985). According to differences in cutting methods emphasized, the 

alternatives most able to reduce conifer competition that is overtopping and shading out aspen 

would be alternative C followed by B, because these do not utilize a 16-inch diameter cutting 

limit (cap); then alternatives A and D would follow based on their respective use of that 

diameter cap22. Moreover under all alternatives, all sites either treated under a 9-inch diameter 

cap with at least 150 basal area retained or deferred from cutting to comply with the “Mexican 

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan,” would not be successful in maintaining the aspen tree component 

on those forested acres.

Those alternatives which were modeled to use the least return of fire at any severity level across 

the landscape would maintain the most young and immature aspen above ground, ranked in this 

order: alternative A, followed by C, B, then D. Where effective means of post-fire protection 

from ungulate damage might be employed successfully, then this order may be reversed. Where 

acres of mature/overmature aspen are in need of renewal, any of the action alternatives would 

focus enough emphasis on using fire to accomplish this first restoration step in the short term. 

Immediate followup steps to protect the new aspen regeneration would help ensure long-term 

aspen recruitment. 

Remaining aspen already in decline (perhaps as much as 35 percent of mature aspen acres, per 

surveys reported in Lynch et al., 2010) that are intentionally burned by moderate and/or high 

severity fire in the next 15 years may not recover in the long term if the root systems are already 

weakened so that sucker production is inadequate and/or unable to withstand repetitive ungulate 

browsing. In this case, alternative D would pose the greatest threat to aspen sustainability based 

on the amounts of moderate and/or high severity fire treatments proposed annually, followed by 

alternatives B, C, and A. 

The action alternatives (i.e., revised plan) would provide additional guidance including aspen 

desired conditions, an objective, management approach, and at least one guideline (discouraging 

new surface water developments in close proximity to aspen stands) that are all updated 

improvements over the aspen direction in alternative A. This guideline could help reduce 

ungulate browsing pressure on aspen. These alternatives also provide other guidance for aspen 

which could provide comparable results to the guidance in alternative A. Additionally, the action 

alternatives would recommend the Corduroy Research Natural Area (3,350 acres) as a study area 

 22 Alternative A (1987 plan) does not specify a 16-inch diameter cap. However, this diameter cap has been used as a 

treatment in recent and current vegetation management.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

to test various treatment methods for aspen protection, maintenance and restoration, and elk 

impacts in the absence of livestock. This could add to the knowledge base for managing aspen. 

Alternative A does not recommend this research natural area and would not provide additional 

information to help manage aspen.

For long-term consequences to aspen of implementing the alternatives, see the VDDT model 

results summarized in the “Vegetation” section.

Persistent Diseases

Dwarf mistletoes and root/butt/stem decay diseases would persist under all alternatives. The risk 

of spread to more trees or acres for both types of pathogens is most highly associated with: (1) the 

absence of alternate nonhost tree species within and around infection centers and (2) the absence 

of large canopy gaps/openings in the forest (Conklin and Fairweather, 2010; Hagle, 2004). 

Due to the less predictable nature of fire (including prescribed fire, especially at moderate and 

high-burn severity used during this planning period) those alternatives which would employ more 

tree cutting may have more control in selecting the right mix of nonhost tree species and/or 

spacing arrangement to prevent further disease spread. Alternative C, followed by alternatives 

B, A, and then D, respectively, would have the highest potential to minimize the spread of 

persistent diseases. 

The spread of dwarf mistletoe disease to more host trees would occur where understory trees are 

exposed to infected overstory trees. This condition would exist on all infected acres with a 

multistoried vertical structure. Alternative D would restrict all cuts on all acres to stay under a 

16-inch diameter limit, which would leave all infected overstory trees that would spread infection 

to nearby understory trees. Based on current management trends, alternative A would continue to 

use diameter limit cuts (diameter caps) on some acres to a lesser extent, even though the 1987 

plan provides the most direction to control dwarf mistletoe. Alternatives B and C would not 

propose diameter caps, and alternative B would have some focus on treating mistletoe. 

Alternative C would most emphasize using aggressive sanitation and/or even-aged cuts for 

removal of infected overstory trees where needed to maintain the uninfected small and medium 

size classes underneath or nearby. In this case, short-term use of even-aged treatments designed to 

control the spread of dwarf mistletoe on moderately to severely infected acres would temporarily 

delay attainment of desired conditions, yet may be a necessary first step to ultimately achieve 

long-term sustainability. 

The potential for dwarf mistletoe to intensify infection levels within the same host trees (causing 

growth loss and mortality) would be reduced by removal of lower limbs (which are often the most 

highly infected). Mechanized tree cutting activities rarely involve pruning lower limbs because it 

is time consuming and expensive. Prescribed fire has shown some promise at reducing tree 

infection levels be killing the lower limbs (Conklin and Geils, 2008). With this consideration, 

alternatives which treat the most acres with fire, in combination with sanitation cuts that would 

remove the most infected trees of all sizes, could be most successful at overall control in this 

order: alternative B, followed by alternatives C, A, and then D, respectively.

Root diseases could increase nearly equally in all alternatives because cutting, as well as 

burning, would be used to treat acres, leaving new stumps that could become a food source for 

these diseases. Low to moderate intensity burning would do little to kill root diseases. However, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 203

root disease spread would be slowed by the presence of nonhost trees. In this order, alternatives 

C and B would not be limited in the methods of cut that enable favoring alternative nonhost tree 

species inside root disease infection centers, and alternatives A and D would have the least 

control for this purpose because of diameter limit cutting methods. 

White pine blister rust is now a persistent pathogen on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Its control will 

depend most on keeping as many healthy white pines as possible across the landscape to ensure 

an abundance of genetically diverse individuals and trees groups (Conklin et al., 2009). Because 

many local populations of Southwestern white pine were killed by the Wallow Fire before seed 

could be collected from them, genetic diversity has already been greatly reduced. Remaining 

genetic diversity might still provide a blister rust resistant seed source that could be used to 

replace lost trees where desired. The consequence of individual alternatives upon the rust’s 

alternate Ribes host is not yet possible to predict. Alternatives that would use the most burning 

and diameter limit cuts could indiscriminately remove critically important healthy white pines 

and leave unhealthy ones. Alternative C, followed by alternatives B, A, and D, respectively, 

would have the greatest tree selection control to leave the healthiest remaining white pines.

Susceptibility to Additional Invasive Pests

Forests and woodlands most in balance (least departed from historic reference conditions) with 

respect to horizontal and vertical structure, native vegetation species composition and genetic 

diversity, soil and watershed stability, and natural disturbance patterns should be the most 

vigorous and resilient to threats from new invasive species. The alternatives which would move 

the four forested PNVTs and the piñon-juniper PNVT closest to desired conditions in the next 15 

years are expected to help minimize that threat. Alternative C would provide the most resilience 

to invasive pests, followed by alternatives B, D, and A, respectively.

Future Trends for Untreated Acres 

Current and future insect and disease trends described earlier are expected to continue on the vast 

majority of acres left untreated each year, and in each cutting cycle, until these acres are fully 

restored to the desired conditions. Current trends on undisturbed acres differ enough from historic 

trends that ecosystem processes are anticipated to be altered in those areas where the benefits of 

treatment are delayed from occurring as needed. The occurrence of drought, warmer climate, and 

uncharacteristic vegetation densities has increased the forests’ vulnerability to insects, especially 

bark beetles. Consequently, there is potential for substantial insect outbreaks to continue, but it is 

difficult to characterize the risks in a temporal framework of 10 to 20 years. There is more 

uncertainty regarding future insect outbreaks than the past record indicates. In the current period 

of ecological change, additional large-scale insect disturbances are expected, though the details of 

those events cannot be predicted. 

Other than the continued spread and intensification of dwarf mistletoe infestations, it is harder to 

predict pathogen response to climate change and altered forest composition and fire regimes than 

insect population responses. Additionally, there is great uncertainty regarding the potential effects 

of invasive insect and pathogen species (e.g., spruce aphid, white pine blister rust). The effects of 

invasive plants on forest disturbance regimes, including insect and pathogen outbreaks, are also 

unknown.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Under each alternative, the insect and disease trends described are expected to continue and 

possibly increase in proportion to the acres left untreated each year and decade. As stated 

previously, average treatment rates for alternatives A and B would result in the least amount of 

acres restored annually. Therefore, the affected environment trends and uncertainties would 

continue to be greatest under these two alternatives. Alternatives C and D would have greater 

potential to treat more acres annually and, thus, they would result in lower insect and disease 

risks. 

Based strictly on expected treatment rates and relative amounts of annual untreated acres, 

alternative A would have the highest potential for insect and disease outbreaks in the four 

forested PNVTs, followed by alternatives B, D, and C respectively. This same order would also 

represent risk in the piñon-juniper woodland PNVT, with the exception that the ranking for 

alternatives D and C would be reversed.

As more acres of natural conifer regeneration (see the “Forest Products” section) occur after 

wildfires and/or substantial bark beetle outbreaks, the risk would increase under all alternatives

for pine tip moth and similar foliar/bud/shoot insects to easily attack numerous seedlings. 

Survival of young trees shorter than 6 feet tall could be jeopardized, especially during drought 

years.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area boundary considered for this level of analysis of the White Mountains-San Francisco 

Peaks-Mogollon Rim Ecoregion Section and the seven subsections on which it occurs (see the 

“Vegetation” section for more information about this region). Insect-disease conditions on the 

adjacent Fort Apache Indian Reservation are included in the report by Lynch et.al (2010).

Insect outbreaks typically start in one or more places and spread in subsequent years to additional 

areas. Persistent diseases have the potential to spread to or from adjacent ownerships wherever 

the same host tree species are present.

Past forest and woodland management approaches (e.g., fire suppression and lack of thinning) 

have given rise to a surplus of trees that may continue to dominate untreated areas for many more 

years across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and adjacent lands. Recent past and present forest and 

woodland management actions on national forest, private, and State lands have been mostly 

focused on reducing immediate fire hazard, rather than restoration toward reference conditions. 

Insect and disease outbreak trends, similar to those on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and across the 

Southwest, may be found across the ecoregion.

Future forest/woodland management strategies across all other national forests within the 

ecoregion are expected to be similar to those proposed for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These 

forests are also revising their land management plans or intend to revise their plans in the near 

future. The other national forests and the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would use similar desired 

conditions for the forested and woodland PNVTs, including for uneven-aged silviculture and the 

return of fire and other natural disturbances to their natural roles. Similar conditions for insects

and diseases could be expected to result. However, the creation of increased thinning slash and 

fire-killed trees concurrently by management actions on all adjacent ownerships could lead to an 

additive risk of even larger scale bark beetle outbreaks across the ecoregion. Treatment timing 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 205

and coordination, with proper slash management (DeGomez et al., 2008), would need to occur

across ownerships to help prevent such a result.

Due to multiple ongoing bark beetle and defoliator outbreaks, the current scale and extent of dead 

and dying trees on both ownerships of Mount Baldy (Fort Apache Indian Reservation and 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs) predispose it to a large, stand-replacement wildfire event, particularly 

inside the wilderness. None of the alternatives would likely be able to prevent such an event, 

given that the spruce-fir PNVT dominating the area is an infrequent, high-intensity fire regime, 

and Mount Baldy is due for such an event. A wildfire ignited on the Fort Apache side of the 

mountain could easily burn onto the Forest Service side by prevailing winds. Such a fire would 

virtually eliminate all the insect and disease problems present, simply by removing nearly all host 

tree species across many acres. Widespread, even-aged forest conditions would result with 

subsequent artificial and/or natural reforestation expected to occur on both ownerships. 

Alternative C would emphasize more thinning treatments in the dominant wet mixed conifer and 

spruce-fir PNVTs than the other alternatives, which could be done outside the Mount Baldy 

Wilderness boundary. This could break up the remaining continuous forest and fuel loadings to 

the extent that such a wildfire event may not affect the entire watershed in every direction 

simultaneously and, thus, threaten more national forest acres to the north and northeast that are 

not yet restored.

The first located occurrence of white pine blister rust in this ecoregion was on the Gila NF in 

New Mexico, and the first located occurrences in Arizona were found on the Fort Apache Indian 

Reservation. Future discovery of trees potentially resistant to white pine blister rust could 

contribute to tree seed tree orchards for a long-term rust resistance reforestation program; the 

perpetuation of this ecologically vital tree species is urgently needed (Conklin et al., 2009). On 

the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is cutting every white pine tree 

with observed blister rust infection. There is a critical need to preserve the gene pool of the 

remaining local species population on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The action alternatives

contain direction to protect white pines for this purpose; while alternative A does not.

Fire

This section discusses the current role and management of fire on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. It 

also examines how the plan alternatives address the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and how they 

contribute to returning wildfire to a more natural role. This is done by comparing the existing fire 

regime condition class (FRCC) with the alternatives to determine the percent of the forests that 

would move toward desired conditions. It also compares how each alternative may contribute 

smoke, by comparing the amount of burning that is planned in each alternative and how each 

alternative varies in its emphasis of treatments near the wildland-urban interface. Additional 

information can be found in the “Fire Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012g).

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• To meet the plan’s treatment objective for acres of burning, a combination of planned 

(prescribed burning) and unplanned (wildfire) ignitions would occur. Burning could 

occur across all NFS lands. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• A set acreage would be burned each year. This number varies by alternative. The actual 

acres burned, when the plan is implemented, may fluctuate yearly due to natural 

ignitions, weather, and burning conditions.

• All wildfires would be analyzed at the time of ignition and documented in the Wildland 

Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS). Management response to a wildfire would be 

based on direction in the land management plan. All wildfires would receive a 

management response appropriate to conditions of the fire, fuels, weather, and 

topography to accomplish specific objectives for the area where burning may occur.

• The response to wildfires is not discretionary and is considered an emergency action. 

Suppression responses would vary markedly in scale and duration, depending on the 

particular fire and conditions.

• Particulate emissions from planned ignitions would be modeled at the project level. 

• For this analysis, each PNVT was given an overall FRCC classification. For example, 

there are some areas in the ponderosa pine forest which have recently been treated and 

those stands may now be in FRCC 1 or 2; however, the majority of the ponderosa pine 

across the forests is highly departed and, thus, the entire PNVT is classified as FRCC 3. 

Affected Environment

National Fire Policy and Wildland-Urban Interface

Fire managers have been faced with increasing costs, urban development, and unprecedented fire 

behavior. Decades of government policy directed at extinguishing every fire on public lands have 

contributed to the disruption of the natural fire processes. In response to these issues, there have 

been several changes in national fire policy over the past 2 decades.

The current Federal Fire Policy was signed in 1995 and reviewed and updated in 2001. The 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy guides the philosophy, direction, and implementation 

of fire management planning, activities, and projects on Federal lands. The policy helps ensure 

consistency, coordination, and integration of wildland fire management programs and related 

activities throughout the Federal government. 

On August 8, 2000, the President directed the Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture and 

Department of the Interior to prepare a report recommending how best to respond to that year’s 

severe fires, reduce the impacts of those fires on rural communities, and ensure sufficient fire 

management resources in the future. On September 8, 2000, the President accepted their report, 

“Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment,” which provided an 

overall framework for fire management and forest health programs (66 FR 751-777). 

These recommendations initiated a number of policies including the National Fire Plan, the 

Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), long-term stewardship contracting authority, and the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). These policies led to the preparation of community wildfire 

protection plans (CWPPs) to define the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and to establish priorities 

for wildfire preparedness and hazardous fuels reduction work in these areas. 

The WUI exists where humans and infrastructure intermix with wildland fuels. There continues to 

be a significant growth in the communities surrounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, both in 

population and construction of summer homes. For example, it was estimated in 2004 that there 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 207

were approximately 25,000 full-time residents and 80,000 seasonal residents (primarily summer) 

in the White Mountain communities (Forest Service, 2008b).

There are 12 communities within or adjacent to the forests which have been identified as “Urban 

Wildland Interface Communities within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk from 

Wildfire” (66 FR 751-777). They include Alpine, Eagar, Forest Lakes, Greer, Heber-Overgaard, 

Hideaways, Linden, McNary, Nutrioso, Pinedale, Pinetop-Lakeside, and Show Low (see figure 

48 below). Hazardous fuel reduction treatments on adjacent Federal lands around these 

communities are ongoing.

Figure 48. Map of communities within vicinity of Federal lands that are at a high risk from 

wildfire and areas currently covered by CWPPs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

The forests have three CWPPs that cover over 895,000 acres of WUI on Federal, State, county, 

and private lands and include 36 communities within the boundaries. Approximately 612,000 

acres on NFS lands are covered by the CWPPs (see figure 48). The CWPPs include “CWPP for 

At-Risk-Communities in Apache County,” “CWPP for At-Risk-Communities in Greenlee 

County,” and the “Sitgreaves CWPP (includes Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties)” (Logan 

Simpson Design, Inc., 2004a, 2004b, and 2005). These plans identify and prioritize areas for 

treatment based upon input from the communities. Because the CWPPs did not cover all 

development that might be threatened by wildfire, the following WUI definition is also used 

when considering values at risk:

“Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) - includes those areas of resident populations at imminent 

risk from wildfire, and human developments having special significance. These areas may 

include critical communications sites, municipal watersheds, high voltage transmission lines, 

church camps, scout camps, research facilities, and other structures that if destroyed by fire, 

would result in hardship to communities. These areas encompass not only the sites 

themselves, but also the continuous slopes and fuels that lead directly to the sites, regardless 

of the distance involved.” (R3 Supplement Forest Service Manual 5140.5)

Alternative A (1987 plan) does not address the hazards associated with the WUI. However, since 

2001, there has been a management emphasis to treat areas identified in the CWPPs and WUI.

Fire History and Behavior

At the time of Euro-American settlement, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, as well as other forests in 

northern Arizona, generally consisted of open stands of uneven-aged ponderosa pine with an 

extensive grass-forb understory. Frequent (every 5 to 10 years) low-intensity fires burning 

through small pine regeneration and other ground fuels, prevented forests from becoming the 

dense stands so frequently found in northern Arizona today.

Fire scar samples taken in ponderosa pine vegetation within the White Mountains show an 

average return interval of 3 years with widespread fires occurring every 10 years (Forest Service, 

2002). Grasslands on southern aspects had the greatest frequency; fires were fast moving and 

killed conifer seedlings encroaching from adjacent forested areas. 

Fire frequency and severity has been altered from historic condition in most vegetation types. 

Historically, fires could burn until they were extinguished by precipitation, ran out of fuel, or 

reached a previously burned area. Fires could burn for months and cover thousands of acres 

(Swetnam and Betancourt, 1990; Swetnam and Baisan, 1996). Fire severity is an actual physical 

change in the vegetation, litter, or soils caused by fire. Post-fire effects are typically classified as 

low to high severity23.

Table 54 displays historical frequency and severity of fires within PNVTs. The 2011 Wallow Fire 

is used as an example of how these vegetation types burned based on mapped burn soil severity 

classes. It also summarizes the observed effects from the Wallow Fire in the last column. For 

example the dry mixed conifer PNVT, which would have historically burned at a frequency of 10 

to 22 years with low-severity fires, experienced a wide range of severities in the Wallow Fire. 

While dry mixed conifer within the Wallow Fire experienced predominately low-severity effect, 

almost 41 percent of the acres burned at moderate to high severity. In addition, the wet mixed 

 23 http://www.northernrockiesfire.org/history/fireis.htm
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 209

conifer PNVT had approximately 50 percent of the acres burned in moderate to high severity. 

Historically, wet mixed conifer burned with a mixed fire severity with discontinuous patches of 

high severity.

Table 54. Fire frequency and severity by PNVT1 compared to the 2011 Wallow Fire burn 

severities

PNVT

Historic Fire Wallow Fire Burn Severity within Perimeter

Acres (Percent)

Fire 

Return 

Interval 

(years)

Fire 

Severity High Moderate Low Unburned

Wallow 

Fire 

Severity

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest

2 to 17 Low 11,809

(9.2)

22,734

(17.6)

79,821

(61.9)

14,488

(11.2)

LowMixed

Dry Mixed Conifer 

Forest

10 to 22 Low 19,412

(24.9)

12,253

(15.7)

31,462

(40.4)

14,813

(19)

Low-High

Wet Mixed Conifer 

Forest

35 to 50 Mixed 47,409

(35.3)

19,835

(14.8)

43,494

(32.4)

23,702

(17.6)

Low-High

Spruce-Fir Forest 150 to 

400

High 3,874

(30.6)

2,462

(19.5)

3,897

(30.8)

2,423

(19.1)

Low-High

Madrean Pine-Oak 

Woodland

3 to 8 Low 1,246

(2.3)

4,767

(9.0)

20,396

(38.4)

26,679

(50.3)

Low

Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland

6 to 400 Low, 

Mixed, 

and High

583

(3.3)

2,225

(12.5)

5,587

(31.4)

9,389

(52.8)

Low

Interior Chaparral 20 to 

100

High 357

(3.6)

2,426

(24.4)

3,266

(32.8)

3,900

(39.2)

LowMixed

Great Basin 

Grassland

10 to 30 Low 88

(1.3)

325

(4.9)

3,311

(50.3)

2,854

(43.4)

Low

Semi-desert 

Grassland

3 to 10 Low 35

(2.3)

251

(16.5)

606

(40.0)

624

(41.2)

Low

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands

2 to 400 Low 176

(0.5)

1,679

(4.6)

27,422

(75.3)

7,159

(19.6)

Low

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

0 to 35 Low 441

(3.7)

759

(6.4)

7,406

(62.7)

3,212

(27.2)

Low

CottonwoodWillow Riparian 

Forest

0 to 35 Low 72

(4.2)

176

(10.1)

731

(42.0)

759

(43.7)

LowMixed

Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciuous Riparian 

Forest

0 to 35 Low 0

(0.1)

27

(5.6)

212

(43.2)

251

(51.1)

Low

Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest

0 to 35 Low 196

(5.9)

424

(12.7)

1,674

(50.2)

1,041

(31.2)

LowMixed

1 Forest Service, 2008e
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Years of land management practices in the early 1900s (e.g., fire suppression, livestock grazing) 

have impacted the ability of fire to play its natural role in maintaining ecosystem health 

(Covington and Moore, 1994). Consequently, there are higher levels of woody vegetation (fuel 

loads) and less herbaceous cover than existed historically (Forest Service, 2008e). Altered fire 

regimes are now the norm in fire-adapted ecosystems in the Southwest and have resulted in 

uncharacteristic wildfires, which are increasingly larger and more severe. This has resulted in 

increased attention to the way land is managed in the Southwest (Swetnam and Betancourt, 

1997). 

On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, fire season is generally April 1 through October 15. Strong 

southwest winds and low humidity are prevalent from mid-April to mid-June, resulting in mainly 

wind driven fire behavior. Hot, dry, and unstable conditions usually occur from mid-June to early 

July. The potential for dry lightning is most likely during this time period. The monsoon season, 

accompanied by higher humidity and rainfall potential, decreased wind, and reduced fire 

behavior, generally begins during the first or second week in July, and it typically ends in the 

second or third week in September when dry and mild conditions return, leading to a period of 

increased fire behavior potential before the onset of winter conditions. 

From 1997 to 2011, the majority of fires on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs were caused by lightning,

with an average of 155 fire starts per year. The remaining fires were human caused, averaging 64 

fire starts per year. Both human and lightning fires contribute to the total number of acres burned 

on the forests. Fires occurred every month of the year with the greatest amount occurring from 

May to August, usually lasting less than 2 days.

Over a million acres have burned on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs between 1997 and 2011. About 

80 percent were unplanned ignitions; while approximately 20 percent were planned ignitions. 

Approximately 40 percent of the acreage burned occurred in the ponderosa pine PNVT. Fire sizes 

have been generally small with over 65 percent of the fires less than one quarter of an acre and 94 

percent of them being less than 10 acres (Fire Family Plus). The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire 

burned 173,000 acres on the forests, and the 2011 Wallow Fire burned 538,000 acres. Both of 

these fires were human caused.

Fire Regime Condition Class

A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in 

the absence of modern human mechanical intervention, but it includes the influence of aboriginal 

burning (Agee, 1993; Brown, 1995). Coarse-scale definitions for natural fire regimes have been 

developed by Hardy et al. (2001) and Schmidt et al. (2002) and interpreted for fire and fuels 

management by Hann and Bunnell (2001). The five natural fire regimes are classified based on 

average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity of the fire on

the dominant overstory vegetation. These five regimes are:

• Fire regime I: 0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed 

severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime II: 0- to 35-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater 

than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime III: 35- to 100+-year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of 

the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 211

• Fire regime IV: 35- to 100+-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity 

(greater than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime V: 200+-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity.

All fire regimes are represented across the forests (Landfire, 2011) as noted in table 55.

Table 55. Fire regimes by PNVTs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

PNVT Fire Regime PNVT Fire Regime

Ponderosa Pine Forest I Great Basin Grassland I

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest I Semi-desert Grassland I

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest1 III Montane/Subalpine Grassland I

Spruce-Fir Forest III, IV Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest3 I, III

Madrean Pine-Oak 

Woodland

I Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian 

Forest3

I, III

Piñon-Juniper Woodland2 I, III, IV, V Montane Willow Riparian Forest3 I, III

Interior Chaparral IV Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas3 I, III

1

Within wet mixed conifer, fire regime IV and V may occur; however, it is rare.

2

Within pinon-juniper, fire regime I is found in piñon-juniper savanna; while III, IV, and V are found in piñonjuniper persistant woodland.

3

Wetland/cienega riparian areas and mixed broadleaf deciduous, montane willow, and cottonwood-willow 

riparian forests’ historic and current fire return intervals are strongly influenced by surrounding PNVTs and their 

fire regime.

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a metric that quantifies how departed a system is from 

historical conditions in relation to fire, the role fire historically played in that system, and the 

vegetative structure (Hann and Bunnell, 2001; Hardy et al., 2001; Hann et al., 2004). The 

classification is based on a relative measure describing the degree of departure from the historical 

fire regime. FRCC is developed as a measure of the difference in structure between current and 

reference condition. This disparity has inferences about fire regime and changes to one (or more) 

of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (e.g., species composition, 

structural states, stand age, canopy closure, mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, 

severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g., insect and disease mortality, grazing, 

drought). 

There are three condition classes for each fire regime based on low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 

2), and high (FRCC 3) departure from the central tendency of the natural fire regime (Hann and 

Bunnell, 2001; Hardy et al., 2001; Schmidt et al., 2002). Low departure is considered to be within 

the natural (historical) range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside. The 

desired condition is to move toward or maintain vegetation conditions in FRCC 1.

Vegetation in FRCC 1 is more resilient and resistant and less likely to lose key ecosystem 

components (e.g., native species, large trees, soil) after a disturbance. Fire behavior and other 

associated disturbances are similar to those that occurred prior to fire exclusion. For example, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

ponderosa pine in FRCC 1 

would have a fire regime and 

vegetative structure similar to 

reference conditions where fires 

were low intensity and high 

frequency and vegetation 

consisted of open stands and 

clumps of trees.

Vegetation in FRCC 2 and 3 is 

moderately to highly altered and 

there is a risk of losing key 

ecosystem components. Fire 

behavior and other associated 

disturbances are moderately to 

highly departed from reference 

conditions.

For this analysis, FRCC 1 is 

represented by vegetation 

departure index 0 to 33, FRCC 

2 is 34 to 66, and FRCC 3 is 67 

to 100. For more information 

about vegetation condition and 

departure from desired 

conditions, see the “Vegetation”

section. Approximately 86 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are departed from reference 

conditions and are in FRCC 2 and 3 (figure 49 above and table 56). Current overall FRCC by 

PNVT is displayed in table 57. Only 14 percent of the PNVTs are in FRCC 1. 

Table 56. Existing forestwide FRCC on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

FRCC 1 FRCC 2 FRCC 3 Total

Acres 287,804 280,996 1,442,302 2,011,1021

Percent 14% 14% 72% 100%

1 Total excludes water, quarries, urban/agriculture lands.

Table 57. Current FRCC by PNVT

PNVT FRCC PNVT FRCC

Ponderosa Pine Forest 3 Great Basin Grassland 3

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 3 Semi-desert Grassland 3

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 2 Montane/Subalpine Grassland 2

Spruce-Fir Forest 2 Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 2

Figure 49. Map of existing fire regime condition classes on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs based on PNVT departure
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 213

PNVT FRCC PNVT FRCC

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 3 Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 1

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 1 Montane Willow Riparian Forest 3

Interior Chaparral 1 Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 2

Air Quality Related to Smoke

Periodic planned ignitions (prescribed burns) and unplanned ignitions (wildfires) are tools used to 

decrease fuel accumulation and to restore ecosystem processes. Wildfires and prescribed burns 

within the planning area may produce temporary, but large, amounts of smoke, particulates, 

carbon monoxide, and other ozone precursors. 

Limits to smoke emissions from planned ignitions are imposed by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Smoke from unplanned ignitions is considered a natural event 

and not regulated by law. However, fire managers work to influence smoke production by 

suppressing fires, checking or redirecting the growth of the fire, or through smoke reduction 

techniques, such as performing burns when climatic conditions are optimal.

Prescribed fires and wildfires have the potential to produce smoke that may impact air quality 

depending on the amount, extent, and duration. Wildfire events and associated poor air quality 

can last for weeks. For example, during June and July of 2002 when the Rodeo-Chediski Fire 

took place, over 460,000 acres burned across multiple jurisdictions and affected air quality in the 

communities along the Mogollon Rim for weeks.

Particulate matter (PM) is of the greatest concern because particulate emissions in smoke can 

affect both visibility and human health. Particulate matter is described as very fine solid particles 

suspended in smoke and are measured as a 24-hour average. PM10 particles are 10 microns or less 

in size; PM2.5 particles are 2.5 microns or less in size. The amount of particles present in these 

size classes, especially PM2.5, is important when considering the health effects of smoke. PM2.5 

particles can become lodged in the deepest part of the respiratory system and are difficult for the 

body to expel. 

The Clean Air Act of 1970 mandates that every state have a statewide implementation plan to 

regulate pollutants. Smoke is regulated with oversight and compliance by the State of Arizona. 

The Arizona State Implementation Plan, administered by the ADEQ, requires that Federal and 

State land management agencies submit annual registrations, prescribed fire burn plans, and 

prescribed burn requests in order to obtain authorization to burn.

Arizona is divided into 11 smoke management units (SMUs). The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs occurs 

within 3 units: Little Colorado River Airshed (SMU 3), Lower Salt River Airshed (SMU 6), and 

Upper Gila River Airshed (SMU 7). Special considerations to address smoke are required when a 

fire is in a nonattainment area for national ambient air quality standards24 including ensuring 

compliance and conformity with State and tribal implementation plans. There are no 

 24 The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

214 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

nonattainment areas within SMUs 3 and 7; however, there is a nonattainment area in SMU 6 

southwest of the forests around Payson, Arizona. 

There is one Class I airshed on the forests, Mount Baldy Wilderness. Petrified Forest National 

Park is another Class I airshed and is directly north of the forests. Class I is an airshed 

classification which requires the highest level of protection under the Clean Air Act of 1963.

Projects which may potentially impact Class I airsheds must include efforts to minimize smoke 

impacts on visibility. See the “Air Quality” section of chapter 3 for more information on Class I 

airsheds and overall air quality. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Wildland-Urban Interface

Alternative A (1987 plan) would not specifically address the hazards associated with the WUI or 

prioritize treatments to address those hazards. Since 2001, however, there has been a management 

emphasis to treat areas identified in CWPPs and WUI.

Due to the threat of fire moving into or from developed areas, higher levels of management may 

be needed to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, including regular maintenance treatments. A 

management area was created for the action alternatives to address this threat. The CommunityForest Intermix Management Area consists of NFS lands within 1⁄2 mile of communities-at-risk. 

The Community-Forest Intermix Management Area accounts for approximately 10 percent of the 

NFS lands identified in the CWPPs. See appendix H for maps of the management areas.

All of the action alternatives would have land allocated to the Community-Forest Intermix 

Management Area where fuels reduction treatments and maintenance are emphasized. However, 

these alternatives would differ in where overall forest treatments are prioritized for placement. 

Alternative B would most emphasize treating lands identified in the CWPPs including the 

Community-Forest Intermix Management Area. Alternative C would prioritize treatments just in 

the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area (versus the entire CWPP). Alternative D

would not emphasize treating areas identified in the CWPPs because treatment emphasis is spread 

over all PNVTs across the forests.

Table 58. Comparison of alternatives and how much emphasis is placed on treating the 

hazards associated with the WUI

Least Emphasis <--------------- -------------> Most Emphasis

Alternative A Alternative D Alternative C Alternative B

As treatments occur within the wildland-urban interface, the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and 

the resulting threat to communities and ecosystems would be reduced and potential losses from 

such fires would be mitigated. Treatments within the wildland-urban interface would not only 

help protect communities, but would also help protect the forests from fire that starts on private 

lands. These treatments would also benefit firefighter and public safety. Treatments aimed to 

protect natural resources from uncharacteristic wildfire could outweigh the short-term impacts to 

the landscapes during treatment. Alternative B would provide the greatest benefit followed by 

alternatives C, D, and A based on the alternatives’ emphasis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 215

Fire Regime Condition Class 

Both mechanical and fire treatments would be used to move vegetation toward desired conditions 

in all alternatives. These treatments are used to change the character of the vegetation (e.g., a 

dense forest with too many evenly spaced trees to an open forest with groups and clumps of trees) 

that would result in lower risk of uncharacteristic fire and a return of wildfire to a more natural 

role. The desired condition is to move toward or maintain vegetation conditions in FRCC 1. The 

amounts by treatment acreage vary by alternative as shown in tables 58 and 59.

Table 59. The average annual acreage by treatment type, planned by alternative across all 

PNVTs

Treatment Type Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

Mechanical 12,182 19,591 23,997 15,954

Planned and 

Unplanned Ignitions

6,844 28,930 12,857 48,927

Total 19,026 48,521 36,854 64,881

Table 60. Average acres treated by PNVT per year (percent of PNVT treated per year)

PNVT Total NFS 

Acres

Alt. A Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Alt. B Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Alt. C Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Alt. D Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest 602,206 10,269(1.7%)

12,589

(2.1%)

18,955

(3.1%)

18,113

(3.0%)

Dry Mixed Conifer 

Forest 147,885 2,608

(1.8%)

3,247

(2.2%)

4,913

(3.3%)

4,761

(3.2%)

Wet Mixed Conifer 

Forest 177,995 3,097(1.7%)

3,800

(2.1%)

5,748

(3.2%)

5,464

(3.1%)

Spruce Fir Forest 17,667 208

(1.2%)

402

(2.3%)

605

(3.4%)

576

(3.3%)

Madrean Pine-Oak 

Woodland 394,927 1,063(0.3%)

7,429

(1.9%)

3,125

(0.8%)

13,029

(3.3%)

Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland 222,166 1,213

(0.5%)

2,502

(1.1%)

3,008

(1.4%)

4,367

(2.0%)

Interior Chaparral 55,981 * * * *

Great Basin 

Grassland 185,523 541(0.0%)

15,202

(8.2%)

0

(0.0%)

15,121

(8.2%)

Semi-desert 

Grassland 106,952 27(0.0%)

2,500

(2.3%)

0

(0.0%)

2,500

(2.3%)

Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland 51,559 * 500(1.0%)

500

(1.0%)

500

(1.0%)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

216 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT Total NFS 

Acres

Alt. A Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Alt. B Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Alt. C Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Alt. D Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

CottonwoodWillow Riparian 

Forest

15,876

* 350

(0.7%) * 450

(0.9%)

Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian 

Forest

9,657

Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest 4,808

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas 17,900

Total 2,011,102 19,026

(0.9%)

48,521

(2.4%)

36,854

(1.8%)

64,881

(3.2%)

*No treatments planned. However, as opportunities arise wildfire may be used to allow fire to play a natural role.

Table 61 displays the forestwide FRCC outcome by alternative after 15 years of vegetative 

treatments at the average treatment objective levels. Alternatives B and D would result in the 

most acreage in FRCC 1 (24 percent) followed by alternatives A and C (14 percent).

Table 61. Forestwide FRCC outcome by alternative in acres and percent of the forests after 

15 years of treatment

Alternative FRCC 1 FRCC 2 FRCC 3 Total

A 287,804

(14%)

614,405

(31%)

1,108,893

(55%)

2,011,102

(100%)

B 473,327

(24%)

823,809

(41%)

713,966

(35%)

2,011,102

(100%)

C 287,804

(14%)

1,009,332

(51%)

713,966

(35%)

2,011,102

(100%)

D 473,327

(24%)

823,809

(41%)

713,966

(35%)

2,011,102

(100%)

Table 62 displays the FRCC trend from 15 to 50 years as noted by the downward, upward, or 

neutral arrows. In all alternatives, fire and mechanical treatments (table 59) would be used to 

move vegetation conditions toward desired condition. The desired condition is to move toward or 

maintain vegetation conditions in FRCC 1. A downward trend (downward arrow) shows 

movement toward a lower FRCC.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 217

Table 62. Comparison of alternatives showing FRCC outcomes by PNVT after 15 years and 

the trend from 15 to 50 years as represented by the arrows

PNVT Current

FRCC

Alt. A

FRCC

Alt. B

FRCC

Alt. C

FRCC

Alt. D

FRCC

Ponderosa Pine Forest 3 3↓ 3↓ 3↓ 3↓

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 3 2↓ 2↓ 2↓ 2↓

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 2 2↓ 2↓ 2↓ 2↓

Spruce Fir Forest 2 2↓ 2↓ 2↓ 2↓

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 3 3↓ 2↓ 2↓ 2↓

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 1 1↑ 1↑ 1↑ 1↔

Interior Chaparral 1 1↔ 1↔ 1↔ 1↔

Great Basin Grassland 3 2↑ 1↑ 2↑ 1↓

Semi-desert Grassland 3 3↑ 3↓ 3↑ 3↓

Montane/Subalpine Grassland 2 2↑ 2↑ 2↑ 2↑

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian 

Forest

2 2↑ 2↓ 2↑ 2↓

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest

1 1↑ 1↓ 1↑ 1↓

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 3 3↑ 3↓ 3↑ 3↓

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 2 2↑ 2↔ 2↔ 2↔

↑ Indicates trend toward a higher FRCC from 15 to 50 years. 

↓ Indicates trend toward a lower FRCC from 15 to 50 years.

↔ Indicates a static trend in FRCC from 15 to 50 years.

Over the planning period of 15 years, the action alternatives would have the most (6) PNVTs at 

desired condition. Alternative A would have the least number (5) of PNVTs that meet desired 

conditions.

Between 15 and 50 years, alternatives D and B trends show that FRCC continues to move 

toward a lower FRCC or remain within FRCC 1 in the most PNVTs (12). Alternatives C and A

show the least improvement at 50 years (8).

Under all alternatives there would be some improvement in FRCC by PNVTs (table 62). 

Changes in FRCC are directly related to the number of acres treated within a PNVT. For example, 

Great Basin grassland would be treated in alternatives B and D and would move from FRCC 3 

to 1. In alternatives A and C, there would be less emphasis on treating Great Basin grassland, 

and it would move to FRCC 2 but trend back toward a higher FRCC. 

As the FRCC is improved over the planning period, there should be movement toward a natural 

fire regime and a reduced risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. Vegetation would become more 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

218 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

resistant and resilient and less likely to lose key ecosystem components after a disturbance. This 

would benefit firefighter and public safety. Additionally, treatments aimed to protect natural 

resources from uncharacteristic wildfire would outweigh the short-term impacts upon the 

landscapes during treatment.

As FRCC is improved over the planning period, fire would behave more similar to reference 

conditions. For example, ponderosa pine in FRCC 1 would have a fire regime and vegetative 

structure similar to reference conditions where fires were low intensity and high frequency. 

Vegetation consisting of open stands and clumps of trees would promote surface versus crown 

fire behavior. 

Although this analysis examined overall FRCC by total PNVT, it is anticipated that as sitespecific projects are conducted, there would be an improvement in FRCC for those treated acres. 

For example, the overall FRCC for ponderosa pine is 3, but would include areas which have had 

treatment and are now rated at FRCC 1 and 2.

Fire disturbances may have adverse environmental consequences on some resources (e.g., smoke 

affecting communities, vegetation structure) in the short term. Over the long term, however, these 

resources would benefit from fire disturbances that result in more sustainable and productive 

ecosystems and reduced risk of uncharacteristic wildfire.

Fire is a management tool for altering vegetation, however, there could be some risk such as: (1) 

prescribed fires could escape and become wildfires; (2) some fires may not get accomplished due 

to narrow burning windows and/or smoke management constraints; and (3) use of high and/or 

moderate severity burns may result in more acres needing reforestation efforts (e.g., Wilkins, 

Durfee, and Wagon Draw resource benefit fires.)

Air Quality Related to Smoke

All alternatives include an average number of acres that will be treated by fire each year with the 

expectation that desired conditions for air quality, including Class I airsheds, are met. Treatments 

with fire include both planned and unplanned ignitions. Table 60 displays the amount of acres 

treated by alternative. 

Smoke production is an unavoidable part of planned ignitions (prescribed burns). However, 

strategies to limit smoke impacts are required in every burn plan. Because climatic and 

environmental conditions vary (e.g., ventilation, wind direction, mixing height), the number of 

acres burned on any given day would also vary. Climatic and environmental conditions each year 

may also affect the annual total number of acres treated. Projects are designed in a way to lessen 

the impacts produced by smoke emissions. The prescribed fire burn plan may include such 

strategies as burning with wind directions and other atmospheric conditions that allow smoke to 

adequately ventilate or be transported away from communities. The burn plan may also stipulate 

management practices which would mitigate smoke production. For example, managers can 

choose ignition sequences and patterns, avoid lighting heavy fuels, community notification, and 

use other management practices that would limit smoke production. ADEQ reviews daily burn 

requests and may limit the amount of acres burned daily to reduce smoke impacts.

Impacts on air quality from unplanned ignitions (wildfires) may be highly variable. Smoke 

management for unplanned ignitions includes notifying the ADEQ based on fire size and location, 

and assessing potential fire behavior and smoke. If smoke impacts occur, overall fire management 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 219

strategies may be adjusted in order to mitigate smoke to sensitive individuals, communities, and 

visibility.

Problem or nuisance smoke is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as the amount of 

smoke in the ambient air that interferes with a right or privilege common to members of the 

public, including the use or enjoyment of public or private resources. While no laws or 

regulations govern nuisance smoke, it effectively limits opportunities of land managers to use 

fire. Public outcry regarding nuisance smoke often occurs long before smoke exposures reach 

levels that violate NAAQS (Achtemeir et al., 2001). Public tolerance of smoke, however, sets the 

social limit of the number of acres burned and smoke produced from planned and unplanned 

ignitions. The level of acceptance varies from year to year and by community. Smoke may impact 

nursing homes, hospitals, and other populations sensitive to temporary air pollution. Smoke can 

also impact other areas such as local communities, transportation corridors, and highly valued 

scenic vistas.

With its number of acres being treated with fire, there is a higher probability that alternative D

would have more short-term impacts to forest visitors and local residents. These impacts could 

include smoke, areas of blackened or charred vegetation, and possibly delay or deny forest access 

due to fire activity. Alternative A would have fewer acres proposed for fire treatments and,

therefore, would have fewer short-term impacts followed by alternatives C and B, respectively.

The potential for nuisance smoke impacts to communities varies by alternative due to the number 

of acres burned and proximity of treatments. Alternative D treats the most acres with fire, 

distributing the treatments among the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area (1/2 mile 

buffer around communities-at-risk) and priority watersheds. Alternative B emphasizes treatments 

within areas identified in the CWPPs. Potential smoke impacts to communities would be lessened 

because treatments are spread across the entire CWPP and not concentrated within the half-mile 

buffer of the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area. Alternative C emphasizes 

treatments within the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area. However, fewer acres are 

treated than in alternatives B and D, reducing the potential impacts to communities. The 

emphasis in alternative A is to treat around communities. However, this alternative treats the 

least number of acres by fire so potential smoke impacts are reduced.

There is also a potential to have smoke impacts due to the mechanical treatments and subsequent 

burning of slash created by those treatments. Residual slash would be treated by piling and 

burning or broadcast burning. Alternative C mechanically treats the greatest number of acres 

within the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area which results in the highest potential 

for burning activity fuels in close proximity to communities. Even though alternative B

mechanically treats the next highest number of acres, alternative D has more potential to impact 

communities due to the placement of treatments within the Community-Forest Intermix 

Management Area. Alternative A treats the least number of acres around communities. 

Under all alternatives, the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and subsequent smoke emissions is 

expected to increase in proportion to the acres left untreated (based on the average planned fire 

and mechanical treatment objectives over the 15-year planning period). Untreated acres would 

have a greater overall fuel load and increased presence of ladder fuels over the long term. 

Alternative D, while creating the most short-term impacts to communities, would in the long 

term reduce potential smoke impacts by reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires. 

Alternative B treats the next highest amount of acres followed by alternatives C and A, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

220 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

respectively. Treated acres would reduce fuel loads and ladder fuels resulting in a lower 

likelihood of crown fire and associated smoke impacts over the long term. See the “Air Quality” 

section in chapter 3 for more information on Class I airsheds and overall air quality. 

Climate Change

There may be environmental consequences associated with climate change. Temperature changes 

may alter fire regimes (Sprigg and Hinkley, 2000). For instance, higher temperatures increase 

evaporation rates, and higher temperatures combined with a drier landscape increase wildfire 

hazard and put extra stress on ecosystems (Lenart, 2007). Fire frequency and severity may be 

exacerbated if temperatures increase, precipitation decreases, and overall drought conditions 

become more common. Seasonal timing of burning may be affected by climate change (e.g., if 

there are hotter drier seasons, burning may occur during times when areas would have usually 

been covered in snow). During the planning period, alternatives B and D followed by 

alternatives C and A would provide the most resiliency to climate change since they have the 

greatest amount of vegetation at desired condition (vegetation within or moving toward FRCC 1). 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area considered for this level of analysis includes adjacent land ownerships, national forests 

in Arizona, and the SMUs that cover the forests (Little Colorado River Airshed, Lower Salt River 

Airshed, and Upper Gila Airshed). Through CWPPs, there has been an emphasis to treat not only 

NFS lands but also private and State lands within the WUI. Communities are working to reduce 

the risk of fire to and from private lands by emphasizing community fire and fuels reduction 

programs. These efforts identified in all alternatives, in combination with treatments on adjacent 

Federal land, help to further reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires to communities and the 

national forests.

Numerous national forests within Arizona are revising their land management plans. These plans 

would emphasis vegetation treatments that would improve FRCC. Neighboring tribal, State, and 

BLM lands are also conducting vegetation treatments. These efforts, in combination with ApacheSitgreaves NFs’ treatments in all alternatives, would contribute to landscape restoration, overall 

improvement in FRCC, the return of wildfire to a more natural role, and a reduction in 

uncharacteristic wildfire across the broader landscape.

Neighboring land managers (e.g., tribes, Bureau of Land Management, Coconino and Tonto NFs) 

are also implementing projects that produce emissions (i.e., smoke). Considering these projects, 

burning on the forests identified in all alternatives, and climatologic conditions, there may be 

additional impacts to air quality, visibility, and human health. Effects from multiple sources can 

affect the 3 SMUs that encompass the forests. Agencies within Arizona fall under the purview of 

the ADEQ air quality division and the State implementation plan; however, tribes cooperate with 

the ADEQ on a voluntary basis. ADEQ coordinates its issuance of burn permits among all the 

resource agencies to minimize the potential effects, including impacts to air quality and public 

safety, of numerous agencies burning concurrently.

Wildlife and Rare Plants

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on wildlife and 

plants of implementing four plan alternatives. As used in this section, “wildlife” is inclusive of all 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 221

terrestrial and aquatic animal species (including invertebrates) and plants (including lichen, 

mosses, and fungi). For species of wildlife that are fish, see the “Fisheries” section. For this 

wildlife analysis, habitat is characterized as potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) and also 

as “habitat elements” that occur within or across PNVTs (e.g., snags). Other factors of concern 

for wildlife are also considered.

Wildlife species viability is addressed in fulfillment of National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

requirements (provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule). NFMA regulations require that habitat be 

managed to maintain viable populations of native and desirable nonnative vertebrates within the 

planning area. A species is considered viable if the following conditions are met: (1) habitat is 

well distributed relative to reference conditions (see the “Terminology” section at the beginning 

of chapter 3); (2) the species occupies a substantial portion of its habitat where that habitat occurs 

across the planning area; and (3) management will maintain or restore (move) the habitat toward 

reference conditions. Plan direction for the maintenance or movement toward desired ecological 

conditions (see the “Purpose and Need for Change” section in chapter 1) is, for the most part, 

maintenance or movement toward reference conditions important for species viability (see the 

following wildlife analysis assumptions). These species-habitat relationships are evaluated in 

terms of viability effectiveness. For the analysis, how well each alternative addresses viability 

effectiveness is tallied by PNVT and by categories of species (e.g., sensitive species). 

NFMA regulations also require the identification of management indicator species (MIS) to 

assess how plan alternatives may affect wildlife populations (1982 Planning Rule section 219.19 

(a)(1)) and as a monitoring tool upon plan implementation (219.19(a)(6)). Forest Service Manual

2620.5-2 direction allows identification of ecological indicators (EIs) such as plant communities 

that contribute substantially to species viability. Three MIS species and two EIs are identified and 

discussed in this section. Chapter 5 of the proposed plan includes monitoring for MIS and EIs. 

In addition to the NFMA assessment of viability, other laws, regulations, and executive orders 

provide specific requirements and direction for the analysis of: (1) Endangered Species Act 

species (ESA), (2) Regional Forester designated sensitive species (sensitive), (3) eagles, and (4) 

migratory birds. Most of these species are also discussed under the viability analysis. For ESA 

species, a biological assessment is prepared for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). Per Forest Service Manual direction, a biological evaluation is prepared for 

sensitive species. Executive Order 13186 requires the Agency to consider migratory birds in the 

planning process with an emphasis on species of concern and priority habitats. A separate report 

(Forest Service, 2012dd) is prepared that addresses migratory birds of concern, bald and golden 

eagles, and important bird areas. All wildlife specialist reports are available in the “Plan Set of 

Documents” and their findings are included in this section.

Habitat security and connectivity, the amount of wildlife quiet areas, and the needs of far ranging 

species and their influence across large landscapes (i.e., highly interactive species) were concerns 

raised by the public during scoping (see the “Alternative Development” section in chapter 2). To 

address this issue, the revised plan would include wildlife habitat areas (i.e., wildlife quiet areas). 

Wildlife quiet areas together would comprise a management area, also helping to contribute to 

species viability. The analysis examines (1) the number and acreage of management areas best 

providing for wildlife habitat security and connectivity and (2) the average distance between 

management areas that best provide for wildlife habitat security and connectivity.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

222 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Diversity and Forest Planning Species

In anticipation of forest plan revision, a review of the diversity of wildlife on the forests was 

conducted beginning in 2007. Initially, over 2,000 species of wildlife were screened using a 

collaborative approach to identify which ones may be present or have suitable habitat in the 

planning area. Biologists from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and other plan revision forests, 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), The Nature Conservancy, universities, species 

specialists, and individuals or groups with wildlife interests assisted in this effort. 

Based on a series of species status reviews, an evaluation was made to determine whether there 

may be risks to each species’ viability because habitat conditions are departed from reference 

conditions and/or because of species’ vulnerability to impacts from forest management or 

activities. Those species with risk are identified as forest planning species (FPS). Risks to 

viability were then considered in the development of plan direction and/or components. A few 

common species with limited risk (highly interactive species) are also identified as FPS. In total, 

there are 109 FPS, consisting of 14 fish and 95 nonfish species. Documentation of the FPS 

process is found in the “Iterative Update to Species Considered and Identification of Forest 

Planning Species Report” (Forest Service, 2012m). See the “Fisheries” section for analysis of the 

14 FPS that are fish.

Provision for Species Viability

Historically, species persisted (were viable) having adapted to the risks associated with normal 

ecosystem functions (e.g., fire, drought) and the habitat conditions that resulted. Risk to species 

viability is also a result of human influences. Regardless of source, risks at some level can begin 

to threaten species viability; hence, in a general manner, risk and viability are inversely related.

To help ensure that the viability needs of species are addressed in the development of plan 

alternatives, possible risks from forest management and activities are identified. Goals that 

support native plant and animal diversity and viability are also identified; these goals are known 

as desired conditions. Desired conditions (DCs) are reflective of reference conditions which 

historically supported these species (see assumptions below). This step in planning for viability is 

the coarse filter which also takes into account desired conditions for vegetation, soils, watershed, 

water, and aquatic/riparian resources which contribute to habitat conditions that support species 

viability.

Another step in planning for viability is the fine filter which is added where desired conditions do 

not fully address the habitat needs of species. Here, other plan components (i.e., standards and 

guidelines), are identified to address the fine filter habitat element needs of species (e.g., wet or 

shaded habitat areas). Standards and guidelines are also identified, as needed, for situations where 

there are other factors of concern (risks) related to activities (e.g., collection) or indirectly related 

to habitat (e.g., predation). 

Because of the programmatic nature of forest planning, site specific measures for projects and 

activities may still be needed to address short-term implementation impacts and provide for 

species needs. These impacts are often a result of treatment method (e.g., thinning, burning) or 

timing of management activities. See the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 

2012gg) for more information.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 223

Analysis of Species Viability

The wildlife analysis characterizes risk from forest management and forest activities and the 

viability effectiveness of each of the alternatives. The determination of environmental 

consequences for 95 species, numerous habitat elements, and 4 plan alternatives is extremely 

complex. As such, the wildlife analysis relies heavily on an approach that categorizes or groups 

species and habitats. The general analysis process is described below.

F ranking variable: The existing condition of each FPS is expressed in terms of the species’ 

abundance and distribution on the planning unit. This variable is called a forest or F ranking 

(table 63). Note that rare species are most often associated with rare habitats which would not 

become common with management.

Table 63. Forest F rankings for forest planning species (FPS)

F Ranking Description of Species Abundance and Distribution

Relative to Reference or Desired Habitat Conditions

F? 1/ Unknown abundance and distribution

F1 Extremely rare 

F2 Rare 

F3 Uncommon (including locally common but in rare locations)

F4 2/ Widespread 

F5 Secure

1 Because of insufficient information to determine abundance and distribution, F? species are analyzed as F1 species.

2 Populations of some F4 species could be affected by extensive landscape scale management and activities 

depending on timing, both spatial and temporal.

Abundance and distribution of habitat: Abundant and well-distributed habitat provides for the 

continued persistence of a species. Habitat abundance, i.e., the quantity (acres) of habitat 

provided by a PNVT, generally changes little; however, in some cases the amount of suitable (i.e., 

quality) habitat acres can change such as when grassland becomes wooded or when a large fire 

completely removes the entire forest overstory. Habitat distribution, expressed in terms of the mix 

of vegetation states within a PNVT, can change with management, which is often the purpose of 

treatments. 

Values for the future habitat abundance and distribution are estimated for the 15-year plan period 

with consideration of trend to 50 years. This is done for each PNVT and each habitat element by 

alternative. The values are based on different alternative treatment objectives along with 

treatment method (thin or burn) and specific prescriptions for each. For more information, see the 

“Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012x), “Forest Products Specialist Report”

(Forest Service, 2012j), and the “Forest Health Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012i).

Likelihood of limitation variable: Habitat abundance and distribution values are combined to 

indicate the likelihood that a PNVT or habitat element would limit future populations of 

associated species based on management and activity implementation. In general, habitats that are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

224 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

poorly distributed, or rare, are most likely to have risk for associated species viability; while 

common or well-distributed habitats are least likely to have risk for their species viability. 

Species viability risk rating variable: Species and habitats are linked by combining the species 

F ranking variable and the likelihood of limitation of associated PNVTs and habitat elements. 

Each species-habitat relationship is expressed as a viability risk rating by alternative. 

The viability risk rating is determined for the 15-year plan period with consideration of trend to 

50 years. Within their given habitat, widespread and abundant species generally have less risk and 

are more likely to persist, as compared to rare species with small populations. Viability risk 

ratings are described in table 64.

Table 64. Viability risk ratings reflecting species’ F rank and likelihood of habitat limitation

Likelihood of 

Habitat Limitation

FPS F ranking

F? or F1 F2 F3 F4 / F5 1/

high very-high high moderately-high moderate/low2

moderate high moderately-high moderate2 low/low2

low moderately-high moderate2 low2 low/low2

1 F4 and F5 species are not species of viability concern but a few are considered FPS as highly interactive species.

2 Moderate and low level risk ratings are considered no more substantial than normal ecosystem fluctuations.

Viability risk ratings of low and moderate are not considered substantial enough to threaten 

species viability (see assumptions). The three risk ratings of moderately high, high, and very high 

indicate further consideration of species needs is necessary (see the following coarse filter and 

fine filter discussion). The number of viability risk ratings in these three ratings is tallied for each 

species-habitat relationship. This facilitates comparison of alternatives by how effectively each 

addresses species viability. These are also tallied for three categories of species: ESA, sensitive, 

and the remaining FPS (except MIS). 

Management effect variable: This variable categorizes the relative expected outcome of 

management and activities in terms of minimizing species viability risk. Management effect, by 

alternative, is determined for each PNVT and habitat element. It is based on how well plan 

objectives maintain or move habitat toward (i.e., reduce departure from) desired conditions as a 

result of alternative treatment objectives. Management effect is determined for the 15-year plan 

period. Movement toward desired conditions reflects desired changes in the mix of vegetation 

states to provide suitable habitat. Management effect ratings are described in table 65.

Management effect rating outcomes (the numbers of management effect categories across PNVTs 

and habitat elements) are tallied in order to compare how effectively each alternative addresses 

species viability. The numbers are also tallied for three categories of species: ESA, sensitive, and 

the remaining FPS (except MIS). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 225

Table 65. Description of relative management effect rating for alternatives

Rating Management Effect Outcomes Based on Alternative Objectives

1 Greatest relative improvement or maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution through 

management and activities.

2 Intermediate relative improvement or maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution through 

management and activities.

3 Least to no relative improvement or maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution as a result of 

management/activities or lack of thereof (or by factors outside of Forest Service control). 

Environmental consequences: The viability risk rating outcomes and the management effect 

rating outcomes form the basis for the determination of environmental consequences to FPS, 

expressed as the relative “viability effectiveness” for each alternative. Appendix B provides more 

information on the analysis process. Details and results of the analysis can be found in the 

“Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2012gg).

Species Viability Analysis Assumptions 

Assumptions for the wildlife analysis include:

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

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

that habitat.

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

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

maintenance in the future (Haufler, 1999). Therefore, habitat abundance and distribution 

similar to reference condition will likely contribute to associated species maintenance in 

the future. 

• Desired conditions are synonymous with reference conditions with the exception of three 

PNVTs where desired conditions were adjusted from reference conditions as follows: In 

the dry mixed conifer and Madrean pine-oak woodland PNVTs, vegetation states to 

reflect needed habitat conditions for the threatened Mexican spotted owl (e.g., closed 

canopies) are included in desired conditions. In ponderosa pine, vegetation states to 

reflect needed habitat conditions for the sensitive northern goshawk (e.g., large trees) are 

included in desired conditions. 

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

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

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

desired conditions, the lower the risk to viability of associated species and the greater the 

alternative’s viability effectiveness. 

• Low to moderate ratings of species viability risk are considered no more substantial than 

normal ecosystem fluctuations and within a species’ ability to adjust and, therefore, pose

no risk to viability. Hence, only moderately high, high, and very high viability risk 

ratings are used to develop further plan components to assure viability and used to 

compare alternatives.

• The evaluation of environmental consequences to species viability is framed as a risk 

assessment in terms of alternative viability effectiveness. However, there is a level of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

226 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

uncertainty about the projected effects of forest management and activities on species 

viability because of gaps in knowledge about the complex interaction between species 

and their habitats (Holthausen, 2002). Because of this uncertainty and impacts outside of 

Forest Service control, monitoring as identified in chapter 5 of the proposed plan will 

take place, thereby facilitating adaptive management and changes, as needed, to support 

ongoing species viability.

• Acreage of each PNVT is static, because it is based on geology, soils, and climate. 

However, the acreage of states within a PNVT varies due to disturbance and management 

(“Vegetation Specialist Report” 2012x). As such, PNVT states (i.e., habitat conditions 

that are most suitable for a particular FPS) vary among alternatives. 

Affected Environment

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs provide some of the most diverse habitats of national forests in the 

Southwestern Region. These habitats span almost 8,000 feet in elevation ranging from semidesert grasslands at about 3,500 feet to spruce-fir forests at about 11,400 feet. A large portion of 

the forests is ponderosa pine (part of the largest, contiguous ponderosa pine forest in the world); 

yet, the forests also contain much of the acreage in unique habitats of the Southwestern Region. 

These habitats include montane and subalpine grasslands, extensive wetlands (including bogs and 

fens), and the headwaters of major river systems in Arizona (Blue, Black, San Francisco, and 

Little Colorado). The forests encompass over 2,000 miles of rivers and perennial streams and 

more than 30 lakes and reservoirs. Both extensive and unique habitats support species ranging 

from one of the largest elk herds in Arizona to rare species like the Three Forks springsnail which 

only occurs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These diverse habitats and the wildlife they support 

help draw upward of 2 million visitors to the forests annually.

Habitat 

The following sections describe habitat at two levels which include (1) the PNVT(s) or the coarse 

filter for meeting species needs and viability and (2) the habitat element(s) (e.g., wet meadows or 

large snags) or the fine filter for further assuring species viability. Viability needs of species 

associated with the coarse filter PNVT are generally met by providing PNVT desired conditions 

or movement toward them, while standards and guidelines help meet the viability needs of 

species associated with fine filter habitat elements. However, the coarse-fine filter approach is not 

entirely discrete in that standards and guidelines can contribute to viability for some coarse filter 

species, while the needs of fine filter species can also be provided for, in part, by the coarse filter 

desired conditions of PNVTs.

PNVTs and Habitat Elements for Forest Planning Species 

Table 66 lists wildlife habitat provided by PNVTs and habitat elements, along with associated 

FPS. Note that not all of the PNVTs are listed. Two PNVTs are not departed from their reference 

conditions (interior chaparral and piñon-juniper woodland) and they have no associated species 

with viability concerns. Because of the diversity of riparian habitats and species, riparian habitat 

needs are primarily addressed at the fine filter level. These riparian habitat elements are also 

shown in the table with associated FPS. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 227

Table 66. PNVTs (coarse filter) and habitat elements (fine filter) of importance to species 

viability, showing associated forest planning species

PNVTs (coarse filter)

Habitat Elements (fine filter) Associated Forest Planning Species (FPS)

Forested PNVTs (4)

Ponderosa Pine Forest (PPF) Arizona myotis bat, Abert’s squirrel, northern goshawk, 

zone-tailed hawk, Grace’s warbler, flammulated owl, 

Mexican spotted owl (where Gambel oak occurs)

Sometimes shaded or often wet meadow or 

forest opening

Mogollon vole, Merriam’s shrew, four-spotted skipperling 

butterfly, Arizona sneezeweed, Mogollon clover, Oak Creek 

triteleia

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest (DMCF) Arizona myotis bat, red squirrel, northern goshawk, 

flammulated owl, Mexican spotted owl

Cool understory microclimate Goodding’s onion

Dense, low-mid canopy with ample ground 

vegetation/litter and/or woody debris

black bear, red-faced warbler 

Sometimes shaded or often wet meadow or 

forest opening

Merriam’s shrew

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest (WMCF) red squirrel, black bear, northern goshawk, red-faced 

warbler, Mexican spotted owl, White Mountains paintbrush1

, 

yellow lady’s slipper, wood nymph, heathleaf ragwort, 

yellow Jacob’s ladder, hooded lady’s tress

Dense, low-mid canopy with ample ground 

vegetation/litter and/or woody debris

White Mountains chipmunk, Swainson’s thrush, southern 

red-backed vole, dusky blue grouse

Spruce-Fir Forest (SFF) red squirrel, black bear, Mexican spotted owl, crenulate 

moonwort, White Mountains paintbrush1

, yellow lady’s 

slipper, wood nymph, heathleaf ragwort, yellow Jacob’s 

ladder, hooded lady’s tress 

Dense, low-mid canopy with ample ground 

vegetation/litter and/or woody debris

White Mountains chipmunk, Swainson’s thrush, southern 

red-backed vole , dusky blue grouse

Woodland PNVT (1)

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland (MPOW) mule deer (winter), juniper titmouse, Mexican spotted owl 

(often in association with canyons), gray vireo, Bigelow’s 

onion 

Cool understory microclimate Mexican hemlock parsley

Mosaic of conditions3 Greene milkweed
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

228 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVTs (coarse filter)

Habitat Elements (fine filter) Associated Forest Planning Species (FPS)

Grassland PNVTs (3)

Montane/Subalpine Grassland (MSG) pronghorn antelope, Gunnison’s prairie dog, dwarf shrew, 

savannah sparrow, splachnoid dung moss

Seasonally wetted swales Ferris’ copper butterfly, Alberta arctic butterfly, nitocris 

fritillary butterfly, nanomis fritillary butterfly

Mosaic of conditions3 long-tailed vole, dwarf shrew, White Mountains ground 

squirrel

Great Basin Grassland (GBG) pronghorn antelope, Gunnison’s prairie dog, Arizona 

sunflower

Seasonally wetted swales Parish alkali grass (alkali soils only)

Mosaic of conditions3 Springerville pocket mouse, White Mountains ground 

squirrel, western burrowing owl, Montezuma’s quail, Greene 

milkweed

Semi-Desert Grassland (SDG) Bigelow’s onion, Arizona sunflower, superb penstemon

Mosaic of conditions3 lesser long-nosed bat, Montezuma’s quail, plateau giant tiger 

beetle

Across All PNVTs

Canyon slopes/cliffs, caves, rocky slopes 

(often in vicinityof riparian areas, often cool 

microclimate)

Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, greater western 

mastiff bat, Allen’s big-eared bat, peregrine falcon, 

Eastwood alumroot2

, Arizona alumroot2, Davidson’s cliff 

carrot (primarily within PPF, MPOW)

Habitat connectivity Mexican wolf, jaguar, mountain lion, bear 

Riparian PNVTs (4)4

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian 

Forest (MBDRF), Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest (CWRF), Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest (MWRF), WetlandCienega Riparian Area (WCRA) 

High water quality—all Riparian PNVTs water shrew, bald eagle, Arizona toad, Chiricahua leopard 

frog, northern leopard frog, lowland leopard frog, northern 

Mexican gartersnake, narrow-headed gartersnake, false 

ameletus mayfly, California floater, Mosely caddisfly, 

Arizona snaketail dragonfly, White Mountains water penny 

beetle, Three Forks springsnail, Blumer’s dock, carnivorous 

bladderwort

Healthy riparian conditions (i.e., well 

vegetated and untrampled streambanks and 

floodplains—all Riparian PNVTs (unless 

otherwise specified)

Arizona montane vole, water shrew, New Mexico meadow

jumping mouse, southwestern willow flycatcher, peregrine 

falcon, Lincoln’s sparrow (MWRF), northern Mexican 

gartersnake (below Mogollon Rim), narrow-headed 

gartersnake (above Mogollon Rim), Blumer’s dock, Arizona 

willow (MWRF only), Bebbs willow 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 229

PNVTs (coarse filter)

Habitat Elements (fine filter) Associated Forest Planning Species (FPS)

Large trees, snags and/or dense canopies—

MBDRF (unless otherwise specfied)

beaver (all riparian forests), greater western mastiff bat, 

Allen’s big-eared bat, Arizona gray squirrel, common blackhawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle (all riparian forests) , 

evening grosbeak (all riparian forests)

Dense low-mid canopy with ample ground 

litter—MBDRF

western red bat, ocelot, southwestern willow flycatcher 

(MWRF), MacGillvray’s warbler (all forested riparians), 

gray catbird (all riparian forests), bear

Permanent wet meadow-like areas—WCRA Ferris’ copper butterfly, nitocris fritillary butterfly, nokomis 

fritillary butterfly

1 White Mountains paintbrush classified as either Castilleja mogollonica or C. sulpurea.

2 Eastwood alumroot also known as Senator mine alum root and Arizona alumroot also known as Chiricahua 

Mountain alumroot.

3 Mosaic of conditions indicates these species need adjacent untreated areas for persistence within the PNVT.

4 Because of the great diversity of conditions in the riparian PNVTs, some important fine filter habitat elements 

are identified beyond desired conditions. 

The amount and current condition of coarse filter PNVTs providing habitat are described in 

affected environment of the “Vegetation” section. Although FPS associated with a particular 

PNVT do not typically use every acre of the PNVT, the total PNVT acreage is considered suitable 

habitat and potentially occupied for this analysis unless otherwise noted. The amount and current 

condition of fine filter habitat elements is not available on a forestwide basis (it is normally 

determined on a project-level basis). However, table 67 provides a general description of existing 

condition for each habitat element and its associated risks to viability. This is based, in part, on 

information in the “Riparian Specialist Report” and “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest 

Service, 2012u and 2012x). Even where some habitat element locations are not currently used by 

FPS, all are considered suitable habitat that is potentially occupied unless otherwise noted.

Table 67. Description of fine filter habitat elements and risks

Fine Filter Habitat 

Elements1 Description of General Existing Condition and Risks

Sometimes shaded or often 

wet meadow or forest 

opening (PPF, DMCF, and 

WMCF)

Mostly small areas (quarter acre, sometimes more or less) within forest and 

woodland PNVTs with no trees that are dominated by herbaceous vegetation, 

often with cool season4

/herbaceous forage due to moister soil conditions or 

shading from adjacent trees. 

High to moderate intensity fire and extensive thinning can dry and warm these 

areas. Concentrated livestock use can change herbaceous vegetation structure 

and composition (shifts to warm season and lower seral state vegetation and 

introduce nonnative invasive plants), decrease ground cover, cause soil 

compaction, and increase erosion. These risks are most likely on lower elevation, 

yearlong allotments which comprise about 797,000 acres on the forests.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

230 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Fine Filter Habitat 

Elements1 Description of General Existing Condition and Risks

Cool understory 

microclimate (DMCF, 

MPOW) 

Not openings among trees but rather cool, moist areas under dense trees with 

high canopy closure, where summer temperatures and high winds are mitigated. 

High to moderate intensity fire and extensive thinning can dry and warm these 

areas, changing herbaceous vegetation structure and composition. The Wallow 

Fire resulted in the complete loss of forest canopy on over 50,000 acres within 

these two PNVTs2 with the associated loss of this habitat element. 

Dense, low-mid canopy with 

ample ground litter or 

woody debris (DMCF, 

WMCF, SFF, and MBDRF) 

Dense low and/or mid canopies provide foraging and nesting habitat, necessary 

hiding and travel cover, and help limit detection by predators. Ample ground 

cover and woody debris provide habitat structure (e.g., cover) and associated 

forage plants. These areas increase habitat effectiveness (carrying capacity) 

because more individuals of certain FPS can persist in locations where cover is 

denser. 

High to moderate intensity fire and extensive thinning can degrade hiding and 

travel cover. The Wallow Fire resulted in the complete loss of forest canopy on 

almost 106,000 acres2 within these four PNVTs with the associated loss of this 

habitat element.

Seasonally wetted swales 

(MSG and GBG) 

Low areas with greater seasonal moisture inflow or wetted from below; these can 

be small or, in the MSG, extensive in size (40 acres or more). They provide 

denser, often more diverse, and often cool season4

/herbaceous forage. 

High to moderate intensity fire and extensive thinning can dry and warm these 

areas. Concentrated livestock use can change herbaceous vegetation structure 

and composition (shifts to warm season and lower seral state vegetation and 

introduce nonnative invasive plants), decrease ground cover, cause soil 

compaction, and increase erosion. These risks are most likely on lower elevation, 

yearlong allotments which comprise about 797,000 acres on the forests and on 

seasonal allotments with May and June livestock use every year about 514,000 

acres on the forests.

Canyon slopes, cliffs/caves, 

rocky slopes—often in 

vicinity of riparian areas or 

often providing cool microclimate conditions due to 

aspect (across all PNVTs)

All are found across the forests (roughly 18 percent of the acreage on the forests 

is over 40 percent slope with most of that on the Apache side of the forests). 

Although typically limited in such areas, fire which burns hotter on steep slopes 

can impact plants, while human activity can disturb foraging or roosting bats and 

nesting birds. 

High water quality (all 

Riparian PNVTs) 

All associated aquatic and semiaquatic species.

All are susceptible to degradation of water quality and sedimentation from 

management and activities. Sediment can smother invertebrates, smother prey 

eggs and larvae, clog invertebrate prey habitat, and reduce oxygen needed by fish 

prey species. There are over 2,000 miles of riparian corridors (both perennial and 

intermittent) including many of the State’s headwater streams, all of which have 

experienced channel changes and sedimentation impacts over time. However, 

management and activity impacts have been reduced or removed resulting in 

improved water quality in numerous locations over the last decade. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 231

Fine Filter Habitat 

Elements1 Description of General Existing Condition and Risks

Healthy riparian conditions, 

(e.g., well vegetated and 

untrampled streambanks and 

floodplains)—all Riparian 

PNVTs (unless otherwise 

specified)

Dense, untrampled herbaceous vegetation and uncompacted stream or drainage 

banks and floodplains provide habitat structure and forage, as well as hunting 

cover and nesting sites. These conditions allow for vigorous, successfully 

reproducing plants that protect banks and floodplains. 

Wildfire and all but low intensity prescribed fire can reduce plant and woody 

debris cover and lead to sedimentation. Thinning and all ungulate use can 

trample or remove vegetation and lead to soil compaction and erosion. Many 

riparian locations have reduced ground cover, damaged banks, and compositional 

shift to lower seral state vegetation (see the following Riparian ecological 

indicator section for more information. 

Large trees and/or dense 

canopies (MBDRF, CWRF, 

and MWRF)

Provides roosting, nesting, hiding, and foraging habitat for FPS or their prey. 

Although fire is generally limited in riparian areas, all but low intensity fire can 

easily weaken or kill woody riparian vegetation (flooding is its primary 

ecological disturbance). Livestock and wild ungulate use, especially during 

spring and early summer, have impacted the successful regeneration of woody 

species in numerous locations. In total, there are over 48,000 acres of riparian 

habitat on the forests.

Large snags3 (MBDRF and 

CWRF)

Provide nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. 

Although generally limited in riparian areas, all but low intensity fire can weaken 

or topple large snags. The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire burned many snags in 

CWRF. Overall, burn out operations along the Blue River for the 2011 Wallow 

Fire had limited impact on large snags in MBDRF. The number of large snags is 

not available for these PNVTs. 

Permanent wet meadow-like 

areas (WCRA) 

Moist ground surface and vegetation along with flowers provide egg laying and 

foraging habitat for FPS invertebrates and foraging and hiding cover for small 

FPS mammals. 

High to moderate intensity fire and concentrated livestock use can dry these 

areas out, changing herbaceous vegetation structure and composition (shifts to 

warm season4 and lower seral state vegetation), decrease ground cover, cause soil 

compaction, and lower the water table. The majority of these areas occur at 

higher elevations (>7,500 feet) and there are over 20,000 acres in this PNVT. 

These risks are most likely in locations where livestock grazing use occurs every 

year during May and June (about 564,000 acres on the forests). 

1 Parenthesis ( ) indicates the PNVT where a habitat element most commonly falls within. 

2 Acreage with tree basal area (BA) loss of 75 to 100 percent which reflects complete (100 percent) loss of all trees 

based on the 7/18/11 RVAG mapping provided by USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center. 

3 While desired conditions for forested and woodland PNVTs address needed snags at the coarse filter, the riparian 

desired conditions do not. 

4 Because a greater percentage of moisture falls during the summer period in the Southwest, most herbaceous plant 

species do the majority of their growth during the warm summer months (warm season growing plants) and forage 

is typically abundant during this period unless droughty; however, fewer plants do the majority of their growth 

during the spring to early summer (May and June) period (cool season growing plants) based on winter moisture so 

there is limited herbaceous forage during the period before summer rains and, additionally, most cool season plants 

are found in riparian areas where foraging is often concentrated during spring and early summer.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

232 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Habitat Ecological Indicators (EIs)

Two vegetation communities important to viability of many species (aspen and riparian) are 

selected as ecological indicators per Forest Service manual direction. The “Report on the 

Selection of Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicators” (Forest Service, 2012s)

documents the indicator selection process. Existing conditions for these two EIs follow.

Aspen EI 

Aspen occurs primarily within the forested PNVTs. Aspen stands provide a wide range of habitat 

for wildlife, including migratory birds. Aspen leaves provide forage in summer and the bark 

provides winter forage. Aspen stands can have twice the density and diversity of insects as 

compared to pure conifer stands, supporting many species of wildlife (Simard et al., 2001). Aspen 

stands also provide preferred cavity nesting sites for a large number of birds (Martin et al, 2004). 

Given the regeneration of existing aspen and anticipated new appearances of aspen (via seeding) 

after the Wallow Fire, this EI is expected to play a major role in the viability of many species 

during the life of the land management plan (see affected environment of the “Vegetation” and 

“Forest Health” sections for more information).

Prior to the 2011 Wallow Fire, trend for this habitat community was static to down due to conifer 

encroachment and browsing. Aspen have been observed to be root-sprouting prolifically after the 

fire; therefore, it could be inferred that the trend is now up. Table 68 depicts the amount of aspen 

habitat as of 2012 after the Wallow Fire. However, while aspen acreage across forested PNVTs is 

expected to increase, the extent of that is unknown, as is aspen’s ability to persist over time given 

domestic and wild herbivory, and impacts from removal of hazard and salvaged trees.

Table 68. Aspen within forested PNVTs, existing condition in 2012 (post-Wallow Fire)

Total Acreage of Forested PNVTs Containing Aspen

ponderosa pine

602,206 acres

wet mixed conifer

177,995 acres

dry mixed conifer

147,885 acres

spruce-fir

17,667 acres

Total

945,753 acres

Amount of Aspen within each Forested PNVT

5,988 acres

1.0%

50,355

28.3%

14,232

9.7%

5,875

33.3%

76,506

8.1%

Desired conditions for forest types containing aspen are the coarse filter for assessing associated 

FPS viability. In addition, aspen EI monitoring, upon plan implementation, would determine the 

response to and persistence of aspen over time to recent large fires, subsequent ungulate use, tree 

removal, and any climate change. Monitoring (proposed plan chapter 5) would inform adaptive 

management and any need for change. 

Riparian EI 

The mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forest (MBDRF), cottonwood-willow riparian forest 

(CWRF), and montane willow riparian forests (MWRF) represent a substantial portion of the 

riparian forests across the Southwestern Region (up to 78 percent of the regional acreage). These 

three riparian forested PNVTs are together considered the riparian ecological indicator for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (the wetland/cienega riparian area PNVT is not included). The 2005 and 

2006 midscale vegetation inventory determined the existing condition of riparian overstory 

relative to reference condition. Overall, existing conditions reflect low departure from reference 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 233

or desired condition in terms of riparian overstory composition and structure. However, from 

some historic photographs circa 1960s and 1970s (Forest Service, 2010e), it appears that the 

current extent of woody riparian vegetation has been substantially reduced in some areas. 

The 2011 Wallow Fire impacted riparian forests but, overall, not substantially. Of the 9,657 acres 

in MBDRF, less than 1 percent received moderate to high severity burn. Of the 15,876 acres in 

CWRF, only 1.5 percent burned at these levels. In MWRF there are 4,808 of which just fewer 

than 14 percent burned at these levels. However, the long term indirect impact from heavy postfire flooding has not been assessed. Because most forest vegetation in these PNVTs typically 

resprouts, PNVT acreage is not considered reduced by the Wallow Fire for this analysis, although 

succession is set back to earlier seral states in burn areas.

Reference conditions in riparian understories are not as well understood. However, monitoring 

across the forests over the last decade has found that riparian area soils and herbaceous vegetation 

(e.g., sedges, grasses, forbs) and deciduous trees and shrubs (e.g., cottonwoods, willows) receive 

far greater impacts from browsing ungulates (domestic and wild) than the uplands. This is 

especially true where ungulates are present during the winter and spring periods when little other 

forage provides adequate nutrition. Road and recreation activities also contribute to existing 

conditions (e.g., sedimentation, trampling). 

Proper functioning condition (PFC) riparian surveys are a measure of how well riparian processes 

are functioning(e.g., vegetation bank cover and stability, woody debris). Based on forestwide PFC 

riparian surveys conducted in the last 15 years prior to the Wallow Fire, many riparian areas are 

not at proper functioning condition. The majority of stream segments on 9 of 12 streams in the 

Little Colorado River watersheds are not in proper functioning condition; the majority of stream 

segments on all streams in the San Francisco, Black River, and Eagle Creek watersheds are not in 

proper functioning condition; and the majority of stream segments on 6 of 7 streams in other 

watersheds are also not in proper functioning condition. In the last 15 years, roughly 400 to 500 

miles of drainages have been excluded from primarily livestock impacts and many areas are in 

the process of recovering.

Table 69 describes current understory (herbaceous and soil) conditions taken from the “Riparian 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012u) and “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2012x) and reflects post-Wallow Fire conditions.

Table 69. Existing understory/herbaceous condition of the riparian ecological indicator (EI)

Riparian EI by 

Riparian Forest 

PNVT

Decline in 

Ground 

Cover from 

Potential

Decline in 

Herbaceous 

Production 

from Potential

Ecological 

Condition

Current Trend 

Relative to Desired 

Conditions for 

Understory 

Vegetation/Soils

Mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian 

forest

78–80% 85% low–

moderate

away/away

Cottonwood-willow 

riparian forest

11–46% 56% low–

moderate

away/away

Montane willow 

riparian forest

up to 20% 91% low–

moderate

away/away
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

234 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Because of the normal sensitivity of riparian habitat and major watershed adjustments (movement 

of soil, reestablishment of vegetation) after the Wallow Fire, ongoing species viability is an 

important consideration in riparian areas. Riparian EI monitoring, upon plan implementation, 

would determine the response of especially understory components (e.g., sedges, young trees, 

streambanks) to large fires and to management and activities. Monitoring (proposed plan chapter 

5) would inform adaptive management and any need for change.

Other Factors of Viability Concern

Other factors of viability concerns raised by biologists and others, some related indirectly to 

habitat, include factors such as disease, harassment, and entrapment. These are generally 

addressed by fine filter guidelines. Table 70 lists these factors and affected FPS.

Table 70. Other factors of concern and affected forest planning species (FPS)

Other Factors of Concern 

(fine filter) Forest Planning Species (FPS)

Collection or loss from 

management 

nitocris fritillary butterfly, nokomis fritillary butterfly, yellow lady’s 

slipper, hooded lady’s tress

Nest parasitism southwestern willow flycatcher, Grace’s warbler 

Disease Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, western red bat, Arizona toad, 

Chiricahua leopard frog, northern leopard frog, lowland leopard frog

Entrapment FPS that are small mammals, bats, and young of other species

Substantial predation or 

competition from invasive species

pronghorn antelope, Three Forks springsnail

Intentional harassment, forced 

removal, or avoidable disturbance

Mexican wolf, Gunnison’s prairie dog, black bear, many FPS (at least 

during important life cycle periods)

Some species collection activities are under special use permit on the forests; however, collection 

is likely much greater than known. The density of forest roads currently impacts habitat 

connectivity and can contribute to harassment or disturbance. The level of nest parasitism and 

extent of disease is unknown. However, inventory and nonmechanized work in riparian areas 

generally incorporates USFWS aquatic disease decontamination protocol. A deadly fungus (white 

nose syndrome) in bats can be spread by human presence in caves; the disease is not yet known in 

Arizona. Wildlife entrapment is not uncommon in water troughs and occasionally fences. 

Currently some troughs have escape ramps but most do not and some fences meet wildlife needs 

for passage while others do not. The springsnail has been greatly impacted by the proliferation of 

crayfish over the last decade. Efforts to remove crayfish have had mixed results because, while 

numbers of adults are reduced, numbers of young are not. 

Forest Planning Species

The 95 nonfish forest planning species (FPS) are comprised of 8 ESA species, 53 Regional 

Forester sensitive species, and 34 other species. The latter 34 species hold no special regulatory 

status except as addressed for viability under NFMA. Public scoping identified six FPS 

(mammals) as highly interactive (HI) species for which there are landscape level concerns 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 235

relative to habitat security and connectivity (one highly interactive species is an ESA and another

is a sensitive species, while four are other species). 

Table 71 characterizes the existing condition of FPS in terms of their abundance and distribution 

(F ranking), along with associated PNVTs and habitat elements. It also lists their status as of 

2012. Note that a species can have more than one status, and status can change over time. FPS are 

grouped as follows: 30 mammals, 22 birds, 6 reptiles/amphibians, 12 invertebrates, and 25 plants. 

FPS that are also ESA, sensitive, and highly interactive (HI) are further discussed after the table.

Table 71. FPS, their status, F ranking, associated PNVTs and habitat elements

FPS by Species Group Status1 F Ranking2 PNVT Habitat Element3

Mammals (30)

pronghorn antelope Antilocapra america HI F4 GBG, MSG, substantial 

predation

Mexican wolf Canus lupus baileyi ENE, HI F1 habitat connectivity, 

intentional harassment

beaver Castor canadensis HI F4 large trees (forested riparian 

PNVTs)

southern red-backed 

vole 

Clethrionomys 

(Myodes) gapperi

S F? ample litter and woody 

debris (WMCF, SFF)

Townsend’s bigeared bat Corynorhinus 

townsendii pallenscens

S F? caves, disease 

Gunnison’s prairie 

dog 

Cynomys gunnisoni S, HI F? GBG, MSG, intentional 

harassment

spotted bat Euderma maculatum S F1 wet meadow (PPF, DMCF), 

wet swales (MSG, GBG), 

cliffs

greater western 

mastiff bat

Eumops perotis 

californicus

S F? large trees (MBDRF), cliffs

Allen’s big-eared bat Idionycteris phyllotis S F3 large trees and snags 

(MBDRF), cliffs

western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii S F2 ample debris and litter 

(MBDRF), caves, disease

ocelot Leopardus pardalis E F? dense, low vegetation and 

cover (MBDRF)

lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae 

yerbabuenae

E F? mosaic of conditions (SDG)

long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus S F3 wet swales (MSG)

Arizona montane 

vole 

Microtus montanus 

arizonensis

S F3 healthy riparian conditions 

(CWRF, MWRF) 

Mogollon vole Microtus mogollonensis 

mogollonensis 

S F3 wet meadow (PPF)

Arizona myotis bat Myotis occultus F3 PPF, DMCF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

236 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

FPS by Species Group Status1 F Ranking2 PNVT Habitat Element3

mule deer Odocoileus hemionus F4 MPOW, winter

jaguar Panther onca E F? habitat connectivity 

(MBDRF)

Springerville pocket 

mouse 

Perognathus flavus 

goodpasteri

S F3 mosaic of conditions (GBG)

mountain lion Puma concolor HI F5 habitat connectivity (all 

PNVTs)

Abert’s squirrel Sciurus aberti F4 PPF

Arizona gray squirrel Sciurus arizonensis 

arizonensis

S F? large trees (MBDRF)

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami S F3 wet meadow (PPF, DMCF)

dwarf shrew Sorex nanus S F3 MSG

water shrew Sorex palustris 

navigator

S F? water quality (CWRF, 

MWRF), healthy riparian 

conditions (CWRF,MWRF)

White Mountains 

ground squirrel 

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus 

monticola

S F3 mosaic of conditions (MSG, 

GBG)

White Mountains 

chipmunk 

(Neo)Tamias minimus 

arizonensis

S F3 ample veg, woody debris 

(WMCF, SFF)

red squirrel Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus

F4 DMCF, WMCF, SFF

black bear Ursus americanus HI F4 dense low-mid canopy, 

woody debris (DMCF), 

WMCF, SFF, habitat 

connectivity

New Mexico 

meadow jumping 

mouse 

Zapus hudsonius luteus S, C F1 healthy riparian conditions 

(all riparian PNVTs)

Birds (22)

northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis S F4 PPF, DMCF, WMCF

western burrowing 

owl 

Athene cunicularia 

hypugaea 

S F? GBG

juniper titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi F4 MPOW

zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus S F3 PPF

common blackhawkButeogallus anthracinus S F3 large trees (MBDRF) 

red-faced warbler Cardellina rubrifrons F3 dense, low vegetation and 

litter (DMCF), WMCF 

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus F2 ample litter and woody 

debris (WMCF, SFF)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 237

FPS by Species Group Status1 F Ranking2 PNVT Habitat Element3

evening grosbeak Coccothraustes 

vespertinus

F3 dense canopies (forested 

riparian PNVTs)

yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis

S, C F1 large trees, dense canopies 

(forested riparian PNVTs)

Montezuma quail Cyrtonyx montezumae 

mearnsi

F3 mosaic of conditions (GBG, 

SDG)

dusky blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus F2 ample woody debris 

(WMCF, SFF) 

Grace’s warbler Dendroica graciae F4 PPF, nest parasitism

gray catbird Dumetella 

carolinensi 

S F3 dense low-mid canopy 

(forested riparian PNVTs)

southwestern 

willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus E, CH F1 dense low-mid canopy 

(MWRF), healthy riparian 

conditions (MWRF), nest 

parasitism

peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum S F3 Cliffs, healthy riparian 

conditions

bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S F2 water quality (CWRF, 

MBDRF), large trees 

(CWRF, MBDRF) 

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii F1 healthy riparian conditions 

(MWRF) 

MacGillivray’s 

warbler 

Oporornis tolmiei F2 dense low-mid canopy 

(forested riparian PNVTs)

flammulated owl Otus flammeolus F3 PPF, DMCF

savannah sparrow Passerculus 

sandwichensis

F3 MSG

Mexican spotted 

owl4

Strix occidentalis lucida T, CH F3 DMCF, WMCF, MPOW, 

PPF where Gambel oak

gray vireo Vireo vicinior S F2 MPOW

Amphibians/Reptiles (6)

Arizona toad Bufo microscaphus S F3 water quality (MBDRF), 

disease

Chiricahua 

leopard frog

Lithobates chiricahuensis T, pCH F1 water quality, disease

northern leopard 

frog

Lithobates pipiens S, C F1 water quality, disease

lowland leopard 

frog 

Lithobates yavapaiensis S F3 water quality, disease

northern Mexican 

gartersnake 

(below Rim)

Thamnophis eques 

megalops

S, C F? water quality, healthy 

riparian conditions 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

238 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

FPS by Species Group Status1 F Ranking2 PNVT Habitat Element3

narrow-headed 

gartersnake (above 

the Rim)

Thamnophis rufipunctatus S F1 water quality, healthy 

riparian conditions 

Invertebrates (12)

plateau giant tiger 

beetle 

Amblycheila picolominii F? mosaic of conditions (SDG)

false ameletus 

mayfly 

Ameletus falsus F? water quality

California floater Anodonta californiensis S F1 water quality

Mosely caddisfly Culoptila moselyi F? water quality

Ferris’ copper 

butterfly 

Lycaena ferrisi S F2 wet swale (MSG), WCRA

Alberta arctic 

butterfly 

Oeneis alberta daura F3 mosaic of conditions (MSG)

Arizona snaketail 

dragonfly

Ophiogomphus arizonicus S F? water quality 

four-spotted 

skipperling 

butterfly

Piruna polingii S F3 wet meadow or shaded 

opening (PPF)

White Mountains 

water penny beetle 

Psephenus montanus F1 water quality

Three Forks 

springsnail

Pyrgulopsis trivialis E, CH F1 water quality, predation by 

invasives

nitocris fritillary 

butterfly 

Speyeria nokomis nitocris S F3 wet swales (MSG), WCRA, 

collection

nokomis fritillary 

butterfly 

Speyeria nokomis nokomis S F3 wet swales (MSG), WCRA, 

collection

Plants (25)

Bigelow’s onion Allium bigelovii F3 MPOW, SDG 

Goodding’s onion Allium gooddingii S F3 cool microclimate (DMCF) 

Greene milkweed Asclepias uncialis spp. 

uncialis 

S F? MPOW, GBG 

crenulate 

moonwort 

Botrychium crenulatum F? SFF

White Mountains 

paintbrush

Castilleja mogollonica S F2 WMCF (meadows), SFF 

(meadows) 

Mexican hemlock 

parsley

Conioselinum mexicanum F2 cool microclimate (MPOW)

yellow lady’s 

slipper 

Cypripedium parviflorum 

var. pubescens

S F1 Collection (WMCF, SFF)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 239

FPS by Species Group Status1 F Ranking2 PNVT Habitat Element3

Arizona 

sneezeweed 

Helenium arizonicum S F2 wet meadow (PPF) 

Arizona sunflower Helianthus arizonensis S F1 mosaic of conditions (GBG, 

SDG)

Eastwood 

alumroot

Heuchera eastwoodiae S F1 canyon slopes

Arizona alumroot Heuchera glomerulata S F3 canyon slopes

wood nymph Moneses uniflora F3 WMCF, SFF 

heathleaf 

(bittercress) 

ragwort 

Packera cardamine S F3 wet meadow, shaded forest 

opening, (WMCF, SFF) 

superb penstemon Penstemon superbus F2 MPOW, SDG

yellow Jacob’sladder Polemonium 

foliosissimum var. flavum

F2 Collection (WMCF, SFF)

Davidson’s cliff 

carrot 

Pteryxia davidsonii S F1 cliffs, canyon slopes

Parish alkali grass Puccinellia parishii S F1 wet alkali swales (GBG)

Blumer’s dock Rumex orthoneurus S F3 water quality, healthy 

riparian conditions

Arizona willow Salix arizonica S F1 healthy riparian conditions

Bebbs willow Salix bebbiana S F3 healthy riparian conditions 

hooded lady’s 

tresses

Spiranthes romanzoffiana F2 Collection (WMCF, SFF)

splachnoid dung 

moss 

Tayloria splachnoides F2 MSG 

Mogollon clover Trifolium neurophyllum S F3 wet meadow, shaded forest 

opening (PPF) 

Oak Creek triteleia Triteleia lemmoniae F3 shaded forest opening (PPF) 

carnivorous 

bladderwort

Utricularia macrorhiza F1 water quality

1 Status: T = ESA threatened; E = ESA endangered; ENE = ESA experimental, nonessential; CH = ESA critical 

habitat; p = ESA proposed; C = ESA candidate for listing under ESA; S = Southwestern Region sensitive species; HI 

= highly interactive species (see following section).

2 F ranking (existing condition relative to reference or desired conditions): F? = unknown abundance/distribution; F1 

= extremely rare; F2 = rare; F3 = uncommon (including locally common but in rare locations); F4 = widespread; F5 = 

secure

3 Parenthesis ( ) notes where a habitat element is tied to a particular PNVT, otherwise the habitat element generally 

occurs irrespective of PNVT(s). 

4 Initially, the Mexican spotted owl was widespread in suitable habitat across the planning unit; the Wallow Fire 

affected habitat suitability substantially and there is uncertainty about their persistence so that their F ranking is 

adjusted to F3. Post-fire MSO surveys began in 2012.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

240 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Species Existing Condition and Critical Habitat 

Existing abundance and distribution (F ranking) of each of the 8 ESA species included as FPS is 

shown in table 71 above. Due to their status as endangered with extinction or threatened with 

endangerment (ESA section 3(6) and (20)), viability is a concern and all are ranked F1. Suitable 

ESA species habitat identified below is considered quality habitat in that it contains the 

components necessary to support successful reproduction, young rearing, and species persistence

(i.e., viability).

The amount (acreage) of habitat for each ESA species provided by their associated PNVT(s) is 

found in affected environment of the “Vegetation” section (table 23) so is not reiterated here. The 

existing condition of each PNVT (i.e., the quality of that habitat described in terms of departure 

from desired conditions) is also found the in the affected environment of the “Vegetation” section. 

Additional information about the species, critical habitat (if designated under ESA), and habitat 

occupancy follows. For more detail, see the biological and conference opinion for the continued 

implementation of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs land and resource management plan (USFWS, 

2012) and the “Draft Wildlife Specialist Report – Biological Assessment” (Forest Service, 

2012ee). Note that each ESA species can have a different focus for recovery so that terminology 

for each can be different (e.g., management unit or recovery unit).

Mexican Spotted Owl: Threatened with Critical Habitat

Population information for the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) is found in the following MIS 

section. General habitat information follows; however, details about MSO habitat components are 

found in the “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” and the “Draft Wildlife Specialist Report –

Biological Assessment” (Forest Service 2012ee). 

Habitat for MSO is provided by various forested PNVTs: dry mixed conifer, wet mixed conifer, 

spruce-fir, the pine-oak portion (approximately 30 percent) of ponderosa pine, a portion of 

Madrean pine-oak woodland, and the three forested riparian PNVTs. Table 72 provides the 

amount of acreage in these PNVTs, or portions thereof, along with the amount of acreage that 

remains suitable after the 2011 Wallow Fire. These comprise MSO restricted habitat on the forests

but also include protected habitat (see paragraph below). Restricted habitat is managed to 

maintain and develop potential nesting and roosting habitat now and into the future (USFWS,

1995). 

Protected areas provide MSO breeding and young rearing habitat. It includes protected activity 

centers (PACs), other steep slopes (greater than 40 percent not harvested in 20 years), and 

reserved areas (e.g., wilderness or primitive area). On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, there are 147 

MSO PACs delineated around nesting and roosting sites of no less than 600 acres each. These 

PACs encompass 93,117 acres25. All MSO protected and restricted habitat on the forests is 

considered occupied or potentially occupied, especially after the Wallow Fire because it is 

unknown how MSO will adjust habitat use after this large scale fire. 

 25 In order to delineate logical PAC boundaries, PAC acreage will sometimes include small acreages in PNVTs not 

listed here, e.g., ponderosa pine without oak or wetland/cienega riparian area. In addition, four PACs fall partially 

outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs onto other forests (three on the Coconino NF and one on the Gila NF), 

encompassing about an additional 568 acres.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 241

Table 72. MSO habitat by PNVT and existing condition, noting estimated change in 

suitable habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire

MSO Habitat by PNVT and 

Acreage

Proportion of Habitat with 100% 

Basal Area (canopy cover) Loss 

from the 2011 Wallow Fire1

(% loss of PNVT acres)

MSO Habitat by PNVT Adjusted for the 

Loss of Total Basal Area from the Wallow 

Fire (100% of canopy cover loss)2 = 

Remaining Currently Suitable MSO 

Habitat

Dry mixed conifer

147,885 acres

34,959 acres (24%) 112,926 acres

Wet mixed conifer

177,995 acres

64,794 acres (36%) 113,201 acres

Spruce-fir

17,667 acres

6,098 acres (35%) 11,569 acres

Pine-oak portion of 

ponderosa pine

90,336 acres3

22,584 acres (25%)5 estimated as 67,752 acres

North and northeast slopes of 

Madrean pine-oak woodland

42,903 acres4

6,864 acres (16%)5 estimated as 36,039 acres

Mixed broadleaf deciduous, 

cottonwood-riparian, and 

montane willow riparian 

forests

30,341 acres

1,142 acres (4%) 29,199 acres

Total

507,127 acres

estimated as 136,441 acres

(27% habitat loss overall)

estimated as 370,686 acres

1 Figures are from the 75-100% BA loss category which reflects complete (100%) loss of all trees based on the 

7/18/11 RVAG mapping provided by USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center. 

2 These figures represent currently suitable MSO habitat. Recovery to the forest structure and age needed by MSO 

for breeding and nesting will extend beyond the plan period and a century or more, the adjusted acreage is 

considered suitable (quality) MSO habitat acreage across the forests for the plan period.

3 Based on forest inventory analysis, this figure represents the amount of medium to large size ponderosa pine with 

closed canopies and Gambel oak (90,336 is approximately 30 percent of mid-scale states H, I, L, M).

4 This acreage represents MPOW on slopes >40 percent with a north and northeast aspect.

5 Not specifically determinable because the actual spatial occurrence of pine-oak within ponderosa pine and 

Madrean pine-oak that is suitable as MSO habitat is not available at the forest planning mid-scale level; however, it

is estimated as noted above at 25 percent of all ponderosa pine forest acreage and 16 percent of Madrean pine-oak 

woodland acreage on slopes with north and northeast aspects. 

The ESA directs that critical habitat be identified for listed species. For the Mexican spotted owl, 

critical habitat consists of acreage that qualifies as protected and restricted habitat (as defined in 

the “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan”) within the bounds of the broad 2004 USFWS MSO 

critical habitat delineation. The primary constituent elements of critical habitat that are important

for breeding, young rearing, and foraging include large trees and snags, high basal areas and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

242 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

canopy closures, large volume of woody debris, and herbaceous plant cover and seeds for prey. 

Critical habitat is estimated for this analysis as shown in table 73, along with the amount of 

acreage that remains suitable after the Wallow Fire. Note that these estimates have not been field 

verified; this would be done on a project-specific basis.

Table 73. MSO critical habitat by PNVT and existing condition, noting estimated change in 

suitable critical habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire

MSO Habitat by PNVT and 

Acreage1

PNVT Acres as 

Critical HabitatProtected and 

Restricted2

Critical Habitat 

Acres with 100% BA 

Loss

(% of total critical 

habitat acres in 

Wallow Fire)

Critical Habitat Acres 

Adjusted for the Loss 

of Total Basal Area 

from the Wallow Fire 

(100% of canopy cover 

loss) = Remaining 

Currently Suitable 

MSO Critical Habitat 

Dry mixed conifer

147,885 acres

132,681 acres 31,914 acres

(52%)

100,767 acres

Wet mixed conifer

177,995 acres

154,679 acres 61,798 acres

(81%)

92,881 acres

Spruce-fir

17,667 acres

12,549 acres 6,059 acres

(97%)

6,490 acres

Pine-oak portion of ponderosa 

pine

90,336 acres3

27,1002 acres4 estimated as 6,775 

acres

(25%)5

20,325 acres

North and northeast slopes of 

Madrean pine-oak woodland

42,903 acres

14,797 acres estimated as 631 acres

(16%)5

14,166 acres

Mixed broadleaf deciduous, 

cottonwood-riparian, and 

montane willow riparian forests

30,341 acres

12,339 acres 4,638 acres

38%

7,701 acres

Total

507,127 acres

345,145 acres 111,815 acres

(32% CH loss overall)

242,330 acres

1 PNVT acreage from table 72 previously.

2 Based on USFWS, 2004.

3 See column footnotes from table 72 previously.

4 Not specifically determinable because the actual spatial occurrence of pine-oak within ponderosa pine is not 

available at the forest planning level scale; however, it is estimated based on forest inventory analysis showing about 

30 percent of ponderosa pine is pine-oak and assuming 30 percent falls within the 2004 USFWS critical habitat 

designation.

5 Estimated at 25 percent and 16 percent as noted in footnote 5 from table 72 previously.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 243

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: Endangered with Critical Habitat

Southwestern willow flycatchers (SWWF) nest within two recovery management units (MUs) on 

the forests: the Little Colorado River and the San Francisco River. The number of SWWF 

territories, based on monitoring between 1993 and 2007, ranged from 2 to 14. While the number 

of territories appears to be generally declining over time, consistent surveys have not been 

conducted since 2007. Risks to the species include ungulate grazing, loss of surface and 

subsurface water (from pumping, drought, climate change), and nest parasitism by brown-headed 

cowbirds.

The Greer, River Reservoir, and Alpine nesting sites are found within the montane willow 

riparian forest PNVT where existing conditions at these sites consist of tall, dense, expansive 

stands of primarily Geyer’s willow and slow moving or standing water for insect prey. While 

flycatchers need extensive willow structure density and depth for nesting, they do migrate along 

stream corridors where willow cover is not as well developed or has been reduced due to wild 

ungulate browsing. As such, in addition to the three known nesting sites, all of this PNVT is 

considered occupied or potentially occupied for at least a portion of the year. In total, there are

4,808 acres of montane willow riparian forest PNVT.

All three nesting sites are excluded from livestock grazing with the Alpine site additionally 

protected from browsing by wild ungulates. Another potential nesting site, Nutrioso Wetland 

above Nelson Reservoir, is also protected from all ungulate use in order to allow willows there to 

expand in stature and width. Wild ungulate use is limited at the Greer and River Reservoir sites 

because they are within the Greer community. None of these sites were directly affected by the 

Wallow Fire, nor subsequently indirectly impacted by heavy flooding to date.

Revised critical habitat is proposed for the flycatcher at this time. On the forests, it would include 

three areas: portions of the Little Colorado River and the West Fork Little Colorado River for a 

total of 12.5 river miles and 344 acres (includes the two Greer area nest sites); portion of the San 

Francisco River in the vicinity of Alpine for a total of 6.3 river miles and 311 acres (includes the 

Alpine nest site); and another portion of the San Francisco River, all on the Clifton RD for a total 

of 22.6 river miles and 1,418 acres. 

The primary constituent habitat elements that are important for breeding, dispersing, and 

migrating SWWF include dense riparian vegetation with small openings and slow moving water 

attracting insect prey populations. The Wallow Fire impact the currently proposed CH, especially 

within the West Fork Little Colorado River canyon where it resulted in low to high severity.

Chiricahua Leopard Frog: Threatened with Critical Habitat

The Chiricahua leopard frog is found on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in pools along streams, 

creeks, wetland cienegas, and springs. It was historically found in larger rivers and bodies of 

water like Chevelon Creek and Nelson Reservoir. Currently the species is being captive reared in 

facilities in Phoenix and Pinetop. Since 2000, a number of new or supplemental frog releases 

have occurred on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts including recently in two isolated 

stock tanks on the ridge above Three Forks.

This species is currently found in two watersheds on the forests. The Upper Black River 

watershed was functioning-at-risk prior to the Wallow Fire. Based on the post-fire hydrology 

report, approximately 2,700 acres burned moderately to severely above the Three Forks area 

(North Fork East Fork Black River subwatershed). The Campbell Blue watershed was in proper 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

244 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

functioning condition prior to the fire, but about 18,400 acres burned moderately to severely 

(Campbell Blue and Coleman Creek subwatersheds). Although post-fire stream surveys have not 

yet been conducted, the conditions of Campbell Blue Creek and Coleman Creek have declined. 

There are four Chiricahua leopard frog recovery units (RUs) that fall partially on the forests. 

Recovery is concentrated on the two RUs on the east side of the forests: White Mountains-Upper 

Gila (RU 6) encompassing forests lands above the Mogollon Rim and the Upper Gila-Blue River 

(RU 7) encompassing lands below the rim (both extend into New Mexico). RUs contain recovery 

management areas (RMAs) which are designated because they have the greatest potential for 

successful recovery actions and threat alleviation. 

RMAs are as follows, including subwatershed acreage on the forests; however, not all acreage 

within a RMA provides suitable habitat for this species but would contribute to indirect effects. 

RU 6 contains three RMAs: Black River (185,900 acres), Coleman Creek/Blue River (179,900 

acres), and Nutrioso/Rudd Creek (105,400 acres). RU 7 contains one RMA, San Francisco/Blue 

Rivers (77,500 acres). 

Within each RMA, there are recovery sites where metapopulations and robust, isolated 

populations occur or will be established. For this analysis, all of these sites are considered 

occupied given that surveys do not guarantee detection and that continuing releases are planned 

by the AZGFD. All historic sites (1928–1999) are considered suitable habitat but are unoccupied 

at this time. Dispersal and nonbreeding habitat provides corridors for frogs between breeding 

sites. It consists of (1) areas with ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial water not generally 

suitable for breeding and (2) associated upland or riparian habitat. These areas are considered 

potentially occupied habitat for at least part of the year (USFWS, 2012).

Critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog is found in five critical habitat units (CHUs). All 

are occupied and in total encompass approximately 270 acres. In RU 6, the CHUs are (1) Concho 

Bill and Deer Creek and (2) Campbell Blue and Coleman Creek. In RU 7, the CHUs are (3) Left 

Prong Dix Creek, (4) Rattlesnake Pasture and Tanks, and (5) Coal Creek. Primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) or habitat components important to breeding and dispersal include fresh water, 

emergent/submerged vegetation, and well distributed ephemeral or intermittent drainage dispersal 

corridors free of barriers.

Based on the post-fire hydrology report, the Wallow Fire impacted subwatersheds containing the 

two CHUs in RU 6 where it burned approximately 32,600 acres at the high and moderate soil 

burn severity levels. This includes the three management areas within RU 6 (Black River, 

Coleman Creek/Blue River, and Nutrioso/Rudd Creeks). It did not impact any CHUs in RU 7 nor 

its one RMA (San Francisco/Blue Rivers). Besides large wildfires, risks to this species include 

impacts to water quality, dieoffs due to a fungal skin disease (Chytridiomycosis), and predation by 

nonnative organisms (crayfish).

Three Forks Springsnail: Endangered with Critical Habitat

The Three Forks springsnail is a tiny freshwater spiral-shelled invertebrate known only from the 

Alpine Ranger District, originally from three sites in the Black River watershed. Its habitat is very 

rare consisting of springheads and associated rheocrene flows (shallow springwater outflow) 

often associated with fens (upwelling of groundwater not likely associated with the immediate 

water table). Since 2004, the snail is not currently found at the Three Forks site but is found at 

nearby Boneyard Bog and along Boneyard Creek sites. Because a thorough inventory of springs 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 245

in the Black River watershed has not been conducted, any spring of this type within the watershed 

is considered suitable and potentially occupied.

This species is found in The Upper Black River watershed which was functioning-at-risk prior to 

the 2011 Wallow Fire. Based on the post-fire hydrology report, approximately 2,700 acres burned 

moderately to severely above the Three Forks area (North Fork East Fork Black River 

subwatershed). Although post-fire stream surveys have not yet been conducted, the condition of 

the East Fork Black River, Boneyard Creek, and their tributaries may have declined.

All three locations are excluded from livestock grazing by NEPA decision and the Three Forks 

site is additionally excluded from human entry by a forest special closure order. However, all sites 

are subject to wild ungulate impacts (specifically, seasonal elk wallowing and bank trampling). 

Populations are additionally at risk from large wildfires, predatory crayfish, drought, and climate 

change. Crayfish trapping has been conducted for several years but they persist at all sites.

While the 2011 Wallow Fire did not directly burn snail habitat, straw waddles were installed to 

divert ash on adjacent burned slopes from entering the sites. In addition, Three Forks springsnails 

were removed prior to post-fire flooding and taken to facilities in Phoenix and Pinetop for later 

return to the spring runs where they were removed from. Flooding from 2011 summer rains after 

the fire resulted in several of the occupied spring runs in Boneyard Bog and Boneyard Creek 

being overrun by high flows. September 2012 surveys only observed snails at a few of the spring 

runs that had been occupied before the fire. The ability of those snails onsite to persist and the 

success of subsequent reintroduction of snails removed prior to flooding are unknown. 

Critical habitat for this springsnail is designated at three sites: Three Forks (6 acres), Boneyard 

Bog (5.3 acres) and Boneyard Creek (5.8 acres along approximately 0.6 mile of creek). Primary 

constituent elements of critical habitat include adequately clean, emerging spring water (free from 

contamination) and flowing across the surface; substrates that include cobble, gravel, pebble, and 

aquatic vegetation (periphyton, attached algae) for feeding and escape from predators; and either 

an absence of nonnative predators (crayfish) or their presence at low population levels.

Mexican Wolf: Experimental, Nonessential Population

The Mexican wolf (or Mexican gray wolf) was reintroduced onto the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in 

1998. Over 655,000 acres of primary recovery area and 543,000 acres of secondary recovery area 

are on the Apache side of the forests, all of which is considered suitable habitat. Additional 

secondary recovery area is located on the adjacent Gila National Forest. Given the far ranging 

nature of this species, all acreage within the primary and secondary recovery areas is considered 

potentially occupied and used by Mexican wolves.

As of winter 2011-12, there are five wolf packs with established territories on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, ranging in size from two to five individuals. Two of these packs also use areas on 

the White Mountain and San Carlos Indian Reservations. Wolves are habitat generalists, 

occurring wherever prey are seasonally found. In a diet study on the forests, Reed et al. (2006)

found that elk make up the majority (77 percent) of their diet biomass, reflecting availability of 

their most common prey species. It has been found that wolves are at risk from roads and open 

visibility that exposes them to danger from vehicle collisions and shootings. These types of 

mortality account for 65 percent of known wolf mortality since reintroduction (USFWS, 2011). It 

is not known if the extensive loss of mid to low ground cover across the landscape from the 

Wallow Fire may contribute to this risk.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

246 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat: Endangered

The closest known location for the lesser long-nosed bat, a long distance migrant, is in the 

Pinaleno Mountains about 30 air miles from the forests’ southern boundary. This species is not 

known to be present in Arizona in the winter, but pregnant females give birth and raise young in 

southern Arizona during late April to July. The lesser long-nosed bat must time its flight with 

flowering and fruiting activity of their food plants. As such, it forages on nectar and pollen of 

columnar cacti in the spring; while in the summer and fall it forages on agave nectar (this diet of 

nectar enables it to be essentially independent of free water). This species roosts in caves, mine 

holes, and sometimes old structures. Risks to the species include loss of agave plants through 

burning or grazing of agave flowering stalks, which are highly palatable to livestock. 

While not known to occur, lesser long-nosed bats could be present on the lower elevations of the 

forests during the summer below the Mogollon Rim given suitable habitat. This east-central 

portion of Arizona includes the East Eagle Creek, Blue River, and San Francisco River 

watersheds on the Clifton and Alpine Ranger Districts. Here two PNVTs could provide suitable 

foraging habitat: semi-desert grassland (106,952 acres) and Madrean pine-oak woodland (394,927 

acres). In addition, this area contains some old structures, mine adits, and shallow caves. 

Sensitive Species Existing Condition and Habitat 

Existing abundance and distribution (F ranking) of each of the 53 sensitive species is shown in 

table 71 above; most are F1, F2, or F3. This is because sensitive species, by definition (Forest 

Service Manual 2670.32), are those for which there may be a viability concern. 

The amount (acreage) of habitat for each sensitive species that is provided by PNVT(s) is found 

in affected environment of the “Vegetation” section (table 23) so is not reiterated here. The 

existing condition or the quality of that habitat is described in terms of departure from PNVT 

desired conditions is also found in affected environment of the “Vegetation” section. The general 

condition of habitat elements associated with sensitive species is found in table 67 above. There 

are few extensive forestwide surveys for sensitive species; surveys are instead conducted on a 

project- or district-level basis. For this analysis, all PNVTs and habitat elements for sensitive 

species are considered occupied or potentially occupied. For more information, see the “Draft 

Wildlife Specialist Report – Biological Evaluation” (Forest Service, 2012ff).

Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Indicator Habitat 

In compliance with NFMA, three species are selected as management indicator species (MIS) 

because they have habitats influenced by forest management and activities. They are selected so 

that the effects of each alternative on wildlife populations can be estimated. The ponderosa pine 

and the dry and wet mixed conifer are PNVTs where substantial restoration efforts would take 

place to move habitat toward desired conditions (up to 55,000 acres per year). MIS selected for 

these two PNVTs are the northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl, respectively. In addition, 

the Great Basin grassland is another PNVT where substantial restoration would take place (up to 

25,000 acres per year); pronghorn antelope are selected as MIS for this PNVT. See the “Report on 

the Selection of Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicators” (Forest Service, 

2012s) for more details on the selection process and further rationale (Forest Service, 2012s).

Existing condition for these three indicators is described below. Much of the information is based 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 2005-2011 MIS assessment report (AZGFD, 2012) and the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 247

biological assessment for the Wallow Fire emergency response (Forest Service, 2011d). Suitable 

habitat noted below is considered quality habitat in that it contains the components necessary to 

support successful reproduction and young rearing.

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO)

Population figures for MSO on the planning unit are not available. Because MSO protected 

activity centers (PACs) represent breeding or potentially breeding pairs, the number of PACs is 

used as a measure of the population of this MIS. There are 147 MSO PACs, encompassing 93,117 

acres. The 2011 Wallow Fire affected half of the PACs (74) on the forests to varying degrees so 

that population trend is considered downward. Monitoring of PACs will occur during the 2012 

field season and beyond to assess the fire’s impact to Mexican spotted owls over time. In 

addition, the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station will begin studying MSO 

site fidelity after large fires in 2013 (Rodeo-Chediski and Wallow Fires).

Of the various PNVTs, or portions thereof that provide MSO habitat, it is the dry and wet mixed 

conifer PNVTs together that provide the most important MSO habitat relative to reproduction and 

viability. Therefore, both PNVTs are considered the “indicator habitat” for this management 

indicator species. Table 74 shows the acreage of indicator habitat both before and after the 2011 

Wallow Fire. 

Table 74. Indicator habitat (PNVTs) for MSO showing existing condition and noting 

estimated change in suitable habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire

MIS Habitat Indicator 

PNVTs for MSO and 

PNVT Acreage

Proportion of Habitat with 

100% Basal Area (canopy 

cover) Loss from the 2011 

Wallow Fire1

(% loss of PNVT acres)

Acreage Adjusted by the Loss 

of Total Basal Area (100% of 

canopy cover loss)2 = 

Remaining Currently Suitable 

NOGO Habitat

Dry Mixed Conifer

147,885 acres

34,959 acres (24%) 112,926 acres

Wet Mixed Conifer

177,995 acres

64,794 acres (36%) 113,201 acres

Total

325,021 acres

99,753 acres (31% overall) 226,127 acres

1 Figures are from the 75-100% basal area loss category which reflects complete (100%) loss of all trees and canopy 

based on the RVAG mapping provided by USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center (July 18, 2011). 

2 Recovery to the forest structure and age needed by MSO for breeding and nesting in such burn areas will extend 

beyond the plan period and a century or more; the adjusted acreage is considered suitable MSO habitat acreage across 

the forests for the plan period. 

Overall, 31 percent of the indicator habitat sustained total canopy loss (i.e., 75 to 100 percent

basal area loss) from the Wallow Fire. This has substantially reduced suitable habitat for breeding, 

nesting, and young rearing. Hence, MSO habitat trend on the forests is now considered 

downward.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

248 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Northern Goshawk (NOGO)

Population figures for NOGO on the planning unit are not available. Because NOGO postfledgling areas (PFAs) represent breeding or potentially breeding pairs, nest area habitat within 

PFAs is used as a measure of the population of this MIS. There are 103 NOGO post-fledgling 

areas (PFAs) encompassing 67,466 acres of which approximately 18,540 acres are considered

suitable nesting habitat based on nest stands. The 2011 Wallow Fire affected 30 of these PFAs. 

Approximately half of the acreage in these 30 PFAs had 100 percent canopy loss so that 

population trend on the forests is now considered downward. Monitoring of PFAs will occur 

during the 2012 field season and beyond to assess the fire’s impact to northern goshawks over 

time.

The ponderosa pine PNVT is the most important NOGO habitat relative to reproduction and 

viability so it is considered the “indicator habitat” for this management indicator species. Table 75

depicts the acreage of indicator habitat both before and after the 2011 Wallow Fire.

Table 75. Indicator habitat for northern goshawk showing existing condition and noting 

estimated change in habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire

MIS Habitat Indicator 

PNVTs for NOGO and 

PNVT Acres on ASNFs

Proportion of NOGO Habitat

with 100% Basal Area (canopy 

cover) Loss from the 2011 

Wallow Fire1

(% loss of PNVT acres)

Acreage Adjusted by the 

Loss of Total Basal Area 

(100% of canopy cover 

loss)2

Ponderosa pine

602,206 acres

32,722 acres (5%) 569,484 acres

1 Figures are from the 75-100% basal area loss category which reflects complete (100%) loss of all trees and canopy 

based on the RVAG mapping provided by USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center (July 18, 2011). 

2 Recovery to the forest structure and age needed by NOGO for breeding and nesting in such burn areas will extend 

beyond the plan period and a century or more, the adjusted acreage is considered suitable NOGO habitat acreage 

across the forests for the plan period. 

Although only 5 percent of the indicator ponderosa pine habitat sustained total canopy loss from 

the Wallow Fire, trend was considered downward pre-fire based on monitoring of PFAs from 

2006 through 2011 across the forests. This is believed to be, in part, due to drought over the last 

decade that has led to the loss of habitat conditions necessary for many NOGO prey species 

(AZGFD, 2012). Post-Wallow Fire, the trend is still considered downward based on PFA acreage 

with 100 percent canopy loss.

Pronghorn Antelope (Pronghorn)

Pronghorn are a common and persistent species on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, although limited 

in number (AZGFD, 2012). While they occur at densities less than habitat capacity, they are well 

distributed in areas across suitable habitat. Overall, population trend is considered static with 

approximately 600–700 pronghorn on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs portion of game management 

units 1, 3A, and 3B in the last 2 years (AZGFD, 2012). Impacts to pronghorn from the Wallow 

Fire would be determined by AZGFD surveys in 2012 and beyond.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 249

Pronghorn currently utilize the Great Basin grassland PNVT (185,523 acres) yearlong (except 

where invaded tree densities are currently high). They also use the montane-subalpine grassland 

PNVT (51,559 acres) in the summer. In addition, pronghorn are known to travel to grassland 

habitats through forest and piñon-juniper woodland areas with lower tree densities. Semi-desert 

grassland which on the forests occurs below the Mogollon Rim is isolated by topography and 

dense woodlands, supports limited numbers of pronghorn, and is not currently managed for the 

species by the AZGFD. 

Because pronghorn spend the greatest majority of their time yearlong in the Great Basin 

grassland, this PNVT is considered the “indicator habitat” for this MIS. Under existing 

conditions, pronghorn habitat in the GBG is highly departed from desired conditions. Quality of 

habitat has been reduced by loss of extensive stands of desirable perennial grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs, and by encroachment by trees (primarily piñon and juniper). In addition, about two-thirds

of the GBG has been converted to a woodland type (“Vegetation Specialist Report,” Forest 

Service, 2012x). Given that pronghorn will use some open wooded areas, it is estimated that, 

overall, about half of the GBG acreage is today unsuitable pronghorn habitat, leaving about 

92,762 acres as currently suitable “indicator habitat” for this management indicator species.

Fire can also benefit grasslands by removing encroaching trees and improving herbaceous 

production in healthy grasslands. The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire and the 2011 Wallow Fire 

burned portions of the GBG. However, limited acreage in both fires burned at an intensity to kill 

trees and restore habitat. The long-term trend in condition of grasslands in meeting the 

herbaceous needs of this species is dependent in part on the amount and timing of restocking 

burned areas with livestock post-fire and subsequent woody species regeneration (Belsky and 

Blumenthal, 1997 and Forest Service, 2008f).

Over the last 10 years, tree removal projects have been initiated to begin to restore this grassland 

across the north side of the forests (approximately 5,000 acres total to date). Although only 

affecting a small portion of this large PNVT, tree removal by project and wildfire, along with rest 

from livestock use post Rodeo-Chediski Fire, have taken place. Hence, the trend for this 

pronghorn habitat indicator is currently considered on a low trajectory upward. 

Migratory Birds and Important Bird Areas

Migratory Birds

Executive Order 13186 (2001) and a 2008 memorandum of understanding between the USDA 

Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service provide direction to conserve migratory birds, 

restore or enhance habitat, and consider them in the planning process. The number of migratory 

birds on the forests is unknown; however, the White Mountain Audubon Chapter, local birders, 

and monitoring conducted as part of the White Mountain Stewardship have detected many 

species that use habitats on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for part of the year.

In selecting representative species for the analysis, Forest Service regional direction is to consider 

priority species of concern from Arizona’s “Partners in Flight Conservation Plan” (Latta et al., 

1999) and important bird areas (IBAs). Also used was USFWS’ “Birds of Conservation Concern, 

Regions 16 and 34” (USFWS, 2008). Table 76 lists representative neotropical migratory birds and 

the PNVTs where they may be found while on the forests; it also lists threats to habitat. PNVT 

habitat acres are found in affected environment of the “Vegetation” section so are not reiterated 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

250 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

here. The “Wildlife Specialist Report - Bald Eagles, Migratory Birds, and Important Bird Areas”

(Forest Service, 2012dd) contains more information.

Table 76. Representative neotropical migratory birds considered, important habitat, and 

threats

Neotropical Migrant Habitat Habitat Threats

Golden-crowned 

kinglet 

Regulis satrapa Spruce-fir (often with 

aspen)

Loss of or too open canopies

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides 

tridactylus

Spruce-fir Substantial snag removal or loss

Olive-side flycatcher Contopus borealis Mixed conifer (often with 

aspen)

Loss of or too open canopies

Purple martin Progne subis Ponderosa pine Substantial snag and/or large tree 

removal or loss

Grace’s warbler Dendroica 

graciae

Ponderosa pine (often with 

aspen)

Loss of large Gambel oak 

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Ponderosa pine with oak Substantial snag, large tree and 

dense canopy removal or loss

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus

Piñon-juniper woodland Stress to or loss of mature piñon 

pine trees

Black-throated gray 

warbler 

Dendroica 

nigrescens

Piñon-juniper woodland

Virginia’s warbler Vermivora 

virginiae

Interior chaparral Widespread fire through 

chaparral

Gray flycatcher Empidonax 

wrightii

Great Basin and semidesert grasslandsGrazing that does not leave 

vigorous, tall herbaceous ground 

cover Savannah sparrow Passerculus 

sandwichensis

Montane/subalpine 

grassland

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei Montane willow riparian 

forest

Browsing that reduces height, 

depth, and vigor of willows

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Mixed broadleaf riparian 

forest

Grazing or browsing that opens 

up dense riparian thickets 

increasing the threat of cowbird 

parasitism

Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus Large trees and/or dense 

canopies across PNVTs

Grazing or browsing that 

removes sprouts and young 

riparian woody vegetation

Little current forestwide information is available for these species. According to the forests’ 2005-

2011 MIS assessment report (AZGFD, 2012), yellow-breasted chat populations in the ApacheSitgreaves NFs are currently considered to be stable, but likely lower than potential. At the midpoint of a long-term study of songbird densities within the White Mountain Stewardship Project 

area, there is an estimated average of five Grace’s warblers per 100 acres in untreated ponderosa 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 251

pine that has a Gambel oak component (Sitko and Hurteau, 2010). Because migratory bird 

numbers can be influenced by many factors associated with their neotropical wintering grounds, 

habitat provided on the forests is the focus of the analysis. 

Important Bird Areas (IBAs)

While not contributing to viability directly, the National Audubon Society’s Important Bird Area 

Program encourages inventory, research, and education with the objective of ensuring bird 

conservation in important habitats. IBAs impose neither management requirement nor legal 

obligation on NFS lands. Three IBAs are located in part on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• Upper Little Colorado River IBA — This IBA includes 44,086 acres on the forests 

encompassing the Little Colorado River and its three main tributaries (west, east, and 

south), extending north to include the AZGFD’s Becker Lake and Wenima wildlife areas. 

This IBA was identified in 2004 and recognized by the State Audubon science committee 

in 2008. It is known for harboring species of conservation concern and species in 

rare/unique riparian habitats. These include: southwestern willow flycatcher, Mexican 

spotted owl, northern goshawk, gray catbird, MacGillivray’s warbler, and wintering bald 

eagles.

• Blue and San Francisco Rivers IBA — This IBA includes 108,576 acres on the forests 

encompassing approximately 40 miles of the Blue River, 10 miles of the Campbell Blue 

River, 5 miles of the KP Creek, and over 20 miles of the San Francisco River. Federal 

land within this IBA was identified in 2004 but it is not yet finalized by the State 

Audubon science committee. As of 2004, surveys have documented 216 bird species 

including: Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, purple martin, 

juniper titmouse, yellow-breasted chat, common black-hawk, various flycatchers, and 

bald eagles.

• Mogollon Rim Snowmelt Draws IBA — This IBA includes 29,426 acres on the forests 

encompassing Leonard Canyon and Willow Creek; it extends westward to include 

additional acreage on the Coconino NF. This IBA was identified in 2010 but it is not yet 

finalized by the State Audubon science committee. Because of Mogollon Rim induced 

high moisture patterns, vegetation communities are more representative of high elevation 

forest types with associated species including: Mexican spotted owl, olive-side 

flycatcher, and red-faced warbler. For over 25 years, a U.S. Geological Survey study of 

climate change impact to bird and plant communities has been conducted in the area of 

this IBA (Martin and Maron, 2012).

Bald and Golden Eagles 

The bald eagle was delisted from threatened status across the State in 2010. Both the bald eagle 

and golden eagle are Regional Forester sensitive species and, with its abundant water, both occur 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Single and small groups of bald eagles are found on the forests during the fall through spring. 

They are seen foraging at reservoirs and larger rivers for fish and waterfowl. They also forage on 

hunter-loss game and roadkills along highways. There are two long-term nesting pairs of bald 

eagles located at Luna and Crescent Lakes. In addition, bald eagle nesting has occurred on the 

forests in the vicinity of Woods Canyon Lake, Greer Lakes, and Show Low Lake.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

252 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

A major impact to nesting bald eagles is nearby heavy recreation use. All nest sites are near 

developed fishing, boating, or camping areas. In order to limit disturbance during the especially 

sensitive breeding and nesting period, the forests issue special closure orders that prohibit entry 

into bald eagle nest areas. Another factor in the success of breeding eagles has been the forests’ 

long-term partnership with the Arizona Bald Eagle Nestwatcher Program. Nestwatcher vigilance 

and actions have helped promote eaglet fledgling success and have, thereby, contributed 

substantially to viability and the delisting of this species in Arizona.

While golden eagles occasionally nest on the forests, they are most often migrants observed 

during the fall through spring seasons feeding on carrion, small mammals, birds, and snakes. The 

attraction of this eagle and the bald eagle to roadkill and hunter loss makes both species 

vulnerable to collisions with vehicles and lead poisoning (one known case east of Luna Lake in

2002). Like other raptors and large birds, power line electrocution can occasionally occur, with 

the uncommon risk of igniting a wildfire. 

Direction for management of golden and bald eagles is found in the Bald and Golden Eagle Act

with its most recent amendment (2009), and the 2008 MOU noted above between the Forest 

Service and USFWS. Under the Eagle Act, the forests must determine if any management or 

action would result in “take” which includes “disturbance.” In addition to immediate impacts, 

Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 107, 31133) implementing the act amendment, notes that 

disturbance “...also covers impacts that result from human-caused alterations initiated around a 

previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, 

such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or substantially 

interferes with normal breeding, feeding or sheltering habits and causes, or is likely to cause a 

loss of productivity or nest abandonment.” In these cases, a Federal permit for programmatic take 

of eagles or their nests is required.

Highly Interactive Forest Planning Species

The needs of far ranging species and their influence across large landscapes were an issue raised 

by the public during scoping. Six species are identified as highly interactive species (HI under 

status in table 70 above). 

Highly interactive—or keystone or foundation species—are species whose absence or substantial 

reduction across the landscape leaves a functional void that, over time, can create changes leading 

to degraded or simplified ecosystems (Soulé et al., 2003). The ecological function of these 

species may take the form of altering habitat in a manner benefiting other species or in the form 

of affecting prey species, who may in turn affect habitat structure and function. In addition, for 

this analysis, species that range widely to meet their needs are also considered highly interactive 

species. Examples include the wolf and pronghorn antelope. The former can strengthen the health 

of prey herds by culling compromised animals (e.g., the old and weak) and help to keep herds

actively moving, thereby preventing overuse of prey habitat areas (Beschta and Ripple, 2011).

The latter is far ranging in order to meet seasonal needs for nutrition, fawning, and wintering 

areas (O’Gara and Yoakum, 2004).

Existing abundance and distribution (F ranking) of the six HI species is shown in table 70 above. 

Although considered a widespread species, existing habitat conditions for black bears have 

changed substantially due to the 2011 Wallow Fire and other large wildfires with the loss of 

dense, low cover (critical to habitat carrying capacity and protection from other bears). High 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 253

debris and waterflows after these fires washed out beaver ponds and associated habitat. While 

mountain lion are a secure species, prey species such as deer and elk are utilizing habitat in an 

entirely different manner after so much acreage was affected by the Wallow Fire. For existing 

condition information on the other three HI species (Mexican wolf, Gunnison prairie dog, and 

pronghorn), see the previous ESA, sensitive, and MIS sections, respectively. 

Habitat Security and Connectivity and Wildlife Quiet Areas

Habitat security and connectivity along with the amount of wildlife quiet areas was an issue 

raised by public scoping. Initially, wildlife quiet areas (WQAs) alone, which are currently 

implemented via forest special order, were considered for habitat security and connectivity.

There are currently eight WQAs on the forests. There are three other areas, also in place by 

special order, that provide many of the benefits of WQAs, so these are additionally considered.

Together these total less than 3 percent of the forests. Table 77 lists these along with the primary 

species associated with each.

Although these areas do not allow the use of motorized vehicles, they do not preclude hunting, 

other recreation activities, or periodic mechanized forest management activities. WQAs do not

exclude motorized vehicles for emergency or activities authorized by permit such as public 

utilities, private water transmission lines, maintenance of developments, and livestock grazing.

While existing WQAs have successfully provided secure habitat refugia and species site fidelity 

across the planning unit to date, there are large expanses without WQAs (up to 50 miles between 

them) on the Sitgreaves side of the forests. More background on WQAs is found in the “Wildlife 

Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2012gg). 

Table 77. Existing Wildlife Quiet Areas (WQAs) and other similar functioning areas

Name Ranger District Acres Note Species

WQAs Currently Under Special Order

Beaver Turkey 

Ridge

Black Mesa 3,295 Long-term WQA big game 

Hulsey Bench Alpine 3,469 Long-term WQA deer, elk, turkey, bear, 

MSO, NOGO

Middle Mountain Alpine 3,629 Long-term WQA deer, elk, turkey, 

pronghorn, NOGO

Open Draw Alpine 2,499 Long-term WQA elk, deer, turkey 

St. Peters Dome Springerville 5,850 Long-term WQA bear, dusky grouse, wolves, 

other high elevation species

Upper Coyote Alpine 829 Long-term WQA elk, turkey, deer, bear 

(especially young rearing)

Willow SpringsHorse TrapBlack Mesa 8,690 Long-term WQA big game

Woolhouse Lakeside 17,245 Long-term WQA pronghorn, elk (winter 

range) 

Subtotal 45,506
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

254 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Name Ranger District Acres Note Species

Other Areas Currently Functioning Similar to WQAs

Carr Lake Black Mesa 2,196 Currently within 

the larger Rim 

Lakes Recreation 

Area 

big game, MSO

Palomino Black Mesa 8,407 Currently within 

the larger Rim 

Lakes Recreation 

Area 

big game, MSO

Hidden Lake Springerville 3,227 deer, elk, bear, NOGO

Subtotal 13,830

Total Acres Functioning as WQA 59,336

Safe passage among habitat areas is also important for species viability. In 2004, the AZGFD 

initiated a collaborative effort to proactively address wildlife connectivity with Arizona forests 

participating, including the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The objective of this effort is to facilitate 

wildlife movement, mitigate or remove barriers, and provide for or preserve known travel 

corridors. This is in response to increasing development of private lands, new and upgraded 

roadways, and increased fencing for livestock. An AZGFD report will be published that identifies 

linkages and barriers across Apache and Navajo Counties so that land managers can incorporate 

wildlife connectivity needs into project-level activities, as well as provide for both public and 

animal safety. This effort will also help contribute to species viability across the forests. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Alternative Differences, Similarities, and Outcomes

Differences among alternatives are the result of differences in plan components, especially among 

management areas and their acreage (see tables 1 and 2), and among treatment objectives (see 

table 3). Differences in the mix of treatment methods (thinning or burning) can also result in 

differences in environmental consequences and short-term impacts. For example, movement 

toward desired conditions with burning can be somewhat slower than with thinning but burning 

generally has less short-term implementation impacts. For more information about treatment 

impacts and movement toward desired conditions, see the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability”

(Forest Service, 2012gg) and the “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012x).

On the other hand, all alternatives have the same desired conditions for PNVTs (coarse filter) and 

the same standards and guidelines (fine filter), with two exceptions related to old growth:

Alternative C does not include the following guideline regarding old growth 

characteristics important to some species, “Where current forests are lacking 

proportional representation of late seral states and species composition on the 

landscape scale, old growth characteristics should be retained or encouraged to 

the greatest extent possible within the scope of meeting other desired conditions 

(e.g., reduce impacts from insects and disease, reduce the threat of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 255

uncharacteristic wildfire).” While alternative C has no direction for old growth; it 

and the other alternatives have a desired condition for a mosaic of structural 

states ranging from young to old trees in the forested PNVTs. For more detail,

see the “Glossary” section of the proposed plan.

Alternative D has an additional standard for maintaining old growth 

characteristics, “Retain all large and old trees regardless of size or condition.” All 

alternatives provide for species viability through management and activities that 

help restore or maintain habitat across the planning unit; however, the 

effectiveness of this varies by alternative. “Viability effectiveness” is thus an 

expression of alternative consequence to habitat abundance (quantity) and habitat 

distribution (quality). 

Alternative outcomes consist of viability risk ratings (based, in part, on the likelihood of habitat 

limitation) and management effect ratings. The number of viability risk ratings and the number of 

management effect ratings, by habitat element, are used to compare relative “viability 

effectiveness” among alternatives (i.e., the lower the alternative’s number of viability risk and 

management effect ratings for a species’ associated habitat element(s), the more effective the 

alternative is for that species’ viability). Therefore, environmental consequences for FPS, by 

alternative, are primarily expressed as having more or less “viability effectiveness” even though 

all alternatives provide species viability in compliance with NFMA. Viability risk and 

management effect ratings are also used to compare viability effectiveness consequences by 

alternative for ESA, sensitive, and other FPS. 

Plan revision viability and management analysis findings (outcomes) and resulting environmental 

consequences for wildlife follow. The analysis is based on high acre treatment objectives in order 

to capture all possible consequences. Also included are the environmental consequences related to 

habitat security and connectivity.

Habitat and Management Effect Findings

The likelihood of habitat limitation, based on the estimate of future habitat abundance and 

distribution for each alternative, which is later coupled with species F ranking, is shown in table 

78. The number of ratings for each of the three likelihood of limitation categories is summarized 

by PNVTs in order to provide an overall comparison of alternatives. Categories for the likelihood 

of limitation are described in table 64. These categories are low, moderate, and high (not to be 

confused with later viability risk rating categories). The lower the tally (number) of likelihood of 

limitation of low (L) ratings, the more effective the alternative is for that species’ viability.

The management effect is the overall expected outcome of alternative implementation in terms of 

species viability. The expected management effect outcomes for each alternative are the result of 

alternative objectives and maintenance of or movement toward desired conditions (suitable 

habitat). These are also shown in table 78 and are based, as noted, on high acre treatment 

objectives. The number of ratings for each of the three management effect categories is 

summarized by PNVT in order to provide an overall comparison of alternatives. Management 

effect categories are 1, 2, and 3. The lower the tally (number) of likelihood of management effect 

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

viability.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

256 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

The management effect and the likelihood of limitation values displayed in this table each cover 

the 15-year planning period. Table 79 shows movement toward desired conditions for all the 

alternatives at the 15-year period and movement toward desired conditions at 50 years.

Table 78. Expected habitat limitations and management effect outcomes by alternative at 

15 years

PNVT

Alternative

A B C D

Ponderosa Pine Forest

Likelihood of limitation1 L L L L

Management effect2 2 1 1 1

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest

Likelihood of limitation 3 M L L L

Management effect 2 1 1 1

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest

Likelihood of limitation 3 M L L L

Management effect 2 1 1 1

Spruce-Fir Forest

Likelihood of limitation 3 M M M M

Management effect 2 2 2 1

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland

Likelihood of limitation M L L L

Management effect 2 1 2 1

Montane/Subalpine Grassland

Likelihood of limitation M L M L

Management effect 3 1 3 1

Great Basin Grassland

Likelihood of limitation H L H L

Management effect 3 1 3 1

Semi-Desert Grassland

Likelihood of limitation H L H L

Management effect 3 1 3 1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 257

PNVT

Alternative

A B C D

Tally of Likelihood of Habitat Limitation for PNVTs by Alternative

L - low or no likelihood of habitat limitation: 0 7 4 7

M - moderate or some likelihood of habitat limitation: 5 1 2 1

H - high probability of habitat limitation: 3 0 2 0

Tally of Management Effects for PNVTs by Alternative

1 - greatest relative improvement: 0 7 3 8

2 - intermediate relative improvement: 5 1 2 0

3 - least to no improvement: 3 0 3 0

Table rating descriptions or other information:

1 Likelihood of limitation: H = high probability that habitat will be limiting; M = moderate or habitat has a 

likelihood of some limitation; L = low or habitat will not likely be limiting.

2 Management effect: 1 = greatest relative improvement in suitable habitat through management and activities; 2 

= intermediate relative improvement; 3 = least to no relative improvement. 

3 While dry mixed conifer, wet mixed conifer, and spruce-fir are still common across the forests, the 2011 

Wallow Fire reduced suitable habitat by 24, 36 and 35 percent respectively; hence likelihood of limitation is 

increased one class.

Table 79 shows the movement toward desired conditions for the modeled PNVTs upon which the 

overall alternative management effect was based in the table above. Change in departure can be 

seen by comparing existing departure from desired conditions to departure at 15 and 50 years. 

The latter is a projection of trend in desired conditions should the alternatives continue to be 

implemented that long. However, NFMA requires plans to be revised every 10 to 15 years.

Table 79. Movement toward desired conditions at 15 and 50 years by alternative

PNVT and Percent Departure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Ponderosa Pine Forest 15 year 65 58 52 61

Current Departure = 77 50 year 65 46 48 54

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 15 year 57 53 49 56

Current Departure = 67 50 year 57 43 44 45

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 15 year 49 52 56† 50

Current Departure = 54 50 year 49 41 59† 49

Spruce-Fir Forest 15 year 68† 64† 63† 64†

Current Departure = 59 50 year 68†† 61†† 60†† 60††
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

258 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT and Percent Departure Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Forested PNVTs 15 year 61 56 52 58

Current Departure = 71 50 year 61 49 50 52

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 15 year 59 41 50 28

Current Departure = 61 50 year 59 30 40 19

Woodland PNVTs1 15 year 45 33 38 25

Current Departure = 49 50 year 45 25 35 16

Great Basin Grassland 15 year 63 9 63 8

Current Departure = 67 50 year 63 22 68† 16

Semi-Desert Grassland 15 year 89† 66 84† 66

Current Departure = 79 50 year 89†† 52 94†† 52

Great Basin Grassland 

and Semi-Desert Grassland2

15 year 71† 30 71† 29

Current Departure = 71 50 year 71†† 33 78†† 29

1 Includes the piñon-juniper woodland (no species with viability concerns were identified for this PNVT).

2 Montane/Subalpine Grassland PNVT was not modeled nor any of the Riparian PNVTs although three habitat 

elements came out of the model: snags, coarse woody debris, and acres of large/old trees.

† Indicates where improvement toward desired conditions does not occur from current departure to year 15.

†† Indicates where improvement toward desired conditions does not occur from current to year 50.

All alternatives show an improvement in (reduced departure from) desired conditions at 15 years 

except in the spruce-fir forested PNVT. At 50 years, trend is static under alternative A for all 

PNVTs while it improves or continues to move toward desired conditions for all alternatives in 

all PNVTs with the exception of those noted by †† above. One reason for this is that alternatives 

A and C treat limited acreage within Great Basin and semi-desert grasslands to restore it to 

grassland conditions. For more explanation, see the “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest 

Service, 2012x) and the “Forest Health Specialist Report” (2012i).

Habitat Ecological Indicators (EIs)

Aspen and riparian EIs are considered in the viability risk ratings for associated species based on 

treatment objectives and methods in the forested PNVTs. As such, they contribute to viability and 

the relative effectiveness of viability among alternatives.

Aspen EI 

Alternatives compared: Direction under the 1987 plan (alternative A or the no action 

alternative) includes clearcutting to convert to aspen from a mixture of aspen with ponderosa pine 

or mixed conifer, providing big game, nongame, and upland game habitat in aspen, managing 

livestock to protect aspen regeneration, and retaining an area’s visual classification where aspen 

contribute substantially to visual quality. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 259

The no action and action alternatives would have the desired condition to retain aspen on the 

landscape at the desired (minimum) level of 50,000 acres during the planning period. Aspen 

would be maintained above that level under all alternatives during the 15-year planning period.

See appendix G for standards and guidelines related to aspen within the four forested PNVTs.

The amount and condition of aspen would also be affected by actions outside of Forest Service 

control, presenting additional risk. Two primary examples of aspen loss not related to forest 

management and activities include wild ungulate browsing of aspen seedlings and saplings and 

disease (sudden aspen decline or SAD). As an identified plan EI, aspen would be monitored 

across the forests during the plan period to determine movement toward DC and whether adaptive 

management is needed. During monitoring, browsing and disease would be recorded as well as 

impacts from forests management and activities. 

Regarding actions outside of the forests’ control, alternative A would provide the greatest buffer 

against browsing and disease risks, retaining 71,076 acres of aspen across the forests; while 

alternatives B, C, and D would have similar buffer levels (68,204 acres, 65,796 acres, 65,517 

acres, respectively). Hence, this ecological indicator would be maintained on the landscape for all 

alternatives, providing habitat and viability effectiveness for species such as those needing dense 

canopies or down woody debris (e.g., red-faced warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler).

Riparian EI 

Alternatives compared: Riparian areas constitute management area 3 under the 1987 plan. 

Direction includes consideration of grazing utilization standard levels to achieve “fisheries and 

T&E objectives” and to recover both physical and biological systems, identification of recreation 

carrying capacity, control of wildlife use where affecting riparian condition, and certain levels 

(minimums of 60 to 80 percent) of natural shade over water, streambank stability, and woody 

riparian age class distribution.

Because there are no objectives for treatments under alternative A, all riparian PNVTs are 

estimated to move away from DC (see the “Riparian” section). In addition, alternative A would 

not result in substantial improvement in watersheds that are at risk or impaired (see the “Water 

Resources” section). Alternatives B, C, and D would move toward desired conditions based on 

riparian and road treatment objectives (see table 3), although less so for alternative C because 

there are road only treatments (no riparian restoration treatments).

Alternatives B, C, and D would maintain or restore the forested riparian PNVTs (MBDRF, 

CWRF, MWRF) toward desired riparian conditions consisting of, on the landscape scale: (1) 

natural ecological processes (e.g., flooding, scouring) that promote a diverse plant structure 

consisting of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species of all ages and size classes necessary for the 

recruitment of riparian-dependent species and (2) riparian-wetland conditions that maintain 

water-related processes (e.g., hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic) and that also maintain the 

physical and biological community characteristics, functions, and processes. See appendix G for 

standards and guidelines related to riparian areas and riparian forests. 

The amount and condition of riparian forests would also be affected by actions outside of Forest 

Service control, specifically wild ungulate use (primarily elk and, in places, unauthorized horse 

use). As an identified plan EI, riparian forests would be monitored during the plan period to 

determine if this plant community is moving toward DC and whether adaptive management is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

260 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

needed to move toward or maintain desired conditions. During monitoring, use by other species 

would be recorded as well as impacts from forests management and activities.

Species Viability Consequences 

(ESA, Sensitive, Highly Interactive, and Other FPS)

Species-Habitat Viability Findings (All FPS)

The viability risk rating (VRR) outcomes for each species based on combining the species F 

ranking and their associated habitat(s)’ likelihood of limitation are shown in table 80. In a few 

instances, the viability risk rating is adjusted as noted in the table. Risk ratings of low and 

moderate are assumed to pose little risk to viability so are not considered (see assumptions). 

Hence, only moderately high, high, and very high viability risk ratings are those given additional 

consideration.

Table 80. Expected viability risk rating outcomes for each species-habitat relationship by 

alternative at 15 years

FPS PNVT and/or 

habitat element 

Viability risk rating (VRR)1

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Mammals

pronghorn antelope 

GBG

MSG 

M

M

L

L

M

L

L

L

Mexican wolf habitat connectivity MH M MH L

beaver large trees (forested riparian PNVTs) L L L L

southern red-backed 

vole 

ample litter and woody debris (WMCF, 

SFF)

M MH MH M

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat 

caves L L L M

Gunnison’s prairie 

dog2

GBG

MSG 

H

H

M

M

H

MH

M

M

spotted bat cliffs L L L M

greater western mastiff 

bat

large trees (MBDRF)

cliffs

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

M

Allen’s big-eared bat large snags (MBDRF)

cliffs

M

L

MH

L

MH

L

M

M

western red bat ample debris & litter (MBDRF) MH MH H MH

ocelot2 dense, low vegetation & cover (MBDRF) MH M M L

lesser long-nosed bat2 SDG L L M MH

long-tailed vole mosaic of conditions (MSG) MH M M M
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 261

FPS PNVT and/or 

habitat element 

Viability risk rating (VRR)1

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Arizona montane vole healthy riparian conditions (CWRF, 

MWRF) 

M L M L

Mogollon vole wet meadow (PPF) M M MH M

Arizona myotis bat 

PPF

DMCF

M

M

L

L

M

M

L

L

mule deer MPOW (winter habitat) M L L L

jaguar2 habitat connectivity M L M L

Springerville pocket 

mouse 

mosaic of conditions (GBG) MH L MH L

mountain lion habitat connectivity M L M L

Abert’s squirrel PPF L L L L

Arizona gray squirrel large trees (MBDRF) M M M M

Merriam’s shrew wet meadow (PPF, DMCF) MH M M M

dwarf shrew mosaic of conditions (MSG) MH L M L

water shrew 

water quality (CWRF, MWRF)

healthy riparian conditions (CWRF, 

MWRF)

L

MH

L

M

L

MH

M

M

White Mountains 

ground squirrel 

mosaic of conditions (MSG)

mosaic of conditions (GBG)

MH

MH

L

L

M

MH

L

L

White Mountains 

chipmunk 

ample ground veg, litter (WMCF, SFF) MH M M L

red squirrel 

DMCF

WMCF

SFF

M

M

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

black bear

dense low-mid canopy, woody debris 

(DMCF)

WMCF

SFF

habitat connectivity

M

MH

MH

MH

M

L

L

MH

MH

M

M

L

M

L

L

L

New Mexico meadow 

jumping mouse 

H riparian conditions (forested riparian 

PNVTs)

MH M MH M

Birds

northern goshawk 

PPF

DMCF

WMCF

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

262 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

FPS PNVT and/or 

habitat element 

Viability risk rating (VRR)1

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

western burrowing owl mosaic of conditions (GBG) H M MH M

juniper titmouse MPOW M L L L

zone-tailed hawk PPF M L L L

common black-hawk large trees (MBDRF) L L M L

red-faced warbler dense, low vegetation & litter (DMCF)

WMCF 

MH

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

Swainson’s thrush ample litter and woody debris (WMCF, 

SFF)

M MH MH M

evening grosbeak dense canopies (forested riparian 

PNVTs)

M L M L

yellow-billed cuckoo large trees, dense canopies (forested 

riparian PNVTs)

M M M L

Montezuma quail mosaic of conditions (GBG)

mosaic of conditions (SDG)

MH

MH

L

M

MH

MH

L

L

dusky blue grouse large down woody (WMCF, SFF) M MH MH M

Grace’s warbler PPF L L L L

gray catbird dense low-mid canopy (forested riparian 

PNVTs)

M L M L

southwestern willow 

flycatcher

dense low-mid canopy (MWRF) 

healthy riparian conditions (MWRF) 

MH

MH

M

M

M

MH

L

M

peregrine falcon

cliffs

healthy riparian conditions (forested 

riparian PNVTs)

L

M

L

L

L

M

M

L

bald eagle water quality (CWRF, MBDRF)

large trees (all forests) 

L

M

L

M

L

MH

M

M

Lincoln’s sparrow healthy riparian conditions (MWRF) MH M MH M

MacGillivray’s 

warbler 

dense low-mid canopy (forested 

riparian PNVTs) 

MH M M L

flammulated owl 

PPF

DMCF

M

M

L

L

L

M

L

L

savannah sparrow MSG M L M L

Mexican spotted owl 

DMCF

WMCF

MPOW 

PPF where Gambel oak

H

H

MH

MH

M

M

M

M

MH

MH

M

M

M

M

M

L
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 263

FPS PNVT and/or 

habitat element 

Viability risk rating (VRR)1

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

gray vireo MPOW M M M M

Reptiles/Amphibians

Arizona toad water quality (MBDRF) L L L M

Chiricahua leopard 

frog

water quality M M M MH

northern leopard frog water quality M M M MH

lowland leopard frog water quality L L L M

northern Mexican 

gartersnake (below 

Rim)

water quality

healthy riparian conditions 

L

MH

L

M

L

MH

M

M

narrow-headed 

gartersnake (above 

Rim)

water quality

healthy riparian conditions 

L

MH

L

M

L

MH

M

M

Invertebrates

plateau giant tiger 

beetle 

SDG H MH H M

false ameletus mayfly water quality L L L M

California floater water quality M M M MH

Mosely caddisfly water quality M M M MH

Ferris’ copper 

butterfly 

wet swale (MSG)

WCRA

MH

MH

M

M

M

M

M

M

Alberta arctic butterfly MSG MH L M L

Arizona snaketail 

dragonfly

water quality L L M M

four-spotted 

skipperling butterfly

wet meadow or shaded opening (PPF) M M MH M

White Mountains 

water penny beetle 

water quality L L M M

Three Forks 

springsnail

water quality MH MH MH MH

nitocris fritillary 

butterfly 

wet swales (MSG)

WCRA

MH

MH

M

L

M

M

M

L

nokomis fritillary 

butterfly 

wet swales (MSG)

WCRA

MH

MH

M

L

M

M

M

L
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

264 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

FPS PNVT and/or 

habitat element 

Viability risk rating (VRR)1

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Plants

Bigelow’s onion 

MPOW

SDG 

M

M

L

M

M

M

L

L

Goodding’s onion cool microclimate (DMCF) L M MH M

Greene milkweed 

mosaic of conditions (MPOW)

mosaic of conditions (GBG)

H

H

M

M

MH

H

M

M

crenulate moonwort SFF M M M M

White Mountains 

paintbrush

WMCF (meadows)

SFF (meadows) 

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

Mexican hemlock 

parsley

cool microclimate (MPOW) L M MH M

yellow lady’s slipper (WMCF, SFF-collection) — — — —

Arizona sneezeweed wet meadow (PPF) H MH MH MH

Arizona sunflower mosaic of conditions (GBG)

mosiac of treatment (SDG)

M

M

L

L

M

M

L

L

Eastwood alumroot canyon slopes L L L M

Arizona alumroot canyon slopes L L L M

wood nymph 

WMCF

SFF 

L

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

heathleaf (bittercress) 

ragwort 

shaded forest opening (WMCF, SFF) L L M L

superb penstemon mosaic of conditions (SDG) L L L M

yellow Jacob’s-ladder (WMCF, SFF-collection)3 — — — —

Davidson’s cliff carrot cliffs, canyon slopes L L L M

Parish alkali grass wet alkali swales (GBG) MH M M M

Blumer’s dock water quality

healthy riparian conditions (MWRF)

L

M

L

L

L

M

M

L

Arizona willow healthy riparian conditions (MWRF) MH M M M

Bebbs willow healthy riparian conditions (MWRF) MH L M L

hooded lady’s tresses (WMCF, SFF-collection) — — — —

splachnoid dung moss MSG L L L M

Mogollon clover wet meadow, shaded forest opening 

(PPF) 

M M MH M
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 265

FPS PNVT and/or 

habitat element 

Viability risk rating (VRR)1

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Oak Creek triteleia shaded forest opening (PPF) M M MH M

carnivorous 

bladderwort

water quality L L M M

Table rating descriptions or other information:

1 Viability risk ratings are: VH = very high; H = high; and MH = moderately high. Ratings of moderate (M) to low 

(L) are not considered to be of consequence for species viability (see assumptions).

2 Although not known on the planning unit, the viability risk rating is determined as if present to avoid overestimating 

their F? ranking. 

3 Collection, along with other nonhabitat factors of concern such as disease, are addressed later.

Table 81 lists the species where viability risk ratings are L or M across all alternatives within all 

their habitat components. These species include most, but not all, of the coarse filter species (see 

table 66). These ratings indicate that forest management and activities would result in effects no 

more substantial than normal ecosystem fluctuations, thus posing no risk to viability; therefore, 

viability is assured for the following species. These 36 species are not further analyzed except 

more information is provided in following sections for those that are ESA or sensitive species.

Table 81. Species for which habitat alone is sufficient to provide viability

PNVT - Coarse Filter Forest Planning Species (FPS)

Ponderosa Pine Forest (PPF) Albert’s squirrel, Arizona myotis bat, northern goshawk, zone-tailed 

hawk, Grace’s warbler, flammulated owl, four-spotted skipperling 

butterfly

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest (DMCF) Arizona myotis bat, red squirrel, northern goshawk, flammulated owl 

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest (WMCF) red squirrel, northern goshawk, White Mountains paintbrush, 

heathleaf ragwort

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland (MPOW) mule deer, juniper titmouse 

Montane/Subalpine Grassland (MSG) pronghorn antelope, savannah sparrow, splachnoid dung moss

Great Basin Grassland (GBG) pronghorn antelope 

Semi-Desert Grassland (SDG) superb penstemon, Arizona sunflower 

All PNVTs Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, Arizona montane vole, 

Eastwood alumroot, Arizona alumroot, Davidson’s cliff carrot

All Riparian PNVTs Greater western mastiff bat, Arizona gray squirrel, common blackhawk, evening grosbeak, yellow-billed cuckoo, gray catbird, 

peregrine falcon, Arizona toad, lowland leopard frog, false ameletus 

mayfly, Arizona snaketail dragonfly, Blumer’s dock, carnivorous 

bladderwort 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

266 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Species-Habitat Relationships Across Habitats

While all alternatives provide species viability, they do so at different levels of effectiveness. In 

order to compare how effectively each alternative addresses species needs, table 82 sums the 

viability risk ratings from table 80 by PNVTs for each alternative. Within each habitat element, 

the alternative with the least viability effectiveness is noted by dashes (- -). The lower the 

number of viability risk ratings, the more effective the alternative is in providing for viability. As 

previously noted, fine filter standards and guidelines are developed to help address viability 

effectiveness beyond PNVTs as needed.

Table 82. Number of species-habitat relationships as an indicator of viability effectiveness 

by habitat element(s) for each alternative (subtotals and totals)

Habitat Elements

Number of Viability Risk Ratings 

Reflecting Viability Effectiveness 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Ponderosa Pine Forest 3 0 -5- 0

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest -4- 0 2 0

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 3 3 -4- 0

Spruce-Fir Forest 2 2 2 2

Subtotal number of viability risk ratings across Forested 

PNVTs

12 5 13 2

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland -3- 1 -3- 2

Subtotal number of viability risk ratings across Forested 

and Woodland PNVTs 

15 6 16 4

Montane/Subalpine Grassland -8- 0 1 0

Great Basin Grassland -7- 0 6 0

Semi-desert Grassland -2- 1 1 1

Subtotal number of viability risk ratings across Grassland 

PNVTs

17 1 8 1

All Riparian PNVTs -14- 2 8 1

Total number of viability risk ratings across all PNVTs 46 9 32 6

Of the seven individual PNVTs and the grouped riparian PNVTs above, alternative A has the 

least overall viability effectiveness among these PNVTs, followed by alternative C. Alternative 

D, followed by alternative B, have the greatest viability effectiveness among these PNVTS. 

However, few species occur across all PNVTs so comparison of ratings is most relevant by 

PNVT.

Species-Habitat Relationships by Species Groups

While all alternatives provide species viability, they do so at different levels of effectiveness. In 

order to compare how effectively each alternative addresses species needs, table 82 sums the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 267

viability risk ratings from table 77 by species groups for each alternative. The lower the number 

of viability risk ratings, the more effective the alternative is in providing for viability. As noted

above, fine filter standards and guidelines are developed to help address viability effectiveness as 

well.

Table 83. Number of species-habitat relationships as an indicator of viability 

effectiveness by FPS group for each alternative

Viability Risk Ratings Comparing

Alternative Viability Effectiveness Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

ESA species 9 1 5 3

Sensitive species1 27 4 21 4

Remaining FPS2 10 3 9 1

Total 46 7 35 7

1 Includes ESA candidate species. 

2 Includes highly interactive species not in another category; does not include MIS.

Overall, alternatives B and D provide the greatest viability effectiveness as compared to 

alternative C, followed by alternative A. This relationship holds for ESA and sensitive FPS as a 

group and for the remaining FPS. However, as previously noted, few species occur across all 

PNVTs so comparison of ratings is most relevant by PNVT.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Species 

Overall Consequences to All ESA Species

All Endangered Species Act (ESA) species are forest planning species (FPS). Viability risk 

ratings for ESA species as FPS are included in table 80. The management effect, as a reflection of 

plan objectives for each alternative, is shown for the habitats associated with ESA species in table 

78. Sections of the plan that contain plan decisions (components) relative to ESA species at the 

coarse and fine filter are indicated in table 84 below.

Some key plan components (decisions) that help meet the needs of ESA species are noted in the 

following individual species discussions. The “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest 

Service, 2012gg) contains a complete list of these (e.g., desired conditions, standards, guidelines). 

The draft biological assessment (Forest Service, 2012ee) contains more detail on analysis of ESA 

species. 

Table 84. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address ESA species at the 

coarse and fine filter levels

Plan Decisions Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Coarse filter plan 

decisions that 

provide viability for: 

All ESA Species

Overall Ecosystem Health, 

Water Resources, Aquatic 

Habitat and Species, All 

PNVTs, Riparian Areas, All 

Forested PNVTs, Ponderosa 

Pine, Dry Mixed Conifer, Wet 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

268 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Plan Decisions Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Mixed Conifer, Spruce-Fir, 

Madrean Pine-Oak, Wildlife 

and Rare Plants, Overall 

Recreation Opportunities, 

Dispersed Recreation, 

Developed Recreation, 

Livestock Grazing, Heber Wild 

Horse Territory MA, Wildlife 

Quiet Area MA, Natural 

Landscape MA, Recommended 

Research Natural Area MA

Fine filter plan 

decisions that are in 

addition to the coarse 

filter plan decisions 

above that provide 

viability for: 

All ESA Species

Aquatic Habitat and 

Species, Invasive 

Species, Forest 

Products, Livestock 

Grazing, Special 

Uses, Water Uses

Water Resources, Aquatic 

Habitat and Species, All 

PNVTs, Riparian Areas, All 

Forested PNVTs, Ponderosa 

Pine Forests, Dry Mixed 

Conifer Forests,Madrean 

pine-oak Woodland,Wildlife 

and Rare Plants,Invasive 

Species,Overall Recreation 

Opportunities, Dispersed 

Recreation, Motorized 

Opportunities, Nonmotorized 

Opportunities, Special Uses, 

Utility Corridor MA

Alternative A: On April 6, 2011, the Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office completed a 

biological assessment (BA) for ongoing implementation of the 1987 plan (Forest Service, 2011 

a). On April 30, 2012, the USFWS issued a biological and conference opinion (BO/CO) that 

included ESA species on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The BA findings for nonfish species are 

shown in table 84. These would be the effects should alternative A, the 1987 plan, continue to be 

implemented. For more information, see the biological and conference opinion (BO/CO) for the 

continued implementation of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs land and resource management plan 

(USFWS, 2012).

Table 85. Alternative A (1987 plan) ESA species findings from the 2011 biological 

assessment (BA)

Species1 Status 2011 BA Findings 2011 BO/CO Conclusions 

2012

Mexican wolf Experimental, 

nonessential (ENE)

Not likely to jeopardize Not likely to jeopardize 

Mexican spotted owl

Critical habitat 

Threatened May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Not likely to jeopardize 

MSO

Not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify CH

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Critical habitat2

Threatened May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Not likely to jeopardize 

SWWF

Not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify CH
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 269

Species1 Status 2011 BA Findings 2011 BO/CO Conclusions 

2012

Chiricahua leopard frog

Critical habitat3

Threatened 

Proposed

May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Not likely to jeopardize 

SWWF

Not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify CH

Three Forks springsnail4 Candidate Not likely to jeopardize (may 

affect, likely to adversely

affect, if listed)

(critical habitat not addressed)

Not likely to jeopardize 

TFSS

Not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify CH

1 The 2011 BA and 2012 BO did not address the lesser long-nosed bat for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs; however, for 

forest plan revision, this species is included as a FPS, see below.

2 Since this consultation, new critical habitat has been proposed for the southwestern willow flycatcher.

3 Since the BO/CO was issued, critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog has been finalized.

4 Between the 2011 BA and the 2012 BO/CO, the Three Forks springsnail and critical habitat were proposed and 

finalized.

The above findings and conclusions (table 85) are based on current plan direction including 

standards and guidelines. These are not reiterated here but may be found in the 1987 ApacheSitgreaves National Forests plan, as amended.

Alternatives B, C, and D: While the action alternatives may affect all ESA species, they reduce 

risks to habitat and improve viability for ESA species. Overall, plan implementation under 

alternatives B, C, and D would move habitat toward desired conditions over the long term and 

plan components would help to minimize any potential short-term impacts from plan 

implementation to ESA species. 

Consequences by Individual ESA Species

Determination of the environmental effects or consequences for these species, in accordance with 

ESA, follows. All action alternatives (B, C, and D) may affect each of these ESA species and, 

where applicable, their critical habitat. The “Draft Wildlife Specialist Report – Biological 

Assessment” (Forest Service, 2012ee) once finalized will provide more detail and final 

determinations.

Mexican Spotted Owl: Threatened with Critical Habitat 

Alternative A: see above. 

Alternatives B, C, and D: All of the action alternatives provide plan components or decisions 

such as desired conditions, standards, and guidelines favorable for the Mexican spotted owl and 

its critical habitat. Appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by 

various plan components. Examples of key plan components (decisions) that address the Mexican 

spotted owl include: 

• Federal species are trending toward recovery. Natural ecological processes (e.g., fire, 

drought, wind, insects, disease, pathogens) return to their innate role within the 

ecosystem. Fire, in particular, is restored to a more natural function. Uncharacteristic fire 

behavior is minimal or absent on the landscape. Old or large trees, multistoried canopies, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

270 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

large coarse woody debris, and snags provide the structure, function, and associated 

vegetation composition as appropriate for each forested and woodland PNVT. Stand 

densities and species compositions are such that vegetation conditions are resilient under 

a variety of potential future climates. Herbaceous vegetation amount and structure (e.g., 

plant density, height, litter, seed heads) provides habitat to support prey species. Some 

isolated infestations of mistletoe provide for a diversity of habitat components (e.g., food, 

nesting, cover) for a variety of species such as owls, squirrels, and some birds and 

insects. 

• Restoration methods, such as thinning or burning, should leave a mosaic of undisturbed 

areas within the larger treated project area, especially within meadows, openings, and 

swales, to retain or allow recolonization of small mammals and insects. Some large 

patches in the Madrean pine-oak woodland are closed canopy, have multiple age classes, 

and old growth-like characteristics (e.g., numerous snags, large coarse woody debris) in 

order to provide for wildlife such as Mexican spotted owl and black bear that need denser 

habitat. Where Mexican spotted owls are found nesting in canyons or on north slopes 

within Madrean pine-oak woodland, adjacent treatments should be modified to meet the 

needs of foraging owls consistent with the species’ recovery plan.

• Trees, snags, and logs immediately adjacent to active red squirrel cone caches, Abert’s 

squirrel nests, and raptor nests should be retained to maintain needed habitat components 

and provide tree groupings. Where it naturally occurs, Gambel oak is present with all age 

classes represented. It is reproducing to maintain or expand its presence on capable sites 

across the landscape. Large Gambel oak snags are typically 10 inches or larger in 

diameter and are well distributed. Snags and coarse woody debris are well distributed 

throughout the landscape. Snags are typically 18 inches in diameter or greater and 

average 3 per acre. Coarse woody debris, including logs, ranges from 5-8 to 15-40 tons 

per acre. Logs average three per acre within the forested area of the landscape. Tree 

density ranges from 20 to 180 square feet basal area per acre depending upon time since 

disturbance and seral states of groups and patches.

• Where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late seral states and 

species composition on a landscape scale, old growth characteristics should be retained or 

encouraged to the greatest extent possible within the scope of meeting other desired 

conditions (e.g., reduce impacts from insects and disease, reduce the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfire)—this applies to alternatives A, B, and D, but not to alternative 

C.

With the alternative C exception noted above, differences among alternatives relate primarily to 

differences in treatment objectives and overall management effect. All of these alternatives have 

forested PNVT restoration objectives that would improve habitat for Mexican spotted owl. All 

alternatives use both thinning and burning treatments and all have an emphasis for treatment in 

ponderosa pine which would include some restoration treatments in ponderosa pine-oak habitats. 

Table 86 shows treatment acres that were modeled by alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 271

Table 86. Modeled acres treated per year in MSO PNVTs (high treatment level)

PNVT Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Ponderosa Pine 10,721 23,249 35,842 31,901

Dry Mixed Conifer 601 7,150 11,150 9,501

Wet Mixed Conifer 542 6,132 9,432 7,066

Spruce-Fir 16 750 1,111 1,000

Total annual modeled acreage treated 11,880 37,281 57,535 49,468

Overall, each of the action alternatives would move conditions toward desired conditions. For 

the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests, departure from forest structure reference 

conditions or movement toward desired (open forest) conditions is greatest under alternative C, 

followed by alternatives B, then D, and A. For the wet mixed conifer forested PNVT, departure 

from reference conditions or movement toward desired conditions is greatest under alternative 

A, followed by alternatives B, then D and C. Under the action alternatives and alternative A, the 

spruce-fir forested PNVT moves further away from desired conditions over the 15-year plan 

period (spruce-fir represents less than 3 percent of MSO protected habitat in PACs).

Management under all these alternatives would be likely to minimize the likelihood of MSO take 

and support the recovery of Mexican spotted owl. However, management direction under these 

alternatives would not preclude actions that may affect this species. Also factoring into the 

complexity of different alternative outcomes is the change in suitable habitat (baseline) for this 

species from the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire and 2011 Wallow Fire and the uncertainty about how 

owls in the more severely burned protected and restricted habitat might respond. Therefore, 

implementation of alternatives B, C, and D may affect the Mexican spotted owl. 

Plan components help provide for primary constituent elements (PCEs) or habitat components of 

importance to viability of ESA species. PCEs consist of large trees and snags, large woody debris, 

and herbaceous plant cover and seeds for prey, except that alternative C does not provide 

direction for old growth characteristics where these PNVTs are lacking in proportional 

representation. Therefore, plan implementation under alternatives B, C, and D may affect 

Mexican spotted owl critical habitat and possibly more so under alternative C. 

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced overall precipitation (Forest Service, 2010b). This has the 

potential to move the lower elevational limits of dry mixed conifer, wet mixed conifer, and 

spruce-fir forests upward, thereby reducing suitable Mexican spotted owl acreage across the 

planning unit. While drying conditions could also make these forest types more susceptible to 

uncharacteristic wildfire, treatments under all alternatives would help lessen this risk. The White 

Mountain Apache Reservation and the San Carlos Indian Reservation have a timber program that 

could cumulatively affect Mexican spotted owl. Additional effects for this species could accrue 

from plan direction on the adjacent Coconino and Gila NFs but these forests would undertake 

their own ESA consultation for plan revision. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

272 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: Endangered with Critical Habitat

Alternative A: see above

Alternatives B, C, and D: The action alternatives all provide desired conditions, standards, and

guidelines favorable for the southwestern willow flycatcher. Key examples include: 

• Federal species are trending toward recovery. Habitat and ecological conditions are 

capable of providing for self-sustaining populations of native, riparian dependent plant 

and animal species. Habitat configuration and availability allows wildlife populations to 

adjust their movements (e.g., seasonal migration, foraging) in response to climate change 

and promote genetic flow between wildlife populations. Vegetation and soil conditions 

above the floodplain contribute to downstream water quality, quantity, and aquatic 

habitat. Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water 

should be protected from detrimental changes in water temperature and sediment to 

protect aquatic species and riparian habitat. Recreation use does not negatively affect 

wildlife habitat and populations. Negative interactions between people and wildlife are 

minimized. Critical areas (e.g., riparian areas) should be managed to address the inherent 

or unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts. The use of belowground 

utilities should be favored to avoid potential conflicts with resources (e.g., scenic 

integrity, wildlife, wildfire, heritage). Special uses for water diversions shall maintain 

fish, wildlife, and aesthetic values and otherwise protect the environment. Streams on 

NFS lands with high aquatic values and at risk from new water diversions shall be 

preserved and protected with instream flow water rights.

Watershed and riparian conditions would improve overall under alternatives B and D, but less so 

under alternative C. Each of these alternatives would move conditions toward desired conditions 

and management direction would be likely to minimize likelihood of flycatcher take and support 

the recovery of this species. However, management direction under these action alternatives 

would not preclude actions that may affect the species. Therefore, alternatives B, C, and D may 

affect the southwestern willow flycatcher.

Thinning and burning treatments in the watersheds above of up to 55,000 acres per year (although 

not all within the Little Colorado River and San Francisco River watersheds) could result in 

higher flows, sediment, and heavy debris that could possibly impact the willows at occupied sites 

and fill in back water habitat. Coupled with Wallow Fire impacts, these could together impact 

primary constituent elements of dense riparian vegetation with small openings and slow-moving 

water attracting insect prey populations. Therefore, plan implementation under alternatives B, C, 

and D may affect southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. 

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation, consequently reducing water in riparian zones 

(Forest Service, 2010b) and, thereby, possibly reducing nesting habitat for the southwestern 

willow flycatcher. All three nesting sites and much of the critical habitat for this species is 

adjacent to or surrounded by private land. Increased housing and other development with 

associated wells could reduce the groundwater table in the Greer and Alpine areas which could 

lower streamflows and reduce the wetted portion of the floodplain that supports the extensive 

willow stands and insect prey used by nesting flycatchers. In addition, elk management and 

numbers which have and can impact the development of extensive willow stands are outside of 

Forest Service control.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 273

Chiricahua Leopard Frog: Threatened with Critical Habitat

Alternative A: see above

Alternatives B, C, and D: All of the action alternatives provide plan components or decisions 

such as desired conditions, standards, and guidelines favorable for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

and its critical habitat. Appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met 

by various plan components. Examples of key plan components (decisions) that address the 

Chiricahua leopard frog include: 

• Federal species are trending toward recovery. Water quality meets the needs of aquatic 

species such as the ...Chiricahua leopard frog. Ponding and channel characteristics 

provide habitat, water depth, water duration, and the temperatures necessary for 

maintaining populations of riparian dependent species and for their dispersal. Projects 

and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential for the introduction of 

new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or terrestrial nonnative

populations. Projects and activities should not transfer water between drainages or 

between unconnected water bodies within the same drainage to avoid spreading disease 

and aquatic invasive species. 

Other plan decisions would help provide viability for the Chiricahua leopard frog. The proposed 

Three Forks Research Natural Area would afford additional protection by precluding livestock 

grazing, timber production, new motorized roads, trails, and temporary roads in the Three Forks 

area where the species has occurred. The proposed Lower Campbell Blue research natural area 

would afford the same protection to locations of the frog in Campbell Blue Creek and Coleman 

Creek.

Differences among alternatives relate primarily to differences in treatment objectives and overall 

management effect. All of these alternatives have riparian restoration objectives that would 

improve riparian habitat. Alternatives B and D would treat a similar number of miles and acres, 

and both alternatives would trend toward proper functioning condition over the long term. 

Restoration work under alternatives A and C would occur on an opportunity basis only and both 

alternatives would trend away from proper functioning condition (see table 3). Watershed 

restoration objectives would improve upland conditions based on priority 6th code watershed 

selected for removing or mitigating degrading factors (with some limitations under alternative C). 

However, at this time, neither the Upper Black River 5th code nor the Upper Blue River 5th code 

(includes Campbell Blue Creek) where the flycatcher and its habitat are found are priority 

watersheds for treatment. 

Watershed and riparian conditions would improve overall under alternatives B and D, but less so 

under alternative C. Each of these alternatives would move conditions toward desired conditions 

and management direction would be likely to minimize the likelihood of take and support the 

recovery of this species. However, management direction under these alternatives would not 

preclude actions that may affect this species. Therefore, plan implementation under alternatives 

B, C, and D may affect the Chiricahua leopard frog, relative to direct grazing impacts and 

indirect watershed impacts, especially post-Wallow Fire.

Thinning and burning treatments in the watersheds above of up to 55,000 acres per year (although 

not all within the Black River watershed and Campbell Blue watersheds) could result in higher 

flows and increased sediment and debris. Coupled with Wallow Fire impacts, these could together 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

274 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

impact critical habitat primary constituent elements of fresh water, emergent/submerged 

vegetation, and well distributed ephemeral or intermittent drainage dispersal corridors free of 

barriers. Therefore, plan implementation under alternatives B, C, and D may affect Chiricahua 

leopard frog critical habitat. 

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation, consequently reducing water in riparian zones 

(Forest Service, 2010b), thereby possibly reducing the aquatic habitat needed by the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. There is one 5-acre private land property in upper Campbell Blue Creek that has an 

older house, although the site could be further developed. There is another 86-acre property 

below occupied and critical habitat on lower Campbell Blue Creek although no activities on or 

associated with this private land are known to be affecting occupied Chiricahua leopard frog 

habitat upstream of this private land at this time. Spring and summer elk use impacts riparian

conditions in the Three Forks area (wallowing) and two tanks (bank trampling) where the frog 

has been introduced. Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks are general movement corridors 

between spring/summer and fall/winter habitat for elk and deer.

Three Forks Springsnail: Endangered with Critical Habitat

Alternative A: see above

Alternatives B, C, and D: All of the action alternatives all provide plan components or decisions 

such as desired conditions, standards, or guidelines favorable for the Three Forks springsnail and 

its critical habitat. Appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by 

various plan components. Examples of key plan components (decisions) that address the Three 

Forks springsnail include: 

• Federal species are trending toward recovery. Vegetation and soil condition above the 

floodplain contribute to downstream water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitat. Habitat 

and ecological conditions are capable of providing for self-sustaining populations of 

native, riparian dependent plant and animal species. Rare, unique habitats (e.g., talus 

slopes, cliffs, canyon slopes, caves, fens, bogs, sinkholes) should be protected.

Other plan decisions would help provide viability for the Three Forks springsnail. The proposed 

Three Forks Research Natural Area would afford additional protection by precluding livestock 

grazing, timber production, new motorized roads, trails, and temporary roads. This would occur 

not just within occupied sites but in the canyon reaches of North and East Forks Black River and 

Boneyard Creek drainages above occupied sites.

Differences among alternatives relate primarily to differences in treatment objectives and overall 

management effect. However, Three Forks springsnail sites and critical habitat encompass very 

small acreage and these areas are not likely to be the focus of each plan alternative’s withinriparian treatment objectives. Watershed restoration objectives would improve upland conditions 

based on priority 6th code watersheds selected for removing or mitigating degrading factors (with 

some limitations under alternative C). However, at this time, the Upper Black River 5th code 

watershed (includes East Fork Black River) where the frog and its habitat are found is not a 

priority watershed. In addition, the East Fork Black River 6th code watershed is currently 

functioning-at-risk.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 275

Watershed and riparian conditions would improve overall under alternatives B and D, but less so 

under alternative C. Each of these alternatives would move conditions toward desired conditions 

and management direction would be likely to minimize the likelihood of take and support the 

recovery of this species. However, management direction under these alternatives would not 

preclude actions that may affect this species. Therefore, plan implementation under alternatives 

B, C, and D may affect the Three Forks springsnail, primarily related to indirect watershed and 

riparian effects, during the plan period.

Thinning and burning treatments in the watersheds above of up to 55,000 acres per year (although 

not all within the Black River watershed) could result in higher flows and increased sediment and 

debris. Coupled with Wallow Fire impacts, these could cumulatively impact critical habitat 

primary constituent elements of water quality and hiding and foraging habitat. Therefore, plan 

implementation under alternatives B, C, and D may affect Three Forks springsnail critical 

habitat. 

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation, possibly reducing water in riparian zones (Forest 

Service, 2010b) and result in the loss of spring-runs needed by the Three Forks springsnail. 

However, rheocrene springs that support this species may be more likely to be impacted by 

groundwater pumping. There is one well located on private land adjacent to Boneyard Bog and 

upstream of the occupied springsnail sites along Boneyard Creek. In addition, elk wallowing and 

trampling is common at Three Forks and Boneyard Bog in the spring and early summer and 

outside of Forest Service control.

Mexican Wolf: Experimental, Nonessential Population

Alternative A: see above

Alternatives B, C, and D: All of the action alternatives all provide plan components or decisions 

such as desired conditions, standards, or guidelines favorable for the Mexican wolf. Appendix G 

contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by various plan components. 

Examples of key plan components (decisions) that address the Mexican wolf include: 

• Federal species are trending toward recovery. Large blocks of habitat are interconnected, 

allowing for behavioral and predator-prey interactions, and the persistence of 

metapopulations and highly interactive species (e.g., the wolf) across the landscape... 

Vegetative connectivity provides for species dispersal, genetic exchange, and daily and 

seasonal movements across multiple spatial scales (i.e., the wolf and its prey). 

Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to reduce negative 

impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.Herbaceous vegetation amount and structure 

(e.g., plant density, height, litter, seed heads) provides habitat to support prey species. 

Vegetation conditions provide hiding and thermal cover in contiguous blocks for wildlife. 

Native plant species are present in all age (size/canopy) classes and are healthy, 

reproducing, and persisting. Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel 

corridor cover should be provided where needed by wildlife. Cool and/or dense 

vegetation cover should be provided for species needing these habitat components...

Other plan decisions would help provide for the Mexican wolf. Management areas where 

motorized vehicle use is restricted or prohibited reduce the wolf’s exposure to loss from vehicles 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

276 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

or illegal activities. Management areas providing more secure habitat for the wolf and its prey 

include wildlife quiet areas, wilderness, recommended wilderness, and the primitive area. 

The amount of acreage in these more secure habitats varies by alternative. Besides the existing 

Blue Range Primitive Area and existing wildernesses, alternative B would provide about 57,247

acres in such habitats (2.7 percent of the forests). Alternative C would provide about 51,335 acres 

(2.4 percent) and alternative D would provide 544,091 acres (25.9 percent). These figures 

compare to alternative A which would provide no additional areas. Hence, alternative D would 

provide the greatest viability effectiveness for the Mexican wolf, alternative A the least, with 

alternatives B and C intermediate. Viability of prey species like elk and deer are equally 

provided for under all action alternatives.

Although plan components address wolf exposure to harm in more open habitats, plan 

implementation under alternatives B, C, and D may affect the Mexican wolf and its prey and 

habitat. 

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation, consequently reducing water in riparian zones 

(Forest Service, 2010b). These possible changes may affect wolf prey species, although how 

substantially is not known at this time. Factors outside Forest Service control may affect Mexican 

wolves as well. AZGFD objectives for elk and deer populations are as follows.

The elk management goal (AZGFD, 2011a) is to maintain and, where possible, enhance elk 

populations at levels that provide maximum and diverse recreational opportunities, while 

avoiding adverse impacts to the species and its habitat while minimizing land use conflicts. Some 

specific objectives for elk management include: maintain a stable to increasing statewide 

population of elk and maintain annual harvest at greater than or equal to 9,000 elk. The deer 

management goal (AZGFD, 2011b) is to maintain and, where possible, enhance deer populations 

at levels that provide maximum and diverse recreation opportunities as well. This includes hunts 

for antlered and antlerless mule deer and white-tailed deer. Two deer hunts are offered each 

month during September, October, and November annually, with possible limited hunts in 

December. Juniors and archery-only hunts are additionally offered during the fall.

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat: Endangered

Alternative A: Based on the most recent information, the lesser long-nosed bat is not known on 

the forests. However, because management direction under this alternative would not preclude 

actions that could affect habitat for this long distance flying species, alternative A may affect the 

lesser long-nosed bat through burning and grazing should it be present. For climate and 

cumulative effects, see below.

Alternatives B, C, and D: All of the action alternatives provide plan components (decisions)

such as desired conditions, standards, or guidelines favorable for the lesser long-nosed bat. 

Appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by various plan 

components. Examples of some key plan components addressing the lesser long-nosed bat 

include: 

• Federal species are trending toward recovery. Landscape scale restoration projects should 

be designed to spread out treatments spatially and/or temporally to reduce 

implementation impacts and allow reestablishment of vegetation and cover. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 277

Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to reduce negative 

impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives. Restoration methods, such as thinning and 

burning, should leave a mosaic of undisturbed areas within the larger treated areas... 

Caves and abandoned mines that are used by bats should be managed to prevent 

disturbance to species and spread of disease (e.g., white-nose syndrome).

Even with direction for a mosaic of untreated areas during project implementation, burning could 

impact some agave forage plants as could livestock grazing. As such, plan implementation under 

alternatives B, C, and D may affect the lesser long-nosed bat should it be present.

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation (Forest Service, 2010b). Potentially warmer and 

drier conditions may result in an expansion of the semi-desert grassland and Madrean pine-oak 

woodland on the forests and associated food plants for species such as the lesser long-nosed bat. 

On the other hand, potential expansion of the Freeport-McMoRan open-pit mine near Morenci 

and the forests’ boundary would remove habitat acres currently providing foraging plants that 

could be used by this species.

The lesser long-nosed bat may be cumulatively impacted by livestock grazing and burning on the 

Coronado National Forest where it is known to occur. These activities may additionally be 

occurring on other Federal lands (e.g., lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service) and on State and private lands in the southern half of Arizona. 

Sensitive Species 

Sensitive species are designated because of concerns about trends in population or habitat 

capability (Forest Service Manual 2670.5). As previously noted, all plan alternatives provide 

species viability to varying levels of effectiveness. The viability discussion for the 53 Regional 

Forester sensitive species identified as forest planning species is organized by coarse filter PNVTs 

and fine filter habitat elements to facilitate alternative comparison. Determinations are made for 

sensitive species relative to impacts to individuals and potential trend toward Federal listing 

(Forest Service Handbook 2670.32). 

Viability risk ratings for sensitive species as FPS are included in table 80. The management 

effect, as a reflection of plan objectives for each alternative, is shown for each of the habitats 

associated with sensitive species in table 77. Sections of the plan that contain plan components 

(decisions) relative to sensitive species at the coarse and fine filter are indicated in table 87 below.

Some key plan components (decisions) that help meet the needs of sensitive species are noted in 

the following species across habitat discussions. In this section, DC indicates desired condition, 

ST indicates standard, and GL indicates guideline.

For more information, appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met 

by various plan components (decisions). In addition, the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability”

contains a complete list of plan decisions relative to sensitive species (e.g., desired conditions, 

standards, guidelines). The “Draft Biological Evaluation” (Forest Service, 2012ff) contains more 

detail on analysis of sensitive species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

278 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 87. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address sensitive species at 

the coarse and fine filter levels

Viability/Plan Decision Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Coarse filter plan decisions that 

provide viability for: 

All Sensitive Species 

Riparian Areas, All 

PNVTs, Ponderosa Pine, 

Dry Mixed Conifer, Wet 

Mixed Conifer, PiñonJuniper, Madrean PineOak, Grasslands, Interior 

Chaparral

Fine filter plan decisions that are 

in addition to the coarse filter 

plan decisions above that provide 

viability for: 

Ponderosa Pine Forest Sensitive 

Species: Mogollon vole, 

Merriam’s shrew, four-spotted 

skipperling butterfly, Arizona 

sneezeweed, Mogollon clover

Ponderosa Pine, Wildlife 

and Rare Plants

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 

Sensitive Species: Goodding’s 

onion, Merriam’s shrew

Dry Mixed Conifer, 

Wildlife and Rare Plants

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 

Sensitive Species: White 

Mountains chipmunk, southern 

red-backed vole

Soil, Wildlife and Rare 

Plants

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 

Sensitive Species: Greene 

milkweed

All PNVTs, Wildlife and 

Rare Plants

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 

Sensitive Species: Ferris’ copper

butterfly, nitocris and nakomis 

fritillary butterflies, dwarf shrew, 

long-tailed vole, White 

Mountains ground squirrel

All PNVTs, Wildlife and 

Rare Plants

Great Basin Grassland Sensitive 

Species: Springerville pocket 

mouse, White Mountains ground 

squirrel, Greene milkweed, 

Parish alkali grass

All PNVTs, Wildlife and 

Rare Plants

High Water Quality Sensitive 

Species: Water shrew, bald eagle, 

northern leopard frog, northern 

Mexican gartersnake, narrowheaded gartersnake, California 

floater

Water Resources, Riparian 

Areas, Wildlife and Rare 

Plants, Wild Horse 

Territory MA
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 279

Viability/Plan Decision Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species 

(Healthy Riparian Conditions): 

Water shrew, New Mexico 

meadow jumping mouse, 

northern Mexican gartersnake, 

narrow-headed gartersnake, 

Arizona willow, Bebbs willow

Dispersed 

Recreation

Water Resources, Aquatic 

Habitat and Species, 

Riparian Areas, Wildlife 

and Rare Plants, Livestock 

Grazing

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species 

(Large Trees/Snags, Dense 

Canopies): Allen’s big-eared bat, 

bald eagle

Wildlife and Rare Plants

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species 

(Dense Low-Mid Canopy with 

Ample Ground Litter): Western 

red bat

Dispersed 

Recreation

Wildlife and Rare Plants, 

Motorized Opportunities

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species 

(Permanent Wet Meadow-Like 

Areas): Ferris’ copper butterfly, 

nitocris fritillary butterfly, 

nokomis fritillary butterfly

Wildlife and Rare Plants

Consequences to Coarse Filter Species

Sensitive Species Across All Habitats

The following 24 sensitive species (from table 80) have essentially no risk to viability from any 

of the alternatives because desired conditions for their associated PNVT would meet their needs. 

Modeling has shown all alternatives move habitat toward those conditions at 15 years regardless 

of alternative management effect. In addition, most alternatives continue toward DC at 50 years 

(alternative C is the primary exception, see table 79).

While there may be some impact to individuals from implementation of any of the plan 

alternatives, there would be no trend toward Federal listing for the following sensitive species 

during the plan period under all alternatives: 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, greater western mastiff bat, Arizona 

montane vole, Arizona gray squirrel, red squirrel, northern goshawk, zone-tailed 

hawk, common black-hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, gray catbird, peregrine falcon, 

gray vireo, Arizona toad, lowland leopard frog, Arizona snaketail dragonfly, 

White Mountains paintbrush, Arizona sunflower, Eastwood alumroot, Arizona 

alumroot, heathleaf ragwort, Davidson’s cliff carrot, Blumer’s dock, and 

carnivorous bladderwort.

Consequences to Fine Filter Species

Viability for the remaining 29 sensitive species is provided by fine filter habitat elements with 

consideration for alternative management effect. For the analysis, fine filter sensitive species 

discussed below are grouped by PNVTs and by habitat elements.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

280 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

In order to compare the viability effectiveness among alternatives, the viability risk rating (VRR) 

outcomes for each species (table 80) are combined with the overall PNVT management effect 

(ME) outcomes in terms of how the alternative’s objectives move habitat toward desired 

conditions (table 79). This involves converting viability risk values and management effect values 

into a common descriptor so they can be combined. 

Management effects (ME) outcomes are converted and shown in the following PNVT tables: ME 

of 1 as “+++”; ME 2 as “++”; and ME 3 as “+”. See table 65 for descriptions of each 

management effect.

Viability risk rating outcomes (VRR) are converted and described in table 88 below. VRRs of L 

or M are shown in the following PNVT tables as “+++” because risks are considered no more 

substantial than normal ecosystem fluctuations, therefore providing for viability. The VRR of MH 

is expressed in the tables below as “++” because this rating is best in terms of providing for 

viability effectiveness as compared to the VRR of H which is expressed as “+” (based on the 

analysis, there is no rating of VH). The above viability risk ratings and how they relate to viability 

are shown in table 88 below.

Table 88. Viability risk ratings described and converted

Risk Levels Species Persistence Viability

Levels of

Viability

Effectiveness

Normal ecosystem 

fluctuations →

Species able to adjust and

persistence → Yes (Natural)

VRRs of L and M → Species able to adjust and

persistence because risk is 

similar to normal 

ecosystem fluctuations → Yes → L or M = +++

VRRs of MH, H, VH → Species persists based on 

fine filter guidelines → Yes (alternatives providing 

viability at various effectiveness 

levels for comparison of 

alternatives) → Viability 

effectiveness:

MH = ++ best 

H = + next best 

VH = (no 

occurrences)

All plan components relevant to sensitive species are listed in the “Wildlife Specialist Report –

Biological Evaluation.” In addition, appendix G lists all standards and guidelines addressing 

sensitive and other wildlife species needs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 281

Ponderosa Pine Forest (PPF) PNVT Sensitive Species

Mogollon vole, Merriam’s shrew, four-spotted 

skipperling butterfly, Arizona sneezeweed, Mogollon clover

These five sensitive species have a fine filter habitat need of sometimes shaded or often wet 

meadow or forest openings. These conditions provide insect and invertebrate prey for the vole 

and shrew, moister conditions for nectaring for the butterfly, and cooler growing conditions for 

the two plants. Desired conditions for this PNVT address openings and meadows; however, an 

additional plan component is included to ensure their needs are met: 

• Ponderosa Pine GL – Where consistent with project or activity objectives, canopy cover 

should be retained on the south and southwest sides of small, existing forest openings that 

are naturally cooler and moister. These small (generally one-tenth to one-quarter acre) 

shaded openings provide habitat conditions needed by small mammals, plants, and 

insects (e.g., Merriam’s shrew, Mogollon clover, four-spotted skipperling butterfly).

Where these openings naturally occur across a project area, these conditions should be 

maintained on an average of two or more such openings per 100 acres.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend 

toward Federal listing.

Table 89 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

have the greatest viability effectiveness for these PPF, followed by alternative C, then 

alternative A. 

Individuals of these five species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives, 

which may be more likely under alternative A with its lower overall viability effectiveness (13) as 

compared to the other action alternatives (21, 16, 21 respectively for alternatives B, C, and D).

However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing. This is because 

alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see 

the “Vegetation” section) and the guidelines above additionally provides for these species’ needs. 

Table 89. Viability effectiveness for PPF sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with PPF

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine Filter

Mogollon vole + + + + + + + + + + +

Merriam’s shrew + + + + + + + + + + +

Four-spotted skipperling butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Arizona sneezeweed + + + + + + + + + +

Mogollon clover + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s 13 21 16 21
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

282 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest (DMCF) PNVT Sensitive Species

Goodding’s onion, Merriam’s shrew

Goodding’s onion has a fine filter habitat need for cool forested, understory microclimate sites (it 

is rhizomatous and grows in clusters under trees). Because desired conditions for forest structure 

and density are similar to PPF (more open canopies), the following guideline is included to ensure 

its more shaded needs are met:

• Wildlife GL – Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species needing 

these habitat components (e.g., Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains 

chipmunk).

Merriam’s shrew has a fine filter habitat need for wet meadows and forest openings which

provide the terrestrial insects, worms and other invertebrates that the shrew preys upon. Because 

desired conditions for forest structure and density are similar to PPF (more open canopies), the 

following guidelines are included to ensure its needs are met:

• Dry Mixed Conifer GL – Where consistent with project or activity objectives, canopy 

cover should be retained on the south and southwest sides of small, existing forest 

openings that are naturally cooler and moister. These small (generally one-tenth to onequarter acre) shaded openings provide habitat conditions needed by small mammals, 

plants, and insects (e.g., Merriam’s shrew, Mogollon clover, four-spotted skipperling 

butterfly). Where these openings naturally occur across a project area, these conditions 

should be maintained on an average of two or more such openings per 100 acres.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend 

toward Federal listing.

Table 90 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

provide the greatest viability effectiveness for these DMCF sensitive species, followed by 

alternative C, as compared to alternative A.

Individuals of these two DMCF sensitive species may be impacted by implementation of any of 

the alternatives, which may be somewhat more likely under alternative A. However, none of the 

alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing. This is because alternative objectives 

(see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see the “Vegetation”

section) and the guidelines above additionally provide for these species’ needs. 

Table 90. Viability effectiveness for DMCF sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with DMCF

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine 

Filter

Goodding’s onion + + + + + + + + + + +

Merriam’s shrew + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME

7 9 8 9
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 283

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest (WMCF) and 

Spruce Fir Forest (SFF) PNVTs Sensitive Species

White Mountains chipmunk, southern red-backed vole

These two sensitive species need ample litter and down debris (logs). Decaying logs provide 

fungi that both species feed upon, while litter provides insects, invertebrates, and cover for the 

vole. Guidelines that contribute to these needs follow:

• Soil GL – Coarse woody debris retention and/or creation should be used as needed to 

help retain long-term soil productivity.

• Wildlife GL – Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend 

toward Federal listing.

Table 91 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives (identical for both PNVTs).

Alternative D would provide the greatest viability effectiveness for WMCF sensitive species as 

compared to alternatives A, B, and C, but all are similar. Individuals of these two species may 

be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives. However, none of the alternatives 

would lead to a trend toward Federal listing. This is because alternative objectives (see table 3) 

are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions in WMCF (see the “Vegetation” section)

and the guidelines above additionally provide for these species’ needs. 

Table 91. Viability effectiveness for WMCF and SFF sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with WMCF

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine 

Filter

White Mountains chipmunk + + + + + + + + + + +

Southern red-backed vole + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + +1 + + +1 + + +1

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

7 8 8 9

1 ME for SFF under alternatives B, C, and D is like alternative A, i.e., ++ ; however, it does not change the 

relative viability effectiveness of the alternatives.

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland (MPOW) PNVT Sensitive Species

Greene milkweed

This rare species can be impacted by fire and livestock use so providing a fine filter habitat need 

for adjacent untreated areas helps ensure conditions free of these risks will be available in some 

locations across the landscape of this PNVT. The following guidelines are included to ensure its 

needs are met:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

284 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• All PNVTs GL – Restoration methods, such as thinning or burning, should leave a 

mosaic of undisturbed areas within the larger treated project area, especially within 

meadows, openings, and swales, to retain or allow recolonization of small mammals and 

insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies).

• Wildlife GL – Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend 

toward Federal listing.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Measures (e.g., fencing, planting/translocation, research) 

should be implemented to help ensure regional forester identified sensitive species do not 

trend toward Federal listing.

Table 92 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

have the greatest viability effectiveness, followed by alternative C, then alternative A. 

Individuals of this species may be impacted by implementation of the alternatives which may be 

more likely under alternatives A and C as compared to alternatives B and D. However, none of 

the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing. This is because alternative objectives 

(see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see the “Vegetation”

section) and the guidelines above provides for these species’ needs.

Table 92. Viability effectiveness for MPOW sensitive species

Sensitive FPS 

Associated with MPOW

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine 

Filter

Greene milkweed + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

2 6 4 6

Montane/Subalpine Grassland (MSG) PNVT Sensitive Species

Ferris’ copper butterfly, nitocris and nakomis fritillary butterflies, 

dwarf shrew, long-tailed vole, White Mountains ground squirrel

These sensitive butterfly species utilize seasonally wetted swales which provide nectaring plants 

and damp sites for minerals. 

The three mammals do not move great distances and the squirrel nests underground. These areas 

provide small invertebrate prey for the shrew, and seeds and plant material for the vole and 

ground squirrel. Providing a fine filter habitat need for adjacent untreated areas helps ensure 

conditions will be available in some locations across the landscape of this PNVT for these 

species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 285

The following plan components are included to ensure that all these species needs are met:

• All PNVTs GL – Restoration methods, such as thinning or burning, should leave a 

mosaic of undisturbed areas within the larger treated project area, especially within 

meadows, openings, and swales, to retain or allow recolonization of small mammals and 

insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies).

• All PNVTs GL – Landscape scale restoration projects should be designed to spread out 

treatments spatially and/or temporally to reduce implementation impacts and allow 

reestablishment of vegetation and soil cover.

• Wildlife GL – Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend 

toward Federal listing.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Measures (e.g., fencing, planting/translocation, research) 

should be implemented to help ensure regional forester identified sensitive species do not 

trend toward Federal listing.

Table 93 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B, C, and D would 

have the greatest viability effectiveness for these MSG sensitive species as compared to 

alternative A. 

Individuals of these six species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives 

which may be more likely under alternative A. However, none of the alternatives would lead to a 

trend toward Federal listing because viability has been provided by each alternative. This is 

because alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired 

conditions (see the “Vegetation” section) and the guidelines above additionally provides for these 

species’ needs.

Table 93. Viability effectiveness for MSG sensitive species

Sensitive FPS 

Associated with MSG

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine 

Filter

Ferris’ copper butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Nitocris fritillary butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Nanomis fritillary butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Dwarf shrew + + + + + + + + + + +

Long-tailed vole + + + + + + + + + + +

White Mountains ground squirrel + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

13 21 20 21
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

286 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Great Basin Grassland (GBG) PNVT Sensitive Species

Springerville pocket mouse, White Mountains 

ground squirrel, Greene milkweed, Parish alkali grass

These two small mammals do not move great distances. In addition, these areas provide forage in 

plants and roots for the vole and squirrel. The milkweed can be impacted by fire and livestock 

use, and the grass is highly localized on only alkali wet meadows or drainages. Providing a fine 

filter habitat need for adjacent untreated areas helps ensure conditions for both plants will be 

available in some locations across the landscape of this PNVT for these species. The following 

guidelines are included to ensure needs of these species are met:

• All PNVTs GL – Restoration methods, such as thinning or burning, should leave a 

mosaic of undisturbed areas within the larger treated project area, especially within 

meadows, openings, and swales, to retain or allow recolonization of small mammals and 

insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies).

• All PNVTs GL – Landscape scale restoration projects should be designed to spread out 

treatments spatially and/or temporally to reduce implementation impacts and allow 

reestablishment of vegetation and soil.

• Wildlife GL – Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

• Wildlife GL – The needs of localized species (e.g., New Mexico meadow jumping 

mouse, Bebbs willow, White Mountains paintbrush) should be considered and provided 

for during project activities to ensure their limited or specialized habitats are not lost.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend 

toward Federal listing.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Measures (e.g., fencing, planting/translocation, research) 

should be implemented to help ensure regional forester identified sensitive species do not 

trend toward Federal listing.

Table 94 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

provide the greatest viability effectiveness followed by alternatives C and A. 

Individuals of these three species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives 

which may be more likely under alternative A. However, none of the alternatives would lead to a 

trend toward Federal listing because viability has been provided by each alternative. This is 

because alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired 

conditions (see the “Vegetation” section) and the guidelines above additionally provides for these 

species’ needs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 287

Table 94. Viability effectiveness for GBG sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with GBG

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine Filter

Springerville pocket mouse + + + + + + + + + + +

White Mountains ground squirrel + + + + + + + + + + +

Parish alkali grass + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

7 12 10 12

Semi-Desert Grassland (SDG) PNVT Sensitive Species

There are no sensitive species within the semi-desert grassland that have additional fine filter 

habitat needs.

High Water Quality Sensitive Species

Water shrew, bald eagle, northern leopard frog, northern 

Mexican gartersnake, narrow-headed gartersnake, California floater

All of these six sensitive species are found within the various riparian PNVTs and they require 

high water quality. High water quality is necessary for their breathing and/or feeding and 

reproduction—for either themselves or their prey. Because these species occur across PNVTs, 

desired conditions from other resource areas that contribute to their viability as well as fine filter 

standards and guidelines are listed:

• Water Resources DC – Water quality, stream channel stability, and aquatic habitats retain 

their inherent resilience to natural and other disturbances.

• Water Resources DC – Vegetation and soil conditions above the floodplain contribute to 

downstream water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitat.

• Water Resources DC – Water quality meets the needs of aquatic species such as the 

California floater, northern and Chiricahua leopard frogs, and invertebrates that support 

fish populations.

• Aquatic Habitat and Species DC – Streamflows, habitat, and water quality support native 

aquatic and riparian dependent species and habitat.

• Water Resources GL – To protect water quality and aquatic species, heavy equipment 

and vehicles driven into a water body to accomplish work should be completely clean of 

petroleum residue. Water levels should be below the gear boxes of the equipment in use. 

Lubricants and fuels should be sealed such that inundation by water shall not result in 

leaks.

• Water Resources GL – Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other 

bodies of water should be protected from detrimental changes in water temperature and 

sediment to protect aquatic species and riparian habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

288 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Riparian Area GL – Storage of fuels and other toxicants should be located outside of 

riparian areas to prevent spills that could impair water quality or harm aquatic species.

• Riparian Area GL – Equipment should be fueled or serviced outside of riparian areas to 

prevent spills that could impair water quality or harm aquatic species.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend 

toward Federal listing.

• Wildhorse Territory DC – Grazing and its associated uses are not contributing to reduced 

water quality from sediment or other nonpoint source pollutants.

Table 95 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternative B would provide the 

greatest viability effectiveness for these high water quality sensitive species as compared to 

alternatives A, C, and D which are similar. 

Individuals of these six species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives. 

However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing because viability 

has been provided by each alternative. This is because alternative objectives (see table 3) are

expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see the “Vegetation” section) and the 

guidelines above additionally provide for these species’ needs.

Table 95. Viability effectiveness for high water quality sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

associated with high water quality

Viability effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine Filter

Water shrew + + + + + + + + + + +

Bald eagle + + + + + + + + + + + +

Northern leopard frog + + + + + + + + + + +

Northern Mexican gartnersnake + + + + + + + + + +

Narrow-headed gartersnake + + + + + + + + + +

California floater + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

18 21 19 18

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species (Healthy Riparian Conditions)

Water shrew, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, northern 

Mexican gartersnake, narrow-headed gartersnake, Arizona willow, Bebbs willow

All of these six sensitive animals forage and hunt within the riparian zone. All require tall, dense, 

untrampled vegetation for cover; the shrew and mouse for hiding cover from predators, and the 

snakes for hunting cover and prey habitat. The willows need saturated, uncompacted soils, and 

protection from ungulate grazing in the spring and early summer. The following guidelines (and 

one objective) help provide for their needs:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 289

• Riparian Areas Objective – Annually, work with partners to reduce animal damage to 

native willows and other riparian species on an average of 5 miles of riparian habitat 

(only for alternatives B, C, and D).

• Water Resources GL – Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other 

bodies of water should be protected from detrimental changes in water temperature and 

sediment to protect aquatic species and riparian habitat.

• Aquatic Habitat and Species GL – Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide 

for aquatic species and riparian vegetation.

• Riparian Areas GL – Wet meadows and active floodplains with riparian-obligate species 

should provide sufficient herbaceous cover (55 percent or greater) and height (6 to 9 

inches or longer) to trap sediment, mitigate flood energy, stabilize banks, and provide for 

wildlife and plant needs.

• Riparian Areas GL – Ground-disturbing projects (including planned ignition) which may 

degrade long-term riparian conditions should be avoided.

• Riparian Areas GL – Active grazing allotments should be managed to maintain or 

improve to desired riparian conditions.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend 

toward Federal listing.

• Dispersed Recreation ST – Dispersed campsites shall not be designated in areas with 

sensitive soils or within 50 feet of streams, wetlands, or riparian areas to prevent

vegetation and bank damage, soil compaction, additional sediment, or soil and water 

contamination.

• Livestock Grazing GL – Critical areas (e.g., riparian areas) should be managed to address 

the inherent or unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts.

• Livestock Grazing GL – New livestock troughs, tanks, and holding facilities should be 

located out of riparian areas to prevent concentration of livestock in these areas. Existing 

facilities in riparian areas should be modified, relocated, or removed where their presence 

is determined to inhibit movement toward desired riparian or aquatic conditions.

• Livestock Grazing GL – To prevent resource damage, trailing of livestock should not 

occur along riparian areas.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Measures (e.g., fencing, planting/translocation, research) 

should be implemented to help ensure regional forester identified sensitive species do not 

trend toward Federal listing.

Table 96 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

provide the greatest viability effectiveness as compared to alternatives A and C. This is because 

of differences in treatment objectives. Restoration objectives for desired riparian composition, 

structure, and function are only on an “opportunity basis” under alternatives A and C. Treatments 

to restore desired conditions under alternatives B and C range from 200 to 600 acres per year. In 

addition, alternative A would not include working with partners to reduce animal damage to 

native riparian species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

290 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 96. Viability effectiveness for healthy riparian sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with High Water Quality

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine 

Filter

Water shrew + + + + + + + + + +

NM meadow jumping mouse + + + + + + + + + +

Northern Mexican gartnersnake + + + + + + + + + +

Narrow-headed gartersnake + + + + + + + + + +

Arizona willow + + + + + + + + + + +

Bebbs willow + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

14 21 16 21

Individuals of these six species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives. 

However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing because viability 

has been provided by each alternative. This is because alternative objectives (see table 3) are

expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see the “Vegetation” section) and the above 

guidelines and other plan components additionally provide for these species’ needs.

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species (Large Trees/Snags, Dense Canopies)

Allen’s big-eared bat, bald eagle

Maternity colonies of Allen’s big-eared bats are found in boulder piles, crevices, and beneath the 

bark of large ponderosa pine snags. The bald eagle has a habitat need for tall, healthy, and strong 

trees to build nests in. These may be riparian trees like cottonwood or forested PNVT trees near 

water. Bald eagles have nested in a very large ponderosa pine since 1993 located near Luna Lake

and large Douglas-fir trees near Crescent Lake since 2007. Breeding, incubating, and young 

rearing eagles are especially sensitive to disturbance. Desired conditions from different PNVTs 

that contribute to their viability as well as fine filter standards and guidelines are listed:

• All PNVTs DC – Old or large trees, multistoried canopies, large coarse woody debris, 

and snags provide the structure, function, and associated vegetation composition as 

appropriate for each forested and woodland PNVT.

• Riparian Areas DC – Vegetation is structurally diverse, often dense, providing for high 

bird species diversity and abundance, especially neotropical migratory birds. It includes 

large trees and snags in the cottonwood willow and mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian 

forests to support species such as beaver, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, Arizona gray 

squirrel, and various bat species.

• Wildlife GL – Any action likely to cause a disturbance and take to bald and golden eagles 

in nesting and young rearing areas should be avoided per the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 291

• Wildlife and Rare Plants GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend 

toward Federal listing.

Table 97 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternative D provides 

somewhat greater viability effectiveness, followed by alternatives A and B, then alternative C.

Individual Allen’s big-eared bats may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives. 

Individual bald eagles could not be impacted by implementation of any alternative unless a permit 

for limited, non-purposeful take of bald eagles (and golden eagles) is issued by the USFWS. 

Table 97. Viability effectiveness for large tree sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with High Water Quality

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine 

Filter

Allen’s big-eared bat + + + + + + + + + +

Bald eagle + + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

8 8 7 9

However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for these two

sensitive species because viability has been provided by each alternative. This is because 

alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see 

the “Vegetation” section), and the guidelines above additionally provides for these species’ needs.

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species (Dense 

Low-Mid Canopy with Ample Ground Litter)

Western red bat

The western red bat is the only sensitive species in this category. On the forests, it is associated 

primarily with the MBDRF, needing dense canopy for roosting. It is thought this bat burrows into 

leaf litter or dense grass during hibernation. Desired conditions from other resource areas that 

contribute to the viability of this species as well as fine filter standards and guidelines are listed:

• All PNVTs DC – Old or large trees, multistoried canopies, large coarse woody debris, 

and snags provide the structure, function, and associated vegetation composition as 

appropriate for each forested and woodland PNVT.

• Riparian Areas DC – Natural ecological processes (e.g., flooding, scouring) promote a 

diverse plant structure consisting of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species of all ages and 

size classes necessary for the recruitment of riparian dependent species.

• Riparian Areas DC – Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species that support a 

wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive plant and 

animal species.

• Riparian Areas DC – Active grazing allotments should be managed to maintain or 

improve to desired riparian conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

292 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Wildlife GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend toward Federal 

listing.

• Dispersed Recreation ST – “Dispersed campsites shall not be designated in areas with 

sensitive soils or within 50 feet of streams, wetlands, or riparian areas to prevent 

vegetation and bank damage, soil compaction, additional sediment, or soil and water 

contamination.”

• Motorized Opportunities GL – As projects occur in riparian or wet meadow areas, 

unneeded roads or motorized trails should be closed or relocated, drainage restored, and 

native vegetation reestablished to move these areas toward their desired condition.

Table 98 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. All alternatives have nearly the 

same viability effectiveness, with alternative C providing slightly less viability effectiveness. 

Individual red bats may be impacted by any alternative. However, none of the alternatives would 

lead to a trend toward Federal listing because viability has been provided by each alternative. 

This is because alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired 

conditions (see the “Vegetation” section), and the above guidelines and other plan components

additionally provide for these species’ needs.

Table 98. Viability effectiveness for dense low-mid canopy with ample ground litter

sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with High Water 

Quality

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine 

filter

Western red bat + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

4 4 3 4

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species (Permanent Wet Meadow-Like Areas)

Ferris’ copper butterfly, nitocris fritillary butterfly, nokomis fritillary butterfly 

These sensitive butterfly species have a need for permanent wet meadow areas within forested 

areas or in WCRAs. These provide nectaring plants and damp sites for minerals. These areas also 

contain larval host plants: a species of dock or sorrel (genus Rumex) for Ferris’ copper butterfly 

and violets (genus Viola) for the fritillary butterflies. Drying of these areas from, for instance, 

stock tank building or soil compaction results in habitat loss. Desired conditions from other 

resource areas that contribute to the viability of this species as well as fine filter standards and 

guidelines are listed:

• All PNVTs GL – Restoration methods, such as thinning or burning, should leave a 

mosaic of undisturbed areas within the larger treated project area, especially within 

meadows, openings, and swales, to retain or allow recolonization of small mammals and 

insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 293

• Riparian Areas DC – Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species that support a 

wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive plant and 

animal species.

• Riparian Areas DC – Active grazing allotments should be managed to maintain or 

improve to desired riparian conditions (e.g., hydrologic function).

• Wildlife GL – Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

• Wildlife GL – Management activities should not contribute to the trend toward Federal 

listing.

Table 99 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D provide 

the greatest viability effectiveness as compared to alternatives A and C. Individual butterflies 

may be impacted by any alternative. However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend 

toward Federal listing because viability has been provided by each alternative. This is because 

alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see 

the “Vegetation” section), and the above guidelines and other plan components additionally 

provide for these species’ needs.

Table 99. Viability effectiveness for permanent wet meadow-like areas sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with High Water Quality

Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine Filter

Ferris’ copper butterfly + + + + + + +

nitocris fritillary butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

nokomis fritillary butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

8 11 9 11

Highly Interactive Species

Identified highly interactive species are those species that alter habitat in a manner benefitting 

other species or in the form of affecting prey species, who in turn affect habitat structure and 

function, or those species that range widely to meet their needs. On the forests, these are 

pronghorn antelope, Mexican wolf, beaver, Gunnison’s prairie dog (although not currently known 

on the forests), mountain lion, and black bear. All are forest planning species (FPS).

Viability risk ratings for highly interactive species as FPS are included in table 80. The 

management effect, as a reflection of plan objectives for each alternative, is shown for each of the 

habitats associated with highly interactive species in table 78. Sections of the plan that contain 

plan decisions (components) that benefit these species at the coarse and fine filter are indicated in 

table 100 below.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

294 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by various plan

components. The” Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2012gg) contains more 

detail on analysis of highly interactive species. 

Table 100. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address highly interactive 

species at the coarse and fine filter levels

Viability/Plan Decision Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Coarse filter plan decisions that 

provide viability for: 

All Highly Interactive Species

Pronghorn Antelope

Mexican Wolf

Beaver 

Prairie Dog

Black Bear

Mountain Lion

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog 

Overall Ecosystem Health, 

Water Resources, All 

PNVTs, Riparian Areas, 

Ponderosa Pine, Dry Mixed 

Conifer, Wet Mixed 

Conifer Aspen, Madrean 

Pine-Oak, Grasslands, 

Piñon-Juniper, Wildlife and 

Rare Plants, Overall 

Recreation Opportunities, 

Wildlife Quiet Area MA

Fine filter plan decisions that are 

in addition to the coarse filter plan 

decisions above that provide 

viability for: 

Beaver 

Prairie Dog

Black Bear

Mountain Lion

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog 

Riparian Areas, All 

PNVTs , All Forested 

PNVTs, Ponderosa Pine, 

Dry Mixed Conifer 

Wildlife and Rare Plants

Following are some key plan components (decisions) that help meet the needs of highly 

interactive species in general and individually:

• All Highly Interactive Species – Large blocks of habitat are interconnected, allowing for 

behavioral and predator-prey interactions, and the persistence of metapopulations and 

highly interactive wildlife species across the landscape. Ecological connectivity extends 

through all plant communities and ecotones. Vegetative connectivity provides for species 

dispersal, genetic exchange, and daily and seasonal movements across multiple spatial 

scales. Landscape scale restoration projects should be designed to spread out treatments 

spatially and/or temporally to reduce implementation impacts and allow reestablishment 

of vegetation and soil cover. Recreation use does not negatively affect wildlife habitat 

and populations. Negative interactions between people and wildlife are minimized. 

Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to reduce conflicts with 

wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions. WQAs provide semiprimitive nonmotorized 

recreation opportunities, including relatively quiet recreation opportunities close to or 

adjacent to intensively used areas (without vehicles less exposure to harm).

• Beaver – Streamflows provide connectivity among fish populations and provide 

unobstructed routes critical for fulfilling needs of aquatic, riparian dependent, and many 

upland species of plants and animals. Ponding and channel characteristics provide 

habitat, water depth, water duration, and the temperatures necessary for maintaining 

populations of riparian-dependent species and for their dispersal. Active grazing 

allotments should be managed to maintain or improve to desired riparian conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 295

• Prairie Dog – Average ungrazed grass height varies by grassland PNVT and yearly 

weather conditions. Grass heights range from 11 to 26 inches in Great Basin grasslands. 

Wildlife are free from harassment and from disturbance at a scale that impacts vital 

functions (e.g., breeding, rearing young) that could affect persistence of the species.

• Bear – Vegetation conditions provide hiding and thermal cover in contiguous blocks for 

wildlife. Native plant species are present in all age classes and are healthy, reproducing, 

and persisting. Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover 

should be provided where needed by wildlife. Some large patches in the Madrean pineoak woodland are closed canopy, have multiple age classes, and old growth-like 

characteristics (e.g., numerous snags, large coarse woody debris) in order to provide for 

wildlife such as Mexican spotted owl and black bear that need denser habitat. Cool and/or 

dense vegetation cover should be provided for species needing these habitat components 

(e.g., Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains chipmunk).

• Lion – Herbaceous vegetation amount and structure (e.g., plant density, height, litter, 

seed heads) provides habitat to support prey species. Restoration methods, such as 

thinning or burning, should leave a mosaic of undisturbed areas within the larger treated 

project area, especially within meadows, openings, and swales, to retain or allow 

recolonization of small mammals and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies).

• Bear or Lion – Where Gambel oak or other native hardwood trees and shrubs are 

desirable to retain for diversity, treatments should improve vigor and growth of these 

species (provides low cover for hiding or stalking). Snags and coarse woody debris are 

well distributed throughout the landscape. The number of snags and logs and amount of 

coarse woody debris varies by seral state ranging from 8 to more than 16 tons per acre 

(provides low cover for hiding or stalking). Aspen may comprise 10 to 100 percent of the 

area depending on disturbance (e.g., fire, insects, silvicultural treatments), in multistoried 

patches (provides low cover for hiding or stalking).

In addition to the above plan components, management areas such as wildlife quiet areas (see the 

following section) provide for the needs of these species. The viability of highly interactive 

species is, therefore, well provided for under all alternatives.

Other Planning Species

The following 30 forest planning species (FPS) are not discussed in the above groups of species 

(ESA, sensitive, and highly interactive). Their viability by alternative and as a group is found in 

table 80 and table 83, respectively. 

The management effect, as a reflection of plan objectives for each alternative, is shown for each 

of the habitats associated with these other FPS in table 78. Sections of the plan that contain plan 

decisions (components) that benefit these species at the coarse and fine filter are indicated in table 

101 below. In addition, appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are 

met by various plan components. The “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 

2012gg) contains more detail on analysis of these other FPS. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

296 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 101. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address other FPS needs at

the coarse and fine filter levels

Viability/Plan Decision Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Coarse filter plan decisions 

that provide viability for: 

Arizona myotis bat

mule deer

Abert’s squirrel

red squirrel

juniper titmouse

evening grosbeak

dusky blue grouse

flammulated owl

savannah sparrow

Bigelow’s onion

wood nymph

superb penstemon

splachnoid dung moss

crenulate moonwort

Overall Ecosystem 

Health, All PNVTs, 

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants 

Fine filter plan decisions that 

are in addition to the coarse 

filter plan decisions above that 

provide viability for: 

red-faced warbler

Swainson’s thrush

Montezuma quail

Grace’s warbler

Lincoln’s sparrow

MacGillivray’s warbler

plateau giant tiger beetle

false ameletus mayfly

Mosely caddisfly

Alberta arctic butterfly

White Mountains water penny 

beetle

Mexican hemlock parsley

yellow Jacob’s-ladder

hooded lady’s tresses

Oak Creek triteleia

carnivorous bladderwort

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species, 

Grasslands, 

Invasive Species, 

Water Uses, 

Dispersed 

Recreation, 

Motorized 

Opportunities, 

Forest Products, 

Special Uses

Water Resources, Aquatic 

Habitat and Species, All 

PNVTs, Riparian Areas, 

Aspen, Wildlife and Rare 

Plants, Invasive Species, 

Motorized Opportunities, 

Nonmotorized 

Opportunities, Forest 

Products, Livestock 

Grazing, Special Uses, 

Energy Corridor MA, 

Research Natural Area MA, 

Recommended Research 

Natural Area MA

Other Factors of Viability Concern

Other identified factors of concern for viability of certain FPS are addressed by fine filter 

standards and guidelines. Table 102 contains some key plan components (decisions) addressing 

these concerns.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 297

Table 102. Other factors of concern and affected forest planning species (FPS)

Other Factors 

of Concern 

FPS Addressed by Fine Filter Standard or Guideline 

Collection or loss 

from 

management 

nitocris fritillary 

butterfly, nokomis 

fritillary butterfly, 

yellow lady’s 

slipper, hooded 

lady’s tress

When new water diversions are created or existing water diversions 

are reanalyzed, measures should be taken to prevent entrapment of 

fish and aquatic organisms. Modifications, mitigations, or other 

measures should be incorporated to reduce negative impacts to 

plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species 

needs, consistent with project or activity objectives. Pesticide use 

should minimize impacts on nontarget plants and animals.

Permits which authorize the collection of forest products shall 

include permit provisions to ensure the needs of wildlife, which 

depend upon those forest products, will continue to be met (e.g., 

cone and mushroom collection and the overwinter forage needs of 

squirrels). Permits issued for forest products should include 

stipulations to protect resources. Special use authorizations for the 

collection of live species with limited distribution (e.g., some 

invertebrates, plants) shall include permit provisions to ensure the 

species persist onsite. Research special use authorizations should 

limit impacts to sensitive resources, unique features, and species.

The use of belowground utilities should be favored to avoid 

potential conflicts with resources (e.g., scenic integrity, wildlife, 

wildfire, heritage). Power pole installation or replacement under 

special use authorization should include raptor protection devices in 

open habitat such as large meadows and grasslands. Raptor 

protection devices should be installed on existing poles where 

raptors have been killed.

Nest parasitism southwestern 

willow flycatcher, 

Grace’s warbler 

Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and 

their habitats and to help provide for species needs, consistent with 

project or activity objectives.

Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the 

potential for the introduction of new species or spread of existing 

invasive or undesirable aquatic or terrestrial nonnative populations.

Disease Townsend’s bigeared bat, spotted 

bat, western red 

bat, Arizona toad, 

Chiricahua leopard 

frog, northern 

leopard frog, 

lowland leopard 

frog

To prevent degradation of native species habitat and the incidental 

or accidental introduction of diseases or nonnative species, aquatic 

species should not be transferred through management activities 

from one 6th level HUC watershed to another. When drafting 

(withdrawing) water from streams or other waterbodies, measures 

will be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic organisms 

and the spread of parasites or disease (e.g., Asian tapeworm, chytrid 

fungus, whirling disease).

To reduce disturbances from human activities and prevent the 

spread of disease, bat gates should be constructed and installed in 

cave and mine entrances used as shelter for bats within 3 years of 

discovery when there are no conflicts with cultural resources. Caves 

and abandoned mines that are used by bats should be managed to 

prevent disturbance to species and spread of disease (e.g., whitenose syndrome).

Entrapment FPS that are small 

mammals, bats, 

and young of other 

species

Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic 

species and riparian vegetation. When new water diversions are 

created or existing water diversions are reanalyzed, measures 

should be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic 

organisms. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

298 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Other Factors 

of Concern 

FPS Addressed by Fine Filter Standard or Guideline 

New or reconstructed fencing shall allow for wildlife passage, 

except where specifically intended to exclude wildlife (e.g., elk 

fencing). New livestock watering facilities shall be designed to 

allow wildlife access and escape. During maintenance of existing 

watering facilities, escape ramps that are ineffective or missing 

should be replaced.

Substantial 

predation or 

competition from 

invasive species

pronghorn 

antelope, Three 

Forks springsnail 

Vegetation treatments shall include measures to reduce the potential 

for introduction of invasive plants and animals and damage from 

nonnative insects and diseases. To prevent degradation of native 

species habitat and the incidental or accidental introduction of 

diseases or nonnative species, aquatic species should not be 

transferred through management activities from one 6th level HUC 

watershed to another. Projects and activities should not transfer 

water between drainages or between unconnected waterbodies 

within the same drainage to avoid spreading disease and aquatic 

invasive species.

Noxious plants and nonnative invasive species monitoring and 

control shall be included in contracts, permits, and agreements. 

Management should focus on operation and maintenance, safety, 

aesthetics, and control of noxious weeds and nonnative invasive 

species. Invasive plant species should be aggressively controlled 

within energy corridors to prevent or minimize spread.

Intentional 

harassment, 

forced removal, 

or avoidable 

disturbance

Mexican wolf, 

Gunnison’s prairie 

dog, black bear,

many FPS (at least 

during important 

life cycle periods)

Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for 

species needing these habitat components (for hiding)...

Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel 

corridor cover should be provided where needed by wildlife. 

Developed and dispersed recreation sites and other 

authorized activities should not be located in places that 

prevent wildlife or livestock access to available water. 

Recreation use does not negatively affect wildlife habitat and 

populations. Negative interactions between people and 

wildlife are minimized. 

Spike camps (i.e., a remote camp usually near a fireline) should be 

located to avoid disturbance to critical species. Timing restrictions 

on recreation uses should be considered to reduce conflicts with 

wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions. Prairie dog controls 

should not be authorized except when consistent with approved 

State of Arizona Gunnison’s prairie dog conservation strategies.

Food and other items that attract wildlife should be managed to 

prevent reliance on humans and to reduce human-wildlife conflicts. 

Where trash facilities are provided, they shall be bear resistant. 

Dispersed campsites should not be located on or adjacent to 

archaeological sites or sensitive wildlife areas.

All WQAs should be managed to preclude snowmobile use to 

minimize disturbance during the critical winter period. WQA 

boundaries should be signed to identify the areas and educate the 

public about their purpose. Large group and recreation event 

special uses should not be authorized within wilderness, 

recommended wilderness, primitive area, wildlife quiet areas,

eligible “wild” river corridors, Phelps Cabin Botanical Area, Phelps 

Cabin.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 299

An additional guideline addresses some of these concerns: “Modifications, mitigations, or other 

measures should be incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats 

and to help provide for species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.” In summary, 

although some of these factors of concern are not entirely under Forest Service control, the above 

plan components help provide for viability of these identified FPS species under all alternatives.

Management Indicator Species, 

Migratory Birds, and Eagle Consequences

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

As previously noted, the role of management indicator species (MIS) and the basis for their 

selection is to estimate the effects of each forest plan alternative on identified species. These 

species are selected for alternative comparison (and for later monitoring) in order to assess the 

effects of management on their populations and the populations of other species with similar 

habitat needs which they may represent. See the “Report on the Selection of Management 

Indicator Species and Ecological Indicators” (Forest Service, 2012s) for information about the 

merits of Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, and pronghorn antelope as MIS and 

background on the MIS selection process.

Comparison of the consequences of alternative A and the action alternatives (B, C, and D) are 

discussed for each of the three management indicator species as follows. All plan components 

relevant for MIS species are listed in the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability.” In addition, 

appendix G lists all standards and guidelines that address MIS and other wildlife species needs. 

Standards and guidelines along with objectives form the basis for the determination of 

consequences for MIS for each alternative. Table 103 below compares the management effect for 

the indicator habitats of the three MIS by alternative.

Table 103. Management effect compared by alternative for each of the MIS indicator 

habitats

MIS and Habitat

Management Effect1

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Mexican Spotted Owl

Dry mixed conifer M L L L

Wet mixed conifer M L L L

Northern Goshawk

Ponderosa pine L L L L

Pronghorn Antelope

Great Basin grassland H L H L

Table rating description or other information:

1 Management effect: 1 = greatest relative improvement in suitable habitat through management and activities; 2 = 

intermediate relative improvement; 3 = least to no relative improvement.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

300 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Mexican Spotted Owl (Dry Mixed Conifer and Wet Mixed Conifer PNVTs)

Alternative A: The Mexican spotted owl, or MSO, is identified as a MIS for management area 1 

(forested lands), of the 1987 plan. It includes woodlands, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer26, aspen, 

and spruce-fir. The management emphasis is for multiple uses including timber and fire 

production, wildlife habitat, grazing, watershed, and dispersed recreation. Some of the direction 

in the 1987 plan for management area 1 includes: protection of stands from insect and disease 

beyond endemic levels; manage for a minimum of 20 percent of the area to provide vertical 

diversity, a minimum of 30 percent to provide horizontal diversity; allocate no less than 20

percent of each forested ecosystem to old growth that flows across the landscape over time; use 

pre-European settlement information to develop prescriptions; provide from 1.8 to 2.8 snags per 

acre; provide a minimum of two logs per acre 12 inches or larger; and manage livestock to protect 

aspen regeneration treatments. Table 72 notes the acreage of MSO dry mixed conifer and wet 

mixed conifer indicator habitat and the amount that is currently suitable post-Wallow Fire.

Alternatives B, C, and D: These alternatives all provide desired conditions, standards, or 

guidelines favorable for the Mexican spotted owl and its indicator habitat (i.e., dry mixed conifer 

and wet mixed conifer forests). Key examples are found in the ESA section above so are not 

reiterated here. 

Alternatives compared: For the Mexican spotted owl, differences among alternatives relate 

primarily to differences in treatment objectives and overall management effect. Plan 

implementation objectives for forested PNVTs are found in table 3. The maximum restoration of 

forested acreage per year to occur in any of the four forested PNVTs is, by alternative: A 17,000 

acres; B 35,000 acres; C 55,000 acres; and D 50,000 acres. 

The habitat quality or suitability of MSO indicator would vary from existing conditions based on 

reduced departure from (i.e., movement toward) desired conditions in these indicator PNVTs by 

alternative. Based on modeling, alternatives B and D are intermediate in improvement of habitat 

quality for these two PNVTs. Dry mixed conifer forests have the greatest habitat improvement 

under alternative C, while wet mixed conifer forests have the greatest habitat improvement 

under alternative A. Because of these mixed outcomes, the overall habitat quality for MSO is 

considered similar under plan implementation for all alternatives. 

As previously noted, there was substantial loss of acreage in MSO breeding and critical habitat 

from the 2011 Wallow Fire. Total number of breeding MSO pairs is, therefore, likely down after 

the fire, but population trend is expected to stabilize over the 15-year plan period because forest 

treatments under all alternatives would incorporate “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan”

direction, including provisions for primary constituent elements of habitat. 

Northern Goshawk (Ponderosa Pine PNVT)

Alternative A: The Northern goshawk is identified as a MIS for management area 1 (forested 

lands), of the 1987 plan. It includes woodlands, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, aspen, and 

spruce-fir. The management emphasis is for multiple uses including timber and fire production, 

wildlife habitat, grazing, watershed, and dispersed recreation. See the previous MSO section for 

some of the direction in the 1987 plan for management area 1 which encompasses ponderosa 

 26 This includes both dry and wet mixed conifer forests which would be indicator habitat for MSO as a management 

indicator species under the action alternatives (B, C, and D).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 301

pine, the indicator habitat for this MIS. Table 75 notes the acreage of NOGO ponderosa pine 

indicator habitat and the amount that is currently suitability post-Wallow Fire.

Alternatives B, C, and D: These alternatives all provide desired conditions, standards, or 

guidelines favorable for the northern goshawk and its habitat. Key examples follow: 

• Northern goshawk post-fledgling family areas (PFAs) may contain 10 to 20 percent 

higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups than northern goshawk foraging areas 

and the surrounding forest. Northern goshawk nest areas have forest conditions that are 

multiaged and dominated by large trees with relatively denser canopies than the 

surrounding forest. A minimum of six nest areas (known and replacement) should be 

located per northern goshawk territory. Northern goshawk nest and replacement nest 

areas should be located around active nests, in drainages, at the base of slopes, and on 

northerly (NW to NE) aspects. Nest areas should be 25 to 30 acres each in size. Northern 

goshawk post-fledgling family areas (PFAs) of approximately 420 acres in size should be 

designated around the nest sites. Active raptor nests should be protected from treatments 

and disturbance during the nesting season to provide for successful reproduction. 

Specifically for northern goshawk nest areas, human presence should be minimized 

during nesting season of March 1 through September 30.

• Diverse vegetation structure, species composition, densities, and seral states provide 

quality habitat for native and desirable nonnative plant and animal species throughout 

their life cycle and at multiple spatial scales. Landscapes provide for the full range of 

ecosystem diversity at multiple scales, including habitats for those species associated 

with late seral states and old growth forests. Herbaceous vegetation amount and structure 

(e.g., plant density, height, litter, seed heads) provides habitat to support prey species. 

Livestock grazing and associated activities contribute to healthy, diverse plant 

communities, satisfactory soils, and wildlife habitat. Restoration methods, such as 

thinning or burning, should leave a mosaic of undisturbed areas within the larger treated 

project area, especially within meadows, openings, and swales, to retain or allow 

recolonization of small mammals and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies).

Trees, snags, and logs immediately adjacent to active red squirrel cone caches, Abert’s 

squirrel nests, and raptor nests should be retained to maintain needed habitat components 

and provide tree groupings.

• Wildlife are free from harassment and from disturbance at a scale that impacts vital 

functions (e.g., breeding, rearing young) that could affect persistence of the species. 

Recreation use does not negatively affect wildlife habitat and populations. Negative 

interactions between people and wildlife are minimized. Timing restrictions on recreation 

uses should be considered to reduce conflicts with wildlife needs or soil moisture 

conditions. The use of belowground utilities should be favored to avoid potential 

conflicts with resources (e.g., scenic integrity, wildlife, wildfire, heritage).WQAs provide 

semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities, including relatively quiet recreation 

opportunities close to or adjacent to intensively used areas.

Alternatives compared: For the northern goshawk, differences among alternatives relate 

primarily to differences in treatment objectives and overall management effect. Plan 

implementation objectives for forested PNVTs are found in table 3. As noted above, the 

maximum restoration of forested acreage per year to occur in any of the four forested PNVTs is, 

by alternative: A 17,000 acres; B 35,000 acres; C 55,000 acres; and D 50,000 acres. All 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

302 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

alternatives emphasize treatment in the ponderosa pine which is currently more departed from 

reference conditions than the other forested PNVTs. 

The habitat quality or suitability of NOGO indicator habitat would vary from existing conditions 

based on reduced departure from (i.e., movement toward) desired conditions in this indicator 

PNVT by alternative. Based on modeling, alternatives that provide the greatest to the least habitat 

improvement are alternatives C and B, followed by alternative D, then alternative A.

Based on habitat quality improvement (see alternative objectives above), an upward population 

trend for northern goshawk would be expected under all alternatives, especially for alternatives 

C and B, followed by alternative D, then A. 

Pronghorn Antelope (Great Basin Grassland PNVT)

Alternative A: Pronghorn antelope, or pronghorn, are identified as a MIS for management area 4 

(grasslands) of the 1987 plan. The management emphasis for the area is visual quality and 

wildlife habitat, especially big game winter habitat. Some of the direction in the 1987 plan 

includes: fencing to keep livestock from wetter areas, piping water from wet areas to less 

sensitive areas, livestock control to allow grass and forb regeneration (both cool and warm season 

growing plants), and leaving new land acquisitions in critical big game range generally 

unstocked.

Direction in the 1987 plan includes re-treating approximately 50,000 acres within previous 

overstory removals over a 25-year period. Actual tree removal in the GBG occurring over the last 

decade or so averages roughly 500 acres per year. 

Alternatives B, C, and D: These alternatives all provide desired conditions, standards, or 

guidelines favorable for the pronghorn antelope and its habitat. Key examples follow: 

• Large blocks of habitat are interconnected, allowing for behavioral and predator-prey 

interactions, and the persistence of metapopulations and highly interactive wildlife 

species across the landscape. Ecological connectivity extends through all plant 

communities and ecotones. Habitat configuration and availability allows wildlife 

populations to adjust their movements (e.g., seasonal migration, foraging) in response to 

climate change and promote genetic flow between wildlife populations.

• There is a diverse mix of cool and warm season grass and desirable forb species. Plant 

canopy cover and composition are within or moving closer to reference condition. Native 

plant communities dominate the landscape and soils provide for diverse native plant 

species. The extent, abundance, cover, and composition of grasslands is maintained or 

reestablished and moving closer to reference conditions. Ground cover is 35 percent or 

greater, and herbaceous vegetation height ranges from 10 to 31 inches depending on 

grassland type. Vegetative cover (herbaceous ground cover and litter) is between 45 and 

80 percent in Great Basin grasslands. These percentages may vary depending on the 

amount of surface rock as described in each ecological mapping unit. Average ungrazed 

grass height varies by grassland PNVT and yearly weather conditions. Grass heights 

range from 11 to 26 inches in Great Basin grasslands.

• During the critical pronghorn fawning period (May through June), cool season grasses 

and forbs provide nutritional forage, while shrubs and standing grass growth from the 

previous year provide adequate hiding cover (10 to 18 inches) to protect fawns from 

predation. New fence construction or reconstruction where pronghorn antelope may be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 303

present should have a barbless bottom wire which is 18 inches from the ground to 

facilitate movement between pastures and other fenced areas. Pole and other types of 

fences should also provide for pronghorn antelope passage where they are present.

• Livestock grazing and associated activities contribute to healthy, diverse plant 

communities, satisfactory soils, and wildlife habitat. Livestock grazing is in balance with 

available forage (i.e., grazing and browsing by authorized livestock, wild horses, and 

wildlife do not exceed available forage production within established use levels).

Pronghorn antelope fence and other crossings should be installed along known movement 

corridors to prevent habitat fragmentation.

• Woolhouse WQA on the Lakeside Ranger District provides high quality winter range for 

pronghorn antelope and elk within a busy and heavily used wildland-urban interface. 

Natural areas contribute to ecosystem and species diversity and sustainability; serve as 

habitat for plants and animals; and offer wildlife corridors, reference areas, primitive and 

semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities, and places for people seeking 

natural scenery and solitude. Grasses, forbs, shrubs, and litter are abundant and 

continuous to maintain and support natural fire regimes.

Alternatives compared: For the pronghorn, differences among alternatives relate primarily to 

differences in treatment objectives and overall management effect. Plan implementation 

objectives for grasslands are found in table 3. Alternative A would continue to restore about 500 

acres of GBG a year as would alternative C except that it has an emphasis for restoring 

montane/subalpine grassland. Alternative B would restore up to 25,000 acres per year with an 

emphasis in the GBG and SDG. Alternative D would restore up to 24,000 acres per year across all 

grassland PNVTs.

The quality or suitability pronghorn indicator habitat would vary greatly from existing condition 

based on the amount of grassland restoration under each alternative and the resulting reduced 

departure from (i.e., movement toward) desired conditions in this indicator PNVT. Based on 

modeling, alternatives B and D would substantially improve habitat quality, while a slight 

improvement in habitat quality would be expected under alternatives A and C. 

Based on habitat quality improvement (see alternative objectives above), a substantial upward

population trend for pronghorn would be expected under alternatives B and D and a slight

upward population trend would be expected under alternatives A and C. 

Migratory Birds and Important Bird Areas

Sections of the plan that contain plan decisions (components) that address habitat and 

management that benefit migratory birds are indicated in table 104 below. Appendix G contains a 

crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by various plan components. The “Wildlife 

Specialist Report – Migratory Birds, Eagles, and Important Bird Areas” (Forest Service, 2012dd) 

contains more detail on analysis of migratory birds. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

304 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 104. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that 

address migratory birds

Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

All PNVTs 

Riparian Areas

All Forested PNVTs

Piñon-Juniper

None Ponderosa Pine

Dry Mixed Conifer

All Woodland PNVTs

Alternatives compared: Migratory birds are not specifically addressed in the 1987 plan 

(alternative A). However, all four alternatives help restore and enhance migratory bird habitat. 

Examples of plan decisions that benefit migratory birds include:

• Desired riparian conditions include vegetation that is structurally diverse and provide for 

high bird species densities, especially neotropical migratory birds.

• Each forested type has desired conditions for needed number of snags.

• Vegetation states with denser canopies are included in desired conditions for forested 

PNVTs.

• Retention of Gambel oak is addressed in a guideline.

• Groups of medium to large and old trees in the piñon-juniper woodlands are retained.

• Herbaceous and shrub ground cover ranges from 10 to 31 inches in height depending on 

PNVT.

The forests would continue to fulfill obligations under the 2008 MOU between the Forest Service 

and USFWS regarding conservation of migratory birds, regardless of alternative. The “Wildlife 

Specialist Report – Bald Eagles, Migratory Birds, and Important Bird Areas” (Forest Service 

2012dd) provides the environmental analysis of agency actions on migratory birds and the 

proposed plan includes guidelines to minimize effects (e.g., “Modifications, mitigations, or other 

measures should be incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats 

and to help provide for species needs, consistent with project or activity objective”). The plan’s 

management approach for wildlife for all alternatives is to encourage and support species 

research and inventory. The forests would also support programs like the National Audubon 

Society’s IBA and provide wildlife education for the public at events like county fairs. These plan 

components and management approaches contribute to the needs of migratory and other birds 

regardless of alternative; therefore, all alternatives would contribute to bird conservation.

Bald and Golden Eagles

Direction under the 1987 plan (alternative A) includes identification and protection of winter bald 

eagle roosts; no development, including roads, in bald eagle winter roost areas; protection of bald

eagle winter roosts with a 300-foot uncut buffer zone; and priority management of old growth 

stands adjacent to lakes and streams in potential bald eagle wintering sites. Golden eagles are not 

addressed except as under protection of raptor nest areas.

The 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Protection Act), as amended, prohibits 

anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” eagles, and 

provides criminal penalties for violation. Take includes disturbance caused by human-induced 

alterations around a nest site, whether eagles are present at the time or not. This could result in
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 305

decreased eaglet productivity or nest abandonment as a consequence of management or activities. 

Under the provisions of the 2009 amendment to the Eagle Protection Act (Federal Register (Vol. 

72, No. 107, 31133)), a permit for limited, non-purposeful take of bald eagles and golden eagles 

may be issued to allow government agencies to disturb or otherwise take eagles in the course of 

conducting lawful activities. 

Sections of the plan that contain plan decisions (components) that address habitat and 

management that benefit bald and golden eagles are indicated in table 105 below. Appendix G 

contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by various plan components. The 

Wildlife Specialist Report – Migratory birds, eagles, and IBAs (Forest Service, 2012dd) contains 

more detail on analysis of migratory birds. 

Table 105. Sections of the plan containing plan decision 

that address bald and golden eagles

Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

All PNVTs 

Riparian Areas

All Forested PNVTs

Piñon-Juniper 

None Ponderosa Pine

Dry Mixed Conifer

All Woodland PNVTs

Alternatives compared: The programmatic direction in the land management plan would not 

constitute “take” and it would provide for viability of all species, including bald and golden 

eagles. As such, all alternatives would be consistent with the Eagle Protection Act. However, 

site-specific implementation of plan objectives, such as construction or maintenance of recreation 

developments, could possibly impact eagles. This would be addressed on a site-specific basis 

with appropriate permitting from the USFWS, if necessary, regardless of plan alternative.

Other Consequences

Wildlife Quiet Areas and Habitat Security 

and Habitat Connectivity and Linkages

Wildlife Quiet Areas (WQAs) and Habitat Security

Wildlife quiet areas (WQAs) would comprise a forest management area under all alternatives

except alternative A. Each of the plan alternatives provide for a different set and acreage of 

WQAs across the forests. In providing for greater habitat security due to less human disturbance, 

especially motorized use, WQAs help contribute to species viability. 

Examination of the layout and scale of the existing WQAs across the forests’ landscape shows 

they are few and greatly spaced, especially on the Sitgreaves side of the forests. In order to 

address this, alternatives B and D would propose additional WQAs as shown in table 106.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

306 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 106. Proposed additional wildlife quiet areas by alternative

Additional WQAs Alt. A

(acres)

Alt. B

(acres)

Alt. C

(acres)

Alt. D

(acres)

Bear Springs — 2,831 — 2,831

Cottonwood Seep — 2,968 — 2,968

Carr Lake — -- — 2,196

Palomino — -- — 8,028

Hidden Lake — -- — 3,227

Total acres of additional WQAs 0 5,799 0 19,250

To facilitate alternative comparison, it is assumed that the eight existing WQAs would remain in 

place under alternative A through special closure order. These WQAs would become a plan 

management area (Wildlife Quite Area Management Area) under the action alternatives. The sizes 

(acreage) of WQAs including the ones additionally proposed are summarized by number and 

acreage in table 107 by alternative. 

Table 107. Number of occurrences and acres of WQA management 

areas that provide greater habitat security by alternative

Alternative Number of Occurrences1 Acres (Percent)

A 8 45,506 (2%)

B 10 50,173 (3%)

C 8 44,373 (2%)

D 12 59,379 (3%)

1 Number of occurrences represents the number of individual areas assigned to the 

management area or, for alternative A, designated by special closure order.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 307

In addition to WQAs, other management areas such as wildernesses, recommended wilderness, 

primitive area, research natural areas, recommended research natural areas, and natural 

landscapes also provide greater habitat security. The location of existing and proposed WQAs by 

alternative, along with other management areas providing greater habitat security, is shown in 

figure 50. For more details about secure habitat areas, including acreages, see the “Wildlife 

Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2012gg).

Figure 50. Maps of wildlife quiet areas (WQAs) and other management areas (MAs) 

providing more secure habitat for each alternative
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

308 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Alternatives compared: WQAs and other secure habitat areas would provide beneficial 

environmental consequences of longevity and continuity of wildlife use. These areas would lend 

themselves to assessing the impact of broad-scale thinning and burning treatments and the 

evaluation of species viability across the forests. They also respond to public input to provide for 

wildlife and habitats in a sustainable manner. Alternative D would provide the greatest amount 

of acreage in secure habitats, followed by alternative B, then alternatives A and C.

Habitat Connectivity and Linkages

The premise for WQAs and other more secure habitat management areas is that, in general, the 

closer secure habitat areas are to one another, the less species risk and more viability effectiveness 

there is. Therefore, straight line distances between these areas are used as a relative indicator of 

habitat connectivity in order to compare the alternatives. Table 108 displays the estimated average 

distance between more secure management areas for wildlife by alternative.

Table 108. Habitat connectivity indicator, estimated average distance in miles between 

management areas by alternative

Alternative A1 Alternative B Alternative C1 Alternative D

Management 

areas that 

provide habitat 

security 

(includes 

WQAs) 

Sitgreaves side of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

24.1 miles 12.2 miles 24.3 miles 15.3 miles

Apache side of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

6.8 miles 5.5 miles 5.9 miles 4.3 miles

Across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

15.5 miles 8.2 miles 15.1 miles 9.8 miles

1 While both alternatives A and C have the same number of WQAs, there are differences among management 

areas and their acreages.

Alternatives compared: Safe linkages across the landscape are provided by a number of 

standard and guidelines that address physical obstacles to habitat connectivity. They are in all 

alternatives; hence all alternatives would provide the same viability effectiveness relative to fine 

filters. These include guidelines for fences and wildlife crossings, and placement of trails relative 

to wildlife movement. Some management areas have fewer short-term implementation impacts 

(e.g., use of fire only in wilderness) that also contributes to viability effectiveness.

Based on the estimated average distances between secure management areas from table 108, 

alternative B would have less viability risk and, therefore, the most viability effectiveness in 

terms of habitat connectedness and linkages. It is followed by alternative D. Compared to 

alternatives B and D, alternatives A and C have greater risk and less viability effectiveness. 

Should WQAs not be retained under alternative A by special closure order, this alternative would 

have the least habitat effectiveness of all the alternatives.

Climate Change

Average global temperature increases in the 20th century occurred at a rate greater than during the 

previous 9 centuries (IPCC 2007a, and Karl, et al., 2009). Species composition shifts have been 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 309

detected in studies in southeastern Arizona (Brown, et al., 1997). Evidence of impacts from 

changing climate has been demonstrated on a study site near the boundary of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and Coconino NF near the Mogollon Rim. During a long-term study, Martin and 

Maron (2012) found that the abundance of deciduous trees and associated songbirds have 

declined with decreasing snowfall and associated impacts over 22 years. 

Part of the approach to address changes that can impact terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 

better help native species to persist include reducing biotic and abiotic stressors (Beschta, et al., 

2012). Modifying or resetting vegetation structure toward reference (desired) conditions would 

help make Apache-Sitgreaves NFs vegetation types more resistant, resilient, functional, and better 

able to absorb disturbance and reestablish ecosystem functions while undergoing change. A 

resilient ecosystem can better withstand stress like drought, or can rebuild after a major 

disturbance like a serious storm or fire, without leading to a major shift in the type of ecosystem 

or the services it provides. The other part of the approach includes prescriptions for management 

use within the capability and suitability of the planning unit at a level that allows restoration to 

progress. All alternatives address capability and suitability in compliance with the 1982 Planning 

Rule. 

Overall, alternatives B and D would provide for the greatest movement toward desired 

conditions; therefore, forest resources would be most able to handle climate changes within the 

planning period. Conversely, alternatives A and C would have the least movement toward 

desired conditions, so forest resources would be comparatively less able to handle climate 

changes. Based on the assumption that the closer habitats are to desired conditions, the less the 

risk to species viability, wildlife habitat, and associated species would best be able to adjust to 

climate changes under alternatives B and D. They would be comparatively less able to adjust to 

climate changes under alternatives A and C.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects cannot be precisely defined; however, the cumulative 

effect action area is defined as the extent that wildlife use habitat on the forests and on adjacent 

lands. An example would be pronghorn where the forests provide primarily summer habitat while

adjacent State and private lands provide primarily winter habitat. Although the timing and level of 

impacts from these other actions cannot be quantified, examples of possible cumulative impacts 

by types of actions follow. 

Thinning and burning on adjacent national forest lands (Gila, Coconino, and Tonto NFs) or tribal 

lands should reduce risks on off-forest landscape which could benefit species whose range 

extends beyond the forests. Depending on proximity of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and other 

activities, the short-term effects of these activities may limit refuge areas for wildlife as escape 

from project activities or from short-term loss of habitat components. It may also increase the 

level and extent of disturbance such that breeding or young rearing may be less successful during 

the years of implementation. 

Because developments like wind and solar power facilities, groundwater pumping, mining 

expansion, and urban development off-forests reduce habitat suitability, habitats on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs become that much more important. These developments also result in direct 

mortality of individual animals. Loss of habitat and animals could result in the decline or loss of 

certain species if the impacted off-forest habitat cannot be compensated on the forests. Highway 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

310 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

improvements, unless they incorporate adequate wildlife corridors and linkages, could result in 

the decline of certain species, including loss of genetic diversity. In addition, soil and forage loss 

on some adjacent non-Forest Service lands has already resulted in declines of species, such as 

pronghorn, which also use habitats on the forests. 

Forest land exchange and AZGFD acquisitions for important wildlife lands, conservation 

agreements, and/or water rights could cumulatively provide more wildlife habitat and protect key 

habitat areas that are currently in non-Forest Service ownership. Treatment of invasive species on 

other lands should help reduce risk to species on the forests. Public education and law 

enforcement conducted by the AZGFD should help protect species and limit disturbance or 

unlawful removal, cumulatively benefitting species. Reductions in the amount of feral animal 

populations, conducted by State agencies, should cumulatively improve habitat conditions for 

wildlife on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Invasive Species

Invasive plant and animal species are a growing threat to native species, ecosystem function, and 

the quantity of forest goods and services. This section describes these threats and evaluates the 

environmental consequences of actions (e.g., road building, mechanical and fire treatments, 

livestock grazing, recreation) that can contribute to the infestation and spread of invasive species 

using invasive plant species, brown-headed cowbird, and chytrid as indicators. 

The full analysis for invasive species can be found in the “Invasive Species Specialist Report”

(Forest Service 2012l) available in the “Plan Set of Documents,” including a list of the noxious 

and invasive weeds of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and invasive plants of the Southwestern 

Region.

According to Fairweather et al. (2006), most forest insects and pathogens in the Southwest are 

naturally occurring components of ecosystems and play an important role in dynamic processes. 

However, two invasive pest species have become established on the forests: white pine blister rust 

and spruce aphid. For more information on these species, see the “Forest Health” section.

In the analysis for this resource, the following information was taken into consideration:

• The 2008 “Environmental Assessment for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

Integrated Forest-Wide Noxious or Invasive Weed Management Program” (Forest 

Service, 2008d) analyzed and approved the use of manual, biological, and chemical 

control agents (herbicides) for the treatment of noxious or invasive species.

• The “Highway Right-of-Way Mitigation for All Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Species that Occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests for ADOT’s Management 

of Noxious Weeds and Hazardous Vegetation on Public Roads on National Forest 

Systems Lands in Arizona” (Forest Service, 2005) is implemented and provides 

protections for federally listed species.

Affected Environment

Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction does 

or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” The Forest 

Service relies on Executive Order 13112 to provide the basis for labeling certain organisms as 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 311

invasive. Based on this definition, the labeling of a species as “invasive” requires closely

examining both the origin and effects of the species. The key is that the species must (1) cause, or 

be likely to cause, harm and (2) be exotic to the ecosystem it has infested before it can be 

considered for the “invasive” label. Thus, native pests are not considered “invasive,” even though 

they may cause harm. Invasive species infest both aquatic and terrestrial areas and can be 

identified within any of the following four taxonomic categories: Plants, Vertebrates, 

Invertebrates, and Pathogens. Additional information on this definition can be found in Executive 

Order 13112 (Forest Service Manual 2900).

Nonnative plants and animals that do, or have the potential to, cause ecological or economic harm 

are also classified as invasive species. Invasive species can be terrestrial or aquatic. On the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, numerous invasive species pose risks to native species and ecosystem 

function and to the production of forest goods and services. 

Management of invasive species is needed across all vegetation types on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs. There is an array of tools (e.g., chemical, biological, mechanical, and cultural) to help 

managers control or eradicate these species. 

Although there is current management emphasis to manage invasive species, the 1987 plan does 

not provide direction related to the issue of invasive species. To address terrestrial invasive plants, 

managers have implemented an integrated forestwide noxious or invasive weed management 

program. Even though complete eradication of invasive species is not always possible, aggressive 

treatment of existing populations and prevention of new infestations or populations is important 

to protect native ecosystem diversity.

Invasive Plants

Invasive plants, of which there are nearly 50 species (White, 2008 and 2011), are currently found 

on at least 30,000 acres of the forests. For example, musk thistle and Siberian elm have spread 

along roadways; bull thistle and oxeye daisy have become established in numerous meadows and 

wetlands; cheatgrass and red brome are well established in grasslands and woodlands; and salt 

cedar has become common along many streams.

Invasive plants are species that grow and spread rapidly, replacing desired plants. Invasive plants 

generally pose one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, 

poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host for serious insects or disease, and are new to or 

uncommon to the U.S. or parts thereof. 

Invasive Animals

The most vulnerable species are those tied to aquatic systems, including riparian habitats. 

Nonnative fish species, along with the American bullfrog and crayfish, impact all native fish, 

amphibian, reptile, macroinvertebrate, and plant species in those systems. American bullfrog and 

crayfish have contributed to the listing of seven native fish species and the Chiricahua leopard 

frog (Marshall et al., 2006; Robinson et al., 2006). They also contributed to the recent 

classification of the Mexican gartersnake as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act, and are largely responsible for the decline in narrow-headed gartersnake populations. An 

additional threat to the Chiricahua leopard frog is an introduced fungal skin disease, 

chytridiomycosis (chytrid) fungus, which is killing frogs and toads worldwide.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

312 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Two avian species, brown-headed cowbirds and European starlings, are considered to be invasive 

and causing problems for several bird species. Competition for nest sites, nest parasitism, brood 

parasitism, and predation are problems associated with these two bird species (Forest Service, 

2008e). Linz et al. (2007) suggest that European starlings may spread infectious diseases that 

sicken humans and livestock, costing nearly $800 million in health treatment costs and conclude 

that European starlings conceivably have contributed to the decline of native cavity-nesting birds 

by taking their nesting sites.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Under all alternatives, there would a risk of infestation and spread of invasive plants and 

animals. Invasive plants compete with crops; poison or injure livestock, wildlife, and people; 

reduce forage for wildlife and livestock; change natural fire regimes; and reduce recreation 

enjoyment because of thorns, allergies, or unsightliness. They also have a significant 

environmental advantage over native plant species because they are free of natural enemies. 

Invasive plants pose an increasing threat to native ecosystems. Prevention and direct control 

methods are needed to stress or remove invasive plants from native plant communities. Invasive 

infestation may have impacts on forest long-term productivity. 

Invasive animals can alter native habitats and contribute to the extinction of native species 

through predation, introduction of pathogens, or competition for resources (e.g., food, habitat). 

Alteration of habitat by animals can facilitate the invasion of other nonnative species.

The 1987 plan (Alternative A) did not address invasive species, although law, regulations, and 

policy guide current management to contain, control, and eradicate invasive species. The action 

alternatives, however, contain direction to contain, control, or eradicate invasive species. These 

alternatives also would provide objectives to treat 500 to 3,500 acres and at least 2 stream miles 

annually. The action alternatives, based on a more aggressive strategy for treating invasive 

species, would reduce the risk of infestation and spread more than alternative A. 

Motorized Routes

Roads can serve as a key indicator for the risk of invasive plant species spread. Vehicles driven 

through populations of invasive plants often pick up seeds or other plant parts and transport these 

items to previously uninfected areas (Trunkle and Fay, 1991). Chytrid fungus which survives in 

wet or muddy environments could be carried inadvertently in mud clinging to vehicles and 

transported to previously uninfested areas. According to Petit (no date), almost everything 

humans do in manipulating the environment is beneficial to brown-headed cowbirds. Removing 

or cutting into the forest for roads or timber harvesting, for example, can improve the habitat for 

brown-headed cowbirds by creating grassy foraging areas, open perch sites for surveying hosts, 

and more access to host species in edge or open forest habitats. Table 116 (see the 

“Infrastructure” section) displays the amount of the forests that are suitable for future 

consideration of new roads. It is based on management area direction.

The acres available for consideration of new motorized areas, NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, 

and temporary roads range from 1,095,135 to 1,696,497 acres. This level of suitable acres 

indicates the risk of new road and trail development, thus the potential additive risk of invasive 

plant species, chytrid fungus, and brown-headed cowbird spread. Alternative C would produce 

the most risk, followed by alternatives A, B, and D.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 313

Mechanical and Fire Treatments

Table 109 indicates the risk of timber harvest (and associated ground disturbance), thus the 

potential additive risk of invasive plant species, chytrid fungus, and brown-headed cowbird 

spread. Alternative C would produce the greatest risk, followed by alternatives B, D, and A

with the least risk. 

Areas where ground-disturbing activities take place can serve as an indicator for the risk of 

invasive plant species and chytrid fungus spread and establishment. Logging equipment driven 

through populations of invasive plants can pick up seeds and/or chytrid fungus infected mud and 

transport them to previously uninfested areas (Trunkle and Fay, 1991). Areas of disturbed and 

exposed soil are ideal locations for the establishment of invasive plants. Logging debris and slash 

disposal also produces disturbed sites with little or no native ground cover that could provide 

locations for the establishment of new infestations of invasive plants. Roadside water collection 

locations are also ideal locations for the establishment of chytrid. Timber harvesting could 

improve the habitat for brown-headed cowbirds by creating grassy foraging areas, open perch 

sites for surveying hosts, and more access to host species in edge or open forest habitats. 

Table 109. Average annual acres of mechanical and fire treatments by alternative

Treatment Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

Mechanical 12,182 19,591 23,997 15,954

Fire 6,844 28,930 12,857 48,927

Table 109 also indicates the risk of exposing soil through prescribed burning, thus the potential 

additive risk of invasive plant species establishment and spread. Alternative D would produce 

the greatest risk, followed by alternatives B, C, and A with the least risk.

Areas where prescribed burning activities take place can also serve as an indicator for the risk of 

invasive plant species establishment and spread. Areas of disturbed and exposed soil produced by 

fire are ideal locations for the establishment of invasive plants. 

In addition, all alternatives would have potential effects from treatments used to mitigate 

damage caused by uncharacteristic wildfire. Many areas within burns require some form of 

treatment to minimize flooding and soil loss. Primarily these treatments consist of mulching 

(covering the ground with some form of straw) and seeding. Both the introduction of straw and 

seed pose risk for the spread and establishment of invasive weeds. All alternatives would require 

the use of certified weed-free straw and seeds and, as a result, present the same potential level of 

risk. 

Livestock Grazing

All alternatives would provide for the continuation of livestock grazing on the forests and focus 

on balancing livestock grazing with available forage. As a result, all alternatives would present 

the same potential level of risk for chytrid, brown-headed cowbird, and invasive plant spread.

Livestock grazing takes place on 96 grazing allotments covering approximately 1.7 million acres. 

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2003), chytrid could conceivably be 

spread by cattle carrying mud on their hooves and moving among Chiricahua leopard frog 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

314 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

habitat. The disease could also be spread by ranch hands working at an infected tank or aquatic 

site and spreading the fungus to another site by mud or water clinging to wheel-wells, tires, 

shovels, boots, or other equipment. 

Livestock enhance feeding opportunities for brown-headed cowbirds by reducing grass height 

and increasing food availability in the form of invertebrates, body parasites, insects, and seeds 

(Goguen and Mathews, 2001). Widespread livestock grazing, agriculture, irrigation, and human 

development have probably all facilitated the range expansion of brown-headed cowbirds 

(Rothstein, 1994). There is no data that indicates the trend in brown-headed cowbird population 

levels on the forests. However, current levels of brown-headed cowbirds are negatively affecting 

the endangered southwestern willow flycatchers, and effects may not be limited to parasitism per 

se and may be more severe than indicated by parasitism rates alone (Arcese and Smith, 1999; 

Woodward and Stoleson, 2002).

Grazing contributes to the risk of invasive plant infestation and spread. Grazing and trampling 

cause (1) the removal of native plants, clearing vegetation, (2) destruction of soil crust and 

preparation of weed seedbeds through hoof action by establishing openings and uncovering soil,

and (3) the transport and dispersal of seeds from one area to another (Parks et al., 2005). All of

these actions favor the establishment and spread of invasive plants; current levels of infestations 

are not expected to be reduced by livestock grazing.

Recreation

Aquatic based recreation has the potential to spread chytrid in much the same way as other 

vehicular use, as well as fishing, boating, walking, and playing in streams and ponds. All 

alternatives would provide for the continuation of recreation on the forests and, as a result, 

present the same potential level of risk for chytrid spread.

Alternative A would allow motorized cross-country travel throughout the forests and there would 

be greater potential for plant species and chytrid fungus to spread because of vehicular use and 

the potential for ground disturbance. The action alternatives would restrict motorized vehicle 

travel to only designated roads, trails, and areas and would limit opportunities to spread invasive 

species.

Climate Change

There may be environmental consequences as a result of climate change. The forests may be 

more vulnerable to invasive species, including insects, plants, fungi, and vertebrates. Ecosystem 

change may arise from large scale, severe fires that lead to colonization of invasive species (Joyce 

et al., 2006). Disturbance may reset and rejuvenate some ecosystems in some cases, and cause 

enduring change in others. For example, climate change may favor the spread of invasive, 

nonnative 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 (Ryan et al., 2008). The need to treat invasive species may likely become more critical to 

maintaining desired conditions for healthy plant and animal communities under a changing 

climate. The state of knowledge needed to address climate change at the forest scale is still 

evolving. All alternatives would direct managers to contain, control, and eradicate invasive 

species and would use adaptive management to adjust to changing conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 315

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Since there is expected to be continued growth in urban areas in and around the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, it is reasonably foreseeable that the growth and expansion of invasive species on 

surrounding lands would continue and could threaten to extend onto NFS lands. Management 

under all alternatives focuses on containment, control, and eradication of invasive species. These 

efforts, in combination with similar efforts of other agencies and landowner groups (AZGFD, 

ADOT, and the cooperative weed management area), would have a positive effect toward 

controlling infestation and spread from and onto surrounding lands.

Recreation

This section describes the existing recreation opportunities on the forests and recreation user 

trends. It examines: (1) the changes in recreation opportunities by alternative using Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) mapping, (2) changes in the amount of land suitable for future 

consideration of motorized and nonmotorized recreation by alternative, and (3) the environmental 

consequences of allowing or not allowing motorized cross-country travel. ROS descriptions can 

be found in the “Glossary.” Methodology can be found in the “Recreation Specialist Report”

(Forest Service 2012r) in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• Recreation demand on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is tied to population changes in the 

major metropolitan areas of Arizona since approximately 70 percent of the forests’ 

Arizona visitors are from the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas (Kocis et al., 2002).

• It is anticipated and assumed that recreation use across all alternatives would continue to 

increase at rates similar to those documented across the Nation. As such, the capacity for 

recreation resources would ultimately be limited by the quality of the recreation 

opportunity. Since demands and use are expected to increase, additional analysis may be 

warranted at some point in the future.

• The recreation use data in this report is from the 2001 National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) survey. An additional survey was conducted in 2007, but the survey sample 

size was deemed too small to be statistically accurate.

• Visitors to the forests have different preferences for their recreation setting and the 

activities in which they want to participate. These differences and preferences range from 

highly intensive uses that have lasting effects on resources to benign uses barely 

discernible on the ground. Recognizing the differences in user preferences, the primary 

goal of managing outdoor recreation is to provide an environment or opportunity in 

which visitors can have a satisfying experience, while protecting the natural and cultural 

resources integral to that experience. Because user preferences are so diverse, it is 

assumed that not all user preferences can be accommodated on every acre of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs.

• All projects implemented on the forests will require a site-specific assessment of their 

potential impacts to natural resources and recreation opportunities and settings. The 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes and plan suitability will guide the design 

and implementation of management activities. 

• None of the alternatives has specific objectives to construct new motorized or 

nonmotorized trails or to designate new motorized use areas during the life of the plan. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

316 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Proposals would be considered through project-level planning. The environmental 

consequences of new motorized or nonmotorized trails or motorized use areas would be 

identified and analyzed at the project level.

• Any new recreation development and maintenance of existing recreation facilities and 

trails will be constrained by future budgets and may be affected by changing Forest 

Service and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs priorities.

• Following the finalization of the revised plan, the public motorized travel management 

plan will be completed and the motorized vehicle use map (MVUM) will be printed. 

These documents will implement the Travel Management Rule and prohibit motorized 

cross-country use except where designated or permitted.

Affected Environment

Overall Recreation Opportunities

Recreation use has increased steadily throughout the history of the national forests. Over the past 

few decades, the growth in recreation in the Nation has been extraordinary. For example, 

participation in camping increased from about 13 million people in 1960 to almost 58 million 

people in 1994/1995 (Cordell et al., 2004). Between 2000 and 2007, the total number of 

recreation activity days increased approximately 25 percent (Cordell et al., 2008). The activities 

of viewing and photographing birds, day hiking, backpacking, off-highway motor vehicle (OHV) 

driving, walking outdoors, and canoeing/kayaking have seen the greatest growth in the last 2

decades (Cordell et al., 2009). A survey conducted in 2006 identified the top five outdoor 

recreation activities that Arizonans participate in: (1) play a sport: baseball, football, soccer; (2) 

on your feet activity: hike, backpack, jog; (3) drive for pleasure, sightseeing; (4) ride a bicycle, 

mountain bike, or horse; and (5) visit a park or natural or cultural feature (Arizona State Parks, 

2007).

In Arizona, where more than 42 percent of the land base is managed by Federal agencies for 

public use, the population increased about tenfold since 1940 to more than 5 million people in 

2000. In 2005, the State’s population had increased to more than 6 million. The proportion of 

Arizonans living in urban areas has changed. In 1900, less than 20 percent of the State’s 

population lived in an urban setting; in 2000, more than 88 percent of Arizona residents lived in 

urban settings. The makeup of the State’s population is expected to change with an increasing 

proportion of elderly and a decreasing number of children under the age of 18. The demographic 

makeup of Arizona is becoming more diverse; although predominantly white, the second largest 

segment is Hispanic. 

The forests receive approximately 2 million visitors per year (Forest Service, 2006). 

Approximately 70 percent of these visitors are from the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas 

(Kocis et al., 2002). The majority of these visitors are male (approximately 73 percent) and 

predominantly white (estimated 89 percent). Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino visitors make up 

approximately 8 percent of total visits, while Native American and Asian users each comprise 

only about 0.8 percent of visits. About 21 percent of users are under the age of 16, while 

relatively few visitors are between 16 and 30 or over 70 years old. An estimated 63 percent of 

visitors are between the ages of 31 and 70 (Kocis et al., 2002).

Nearly all forest visitors, regardless of their reasons for visiting the forests, use the motorized 

transportation system to reach their destination. Visitors to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs access the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 317

forests on a variety of State and Federal Highways. U.S. Highway (U.S.) 60 and State Highways 

(SHs) 87 and 260 are the primary routes from the Phoenix metropolitan area. SHs 77, 277, and 

377 and U.S. 180 and 191 provide access from Interstate 40 to the north. Access from New 

Mexico to the east is via U.S. 60 and 180. U.S. 191 traverses the entire length of the Apache NF 

from north to south. SH 260 crosses the forests from the Mogollon Rim to Eagar (see figure 1).

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs offer a wide array of dispersed, developed, motorized, and 

nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Visitors come to the forests to engage in a variety of 

activities (table 110). The primary recreation activities are: “relaxing and escaping the heat,” 

fishing, hiking, OHV use, viewing natural features and wildlife, camping, driving for pleasure, 

picnicking and large group gatherings, and hunting. A majority of these activities occurs in the 

ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, and dry mixed conifer forests, which make up approximately 

46 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Visitors use the forests as an place to stay overnight 

more than any other forest in the National Forest System (Stynes and White, 2005). Outfitters and 

guides, under permit by the Forest Service, operate on the forests and provide services to the 

recreating public.

Table 110. Percent participation in activities and primary activities of Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs’ recreation visitors (Kocis et al., 2002)

Activity Percent 

Participation1

Percent Who Indicated 

as Primary Activity

General-relaxing, escaping noise and heat 84.2 41.3

Viewing natural features (scenery) on NFS lands 79.3 3.5

Viewing wildlife on NFS lands 73.5 1.0

Hiking or walking 62.2 8.7

Driving for pleasure on roads 53.3 3.2

Fishing–all types 50.5 19.6

Picnicking and day gatherings in developed sites 47.8 1.5

Camping in developed sites 35.7 7.2

Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, etc. 27.6 0.2

Primitive camping 19.4 3.3

Visiting nature center or visitor information services 18.3 0.5

Resorts and cabins on NFS lands 13.7 0.0

Bicycling, including mountain bikes 11.5 0.3

Off-highway-vehicle travel 11.3 4.0

Visiting historic and prehistoric sites 11.0 0.1

Other nonmotorized activities (swimming, sports) 6.9 0.9

Motorized water travel (boats, jet skis) 6.8 0.2

Nonmotorized water travel (canoe, raft) 6.4 0.0
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

318 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Activity Percent 

Participation1

Percent Who Indicated 

as Primary Activity

Nature study 4.8 0.0

Backpacking and camping in unroaded areas 4.0 0.1

Horseback riding 3.4 0.4

Hunting–all types 3.0 1.3

Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other) 1.1 0.0

Downhill skiing or snowboarding 0.1 0

Snowmobile travel 0 0

Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 0 0

1 More than one activity could be checked.

The forests are known for their back-country opportunities including Mount Baldy, Escudilla, and 

Bear Wallow Wilderness areas, the Blue Range Primitive Area, and over 300,000 acres of 

inventoried roadless areas.

Visitors are drawn to the abundant water on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, a unique feature in the 

arid Southwest. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have over 30 lakes and reservoirs and more than 

1,000 miles of rivers and perennial streams, more than can be found on any other southwestern 

national forest.

Over 35 percent of Arizonans participate in outdoor winter recreation activities (Arizona State 

Parks, 2007). The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are a destination for winter activities including snow 

play, snowmobiling, ice fishing, cross-country skiing, and sledding. In 2001, it was estimated that 

0.1 percent of forest visitors used designated snowmobile routes and 1.5 percent used snow play 

areas during their visits (Kocis et al., 2002). Availability of winter recreation fluctuates from yearto-year, depending on weather and associated snow levels.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Recreation opportunities on the forests are identified and managed through the Recreation 

Opportunity System (ROS). A recreation opportunity is defined as “the availability of a real 

choice for a user to participate in a preferred activity in a preferred setting, in order to realize 

desired experiences” (Forest Service, 1982). ROS is a method used to categorize, evaluate, and 

monitor settings and opportunities based on the natural, managerial, and social environments. Six 

ROS classes currently apply to NFS lands: primitive (P), semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM), 

semiprimitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), rural (R), and Urban (U) (Forest Service, 

1982). These classes are described in the “Glossary.”

An ROS inventory is helpful in establishing baseline condition for recreation settings. It is a 

management tool used in forest and other broad-scale planning. ROS can be used to show the 

general effects of alternatives to recreation settings and opportunities over broad classes (Forest 

Service, 2009a). Figure 51 below shows a generalization of the spectrum and its components.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 319

Figure 51. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (Forest Service, 1990)

Another way to look at ROS is through the differences in the types of activities and facilities 

visitors can expect to find in each of the settings. For example, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riding 

would be an appropriate activity in SPM through R ROS classes, but it would not be consistent 

with P or SPNM settings. Activities such as horseback riding or hiking may be acceptable in all 

ROS classes, but the trails available could vary greatly with the ROS class. Paved trails would not 

be found toward the “P” end of the spectrum, but they could be common at the more developed 

end.

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation is where visitors are spread over relatively large areas, especially in the 

ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, and dry mixed conifer forests on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Some examples of dispersed recreation are: hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, sightseeing, 

driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, wildlife viewing, and picnicking. 

Where facilities (i.e., trailheads, fishing sites) are provided, access and protection of the 

environment are the focus rather than the comfort or convenience of visitors. Visitors to the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs participate in a variety of dispersed recreation activities. There are over 

150 dispersed recreation facilities on the forests.

Developed Recreation

Developed recreation refers to areas where the Forest Service provides facilities for concentrated 

public use. There are over 120 developed recreation sites on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (see table 

111 below). There are 58 developed campgrounds, offering single family, multifamily, and large 

group campsites. Over 35 percent of forest visitors use developed campgrounds (Kocis et al., 

2002). Concessionaires, under contract to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, operate most of the 

developed campgrounds. Other developed recreation opportunities include picnic areas, boating 

ramps, and visitor centers.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

320 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 111. Types and numbers of developed recreation sites on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 2011b)

Developed Recreation Site Type Number of Sites

Boating Site 22

Cabin 1

Campground (Single Family) 51

Campground (Group) 7

Day Use Area 7

Dump Station 2

Horse Camp 1

Interpretive sites, including two visitor centers 13

Organization Site 4

Picnic Site (Single Family) 12

Picnic Site (Group) 1

Forest managers are challenged to maintain existing recreation facilities while providing for 

human health and safety and protecting the natural resources in the light of declining budgets. In 

2007, the forests completed a recreation facility analysis to present the tasks needed over the next 

5 years to bring the forests’ developed recreation facilities into alignment with the financial 

resources available to operate and maintain them to standard. A $2 million backlog of deferred 

recreation facility maintenance27 was identified (Forest Service, 2007). Recently, American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act funded projects have helped to reduce this maintenance backlog.

Nonmotorized Recreation

Nonmotorized recreation activities include hiking, mountain bike riding, horseback riding, 

wildlife viewing, picnicking, hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, and snow play. Approximately 64 percent of Arizonans use nonmotorized trails; 

while 58 percent use them for the majority of their recreation trail time (Arizona State Parks, 

2009). There are approximately 1,000 miles of nonmotorized trails designated for hiking, 

horseback riding, mountain biking, and cross-country skiing on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

There are also over 3,000 miles of roads closed to motor vehicle use on the forests available for 

nonmotorized recreation.

Motorized Recreation

Motorized recreation involves the use of highway legal vehicles, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs and UTVs), and snowmobiles. Around 2,900 miles of roads and trails are open for public 

 27 Deferred maintenance is the postponing of repairs or maintenance due to the lack of financial resources, which 

results in a decline of the condition or value.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 321

or administrative motorized use (see the “Infrastructure” section for more information). 

Approximately 80 percent of the forests’ land is currently open for motorized cross-country use 

(Forest Service, 2010c).

The number of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) used in Arizona has risen dramatically. Almost 

500,000 households within the State have at least one OHV. Furthermore, as many as 30,000 new 

ATVs and motorcycles are purchased annually (Forest Service, 2008a; Arizona State Parks, 

2009).

In December 2005, the Forest Service issued regulations at the national level, known as the 

Travel Management Rule (TMR). The TMR was developed in response to the increasing effects 

of OHV recreation and the potential for OHV use to adversely affect forest and grassland 

resources. One of the primary purposes of the TMR is to designate roads, trails, and areas where 

motorized vehicle use can occur and to eliminate motorized cross-country travel on all national 

forests. The designation of specific routes, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs will not be considered during the plan revision process. It will be 

addressed in the separate public motorized travel management planning process.

Special Designations

There are several areas identified to protect their unique qualities that also provide recreation 

opportunities. These special designations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs include scenic byways, 

national recreation trails, wilderness, primitive area, and eligible and suitable wild and scenic 

rivers. Scenic byways and national recreation trails are discussed below. Information on 

wilderness and primitive areas and eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers can be found in 

their respective sections.

Scenic Byways

Three scenic byways (figure 52) pass through the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: Coronado Trail 

National Scenic Byway, From the Desert to Tall Pines Scenic Road, and White Mountain Scenic 

Road.

In September 2005, the 120-mile Coronado Trail National Scenic Byway, which follows U.S. 

191, was designated by the Federal Highway Administration. This route had been a national 

forest byway and Arizona State scenic byway since 1989 and traverses the Clifton, Alpine, and 

Springerville Ranger Districts. The byway winds its way from the town of Clifton, to the top of 

the Mogollon Rim, and through the communities of Alpine and Nutrioso. Vegetation types change 

with altitude; starting with the Sonoran Desert at the southern end, spruce-fir forest on the 

Mogollon Rim, and piñon-juniper woodlands at the northern end. There are spectacular views of 

mountains and rugged country along the entire byway.

The From the Desert to Tall Pines Scenic Road has been a national forest scenic road and Arizona 

State scenic byway since 1996. Approximately 3 miles (Navajo County Road 512) of this 67-mile 

scenic road are on the Black Mesa Ranger District. Ponderosa pine forests line this portion of the 

scenic road from the Mogollon Rim to SH 260.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

322 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 52. Map of scenic byways and national recreation trails on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs

The 123-mile White Mountain Scenic Road has been an Arizona State scenic byway since 1992 

and a national forest byway since 1989. This byway is partially located on the Springerville 

Ranger District and includes SHs 260, 261, 273, and 373. This byway crosses much of the high 

elevation grasslands on the forests. These rolling plains are interrupted by forested knolls. Mount 

Baldy provides a backdrop for the byway.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 323

National Recreation Trails

The forests have four national recreation trails (NRTs): Blue Ridge, General George Crook, 

Eagle, and Escudilla (figure 52); all were administratively designated in 1979. NRTs provide a 

variety of outdoor recreation opportunities and are accessible from urban areas.

The Blue Ridge NRT (Trail 107), located on the Lakeside Ranger District, is approximately 9 

miles long. The trail climbs the west side of Blue Ridge Mountain (7,650 feet in elevation) 

through a mixture of pines, junipers, and many varieties of wildflowers. The mountain itself is a 

volcanic remnant and provides scenic panoramas from the summit.

Fifty-eight miles of the 114-mile long General George Crook NRT (Trail 140) are located in both 

the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts. The trail is part of the route used by General 

George Crook to deliver supplies to outposts including Fort McDowell, Fort Verde, Camp Reno, 

Fort Apache, and Camp San Carlos. This route became one of the first major roads in Arizona and 

was used for decades as a supply and communications route. The original blazes can still be seen 

on the ponderosa pines lining the trail, as well as occasional traces of homesteads. The trail is

popular with equestrians, mountain bikers, and hikers.

Eagle NRT (Trail 79), located on the Clifton Ranger District, is approximately 28 miles long. The 

northern end of the trail begins on the Mogollon Rim at about 9,000 feet elevation and descends 

over 4,000 feet through a variety of vegetation types (mixed conifer to riparian) to its southern 

trailhead adjacent to Eagle Creek Road. The trail traverses several canyons, each with its own 

unique scenery and vegetation.

Escudilla NRT (Trail 308), located on the Alpine Ranger District, is approximately 3 miles long. 

The trail ascends Arizona’s third highest mountain and is located within Escudilla Wilderness. 

The trail designation predates the wilderness designation. Forest Service policy discourages 

national recreation trails in designated wilderness (Forest Service Manual 2353.51 (3)).

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Recreation Opportunities

The effect of the changing recreation emphasis by alternative is reflected in the ROS classes. The 

major ROS emphases in all alternatives are for RN, SPM, and SPNM recreation opportunities. 

Maps of the ROS by alternative can be found in appendix H.

The ROS class acreages for each alternative are summarized in table 112 and shown in figure 53. 

The U class, although used in alternative A, is not appropriate on NFS lands because it 

represents a level of development that is found in cities and towns. There are no U acres in the 

action alternatives. Roaded modified (RM) recreation opportunities, shown in the action 

alternatives, are found mainly along a segment of Forest Road 300 on the Sitgreaves NF and 

reflect the designated dispersed camping and more highly managed recreation opportunities 

found there.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

324 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 112. Acres and percent of the forests in each ROS class by alternative

ROS Class Alt. A Acres

(percent)

Alt. B Acres

(percent)

Alt. C Acres

(percent)

Alt. D Acres

(percent)

Urban 

(U)

104

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

Rural 

(R)

32,853

(2%)

42,530

(2%)

43,333

(2%)

41,058

(2%)

Roaded Modified 

(RM)

0

(0%)

9,682

(<1%)

9,682

(<1%)

7,149

(<1%)

Roaded Natural 

(RN)

686,435

(34%)

603,887

(30%)

645,056

(32%)

539,491

(27%)

Semiprimitive Motorized 

(SPM)

614,520

(31%)

575,572

(29%)

662,116

(33%)

527,725

(26%)

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 

(SPNM)

452,486

(22%)

487,747

(24%)

422,932

(21%)

279,050

(14%)

Primitive 

(P)

228,954

(11%)

295,934

(14%)

232,233

(12%)

620,879

(31%)

Total 2,015,352 2,015,352 2,015,352 2,015,352

Figure 53. Acres by ROS class by alternative
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 325

Alternatives A and C would provide the most acres available for motorized recreation 

opportunities (R through SPM). Alternative B would provide a mix of recreation opportunities, 

with more nonmotorized recreation opportunities (SPNM and P) than alternatives A and C. 

Alternative D would provide the most nonmotorized recreation opportunities (P and SPNM), 

while maintaining over 1 million acres (over half of the forests) in RN and SPM.

Most SPNM acres in alternatives A, B, and C are found on the Clifton Ranger District or are 

located in areas generally not accessible to motorized recreation elsewhere on the forests. In 

alternative D, many of these areas across the forests are recommended for wilderness and 

provide either SPNM or P recreation opportunities.

It is expected that as the recreation emphasis changes with each alternative, the type of user 

attracted to the forests would change or current users may move to other areas where their desired 

recreation opportunities are available. In alternative A, there is a mix of motorized, 

nonmotorized, developed, and dispersed recreation opportunities. This mix would continue into 

alternative B. However, motorized cross-country travel would not be allowed in any of the 

action alternatives. With a greater emphasis on motorized and developed recreation 

opportunities in alternative C, there could be a shift toward users who prefer motorized 

recreation activities and/or developed recreation. There would also be decreases in nonmotorized

and dispersed recreation opportunities that could displace users to other areas or result in fewer 

users who prefer those types of recreation. Alternative D, with a greater emphasis on 

nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities, may attract those who prefer nonmotorized

and/or dispersed recreation activities, while not encouraging those with motorized/developed 

preferences. In alternatives C and D, users may be displaced and may look to recreate in other 

locations off the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs or may “stay home” (Kocis et al., 2002).

Effects of Management Activities on Recreation 

In all alternatives, management activities, especially mechanical vegetation treatments, may 

affect recreation users by displacing them from the treated areas. Displacement could affect both 

developed and dispersed users. For developed recreation, there could be a short-term closure of a 

campground, displacing users to other developed sites or long-term displacement if the developed 

site character is no longer what a recreationist desires. For example, thinning trees in a 

campground may reduce vegetative screening between campsites, which may affect a sense of 

privacy. 

For dispersed recreation, short-term displacement could result from the presence of logging 

equipment or slash piles prior to and shortly after burning. Longer term dispersed displacement 

could result from changes to a dispersed campsite or use area. For example, an area would 

generally be more open and a campsite may be visible if within sight of a road. The loss of 

vegetative screening between a dispersed campsite and a main road (maintenance level 3 or 4) 

would probably result in increases in dust and noise and decreases in privacy. 

Prescribed fires and wildfires would also displace recreation users. However, this displacement 

could be of an intermediate length, because users may not return to an area for several months 

after burning or until some vegetation has regrown.

Mechanical vegetation treatments and the use of fire would also displace both motorized and 

nonmotorized recreation users. Areas where these treatments are occurring may be closed for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

326 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

public safety or have limited access. Displacements would be similar to those described above. 

The length of displacement would vary by treatment type, amount of slash and debris piles, 

vegetation regrowth after pile or broadcast burning, and scenic quality.

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs during the high use summer season occurs 

mostly in the ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, and dry mixed conifer forests, which are the 

primary emphasis for vegetation treatments. Because the majority of the proposed vegetation 

treatments would occur in areas used for dispersed recreation, dispersed recreationists, especially 

campers, would be affected more than developed recreation users. On an average annual acres 

treated basis (table 113), dispersed users would be displaced the most under alternatives C and 

D and the least under alternative A. However, long-term displacement effects would be greater 

under alternative C because of the higher proportion of mechanical treatments.

Table 113. Average annual treatment objectives (acres) in ponderosa pine, wet mixed 

conifer, and dry mixed conifer forested PNVTs by alternative

PNVT Treatment Alt. A

Acres

Alt. B

Acres

Alt. C

Acres

Alt. D

Acres

Ponderosa Pine

Mechanical 7,119 6,289 13,341 5,434

Fire 3,150 6,300 5,614 12,679

Wet Mixed

Conifer

Mechanical 2,147 1,900 4,023 1,640

Fire 950 1,900 1,725 3,824

Dry Mixed 

Conifer

Mechanical 1,808 1,584 3,388 1,380

Fire 800 1,663 1,525 3,381

Total 

Mechanical 11,074 9,773 20,752 8,454

Fire 4,900 9,863 8,864 19,884

Grand Total Mechanical

and Fire 15,974 19,636 29,616 28,338

It is not anticipated that winter recreation users would be displaced because treatments generally 

occur during nonwinter months, the short-term slash and burn piles may be covered by snow, and 

winter users usually stay in overnight facilities off the forests. Thinned areas may attract winter 

recreationists because of the openness.

Developed Recreation

All alternatives would provide a wide range of recreation opportunities across the ApacheSitgreaves NFs; however, the emphasis varies by alternative. All alternatives emphasize the 

maintenance of existing recreation infrastructure or facilities. Alternative A identifies 1,665 acres 

as a management area for developed recreation sites; these acres are not mapped. The action 

alternatives would include the High Use Developed Recreation Area (HUDRA) Management 

Area (16,549 acres) (see management area map in appendix H). This management area contains 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 327

areas with high levels of recreation use and concentrated use areas where facilities have been 

constructed to accommodate large numbers of people (e.g., Big Lake Recreation Area). These 

areas are large enough to allow for construction of additional facilities.

Alternative A would emphasize developed recreation with the addition of new facilities. 

Alternative B proposes a balance of motorized and nonmotorized opportunities, with the possible 

construction of dispersed facilities, such as trails and interpretive sites. Alternative C would 

place a greater emphasis on motorized recreation and developed facilities. Motorized recreation 

opportunities would be improved with the development of trails and interpretive sites. New 

developed recreation facilities could be constructed in the HUDRA Management Area. 

Alternative D would focus on nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities that require 

minimal facilities. Under all alternatives, any new recreation facility would be further considered 

in site-specific, project-level analyses that would consider other resources, including, but not 

limited to, soil, vegetation, water, cultural resources, and wildlife.

Alternatives A and C would provide the most opportunities for developed and/or motorized 

recreation, while alternative D would provide the least. Alternative B would provide moderate

opportunities for developed and/or motorized recreation.

Although maintenance of the existing recreation infrastructure and reduction of the deferred 

maintenance backlog (by 10 percent within the planning period) are components of all 

alternatives, there are different consequences by alternative. This hinges on the assumption that 

funding for recreation facilities and their maintenance does not vary by alternative. Under 

alternatives A and C, it would be difficult to achieve the deferred maintenance objective because 

alternative A focuses on the development of new facilities and alternative C emphasizes 

developing new facilities and/or enhancing existing facilities in the HUDRA Management Area. 

If funds are spent on new and/or enhanced facilities, then maintenance of existing facilities could 

be further deferred. Alternative B should meet the deferred maintenance backlog objective 

because new facility development would be limited. Alternative D would also meet the objective 

with its minimal new construction emphasis.

Nonmotorized Recreation

Future Consideration of New Nonmotorized Recreation

There would be no effects to nonmotorized recreation in all alternatives because the entire 

forests are suitable for nonmotorized travel. Also, approximately 85 percent of the forests are 

suitable for future consideration of mechanized travel (e.g., mountain bikes) in all alternatives. 

Alternative A could provide the most opportunities for mechanized travel, while the action 

alternatives could provide slightly less (2 to 3 percent) opportunities.

Acres suitable for nonmotorized recreation are shown in table 114. Alternative A is based on 

management area direction in the 1987 plan. The action alternatives are based on suitability 

criteria found in chapter 4 of the proposed plan. The suitable acres in the action alternatives vary 

because of the different allocations of land to management areas (table 2) and management area 

direction. Mechanized and nonmotorized suitability would be further refined in site-specific, 

project-level analyses that would consider other resources including, but not limited to, soil, 

riparian, water, cultural resources, and wildlife.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

328 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 114. Acres suitable for future consideration of mechanized and nonmotorized travel 

by alternative

Travel Type Alt. A Acres

(percent)

Alt. B Acres

(percent)

Alt. C Acres

(percent)

Alt. D Acres

(percent)

Mechanized 1,748,869

(87%)

1,695,703

(84%)

1,703,494

(85%)

1,705,034

(85%)

Nonmotorized 2,015,352

(100%)

2,015,352

(100%)

2,015,352

(100%)

2,015,352

(100%)

Motorized Recreation

Future Consideration of New Motorized Areas and Trails

Under all alternatives, over half of the forests could be suitable for future consideration of new 

motorized areas and trails. The most land that could be suitable occurs in alternatives A and C, 

followed by alternative B; while the least that could be suitable is in alternative D. Alternatives 

with more suitable acres could provide additional forest access for motorized users that, in turn, 

could discourage nonmotorized use in those areas. Should new motorized areas and trails be 

implemented, site-specific effects to resources could occur, but they should be mitigated through 

the use of standards, guidelines, and best management practices (BMPs).

Acres suitable for future consideration of new motorized recreation development by alternative 

are summarized in table 115. Alternative A is based on management area direction in the 1987 

plan. The action alternatives are based on suitability criteria found in chapter 4 of the proposed 

plan, which defines whether or not a management area is suitable for future consideration of a 

variety of motorized uses. The motorized use suitability would be further refined during projectlevel analyses that would consider other resources, including, but not limited to, soil, riparian, 

water, cultural resources, and wildlife. See the “Infrastructure” section for a discussion of new 

motorized roads.

Table 115. Acres and percent suitable for future consideration of new motorized areas and 

trails by alternative

Category Alt. A Acres

(percent)

Alt. B Acres

(percent)

Alt. C Acres

(percent)

Alt. D Acres

(percent)

New Motorized Areas 1,423,242

(71%)

1,243,316

(62%)

1,572,507

(78%)

1,095,135

(54%)

New Motorized Trails 1,444,430

(72%)

1,273,822

(63%)

1,619,298

(80%)

1,123,081

(56%)

Motorized Cross-Country Travel

Alternative A would continue to allow motorized cross-country travel. Environmental 

consequences of continuing this use are described below.

Increased motorized cross-country travel from a growing user population would result in more 

resource damage, more conflicts with other forest users, safety concerns, higher noise levels, 

additional user-created routes, and new dispersed camping locations, especially in or near riparian 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 329

areas. Nonmotorized visitors could be displaced by noise and conflicts with motorized hunters 

and recreationists to other parts of the forests and to areas that are closed to motorized crosscountry travel.

Unmanaged motorized cross-country travel has the potential to adversely affect scenic quality 

through resource damage (e.g., vegetation crushing, soil erosion). This is especially important in 

locations where physical impacts should be subordinate to the natural landscape. Unauthorized 

routes would continue to be used and their numbers could rise with increasing recreational use of 

the forests. Because unauthorized use is not managed and is likely to increase, the overall scenic 

quality would decline.

Motorized cross-country travel would increase the potential for erosion, reduce soil productivity 

due to compaction and erosion, destroy vegetative cover and natural ground litter, damage 

riparian areas, increase sediment in streams and water bodies, and change surface flow. Crosscounty motorized travel also destroys biological soil crusts. Streambank damage could occur at 

vehicle crossings and along streams in recreation areas. Surface water quality could be reduced 

from sedimentation, increased turbidity, introduction of motor vehicle fluids from spills and 

leaks, and direct contact of vehicles with streams and water bodies.

Resource damage could occur in all vegetation types, especially riparian areas, and may damage 

or kill individual rare plants. Motorized cross-country travel has the potential to transport 

nonnative, invasive plant species seeds throughout the forests, thereby greatly expanding the 

extent of their occurrence.

Motorized cross-country travel expands access to areas and may result in wildlife mortality (e.g., 

illegal shooting, vehicular collision); influence wildlife behavior, survival, reproduction, and 

distribution of species; and alter habitats.

Growing motorized cross-county use increases the potential impacts to streams and fish from 

erosion and sedimentation. This use directly damages riparian and aquatic habitats and fish life 

stages when their mobility is limited. These uses indirectly affect downstream habitat primarily 

through increased sediment and decreased water quality.

Unrestricted motorized access to remote sites increases the potential for vandalism, including 

illegal excavation (looting), damage or destruction to standing architecture or rock art, and 

collection of surface artifacts. Motorized use may remove vegetation that protects and covers 

archaeological materials. When cultural materials are exposed, the more decorative artifacts and 

collectable historic objects may disappear through illegal collecting.

The action alternatives would eliminate motorized cross-country travel. Motorized travel would 

be limited to NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, and designated motorized areas. Certain vehicles 

and uses are exempted from the suitability determination per Executive Order 11644 (e.g., 

vehicles used for emergency purposes, vehicles allowed by permit or contract). Eliminating 

motorized cross-country travel would have beneficial effects to soils, water, vegetation, fish, 

wildlife, and cultural resources by removing some of the negative consequences listed above. 

Additional environmental consequences are described below.

Motor vehicle use would only be allowed on roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized use. 

This would make it easier for forest users to understand where they can travel with motor 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

330 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

vehicles. Not having motor vehicles on unauthorized user-created routes would reduce safety 

concerns.

There could be some displacement of motor vehicle users to lands outside the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs where motorized cross-country travel may be allowed. Additional impacts to scenic integrity 

from motorized cross-country travel would be prevented. Unauthorized routes would revegetate 

and scenic integrity would improve.

Plants and their habitats would benefit from reduced disturbance. The potential to spread 

nonnative, invasive plant species seeds across the forests would be reduced. By reducing where 

motor vehicles are allowed, rare plant habitat quality would improve by minimizing vehicular 

crushing and invasive plant introductions.

Erosion and sediment transport would be reduced as disturbed areas revegetate. Less sediment 

would reduce maintenance needs of road related structures (culverts) and improve downstream 

aquatic habitats. Better watershed conditions would reduce peak flows and promote better 

infiltration and groundwater recharge.

Less motorized access may reduce disturbance, mortality (e.g., fewer collisions), and habitat 

fragmentation and modification, and it may improve habitat security and quality. Potential 

impacts and disturbance to fish species, riparian and aquatic habitats, and hydrologic conditions 

would be reduced.

The potential to disturb cultural resources would be reduced because fewer lands would be open 

to motor vehicle use, resulting in a beneficial effect to cultural resources. The adverse effects to 

remote cultural sites from motorized cross-country travel would be reduced and, in some areas, 

stopped.

In all alternatives, motorized travel would be limited to a system of designated roads, trails, and 

areas after the completion of travel management planning process to implement the Travel 

Management Rule. 

Special Designations

No new scenic byways or national recreation trails (NRTs) are proposed in any alternative. The 

current scenic byways and NRTs would continue to be managed to protect the values for which 

they were designated. There would be no effects from removing the NRT designation from 

Escudilla Trail, as proposed in the action alternatives, because it is within a designated 

wilderness. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area for recreation is the Coconino NF, the Tusayan and Williams 

Districts on the Kaibab NF, the Payson and Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts on the Tonto NF 

(Forest Service, 2010i), and other Federal and State managed lands within a 20-mile radius of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This large area was selected because of ongoing and proposed activities 

on neighboring national forests (i.e., Four Forest Restoration Initiative), adjacent State lands (i.e., 

recreation permits, types of recreation limited), and neighboring American Indian reservations 

(i.e., recreation permits, types of recreation limited).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 331

Under the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI), up to 50,000 acres across four national 

forests in Arizona (Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto) may be thinned and/or 

burned per year for 20 years, primarily in ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer, a total of 1 

million acres. As previously discussed, much of the summer recreation on national forest lands 

occurs in these forested PNVTs. Because of the extent of the proposed activities, in addition to 

other ongoing vegetation treatments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in all alternatives, there 

would be cumulative effects to recreation. Recreation users of the forests, especially dispersed 

users, could be displaced to areas beyond the national forests in Arizona, to forest lands in other 

states, or to lands managed by other agencies. It is also possible that forest users may choose to 

no longer recreate beyond their home area (Kocis et al., 2002). This could result in losses in 

revenues to communities within or adjacent to the four national forests involved with 4FRI.

In all alternatives, cumulative effects to recreation could also result from other agencies’ 

management of their lands. In particular, permits are required for recreational use of surrounding 

American Indian reservations and State trust lands. A fee is charged for the permit and only 

limited recreation activities are allowed. The fee and the limitations on types of recreation could 

both negatively and positively affect recreation use on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Those 

recreation users unwilling or unable to pay a fee would use the forests rather than reservation or 

State lands. Also, those users whose preferred activities are not allowed on adjoining lands would 

select to visit the forests. Conversely, those users seeking a different recreation opportunity would 

pay the fee to visit the lands surrounding the forests. For example, a camper wishing a dispersed 

recreation opportunity without the presence of ATVs may opt to pay for and visit the Fort Apache 

Indian Reservation, because the White Mountain Apache Tribe does not allow the use of ATVs on

their lands.

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 2012–2016 Tentative Five-Year 

Transportation Facilities Construction Program shows plans to provide additional passing lanes 

on Arizona SH 260 from Heber to Show Low, Arizona. This section of SH 260 is located on the 

Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts. Other ADOT projects in the vicinity or on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs consist of pavement rehabilitation, construction of passing lanes, and 

other heavy maintenance activities. In all alternatives, these road improvements could facilitate 

an increase in visitors since the driving time from Phoenix and Tucson would decrease. As use 

increases, compliance with regulations could become a greater challenge as recreation 

participants often compete for limited space and resources. Especially vulnerable are 

semiprimitive and primitive settings, which emphasize solitude, challenge, risk, unmodified 

natural environments, and minimal encounters and/or signs of other users. 

See the “Socioeconomic Resources” section for additional cumulative environmental 

consequences.

Infrastructure

This section summarizes the existing transportation system on the forests. It also describes the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ owned administrative facilities. It displays the potential environmental 

consequences that may result from implementing the four alternatives. Motorized trails are 

addressed in the “Recreation” section. The full analysis for this section can be found in the 

“Infrastructure Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012k) available in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

332 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

The criteria for comparing alternatives includes a discussion of how plan direction varies to 

address riparian-related resource damage, how motorized cross-country travel is managed, and 

the amount (acres) of land suitable for new motorized route construction. Assumptions and key 

policies used in the analysis include:

• None of the alternatives has specific objectives, during the life of the plan, to construct 

new motorized routes and/or designate new motorized areas. Proposals for new 

development and the associated environmental effects will be considered through projectlevel planning.

• New motorized routes would not be constructed in designated wilderness areas, the Blue 

Range Primitive Area, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), and other areas considered not 

suitable for new motorized route construction. 

• The land shown as suitable for future consideration of new motorized routes or motorized 

areas does not reflect site-specific resource concerns (e.g., slope, soils, cultural resources) 

that will be addressed in project-level analysis.

• Generally, the current road maintenance levels are not expected to change over the life of 

the plan. There may be some exceptions, for example the portion of Forest Road 300 

from State Highway 60 to State Highway 260. It currently ranges in maintenance levels 

of 2 through 3. As funding allows, this section of road would be managed at maintenance 

level 3 for consistency in maintenance activities, signing, and vehicle use.

• NFS roads no longer needed for current or future use will be decommissioned by 

recontouring, ripping, and seeding as appropriate and will be analyzed on a project-level 

basis. 

Affected Environment

Motorized Routes

The transportation system on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs consists of roads and trails that provide 

people with access to public lands and private inholdings. Motorized travel on the forests has 

evolved over time. Historically, the road system on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs was constructed 

for commodity access, primarily timber harvest, livestock production, mining, and administration. 

Some roads were alternate routes that connected small communities and some were used to 

access points of interest or areas used for specific activities, such as hunting and camping. While 

the transportation system continues to provide access for administration of the forests, the 

majority of use today comes from public recreation and forests products extraction.

The motorized transportation system is comprised of 765 miles of roads open only to highway 

legal vehicles (maintenance level 3 through 5), 2,067 miles of roads open to all motorized 

vehicles (maintenance level 2), 3,372 miles of roads closed to all motorized vehicles 

(maintenance level 1), and 156 miles of trails open to motorized vehicles less than 50 inches 

wide. The miles of open motorized transportation system includes roads with access restricted on 

a seasonal basis for public safety and to minimize resource damage.

Additional travel ways exist that are not part of the NFS road network and are considered 

unauthorized routes. An inventory has not been completed, but it is estimated that there are 

hundreds of miles of unauthorized routes. These unauthorized routes include unplanned, 

abandoned travel ways; user created routes; and roads that were once under permit or other 

authorization and were not decommissioned upon termination of the authorization. Travel ways in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 333

this category are awaiting management evaluation as to whether or not to include them as part of 

the transportation system or to decommission.

Over the last few decades, funding has been insufficient to maintain all NFS roads and NFS 

motorized trails to appropriate standards to meet the road and trail management objective levels. 

Generally, the funding received has been focused on maintenance of higher standard roads that 

serve multiple-access needs. There is currently a backlog of road maintenance referred to as 

“deferred maintenance” or tasks that are the cumulative total of all annual maintenance tasks not 

accomplished as needed or scheduled. Maintenance items include, but are not limited to, 

surfacing, drainage and drainage structures, and closure structures. Deferred maintenance on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs road system has accumulated to over $50 million. 

Generally, new road construction may occur when access to a particular resource or private 

inholding is needed. These roads may be permanent, if intended for long-term use, or they may be 

temporary and then removed. Any adjustments to the road network will be made, as necessary, 

during project-level planning.

Less than 10 miles of new NFS road construction has occurred over the past 5 years. It has been 

limited to relocation of poorly located roads (e.g., near riparian areas, wet meadows) and 

developed campground construction. Temporary roads have been used for forest products 

extraction where a permanent road is not needed for future access. 

The use of motorized vehicles for recreation activities has increased dramatically in recent years 

(Arizona State Parks, 2007). Advances in the performance and the technology of off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs) have increased 

the demand for additional motorized recreation trails (i.e., motorized routes less than 50 inches 

wide), specifically connectors between routes to create loops. 

Approximately 1,480,000 acres (about 70 percent) of the forests are currently open to motorized 

cross-country travel. The three designated wilderness areas and the Blue Range Primitive Area 

are closed to motorized cross-country travel.

Administrative Facilities

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ administrative facilities consist of one air tanker base to support 

wildfire suppression, five ranger district offices, quarters for seasonal employees and crews, 

warehouses, barns, residential housing, engine bays, storage facilities, and associated water and 

wastewater systems. Over the past several years, management emphasis has been to reduce the 

square footage of administrative facilities and still meet the needs of the forests. A facility master 

plan was completed in 1994 with subsequent annual updates. The facility master plan guides 

acquisition, maintenance, and disposal of facilities. It identifies facility needs and guides 

decisions regarding proposed and existing facilities.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Motorized Routes 

In alternative A, management of the motorized transportation system would be guided by 

direction in the 1987 plan, which was driven primarily by timber harvesting. There are no specific 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

334 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

objectives that would address motorized routes that may be adding sediment to streams or causing 

riparian related resource damage.

All of the action alternatives would contain direction for roads and motorized trails that include 

specific objectives within the planning period to remove unauthorized routes and close 

maintenance level 1 roads in riparian areas. These alternatives would also include specific 

objectives within the planning period to close, recontour, and/or revegetate unauthorized routes 

and maintenance level 1 roads that directly add sediment to streams or cause damage to riparian 

systems. As a result of these actions, there would be fewer roads, trails, and unauthorized routes 

that directly add sediment to streams, damage riparian vegetation, erode streambanks, cause 

gullies, and/or compact floodplain soils. 

In alternative A, motorized cross-country travel is allowed in most areas. It would be expected 

that with increasing populations, motorized cross-country travel would increase resulting in 

mixed user conflicts and creation of even more miles of unauthorized routes. Maintenance and 

deferred maintenance costs would increase as additional miles of unauthorized routes need to be 

removed or reconstructed according to best management practices (BMPs) to reduce resource 

damage and design standards for user safety.

All of the action alternatives would prohibit motorized cross-country travel, except where 

authorized. Exceptions include emergency vehicles, snowmobiles, and permitted uses (e.g., 

livestock grazing, firewood permits). Eliminating motorized cross-country travel except where 

authorized would make current funding used to mitigate resource damage from unauthorized 

routes available for existing NFS road maintenance. Motorized vehicle use would only be 

allowed on roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized use, making it less complicated for 

forest users to understand where they can travel with motorized vehicles and lessening the 

conflicts between motorized use and nonmotorized use. 

Table 116 summarizes the acres suitable for the future consideration of new motorized areas, NFS 

roads, NFS motorized trails, and temporary roads. This classification does not imply that 

construction of motorized routes would occur. This table is based on criteria found in the 

motorized uses suitability section in chapter 4 of the proposed plan for the action alternatives. 

There is no clear direction for new motorized development in Alternative A, suitability is based 

on management area emphasis. 

Alternative C would provide the greatest amount of acreage suitable for future consideration of 

new motorized areas, NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, and temporary roads, followed by 

alternatives A, B, and D. Alternatives with higher suitable acres could provide additional forest 

access for motorized users which, in turn, could discourage nonmotorized use in those areas. If 

new motorized road or trail construction occurred, maintenance and deferred maintenance costs 

would increase.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 335

Table 116. Approximate acres and percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs suitable for 

future consideration of new motorized areas, NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, and 

temporary roads1

Category Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

New Motorized Areas 1,423,242

(71%)

1,243,316

(62%)

1,572,507

(78%)

1,095,135

(54%)

NFS Road Construction 1,444,430

(72%)

1,276,291

(63%)

1,621,771

(80%)

1,125,553

(56%)

NFS Motorized Trails <50” Construction 1,444,430

(72%)

1,273,822

(63%)

1,619,298

(80%)

1,123,081

(56%)

Temporary Road Construction 1,448,434

(72%)

1,405,288

(70%)

1,696,497

(84%)

1,233,645

(61%)

1

This table does not imply or propose these activities or level of development would occur but is a measurable 

way of showing the differences in the alternatives. 

Both mechanical and fire treatments are planned in all alternatives. At the average planned 

treatment objective level, alternatives C and B, respectively, would rely on more mechanical 

treatments to move toward desired condition, followed by alternative D then A. Mechanical 

treatments may require more reconstruction (e.g., curve widening, hardened drainage crossings) 

of roads to accommodate the design needs of the critical vehicle to perform mechanical treatment 

than fire treatments would require. Mechanical treatments may also require more construction of 

temporary roads during the treatment period to access the treatment areas than fire treatments. 

This may result in mechanical treatments having a higher cost per acre due to motorized access 

costs. Effects of roads, including temporary roads, are discussed in the affected resource sections 

including, but not limited to, soil, water, and air.

Activities, such as NFS road maintenance, relocation, and construction of new motorized use 

areas, NFS motorized trails and NFS roads, should not have an impact on long-term productivity 

because they would be accomplished using BMPs. Additionally, they should result in conditions 

that minimize resource impacts while providing needed access to the forests.

Administrative Facilities

The management of the administrative facilities on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would not change 

under any alternative. The facility master plan would be reviewed and updated annually as 

necessary to reflect management needs. Funding would be prioritized to accomplish critical 

health and safety maintenance and deferred maintenance items.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The bounds of analysis are the adjoining national forests, the counties encompassing the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, and the Arizona State highways (SH) and the designated forest highways that 

access and traverse the forests.

The Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) is a landscape-scale restoration project to reduce the 

threat of high intensity, potentially destructive fires on the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

336 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

and Tonto NFs. This project could impact the forests’ transportation system because of the need to 

access the eastern side of the Coconino NF for treatments and/or removal of biomass. In all 

alternatives, use of these roads would result in increased traffic and a need for more frequent 

road maintenance. The increase in traffic and the different types of vehicles could require 

improvement of the road to accommodate these activities safely. 

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 2012–2016 Tentative Five-Year 

Transportation Facilities Construction Program shows plans to continue providing additional 

passing lanes on Arizona SH 260 from Heber to Show Low, Arizona. This section of SH 260 is 

located predominantly on the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts. Other ADOT projects in 

the vicinity or on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs consist of pavement rehabilitation, construction of 

passing lanes, and other heavy maintenance activities. None of these projects are expected to 

increase or decrease the amount of access onto the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. However, in all 

alternatives, these road improvements could facilitate the increases in forest visitors as the 

driving time to the forests from the urban areas of Phoenix and Tucson decreases as a result of 

these improvements. This potential increase of forest visitors using the forest motorized 

transportation system could result in more frequent road maintenance needs.

There are seven NFS roads designated as forest highways in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. In the 

fall of 2011, the forests submitted two of these roads for funding from the Federal Highways 

Administration to reconstruct. The reconstruction work would include: new drainage structures, 

road widening, possible realignment of small segments, and paving. The reconstruction of these 

roads would not increase or decrease access to the forests lands. In all alternatives, completion 

of these projects would eliminate deferred maintenance on these routes and turn over 

maintenance responsibility to ADOT, freeing up funding to be used on other NFS roads. 

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers

This section describes the rivers currently eligible or suitable for designation into the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It also describes the potential environmental consequences on 

the wild and scenic river resource that may result with the adoption of a revised land management 

plan. The full analysis for eligible wild and scenic rivers can be found in the “Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012bb) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The number and miles of eligible and suitable rivers do not vary by alternative; however, the 

management areas which the rivers overlay may change by alternative. Rivers are classified as 

wild, scenic, or recreational.

• Wild rivers: Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and 

waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

• Scenic rivers: Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads.

• Recreational rivers: Those rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by road or 

railroad that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 337

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• All identified river segments and associated corridors are managed in conformance with 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 82.5 - Interim Management of Eligible or 

Suitable Rivers.

• Wildfire is considered a natural ecological process. The 2011 Wallow Fire affected all or 

portions of 12 eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers. The outstandingly remarkable 

values for these rivers were reviewed with a focus on the long-term assessment of 

eligibility because of the changed conditions. This review found the outstandingly 

remarkable values for each river are still valid and will remain valid into the future 

(Forest Service, 2012a).

Affected Environment

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs do not have any designated wild and scenic rivers. However, the 

forests currently have both eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers (figure 54 below).

Eligible Rivers

There are approximately 339 miles of 23 rivers (table 117 below) eligible to be included in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There are 172 miles classified as wild, 66 miles 

classified as scenic, and 101 miles classified as recreational. These rivers are located in all ranger 

districts except Lakeside. 

Eligible rivers are managed to retain their status until a suitability determination has been made 

whether to recommend their inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Table 117. Eligible wild and scenic rivers by river classification

River Name Wild 

(miles)

Scenic 

(miles)

Recreational 

(miles)

Total

(miles)

Bear Wallow Creek 3.7 — 0.9 4.6

Black River 18.3 0.5 — 18.8

Campbell Blue Creek1 4.1 — 8.0 12.1

Coal Creek1 9.6 0.6 7.7 17.9

Dix Creek — 3.3 — 3.3

Eagle Creek — — 19.5 19.5

East Clear Creek2 — 21.2 — 21.2

East Eagle Creek 7.5 3.5 3.5 14.5

East Fork Black River 3.3 1.2 8.2 12.7

East Fork Little Colorado River — 9.3 — 9.3

Fish Creek — 9.9 0.6 10.5

Little Blue Creek 18.4 — — 18.4
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

338 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

River Name Wild 

(miles)

Scenic 

(miles)

Recreational 

(miles)

Total

(miles)

Leonard Canyon3 — — 23.6 23.6

North Fork East Fork Black River 12.7 1.0 — 13.7

Pigeon Creek 4.8 — 10.3 15.1

San Francisco River 9.0 — 15.0 24.0

Sardine Creek 8.9 — — 8.9

South Fork Little Colorado River — 7.3 — 7.3

Turkey Creek 9.1 — — 9.1

West Fork Black River 8.6 3.0 11.6

West Fork Little Colorado River 6.4 — 1.7 8.1

Willow Creek 18.9 — — 18.9

Woods Canyon - Chevelon Creek 28.4 5.3 2.4 36.1

Total miles 171.7 66.1 101.4 339.2

1

Also located on the Gila NF. Total miles show.

2

Also located on the Coconino NF. A portion of this river is the boundary between the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the Coconino 

NF. Miles shown are the common boundary.

3

Also located on the Coconino NF. Miles shown are the common boundary between the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the 

Coconino NF. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 339

Figure 54. Map of suitable and eligible wild and scenic rivers on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

340 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Suitable Rivers

Suitable rivers include portions of the Blue River and KP Creek (table 118). These rivers were 

found to be suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System through a 

separate environmental analysis (Forest Service, 2010d). Suitable rivers are managed to maintain 

their conditions and values until congressional action is taken.

Table 118. Suitable wild and scenic rivers by river classification

River Name Wild 

(miles)

Scenic 

(miles)

Recreational

(miles)

Total

(miles)

Blue River 23.3 4.2 — 27.5

KP Creek 11.3 — — 11.3

Total miles 34.6 4.2 0.0 38.8

River Corridors and Management Areas

A river corridor includes all NFS lands within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the eligible or suitable river. 

On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, there are 97,215 acres of eligible or suitable river corridors. 

These river corridors are found in most management areas across the forests; they do not occur in 

Developed Recreation Sites, Escudilla Demonstration Area, and Escudilla Wilderness 

Management Areas.

Portions of the eligible West Fork and East Fork Little Colorado Rivers are located within Mount 

Baldy Wilderness Management Area. All of the eligible Bear Wallow Creek is within Bear 

Wallow Wilderness Management Area. There are no eligible or suitable rivers in Escudilla 

Wilderness Management Area. A portion of the suitable Blue River and most of KP Creek are 

within the Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions Management Area.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Eligible and suitable river segments and their corridors would be managed to maintain the 

outstanding values and qualities that made them eligible or suitable for designation in all 

alternatives in accordance with Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 82.5 - Interim 

Management of Eligible or Suitable Rivers. The presence of these river corridors may act to 

increase public interest and awareness of river resources, especially in the generally arid 

Southwest. Also, as populations increase and more people visit the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the 

value of managing these areas in their relatively natural condition will increase.

Effects of Eligibility, Suitability, and Classification

The presence of an eligible or suitable river constrains the type and manner of projects and 

activities that may be conducted within the river corridor. Three constraints apply to activities in 

all eligible and suitable river corridors: (1) the protection of the free flowing river character, (2) 

the protection of the identified outstandingly remarkable values, and (3) the maintenance of the 

river classification (wild, scenic, or recreational) unless a completed suitability study 

recommends a less restrictive classification. The overall effect of these constraints is to protect, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 341

maintain, and possibly enhance the values for which the river segments were found eligible or 

suitable.

Application of the management guidelines28 found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 

82.5 - Interim Management of Eligible or Suitable Rivers could also constrain the management of 

other resources within the river corridor, thereby minimizing the effects of activities on the 

outstandingly remarkable values. These guidelines vary by river classification with the most 

restrictions on wild river corridors and the least on recreational river corridors. Although some 

activities may be limited or restricted, river characteristics and outstandingly remarkable values 

would be maintained, protected, and potentially enhanced.

For example, a proposed mechanical vegetation treatment in a wild river corridor would not be 

allowed, but a proposed prescribed burn in the same area could be allowed as long as the 

identified outstandingly remarkable values are protected. The effects of mechanical vegetation 

treatments and prescribed burning are described in other sections throughout the DEIS.

Effects of Management Activities 

Under all alternatives, management activities outside the eligible and suitable river corridors 

should not affect the outstandingly remarkable values because projects and activities would be 

subject to standards, guidelines, and best management practices (BMPs).

Effects of Management Areas

Eligible and suitable river corridors overlay a number of management areas across the 

alternatives. Because the interim management guidelines by wild and scenic river classification 

do not always match the management area direction, river corridors are managed by the more 

restrictive management area or river corridor direction, especially with regard to identified 

outstandingly remarkable values. The least restrictive management areas are Forest Land 

Management Area in alternative A and General Forest Management Area in the action 

alternatives; while Wilderness is the most restrictive management area in all alternatives. Tables 

119 and 120 below summarize the river corridor acreages by alternative, management area, and 

wild and scenic river classification (more detailed information can be found in the “Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Specialist Report,” Forest Service 2012bb) Alternative A management areas 

generally do not correspond to the management areas in the action alternatives.

There is a general rule that the more restrictive management applies when there is a difference 

between wild and scenic river management and the management area(s) over which a river 

corridor lays. The location of a river corridor may affect its management if the management area 

it overlays has more restrictive management. Because some management areas change by 

alternative, a river corridor in the Natural Landscape Management Area in one alternative could 

be in the General Forest Management Area in another. 

For example, under alternative D, 21,040 acres of scenic and recreational river corridors would 

be managed under the more restrictive Recommended Wilderness Management Area. 

 28 These guidelines are specific to water resources projects, hydroelectric power, minerals, transportation system, utility 

proposals, recreation development, motorized travel, wildlife and fish projects, vegetation management, and domestic 

livestock grazing.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

342 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Recommended wilderness management of scenic and recreational rivers areas would provide 

greater protection to the river characteristics and outstandingly remarkable values through 

unsuitability for motorized vehicle use, unsuitability for timber production, and very high scenic 

integrity. This would restrict some activities that are allowable in scenic or recreational river

corridors (e.g., construction of new roads, mechanical vegetation management). Conversely, a 

wild river located in the General Forest Management Area in the action alternatives (e.g., 

Segment 2 of West Fork Black River) would be managed according to wild river guidance, not 

General Forest Management Area direction.

Regardless of which management area eligible and suitable rivers overlay, the river 

characteristics and outstandingly remarkable values would be protected through application of the 

interim management guidelines. For example, approximately two-thirds of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs eligible and suitable rivers with fish populations and/or habitat have these outstandingly 

remarkable values29. Management of wild and scenic rivers would provide additional protection 

for the fish populations and habitat. For example, construction of a dam on any river 

classification would be prohibited, which would maintain the fish habitat. Also as discussed 

above, a recreational or scenic river classification would provide greater protection for a fish 

outstandingly remarkable value when the river corridor overlays a General Forest or CommunityForest Intermix Management Area because of the requirement to protect outstandingly 

remarkable values.

Table 119. River Corridor Acres by Classification and Management Area for Alternative A

Alternative A

Management Area

Wild and Scenic River Classification (acres)

Wild Scenic Recreational

Forest Land 8,133 6,933 4,707

Woodland 13,895 3,229 10,880

Riparian 4,724 1,189 3,498

Grasslands 1,314 1,390 297

Developed Recreation Sites (not mapped) 0 0 0

Mount Baldy Wilderness 1,283 635 8

BRPA and Additions 12,344 0 0

Escudilla Demonstration Area 0 0 0

Research Natural Areas 5 148 0

Water 2 25 0

Bear Wallow Wilderness 977 0 286

Escudilla Wilderness 0 0 0

 29 Rivers with fish populations and/or habitat outstandingly remarkable value(s): Chevelon Creek, East Fork Little 

Colorado River, Bear Wallow Creek, Black River, West Fork Black River, East Fork Black River, North Fork East 

Fork Black River, Fish Creek, Campbell Blue Creek, Blue River, KP Creek, San Francisco River, Coal Creek, Dix 

Creek, Eagle Creek, and East Eagle Creek.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 343

Alternative A

Management Area

Wild and Scenic River Classification (acres)

Wild Scenic Recreational

Black River (Mainstem) 4,127 174 102

West Fork Black River 4,415 325 1,792

Chevelon Canyon 5,245 1,125 450

East and West Forks Little Colorado River 558 358 209

Sandrock 1,329 1,103 0

Total Acres 58,351 16,634 22,229
344

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 120. River Corridor Acres by Classification and Management Area for the Action Alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D)

Management Area1

Wild and Scenic River Classification

Wild (acres) Scenic (acres) Recreational (acres)

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

General Forest 13,360 37,091 7,887 8,056 14,920 5,612 8,579 20,488 8,409

Community-Forest Intermix 37 37 37 0 0 0 0 0 0

High Use Developed 

Recreation Area

124 124 124 0 0 0 0 0 0

Energy Corridor 0 0 0 38 38 38 0 0 0

Wildlife Quiet Area 492 492 795 0 0 421 17 17 17

Natural Landscape 27,466 3,735 118 6,864 0 46 13,294 1,387 1,417

Recommended Research 

Natural Area

2,268 2,268 1,675 886 886 747 43 43 32

Research Natural Area 0 0 0 155 155 155 0 0 0

Recommended Wilderness 0 0 33,111 0 0 8,981 2 0 12,059

Primitive Area 12,344 12,344 12,344 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness 2,260 2,260 2,260 635 635 635 294 294 294

Total Acres2 58,351 58,351 58,351 16,634 16,634 16,635 22,229 22,229 22,228

1 Wild Horse Territory is not listed because there are no wild and scenic rivers in the management area.

2 Minor acre differences are due to rounding.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 345

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area for this analysis includes the watersheds of eligible and suitable rivers on adjacent 

national forests (Gila and Coconino NFs). This discussion is pertinent to all alternatives. There 

would be no cumulative environmental consequences to the suitable rivers on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs because they arise and are completely within the forests boundary. Most of the 

eligible rivers arise and are completely within the forests boundary. There would be beneficial 

cumulative effects to Leonard Canyon and East Clear Creek because the river corridors on the 

Coconino NF would be managed to maintain the free flowing river character and to protect the 

outstandingly remarkable values. This would also be the case for the Campbell Blue Creek and 

Coal Creek river corridors on the Gila NF.

The San Francisco River arises on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs west of Alpine, AZ, but flows 

through Gila NF and private lands before reentering the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The upper San 

Francisco River from its headwaters through the Gila NF is not an eligible or suitable wild and 

scenic river. However, many of the San Francisco River tributaries on the Gila NF are eligible 

wild and scenic rivers. There could be negative cumulative environmental consequences to the 

downstream eligible San Francisco River segment from vegetation treatments, planned and 

unplanned fire ignitions, fire suppression activities, and livestock grazing upstream on the Gila 

NF, but their extent is not known and they are not quantifiable. However, as with activities 

proposed for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, activities on the Gila NF would be subject to standards, 

guidelines, and BMPs. The greatest potential for negative consequences to the eligible San 

Francisco River would be from unplanned events that could affect the fish species and wildlife 

species and habitat outstandingly remarkable values (e.g., increased sedimentation, post-fire 

flooding).

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are a Forest Service administrative designation. The full 

analysis for IRAs can be found in the “Wilderness Resources and Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012cc) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

There are nine roadless area characteristics identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule (Roadless Rule). Roadless area characteristics are resources or features that are often present 

in or characterize roadless areas:

• High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; 

• Sources of public drinking water; 

• Diversity of plant and animal communities;

• Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for 

those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land;

• Primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and semiprimitive motorized classes of dispersed 

recreation;

• Reference landscapes;

• Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;

• Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and

• Other locally identified unique characteristics.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

346 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

The roadless area characteristics are used to evaluate the effects of the alternatives to the IRAs. 

An IRA may or may not have all characteristics.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions and policies used include:

• Activities in IRAs under alternatives A, B, and D would be consistent with the 2001 

Roadless Rule to maintain their roadless characteristics.

• Wildfire is considered a natural ecological process. IRAs that burned in the 2011 Wallow 

Fire retain their roadless character.

Affected Environment

There are 17 IRAs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (figures 55 and 56 and table 121). These areas 

total approximately 322,000 acres. In general, these lands include rough, broken terrain with 

steep-sided canyons and are located in low population areas. The forests’ IRAs are the result of 

Forest Service rulemaking and environmental analysis (Forest Service, 2000) that was conducted 

in the late 1990s and early 2000s. IRAs are not a management area, but they overlay a variety of 

management areas.

Table 121. Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs)

Inventoried Roadless Area Acres Ranger District

Leonard Canyon 3,069 Black Mesa

Chevelon Canyon 5,569 Black Mesa

Escudilla Mountain 885 Alpine

Mother Hubbard1 2,177 Alpine

Campbell Blue 7,003 Alpine

Nolan1 6,780 Alpine

Centerfire 13,130 Alpine

Bear Wallow 878 Alpine

Black River Canyon 11,813 Alpine

Hot Air 31,703 Clifton

Salt House 21,842 Clifton

Painted Bluffs 43,105 Clifton

Lower San Francisco 59,308 Clifton

Pipestem 34,592 Clifton

Hells Hole1 15,512 Clifton

Mitchell Peak 35,392 Clifton

Sunset 28,946 Clifton

Pipestem/Lower San Francisco 152 Clifton

Total Acres 321,856

1 Adjacent IRA lands are found on the Gila NF in New Mexico. Only ApacheSitgreaves NFs acres are shown.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 347

Figure 55. Map of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

348 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 56. Map of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 349

Roadless areas were identified during the 1979 RARE II process, an extensive inventory of NFS 

lands areas. On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 designated most, 

but not all, of the Escudilla Mountain and Bear Wallow IRAs as wilderness. The remaining 

roadless lands were released to multiple-use management until revision of the land management 

plan, at which time they would be reevaluated for wilderness potential.

Because there were no roadless areas during development of the 1987 plan, there are no specific 

goals or objectives relating to them. Between 1985 and 2000, numerous surface disturbing and 

vegetation removal activities occurred on Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands that had previously been 

identified as roadless. When the roadless lands were reconsidered in the 2000 Roadless Area 

Conservation FEIS, there was no additional inventory or adjustment of boundaries to reflect these 

activities. At this time, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are unable to adjust IRA boundaries to remove 

those portions which no longer have roadless characteristics.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

There would be no changes to the roadless character of IRAs in alternatives A, B, and D. IRAs 

would be managed under the 2001 Roadless Rule and plan direction (primarily the Natural 

Landscape Management Area), which would maintain the roadless characteristics, if present.

Alternative C would consider forest management without IRAs. Most of these lands would be 

part of the General Forest (286,590 acres) and Energy Corridor (40 acres) Management Areas. 

Management activities, including timber harvest, other mechanical vegetation treatments, and 

road construction and reconstruction, could occur in these areas which could affect their roadless 

characteristics. Because of the terrain in these areas, timber harvest and road construction are not 

anticipated, but the following consequences to roadless characteristics could happen should 

management activities occur.

The remainder of the non-IRA lands in alternative C would be in the Natural Landscape (31,813 

acres), Recommended Wilderness (885 acres), and Recommended Research Natural Area (1,968 

acres) Management Areas. Management area direction for these 34,666 acres would maintain the 

roadless characteristics, if present.

In some cases the presence of eligible and suitable river corridors across these lands could 

provide some protection of roadless characteristics. For example, a wild river corridor would 

continue to provide primitive recreation opportunities, maintain high to very high scenic integrity, 

and protect threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species habitats. Also the 

presence of a river corridor may restrict some activities (see the “Eligible and Suitable Wild and 

Scenic Rivers” section) that could affect roadless characteristics.

Soil/Watersheds/Air

Under alternative C, there could be greater effects to air, soil, and watershed resources (as 

described in the “Air,” “Soil,” and “Watershed” sections) because this alternative proposes the 

highest amounts of mechanical vegetation treatments and associated road use and emphasizes 

motorized recreation. Improvement of watershed conditions in these areas would be limited 

because they do not occur near communities or contain harvestable timber. Dust from mechanical 

treatments and recreation activities would potentially be greatest. Alternative C poses the most 

risk of soil compaction and ground cover removal.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

350 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Public Drinking Water

There are no municipal watersheds on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. However, rivers on the forests 

contribute to water supplies for the metropolitan areas in southern Arizona. Effects to these rivers 

are described above. Alternative C would have the greatest potential for increasing sediment 

from roads because of the higher proportion of mechanical treatments/harvest as well as an 

emphasis on motorized recreation opportunities (see the “Water Resources” section).

Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities

Alternative C would have the greatest potential to fragment ecosystems, including wildlife 

habitats, and to introduce and spread nonnative invasive species from road construction, road 

reconstruction, and timber harvesting activities. As human-caused fragmentation increases, the 

amount of core wildlife habitat decreases. Habitat fragmentation also decreases habitat 

connectivity and affects wildlife movement, isolating some species and increasing the risk of 

local extirpations or extinctions (see Wildlife and Rare Plants section).

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, 

Candidate, and Sensitive Species Habitats 

and Species Dependent on Large, Undisturbed Areas of Land

Threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species habitats in all alternatives

would be managed according to Endangered Species Act and Regional Forester directions (see 

the “Wildlife Specialist Report - Viability,” Forest Service 2012x and “Fisheries Specialist and 

Viability Report,” Forest Service 2012h). No species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of 

land have been identified for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Primitive and Semiprimitive Recreation Opportunities

IRAs under alternatives A, B, and D would be managed for primitive and semiprimitive 

recreation opportunities, except where adjacent to roads open to highway legal vehicles (roaded 

natural recreation opportunities). Under alternative C the lands would be managed for wider 

variety of recreation opportunities (see the “Recreation” section). Roaded natural and 

semiprimitive motorized recreation opportunities could increase, while primitive and 

semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities could decrease.

Reference Landscapes

Three recommended research natural areas (RNAs) in alternative C that could serve as reference 

landscapes all or partially overlap the non-IRA lands. These recommended RNAs would be 

protected and maintained in a natural condition for the purpose of conducting nonmanipulative 

research and for fostering education. They would be managed for nonmotorized access (see the 

“Research Natural Area” section). So, these reference landscapes would continue to be protected 

in alternative C.

High Scenic Quality

IRAs in alternatives A, B, and D would be managed for high to very high scenic integrity. Under 

alternative C, these lands would be managed for moderate, high, and very high scenic integrity 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 351

(see the “Scenic Resources” section). Depending on location, the scenic quality of some of these 

lands could be reduced by management activities.

Traditional Cultural Properties/Sacred Sites

Protection of traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and sacred sites would continue under 

alternative C through the elimination of cross-country motorized travel. Further protection 

would continue with the suitability determinations for some lands special uses and motorized uses 

found in chapter 4 of the proposed plan (see the “American Indian Rights and Interests” section).

Local Unique Characteristics

No local unique characteristics have been identified for the IRAs.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area includes the adjoining federally managed lands, including 

the Coconino and Gila NFs. There would be no cumulative environmental consequences under all 

alternatives because the roadless characteristics of the IRAs would be maintained by terrain and 

limited timber harvest potential.

Wilderness Resources

Wilderness resources include designated wilderness, the Blue Range Primitive Area and 

presidential additions, and recommended wilderness. The full analysis for wilderness resources 

can be found in the “Wilderness Resources and Inventoried Roadless Areas Specialist Report”

(Forest Service, 2012cc) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The presence of each of the above areas, along with the existing condition, is analyzed. The only 

wilderness resource that changes by alternative is recommended wilderness. Therefore, the 

majority of analysis is directed toward the programmatic environmental consequences of the 

Recommended Wilderness Management Area.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions and policies used include:

• All designated wilderness is managed according to the Wilderness Act, 36 CFR 293, 

applicable Forest Service manuals and handbooks, and the land management plan.

• The entire Blue Range Primitive Area (including the Blue Road corridor) and the 1971 

presidential additions to the primitive area are managed according to 36 CFR 293.17, 

applicable Forest Service manuals and handbooks, and the land management plan.

• The Hells Hole, Nolan, and Mother Hubbard potential wilderness areas (a total of 26,023 

acres) would be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics until a decision is 

made in the revised Gila NF land management plan as to whether or not to recommend 

these areas for wilderness designation. They are included in the Natural Landscape 

Management Area in alternatives B, C, and D.

• Livestock management in the wilderness and primitive areas is in conformance with the 

Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Forest Service Manual 2320 - Wilderness 

Management. 2323.22 - Exhibit 01, Congressional Grazing Guidelines).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

352 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Any area that is recommended for wilderness (Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area) through the planning process is a preliminary administrative recommendation that 

would receive further review, including applicable NEPA analysis, and possible 

modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, and the 

President of the United States. Congress has reserved the authority to make final 

decisions on wilderness designation.

• Wildfire is considered a natural ecological process. Designated wilderness, the Blue 

Range Primitive Area and presidential additions, and potential wilderness that burned in 

the 2011 Wallow Fire retain their wilderness character.

Affected Environment

Designated Wilderness

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs include three designated wilderness areas: Mount Baldy, Escudilla, 

and Bear Wallow (figure 57 and table 122). The total wilderness acres are 23,233. Wilderness 

areas are managed according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 which protects their wilderness 

values. Wilderness areas provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. They also provide wildlife habitat and a variety of natural resource 

and social values. Motorized and mechanical equipment use is prohibited in wilderness. 

Livestock grazing is allowed in wilderness areas, unless specifically excluded by the law 

designating the area. The laws listed below do not restrict grazing in any of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs wilderness areas.

Table 122. Apache-Sitgreaves NFs wilderness areas

Wilderness Designated Law No. Acres Ranger District

Mount Baldy 1970 PL 91-504 6,842 Springerville

Escudilla 1984 PL 98-406 5,157 Alpine

Bear Wallow 1984 PL 98-406 11,234 Alpine

Mount Baldy Wilderness

Mount Baldy Wilderness was designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System 

in 1970. It lies on the eastern slope of Mount Baldy. Elevations range from 9,000 feet to 11,400 

feet above sea level. Mount Baldy is an extinct volcano and has experienced three distinct periods 

of glaciation. The peak’s summit is on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation.

There are three developed trails, totaling 18 miles, in Mount Baldy Wilderness. This trail system 

is heavily used by day hikers from mid-May through late September, with the heaviest use on 

weekends and holidays. Trail encounters with other hikers and equestrians are common. Annual 

trail maintenance consists of removing fallen trees and cutting brush. Two trailheads provide 

access to Mount Baldy Wilderness.

The majority of Mount Baldy Wilderness is spruce-fir forest with blue spruce, Engelmann spruce, 

white fir, and corkbark fir. The remaining forested areas are wet and dry mixed conifer forests, 

including the above species, Douglas-fir, Southwestern white pine, and ponderosa pine. A 

defoliator (e.g., loopers, spruce aphids) infestation has killed a portion of the spruce forest. Tree 

composition varies with elevation, but Douglas-fir and blue spruce are the principal species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 353

Aspen is interspersed throughout the forests. The remainder of the area is montane/subalpine 

grasslands and wetland/cienega riparian areas along the upper Little Colorado River drainages. 

The wilderness boundary is defined by the forests’ boundary with the Fort Apache Indian 

Reservation and partially by fences on the east.

Figure 57. Map of existing wilderness and primitive areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

354 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Escudilla Wilderness

Escudilla Wilderness encompasses the top and sides of Escudilla Mountain. It includes several 

high elevation meadows that contain relatively rare plant associations. Potential natural 

vegetation types (PNVTs) in the wilderness include spruce-fir forest, wet mixed conifer forest, 

montane/subalpine grasslands, wetland/cienega riparian areas, and ponderosa pine forest. In 

addition, there is a large aspen component on Escudilla Mountain.

Notable landmarks in or just outside the wilderness include Profanity Ridge, Terry Flat, Toolbox 

Draw, and the Punchbowl. There are two trails, totaling about 6 miles, in this wilderness. The 

main trail (Escudilla National Recreation Trail) receives heavy day use during the summer and 

fall. Government Trail connects with the main trail part way to the top but starts at a different 

trailhead and receives less use. The wilderness boundary is generally not discernible on the 

ground because it occurs at mid-slope on the mountain.

Bear Wallow Wilderness

Bear Wallow Wilderness is known for its canyon, large old conifers, and fall aspen colors. Bear 

Wallow Creek is perennial, providing habitat for the threatened Apache trout. Wildlife is abundant 

throughout the area. There are five trails, totaling 20 miles, in Bear Wallow Wilderness that 

provide access into and within this area. There are four trailheads, three along the north boundary 

and one on the south. The wilderness boundary is generally defined by roads and the forests’ 

boundary.

PNVTs in Bear Wallow Wilderness include wet mixed conifer forest, ponderosa pine forest, 

Madrean pine-oak woodland, dry mixed conifer forest, spruce-fir forest, montane willow riparian 

forest, and wetland/cienega riparian areas. 

Wilderness Uses

The 2002 National Visitor Use Monitoring program estimated 32,000 visits to the three 

wilderness areas (Forest Service, 2006). Of those visitors, 81 percent were male, 19 percent were 

female, 92 percent were white, and more than 63 percent were between 31 and 60 years of age. 

Most wilderness visitors were from the southern Arizona metropolitan areas (Phoenix and 

Tucson) or the local area. The average length of stay was 4.6 hours, indicative of the high amount 

of day use the areas receive. Less than 1 percent of those interviewed used the services of a 

commercial guide (Kocis et al., 2002).

Wilderness visitors felt there were few people there. Overall, wilderness visitors were satisfied 

with their visit to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The only categories, possibly related to the 

wilderness experience, where visitor satisfaction could be improved were condition of the natural 

environment and signing adequacy. It is not known if these concerns were specifically for the 

wilderness areas or for the forests in general.

There is no permit system in place for managing visitor access to the wilderness areas. However, 

Mount Baldy Wilderness has group size limits of 6 people per party for overnight camping and 12 

people per party for day-use hiking and horseback riding. These group size limits were set to 

maintain the desired condition of opportunities for solitude and semiprimitive recreation. 

Maximum group size limits for Escudilla and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas are 25 people and/or 

35 horses. The 1987 plan does not allow pack stock grazing in wilderness.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 355

Presently, there are an unknown number of campsites within Mount Baldy Wilderness. 

Inventories in 1990 and 1991 identified approximately 200 campsites, of which 50 were 

naturalized. No additional inventories have been conducted and no additional campsites have 

been rehabilitated. There are very few campsites in Escudilla Wilderness because summer 

weather conditions discourage overnight use. No campsite inventory is available for Bear Wallow 

Wilderness, but most campsites are along Bear Wallow Creek.

Authorized livestock grazing has not occurred recently in any of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

wilderness areas. Livestock grazing in Mount Baldy Wilderness has not occurred since 1992, 

when an agreement between the Forest Service and the livestock permittee was implemented to 

avoid listing of the Arizona willow under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Greer 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP) decision (dated March 23, 1999) removed grazing from 

Mount Baldy Wilderness. Removal was based on Arizona willow protection, limited forage 

availability, and conflicts with recreation and riparian resource values. The South Escudilla AMP 

decision (dated February 13, 2001) removed grazing from Escudilla Wilderness. Removal was 

based on limited forage and water availability, dense timber, conflicts with recreation users, 

presence of wild ungulates and predators, and limited access and ability to manage and gather 

livestock. The KP Summer Pasture, which includes Bear Wallow Wilderness, was waived back to 

the Forest Service in November 2001. The limited amount of forage has not been reallocated.

Wilderness Management Concerns

All three wilderness areas have motorized and mechanized vehicle trespass issues. The greatest 

problems occur in Mount Baldy Wilderness. Even though Mount Baldy Wilderness boundaries 

are signed and fenced, motorized vehicle trespass often occurs along the southeast boundary from 

the Burro Mountain area, snowmobiles trespass along the eastern boundary during the winter, and 

mountain bikes and ATV tracks are occasionally found on the trails. Occasionally, ATVs and 

mountain bikes trespass in Escudilla Wilderness. ATVs regularly trespass into Bear Wallow 

Wilderness from Rose Spring Trailhead.

The Fort Apache Indian Reservation abuts Mount Baldy Wilderness on its northwest, southwest, 

and south boundaries. These adjacent reservation lands are closed to all public entry. This often 

causes confusion and conflict because Baldy Peak, the highest point, is on reservation lands and 

only a very small portion of Mount Baldy, the ridge that includes Baldy Peak, is on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs/reservation boundary is poorly signed so many 

travelers do not recognize the boundary. One-quarter mile of East Baldy Trail, near the Mount 

Baldy summit, was relocated to discourage hikers and equestrians from continuing onto the 

reservation.

Livestock from the reservation trespass into Mount Baldy Wilderness annually and often remain 

there until they return home on their own.

Blue Range Primitive Area and Presidential Additions

The Blue Range Primitive Area (179,153 acres) is the only remaining primitive area in the 

National Forest System and is located on the Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts (figure 57). It 

was administratively designated by the Forest Service (L-20 regulations) as a primitive area on 

June 21, 1933, to preserve its wilderness qualities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

356 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

In 1971, the Forest Service submitted a recommendation to the President of the United States for 

the Blue Range Wilderness in Arizona and New Mexico. The President forwarded the 

recommendation to Congress, who eventually acted on a portion of the recommendation. In 1980, 

Congress designated, and the President signed into law (P.L. 96-550), the Blue Range Wilderness 

in New Mexico. The Arizona portion of the 1971 presidential recommendation included 20,031

acres outside and along the west primitive area boundary (total of 166,591 acres). Congress has 

not acted on the Forest Service and presidential recommendation for the Blue Range Wilderness 

in Arizona, and the 1971 recommendation remains in place. The 1987 plan recognizes this in 

Management Area 8, Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions.

The entire Blue Range Primitive Area and the presidential recommendation additions (199,505

acres) (BRPA) have been managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. The area is 

managed like wilderness, except that it is open to mineral prospecting and mineral development 

(Forest Service Manual 2320.3(11)). The BRPA, including the portions that were excluded from 

the 1971 presidential recommendation (32,911 acres), was reevaluated as part of the potential 

wilderness evaluation process and was found to have wilderness characteristics (Potential 

Wilderness Evaluation Reports PW-03-01-068 and PW-03-01-069).

The BRPA includes deep, rugged canyons separated by steep, timbered ridges. The Mogollon 

Rim bisects the area and provides dramatic topographic features. Elevations range from 4,500 

feet in the southern portion to 9,100 feet along the rim. This rapid change in elevation results in 

interesting and unique ecological associations. Unusual and spectacular rock formations highlight 

the scenery.

The wide variety of PNVTs reflects the area’s topography. PNVTs include Madrean pine-oak 

woodland, ponderosa pine forest, wet mixed conifer forest, spruce-fir forest, ponderosa pine 

forest, dry mixed conifer forest, interior chaparral, semi-desert grassland, mixed broad leaf 

deciduous riparian forest, piñon-juniper woodland, cottonwood-willow riparian forest, and 

wetland/cienega riparian areas. Fire has been allowed to play a natural role in the primitive area 

ecosystem. In the last 20 years, approximately 40 percent of the BRPA has burned in wildfires.

The area is important in the distribution of wildlife species. It lies on both north-south and eastwest migration corridors. Numerous threatened, endangered, candidate, and Regional Forester

designated sensitive species are found in the area. 

There are approximately 290 miles of nonmotorized trails throughout the area; this number has 

not changed since 1984. Presently, some trails may not be passable because their maintenance has 

been deferred or they have been damaged by fire or flooding. In some locations, especially in the 

Hannagan Meadow area, increased visitor use has created a need for more trail maintenance. 

Many trails in the Blue Range Primitive Area are located in drainages and along creeks; some 

resource damage may be occurring in these locations. Access for the Blue River Trail was 

recently improved with the acquisition of an Arizona Game and Fish Department easement 

through private property and construction of a new trailhead.

Visitor use in 1984 for the Blue Range Primitive Area was estimated at 7,000 recreation visitor 

days. Most of this use occurred during the fall hunting seasons. At that time, it was felt that the 

quality of the wilderness experience was not impaired and user expectations were met. There are 

no current use figures for the Blue Range, but over the last 10 years, Forest Service personnel 

have noticed increasing summer use. There is no permit system in place for managing visitor 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 357

access to the primitive area. However, maximum group size is set at 25 people and/or 35 horses. 

The 1987 plan does not allow pack stock grazing in wilderness or the primitive area.

Potential Wilderness

Apache-Sitgreaves NFS lands were inventoried, as part of the plan revision process, to determine 

if any of the lands outside of designated wilderness areas contain wilderness characteristics. Fiftyfive areas were initially identified that met the criteria of not containing forest or permanently 

authorized roads and being at least 5,000 acres or, if less than 5,000 acres, are adjacent to an 

existing wilderness or primitive area. Each of these areas was assigned an ID number (e.g., PW03-01-xxx). Next, portions of the areas which had been logged or treated, had developed 

recreation sites, or included power lines were excluded. In some cases, an area was split by a 

power line resulting in two areas, each at least 5,000 acres. One of the split areas retained the 

original ID number and the second was assigned a new ID number. Twelve additional areas were 

created thusly. Next, the R3 criteria for roaded areas, fingers, and extrusions were applied to 

exclude areas that do not meet the purpose of considering an area for wilderness potential. If at 

any time during the inventory process an area was reduced to less than 5,000 acres, it was 

excluded from further consideration unless it was adjacent to an existing wilderness or primitive 

area or could be effectively managed as a separate unit; 26 areas were excluded. The ID numbers 

of these 26 areas were not reassigned to new areas, so they do not appear in table 123. Finally, the 

inventory areas were screened to determine if they met the statutory definition of wilderness as 

outlined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act30. Seven areas were found to not meet the 

definition. Thirty-four inventory areas were found to meet the size and lack of roads criteria and 

the statutory definition of wilderness. Additional information on the inventory process can be 

found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, Section 71 and the R3 Potential 

Wilderness Inventory Process document. Information on all inventoried areas can be found in the 

“Plan Set of Documents.”

Next, indepth evaluations of wilderness capability, availability, and need were completed for the 

34 areas. Two additional evaluations were completed for the 1971 Blue Range Wilderness 

presidential recommendation in Arizona and for the portions of the Blue Range Primitive Area 

that were not recommended for wilderness, bringing to 36 the total number of areas evaluated. Of 

these, one entire area (PW-03-01-012) did not meet the capability criteria and was dropped from 

further consideration. Another area (PW-03-01-069, exclusion 1a) did not meet the capability 

criteria, so boundary adjustments were made to retain the polygons that did meet the criteria. 

Three areas in the vicinity of Escudilla Mountain were also evaluated because all or portions of 

the areas are included in the action alternatives.

A total of 714,938 acres in 38 areas (figures 58 and 59 and table 123) were found to have 

wilderness potential. Additional information on the evaluation process and individual area 

evaluations can be found in the “Plan Set of Documents” and on the forests’ Web 

site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/asnf/.

 30 An area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable and (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

358 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 123. Areas with wilderness potential

ID Number Potential Wilderness Acres Ranger 

District

PW-03-01-001 Leonard Canyon1 22,406 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-003 West Chevelon Canyon 9,493 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-005 Chevelon Canyon 9,421 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-006 Wildcat Canyon South 6,972 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-011 Black Canyon 4,913 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-021 Mount Baldy Wilderness Addition North 992 Springerville

PW-03-01-022 Mount Baldy Wilderness Addition South 1,031 Springerville

PW-03-01-029 Escudilla Wilderness Addition Northeast 1,161 Alpine

PW-03-01-035 Escudilla Wilderness Addition Southeast 6,039 Alpine

PW-03-01-040 Mother Hubbard 2,656 Alpine

PW-03-01-041 Campbell Blue 9,445 Alpine

PW-03-01-042 Nolan 7,842 Alpine

PW-03-01-043 Blue Range Primitive Area Addition North 4,184 Alpine

PW-03-01-044 Horton-Willow 6,503 Alpine

PW-03-01-046 Black River Canyon East 11,327 Alpine

PW-03-01-047 Black River Canyon West 5,718 Alpine

PW-03-01-049 Hot Air/Salt House 76,129 Clifton/Alpine

PW-03-01-050 Sheep Wash 7,965 Clifton

PW-03-01-051 Painted Bluffs 44,107 Clifton

PW-03-01-052 West Blue/San Francisco2 160,016 Clifton/Alpine

PW-03-01-053 Cold Spring Mountain 17,541 Clifton

PW-03-01-054 Hells Hole 15,524 Clifton

PW-03-01-055 Blue Range Primitive Area Addition Southeast 1,255 Clifton

PW-03-01-056 Chevelon Canyon North 6,673 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-057 Coal Creek 5,698 Clifton

PW-03-01-058 Big Lue Mountains 5,222 Clifton

PW-03-01-060 Centerfire3 15,269 Alpine

PW-03-01-062 Chevelon Lake 6,585 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-063 Milk Creek 5,387 Alpine

PW-03-01-064 Bear Wallow Wilderness Addition Northwest 172 Alpine
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 359

ID Number Potential Wilderness Acres Ranger 

District

PW-03-01-065 Escudilla Wilderness Addition West 484 Alpine

PW-03-01-066 Bear Wallow Wilderness Addition Southeast 1,207 Alpine

PW-03-01-067 Sunset 30,366 Clifton

PW-03-01-068 BRW Presidential Recommendation 166,393 Alpine/Clifton

PW-03-01-069 BRWPR4 exclusion 1b 4,504 Alpine

BRWPR exclusion 2a 1,037 Alpine

BRWPR exclusion 2b 6,958 Clifton

BRWPR exclusion 3 4,665 Clifton

BRWPR exclusion 4 10,404 Clifton

BRWPR exclusion 5 2,804 Alpine

PW-03-01-070 Escudilla North 377 Alpine

PW-03-01-071 Hulsey 2,926 Alpine

PW-03-01-072 South Escudilla Mountain 5,167 Alpine

Total Acres 714,938

1 includes 2,981 acres on the Coconino NF

2 includes 3,577 acres on the Gila NF

3 includes 30 acres on the Gila NF

4 Blue Range Wilderness Presidential Recommendation

There is considerable overlap between inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) and areas with 

wilderness potential. When the forests’ lands were inventoried for wilderness potential during the 

plan revision process, portions of some IRAs were found to not have wilderness characteristics 

(e.g., naturalness was affected by timber harvesting or road construction) or additional adjacent 

acreage was found to have wilderness characteristics. So, potential wilderness acres may not be 

the same as the IRA acres for an area with the same name (i.e., the acreage for Chevelon Canyon 

IRA (5,569 acres from table 121) is not the same as Chevelon Canyon potential wilderness (9,421 

acres from table 123). Also, two or more IRAs may have been included in one potential 

wilderness.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

360 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management PlanIS

Figure 58. Map of potential wilderness areas – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 361

Figure 59. Map of potential wilderness areas – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

362 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Designated Wilderness

Bear Wallow, Escudilla, and Mount Baldy Wilderness areas would continue to be managed to 

protect and maintain their wilderness characteristics in all alternatives. The development and 

implementation of wilderness management plans for each area would further protect the areas and 

could enhance the recreation opportunities of wilderness users. In all alternatives, wilderness 

management concerns (livestock and vehicle trespass and boundary identification) would 

continue to be addressed at the project level.

Alternative A would retain the existing group size limits for all wilderness areas as described in 

the affected environment section. Many existing wilderness campsites are located along streams 

and in sensitive riparian areas. The current group size limits could result in damage to campsites 

from even short-term use and are not conducive to providing opportunities for solitude. Also, 

groups using these areas have been smaller than the current limits.

The action alternatives would modify the group size limits for the Escudilla and Bear Wallow 

Wilderness areas. Group size would be reduced to 12 persons and/or 15 head of stock for hiking 

and riding groups. These new group size limits are compatible with “Leave No Trace” principles. 

The new group size would reduce the potential for resource damage at campsites, in meadows 

and riparian areas, and along trails and would enhance opportunities for solitude for all 

wilderness users. The action alternatives would keep the current group size limits for Mount 

Baldy Wilderness.

Blue Range Primitive Area and Presidential Additions

This analysis is limited to the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential additions. The 

wilderness recommendations here are in addition to those analyzed in the “Recommended 

Wilderness” section below.

The entire BRPA would continue to be managed to protect and maintain its wilderness 

characteristics in all alternatives. Alternative A would retain the existing group size limits for 

the BRPA. Many existing primitive area campsites are located along streams and in sensitive 

riparian areas. The current group size limits could result in damage to campsites from even shortterm use and are not conducive to providing opportunities for solitude. Also, groups using the 

BRPA have been smaller than the current limits.

The action alternatives would modify group size limits for the BRPA. Group size would be 

reduced to 12 persons and/or 15 head of stock for hiking and riding groups. This new group size 

limit is compatible with “Leave No Trace” principles. The new group size would reduce the 

potential for resource damage at campsites, in meadows and riparian areas, and along trails and 

would enhance opportunities for solitude for primitive area users.

Alternatives A, B, and C do not recommend the BRPA for wilderness. There would be no 

effects, because these lands are managed as primitive area.

The BRPA wilderness recommendation in alternative D (196,868 acres) would be approximately 

30,000 acres over the 1971 presidential recommendation. These additional acres within the 

existing primitive area boundary were reevaluated during the plan revision process and were 

found to have wilderness characteristics, a reflection of management of these lands as primitive 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 363

area for the last 40 years. Recommending these additional acres would maintain manageability of 

the BRPA and would add eight underrepresented ecosystems to wilderness in the Southwestern 

Region.

Recommended Wilderness

This analysis does not include the portions of the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential 

additions that are recommended for wilderness. They are analyzed separately above.

Any area recommended for wilderness is assigned to the Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area (see management area maps in appendix H).Those lands not recommended for wilderness 

will be managed according to Forest Service or Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan guidance for the 

management area or special area (e.g., RNA, eligible wild and scenic river) in which they occur. 

Table 124 shows the acreages recommended for wilderness in the four alternatives.

No lands are recommended for wilderness in alternative A. It does not contribute to meeting the 

regional need for additional wilderness near population centers or the addition of 

underrepresented landforms and ecosystem types in wilderness in the Southwestern Region. 

Some of the existing boundaries of the Escudilla, Bear Wallow, and Mount Baldy Wilderness 

areas would continue to be difficult to identify on the ground.

Table 124. Acres recommended for wilderness by alternative1

Alt. A (acres) Alt. B (acres) Alt. C (acres) Alt. D (acres)

0 7,074 6,982 491,3002

1 This table does not include the acres of the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential additions that are 

recommended for wilderness.

2 Includes 2,981 acres on the Coconino NF and 3,607 acres on the Gila NF.

Alternative B includes approximately 7,074 acres of Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area (figure 88 in appendix H) as additions to Escudilla and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas. 

These additions would improve manageability because the wilderness boundaries would be more 

identifiable by the public and Forest Service employees. There is some local public support for 

enlarging Escudilla Wilderness.

Additional areas are not recommended for wilderness under alternative B because of the need to 

use mechanical treatments to restore ecosystems and reduce divergence of the forests’ potential 

natural vegetation types (PNVTs) from desired conditions and to provide forest products for local 

and regional industry and personal use. Additional wilderness is also not recommended to allow 

for the mix of recreation opportunities that alternative B proposes.

Most of the areas identified as potential wilderness, but not recommended for wilderness, would 

be managed under Natural Landscape Management Area direction, which would help maintain 

wilderness characteristics. Areas not in the Natural Landscape Management Area and within 

inventoried roadless areas would be managed consistent with the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule), which would help maintain roadless characteristics.

This recommendation could increase the wilderness acreage on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and

would improve boundary recognition of two wilderness areas. It would contribute to meeting 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

364 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

regional needs because the lands contain seven ecosystems that are underrepresented in 

wilderness in the Southwestern Region. (Information on underrepresented landforms and 

ecosystems can be found in the “Wilderness Evaluation Reports” in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”) Alternative B would address public desire for more wilderness by recommending 

7,074 acres for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The potential wilderness areas recommended for wilderness include most of Escudilla Wilderness 

Additions Southeast and Northwest (6,422 acres), most of Escudilla North (363 acres), a small 

portion of Hulsey (28 acres), a portion of Bear Wallow Wilderness Addition Southeast (88 acres), 

and all of Bear Wallow Wilderness Addition Northwest (172 acres). The Escudilla Wilderness 

Additions are slightly smaller than the potential wilderness areas to address manageability 

concerns on Terry Flat and along two roads. Also, an area in the southwest corner, south of Bob 

Thomas Creek where the road prism of a decommissioned road is still very evident, was not 

recommended. The additions to Escudilla Wilderness would more than double the size of the 

wilderness and would extend the north, east, and south wilderness boundary to identifiable 

features on the ground, including Forest Road (FR) 275. The only portions of Bear Wallow 

Wilderness Addition Southeast included in alternative B are two small parcels between the 

southeastern wilderness boundary and FR 54; these additions would improve manageability. 

These additions would supplement the existing biodiversity and naturalness and would enhance 

the outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation found in 

Escudilla and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas.

This recommendation includes about 380 acres that would require additional action before 

designation, including decommissioning 2.3 miles of engineered timber sale roads and reducing 

signs of past timber treatments (approximately 278 acres).

Alternative C includes approximately 6,982 acres of Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area (figure 90 in appendix H) as an addition to Escudilla Wilderness. This addition would 

improve manageability because the wilderness boundary would be more identifiable by the public 

and Forest Service employees. There is some local public support for enlarging Escudilla 

Wilderness.

Additional potential wilderness areas are not recommended for wilderness under alternative C

because of the alternative emphasis on providing forest products for local and regional industry 

and personal use. To accomplish this, mechanical treatments are the primary method to restore 

ecosystems and reduce divergence of the forests’ PNVTs from desired conditions. Additional 

wilderness is also not recommended to allow for the alternative C emphasis on motorized and 

developed recreation opportunities.

Several areas identified as potential wilderness, but not recommended for wilderness, would be 

managed under Natural Landscape Management Area direction, which would help maintain the 

wilderness characteristics. Other areas would be managed according to management area or 

special area direction, which may or may not maintain wilderness characteristics. The additions to 

Bear Wallow Wilderness were not included in this alternative to reflect public concerns.

This recommendation could increase the wilderness acreage on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and

would improve boundary recognition of one wilderness area. It would contribute to meeting 

regional needs because the lands contain six ecosystems that are underrepresented in wilderness 

in the Southwestern Region.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 365

The potential wilderness areas recommended for wilderness include Escudilla Wilderness 

Additions Southeast and Northwest (6,663 acres), a portion of Escudilla North (291 acres), and a 

small portion of Hulsey (28 acres). The Escudilla Wilderness Additions are slightly smaller than 

the potential wilderness areas because an area in the southwest corner, south of Bob Thomas 

Creek where the road prism of a decommissioned road is still very evident, was not 

recommended. The additions to Escudilla Wilderness would more than double the size of the 

wilderness and would extend the north, east, and south wilderness boundary to identifiable 

features on the ground, including FR 275. These additions would supplement the existing 

biodiversity and naturalness and would enhance the outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation found in Escudilla Wilderness.

This recommendation would include about 320 acres that would require additional action before 

designation, including decommissioning 1.2 miles of engineered timber sale roads and reducing 

signs of past timber treatments (approximately 270 acres).

Alternative D includes approximately 491,300 acres of Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area (figures 91 and 92 in appendix H). This includes almost all the potential wilderness areas; it 

does not include the Phelps Cabin Research Natural Area, because it already has a special 

designation. Alternative D includes additions to all three wilderness areas on the forests. These 

wilderness additions would improve manageability because the wilderness boundaries would be 

more identifiable by the public and Forest Service employees. This alternative responds to local 

and regional support for additional wilderness on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Alternative D’s emphasis on fire as the primary treatment to restore ecosystems and reduce 

divergence of the forests’ PNVTs from desired conditions is compatible with this wilderness 

recommendation. The additional recommended wilderness supports the alternative D emphasis 

on nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities.

This recommendation would contribute to meeting the regional need for additional wilderness 

because of the proximity of several recommended areas in the western and southern portions of 

the forests to the population centers of Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson. The recommended 

wilderness would add lands containing 3 underrepresented landforms and 10 underrepresented 

ecosystems to the wilderness system in the Southwestern Region. Inclusion of this alternative in 

the DEIS provides a range of recommended wilderness to be analyzed. The responsible official 

could choose from the areas analyzed in alternative D to develop a new recommended 

wilderness alternative for the FEIS.

An additional 2,981 acres on the Coconino NF and 3,607 acres on the Gila NF are recommended 

for wilderness (the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs took the lead on evaluating and recommending these 

areas because they are contiguous to larger recommended areas on the forests). Boundary 

recognition of the Escudilla and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas would be improved as described 

under alternative B. Identification of the Mount Baldy Wilderness boundary would be improved, 

as much of the east boundary would be near State Highway 273. The wilderness additions would 

supplement existing biodiversity and naturalness and would enhance the outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation found in the three wilderness 

areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

366 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

This recommendation includes about 8,471 acres in the Escudilla Mountain area that would 

require additional action before designation, including decommissioning 36.4 miles of engineered 

timber sale roads and reducing signs of past timber treatments (approximately 3,300 acres).

Environmental Consequences of Wilderness Recommendation

A detailed evaluation of environmental consequences, including a listing of overall effects of 

wilderness and nonwilderness recommendations can be found in the “Wilderness Resources and 

Inventoried Roadless Areas Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012cc).

Wilderness Characteristics

Wilderness characteristics are naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation, and special features and values. Recommending an area with these 

characteristics for wilderness would protect them. The amount of recommended wilderness varies 

by alternative. Alternative D would protect the most wilderness characteristics, while 

alternative A would protect the least. Alternatives B and C would protect slightly more than 

alternative A.

Alternative D would provide the most opportunities for a wilderness experience through the 

increased acreage recommended for wilderness. Because of the increased opportunities for a 

wilderness experience under this alternative, the greatest opportunity exists to reduce pressure 

and crowding in wilderness. By distributing wilderness use across more wilderness areas, the 

ability to protect wilderness characteristics also increases. Alternative A does not propose any 

additional wilderness acreage and would not disperse wilderness use on the forests. Under 

alternatives B and C, dispersal of wilderness use would be small because of the nominal 

increase in wilderness and because these alternatives do not add new stand-alone areas. However, 

alternatives B and C would provide more primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities than 

alternative A but much less than alternative D.

Nonwilderness Values

Motorized and Developed Recreation

Recommended wilderness could affect the location and amount of future recreation developments 

and facilities, including motorized use areas and trails. Alternative D would provide the least 

opportunity for future recreation development, while alternative A would provide the most 

because more land would be available for these uses. Alternatives B and C would provide 

slightly fewer opportunities than alternative A. Also, those desiring motorized recreation 

opportunities would be displaced to other appropriate management areas across the forests. This 

may cause added pressure and increased potential for crowding in those management areas. 

Alternative D would have the most potential for displacement, followed by alternatives B, C, 

and A, in order of displacement potential.

Wildlife Species/Populations/Management Needs

Recommended wilderness would provide greater protection for wildlife and wildlife habitats. 

Alternative D, with the most recommended wilderness, would provide the most protection, while 

alternative A would provide the least. Alternatives B and C would provide slightly more 

protection than alternative A.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 367

Water Availability and Use

There would be no effects to water availability and use under all alternatives.

Livestock Operations

There would be no effects to livestock operations under all alternatives.

Vegetation Management

Recommended wilderness would affect the ability to mechanically treat vegetation to restore 

ecosystems and reduce fuel loading. The ability to use fire as a vegetation treatment would not be 

restricted under all alternatives. Alternative D, with the most recommended wilderness, would 

place the most restrictions on where mechanical treatments may be conducted; while alternative 

A would have the most lands available for mechanical treatment. Alternatives B and C would 

have slightly less land available than alternative A.

Minerals

Recommended wilderness would not be withdrawn from mineral entry and leasing under the 

action alternatives. Oil, gas, geothermal, and mineral development could be constrained by 

terms and conditions that would protect the wilderness character and provide for restoration of 

disturbed lands. A full range of mineral activities would be allowed under alternative A.

Cultural Resources

Recommended wilderness would protect cultural resources through restrictions on motorized 

vehicle use. Alternative D, with the most recommended wilderness, would protect the most 

cultural resources, while alternative A would protect the least. Alternatives B and C would 

protect slightly more cultural resources than alternative A.

Authorized and Potential Land Uses

Recommended wilderness would not affect land uses currently permitted under special use 

authorizations. However, potential land use authorizations could be restricted or limited by 

recommended wilderness management. Alternative D, with the most recommended wilderness, 

would restrict or limit land use authorizations the most, while alternative A would restrict them 

the least. Alternatives B and C would limit or restrict potential land use authorizations slightly 

more than alternative A.

Fire, Insects and Disease, Non-Federal Lands

Recommended wilderness would affect how fire and insect and disease outbreaks are managed. 

Alternative D, with the most recommended wilderness, would place the most restrictions on 

responses to these events, while alternative A would have the least amount of restrictions. 

Alternatives B and C would have slightly more restrictions than alternative A.

Development of inholdings and adjacent non-Federal lands could adversely affect wilderness 

characteristics of recommended wilderness. There would be no effects under alternative A,

because no lands are recommended for wilderness. There would also be no effects under 

alternatives B and C, because there are no inholdings or non-Federal lands adjacent to 

recommended wilderness. Recommended wilderness could be affected under alternative D,

because there are numerous inholdings and adjacent parcels of non-Federal land.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

368 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Social and Economics

Alternative D would respond the most to those who desire more wilderness and the least to those 

who do not want additional wilderness. Alternatives B and C would also fulfill this desire for 

more wilderness but to a lesser extent than alternative D. Alternative A would not meet the 

desire for additional wilderness, however, it does respond to the segment of the public that desires 

no additional wilderness and favors nonwilderness uses and values, such as timber harvesting, 

road construction, and recreation development.

The economic effects of the alternatives are discussed in the “Socioeconomic Resources” section. 

The economic impact analysis does not identify recommended wilderness as a factor that affects 

this resource. The major factor that changes by alternative is the amount of wood products 

produced. This primarily reflects the mix of treatment methods; mechanical and fire. Alternative 

D emphasizes using fire across the forests, while mechanical treatments are predominant under 

alternative C. Planned and unplanned ignitions are acceptable in recommended wilderness, 

while mechanical treatments are not.

Management of Areas Recommended for Wilderness

Those areas recommended for wilderness would be managed under the Recommended 

Wilderness Management Area direction. The focus of this management area is to manage these 

areas to protect their wilderness characteristics pending legislation and designation and to provide 

for existing uses where compatible while protecting wilderness character. The following 

discussion focuses on the effects of managing under Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area direction in the action alternatives because no areas are recommended for wilderness in 

alternative A.

Motorized travel would not be allowed. The use of motor vehicles, motorboats, and the landing of 

aircraft, including helicopters, would not be allowed, except under special circumstances as 

analyzed and authorized following the use of the “Minimum Requirements Decision Guide.”

Recommendation of areas for wilderness would eliminate or restrict opportunities for motorized 

recreation activities and recreation facilities. Dispersed recreation that includes nonmotorized or 

mechanized activities (e.g., hiking, backpacking, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, mountain 

biking, cross-country skiing) would be allowed. The use of mechanized equipment and chain 

saws to maintain trails would be allowed.

Wilderness designation may warrant future public use restrictions by limiting visitor use and 

distribution including setting of group size limits to preserve an area’s wilderness character. 

Currently, there are no restrictions on group size in areas recommended for wilderness. 

Wilderness designation would also prohibit the use of mechanized travel (i.e., mountain bicycles).

Recommended wilderness would be managed to provide opportunities for solitude and a 

primitive or unconfined type of recreation. New facilities for user comfort would not be allowed 

in areas recommended for wilderness.

Mechanical vegetation treatments to achieve healthy forest conditions or wildlife, recreation, and 

scenic integrity objectives would not be allowed in areas recommended for wilderness. 

Vegetation treatments that include planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned (wildfire) ignitions 

could occur. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 369

Recommended wilderness may affect motorized users of nonwilderness. As the acres of 

recommended wilderness increase, acres suitable for future consideration of motorized recreation 

(roads, trails, and areas) would decrease. Therefore, increasing recommended wilderness could 

increase pressure on nonwilderness lands that provide motorized recreation. Added pressure and 

subsequent crowding would also increase because of growing demand.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area includes the adjoining federally managed lands: Coconino, 

Gila, and Tonto NFs and BLM Safford Field Office. There are three areas (Mother Hubbard, 

Nolan, and Hells Hole) that straddle the Gila NF/Apache-Sitgreaves NFs boundary. The ApacheSitgreaves NFs has evaluated the Arizona portions of these areas and has found that each has 

wilderness characteristics. However, any decisions on these areas have been deferred until the 

New Mexico portions of these areas have been evaluated and recommendations have been made 

in the Gila NF plan revision process. The areas would be managed to protect their wilderness 

characteristics until a decision is made. The Gila NF is expected to initiate its plan revision effort 

in the near future. There could be an increase in lands managed to maintain and protect 

wilderness characteristics, should the Gila NF recommend the three areas on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and adjacent lands on the Gila NF for wilderness designation.

There would be no known cumulative environmental consequences to wilderness resources under 

all alternatives because there are no known foreseeable effects from activities on adjacent lands. 

Research Natural Areas

This section describes the current condition and evaluates and discloses the potential 

environmental consequences for the two special areas—research natural areas (RNAs) and 

botanical areas—which may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. 

In determining the future need for RNAs, the interdisciplinary team followed the regional work 

group process “Research Natural Area Process for Forest Plan Revision Under the 1982 Planning 

Rule Provisions” (Forest Service, 2009c). Details of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ RNA evaluation 

can be found in the “Research Natural Area Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012t) available 

in the “Plan Set of Documents.” The specialist report also contains full descriptions and maps of 

each RNA. 

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• In all alternatives (because they must conform to Forest Service Manual 4063 direction), 

both designated and recommended RNAs are protected and maintained in a natural 

condition for the purpose of conducting nonmanipulative research and for fostering 

education. They are managed for nonmotorized access. Recreation use may be restricted 

or prohibited if use threatens or interferes with the objectives of the RNA. Logging and 

wood gathering activities are not permitted. Livestock grazing may occur where needed 

to establish or maintain vegetative communities. 

• In all alternatives, completion of RNA designations and establishment reports would 

depend on agency capacity (e.g., staffing, budget). Implementation of establishment 

reports and management plans should provide additional emphasis toward meeting the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

370 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

desired conditions of the RNAs. Until designation, recommended RNAs would be 

managed to protect and maintain a natural condition.

• Following approval of the plan, further evaluation and a NEPA environmental assessment 

would be completed for each recommended RNA. If approved by the regional forester, 

with concurrence of the station director, the plan would then be amended to recognize 

these areas as designated RNAs.

• Recommended RNAs would be designated within 5 years of the plan’s record of decision 

or a plan amendment would be completed to return the land area to other management.

Affected Environment

Research natural areas (RNAs) are considered special areas by the Forest Service. RNAs are part 

of a national network of natural areas designated in perpetuity for research and education and/or 

to maintain biological diversity on NFS lands. RNAs are principally for nonmanipulative 

research, observation, and study. They also may assist in implementing provisions of special acts, 

such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the monitoring provisions of the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (Forest Service Manual 4063).

RNAs are defined (Forest Service Manual 4063.05) as “physical or biological units in which 

current natural conditions are maintained insofar as possible. These conditions are ordinarily 

achieved by allowing natural physical and biological processes to prevail without human 

intervention. However, under unusual circumstances, deliberate manipulation may be utilized to 

maintain the unique feature that the RNA was established to protect.”

The objectives (Forest Service Manual 4063.02) of establishing RNAs are to:

• Maintain a wide spectrum of high quality representative areas that represent the major 

forms of variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, and other vegetation 

types, and natural landscapes that have scientific interest and importance that, in 

combination, form a national network of ecological areas for research, education, and 

maintenance of biological diversity.

• Preserve and maintain genetic diversity, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species.

• Protect against human-caused environmental disruptions.

• Serve as reference areas for the study of natural ecological processes including 

disturbance.

• Provide onsite and extension educational activities.

• Serve as baseline areas for measuring long-term ecological changes.

• Serve as control areas for comparing results from manipulative research.

• Monitor effects of resource management techniques and practices.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs currently have one designated RNA, Phelps Cabin, and one 

designated botanical area, Phelps Cabin Botanical Area. The 1987 plan recommended four RNAs: 

Thomas Creek, Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground (see table 125 below).

During the plan revision process, an evaluation (Forest Service, 2012t) was conducted to 

determine the need for existing or additional RNAs. The primary criterion for determining need 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 371

was the lack of ecological representation in the RNA system regionwide. In addition to the 

designated RNA and the RNAs recommended in the 1987 plan, four other areas were also 

evaluated: Three Forks, Lower Campbell Blue, Corduroy, and Sandrock.

Table 125 below displays the results of the evaluation. In order to better contribute to the 

regionwide need for RNAs, it is recommended that the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: (1) retain the 

existing Phelps Cabin RNA and add the Phelps Botanical Area to the RNA, (2) withdraw three 

currently recommended RNAs (Escudilla Mountain, Hayground, and Wildcat), (3) continue to 

recommend the Thomas Creek RNA, and (4) recommend four new RNAs (Three Forks, Lower 

Campbell Blue, Sandrock, and Corduroy).

Table 125. Results of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ RNA evaluation

Name Status

Size

(aprx.

acres)

Ecological Types Needed 

in the Regionwide 

RNA System Recommend 

or Withdraw

RF1

PJW2

PPF3

SDG4

WCRA5

Phelps 

Cabin

Existing 

designated 

RNA

2906 X X Recommend, with addition of the 

Phelps Botanical Area

Escudilla 

Mountain

Recommended 

in the 1987 

plan

960 X Withdraw, spruce-fir and 

montane/subalpine grassland are 

already well-represented in the 

region. The area is within 

Escudilla Wilderness.

Thomas 

Creek

Recommended 

in the 1987 

plan

550 Recommend, although this area 

does not contribute to the 

regional need, it is a control area 

for watershed research.

Wildcat Recommended 

in the 1987 

plan

530 X X X Withdraw, this area no longer 

provides undisturbed old growth 

piñon-juniper.

Hayground Recommended 

in the 1987 

plan

400 X X Withdraw, ecological 

representation found in other 

designated and recommended 

RNAs.

Three 

Forks

Evaluated 

during plan 

revision

2,900 X X X Recommend, this area also 

contains unique aquatic habitat 

(fens) and wildlife species.

Lower 

Campbell 

Blue

Evaluated 

during plan 

revision

580 X X Recommend, this area also 

contains springs and perennial 

creeks.

Sandrock Evaluated 

during plan 

revision

530 X Recommend, small portion of the 

area was set aside in the 1987 

plan to aid watershed recovery.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

372 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Corduroy Evaluated 

during plan 

revision

3,350 X X Recommend, this area also 

contains aspen.

1 Riparian Forest

2 Piñon-Juniper Woodland

3 Ponderosa Pine Forest

4 Semi-Desert Grassland

5 Wetland/Cienega Riparian Area

6 Approximately 120 acres of this RNA are located in Mount Baldy Wilderness

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Alternative A would continue current management with one designated RNA (Phelps Cabin) and 

four recommended RNAs (Thomas Creek, Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground). The 

Phelps Botanical Area would continue to be managed as a separate special area. Alternative A

would not contribute to the regional need for additional RNAs with the recommendation of 

Wildcat because it fulfills the regional need for riparian forest, piñon-juniper woodland, and 

ponderosa pine forest (see figure 60).

Alternatives B and C would combine the Phelps Cabin RNA and the Phelps Botanical Area into 

one special area, the Phelps Cabin RNA. This would increase the existing designated RNA by 

approximately 100 acres. These alternatives would also recommend five RNAs (Thomas Creek, 

Three Forks, Lower Campbell Blue, Sandrock, and Corduroy). In addition, these alternatives 

would also recommend withdrawing the existing RNA recommendations for Escudilla Mountain, 

Wildcat, and Hayground. These alternatives contribute to the regional need for additional RNAs 

by providing representation in four ecological types (see figure 61 and table 126).

Alternative D would combine the Phelps Cabin RNA and the Phelps Botanical Area into one 

special area, the Phelps Cabin RNA. This would increase the existing designated RNA by 

approximately 100 acres. This alternative also recommends two RNAs (Corduroy and Three 

Forks). The other areas (Thomas Creek, Lower Campbell Blue, and Sandrock) are located in the 

Recommended Wilderness Management Area where there is no need for RNA designation. . In 

addition, this alternative would also recommend withdrawing the existing RNA recommendations 

for Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground. This alternative contributes to the regional need 

for additional RNAs by providing representation in three ecological types (see figure 62 and table 

126). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 373

Figure 60. Map of research natural area (RNA), botanical area, and recommended RNAs, 

alternative A
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

374 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 61. Map of research natural area (RNA), botanical area, and recommended RNAs, 

alternatives B and C
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 375

Figure 62. Map of research natural area (RNA), botanical area, and recommended RNAs, 

alternative D
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

376 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Alternatives B, C, and D, because they have the greatest number and acreage of RNAs, would 

have the most beneficial cumulative consequences to other resources such as water, riparian 

areas, and species habitat because of the nonmanipulative management emphasis in these areas.

All of the alternatives would contribute areas to the regional network of RNAs if the 

recommended RNAs are selected and designated. The action alternatives would add ecological 

representation to the system, with alternatives B and C providing the greatest contribution. 

While alternative A would have the fewest acres managed in RNAs, all alternatives would 

allocate less than 1 percent of the forests as RNAs (see table 126 below).

Table 126. Number and amount of designated and recommended RNAs by alternative

Quantity Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Number of Designated RNAs 1 1 1 1

Number of Recommended RNAs 4 5 5 2

Acres in Designated and Recommended RNAs1 2,549 8,075 8,075 6,218

Percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs2 in Designated and 

Recommended RNAs

< 1% < 1% < 1% < 1%

1 Based on management area acreage

2 Total forests acreage is over 2.1 million

RNAs, because of their nonmanipulative management emphasis, contribute to achieving many of 

the proposed plan’s desired conditions, in particular those that call for restoration of natural 

ecological processes and opportunities for research and study.

Extractive (minerals, oil and gas) or ground-disturbing activities (timber management, road 

maintenance) could occur in the vicinity of RNAs. Such activities could lead to environmental 

consequences such as riparian impacts within RNAs from upstream activity; however, the 

consequences would be minor because Forest Service actions would conform to plan standards 

and guidelines for protecting water resources and riparian areas. 

Although grazing is allowed in RNAs, there should be limited consequences to livestock grazing 

because only one of the RNAs is permitted for livestock grazing (Thomas Creek RNA). See table 

127 below.

Grazing by wildlife, especially elk, could impact the Phelps Cabin, Wildcat, Hayground, Three 

Forks, Lower Campbell Blue, and Corduroy RNAs by altering the amount and composition of 

key vegetative components, such as willow and aspen. However, implementation of the plan 

guideline to use management measures (e.g., fencing) to protect unique features should minimize 

the impact.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 377

Table 127. Status of grazing allotments containing recommended RNAs

Recommended RNA Livestock Grazing Status

Sandrock Located within the Sandrock Allotment which was closed to grazing in 1987 and is 

not allocated under a grazing permit.

Lower Campbell Blue Located within the Lower Campbell Blue Allotment which was waived back to the 

Forest Service in 2001 is under nonuse, and is not allocated under a grazing permit.

Corduroy Located within the Hannagan Allotment which was waived back to the Forest 

Service in 2001 is under nonuse, and is not allocated under a grazing permit.

Three Forks Located within the Black River Allotment which was waived back to the Forest 

Service in 2002 is under nonuse, and is not allocated under a grazing permit.

Thomas Creek Located within the West Thomas pasture of the Foote Creek Allotment where 

livestock grazing only occurs after August 31 for Mexican spotted owl habitat 

recovery and to protect RNA values.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative environmental consequences analysis area is the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, Arizona 

and New Mexico National Forest System lands, and the regional network of RNAs. It is 

reasonably foreseeable that the other Arizona and New Mexico national forests would 

recommend new RNAs during their plan revision efforts. With the addition of RNAs 

recommended in all alternatives, this may result in more areas recommended than are actually

needed in the regional RNA system and may trigger a need to withdraw areas recommended in 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan.

Because the RNAs are located within the interior of the forests, activities occurring off-forests 

should have no or extremely limited impacts. Establishment of RNAs on the forests should 

contribute to the vegetation communities within the existing RNAs system and provide a 

potential scientific basis for climate change research. The forests’ RNAs would also be 

complementary to those on the Gila, Coconino, Coronado, and Tonto NFs, as well as those within 

the Bureau of Land Management. 

Scenic Resources

This section describes the affected environment and evaluates and discloses the potential 

environmental consequences to scenic resources. The criteria for evaluating the potential level of 

alteration to the landscape are measured by acres of each scenic integrity level (SIL) by 

alternative and a qualitative discussion of the potential effects to scenic resources from 

management activities. As part of the plan revision process, the Forest Service completed a new 

scenic inventory of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in 2009. For more information, see the “Scenic 

Resources Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012v) in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• When a decision is made on the land management plan, the scenic integrity levels (SILs) 

would become the scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) and would be used to manage the 

scenic resources over the planning period. This analysis looks at the SILs by alternative 

to determine the effects to scenic resources as variations in management activities occur.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

378 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• SIOs, at the project level, set the acceptable level of alteration to the characteristic 

landscape, based on the importance of the landscape. Mitigation measures will be 

developed and applied at the project level.

• In May and June of 2011, the Wallow Fire burned over 538,000 acres on the Apache NF 

and adjoining ownerships. Many trees in the forested areas were killed, and others are 

likely to die. Flooding and increased erosion have occurred and will continue for several 

years. Aspen regeneration is expected across much of the burned area, which may result 

in more widespread fall color displays. The Wallow Fire does not change the proposed 

scenic integrity levels (and objectives) because they are tied to management areas and 

resource features.

Affected Environment

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs contain some of the most scenic landscapes in the State of Arizona, 

ranging from rugged canyons to rolling hills and grasslands to conifer forests. Scenic resources 

contribute to visitor satisfaction and enjoyment of the forests. Popular visitor activities include 

viewing natural features, landscapes, and wildlife (Kocis et al., 2002).

Existing Landscapes

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lie within the White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim 

Ecoregion (see figure 43). This ecoregion section is located on the Colorado Plateau in central 

and east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico. Geomorphic processes active in this 

section involve recent volcanism including: basaltic lava flows, cinder cone eruptions, and 

volcanic ash. Major landforms include mountains, plains, plateaus, and hills. Elevations on the 

forests range from 3,600 feet to over 11,000 feet.

Precipitation ranges from 20 inches to over 32 inches annually, with more than half of the 

precipitation falling during the winter. Winters are cold with the growing season ranging from 

less than 50 days to 110 days.

Plant communities vary with ponderosa pine and Gambel oak on warm and dry sites; white fir 

and Douglas-fir on cool, moist sites; and Engelmann spruce, blue spruce, and subalpine fir or 

corkbark fir on the coldest, wettest sites.

Historically, fires occurred naturally in ponderosa pine forests about every 2 to 17 years, but they 

currently occur less frequently because of fire suppression and other management activities. This 

has led to thicker forests and increased fuel loads, resulting in a less resilient ecosystem and an 

increased risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. Current land uses include a wide variety of recreation 

activities, grazing, and fuels reduction.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs can generally be divided into three landscapes: high plateau, volcanic 

highlands, and below the Mogollon Rim. The Mogollon Rim, a 2,000-foot escarpment, is a 

dominant feature across the forests (see figure 63 below).

High Plateau

Most of the Sitgreaves NF is included in the High Plateau. This broad, rolling landscape extends 

from Leonard Canyon on the west to the Show Low area on the east and extends north from the 

Mogollon Rim. Large stands of ponderosa pine, mixed conifers, and aspen cover the southern 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 379

portion of this area, while piñon-juniper woodlands and grasslands blanket the northern band. 

This elevated plain provides spectacular vistas, both north and south, especially along Forest 

Road (FR) 300 and State Highway (SH) 260. This rolling landscape is dissected by rugged, steepwalled sandstone and limestone canyons that drain north to the Little Colorado River. There are 

essentially no roads in the canyons; however, a road network covers the uplands and provides 

access for motorized and nonmotorized recreation. 

Developed recreation opportunities are plentiful, especially in the Woods Canyon Lake, Willow 

Springs Lake, and Fool Hollow Lake areas. An abundance of snow in the winter months provides 

opportunities for snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. This area is a favorite of 

both summer and winter recreationists because it is less than 2 hours from the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. Outside the developed recreation areas, the landscape has been, and continues 

to be, a favorite spot for traditional activities such as camping, hunting, fishing, and firewood and 

piñon nut gathering. SH 260 is the primary east-west transportation corridor, while SHs 77, 277, 

and 377 provide access to the north and U.S. Highway (US) 60 provides access to the south and 

east. Two major energy corridors cross this landscape. Most of the area south of SH 260 was 

burned during the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire and is currently in a state of transition with remnant 

burned snags and new vegetative growth. The towns of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside, near 

the eastern edge, are the residential, commercial, and tourist hub of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Most forest visitors to the eastern portion of this landscape participate in day-use recreation 

activities and return to their urban accommodations at night.

Volcanic Uplands

East of Show Low, the landscape transitions into the Volcanic Uplands with volcanic peaks, 

basalt flows, cinder cones, and vast high-elevation grasslands. This landscape continues east to 

the New Mexico State line and south to the Mogollon Rim. High mountains and river canyons are 

prominent features of the landscape. Vegetation includes piñon-juniper woodlands, grasslands, 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests, aspen, lush riparian areas, and the forests’ largest 

concentration of spruce-fir forest. The headwaters of several major Arizona rivers, including the 

Little Colorado, Black, Blue, and San Francisco, are found in this landscape. Mount Baldy and 

Escudilla Mountain dominate the landscape in the northern portion of this area. 

Two scenic byways, the Coronado Trail National Scenic Byway and the White Mountain Scenic 

Road, provide motorized corridors for viewing vegetation, wildlife, and landforms that combine 

to provide some of the most spectacular scenery on the forests. Viewing fall colors and wildlife, 

such as elk and eagles, are major activities. Residents of the communities of Alpine, Eagar, Greer, 

Nutrioso, and Springerville consider this area their backyard and participate in traditional 

activities such as hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering. 

Recreationists participate in an array of activities such as camping, hiking, biking, OHV riding, 

cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. Developed campgrounds and dispersed camp areas are 

destinations for many visitors who seek relief from hot desert temperatures. All three wilderness 

areas on the forests can be found here: Bear Wallow, Escudilla, and Mount Baldy. Water is a 

primary draw for recreationists with popular sites including Big Lake, Lee Valley Reservoir, and 

the East and West Forks of the Black River. Most of this landscape was burned during the 2011 

Wallow Fire; the forested lands are in a state of transition with burned snags and new vegetative 

growth. SH 260 and US 60 are the primary east-west transportation corridors, US 180 and 191 

provide access to the north, southeast, and south.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

380 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 63. Map of three major existing landscapes on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Below the Mogollon Rim

Below the Mogollon Rim, the landscape is drier and harsher with more rugged topographic 

features. Elevations range from 9,200 feet on the Mogollon Rim to 3,600 feet on the San 

Francisco River. Unique rock formations, steep canyons, mesas, and broad valleys characterize 

the landscape. Vegetation changes with elevation, ranging from ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

forests on the Mogollon Rim through pine-oak woodlands and chaparral to semi-desert grasslands 

in the south. Riparian forests are found along the major rivers and creeks. Wildlife viewing 

abounds with opportunities to see bighorn sheep, coatimundi, and rare birds such as peregrine 

falcon, wintering bald eagles, and common black-hawks. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 381

There are few roads in this area, but nonmotorized trails are plentiful. Most recreationists enjoy 

dispersed activities such as camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, birding, and OHV riding. 

Most of the Blue Range Primitive Area is in this landscape. The Blue River, San Francisco River, 

and Eagle Creek are the major waterways. This landscape contains extensive archaeological 

remnants of the Mogollon culture, the native people that lived here thousands of years ago. 

Present day residents have strong ties to the land and use the forest in traditional ways including 

ranching and guiding big game hunts. Portions of the upper Blue River drainage were burned 

during the 2011 Wallow Fire; the forested lands are in a state of transition with burned snags and 

new vegetative growth. US 191 is the primary north-south transportation corridor; while SH 78 

provides access to US 191 from the east.

Current Management

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs currently manage scenic resources with the visual management 

system (VMS), which was adopted by the Forest Service in 1974. This system was used to derive 

visual quality objectives (VQO) for all lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. VQOs are based 

on three factors: (1) the variation of a landscape; (2) the level of concern visitors have for scenic 

quality while viewing the landscape from certain areas or routes; and (3) the distance viewers are 

from the landscape or a feature on the landscape, such as a road (Forest Service, 1974).

Management objectives are provided in the 1987 plan for the five VQOs, ranging from allowing 

almost no change to the landscape to allowing many types of changes. VQO acres are shown 

below in table 129. The five VQOs are preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, and 

maximum modification.

• Preservation (P): Provides for ecological changes only.

• Retention (R): Management activities are generally not evident to the casual visitor.

• Partial retention (PR): In general, management activities may be evident but must be 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

• Modification (M): Management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but 

they must at the same time utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture. 

Man’s activities should appear as natural occurrences when viewed from foreground or 

middle ground.

• Maximum modification (MM): Management activities may dominate the characteristic 

landscape, but they should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as background. 

When viewed as foreground or middle ground, they may not appear to completely borrow 

from naturally established form, line, color, or texture. Alterations may also be out of 

scale or contain detail which is incongruent with natural occurrences as seen in 

foreground or middle ground.

Future Management

The Forest Service updated the visual management system at the national level to the scenery 

management system (SMS) (Forest Service, 1995). SMS incorporates computerized mapping 

technology and applies elements and objectives at the project level to incorporate the existing and 

desired landscape character. SMS is also adaptive and responds to changing ecological 

conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

382 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs will transition to SMS upon completion of the plan revision process. 

Table 128 shows the relationship between visual quality objectives (VQOs) and scenic integrity 

objectives (SIOs) used in SMS.

Table 128. Crosswalk between visual management system and scenery management 

system

VQO from VMS Degree of Landscape 

Alteration SIO from SMS

Preservation (P) Unaltered Very High (VH)

Retention (R) Appears Unaltered High (H)

Partial Retention (PR) Slightly Altered Moderate (M)

Modification (M) Moderately Altered Low (L)

Maximum Modification (MM) Heavily Altered Very Low (VL)

The SILs (pre-decision)/SIOs (post-decision) are described below, ranging from allowing almost 

no change to the landscape to allowing many types of changes:

• Very High (VH): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “is intact” 

with only minute, if any, deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place 

is expressed at the highest possible level.

• High (H): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears intact.” 

Deviations may be present, but they must repeat form, line, color, texture, and pattern 

common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not 

evident.

• Moderate (M): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears 

slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape 

character being viewed.

• Low (L): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears moderately 

altered.” Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed, but 

they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural 

openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles outside the landscape being 

viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being 

viewed, but compatible or complimentary to the character within.

• Very Low (VL): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears 

heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They 

may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of 

natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside the 

landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the 

natural terrain (landforms) so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and 

structures do not dominate the composition.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 383

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

The SIL acreages for the alternatives are summarized in table 129 and shown in figure 64. More 

detailed descriptions of how the SILs vary by alternative, including how they vary by 

management area, can be found in the “Scenic Resources Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2012v) in the “Plan Set of Documents.” Acres for alternative A are based on the 1987 plan VQO 

acres. 

Table 129. Amount of NFS land (acres and percent of forests) by SIL by alternative

SIL

Alt. A1

VQO Acres

(percent)

Alt. B

Acres

(percent)

Alt. C

Acres

(percent)

Alt. D

Acres

(percent)

Very High 210,769

(11%)

305,047

(15%)

303,723

(15%)

748,716

(37%)

High 490,464

(25%)

786,773

(39%)

676,394

(34%)

444,302

(22%)

Moderate 835,979

(42%)

920,648

(46%)

1,032,351

(51%)

819,449

(41%)

Low 405,470

(20%)

394

(<1%)

394

(<1%)

393

(<1%)

Very Low 35,008

(2%)

2,490

(<1%)

2,490

(<1%)

2,492

(<1%)

Total 1,977,690 2,015,352 2,015,352 2,015,352

1 Alternative A acres are those presented in the 1987 plan. These acres do not include any changes in land tenure 

(NFS lands acquired or disposed of) or in mapping techniques.

Figure 64. Percent of scenic integrity level by alternative
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

384 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

As shown above, alternative A would have a range of SILs with an emphasis on moderate scenic 

integrity. Alternative B would have more emphasis on moderate to high scenic integrity; while 

alternative C would focus on moderate scenic integrity, with some emphasis on high scenic 

integrity. Alternative D would emphasize moderate and very high scenic integrity. The SILs 

would become SIOs in the final plan. 

Continuation of the use of the visual management system (VMS) and visual quality objectives 

(VQOs) in alternative A would be contrary to current Forest Service policy. VMS is not an 

adaptive system and does not respond to changing ecological conditions as SMS does. Overall, 

scenic resources would be maintained at a lower scenic integrity than the action alternatives

because of the greater acreage in the very low, low, and moderate SILs. The forests would convert 

to SMS under alternative A.

All projects implemented on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs will require a site-specific assessment of 

the potential effects on scenic resources. All SIOs will be applied at the project level. If needed, 

they may be refined at this level. The action alternatives would reflect a greater emphasis on 

scenic integrity, with fewer acres in the low and very low SILs. There would be minimal change 

in acreage for the low and very low SILs between the action alternatives. Because the low and 

very low SILs would not vary by action alternative, the following discussion focuses on the 

moderate, high, and very high SILs.

Alternative A would manage scenic resources under a mix of SILs with an emphasis on low, 

moderate, and high scenic integrity. In general, the forests would be managed for naturalappearing landscapes. However, this alternative would allow the most landscape alterations or 

deviations.

Alternative B would manage scenic resources under a mix of SILs with an emphasis on 

moderate to high scenic integrity. In general, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would be managed for 

natural appearing, intact landscapes with the exception of the Energy Corridor Management Area. 

Minor landscape alterations would be allowed except on the very high SIL acres. Comparable 

acres are managed for very high SIL under alternatives B and C. Slightly more land would be 

managed under the high SIL in alternative B than in alternative C. Slightly less land would be 

managed under the moderate SIL than in alternative C. 

Alternative C would manage scenic resources under a mix of SILs with an emphasis on 

moderate scenic integrity. In general, the forests would be managed for natural appearing, intact 

landscapes, but it would allow slightly more landscape alterations or deviations than in 

alternative B. A majority of the acres would be managed under the moderate SIL. Less acreage 

in the very high SIL reflects the alternative’s emphasis on mechanized vegetation treatments and 

developed/motorized recreation. 

Alternative D would manage scenic resources under a mix of SILs with an emphasis on very 

high and moderate scenic integrity. This reflects the emphasis on managing more intact 

landscapes and the increased acreage of lands in the Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area. Less acreage in the high and moderate SILs also reflects the alternative’s emphasis on 

primitive and semiprimitive recreation opportunities and the use of fire as a vegetation 

management tool. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 385

General Effects of Activities on Scenic Resources

Management activities affect scenic resources by altering the appearance of what is seen in the 

landscape. Short-term scenic effects from management activities are usually considered in terms 

of degree of visual contrast with existing or adjacent conditions. The scenic landscape can be 

changed over the long term or cumulatively by the alteration of the visual character. Management 

actions which result in visual alterations inconsistent with the assigned SIO, even with mitigation, 

could impact scenic resources. Management actions on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs that have the 

greatest potential to affect scenic resources are vegetation management (including timber harvest 

and insect and disease control), energy corridor rights-of-way, prescribed burning, and wilderness 

recommendations. Other management activities that could affect the scenic resources are fire 

suppression, recreation facilities, and wildlife habitat management, but these are expected to be 

site specific and similar under all alternatives. 

Vegetation and Fuels Management

In all alternatives, the short-term effects related to vegetation and fuels management activities 

may decrease scenic integrity. However, long-term effects should increase scenic integrity by 

restoring ecosystem functions. Short-term negative effects to scenic resources would be the 

greatest under alternative C, which would treat more acres mechanically and potentially 

reconstruct more road miles than would alternatives A, B, or D.

Vegetation and fuels management have a high potential to alter the landscape and affect the scenic 

resource. Activities typically reduce scenic integrity in the short term because of the associated 

slash prior to burning, stumps, and landing and road construction. In the long term, treatment 

activities may maintain or enhance scenic integrity, scenic stability, and the ability to resist 

insects, disease, and large-scale wildfire. Consequently, treated areas may appear moderately to 

highly altered for longer periods of time, depending upon the treatment and mitigation measures 

implemented.

Under all alternatives, the short-term effects of some activities may reduce the scenic quality 

(e.g., piles of fuels from mechanical treatments prior to burning). However, in the long term, 

scenic quality in all alternatives would be improved as progress is made toward reducing the 

potential for stand-replacing crown fires and moving vegetation toward desired conditions (e.g., a 

mosaic of structural states with openings for ponderosa pine forests) which highlight intact 

landscapes, high biological diversity, and resiliency to natural disturbances.

Under all alternatives, treatments would include thinning, cutting, and burning in most of the 

PNVTs (table 130). Selective tree cutting could enhance scenic resources in the long term, 

because it may result in more open park-like groves of trees, enhance structural and species 

diversity, improve spatial distribution, create vistas, reduce susceptibility to wildfire, and restore 

meadows and grasslands. Aspen cutting may result in openings with short-term negative elements 

(including stumps, slash, crushed trees, landings, disturbed soil and ground vegetation, and 

roads). In the longer term, these openings should regenerate into highly valued stands of aspen.

Fuels reduction efforts (e.g., mechanical thinning) may result in short-term decreases in scenic 

quality because of cut vegetation, slash, and disturbed soils. Planning for scenic elements and 

adherence to design criteria would minimize short-term impacts and reap long-term benefits, 

thereby meeting scenic integrity objectives. Fuels reduction activities should result in more 

resilient forest conditions, which should be better able to resist uncharacteristic wildfires.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

386 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Management efforts to control insect infestations and diseases that include removal of infected 

trees and buffer areas often appear as clearcutting to forest visitors. These impacts can occur in 

areas of high scenic value (e.g., along scenic routes) and may reduce scenic quality.

Table 130. Average annual acres of vegetation treatments by alternative

Treatment Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

Mechanical 12,182 19,591 23,997 15,954

Fire 6,844 28,930 12,857 48,927

Total 19,026 48,521 36,854 64,881

Energy Corridors

Energy corridor rights-of-way (ROW) have a high potential to affect scenic resources for a long 

duration. Cleared ROWs and utility structures contrast and may be incongruent with existing 

landscapes. Cleared ROWs generally contrast highly with the surrounding landscape. All 

alternatives would have similar effects from energy corridors ROWs.

Fire

All alternatives would propose prescribed burning and the use of unplanned ignitions (wildfire) 

for multiple objectives. Drifting smoke, blackened vegetation, and charred tree trunks would be 

the primary effects to scenic resources. Blackened vegetation usually lasts a short time, but 

charred trees may be evident for many years. Low-intensity wildfire and prescribed burning have 

the potential to alter the appearance of the planning area, but they could help restore or enhance 

scenic integrity and ecological conditions. For example, repeated prescribed burning over time in 

ponderosa pine forests produces the desired condition of stands with open understories which 

allow views farther into the landscape. Conversely, uncharacteristic wildfires may alter scenic 

integrity and result in additional effects to scenic resources from fire suppression (e.g., fire line 

construction) or post-fire salvage logging (e.g., road construction or reconstruction).

The general effects of prescribed burning would be the same under all alternatives. Each 

alternative would vary in the acreage that could be treated with fire (see table 130 above). 

Overall, based on the average treatment objective, alternative D would apply fire to the most 

acres, followed by alternatives B, C, and A with fewer acres treated, respectively. In addition, 

alternatives D and B would use more moderate and/or high-severity fire to restore acres than 

alternatives C and A. This would result in more trees killed by fire and could alter the 

appearance of treated areas.

Wilderness

Management of designated wilderness and maintenance of wilderness characteristics in the 

Primitive Area and Recommended Wilderness Management Areas would result in landscapes that 

appear natural, are intact, and are unmodified by management activities because these lands are 

managed for very high scenic integrity. Vegetation and fuels management activities would be 

limited to the use of planned and unplanned ignitions. The effects to scenic resources from fire 

are discussed above.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 387

Alternative D would have the most acres in Wilderness, Primitive Area, and Recommended 

Wilderness Management Areas that would be managed for very high SIL and would provide the 

greatest scenic resource protection and maintenance. Alternatives A, B, and C would have the 

fewest acres in these management areas (very high SIL) and would provide overall lower levels 

of scenic resource protection.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area for scenic resources is all Federal, State, and tribal lands 

within a 20-mile radius of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This area was selected because of ongoing 

and proposed activities on neighboring national forests (i.e., Four Forest Restoration Initiative), 

adjacent State and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands (i.e., renewable energy 

development, energy corridor developments, juniper treatments); and neighboring American 

Indian reservations (i.e., vegetation treatments).

Mechanical vegetation treatments are planned or proposed for much of the land within the 

cumulative effects analysis area. This, combined with the planned or proposed treatments on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in all alternatives, could result in cumulative effects to scenic resources. 

More of the landscape, in the short term, would appear to be moderately to slightly altered until 

the longer term scenic integrity objective is achieved. Also, differing scenic objectives by the 

managing agencies may result in contrasting landscapes, especially near or along administrative 

boundaries. For example, one agency may prefer a forested landscape with regularly spaced trees, 

while another may favor trees in groups or clumps with openings between them.

Renewable energy and energy corridor developments are of particular concern along and north of 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and within and adjacent to existing energy corridors. These would be 

more permanent modifications to the landscape. Should solar panel arrays and additional wind 

farms be developed, there may be dramatic changes to the existing landscape from the physical 

structures. These types of energy developments would also require additional transmission lines 

to connect to existing energy corridors and could result in the creation of new energy corridors or 

expansion of existing energy corridors. The discussion of potential environmental consequences 

associated with energy corridors can be found in the “Lands and Special Uses” section.

Lands and Special Uses

This section compares how each alternative varies in its emphasis of meeting the demand for 

natural resources, addressing community expansion needs, and preserving open space by 

providing opportunities for land adjustments. It also compares the availability of special use 

authorizations for public services and benefits.

This section provides a qualitative comparison describing how the alternatives would use land 

adjustments to address community expansion and natural resource management needs. It also 

compares how the alternatives address management of property boundaries and the issue of 

encroachment. The section further describes how the alternatives would allow for special use 

authorizations and quantifies the lands that are suitable for certain uses, including energy 

corridors/energy development and communications sites. See the “Minerals and Energy” section 

for information about mineral and energy potential. The full analysis for lands and special uses 

can be found in the “Lands Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012o) available in the “Plan Set 

of Documents.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

388 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• The Forest Service has the personnel and funding capacity to screen, process, and 

manage special uses and land exchanges.

• Community and public needs for services will continue.

• The population of Arizona will continue to grow and be dependent on electricity. 

Consumers will continue to demand reliable electricity. The economy will fluctuate over 

time and influence the rate of energy corridor development.

Affected Environment

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are literally the backyard for many residents of the White Mountains 

region of Arizona. Many communities adjoin the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs; while others are 

completely surrounded by the forests. Because of this close proximity, many communities and 

private landowners are affected by forest management decisions and, in turn, they affect forest 

management.

Many communities are completely surrounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and, therefore, are 

limited in the ability to expand. Forest managers face many challenges associated with growing 

communities within and adjacent to the forests. As these communities and areas grow, the forests 

will be approached with continued requests to use Federal lands for special uses or to exchange 

Federal lands for private.

Land Ownership

The acquisition and disposal of National Forest System (NFS) lands are designed to consolidate 

interest and management of the Federal estate to enhance public benefit and to consolidate the 

management and ownership of Federal, State, and private lands within the proclaimed boundary 

of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The establishment of rights-of-way is needed to create 

accessibility to both public and private lands within the proclaimed boundary of the forests (see 

figures 65 and 66).

There are currently 2,111,167 acres (table 131) within the proclaimed boundary of the forests, 

including 2,018,14831 of NFS land. NFS land acreage within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs has 

increased by 17,757 acres through land exchanges, purchases, and donation since 1987 (table 

132). Land exchanges have been the principal means of ownership adjustment for the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, with approximately 17,540 acres acquired and 4,462 acres conveyed to non-NFS 

ownership since 1987. Many of these land exchanges have involved the transfer of NFS lands 

outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to other ownership; while the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

acquired non-NFS lands.

Purchase and donation have played very minor roles in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ land 

acquisition program with 215 acres acquired through purchase and the donation for the Alpine 

Ranger Station (1.59 acres). The primary objective of any acquisition continues to be protection 

of the environment and improved management of natural resources. Lands acquired are included 

 31 Acres are from table 4 in the National Forest System Land Area Report (2011c) and include only lands in Arizona. 

They differ from the GIS acres used in this analysis because of differences in mapping techniques.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 389

in the NFS and generally enhance ecological health and public recreation opportunities on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Conveyance of land from the Forest Service to local governments occasionally occurs in the 

vicinity of urban areas for school or National Forest Townsite Act (7 U.S.C. 1012a: 16 U.S.C. 

478a) purposes. Since 1987, 81 acres have been conveyed to local governments.

Table 131. Land ownership within the 

boundaries of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Land Ownership Acres

National Forest System (NFS) 2,018,148

Other (non-NFS) 93,019

Total 2,111,167

Table 132. Land ownership adjustments on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs since 1987

Type of Adjustment Acres

Land exchanges (acquired) 17,540

Land exchanges (conveyed to private) 4,462

Land exchanges (conveyed to local government) 81

Purchase/donation Land exchanges (conveyed from private) 215

Over the last several years, owners of private land surrounded by or adjacent to NFS lands have 

subdivided and sold property as recreation land or home sites. There are areas within the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, particularly near the urban-forests interface, that may be better suited for private 

uses because administration is costly to the Forest Service due to the complexity of the adjoining 

and surrounding land ownership pattern or the permitted use on them. Conversely, some nonFederal (i.e., State, county, private, other) lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are of a 

national forest character, and acquisition would reduce ecosystem fragmentation, improve 

landscape-level management, and eliminate the need to encumber surrounding NFS lands with 

special use authorizations for roads and utilities.

Since appropriations for lands and interests in land purchases have always been limited and 

competitive, the donation of non-Federal lands is infrequent, and the authority to sell NFS lands 

is rare and limited, land exchange continues to be the primary method used for land adjustments 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

The time required to complete land exchanges has increased in response to legal and 

administrative requirements, thereby increasing costs. With reduced funding, fewer land 

exchanges can be pursued. Proponents of discretionary land exchanges are required to pay for 

most, if not all, costs associated with a proposal. Some residents in local communities have 

voiced opposition to future conveyance of adjacent Federal lands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

390 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 65. Map of land ownership – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 391

Figure 66. Map of land ownership – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

392 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Property Boundary Location and Encroachments

The primary purpose of conducting land surveys is to ensure Forest Service activities do not 

intrude on non-Federal lands and that trespass upon national forests can be prevented and 

controlled. Most land surveys on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs were originally done in the late 

1800s and early 1900s. Some of these original surveys were proven to be of poor quality. 

Approximately 365 miles of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ boundaries have been located since 1987. 

Land subdivision and development is increasing the need for accurate and reliable surveys. 

Numerous conflicts between past surveys have occurred, leading to an unknown number of 

unauthorized occupancy and use violations on national forest lands. Identification of property 

boundaries is an increasing expense to resource programs, especially fuels treatments. 

Increasingly, additional expenditures will be necessary in order to fully utilize national forest 

resources and to prevent claims against the Federal government. Although land acquisition 

eliminates the need for posting land line location (i.e., survey boundary) in some areas, many 

miles of property boundary still need to be surveyed and posted.

Property boundary location involves all activities necessary to identify the boundaries of NFS 

lands, including the search for survey corners, surveying and marking of land lines, and 

maintenance of the same. Marking and posting boundaries identifies or locates NFS lands for 

public use and enjoyment and prevents and controls trespass upon the forests. 

More frequent inspections and maintenance of property boundaries in areas where residential 

developments share common boundaries with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs continue to be a major 

component of forest management. Inspection and maintenance of forest boundaries in areas that 

abut private lands have not kept up with the increases in private land development.

Addressing encroachments on NFS lands contributes to protecting natural resources. 

Considerable effort may be required to resolve these trespasses upon NFS lands. Most involve 

simple actions to remove temporary occupancies or activities; while some permanent 

improvements require other solutions. When discovered, a qualifying innocent trespass is 

resolved using the Small Tracts Act (16 U.S.C. 521c-i). Since 1987, 12 Small Tracts Act cases, 

involving 36 acres, have been resolved on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Nonqualifying 

encroachments and unauthorized trespass are resolved through appropriate means, such as 

issuance of a special use permit or removal from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Special Uses

Occupancy and use of NFS lands for public and private purposes through the issuance of special 

use authorizations and easements continues to be allowed, where the use is consistent with natural 

resource management goals. Occupancy is defined as taking possession of NFS land and use of 

the same. Special use authorizations (i.e., special use permits) are used to authorize occupancy 

and use of NFS lands by Federal, State, and local agencies; private industry; and individuals. 

Several different public laws regulate activities under special use authorizations. The Organic Act 

of 1897 and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 authorize the 

majority of the uses. The Occupancy Permits Act of March 4, 1915 authorizes use and occupancy 

of NFS land. Special use permits also authorize services (e.g., outfitters, guides) that support the 

Forest Service mission and meet the needs of the public. Permits are a partnership between the 

Forest Service and private businesses and individuals to provide services and facilities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 393

The demand for the use and occupancy of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs continues to grow, making 

permit issuance and administration a challenge as staff review and process new authorizations for 

many uses every year. The NFS land adjacent to private lands is greatly influenced by adjacent 

landowner or community uses and objectives. In some areas, human activities have altered the 

natural appearance of these landscapes with the presence of the sights and sounds of people and 

motorized transportation. Some private lands adjacent to the forests are undergoing residential 

development. 

More people are living close to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, and there has been a major increase 

in development on land adjoining and/or surrounded by the forests. Demands related to this 

growth include access to the forests, utility corridors, roads, and recreation services. In addition, 

many urban residents from Phoenix, Tucson, El Paso, and Albuquerque have second homes or 

recreation residence leases or live in retirement communities surrounded by or adjacent to the

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, and they request access/utilities to support their property. Residents from 

the large urban areas are some of the primary clients for recreation special use permit holders, 

such as hunting outfitters and guides. Lands managers are challenged to provide goods, services, 

and access that populations demand, while meeting a variety of user expectations and desires. The 

type of requests and proposals for use and occupancy of NFS lands will continue to evolve with 

technology and imagination.

The expansion of many communities is limited because they are surrounded by the forests and 

other public lands such as State and Bureau of Land Management. State agencies, counties, local 

cities and towns, public utilities, and other service providers regularly request use and occupancy 

of NFS lands to meet needs on non-NFS land. Typically, proponents are asked to exhaust use of 

lands other than national forest before occupancy of NFS lands is considered. Authorized 

occupancy often encumbers NFS lands which, in turn, affects management decisions and actions.

In 2011, there were over 450 existing rights-of-way and special use permits for a variety of uses 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (table 133). A majority of these are categorized as lands permits 

(versus recreation permits). As the communities in and around the forests continue to expand, 

State agencies, counties, local cities and towns, public utilities, and others regularly request new 

authorizations or amendments to existing authorizations. Increased requests have been received 

for private access roads across NFS land as residential development has occurred on adjacent 

private lands.

Table 133. Number and type of special use permits issued on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs as of April 2011

Special Use Number of Permits

Recreation

Non-Commercial Group Use 8

Outfitter/Guide 47

Recreation Use 18

Lands

Agricultural Use 2

Cemetery 2
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

394 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Special Use Number of Permits

Communication Leases – Broadcast/Non-Broadcast 54

Communication Leases –Facility Managers 3

Construction Camps 4

Electric Transmission and Distribution 9

Federal Aid Highway Rights-of-Way 8

Federal Land Policy and Management Act Easement 20

Federal Land Policy and Management Act Permit 30

Fence 1

Forest Roads and Trails Act Easement 63

Irrigation Water Ditch 10

Manufacturing 2

Mineral Development 11

Mineral Exploration 4

Natural Gas Line 1

Recreation Residence 7

Research 33

Reservoir – Dam 16

Sanitary System 12

School 1

Sign 1

Storage 4

Stream Gauging Station 1

Water Conveyance 15

Water Storage Tank 6

Water Transmission 36

Weir 2

Well, Spring, or Windmill 11

Wildlife Water Supply 14

Total 454
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 395

Energy Corridors and Developments

Energy corridors will be a major contribution of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to meeting national 

energy demands. Energy corridors (e.g., above or belowground electric transmission line, gas 

pipeline) are linear strips of land identified for the present or future location of a utility right-ofway. Other energy developments include the infrastructure associated with the provision or 

transport of energy (e.g., dams, biomass power generation, wind turbines, and solar panels). As 

population trends increase and electricity consumers demand more reliable power, the demand for 

energy corridors will increase. Energy corridors extend beyond the boundaries of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and are part of the greater western U.S. power grid. There are no energy 

developments on the forests.

Currently, there are three high-voltage energy corridors located on the forests. Two corridors 

traverse the Sitgreaves NF, one containing 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines (26 miles) and 

one containing 345 kV transmission lines (27.8 miles). These are operated by Arizona Public 

Service and Salt River Project, respectively. One 345 kV transmission line, operated by Tucson 

Electric Power, crosses 12.2 miles of the Clifton Ranger District on the Apache NF. Local 

distribution and low voltage transmission lines (up to 230 kV) are not considered to be energy 

corridors.

Existing energy corridors are managed according to approved management plans. Energy 

corridors are generally not managed to provide recreation opportunities. They are managed for 

very low scenic integrity where vegetation and structural changes may attract attention and 

dominate the landscape when viewed from nearby.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Energy, and the Interior to designate energy transport corridors for oil, gas, and hydrogen 

pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities on Federal lands in portions of 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington

and Wyoming. One corridor has been designated for future transmission facilities across the 

Sitgreaves NF. It was identified in January 2009 by the Secretary of Agriculture’s Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Designation of Section 368 Energy Corridors on National Forest System 

Land in 10 Western States. The 27.8 mile-long corridor across the forests has a width of 3,500 

feet and is multimodal (i.e., pipelines and electricity transmission facilities). The existence of this 

corridor does not authorize any projects, does not mandate that future rights-of-way locate in the 

corridors, or preclude the Forest Service from denying a project or requiring design revisions. 

Following site-specific environmental analysis, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would expedite, as 

possible, processing of applications to construct energy-related infrastructure (pipelines, 

transmission and distribution facilities) within the designated energy corridor.

Communications Sites

There are 34 communications sites on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Twenty-six of the sites are low 

power and for administrative use—supporting internal Forest Service communications. Eight are 

commercial sites authorized under a communications site lease. Generally, the leases are longterm commitments of 20 years. Seven of the commercial sites are low power. Porter Mountain 

communications site is a high power site broadcasting FM radio.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

396 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Communications sites provide a variety of services to the general public. Facilities at these sites 

provide communication for State, county, and city municipalities, and forest administration, 

including radio antennas, microwave backbones, and wireless services.

Leases are issued to facility owners who may rent space to other users. Associated infrastructure 

includes roads, power transmission lines, and telephone optic fibers. Lease holders typically need 

year-round access to service equipment. A list of communications sites is located in appendix C 

of the proposed plan.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Land Ownership 

The potential and opportunity for land exchanges is not expected to vary by alternative. Across all 

alternatives, through the cooperation with other landowners, the forests would emphasize 

contiguous land ownership and access patterns through consolidation that benefit the private 

landowner, public, and natural resources. The opportunities for rights-of-way acquisition would 

not change by alternative.

Alternative A would provide criteria and list specific areas for acquisition or exchange which 

narrows opportunities to work with local communities in addressing their expansion needs and 

public access to Federal land. Some areas identified for acquisition are no longer relevant. 

The action alternatives would identify criteria for acquisitions or exchanges without listing 

specific areas; this would allow the forests to be flexible and to make determinations based on the 

current needs of both the forests and local communities. There would be management emphasis 

to work with local communities to understand their community expansion needs, preserve open 

space and water, and retain access to NFS lands. 

The action alternatives would encourage cooperation with counties or local communities to 

identify lands to be excluded from consideration of future land exchanges. 

In all alternatives, land adjustments (e.g., exchanges, purchases) would consolidate the NFS land 

base, reduce administrative problems and costs, improve management efficiency for both NFS 

lands and intermingled private and State lands, enhance public access and use, and support 

resource management objectives.

Property Boundary Location and Encroachment

Alternative A would provide program direction for maintaining property boundary locations and 

managing encroachment and trespass on NFS lands.

The action alternatives would provide direction to maintain the forests’ boundary by annual 

survey and posting of the property boundary and would provide specific targets for trespass case 

resolution. Annual survey and boundary posting objectives would be based on available staffing 

and funding. Carrying out the objectives would lessen boundary location errors by both the Forest 

Service employees and community developers. This would also reduce trespass cases.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 397

Special Uses

Alternative A would provide limited direction to respond to or work with adjacent land owners 

to address their demands. At the time the 1987 plan was written, the population of eastern Arizona 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 1995) was increasing but not at the current rate. Cities, towns, and 

communities were not pushing the limits of private or municipal (county) lands and, therefore, 

not realizing the limitations of available non-Federal land.

The action alternatives would recognize the influence of communities on NFS lands and the 

demand for authorized uses of NFS land. These alternatives would provide standards and 

guidelines based on meeting desired conditions. The alternatives would manage access from nonNFS development and subdivisions and provide common entry points available to both residents 

and the general public.

All alternatives would allow the authorization of occupancy and use of NFS land based on 

public need when services or uses cannot be met on private or other Federal lands. The issuance 

and administration of special use authorizations would continue to the level allowed by staffing, 

as directed by policy, law, regulations, and direction. Forest managers would pursue cost share 

arrangements or implement cost recovery to increase the efficiency and quality of services 

associated with authorizations for occupancy and use of NFS lands.

Authorization of non-Forest Service use on NFS lands may have adverse environmental 

consequences on some resources (e.g., construction of authorized facilities such as a 

communications site tower) in the short term and long term. Short-term environmental 

consequences may include increased human activity such as motorized traffic, noise from 

construction equipment, temporary roads, and ground disturbance during exploration activities 

and construction of the authorized facilities.

Long-term environmental consequences may include operation and maintenance of the authorized 

facilities over the life of the facility. Operation and maintenance activities may include increased 

human activity and noise, motorized vehicle traffic, or additional ground disturbance. 

Determination and implementation of mitigation measures and design may lessen environmental 

consequences.

Over the long term, the greater public and communities should benefit from services that are not 

provided on non-Federal lands. Authorizations that are a long-term commitment (more than 5 

years) and permit some type of construction or ground disturbance or alter the landscape would 

encumber NFS lands for the term of the authorizations and most likely for the foreseeable future. 

Few authorized constructed features are fully removed or the landscape is not fully rehabilitated.

Energy Corridors and Development

Alternative A would identify existing energy (utility) corridors and provide limited criteria for 

authorizing new energy corridors. The action alternatives would identify the existing energy 

corridors in the Energy Corridor Management Area and provide suitability criteria for 

establishing new energy corridors or other energy developments. Suitability is based primarily on 

management area type and can be found in chapter 4 of the proposed plan. Differences among the 

action alternatives are based on the acreage of land that could be available for new energy 

corridors and energy developments (infrastructure) (table 134).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

398 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 134. Acres suitable for future consideration of new 

energy corridors or energy developments by alternative

Alternative Suitable Acres 

(Percent)

Not Suitable Acres 

(Percent)

A NA NA

B 889,701

(44%)

1,125,651

(56%)

C 1,007,492

(50%)

1,007,860

(50%)

D 784,420

(39%)

1,230,932

(61%)

Alternative C would have the most acres suitable for new energy corridors or other energy 

developments; while alternative B would have slightly less. Alternative D would have the least 

of the action alternatives, which reflects the greater acreage in the Recommended Wilderness 

Management Area. Resources on lands suitable for new energy corridors or developments could 

be affected if proposals are received and authorized. For example, wildlife could be displaced and 

their habitats altered. Cultural resources could also be affected by construction, maintenance, and 

operation of energy corridors and developments through disturbance of sites and increased human 

use of areas. However, energy corridors or developments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs could 

contribute to national energy needs. Conversely, lands not suitable for new energy corridors or 

developments would limit potential effects to wildlife, cultural resources, and other resources 

from these activities. There are no plans to add additional energy corridors or developments. New 

corridors or developments would be considered on a case-by-case basis and only after the 

appropriate environmental analysis.

Although not mapped as a separate management area, there is one corridor (see “Affected 

Environment” section previously) on the Sitgreaves NF that has been designated for future 

transmission facilities in all alternatives. Applications for transmission lines and distribution 

facilities in this corridor would be priority for processing. If authorized, there would be similar 

environmental consequences to those listed above.

Communications Sites

Communications site administration and authorization would continue under all alternatives. 

Consideration of new sites is limited to existing locations in alternative A, which would not 

allow for further expansion or development of new sites in areas that are now being considered by 

communication providers as new technology is being developed. The action alternatives would 

emphasize locating new sites in existing locations but would also provide suitability guidance 

when consideration of non-NFS lands is exhausted. The acres of land suitable for new 

communications sites vary by alternative (table 135). There are no plans to add additional 

communications sites. New sites would be considered on a case-by-case basis and only after the 

appropriate environmental analysis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 399

Table 135. Acres and percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

suitable for future consideration of new communications sites

Alternative Suitable Acres 

(Percent)

Not Suitable Acres 

(Percent)

A NA NA

B 894,301

(44%)

1,121,051

(56%)

C 1,120,092

(56%)

895,260

(44%)

D 789,019

(39%)

1,226,333

(61%)

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative environmental consequences are spatially bounded by an area larger than the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs proclaimed boundary, generally the area immediately adjacent to the 

forests. Influences on occupancy and use of NFS lands, within the planning period, come from 

outside of the immediate area. Energy corridors are typically linked in to the western U.S. 

electrical grid. Land parcels included in adjustment packages are usually outside of the forests’ 

boundary. Communications site and transportation system service areas may include northern and 

eastern Arizona or the entire State. 

Under all alternatives, additional transmission lines across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would 

add cumulative environmental consequences by influencing management activities; such as a 

need for fuels reduction adjacent to the transmission lines, possible wildlife habitat fragmentation, 

or a change in the scenic integrity objective.

The Centennial West Clean Line would deliver 3,500 megawatts of renewable energy from 

northeastern New Mexico to communities in southern California and other areas in the West. The 

clean energy would be transported via an approximately 900-mile overhead, high-voltage direct 

current transmission (HVDC) line. The transmission line route has not yet been determined, but it 

could cross the northern portion of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Clean Line Energy Partners, 

2011). 

Wind power is emerging in Arizona as a viable, stably priced, and local renewable electricity 

source. The Dry Lake wind plant, located near Snowflake, Arizona, is the first utility-scale project 

to be built in Arizona. The 63 megawatt project went online in August 2009, sending power to the 

electric grid. Several other projects are underway and are in various stages of the development 

process that could result in requests for additional transmission lines across the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Under all alternatives, options would be limited for placement of new energy 

corridors and developments on the forests; this could result in proponents pursuing placement on 

other lands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

400 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Cultural Resources

This section provides an overview of the affected environment and an assessment of the potential 

impacts each alternative could have to cultural resources on the forests. The potential acres

treated within each potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) and the boundary of each 

management area was used to establish the area of potential effects to cultural resources. 

The cultural setting, site types, site distribution, survey information, and public outreach, 

interpretation, and education can be found in the “Cultural Resources Specialist Report” (Forest 

Service, 2012f) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• Burning could occur across all NFS lands.

• Management response to a wildfire would be based on direction in the land management 

plan. Effects to cultural resources would be considered when determining the objectives 

and management response to a wildfire.

• Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. §470), adverse effects to cultural resources include a variety of 

criteria affecting the potential eligibility of cultural resources for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places. Specifically, effects may be deemed adverse 

according to the following:

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or 

indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the 

property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would 

diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all 

qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may 

have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s 

eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance or be cumulative.

• Prior to making a project-level decision that is subject to NHPA, the forests would 

complete cultural resource surveys to locate and evaluate sites for the National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP) and analyze the effects of the proposed use or activity in 

compliance with the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic 

Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation 

Officer and Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer and Texas State Historic 

Preservation Officer and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation and United States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service Region 3 (Southwestern Region programmatic agreement) (Forest Service, 

2003). Following the identification and recording of cultural resources, mitigation 

measures appropriate to the proposed undertaking would be implemented. Such measures 

would most likely include avoidance of cultural resources by redesigning the project 

boundaries, modifying construction plans, or excluding site areas from treatments. In 

cases where specific activities would constitute an adverse effect and avoidance could not 

be accomplished, the adverse effects would be resolved in accordance with 36 CFR 800.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 401

Affected Environment

Cultural resources represent the tangible and intangible evidence of human behavior and past 

human occupation. Cultural resources may consist of archaeological sites, historic-age buildings 

and structures, and traditional use areas and cultural places important to a group’s traditional 

beliefs, religion, or cultural practices. These types of resources are finite and nonrenewable with 

few exceptions. The lands of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs contain a long and diverse cultural 

record that begins approximately 12,000 years ago. Remnants of past and current human 

activities and events can be found throughout the forests that reflect continuous use by Native 

peoples and the exploration, settlement, and management by Euro-American cultures. Based on 

current inventory surveys, it is estimated that over 100,000 cultural resource sites are located on 

the forests. At present, over 6,900 archaeological sites are recorded in the forests’ inventory and 

site files. Many of these sites are eligible for listing on the NRHP. The heritage program of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is responsible for the management of cultural resources for the benefit of 

the public through preservation, pubic use, and research.

Archaeological Site Types and Distribution

Cultural resources on the forests indicate a long and enduring human presence beginning in the 

Late Paleoindian (9500 to 6500 BC) period. Although most of the lands on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs have not been surveyed for cultural resources, over 6,900 archaeological sites have been 

identified within the boundaries of the forests (see figure 67). The archaeological sites associated 

with this human presence on the forests ranges in size and function. There are 13 primary 

prehistoric site types (table 136) and several historic site types associated with 8 categories of 

historic activities (table 137).

The majority of sites in the forests are found between 6,000 and 7,000 feet in elevation. Very few 

sites are found below 6,000 feet and above 8,000 feet. Corresponding to the 6,000- to 8,000-foot 

elevations, sites predominantly fall into either the woodlands (38 percent) or the ponderosa pine 

forests (35 percent). 

Table 136. Archaeological prehistoric site types1

Type Description

Low-Density 

Artifact Scatters

Low-density artifact scatters consist of few artifacts spread over a large area (1 artifact 

per 10 m2

). These scatters often do not meet the accepted definition for sites and usually 

lack the potential to provide significant information.

Lithic Scatters Lithic scatters are artifact scatters containing only flaked and/or ground stone artifacts. 

Ceramic Scatters 

(a.k.a sherd scatters)

Ceramic scatters contain only ceramic sherds and are the results of activities that require 

the use of ceramic vessels such as carrying water or storage. 

Artifact Scatters Artifact scatters contain both lithic and ceramic artifacts. These scatters can be the result 

of activities that require both lithic and ceramic artifacts at resource procurement sites, 

habitation sites with either ephemeral or buried structures, or by the reuse of sites by 

individuals with different artifact types at their disposal.

Petroglyphs and 

Pictographs

Petroglyphs and pictographs are created images found on rock faces, often on rock 

outcroppings or in rock shelters. Petroglyphs are images pecked, incised, or carved into 

the rock’s surface, while pictographs are painted images. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

402 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Type Description

Water Control 

Devices

Water control devices such as check dams, grids, and terraces are designed to control the 

flow of water and/or facilitate the retention of soil moisture for agriculture. These 

features may or may not be associated with permanent or semipermanent habitation sites 

or fields.

Shrines Shrines are usually small circular or rectangular structures, often occurring at high 

elevation. Artifacts, such as beads or ceramics, are sometimes associated with these 

features.

Rock Shelters Rock shelters are natural occurring cavities or overhangs in rock formations that were 

used by people primarily for habitation. Many rock shelters were used by groups or 

individuals of several cultural periods and have multiple, successive layers of occupation.

Rock shelter sites are a primary source of perishable artifacts such as basketry and 

textiles normally absent from open air sites.

Pithouse Sites Pithouse sites are habitation sites that predominantly date prior to A.D. 1000 and may 

consist of a single pithouse structure or multiple pithouses organized as a village. 

Pithouse sites range in size, depth, and construction, but they are all structures dug into 

the ground with a superstructure of wood branches and/or beams and dirt or adobe walls. 

Pueblo Sites Pueblo sites are habitation sites constructed of aboveground masonry that dominate the 

settlement system after A.D. 1000. Three different types of sites are categorized under the 

label “pueblo sites”: field houses commonly evidenced as a boulder pile over a small 

area; U-shaped structures with one or two rooms; and pueblos (roomblocks) with four 

walls consisting of two or more rooms. 

Great Kivas Great kivas are large circular ceremonial structures commonly evidenced on the surface 

as a circular depression. Great kiva sites may contain this feature type singly or can be 

associated with a larger pueblo site.

Compounds Compounds are walled enclosures measuring up to 100 m2. The function of these sites is 

unclear, but they often have a very different artifact assemblage from neighboring sites

Defensive Sites Defensive sites are characterized by defensive walls and locations with restricted access 

such as a hilltop.

1 Plog, 1981a, 1981b

Table 137. Historic-age activities and possible site types1

Historic Period Activity 

or Context Site Types

Protohistoric (Apache) 

occupation 

Temporary camps

Fields

Ramadas/shades 

Sweat lodges

Storage pits

Processing pits

Military Forts

Camps

Trails 

Battlefields

Blazed trees

Roads

Settlements Houses

Outhouses

Barns

Graveyards

Corrals

Public buildings

Trading posts

Farming Homesteads

Fields

Irrigation

Fence lines

Sheepherding Sheep crossings

Temporary camps

Sheep dipping vats 

Sweat houses

Water troughs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 403

Historic Period Activity 

or Context Site Types

Ranching Ranch houses

Barns

Corrals

Outhouses 

Temporary camps

Line Shacks

Fence lines

Lumbering (a.k.a. Timber 

harvesting/Logging)

Camps

Landings

Railroad beds 

Sawmills

Forest Service and CCC Cabins

Fire towers

Roads 

Ranger stations

Camps

1 Plog, 1981a

Figure 67. Map of distribution of known archaeological sites on the forests in 2009 

(adapted from Donaldson, n.d.)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

404 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Lands Surveyed for Archaeological Sites

Most of the lands on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have not been surveyed for cultural resources. 

As of 2011, approximately 1,092,000 acres of the forests have been sampled surveyed, of which 

386,100 acres have been intensively surveyed for cultural resources resulting in the identification 

of over 6,900 sites. Priorities for comprehensive archaeological surveys include the woodland 

PNVTs, Chevelon Canyon area, Blue Range Primitive Area, and the San Francisco and Eagle 

Creek River corridors. Table 138 shows the percent of each PNVT that has been intensively 

surveyed. 

Table 138. Percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs surveyed for archaeological sites by 

PNVT

PNVT NFS

Acres

NFS 

Acres 

Surveyed

Percent of 

PNVT 

Intensively 

surveyed

Identified 

Sites in 

PNVT

Number of 

Surveyed 

Acres per 1 

Site

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian 

Forest

15,876 3,272 20% 207 96

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 147,885 24,538 17% 103 430

Great Basin Grassland 185,523 44,769 24% 1,147 60

Interior Chaparral 55,981 1,165 2% 24 83

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 394,927 13,631 3% 347 76

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest

9,657 607 6% 74 38

Montane Willow Riparian 

Forest

4,808 1,494 31% 37 55

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 51,559 7,482 15% 252 241

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 222,166 61,246 28% 2,571 31

Ponderosa Pine Forest 602,206 194,767 32% 2,594 85

Semi-desert Grassland 106,952 5,132 5% 120 98

Spruce-Fir Forest 17,667 278 2% 5 Unknown

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 177,995 23,981 13% 66 959

Wetland/Cienega Riparian 

Areas

17,900 2,947 16% 55 Unknown

Totals 2,011,102 385,309 19% * **

*Total number of recorded archaeological sites in table does not match total number referenced in text. If sites are 

located near the boundary of a PNVT, their spatial area may overlay multiple PNVTs resulting in double counting the 

site when selecting sites in the GIS Cultural Site data layer by PNVT. The data provides relative counts to see 

differences between PNVTs. The total number of acres surveyed only includes GIS Cultural Survey data for 

complete/intensive surveys for lands in current Federal ownership. Linear, point, and sample survey areas in the GIS 

Cultural Survey layer include acres that are completely surveyed but the data was excluded from this analysis because 

specific spatial data is missing. Total number of sites in PNVT includes sites that were not within complete survey 

areas.

**Total number of surveyed acres per site is based on sites located within complete survey areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 405

National Register Status of Cultural Resources

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or National Register) is the official list of 

historic properties recognized by the Federal government as especially worthy of preservation on 

the forests for their national, state, or local significance. At present, over 6,900 archaeological 

sites are recorded. Of those, a minimum of 1,201 sites have been determined eligible for the 

NRHP. Approximately 170 sites have been determined not eligible for the NRHP. The eligibility 

status of the remaining sites is unevaluated. According to the R3 programmatic agreement and 

Forest Service policy, all unevaluated sites are treated as eligible until they are formally 

determined eligible or not eligible for the NRHP. At present, 10 properties are listed on the 

NRHP. The following properties or areas are recommended as a priority for nomination to the 

NRHP (table 139).

Table 139. Properties currently listed and properties that are priority for future nomination 

to the National Register of Historic Places

Properties Listed on the 

National Register

Priority Properties for Nomination to the 

National Register

PS Knoll Lookout Rudd Creek Rock Art Multiple Property Listing

Bear Mountain Lookout Roundy Crossing

Lake Mountain Lookout Black Canyon Rock Shelter

Los Burros Ranger Station General Crook Trail/Road

Deer Springs Lookout Prison Point Great Kiva site

Promontory Butte Lookout Foote Creek Canyon Complex

Pinedale Ranger Station Blue River Drainage Multiple Property Listing

Water Canyon Administrative Site Eagle Creek Drainage Multiple Property Listing

Butterfly Lodge1 Double Circle Ranch District

Bailey Ruin Historic XXX Ranch

Silver Creek Archaeological District (Pottery Hill, Cline Point, 

Hough’s Great Kiva, Cothrun’s Great Kiva)

Logging railroads of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

High elevation ceremonial sites

1 Under private ownership

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs)

Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are defined in National Register Bulletin 38 as properties 

associated “with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that 

community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community.” TCPs can range from structures, mountains, and other landforms to plant gathering 

locations to communities. These areas are considered historic properties that may be eligible to 

the National Register of Historic Places. With regard to the forests, TCPs are most often 

associated with American Indian cultures. Nine American Indian tribes have ancestral ties to 

lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Forest Service consultations with appropriate members 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

406 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

of each tribe can identify the tribe’s historic and present day uses of the forests. See the 

“American Indian Rights and Interests” section for more details.

Five American Indian tribes represented by nine tribal governments are known to have ancestral 

ties and/or traditional use areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs based on current and past 

consultation: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, San 

Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and the Ramah Chapter House of the Navajo Nation. Forest 

Service consultations with appropriate members of each tribe can identify the tribe’s historic and 

present-day uses of the forests. See the “American Indian Rights and Interests” section for more 

details.

The lands, resources, and the archaeological sites within the forests are considered traditionally 

significant to all affiliated tribes and, in some cases, certain resources or areas are considered 

sacred to a specific tribe(s). Each group has their own history, traditions, and relationship to the 

land and to other groups. Traditional use of the forests and its resources by the tribes dates back 

several generations and, for some groups, many centuries.

Known traditional use areas and cultural places located within the forests include, but are not 

limited to: spruce forests, mountains, cinder cones, springs, caves, trails, and shrines. Among the 

better known TCPs and sacred sites or areas known to have been used and/or continue to be used

for traditional cultural purposes that have been identified in ethnographic reports, archaeological 

reports, professional papers, and through project level tribal consultations include, but are not 

limited to, Escudilla Mountain, Mount Baldy, Greens Peak, Rose Peak, Gobbler Peak, St. Peters 

Dome, Burro Mountain, Antelope Mountain, Pole Knoll, Flume Mountain SU Knoll, Head of 

Chevelon Canyon, Chevelon Butte, areas near Aspen Lake, numerous springs, caves, and the 

Little Colorado River. In some cases there are multiple areas used for collection of resources or 

religious ceremonies on or within the vicinity of the topographic feature. Many other areas 

located on the forests are used for traditional cultural purposes, but they have not been 

specifically identified. Additional areas may be identified through project or permit specific tribal 

consultation. Therefore, the inventory of known TCPs, sacred sites and areas used for traditional 

cultural purposes is subject to change; the list provided here is not comprehensive.

Many of the shrine locations have been adversely impacted by management actions or vandalism 

(looting) that occurred prior to passing the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966. For example, Greens Peak shrine was destroyed by the construction of 

a fire lookout tower. Rose Peak shrine was severely impacted by the lookout complex. Harris 

Cave and Bear Cave were looted at the turn of the century. Bead Spring shrine was looted by 

vandals and damaged by forest management activities. Escudilla Mountain has been impacted by 

construction of a road and a fire lookout tower. Big Springs has been damaged from recreation 

and water development. Coon Spring was capped and developed for a city water source.

Many of the shrines have been disturbed or severely damaged which has reduced their potential 

to yield significant scientific data. Although aspects of their physical integrity have been altered 

or no longer exist, these locations may still be eligible for the NRHP and have been identified by 

the tribes as still important in maintaining the traditions and beliefs of their community.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 407

No additional impacts to TCPs from ground disturbance have occurred within the Mount Baldy 

and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas since these areas were designated in 1970 and 1984, 

respectively.

Current Condition of Archaeological Sites 

Past practices, including Forest Service management activities, public resource procurement, 

recreation use, and natural processes have impacted cultural resources. Multiple uses and 

activities on the forests that have resulted in the most impacts to cultural resources include: 

infrastructure, livestock grazing, fire, timber and vegetation management, recreation activities, 

looting and vandalism, and land adjustments (see table 140 below). A more indepth description of 

past effects can be found in the “Cultural Resources Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012f) in 

the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Table 140. Activity effects and the number of sites impacted by activity

Type of Activity Effects Number of Sites 

Impacted1

Infrastructure (most roads 

constructed for timber 

harvesting)

Displacement, alteration, damage, and destruction 

of features and artifacts. Compaction.Erosion.

785

(of which 626 sites 

impacted from NFS 

roads)

Livestock Grazing Disturbance by cattle or sheep.

Trampling, crushing, compaction.

Alteration, damage, and destruction to features. 

Erosion.

123

(of which 8 sites 

damaged from tank and 

pipeline construction)

Fire and Fire-Suppression 

Activities

Destruction, alteration, and damage to features 

and artifacts. Refiring, melting, spalling. Erosion.

696

Timber Harvesting (saw 

timber, pulpwood, firewood)

Displacement, alteration, damage, and destruction 

to features and artifacts. Removal of artifacts. 

Erosion.

263

Piñon-Juniper Treatments

(pushing and chaining)

Displacement, alteration, damage, and destruction 

to features and artifacts. Exposure of features and 

artifacts. Erosion.

75

Recreation Activities Unintentional vandalism (e.g., clearing features 

and artifacts from area for camping, reuse of 

features and masonry for camping activities). 

44

Looting and Vandalism Displacement, alteration, damage, and destruction 

of features and artifacts. Removal of artifacts.

225

Lands Transfer to non-Federal ownership. Removal of 

artifacts, systematic excavation of cultural 

materials and features.

56

1 The actual number of impacted sites caused from timber harvesting, piñon-juniper treatments, and looting is higher. 

The total number of sites impacted in the table only represents a review of 1,908 records and the available site 

condition data for records in the forests INFRA database.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

408 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Treatments that would restore vegetation types to their desired conditions and natural fire regimes 

would decrease the potential for adverse effects to cultural resources from uncharacteristic high 

intensity and high severity fires. These treatments would also lead to the restoration of natural 

processes and the landscape which, in turn, have the potential to restore the historic setting and 

cultural landscapes of the forests. 

Ground-disturbing activities (includes mechanical activities) are the dominant cause of potential 

adverse impacts to cultural resources in all alternatives. The potential types of effects to cultural 

resources from the proposed treatments in all alternatives would be the same. Differences, 

however, may be found among the alternatives regarding the numbers of cultural resources that 

would be potentially impacted by the treatments. All the alternatives propose treatments that 

result in restoring ecosystem health. 

National Register Sites and TCPs

The 1987 plan (alternative A) has not been amended to reflect the 1992 requirements and 

amendments to the NHPA. The 1992 amendments clarified Section 110, language terms, and 

required each Federal agency to establish a historic preservation program. The program must 

provide for the identification and protection of the agency’s historic properties; ensure that such 

properties are maintained and managed with due consideration for preservation of their historic 

values; and contain procedures to implement Section 106, which must be consistent with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations. The 1987 plan also does not 

address requirements of the Native American Graves Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), 

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Order 13175 Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and Executive Order 13287 Preserve America. 

The focus of management and guidelines for forest resources within the 1987 plan (alternative 

A) were developed prior to the passage or issuance of these statutes which has led to more 

impacts to historic properties. Emphasis is on use of timber and multiple-use activities that 

incorporate the location of archaeological sites and TCPs that may not be compatible with those 

uses. The action alternatives have incorporated the passage of these statues and issuance of 

executive orders providing for increased consideration and management to preserve historic 

properties for their historic and cultural values.

Under all alternatives, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would continue to fulfill their responsibilities 

to conduct nonproject related inventory surveys and nominate sites eligible to the NRHP to 

protect and preserve cultural resources per Section 110 of NHPA, Executive Order 11593, and 

Section 14 of Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA). Internal and outside 

funding sources, researchers, partners, and volunteers would be sought to assist in research and 

preservation projects. Public outreach and interpretation would continue to be provided through 

heritage programs, projects, and interpretive materials. The identification, evaluation, and 

analysis of the effects from proposed actions to cultural resources eligible, nominated, or listed on 

the NRHP would be completed to meet the requirements of Section 106 of NHPA.

Although most of the following discussion regarding impacts focuses on effects to archaeological 

sites, traditional use areas accessed for the collection of traditional materials may also be 

impacted. See the “American Indian Rights and Interests” section for other environmental 

consequences associated with TCPs and sacred sites.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 409

Infrastructure

In all alternatives, infrastructure would be maintained. The 1987 plan (alternative A) only 

specifies that the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would comply with NHPA. NHPA requires that adverse 

impacts are resolved which usually results in the excavation and recovery of the significant and 

scientific information. Since alternative A does not provide suitability standards and guidelines 

for infrastructure (e.g., roads, communications sites) that address cultural resources and TCPs, 

more TCPs have been adversely impacted over the life of the plan. The action alternatives

would result in less potential of adverse effects to cultural resources. Standards and guidelines 

provide direction for areas (e.g., high site density, on TCPs and sacred sites) not suitable for new 

infrastructure (e.g., permanent roads, communications sites, powerlines). This would increase the 

potential of the forests to meet the desired conditions for cultural resources by reducing the types 

of proposed actions that may adversely affect those resources in those locations and reduce the 

potential of causing additional impacts to TCPs. 

Livestock Grazing

In all alternatives, livestock grazing would continue. Site-specific actions and the level of 

permitted use would be determined at the time of the project-level decision. Potential effects from 

grazing would be the same for all alternatives since there would be no change by alternative in 

the allotments available for livestock grazing. It is recognized that cultural resources have been 

subjected to grazing for over a hundred years, at levels much higher than current grazing 

practices, and that some degree of impacts may have already occurred. Livestock grazing can 

negatively impact sites by trampling, artifact breakage, soil compaction, soil removal, toppling 

masonry walls, and other types of damage to features as livestock walk through a site. Grazing 

can indirectly impact sites through loss of ground cover which, in turn, leads to erosion. 

Sites sensitive to grazing impacts include, but are not limited to, ruins with free-standing walls, 

historic structures, and TCPs. In locations where cattle are likely to be attracted to or congregate, 

rock shelters and rock art sites may also be sensitive sites. The effects on cultural resources would 

be analyzed by allotment at the project level. The forests would follow appendix H of the R3 

programmatic agreement for rangeland management to meet Section 106 responsibilities. The 

protocol defines the procedures by which cultural resources (listed, eligible, and unevaluated 

sites) would be considered in planning and conducting rangeland management activities.

Fire

Nonmechanized treatments include planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned ignitions (wildfire) to 

address vegetation conditions. In the past, frequent low-intensity fires occurred across the forests. 

Generally, low-intensity fires have not adversely impacted prehistoric sites that are not fire

sensitive or composed of combustible material. Conversely, most historic sites are either 

combustible or include combustible cultural material. 

Under all alternatives, the use of fire could result in adverse impacts including: historic sites 

completely burning down; prehistoric rock structures spalling apart from exposure to very high 

temperatures; ceramic material re-firing; obsidian artifacts melting (caused by high-intensity 

fire);site features undergoing accelerated erosion because of hydrophobic soils (caused from high 

intensity and long duration fires); cultural features and structures being displaced or damaged by 

killed trees falling and uprooting the ground surface; creation of burned stump holes that result in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

410 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

erosion; and cultural materials being exposed to increased erosion and the potential for theft 

because of vegetation removal from the ground surface. 

Suppression responses may adversely affect cultural resources by altering and/or damaging the 

cultural materials by construction of hand and mechanical control lines that remove, crush, and or 

displace cultural materials and features. Large and small fire camps may cause effects similar to 

camping (see following impacts from recreation effects). Some fire retardants may permanently 

stain the cultural materials. 

The use of fire as a management tool for vegetation treatments would have the most potential to 

affect cultural resources in alternative D. Alternative D would have the potential to result in a 

higher amount of acres in the ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper PNVTs affected by mixed 

severity and high severity (stand replacing) fire to meet desired conditions. Since it emphasizes 

natural processes (fire), this alternative would have a higher potential for temporary, indirect 

impacts from erosion and vandalism caused from exposure of cultural materials and features by 

burning off the vegetation. 

Alternative B would have the next highest potential for mixed severity and stand replacement 

fire. Mixed severity fire effects do not directly equate to sites being permanently altered and 

damaged. For many sites, the effects from mixed severity fires depend on the site type and the 

temperature and duration of heat on the ground surface. Alternative B would affect more acres 

by mixed and high severity fire treatments than alternative C, potentially resulting in a higher 

number of cultural resources that could be adversely affected. Alternative A would have the least 

potential for fire treatments to result in high severity that could adversely affect cultural 

resources. See table 141 below.

Table 141. Annual burning treatments (acres) and estimated fire severity by alternative

Alternative Low Severity Mixed Severity High Severity 

Treatment Level Low High Low High Low High

A1 5,379 About 845 951

B 837 5,859 12,035 35,181 864 2,379

C 566 5,566 2,426 15,737 130 1,284

D 1,748 11,653 15,800 62,905 1,080 3,765

1 Based on the past 25-year average of burning treatments. No breakdown of burn type available, however, the vast 

majority (95%) is estimated to be low severity.

Traditional cultural areas used for collecting forest and mineral resources could be affected by the 

temporary closure of areas from wildfires and treatments. Many of the traditionally used plants 

respond to fire by increasing productivity. Alternatives D and B propose the most acres treated 

by fire and would potentially increase the long-term productivity of traditionally used forest 

resources and availability of those resources across the landscape. Access to visiting cultural 

resources (archaeological sites and TCPs) could be affected in the short term during 

implementation of prescribed burn treatments. 

Conducting prescribed burns has the potential to restore the natural and cultural landscape and the 

natural fire regime, reducing the potential for permanent adverse effects from high intensity, high 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 411

severity fires. Mechanized treatments (see section below on “Vegetation Management”) has 

similar benefits to cultural resources as fire treatments because they would reduce the potential 

for permanent adverse effects from fire, but these treatments have the highest potential for longterm indirect effects from erosion caused from intensive ground disturbance near sites. Also, slash 

from mechanized treatments is often piled burned, resulting in more locations with hydrophobic 

soils and increasing erosion to sites if the piles were located near sites. 

Vegetation Management

Mechanical treatments refer to a variety of possible tools to meet objectives. These include, but 

are not limited to, hand thinning by chain saws; feller-bunchers to cut trees and lop slash; 

skidders to move material to landings; bulldozers to push and pile trees and slash; heavy 

equipment to topple trees over by chaining; and other specialized heavy equipment that can be 

driven over the ground surface to cut, chop, grind, crush, and lop trees and shrubs. Vegetation is 

mechanically cleared from areas (landings) approximately 1⁄4 to 1 acre in size with an average of 1 

landing every 20 acres to assist in removing and accessing materials. For a majority of the 

treatments, the existing road system would be used and maintained with minor reconstruction and 

maintenance. Some temporary roads may be constructed. Some of the major forest system roads 

and highways that would be used for access and transportation are historic linear properties that 

could be or have been determined eligible for the State or National Register of Historic Places 

(e.g., Forest Road 300, State Highways 77 and 260, and U.S. Highway 191).

Under all alternatives, mechanical treatments to remove timber could damage or destroy sites 

through the removal, displacement, breakage, or destruction of cultural materials, features, and 

structures. Activities that have the potential to result in adverse impacts include, but are not 

limited to: construction of hauling roads and landings, movement of heavy equipment across the 

ground surface, pushing and crushing and piling harvest material and slash on or across the 

ground surface, skidding of trees and indirect impacts from overharvesting, which can lead to 

erosion, and cutting and the removal of historic features (i.e., aspen dendroglyphs, blazed trees, 

culturally modified/peeled trees). 

Alternatives that propose to treat more acres in PNVTs that have a higher density of sites have a 

higher potential for effects (as listed above). Alternative A would have the least amount of 

potential effects. Alternative C would have a higher potential for impacts from grounddisturbing treatments than alternatives B or D (table 142). 

Table 142. Mechanical treatment objective (acres) and number of sites that could be 

impacted

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Mechanical

Acres Sites MechanicalAcres Sites MechanicalAcres Sites Mechanical Acres Sites

12,182 115 19,591 260 23,997 256 15,954 224

Management of cultural resources would have the most effect on mechanized treatments in 

alternative C, based on the average number of acres proposed for mechanized treatment for 

PNVTs with the most sites and the average estimated cost per acre for cultural resource 

inventories. Alternative C would potentially result in the highest cost to the government to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

412 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

complete the potential compliance for cultural resources. The next highest costs would be for 

alternative B, followed by alternatives D and A. Table 143 displays the estimated annual 

average cost to complete 100 percent survey in planned mechanical treatment areas with the 

highest site density (ponderosa pine, Madrean pine-oak, piñon-juniper, and Great Basin 

grassland).

Table 143. Estimated average annual cost for cultural resource compliance in proposed 

mechanical treatment areas by alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

$243,570 $468,560 $479,220 $372,390

Recreation Activities

Alternative A (1987 plan) would have the most potential to adversely affect cultural resources 

since the 1987 plan does not provide standards, guidelines, and suitability for motorized and 

nonmotorized recreation that address cultural resources. This has resulted in more cultural 

resources being adversely affected over the life of the plan. Alternative A would continue to 

allow motorized cross-country travel. Unrestricted motorized access to remote sites increases the 

potential for vandalism, including illegal excavation (looting), damage or destruction to standing 

architecture or rock art, and collection of surface artifacts. Motorized use may remove vegetation 

that protects and covers archaeological materials. When cultural materials are exposed, the more 

decorative artifacts and collectable historic objects may disappear through illegal collecting. 

Alternative A would have the least potential to meet the desired conditions for cultural resources.

The action alternatives would result in less potential for adverse effects to cultural resources and 

have a higher potential to move the forests toward the desired conditions for cultural resources. 

Standards, guidelines, and suitability in the action alternatives would provide direction for areas 

(e.g., high site density, on TCPs and sacred sites) where certain activities (e.g., nonmotorized, 

mechanized, motorized travel) would not be suitable. These alternatives would eliminate 

motorized cross-country travel. The potential to disturb cultural resources would be reduced 

because fewer lands would be open to motor vehicle use, resulting in a beneficial effect to 

cultural resources. The adverse effects to remote cultural sites from motorized cross-country 

travel would be reduced and, in some areas, stopped. These action alternatives would also place 

a greater emphasis on the provision of recreation opportunities. This may result in more 

developed interpretive sites, and development of interpretive cultural resource brochures for 

routes and trails. Alternative C, because of the emphasis on developed recreation, would provide 

the most potential to restore, stabilize, and preserve historic facilities that could be used for public 

use. For example, historic facilities could be restored and maintained as part of the cabin rental 

program.

Alternative D would recommend the most acres for wilderness. It would provide the most 

potential to benefit cultural resources. Protection of wilderness values indirectly protects cultural 

resources by eliminating certain management activities that have the potential to adversely affect 

cultural resources (e.g., mechanized treatments and uses, construction of roads and facilities). 

Alternatives B and C would have the next highest potential to benefit cultural resources. Areas 

recommended for wilderness in both of these alternatives contain cultural resources that are 

significant at the national level. Managing these areas for wilderness values would have the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 413

highest potential to protect these resources and keep them generally free from adverse effects. 

These alternatives would have the potential to reduce the amount of projects that involve ground 

disturbance, which would result in reducing the amount of inventory surveys in these areas that 

would be conducted to identify and evaluate sites for the NRHP. Alternative A would not 

recommend additional wilderness.

Looting and Vandalism

Alternatives B and C, which propose the most acres for mechanized treatments in PNVTs with a 

higher density of sites, would have the most potential to increase incidents and damage from 

looting and vandalism. More incidents of looting are found in areas where there is more human 

activity and accessibility to sites. There would be less risk associated with looting and vandalism 

in alternatives A and D.

Lands

All alternatives would have the same potential to impact cultural resources from land 

adjustments. Land adjustments have the potential to adversely affect the use and characteristics of 

cultural resources. Conveying cultural resources that are eligible or listed on the National Register 

out of Federal ownership is an adverse effect. The resources would no longer be protected and 

managed under Federal laws and regulations and Forest Service policy. 

Exchanges of Federal lands may affect and/or prevent the access and use of traditional cultural 

properties (TCP) by American Indian tribes. Once the lands are transferred out of Federal 

ownership, the tribes would not be guaranteed the same rights of access and use of the TCP or 

area for traditional purposes. Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and Forest Service 

policy regarding American Indian rights and interests would no longer apply. 

Land adjustments may also potentially have a positive effect on cultural resources. Cultural 

resources on acquired private lands would come under protection of Federal laws and 

management. Acquired private lands, including TCPs that were previously inaccessible to tribes, 

would be accessible for traditional proposes. No specific areas for acquisition or exchange are 

proposed. Site-specific analysis would be completed at the time a proposal is under consideration.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Federal, State, and tribal lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs comprise the cumulative 

effects analysis area for cultural resources. Many recorded sites on the forests are at least 

regionally significant and some are nationally significant. This regional or national importance of 

some sites within the forests reinforces the need for protecting significant local cultural resources 

that may be affected from cumulative impacts of management activities within the forests and 

region.

Current and previous Forest Service management activities, recreation, general public uses, and 

natural processes have impacted cultural resources. Multiple archaeological sites will be 

adversely affected by the improvement and realignment work on U.S. Highway 60 Silverking to 

Superior. Improvement to SR 77 may have additional adverse effects to prehistoric archaeological 

sites. Several land exchanges that involve forest lands (including transfer out of NFS ownership) 

may lead to adverse effects to multiple archaeological sites and one known TCP. Most of these 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

414 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

sites would require data recovery (excavation) to resolve adverse effects. Data recovery involves 

the scientific recovery of significant information through destructive methods The Coconino and 

Kaibab NFs are in the process of completing a draft environmental impact statement for the Four 

Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI). The proposed action involves landscape-scale vegetation 

treatments using mechanized vegetation removal and fire. This proposed action is expected to 

result in no adverse effects to cultural resources and reduce the potential for permanent adverse 

effects from uncharacteristic high intensity and high severity fires. Inventory surveys that would 

be conducted for 4FRI would result in recording archaeological sites and TCPs and allow for 

better management of cultural resources and increasing scientific knowledge. Passports in Time 

(PIT) projects are being conducted. Under all alternatives, implementation of the proposed 

treatments for 4FRI and future Apache-Sitgreaves NFs vegetation treatments would result in a 

beneficial cumulative impact to cultural resources by increasing the amount of acres surveyed for 

cultural resources and reducing the potential adverse effects from uncharacteristic wildfires.

American Indian Rights and Interests

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act declares that the policies of the U.S. shall preserve 

and protect the American Indian’s freedom to practice their religion. This includes the right to 

have access to religious sites, to use and retain sacred objects, and to conduct ceremonials and 

practice traditional rites on the forests. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the 

government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden 

results from a rule of general applicability, except when the government demonstrates that 

application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. 

This section includes a review of the current conditions and an assessment of the potential 

impacts each alternative could have on tribal access and use of the forests. The area of potential 

effect includes the lands and resources of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the potential effect to 

tribal resources and/or rights within lands adjacent to the forests. The full analysis for American 

Indian rights and interests can be found in the :American Indian Rights and Interests Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2012c) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

To determine how the alternatives would affect the use and access to religious sites: (1) an 

inventory of the known traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and sacred sites were identified 

through known and accessible ethnographic reports, archaeological reports, and tribal 

consultation responses; (2) a review of past and current accommodations to tribes to access and 

use TCPs, sacred sites, and resources for ceremonial purposes was completed; and (3) a review of 

known existing tribal rights was conducted to determine how the alternatives could potentially 

affect tribal rights.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• Members of American Indian tribes would continue to access, use, and/or conduct 

religious pilgrimages and ceremonies at known TCPs and sacred sites and collect forest 

and botanical resources.

• The lands and resources of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs used by American Indian tribes 

for traditional cultural purposes and traditional use will not be used for commercial use.

• Prior to making a project-level decision that is subject to National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), the forests will consult tribes to identify TCPs and sacred sites, evaluate 

TCPs for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and analyze the effects of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 415

proposed use or activity in compliance with the First Amended Programmatic Agreement 

Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic 

Preservation Officer and Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer and Texas State 

Historic Preservation Officer and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer, and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Region 3 (Southwestern Region programmatic agreement) (Forest Service, 

2003) and/or memorandum of understandings with tribes. Following the identification 

and recording of TCPs, mitigation measures appropriate to the proposed undertaking will 

be implemented. Measures will be determined through consultation. Most likely they will 

include avoidance by redesigning the project boundaries and/or changing the time/season 

of when the project is implemented. In cases where specific activities would constitute an 

adverse effect and avoidance cannot be accomplished, the adverse effects will be 

resolved in accordance with 36 CFR 800.

Affected Environment

Five American Indian tribes represented by nine separate tribal governments have cultural ties to 

lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Forest Service consultations with appropriate members 

of each tribe can identify the tribe’s historic and present day traditional uses and sacred sites of 

the area. The lands, resources, and the archaeological sites within the forests are considered 

traditionally significant to all affiliated tribes and, in some cases, certain resources or areas are 

considered sacred to one or more. TCPs may be eligible to the NRHP because of their association 

with cultural practices and beliefs rooted in history and their importance in maintaining the 

cultural identity of ongoing American Indian communities. The following five American Indian 

tribes are known to have ties to the forests: Hopi, Navajo, Western Apache (San Carlos, Tonto, 

and White Mountain), Yavapai, and Zuni.

Each group has their own history, traditions, and relationship to the land and to other groups. 

Traditional use of forest lands and their resources by the tribes dates back several generations 

and, for some groups, many centuries. The tribes are discussed in alphabetical order.

Hopi

The Hopi are a northern Uto-Aztecan-speaking people that reside in 12 villages on 3 mesas along 

the southern border of the larger Black Mesa in northeastern Arizona. The traditional Hopi land 

(Tutsqwa) covers an area far greater than the current reservation. It extends west to the Middle 

Verde River Valley, to the Bill Williams Mountains, and to the Grand Canyon (Senior, 2005). 

Traditional Hopi migration histories extend well beyond this heartland, however, and the Hopi 

used resources, trails, and maintained trading relationships well beyond the boundaries of 

Tutsqwa (Ferguson and Dongoske, 1994). Origin stories suggest that the current Hopi are a 

combination of peoples (clans) who arrived at the current Hopi villages from many directions. 

According to Hopi traditions, migration paths from their emergence ranged west to California, 

south to Mexico and east to the Rio Grande Valley. There was also a series of migrations from the 

San Juan region to the Black Mesa area of Arizona. Eventually, these migrations took the Hopi 

ancestors across the Southwest until they arrived at their place on the Hopi Mesas (Courlander, 

1971). Through previous project consultations the Hopi have identified 13 clans as being 

associated with Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: Badger, Sand, Corn, Tobacco, Water, Sun, Parrot, 

Katisina, Crow, Lizard, Butterfly, Bear, and Eagle. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

416 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Hopi traditions of preservation and protection of sacred sites and subsistence-gathering areas are 

important and vital to the Hopi way of life. Many archaeological sites affiliated with the Cibola 

Anasazi and Mogollon archaeological cultures are located on the forests. The Hopi claim 

affiliation to these cultural groups. Preservation of archaeological sites is a key religious value to 

the Hopi. Each of the places that the Hopi ancestors stopped during their migration are considered 

TCPs by the contemporary Hopi and are remembered in their songs and stories. Because Hopi 

religion has its foundation in the emergence and migration stories, and because archaeological 

sites are interpreted by the Hopi as a part of this foundation, archaeological materials throughout 

Arizona are very important to the Hopi (Senior, 2003). The Hopi homeland and traditional use 

area encompasses the west half of the Black Mesa Ranger District. The Hopi homeland includes 

shrines, sacred natural features, eagle trapping locations, and regions where salt is collected 

(Ellis, 1974). The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs were also part of the Hopi hunting and plant collection 

area. The Hopi have traditionally gathered spruce boughs, snakes, eagles, tobacco (Nicotiana 

attenuata, Nicotiana trigonophylla), Indian tea (Theleperma megapotamicum), grasses, and other 

natural resources within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The Hopi have noted that they shared lands 

with the Zuni in historic and pre-contact times (Senior, 2005). At present, the Hopi have

identified Chevelon Butte and Chevelon Cliffs as sacred sites and archaeological sites as TCPs. 

Navajo (Din’e)

The boundary of the traditional Navajo homeland is symbolized by their four sacred mountains, 

although the aboriginal use area extends beyond these markers. The sacred mountains are Blanca 

Peak (Sis Naajinii) near Alamosa, Colorado; Mount Taylor (Tsoo Dzil) near Grants, New Mexico; 

the San Francisco Peaks (Dook’o’oosliid) near Flagstaff, Arizona; and the La Plata Mountains 

(Dibe Ntasaa) near Durango, Colorado (BOR, 1995). The Navajo are one of the Apachean tribes 

who are linguistically tied to the Southern Athapaskans who migrated from the north into the 

American Southwest between A.D. 1000 and 1500. They were a nomadic hunting and gathering 

people who lived in small, scattered bands. They raided and traded with the Spanish and Pueblo 

peoples (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). Historical accounts support that the Navajo were established 

in northeastern Arizona in the 1600s. By the mid-1800s they were practicing a lifestyle of farming 

and grazing livestock, in addition to their nomadic methods of subsistence. 

Very little physical evidence of the Navajo presence has been recorded on the forests. 

Historically, the Navajo are known to have traded with the Yavapai; traditional routes may be 

present on the forests. During the Fort Sumner period, the Navajo were living (hiding out) in 

Chevelon Canyon, in the vicinity of Potato Wash, and Escudilla Mountain (Senior, 2005). The 

earliest physical evidence of Navajo use of the area dates from the 1920s and 1930s when 

Navajos were employed in the timber industry. The Navajo have identified Escudilla Mountain, 

Chevelon Butte, and the Little Colorado River as sacred places (Vannette and Fearey, 1981; 

Senior, 2005). The Navajo also consider any remaining sweat lodges on the forests to be TCPs. 

All springs and natural water sources are significant places and especially valued by the Navajo 

(Senior, 2005). 

Western Apache (Indé) 

The Western Apache are comprised of the Cibeque, the San Carlos, the Tonto (Dil zhéé), and the 

White Mountain Apache tribes. The Western Apache territory is bounded on the east by the 

Pinaleno Mountains, on the south by the Salt River, along the north by the upper Verde Valley and 

Flagstaff, and along the west by the Mazatzal Mountains. Linguistically, the Western Apache 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 417

(Indé) are tied to Southern Athapaskan speakers who migrated from the north and arrived in the 

American Southwest between A.D. 1000 and 1500 (as summarized by Basso, 1983 and Perry, 

1991). Traditional creation beliefs of the Indé, however, are firmly rooted in the mountains of the 

Southwest (Sine, 1988 as quoted in Hilpert, 1996). Important Indé ceremonial beings, who 

figured prominently in their creation stories, the Gán (also Gaan), are associated with 

Southwestern mountains, peaks, and especially caves where they gain access to the spirit world 

under the mountains. The Western Apache identify the essence of Indé culture and virtue with 

mountains and their traditional lands, and this is most often associated with morals of stories tied 

to specific named places (Basso, 1996, 1997; Hilpert, 1996).

Originally, the Western Apache practiced a nomadic hunting and gathering way of life. By the 

1600s they had also adopted farming in the spring and summer and a seasonal cycle of food 

gathering (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). After the introduction and contact with Spanish livestock 

and horses, the Apaches adapted their way of life to include raiding the Spanish and other tribes 

for livestock and food. The traditional nomadic way of life of the Western Apache was 

exterminated when the current reservations were established in 1874 after the Western Indian 

wars with the U.S. government. Only the White Mountain Apache were located in a portion of 

their traditional homeland and were near the sacred mountains which are the deepest sources of 

Apache identity and culture (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). Since many of the Apachean artifacts 

were made of perishable materials, they are rare and most date to historic times. Apachean sites 

have been recorded on the forests. The forests are encompassed within the traditional subsistence 

use area of the Western Apache. Plants and trees traditionally used by the Apache include, but are 

not limited to, mescal agave (Agave parryi), yucca, piñon nuts, acorns (Emory oak), bear grass, 

aspen, reeds, and cattails. Mount Baldy and Escudilla Mountain have been identified as specific 

Apache sacred places on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Yavapai

Yavapai have stated that their people have been here in Arizona since time immemorial and that 

they were the first true Arizonans. Previously, Yavapai territory spanned most of Arizona from the 

Colorado River east past Tucson and northeast to the Little Colorado River (Senior 2005). The 

Yavapai primarily practiced a seasonal hunting and gathering lifestyle and some agriculture 

(Khera and Mariella, 1983). Historically, they are known to have traded with the Apache, Navajo, 

and Hopi. Traditional trading routes may be located within the forests. The Yavapai had a closer 

relationship with the Western Apache and some intermarriage took place. Plants and animals that 

were traditionally hunted and gathered by the Yavapai are found within the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs. Presently the Yavapai have not specifically identified areas or places of traditional and/or of 

religious significance on the Apache-Sitgreaves NF. (Senior, 2005)

Zuni

The Zuni reservation is in west-central New Mexico and eastern Arizona, with the population and 

cultural center at Zuni Pueblo in New Mexico. The Zuni traditional homeland encompasses an 

area stretching from the Grand Canyon and San Francisco Peaks in Arizona, to the Abajo 

Mountains in Utah and Colorado, to the Sandia Mountains near Albuquerque, New Mexico, and 

the Mogollon, Gallo, and Tularosa Mountains in New Mexico (NAU and SWCA, 1996). 

Zuni origin stories relate how the Zuni people were created in the Fourth World and emerged into 

the Fifth World (this world) from a location in a side canyon along the Colorado River in Grand 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

418 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Canyon. From there, the people began their migrations, stopping at numerous places along the 

way (NAU and SWCA, 1996). During this time the people split into four groups. One group 

headed north to Chaco Canyon, a second group went northeast up the Zuni River, a third 

southeast toward the White Mountains, and the fourth group went south, never to be heard from 

again. The first three groups rejoined at Halona:Iti-wana, the Middle Place, today known as Zuni 

Pueblo (Ferguson, 2007). 

During their migrations through most of Arizona and New Mexico, the Zuni established many 

homes, camps, trails, shrines, and burial grounds. The Zuni claim cultural affiliations with the 

archaeological sites identified with the Cibola Anasazi and Mogollon archaeological cultures 

located on the forests. Zunis claim affiliation to these cultural groups. To the Zuni, these 

migration related sites are imbued with life and spiritual forces that continue to be important to 

the Zuni people through their religion. 

The Zuni consider their traditional homeland to be all the places that their ancestors traveled to 

and visited. Each of the places that the Zuni ancestors stopped during their migration is 

considered sacred by the contemporary Zuni and are remembered in their prayers and still visited 

by the Zuni people. Shrines are actively maintained by a select group of Zuni. As of 1846 the 

Zuni had placed war god shrines along the Mogollon Rim to protect the Zuni area. A Zuni watch 

tower on the rim was located in the late 1800s near the town of Springerville (Senior, 2005). The 

Mogollon Rim was a natural boundary between the Zuni and the Apache. Trails used by the Zunis 

also hold religious importance and are cared for through blessings and prayers. The forests are 

encompassed within the Zuni traditional mineral, hunting, and religious use areas and are within 

the Zuni traditional homeland. The Zuni are known to have collected spruce pollen and aspen 

wood for religious purposes and numerous other plants for subsistence and medicinal use. 

Numerous Zuni TCPs and sacred sites are located on the forests; including Escudilla Mountain, 

Mount Baldy, and springs (Zuni Cultural Advisory Team, 2011; Ferguson, 2007, 1981, and 1980; 

Senior, 2005).

Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites

As discussed above there are known TCPs and sacred sites located within the forests. A TCP and 

a sacred site are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. A TCP must meet the definition 

and criteria for the NRHP, where as a sacred site is identified by the tribe as defined in Executive 

Order 13007 and does not need to meet the definition and criteria for the NRHP. American Indian 

tribes do not make a distinction between the two. Laws and executive orders define the two 

separately which results in differences in how land management agencies are required to consider 

their effects and resolve those effects from management actions. 

TCPs and sacred sites include, but are not limited to, spruce forests, mountains, cinder cones, 

springs, caves, trails, and shrines. These places are used for activities that include, but are not 

limited to, collection of plants, boughs, aspen trees, teepee poles, pigments, feathers, pollen, 

hunting, religious pilgrimages, accessing springs, and making special offerings. These places are 

ethnographically important to tribal values and are inseparable from their cultures. Multiple areas 

are used for collection of resources or religious ceremonies on or within the vicinity of the 

topographic feature. Many other areas located on the forests are used for traditional cultural 

purposes but have not been specifically identified. See the “Cultural Resources” section for a 

listing of known TCPs and a description of past impacts to TCPs and sacred sites.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 419

Tribal Rights

The Supreme Court has recognized that when American Indian reservations were established, the 

Federal government reserved enough water necessary to make the reservations livable. 

Reservations for tribes culturally affiliated with the forests were created by executive orders. 

Several water resources are located on and across the forests that are connected to tribal water 

rights. The San Carlos Apache Nation has existing senior water rights to the Salt River Basin that 

includes the Salt, Gila, and Black Rivers. The Pueblo of Zuni has existing surface and 

underground water rights to the Little Colorado River. The Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe claim 

water rights to the Little Colorado River. Their water rights would be determined by the Little 

Colorado River Adjudication negotiation settlement. The Little Colorado River Adjudication 

involves the Lower and Upper Little Colorado River and Silver Creek. The San Carlos Apache 

Tribe and Tonto Apache Tribe claim water rights to the Gila River tributaries which have not been 

resolved. 

Water quality and rights are under the legal jurisdiction of the State of Arizona. Forest 

management has not impacted tribal water rights. Additional information on water use trends and 

water rights can be found in the “Water” section.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs consult with nine different tribal governments and one chapter of the 

Navajo Nation that have a cultural affiliation to the area (see the “Cultural Resources” section). 

At present, tribes have not identified concerns or issues that the proposed plan and alternatives 

would result in adverse impacts to known and unidentified TCPs and sacred sites or the use of 

those locations. The tribes have expressed interest on the affects to wildlife (eagles), effects of 

land adjustments and mining, and the need to prevent additional adverse impacts from activities 

to TCPs and sacred sites. Some tribes may not reveal specific locations of traditional use of 

sacred sites to nonpractitioners because of cultural restrictions and/or religious beliefs unless that 

location is at risk of being adversely impacted by project activities. Government-to-government 

consultation about projects and activities would continue between the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and 

the tribes. If tribal consultation results in identification of additional, currently unknown, 

traditional uses and traditional cultural properties, impacts to those areas would be considered 

during project-specific environmental assessments.

Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites

The 1987 plan (alternative A) has not been amended to reflect the 1992 requirements and 

amendments to the NHPA. The 1992 amendment Section 101(d)(6) states that properties of 

traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register. It also states a Federal agency shall consult with any Indian 

tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to these properties. Also, the 1987 plan has 

not been amended to address the requirements of the Native American Graves Repatriation Act of 

1990 (NAGPRA), Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Order 13175 

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal governments nor the 2008 Farm Bill. In all of 

the action alternatives, the plan would incorporate the passage of these statues and issuance of 

executive orders.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

420 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Alternative A only specifies that the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would comply with the NHPA. 

NHPA requires that adverse impacts to eligible or listed cultural resources are resolved which 

usually results in the excavation and recovery of the significant and scientific information. Sacred 

sites inherently do not possess physical scientific information that can be resolved or recovered 

prior to being adversely impacted. Since the 1987 plan does not provide suitability standards and 

guidelines that address TCPs or sacred sites, TCPs and sacred sites have been adversely impacted 

over the life of the plan. Activities that limit or change the use and access of traditionally used 

resources, TCPs, or sacred sites would have adverse effects by altering or removing a specific 

traditionally used resource or impacts the process and/or continuation of the ceremonial rite.

Actions that have or may alter or damage the physical integrity of a location, setting, or resource 

for traditional purposes include, but are not limited to: recreation improvements installed adjacent 

to a “shrine” that changes the setting and increases public visitation and vandalism (e.g., 

collecting artifact offerings, moving stones, constructed improvements); communication and 

lookout facilities constructed within the TCP s/sacred site that alters, damages or destroys the 

physically constructed features; creating visual and physical intrusions (i.e., communication 

tower) that alters, damages, or destroys the attributes of the place that are necessary for the 

traditional religious use or cultural purposes; recreation special use permits to allow uses of 

TCPs/sacred sites that may conflict with the traditional use (e.g., tribal members go to conduct a 

ceremony at the same time a permitted group of people and motorized vehicles are parked and 

using the TCP/sacred site, thus changing the setting and privacy necessary to conduct the 

ceremony); and constructing, rerouting or decommissioning trails (motorized and nonmotorized), 

roads and highways that alters, damages, or destroys the traditional access and use of 

TCPs/sacred sites. 

Motorized cross-country travel would be allowed across the forests except for areas where it is 

prohibited or not authorized (e.g., wilderness, wildlife quiet areas). This may result in adverse 

effects to TCPs/sacred sites in areas not restricted from motorized cross-country use. The 

associated sound and physical disturbance could alter, damage, or destroy the use of a TCP/sacred 

site. Unrestricted motorized access to remote TCPs/sacred sites would increase the potential for 

vandalism, including illegal excavation (looting), damage or destruction to standing architecture 

(shrines) or rock art, and collection of surface artifacts (offerings: beads, turquoise, pottery). 

Motorized use may remove vegetation that protects and covers the cultural materials. When 

cultural materials are exposed, the more decorative artifacts and collectable historic objects may 

disappear through illegal collecting. Nonmotorized trails that are constructed or converted from 

roads that are located on or adjacent to TCPs/sacred sites have the same potential to physically 

affect the use of TCPs/sacred sites by increasing the potential for vandalism and collecting 

offerings.

The action alternatives would result in less potential of adverse effects. Standards, guidelines, 

and suitability would provide direction that certain areas with TCPs or sacred sites are not 

suitable for new infrastructure (e.g., permanent roads, communications sites, powerlines) and 

recreation activities (e.g., nonmotorized travel, mechanized and motorized travel). This would 

increase the potential of the forests to meet the desired conditions for American Indian Rights and 

Interests by reducing the type of projects and activities that may adversely affect those resources 

in those locations and reduce the potential of causing additional impacts to TCPs and sacred sites. 

These alternatives would eliminate motorized cross-country travel. The potential to disturb 

TCPs/sacred sites would be reduced because fewer lands would be open to motor vehicle use, 

resulting in a beneficial effect to TCPs/sacred sites. The adverse effects (see above) to remote 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 421

TCPs/sacred sites from motorized cross-country travel would be reduced and, in some areas, 

stopped. The management direction in the action alternatives for suitable and unsuitable uses in 

areas with TCPs/sacred sites would not completely eliminate the potential effect to TCPs/sacred 

sites. If a future proposed project specific action was located in an unsuitable area or is an 

unsuitable activity, the forest plan could be amended at the time of the analysis and a decision to 

authorize that project action could occur. 

Alternative D would recommend the most acres for wilderness. This alternative would provide 

the most potential to benefit TCPs and sacred sites. Protection of wilderness values indirectly 

protects use of TCPs/sacred sites by eliminating certain management activities that have the 

potential to adversely affect them (e.g., mechanized treatments and uses, construction of roads 

and facilities). Mount Baldy and Escudilla Mountain are both in designated wilderness areas. 

Alternatives B and C would have the next highest potential to benefit TCPs/sacred sites because 

areas recommended for wilderness in both of these alternatives contain TCPs that could also be 

sacred sites. Managing these areas for wilderness values would have the highest potential to 

protect these resources and keep them generally free from adverse effects. Alternative A would 

not recommend additional wilderness.

Tribal Rights

The proposed treatments in all alternatives would provide for sustainability and improvement of 

wildlife habitat. The alternatives are not expected to reduce or limit the long-term availability and 

use of traditionally used wildlife. The tribes have not identified any concerns that the proposed 

treatments would affect their access and use of traditionally used forest products and minerals. 

The alternatives do not propose treatments that would reduce surface waters or pumping of 

groundwater. Special use permits that would affect surface waters and pumping of groundwater

that could affect tribal water rights would be analyzed at the project level prior to a decision.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area consists of lands that include American Indian TCPs and 

sacred sites within the State of Arizona that are associated with tribes culturally affiliated with the 

lands of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Tribes view TCPs and sacred sites that are part of their traditions as interconnected 

places/features of the religious and traditional landscape. Effects to these places or features may 

directly or indirectly affect the access and use by the tribes to conduct ceremonial and/or 

traditional practices of other sacred sites or TCPs that are part of their traditions. Current and 

previous Forest Service management activities, public resource procurement and recreation use, 

and natural processes have impacted TCPs and sacred sites. At present, there are several known 

activities, projects, or planned projects and/or plans located on lands that have or would adversely 

affect TCPs and sacred sites.

Recently, the Coconino NF has approved snow making and the expansion of the infrastructure of 

the existing Snowbowl Ski Area. This action has been determined to have a significant adverse 

effect to the San Francisco Peaks as a TCP and a sacred site. Congress is considering a land 

exchange proposal to transfer lands on the Tonto NF that includes Oak Flat, Gaan Canyon, and 

Apache Leap to Resolution Copper Company. The Tonto NF has also recently approved 

exploratory mining in these areas. Oak Flat, Gaan Canyon, and Apache Leap are sacred sites of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

422 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

the Western Apache. A land exchange would have an adverse effect to these sacred sites. The San 

Carlos Apache are opposed to the exploratory drilling. The Apache have stated that mining in 

these locations would have an adverse effect to these places. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is 

considering a proposed action to sell a tract of land that includes a TCP associated with the Zuni 

and Hopi. The specific location has been recently identified by the White Mountain Apache as a 

sacred place. Existing permitted activities or facilities that are located on TCPs and or sacred sites 

on the national forests within Arizona are expected to continue.

The Hopi Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni have verbally stated to the ApacheSitgreaves NFs during consultation meetings and through letters to the Secretary of Agriculture 

that the Forest Service is incrementally damaging or destroying TCPs and sacred sites that are 

important and vital to maintain the physical and spiritual survival of the tribes. Sacred sites are 

interconnected and are part of the spiritual and traditional landscape. Although alternative A and 

the action alternatives are not expected to have a cumulative adverse impact to American Rights 

and Interests, potential mining activities, congressional actions, and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

authorized land adjustments could have the potential to contribute to cumulative adverse effects. 

Forest Products

This section provides an estimate of lands suitable for timber production, cutting levels in relation 

to long-term sustained yield capacity (LTSYC), and allowable sale quantity (ASQ) volume for the 

next 5 decades. The wood products volumes that could be removed from lands both suitable and 

not suitable for timber production are estimated. It also examines how the plan alternatives 

contribute to local communities through the availability of wood and tree products. The full 

analysis, including all assumptions and methodology, for this resource can be found in the “Forest 

Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012j) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The wood products that could be removed from ponderosa pine, dry and wet mixed conifer, and 

spruce-fir forests; piñon-juniper woodland; and Great Basin grassland potential natural vegetation 

(PNVTs) are considered.

In the analysis for this resource, key assumptions and methodology include:

• Wood products volumes potentially available from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are 

byproducts of restoration treatments that will move vegetation toward desired conditions. 

Management of all PNVTs would be needed to meet desired conditions.

• The 1987 plan mapped forest and woodlands using an outdated cover type classification, 

based on the visibly dominant tree or plant species at the time of mapping. This updated 

analysis uses PNVTs, which may not be the currently dominant vegetation. For example, 

what appears to be wet mixed conifer forest (infrequent fire type) may actually be dry 

mixed conifer (frequent fire type) where shade-tolerant species have become established 

in the absence of frequent fires.

• Volume estimates were derived from the vegetation modeling (VDDT model). See 

“Vegetation” section and appendix B for information about the VDDT model and 

PNVTs. Volume estimates for fire-killed trees are not provided by the model.

• Appropriate cutting methods and other treatment types will vary by site-specific 

objectives and existing condition. Decisions about treatment methods will be made at the 

project level.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 423

• Markets will exist for all cut materials. At least 5 percent of cut materials may remain on 

the ground as broken logs, limbs, and/or debris left for soil stability, productivity, and 

wildlife needs. About 95 percent of the cut materials would be offered for removal from 

the site.

• Increasing public and small market demands for firewood and small salvage sales of 

sawlogs, posts, poles, novelty woods, and/or pulp volumes will be similar under all 

alternatives.

• Christmas trees, wildings, seed cones, novelty woods, and other tree products will be 

available to meet public demand. Amounts will be the same under all alternatives.

• Prescribed fire (planned ignition) as a silvicultural tool will only be used in accordance 

with prescriptions from a burn plan designed to meet land management plan desired 

conditions.

• Low severity fire (both planned and unplanned ignitions) on suitable timberlands will be 

used to reduce ground fuels and remove slash, and it would be used to maintain or move 

toward desired conditions (i.e., the age class distributions desired for uneven-aged 

structure, regulated forest, and sustained volume yields).

• The use of fire (e.g., moderate and high severity burns, planned and unplanned ignitions) 

as a thinning tool on suitable timberlands may occur when necessary to meet resource 

objectives. Moderate and/or high severity fire may not achieve the age class distributions 

desired for uneven-aged structure, regulated forest, and sustained volume yields.

• At this time, no suitable timberland acres burned in the 2011 Wallow Fire are expected to 

require reclassification as nonsuitable due to permanently reduced soil site productivity. 

• Currently deforested acres would not need thinning during this planning period.

Affected Environment

Past forest growth and mortality, previous management, and disturbance patterns have produced 

the current forest tree species composition, sizes, densities, and conditions, which affect the 

species and volumes of wood and other tree products available for cutting treatments now and in 

the future.

Across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the annual gross forest growth and net forest growth (gross 

growth minus mortality) have far exceeded cutting levels. The annual gross growth in ApacheSitgreaves NFs ponderosa pine forests has been as much as 12 times the annual mortality 

(excluding mortality from uncharacteristic wildfire); Douglas-fir stands have seen growth at least 

8 times mortality (Rogers, 2003). The total of mortality and cutting levels is far below gross 

growth rates for trees inventoried in Arizona national forests (O’Brien, 2002). In other words, 

cutting rates have been far less than net growth rates.

In the past 30 years, an average of 720 cubic feet (CF) of volume per acre has been added as 

surplus net growth, in addition to the desired sustainable volume. This surplus needs to be 

removed each entry to maintain desired conditions. Youtz and Vandendriesche (2012) suggests 

that a return cutting entry of 30 years is needed on average using the group selection system for 

uneven-aged management to maintain a regulated sustainable forest that meets desired conditions. 

Every 3 decades that pass without treatment, a backlog of overgrowth continues to be added. On 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, several acres of suitable forest land have not been thinned in over 40 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

424 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

years, leaving a current surplus of over 1,000 CF on some acres. Acres which have this backlog 

suffer from conditions which contribute to the departure from desired conditions. These areas are 

at risk of stand mortality due to weakened tree vigor, disease intensification and spread, epidemic 

insect attacks, and/or uncharacteristic wildfire.

Normal disturbance regimes which used to act as natural thinning agents have been altered 

(primarily characteristic wildfire), giving rise to overgrown conditions. Abnormal disturbances 

(like uncharacteristic wildfire and unprecedented insect/disease outbreaks) have produced 

undesirable stand-replacement conditions across large areas (Forest Service, 2008a; Lynch et al., 

2010). Noticeable (nonfire) losses of large/old trees have been seen recently in all forested 

PNVTs, especially due to competition in overgrown stands. Overgrowth reduces individual tree 

growth, vigor, and the ability to endure bark beetle attacks and drought years (Covington et al. 

1997; Friederici, 2003).

Two very different existing condition categories now occur across the forested PNVTs of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (see table 144 below):

• Forested/Overgrown – Approximately 71 percent of the current forested PNVTs have 

tree stocking and growth levels which require some degree of tree thinning to restore 

and/or maintain desired conditions. Without additional severe disturbances accelerating 

immediate and complete tree mortality, these areas can contribute industrial cutting 

volumes in the first decade and beyond. 

• Deforested/Early Development – Conversely, an average of 29 percent of the current 

forested PNVT vegetation structural states are now temporarily in deforested states (22 

percent) or early developmental states (7 percent) that require reforestation and growth 

for restoration to desired conditions. This condition is primarily attributed to the 2011 

Wallow Fire, the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire, and other fires that caused tree mortality 

that exceeded or eliminated net growth. These areas cannot provide industrial cutting 

volumes in the next one to three decades.

Table 144. Acres and percent by forested PNVT in forested/overgrown or deforested/early 

development condition

Forested

PNVT

Forested/

Overgrown Acres

(Percent)

Deforested/

Early Development Acres

(Percent)

Ponderosa Pine 475,743

(79%)

126,463

(21%)

Dry Mixed 

Conifer

100,562

(68%)

47,323

(32%)

Wet Mixed 

Conifer

89,005

(50%)

88,998

(50%)

Spruce-Fir 8,127

(46%)

9,540

(54%)

Total 673,437

(71%)

272,316

(29%)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 425

On the forested/overgrown lands, net growth is expected to outpace natural (nonfire) mortality, 

such that regular thinning (prescribed cutting and/or burning) will be necessary to reduce 

overgrowth, develop desired uneven-aged forest structure, and/or to prevent growth stagnation 

and movement away from desired conditions. Where moderate-severity fire has occurred on these 

lands, natural mortality levels are expected to continue to remain high for approximately the next 

6 years, due to fire related tree stress, sudden exposure to weather extremes, weakened roots, 

greater exposure to lightning and/or prevailing winds, and greater susceptibility to insect/disease 

attack. Once surviving trees have stabilized, they are expected to again need thinning for 

maintenance of desired forested conditions.

The deforested lands (approximately 203,378 acres) can be further divided into three categories:

• Lands which can be expected to successfully regenerate native tree species naturally 

(estimated at approximately 54 percent or 110,629 acres) at low management cost. This is 

approximately 12 percent of all forested PNVTs. 

• Lands which would need tree planting to restore forest cover (estimated at approximately 

19 percent or 37,695 acres) at high management cost. This is approximately 4 percent of 

all forested PNVTs.

• Lands that are likely to undergo site conversions to long-term grass/forb/shrub/rock cover 

rather than return to tree cover (estimated at approximately 27 percent or 55,054 acres) at 

the expense of lost forest/timber production acres (Roccaforte et al., 2012; ERI, 2011, 

Savage and Mast, 2005; Alexander, 1974; Jones, 1974). This is approximately 6 percent 

of all forested PNVTs. Tree planting can help mitigate this condition by accelerating 

post-fire succession back to tree cover.

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production

Timber production is defined as the purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of 

regulated crops of trees for cutting into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or 

consumer use. Timber production does not include firewood or products harvested from 

unsuitable lands. 

Lands are identified as suitable or not suitable for timber production (suitable and nonsuitable 

timberlands) during the plan revision process. Appendix B details the steps used in the suitability 

determination. The first step of the suitability determination is to identify those lands that are 

tentatively suitable for timber production.

Table 145 displays the criteria used to identify lands as tentatively suitable timberlands. The 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have approximately 808,000 acres considered tentatively suitable. 

Suitable timberland does not dictate tree cutting. It means that all cutting treatments done on 

suitable lands would be limited by the ASQ volume (see following section on “Allowable Sale 

Quantity”). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

426 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 145. Criteria used to determine tentatively suitable timberlands in all alternatives

Criteria Acres Total Acres

TOTAL Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 2,110,196

Non-NFS Land 94,844

Total NFS Lands 2,015,352

Nonforest Lands 1,039,258

Areas not defined as forest land1 4,250

Quarry, urban/agriculture, water

Grasslands 344,033

Great Basin, montane/subalpine, semi-desert

Woodlands 617,094

Madrean pine-oak, piñon-juniper

Interior chaparral 55,981

Wetland/cienega 17,900

Forested lands withdrawn from timber production2 87,190

Designated Wilderness 20,628

Bear Wallow, Escudilla, Mount Baldy

Blue Range Primitive Area 43,258

Research Natural Area 219

Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river corridors or areas classified as wild 23,085

Irreversible resource damage likely 23,952

Unsuited/unstable soils (sensitive and unstable) 23,952

Inadequate restocking 56,584

Low reforestation potential based on soil properties 56,584

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 808,3683

1 Forest land is defined as having greater that 10 percent overstory canopy cover at stand maturity.

2 Some categories overlap areas already withdrawn in nonforest lands.

3 The tentatively suitable lands in alternative A equal 807,289 acres. There are more acres in research natural 

area (1,882 acres).

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ)

The allowable sale quantity volume control concept enacted by law (National Forest Management 

Act of 1976) was intended to prevent excessive tree losses due to overcutting beyond sustainable 

forest levels on suitable timberlands. The ASQ is the quantity of timber that may be sold from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 427

suitable timberland within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for a time period specified by the plan. 

ASQ volume is expressed as the average annual allowable sale quantity. For timber resource 

planning purposes, the allowable sale quantity applies to each decade during the planning horizon 

period and includes only chargeable volume32. ASQ volume does not include firewood or other 

nonindustrial wood.

ASQ volume estimates only include chargeable volumes of industrial wood33. The ASQ 

calculation includes estimated green tree cutting volumes from the VDDT model which vary by 

alternative; extra small sales and permits sold for live and/or dead poles; and miscellaneous 

salvage timber. Small sales, permits, and miscellaneous salvage are considered to be a constant 

addition across all alternatives.

ASQ volume and a timber base sale schedule were published with the 1987 plan. They were 

specific and prescriptive. The original ASQ volume of 119 million board feet (MMBF) was 

subsequently reduced to an interim ASQ of 99 MMBF (198,000 CCF34) of sawtimber per year 

through forest plan amendment one. The ASQ volume for alternative A, the no action alternative, 

has been recalculated in this analysis for consistency across all alternatives and is based on 

current vegetation conditions.

Ongoing monitoring would evaluate cutting levels compared to the ASQ. The suitable timberland 

classification would be updated as conditions change.

Long-Term Sustained-Yield Capacity (LTSYC)

Long-term sustained yield (LTSY) is the calculated annual volume of wood per acre that can be 

harvested from suitable timberlands, which does not exceed annual net growth volume per acre 

after desired conditions have been met for multiple resource objectives. A weighted average 

LTSY has been calculated as 24 cubic feet (CF) per acre per year for all Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

forested PNVTs in suitable timberlands based on current and regional data (Youtz and 

Vandendriesche, 2012). This is slightly higher than the 20 CF per acre per year capacity identified 

in the 1987 plan. 

LTSY multiplied by the total suitable timberland acreage derives the long-term sustained-yield 

capacity (LTSYC). This concept is one means of measuring forest sustainability, consistent with 

ecological desired conditions (see “Appendix B Timber Calculations”). Ideally, ASQ volume 

should equal or fall just short of the LTSYC once desired conditions are met. After desired 

conditions are achieved, management on suitable timberlands would need to be consistent with 

the LTSYC level (no cutting departure above the LTSYC); annual cutting levels would not exceed 

annual net growth rates. On suitable timberland acres, the LTSYC is a way to further incorporate 

the social and economic desired condition of providing a long-term, dependable source of wood 

products, while maintaining desired multiple-use objectives.

 32 Chargeable volume of industrial wood is from tree species that are saleable as sawtimber logs, pulpwood bolts, poles, 

or other roundwood sections (excluding firewood) based on regional utilization standards and cut from suitable 

timberlands.

33 Industrial timber species (5 inches diameter and greater) include ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, southwestern 

white pine, blue spruce, Engelmann spruce, and corkbark fir.

34 CCF = 100 cubic feet.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

428 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

To comply with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and Multiple Use-Sustained Yield 

Act (MUSYA), long-term sustained yield also means that ASQ volumes harvested from suitable 

timberlands cannot decline from one decade to the next. More explanation of nondeclining ASQ 

can be found in Appendix B. 

Wood and Tree Products Availability

Wood products can be provided from both suitable and nonsuitable timberlands. The most 

common wood products (e.g., industrial35 and nonindustrial36, live and dead wood) on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs include sales and permits for:

• Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, white fir, blue spruce, Engelmann 

spruce, and corkbark fir

○ Sawtimber and house logs (9 inches or greater diameter)

○ Pulpwood or roundwood (5 to 8.9 inch diameter)

○ Poles, posts, vigas, latillas, rails

○ Laminated beams

○ Paneling and trim moulding

○ Firewood

○ Biomass (chips)

○ Furniture

• Piñon pine and all juniper species

○ Poles, posts, vigas, latillas, rails

○ Firewood

○ Biomass

○ Furniture and novelty wood

• Aspen, Gambel-oak, and other oak species

○ Firewood

○ Furniture and novelty wood

○ Poles, posts, rails

○ Interior paneling

○ Evaporative cooler pad excelsior

○ Livestock bedding

 35 The less than 5-inch diameter size materials, including tops and limbs from timber species may be 

utilized as non-ASQ biomass. 36 Nonindustrial (non-ASQ) species include aspen, junipers, piñon pines, Chihuahua pine, oaks, and any 

industrial species cut from nonsuitable timberlands. Wood cut as nonindustrial may be used as firewood

and/or biomass.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 429

Christmas trees, live seedling/wilding transplants, green seed cones for nurseries, green boughs 

for holiday decorations and wreaths, and piñon nuts have also been available.

Within the life of the 1987 plan, annual harvest volumes have varied from 5,000 to 100,000 board 

feet (MBF) with annual treatment acreages ranging from 2,500 to 30,000 with an average of 

9,400 acres (Forest Service, 2008a). Annual acreages treated under the White Mountain 

Stewardship project (2004 to present) are slightly more than this average at approximately 12,000 

acres.

With the implementation of the 1987 plan, vegetation management on forested lands emphasized 

even-aged cutting methods: seed cuts, final overstory removals, intermediate thinnings, and a few 

clearcuts/seedling plantations. Sanitation/salvage cuts have also been used. Most vegetation 

management was accomplished through timber sales that focused on cutting trees over 9 inches in

diameter (or over 12 inch diameter in some cases). Multiproduct sales (sales which offer both 

sawtimber and pulp sizes) targeted trees in the 5- to 9-inch class as well as larger trees, but the 

lack of markets for the smaller size resulted in many projects not being completed.

When the 1987 plan was amended in 1996 to address Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, 

and old growth, it initiated direction to emphasize uneven-aged cutting methods (e.g., group 

selection, individual tree selection). But implementation was met with varying degrees of success, 

due to various factors. Only thinning of marketable size trees (usually 9 inch diameter and larger) 

was successfully implemented. Thus many acres became further overgrown with trees under 9 

inches in diameter which can act as understory ladder fuels.

Uncharacteristic wildfires in the early 2000s highlighted the need for fuels reduction projects. 

Treatment of all vegetation types, regardless of timberland suitability, became a priority near 

communities, private lands, and developed recreation areas. The treatment emphasis on removing 

understory ladder fuels led to the use of a diameter cap (an upper cutting size limit) as the way to 

focus on removing the overabundant, small diameter trees.

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 fostered the development of community wildfire 

protection plans that incorporated programmatic and widespread use of diameter caps (limiting 

cuts to smaller diameter trees) (Logan Simpson Design, 2004, 2004a, 2005) across the forests. 

Meanwhile, the Stewardship End Result Contracting Projects statute (16 U.S.C 2104) opened a 

new era of cutting small trees to reduce wildfire hazards under 10-year long stewardship service 

contracts. On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, this meant that most wood volume was no longer 

removed through timber sales. Service contractors are being paid under the White Mountain 

Stewardship Project to remove wood volume; a strategy used to reduce fuels near communities 

until local small tree markets are established and small tree wood values offset treatment costs.

Even-aged cutting methods and diameter caps have resulted in a longer timeframe to produce 

uneven-aged forests and woodlands. In areas where even-aged management or removal of small 

diameter trees have occurred, the next treatment (cutting entry) may be limited to large trees (16 

inch and greater diameter) (Triepke et al., 2011). The effects of stand-replacement fire result in 

essentially even-aged regeneration areas for at least 60 years after new tree establishment. In all 

cases, subsequent entries could provide variable harvest volumes and product types, while 

conversion from even-aged to uneven-aged structure proceeds over time.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

430 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

All alternatives would propose various mixtures of three basic vegetation treatments during the 

planning period to move toward desired conditions. These include:

• Tree cutting on some forested/overgrown areas, followed by low severity fire to reduce 

ground fuels;

• Moderate and/or high severity burning to thin other forested/overgrown areas and reduce 

ground fuels;

• Tree planting on some deforested areas.

All three forms of treatment indirectly impact the amount and availability of sustainable wood 

products. The number of total annual cutting and burning treatment acreages by alternative 

(regardless of timber suitability classification) were analyzed in table 146 below. 

Table 146. Annual cutting and burning treatment acres for all PNVTs, suitable and 

nonsuitable timberlands, by alternative

Alt.

High Treatment Acres Low Treatment Acres Average 

Treatment Acres

Cutting

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Cutting

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Cutting

Treatment

Burning 

Treatment

Total 

Cutting

and 

Burning

A — — — — 12,182 6,844 19,026

B 30,327 43,771 8,852 14,087 19,591 28,930 48,521

C 42,651 22,586 5,342 3,124 23,997 12,857 36,854

D 25,440 78,772 6,465 19,079 15,954 48,927 64,881

Suitable Timberlands

Timberland suitability was determined for each alternative. The original 1987 plan suitability 

classification did not clearly follow the same criteria and classification as outlined below. For a 

basis of comparison across all alternatives, alternative A was recalculated using the same process 

as the action alternatives. The suitability criteria can be found in chapter 4 of the proposed plan. 

In addition to these criteria, other considerations (e.g., timber production cost efficiency) were 

used to further eliminate acres from suitability classification. See appendix B for a more detailed 

description of the suitability determination.

Results of the suitability determinations are provided in the following table. Alternative A would 

have the most acres suitable for timber production, followed by alternative C and then B. 

Alternative D would have no suitable acres due to the design and objectives of this alternative 

(e.g., primarily fire treatments, high acreage recommended for wilderness designation).

Suitable timberland maps for alternatives A, B, and C are shown below. Alternative D would 

have no suitable timberlands (see figures 68 through 73).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 431

Table 147. Lands suitable and not suitable for timber production by alternative

Classification Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

Lands Tentatively Suitable for 

Timber Production

807,289 808,368

Lands where Management Area 

Direction Precludes Timber 

Production

12,258 65,497 27,321 145,118

Lands where Management 

Objectives Limit Timber Harvest

30,159 76,537 91,067 663,250

Lands that are Not Economically 

Cost Efficient

0 69,590 85,234 NA

Lands Not Appropriate for 

Timber Production

42,417 211,624 203,622 808,368

Lands Suitable for Timber 

Production

764,872 596,744 604,746 0

Lands Not Suitable for Timber 

Production

1,250,480 1,418,608 1,410,606 2,015,352

Alternative A would provide the most acres of suitable timberlands; while alternative C would 

provide slightly more acres of suitable timberlands than alternative B. Steep slopes (over 40 

percent) were included in the 1987 plan (alternative A) as suitable timberlands for cable harvest. 

Alternatives B and C would not include any steep slopes because these areas are not 

economically feasible to harvest. Spruce-fir forest was classified as nonsuitable because the 

majority of it is located in withdrawn lands, not cost efficient, and/or is located in MSO protected 

habitat as defined in the current MSO recovery plan (USFWS, 1995).

Alternative A would have the most acres managed for long-term sustained yield of wood 

products. Alternatives C and B would have fewer acres managed for long-term sustained yield 

of wood products. 

In alternatives A, B, and C, use of moderate and/or high severity fire for tree thinning and 

density reduction, especially across large areas of suitable timberland, would increase the risk that 

those acres could not become regulated with the balanced and sustainable progression of age 

classes needed to ensure nondeclining even-flow37 of future harvest volumes.

Alternative D would have no suitable timber acres because fire would be relied upon as a 

primary tool to thin the majority of acres. After the few mechanical acres are cut, they would be 

maintained thereafter by using fire. This alternative would not provide a sustained yield of 

harvest volumes on a regulated, non-declining even-flow basis for the long term. This does not 

mean that no volume would be available to supply markets. It only means that industrial volumes 

of traditional sawtimber and pulpwood would not be ensured for long-term sustained yield. See 

the “Total Wood Products” section below. In addition, alternative D allocates the most land to the 

Recommended Wilderness Management Area which precludes timber harvest.

 37 Nondeclining even flow is a policy governing the volume of timber removed from a national forest, which states that 

the volume planned for removal in each succeeding decade will equal or exceed that volume planned for removal in the 

previous decade.
432

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 68. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 433

Figure 69. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative A – Apache NF
434

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 70. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 435

Figure 71. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative B – Apache NF
4

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

36 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 72. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 437

Figure 73. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative C – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

438 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) 

ASQ is expressed as an annual average of industrial wood cutting volumes from suitable 

timberlands to meet multiple-resource objectives. Table 148 displays the ASQ volume estimates 

for the first decade needed to implement restoration treatments and to meet public demand for 

sawtimber, pulp, and pole sales.

Table 148. ASQ volume from suitable timberlands for the first decade (rounded to nearest 

thousand)

Cutting Treatment 

Objective Level

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Average High Low High Low High Low

Annual Range of ASQ, 

in CCF

NA 122,000 26,000 268,000 39,000 0 0

Annual Average ASQ, 

in CCF

73,000 74,000 153,000 0

Alternatives A, B, and C would have different ASQs because they were based on the expected 

level of cutting treatments on suitable timberlands (table 149). It is likely in some years that acres 

cut would not reach the high treatment objective level, but could fluctuate between the range of 

low to high levels. Alternative D would have no ASQ volume because there are no suitable 

timberlands. 

ASQ volume for alternative B would be 122,000 CCF per year, as the maximum allowable sale 

quantity from suitable timberlands. Under alternative C, it would be 268,000 CCF maximum for 

any given year. For comparison, the highest total harvest in recent years occurred in 2011 and was 

approximately 103,000 CCF.

Consequences of implementing the alternatives are that alternative C would offer the most ASQ 

volume of traditional sawtimber and pulpwood offerings for sale to the markets that may desire 

these products. 

Alternative A would offer less ASQ volume than alternatives B and C because it does not have 

a high treatment objective. This amount or some higher amount could become the replacement 

ASQ for the 1987 plan if there had been no other needs for change to revise the plan (see chapter 

1).

Suitable timberland acres are capable of producing greater annual harvest volumes than those 

shown in the above table. However, use of fire under alternatives A, B, and C would reduce 

available green harvest volumes because varied amounts of moderate and/or high severity fire

would be used to intentionally thin the forests.

Alternative B would reduce the most green volume because it proposes using more moderate 

and/or high severity fire to thin trees on forested lands during the planning period, including some 

suitable timberlands. Alternative C would use less moderate and/or high severity fire on suitable 

lands to thin trees, resulting in more green volume available for cutting and industrial wood. 

Alternative A would reduce the least green volume, because it uses the least moderate and/or 

high severity fire.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 439

Trees intentionally killed by fire treatments may or may not be salvaged. Salvage of such trees 

would require removal within approximately 3 to 4 years post-burn, before wood borers and other 

decay agents reduce their amount of solid wood fiber and market utility. Under all alternatives, 

unanticipated large-scale salvage volume (e.g., wildfire kill, blow down, insect/disease mortality) 

does not count toward the ASQ per the National Forest Management Act.

Long-Term Sustained-Yield Capacity

The LTSY level of 24 CF per acre per year becomes a baseline for comparison of estimated wood 

product outputs (volumes) by alternative. The LTSYC for alternative A is approximately 184,000 

CCF, alternative B is 143,000 CCF, and alternative C is 145,000 CCF. See table 149 below.

Under all alternatives, except alternative D, planned, scheduled entries of tree cutting on 

suitable timberlands would be necessary to move the forests toward an uneven-aged (regulated) 

balance of age classes and then to maintain the desired condition.

Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity in 

Relation to Estimated Industrial Harvest Volumes

As each alternative has different amounts of suitable timberlands, the LTSYC varies accordingly. 

Table 149 displays the annual ASQ volumes based on the high cutting treatment level for decades 

1 to 5, compared to the LTSYC for each alternative.

Table 149. Estimated annual ASQ volume by decade by alternative (volumes rounded to 

the nearest thousand)

Annual High1

Cutting 

Treatment 

Volumes in CCF

Alternative A

Annually Cuts

10,041 acres2 of 

764,872 acres of 

Suitable 

Timberland

LTSYC = 

184,000

Alternative B

Annually Cuts

14,037 acres of 

596,743 acres of 

Suitable 

Timberland

LTSYC = 143,000

Alternative C

Annually Cuts

31,893 acres of 

604,746 acres of 

Suitable 

Timberland

LTSYC = 

145,000

Alternative D

Annually Cuts

only on 

Nonsuitable 

Timberland

LTSYC = 0

ASQ Decade 1 73,000 122,000 268,000 0

ASQ Decade 2 73,000 122,000 202,000 0

ASQ Decade 3 73,000 123,000 183,000 0

ASQ Decade 4 73,000 125,000 178,000 0

ASQ Decade 5 73,000 126,000 178,000 0

1 Alternative A only has an average.

2 Acres are based on the estimated cutting treatments modeled for ponderosa pine and dry and wet mixed conifer 

forests on suitable lands only.

As seen above, when cut at the highest treatment objective levels modeled, alternatives A and 

B’s volumes would not decline and would remain below the LTSYC. By cutting at a relatively 

level trend across all 5 decades, alternative A would fail to reduce any backlog of overgrowth by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

440 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

just barely keeping up with new growth each decade. Alternative B would make more progress 

than alternative A, but still would not reach the LTSYC by decade 5.

In contrast, the high objective ASQ volumes for alternative C would decline while exceeding the 

LTSYC in a departure situation. Alternative C would reduce the most amount of overgrowth 

backlog in the first 3 decades, and it would continue to remove more backlog in decade 4 until it 

levels off at decade 5.

Any departure (exceedance) level of cutting above the LTSYC such as seen in alternative C, 

especially in the early planning decades, is justifiable because:

• Current age class distributions are skewed and do not represent desired conditions. Many 

acres are even-aged. Some age classes are missing. Much of the forests have too many 

small to medium diameter trees that act as ladder fuels and compete with larger trees.

• High tree mortality could continue to occur because of uncharacteristic wildfires, 

abnormal insect outbreaks, elevated disease levels, new disease arrivals, and accelerated 

tree stress and deaths from competition.

• Several small tree-based industries have developed to utilize saplings and smaller 

diameter trees. New jobs have been created or have returned to Apache and Navajo 

Counties. Since 2009, rising market demands have allowed local operators to treat all 

acres offered, almost as fast as the forests can make them available. Limiting the ability 

to cut surplus tree volume growth above the LTSYC level could have some degree of 

adverse impact on local communities.

• Multiple resource objectives would be best met by balancing forest wood volume growth 

rates with removal of forest wood volumes. This would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic 

wildfires and other extreme or long-lasting disturbances. Those uncharacteristic events do 

not contribute to the desired conditions of restoring ecosystems to benefit watershed/soils 

stability, riparian habitats and aquatic organisms, wildlife and fish habitats, ground 

vegetation and herbaceous cover, range production, water and oxygen cycles, and 

recreation opportunities, as well as economics and the human environment.

In a regulated (sustainable) forest, annual cut equals annual net growth, such that the forest never 

becomes overgrown or stagnant. Alternatives A and B, because they produce harvest volumes 

below the LTSYC, would continue to result in overgrown forests that would be more susceptible 

to uncharacteristic disturbances (e.g., severe wildfire, insect/disease outbreaks). These undesired 

events could result in additional deforested acreages. Alternative C, because it produces volumes 

above the LTSYC, would contribute to the reduction in overgrowth and offer a better opportunity 

to maintain forest lands at a sustainable level for at least the first 4 decades.

Nondeclining even flow of harvest volume from one decade to the next is not expected for 

alternative C until desired conditions are met. By the 5th decade, none of the alternatives

would actually treat enough acres fast enough to fully reach desired conditions within the first 5

decades because the alternatives were realistically designed to reflect anticipated budgets and 

workforce capabilities. Because volumes were not modeled beyond the 5th decade, it is not 

possible to predict when their ASQ volumes might most closely meet the LTSYC. 

Because alternatives A and B undercut noticeably below the LTSYC, they would remain 

threatened by high mortality losses to uncharacteristic disturbance events. At some point 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 441

alternative C would need to align with the LTSYC (i.e., regulated forest) to prevent overcutting. 

VDDT modeling indicates that after 50 years of treatments the forested PNVTs would not fully 

reach desired vegetation conditions. Review of all VDDT model run vegetation outcomes and 

trends indicate that changes in management strategy would likely be needed following the 

planning period for any alternative (see the “Vegetation” section and “Vegetation Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2012x)).

For example, unlike alternatives A and C, modeling indicates that alternative B’s restoration 

strategy would need to change after this planning period to steadily increase cutting treatments in 

decades 2 through 5 on closed canopy acres and shift to emphasizing low severity prescribed fire, 

in order to sustain a nondeclining even flow of ASQ volumes. It is assumed that continued 

restoration treatments on suitable timberlands toward desired conditions beyond decade 5 would 

eventually increase ASQ levels closer to the LTSYC.

Cuts under alternative D are not comparable because no suitable timberlands are present.

Total Wood Products

Trees cut from nonsuitable lands can also provide wood and tree products for local markets. The 

proposed plan (chapter 4) displays the criteria where tree cutting is an appropriate activity for 

meeting desired conditions, including lands not designated as suitable timberlands.

Cuts from nonsuitable lands may be a one-time entry, such as removing encroaching trees from 

grassland. Subsequent cuts may not be needed if desired conditions can be maintained with fire. 

PNVTs with stump resprouting species (e.g., alligator juniper, oak species) may need additional 

cuts (or other tree control methods) that would produce less wood volume than the first entry.

The number of total annual mechanical treatment (cutting) acres by alternative for all PNVTs 

(regardless of timber suitability classification) is displayed in table 146. Table 150 below 

compares estimated wood product volumes for the 1st decade of plan implementation by 

alternative.

Table 150. Estimated ranges of annual wood product volumes potentially available to offer 

in decade 1, by alternative from all NFS lands (suitable timberlands and non-suitable)

Product Class Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Treatment Acres Average High Low High Low High Low

Industrial Species1 (5 

inch d.b.h. and greater) 

in CCF

80,172 139,395 28,544 299,545 41,924 48,403 6,065

Firewood2 (nontimber 

conifer and hardwood 

species) in CCF

25,582 94,058 55,166 52,028 18,718 59,438 32,203

Biomass (non-industrial 

sizes and species) in 

Tons

or CONVERTED TO 

CCF3

348,124

or

99,464

585,799

or

167,371

142,184

or

40,624

1,324,767

or

378,505

141,881

or

40,537

246,798

or

70,514

66,026

or

18,865
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

442 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Product Class Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Treatment Acres Average High Low High Low High Low

TOTAL of ALL 

WOOD PRODUCTS, 

ALL (CCF)

205,218 400,824 124,334 730,078 101,179 178,355 57,133

Total of all wood 

products (CCF) based 

on average treatment 

acres

205,218 262,579 415,629 117,744

1 Industrial species for all alternatives include different live trees modeled for restoration cutting, plus volume sold in 

small sales and permits (miscellaneous live and dead wildfire salvage, road and recreation site hazard trees, pulp, and 

poles).

2 Firewood for all alternatives is different live trees modeled for restoration cutting plus permit sales for dead/down 

firewood and posts.

3 1 CCF = 3.5 tons. Source: R3 Measurements Specialist, based on R3 weight scale study conducted locally.

Alternative C would provide the highest average wood products volume for the 1st decade, 

followed by alternatives B, A, and D. However, the action alternatives would provide more 

average volume from nonsuitable timberlands in the 1st decade than alternative A.

Under all alternatives, if plan desired conditions are met and maintained by the cutting practices 

used, the nonsuitable timberland acres should provide long-term sustainable tree cover. However, 

these lands would not be subject to the ASQ volume or LTSYC controls.

Not included in the volume estimates are the dead tree volumes from moderate and/or high 

severity fire (both planned and unplanned ignitions). If salvage volumes of fire-killed trees were 

included, alternatives A, B, and D could approach alternative C for total wood products 

available for at least the first few decades. However, this fire salvage would have to be harvested 

within approximately 3 to 4 years post-burn before decay agents destroy its wood fiber integrity.

Alternative A would be reliant on tree cutting as the primary tool to thin the forest, with fire used 

mostly as a secondary, slash cleanup tool. This approach is slow and costly. Currently, it is 

uneconomical to move raw cut materials more than 70 miles. Raw wood values are so low that 

little cut volume is sold. Currently, the Forest Service pays local operators to cut and remove the 

volumes from the White Mountain Stewardship projects. Where it is uneconomical to move raw 

wood, a portion of the cut volume may be left and would be disposed of at additional cost to the 

government. As displayed in the previous table, alternative A would provide far less volume to 

support large, landscape-scale restoration efforts like the Four Forests Restoration Initiative 

(4FRI, see the cumulative effects section), than would the high and average treatment objective 

levels of alternatives C or B. Yet, alternative A would provide more volume if these two 

alternatives were to consistently be implemented at their low objective levels.

The action alternatives would rely on using fire as a primary tool to thin more of the forest (kill 

trees) than alternative A. Thus, in some burned areas, there may be less green wood and more 

dead and fire-charred wood available as a harvestable byproduct from these alternatives, provided 

enough woody material is left onsite for ecological needs such as soils stability, site productivity,

and wildlife habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 443

Alternative B would fall in between the cutting levels of alternatives C and D, due to the blend 

of treatment methods (see table 179 in appendix B) and acreages proposed. It employs a tree 

cutting and burning strategy that restores more acres faster toward desired conditions than 

alternative A. It would not reach a regulated supply of sustainable timber as fast as alternative 

C, but it would do so faster than alternative A and would be more sustainable than alternative 

D. Decreased suitable timberland acreage enables increased nonsuitable lands to be treated with 

the fire-only method, in order to reduce the high costs associated with mechanized thinning, so 

that more acres can be treated annually overall by alternative D.

Alternative C would emphasize a mix of more cutting treatments designed for optimum 

commercial timber species volume production (maximized growth and harvest) on suitable 

timber acres, such that it should produce more total wood volumes than the levels that would be 

harvested in the other alternatives. Alternative C’s high objective cutting level would produce 

the most total wood volume to support large, landscape-scale restoration efforts like 4FRI. 

However, in the 1st decade this alternative’s low objective cutting level would produce less total 

volume than either the high or low objective level of alternative B. This is because alternative C

is focused on treating mostly suitable timberlands, while alternative B spends the 1st decade 

focusing on restoring grasslands and other nonsuitable lands that can provide high volumes of 

non-ASQ wood products in addition to the ASQ volume.

Alternative D would provide the least wood volume for meeting social and economic desired 

conditions for local and regional markets and related jobs. It would produce the least wood 

product volumes, due to its emphasis on using fire as the primary treatment method, as well as a 

16-inch diameter cap imposed on these few acres that are mechanically thinned or cut. After one 

cutting entry, those mechanical acres would be maintained thereafter by regular intervals of 

planned and unplanned ignitions. Long-term consequences of continuing understory burning 

beneath an unthinned overstory may result in failure to meet desired conditions. An 

overabundance of large trees could eventually result with a generational gap that lacks younger 

trees to replace older trees over time (Triepke et al., 2011; Abella et al., 2006).

Likewise, no long-term supply of wood volume could continue to come from grassland acres 

once they are restored by cutting and maintained by fire thereafter (a one-time harvest entry). 

Alternatives B and D would rely more heavily on firewood and biomass cut from grasslands 

than alternative A. Alternative C would rely the least on firewood and biomass cut from 

grasslands and other nonsuitable timberlands.

Use of moderate and/or high severity fire combined with diameter caps as thinning tools used 

most heavily in alternatives D and A38 would not assure removal of undesired cone-producing 

species over 16 inches in diameter, thus perpetuating a species mix that is not well adapted to the 

site (Triepke et al., 2011). These two management methods are less certain to selectively leave the 

tree sizes, species, and arrangements desired for a truly sustainable uneven-aged structure and 

predictable wood volume production in more challenging climate conditions. Failure to restore all 

forests and woodlands to their desired species composition, size distribution, and spatial 

arrangement can make them more vulnerable to climate shifts or other uncharacteristic 

disturbances. Alternatives C and B would not use 16-inch diameter caps. Alternative A would 

 38 Alternative A (1987 plan) does not specify a 16-inch diameter cap. However, this diameter cap has been used as a 

treatment in recent and current vegetation management.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

444 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

use fewer diameter caps than alternative D. Therefore, alternatives C and B would provide

more control over tree species composition on mechanically treated acres. 

Under all alternatives, restoration and maintenance of green tree thinning could be reduced if 

large salvage sales of fire-killed trees dominate the forests’ workload for the next 10 years. This 

could elevate the risk of losing even more acres to uncharacteristic disturbances. Under all 

alternatives, too much emphasis on efforts to salvage dead trees would detract from treating the 

overgrowth backlog that still threatens remaining green forest acres.

Forested/Overgrown Lands

Under all alternatives, 71 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ forested PNVTs remaining in 

the forested/overgrown category, regardless of suitability classification, would still have an 

imbalance of annual net growth far outpacing cutting levels (Rogers, 2003). Table 151 displays 

the minimum number of years needed to treat all the forested/overgrown lands (approximately 

673,000 acres) just once. Cutting and burning treatments on suitable and nonsuitable timberland 

acres are included.

Table 151. Average years required to treat all forested/overgrown acres with one entry by 

alternative

Annual thinning treatment percentages in all alternatives would affect a minor amount (less than 

5 percent) of the forested PNVTs each year, with nature managing the rest. Without fire as a 

thinning tool, treatment rates for all alternatives would be far slower. Restoration rates could be 

too slow and costly without incorporating fire treatments, in addition to cutting, as a thinning tool 

to increase treated acres. Those untreated areas would still have trees that continue to grow and 

die, are affected by insects and diseases, and possibly burned or affected by other disturbance 

processes.

With less than 5 percent of lands treated annually, strategic placement on the landscape of those 

few treatments becomes far more important. In alternative B cutting would be prioritized in 

areas identified in community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) and priority watersheds which 

include large acreages of untreated pine and dry mixed conifer forests. These areas are located in 

Navajo and western Apache Counties nearer to rail lines and centralized markets, with a greater 

success of being implemented as wood product transportation costs increase. Alternative C

would emphasize treatments on suitable timberlands, the Community-Forest Intermix 

Management Area, and other lands that can contribute wood products. The suitable timberlands 

Alternative

Total Annual 

Thinning1

Treatments

(acres)

Percent of 

Forested/Overgrown 

Lands

Thinned Annually

Years Required to Thin 

All 

Forested/Overgrown 

Lands

A 16,182 2.4 42

B 20,037 3.0 34

C 30,220 4.5 23

D 28,914 4.3 24

1

Treatments include cutting and the use of fire but not planting.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 445

may or may not be near rail lines or centralized markets. Alternatives A and D would emphasize 

mechanical treatments around communities and in the Community-Forest Intermix Management 

Area (a subset of CWPPs), many of which have already been treated and now only require 

followup maintenance thinning that may produce less total wood volume in subsequent entries.

Alternative C would accomplish treatments the fastest at a rate 23 years to cover all acres in 

need of thinning, followed by alternatives D, B, and A, respectively. Alternatives A, B, and C

would all use a mix of cutting on some acres with burning on other acres. Alternatives C and D

treatment rates would permit more timely return entry intervals for required maintenance of 

restored desired conditions on the most acres.

In contrast, alternative D would accomplish treatments in just 24 years by using fire as the 

primary tree thinning tool on many treated acres in need of thinning. Moreover, all cuts done 

under alternative D exclusively use diameter caps for large tree retention emphasis, which will 

stall progress toward or move those acres away from many desired conditions (Triepke, 2011; 

Abella et al., 2006). This is not evident in the VDDT model results for alternative D because the 

benefits of fire on so many acres overshadow the negative cutting results.

For timeframes of thinning and burning return treatment cycles analyzed individually between 

suitable and nonsuitable timberlands, see the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service,

2012j).

Deforested/Early Development Lands

Once adequate quantities of green seed have been collected for each native tree species, then each 

alternative could begin planting activities on deforested lands. Cone collection may take about 3 

to 10 years, depending on each species, but it would be the same constant for all alternatives.

Alternative C would plant the most acres, especially on suitable timberlands in order to return 

them into timber production as soon as possible. This rate is at the extreme high end of current 

workforce capabilities. Alternative B would plant at a rate consistent with current workforce 

capability, and it would focus on reforesting more of a mix of both suitable and unsuitable lands 

for ecological recovery emphasis, including some Mexican spotted owl habitat. 

Alternative A would plant at the lower end of current workforce capacity, focusing primarily on 

sites near private lands and along highly visible roadways. Alternative D would emphasize 

letting natural processes dominate so that the vast majority of acres needing reforestation would 

be left for natural regeneration to occur on nature’s timeline. The few acres planted would be near 

private lands and in some Mexican spotted owl habitat identified for accelerated recovery.

At the planting rates modeled (see the “Forest Products Specialist Report,” Forest Service, 2012j), 

alternative A would plant an average of 880 acres a year, thereby treating all of the deforested 

acres proposed for artificial reforestation within 43 years. Alternative B would plant an average 

of 1,623 acres a year, thereby treating all of the deforested acres proposed for artificial 

reforestation within 23 years. Alternative C would plant an average of 2,066 acres a year, 

thereby treating all of the deforested acres proposed for artificial reforestation within 18 years. 

Alternative D would plant an average of 413 acres a year, thereby treating all of the deforested 

acres proposed for artificial reforestation within 91 years. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

446 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Under all alternatives, rates of natural conifer regeneration would be the same. Regeneration 

occurrence and survival would depend upon local site conditions and climate over time. Under all 

alternatives, early development forest lands would need time to grow, with periodic 

precommercial thinning taking place to maintain vigor and facilitate growth into larger size 

classes. Protection from excessive animal, insect/disease, and fire treatment damage would be 

necessary.

Climate Change Considerations

Climate change and its impacts on forests would likely affect market incentives for investment in 

biomass technology and wood-conservation techniques. The market for wood products in the 

U.S. is highly dependent on the acreage, location, and species composition of forests; supplies of 

wood; technological change in production and use of wood; availability of wood substitutes; 

demand for wood products; and international competition. Rising atmospheric CO2 would 

increase forest productivity and carbon storage in forests if sufficient water and nutrients were 

available. Any increased carbon storage would be in live trees. However, in the Southwest and 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, as discussed above, overall production may be limited by a decrease in 

available water. While increases in wildfire may decrease some available wood supply, treatment 

of wildland-urban interface and restoration of the fire-adapted ecosystems on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and elsewhere may increase the overall availability of small diameter timber and 

related wood products (Joyce et al., 2001).

All alternatives could promote a future sustainable supply of various wood products, by moving 

forested and woodland PNVTs toward desired conditions, which should make these lands more 

resilient in responding to climate change. By implementing treatments that can reduce losses to 

drought, insect/disease outbreaks, and severe wildfires, the alternatives would rank in this order 

from fastest to slowest restoration rates: alternative C, followed by alternatives D, B, and A.

Multiple socioeconomic impacts often follow drought and severe insect outbreaks. Timber 

production, manufacturing, and markets may not be able to process large numbers of killed trees. 

Where insect outbreaks occur, the public often perceives an increased fire risk and less than 

scenic vistas (Ryan et al., 2008). These factors could drive future public policy.

As increasing tree mortality rates are already underway in relation to these very same climaterelated factors, wood markets may be asked to take more dead and black-charred wood than their 

enterprises can utilize. Alternative D, followed by alternatives B, C, and A would create more 

intentionally fire-killed volume in addition to dead trees already being offered for salvage.

Salvaging and converting biomass into boards, firewood, and other wood products (as a 

byproduct of forest restoration) could help reduce carbon loss from fire. Another consideration 

may be to use biomass for bioenergy production. Bioenergy production can be carbon neutral and 

could replace the fossil fuels in generators. Mobile generation facilities could provide power to 

schools, hospitals, and command centers in the event of an emergency. 

If new markets for forest biomass to generate heat and electricity in place of fossil fuels should 

develop locally or regionally, then traditional “nonindustrial” wood species and sizes could 

become more of an “industrial” demand. Indeed, this trend is already somewhat underway. 

Alternatives offering the most dependable supply of wood volume from both suitable and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 447

nonsuitable timberlands would provide the most flexibility to meet changing market demands, in 

this order from greatest to least: alternative C, B, A, and then D. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects area for this analysis of forest products is the White Mountains-San 

Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim Ecoregion (see figure 43). In addition to the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs, this ecoregion includes: most of the Coconino NF, portions of the Prescott and Tonto NFs, 

the southern end of the Kaibab NF, and all of the Gila NF and portions of the Cibola NF in New 

Mexico. Non-Forest Service land ownerships in this ecoregion include: BLM lands; Arizona and 

New Mexico state lands; Fort Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations in Arizona; 

other tribal lands in New Mexico; and private lands.

Past, present, and foreseeable forest and woodland management actions on Federal and tribal 

lands which could contribute to cumulative effects are fire suppression and the lack of thinning 

trees less than 9 inches in diameter that have resulted in an overabundance of small trees with no 

market value. A similar situation exists on state and private lands. 

National forests and State, tribal, and private lands have not been able to institute long-term 

uneven-aged management practices designed to provide sustainable levels of wood products 

because adequate markets to purchase small diameter trees have not existed on a consistent basis. 

Management emphasis has focused on short-term fuels reduction at a cost to the land owner.

Wood volumes cut from State and private lands are less likely to impact the total market situation, 

as their treatments are smaller, widely scattered across the ecoregion, and less likely to provide 

long-term wood volumes. Tribes typically utilize their cut volumes in their own industries, 

although they may supply some to local markets. The White Mountain Apache tribe (Fort Apache 

Indian Reservation) currently has no active timber cutting program because they no longer have 

any markets, and their industrial mill is sitting idle. Therefore, the bulk of products available to 

markets come from Federal lands.

Future forest/woodland management strategies across all other national forests within the 

ecoregion are expected to be similar to those proposed for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. They are 

revising their land management plans or intend to revise their plans in the near future. The other 

national forests and the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would use the same desired conditions for the 

forested and woodland PNVTs, with uneven-aged silviculture and the return of fire and other 

natural disturbances to their natural roles.

The largest foreseeable action is the Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI), for which the 

contract was recently awarded. This project includes 2.4 million acres on four national forests 

(Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto) in northern Arizona, and it will focus on 

restoring the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forested PNVTs (see figure 44). Several of its 

projects are planned within the ecoregion. The management actions associated with many future 

4FRI projects may be implemented in this planning period. This initiative seeks to develop 

sustainable markets for wood products as the result of restoring and maintaining desired 

conditions, which are similar across all four national forests involved. 

The 4FRI project is likely to become the major instrument to implement alternatives A, B, or C

treatments on the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forest lands. It has the potential to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

448 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

become the principal market for the majority of logging operations in north and central Arizona 

during the planning period.

Alternative D can provide wood volumes during the planning period, but it would fall short of 

contributing to sustainable markets. It would treat so many more acres exclusively with fire, and 

it would cut on several PNVTs for which 4FRI has no focus. Therefore, it would limit the amount 

of harvestable green wood volumes to support the markets dependent upon the 4FRI 

collaboration. 

At its high objective level, alternative C may be more suited to supply the high volume that 4FRI 

is expected to demand because the other alternatives’ cutting volumes may not be high enough. 

However, alternative B’s high and low treatment objectives would provide more wood volume to 

4FRI than alternative C’s low objective. 

Alternative A is not expected to provide enough volume for 4FRI because this alternative 

emphasizes mechanical treatments around communities. Currently, most areas around 

communities have already been thinned and now only require followup maintenance thinning 

during this planning period. As a result, harvesting may shift to other national forests for more 

volume, which could pull operators and contractors away from completing restoration work 

elsewhere on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

A Forest Service strategy for 4FRI is to discourage Federal payment for tree cutting and removal 

services, in favor of returning to selling the cut trees at minimal to fair sale values. This shift in 

strategy could eliminate some logging/thinning companies from fully participating, and/or reduce 

the number of sales sold as transportation fuel prices rise. Fewer cutting treatment acres could 

result, and they would likely be located closer to established markets, and/or to lands nearest to 

railroad lines.

Although the proposed plan (alternative B) emphasizes addressing the needs of communities at 

risk of catastrophic fire, it is not entirely consistent with the community wildfire protection plans 

(CWPPs) for Apache, Navajo, Coconino and Greenlee Counties, which were published in 2004 

and 2005. These CWPPs include a generic prescription to “thin from 40 to 60 BA, with a 16-inch 

diameter cap” on Federal lands, which may not move project areas toward the land management 

plan’s desired conditions. As designed, alternative C would be inconsistent with such a 

prescription; while alternative D would adopt the 16-inch diameter cap for nearly all cuts.

Alternative A may continue to use this prescription on many treatment acres. Under all 

alternatives, this generic prescription would not automatically be proposed or adopted at the 

project level. However, the CWPP prescription will need to be considered as an alternative 

analyzed in detail under any project (regardless of plan alternative) proposed under the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

See the “Socioeconomic Resources” section for additional cumulative environmental 

consequences.

Livestock Grazing

This section describes the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives on the 

rangeland resource. It discusses the forestwide suitability of NFS lands for producing forage for 

grazing animals and examines the potential consequences on the rangeland resource. The full 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 449

analysis for livestock grazing can be found in the “Range Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2012q) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.” Additional information can be found in the 

“Vegetation,” “Riparian,” and “Invasive Species” sections.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• The land management plan sets the framework for site-specific determinations relating to 

allotment management, such as the grazing systems to meet desired conditions and the 

range developments needed to implement those systems.

• Under all alternatives, allotment-level analysis, including season of use, permitted 

livestock numbers, and forage use levels occur at the project level.

• Pest (e.g., invasive plants) problems are evaluated during allotment planning or as issues 

arise on a site-specific basis.

• Conflict or beneficial interactions among livestock, wild free-roaming horses and burros, 

and wild animal populations are managed at the allotment/territory level.

• Vegetation treatments contribute to the amount and condition of rangelands. All 

alternatives provide direction to move rangelands toward desired conditions. 

• Livestock grazing, under all alternatives, would be adaptively managed to balance use by 

livestock, wild horses, and wildlife, with estimated short- and long-term forage 

production and the effects of climate change.

• Under all alternatives, various activities such as dispersed recreation, firewood gathering, 

road use, OHV use, and elk grazing may affect the forage resource. The effects from 

these activities vary depending on their intensity and location. When conflicts arise from 

these uses that threaten the long-term range condition and trend, the forests would look 

for multiple-use solutions that balance uses, such as consumption by nonnative species of 

forage needed by wildlife.

Affected Environment

In the early 1900s, the Forest Service instituted a grazing permit system that required users to pay 

a fee. The forests were divided into allotments to better control livestock grazing and maintain 

rangeland productivity. Livestock grazing occurs on NFS lands that are capable and suitable and 

in every major vegetation type on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The forests currently have 96 

active grazing allotments and two sheep driveways covering approximately 1.7 million acres of 

NFS lands. Grazing on the forests helps to maintain ranching traditions, social customs, and local 

ranching operations. See the “Socioeconomic Resources” section for the jobs and labor income 

contributed to local counties from livestock grazing on NFS land.

Most of the active and vacant grazing allotments have been assessed for resource conditions and 

undergone NEPA analysis to balance permitted livestock numbers with available forage 

production and to maintain or move toward desired conditions. Management and monitoring are

being used to maintain and improve the rangeland resource. 

Vegetation Treatments 

Rangeland management is affected by the vegetation condition and ongoing vegetation treatments 

such as removal of encroaching juniper using mechanical treatments and burning. For 

information on vegetation condition, see the “Vegetation” section.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

450 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

In the absence of frequent fire or mechanical treatments, woodlands naturally become denser and 

trees encroach into adjacent grasslands. As junipers and piñons encroach into grasslands, they 

extract shallow groundwater and deposit leaf litter that generally suppresses herbaceous plant 

growth, thereby reducing species composition and density of the native herbaceous understory. 

The encroachment of trees into grasslands reduces ground cover and increases the amount of soil 

erosion, with the potential of a permanent loss of topsoil (Horman and Anderson, 2003). 

In severe stages of tree encroachment, the seed banks of the grasses and forbs can be lost. 

Because much of the existing, encroached grasslands have been dominated by woody species for 

the better part of a century, a seed bank of native herbaceous species may no longer exist. This is 

more the case with piñon-juniper, than in areas with overstocked or encroaching ponderosa pine, 

since the amount of topsoil lost with encroaching ponderosa pine is generally less due to higher 

quantities of protective pine needle litter and duff. The result of encroachment is a loss of forage 

and habitat quality for livestock and wildlife, with a potential permanent loss of topsoil in severe 

stages of erosion.

The 1987 plan acknowledged the overstocking of juniper and the associated effects on 

herbaceous understory density and composition. The plan’s objectives were to thin juniper 

overstory and promote a return to grasslands. Over the past 20 years, many areas of grasslands 

have been treated to reduce tree encroachment.

Riparian Areas

There are approximately 48,000 acres of riparian vegetation types on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Livestock are attracted to areas with water. Cattle, if not actively managed, tend to stay in and 

graze gentle-gradient riparian areas to an extent that can interfere with attaining the desired 

vegetation and soil resource conditions. Wetlands, springs, and aspen stands, and their associated 

wildlife, can be negatively affected by the relatively higher livestock occupancy and use, if not 

controlled. Current allotment management focuses on strategies to distribute livestock use and 

impacts to prevent concentration in the riparian areas.

Invasive Plants

Noxious and invasive weeds outcompete and replace the native plant species on which grazing 

animals and the ecosystem depend. Most weeds have little to no forage value, compared to native 

species they have replaced. A heavy infestation by one or more weed species could result in loss 

of forage for ungulates and habitat for a variety of wildlife.

The forests are not heavily infested with weeds. Most populations are small and scattered, and do 

not dominate the vegetation community as yet. Therefore, there is very little current effect on 

forage levels for livestock or wildlife from noxious or invasive weeds. 

Heber Wild Horse Territory

The Heber Wild Horse Territory (territory) on the Black Mesa Ranger District comprises 

approximately 19,700 acres. It is located in the Black Canyon area southwest of HeberOvergaard, Arizona. The territory was established in 1973, based on the location of a known band 

of horses, under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Protection Act of 1971 (the act). The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 451

purpose of the act is to establish territories for use by, and for, the protection of wild horses, in 

numbers harmonizing with the environment.

The 1987 plan does not contain specific goals or objectives for the territory. However, it does 

contain a standard and guideline that states “Maintain existing wild horse territory and herd.” 

Direction for its management will be contained in the site-specific “Heber Wild Horse Territory 

Management Plan,” which is currently under environmental analysis.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

All alternatives would provide similar guidance for managing livestock grazing and include 

balancing livestock grazing with available forage.

Lands Capable and Suitable for Livestock Grazing

Provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule require that the capability and suitability for producing 

forage for grazing animals on NFS lands be determined. Capability is the potential of an area of 

land to produce resources, supply goods and services. Capability depends upon current conditions 

and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application 

of management practices. 

The capability of the lands on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to produce forage for grazing animals 

was determined in the 1980s during the first round of forest planning. Landscape scale conditions 

that determine capability have not changed significantly since the first evaluation.

Suitability is the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land, in consideration of relevant social, economic, and ecological factors. A 

unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices.

The criteria for suitability for livestock grazing would be the same in all action alternatives (see 

chapter 4 in the proposed plan). This is very similar to the existing direction (alternative A) 

under the 1987 plan. The acres suitable for livestock grazing in the action alternatives would be 

very similar. The only variation among the action alternatives corresponds to the amount of land 

allocated to the Recommended Research Natural Area Management Area which is considered not 

suitable. In alternatives B and C land would be allocated to five recommended RNAs; while 

there are only three recommended RNAs in alternative D. Table 152 identifies the acres that are 

suitable for livestock grazing by alternative (see figures 74 through 79).

Even though the amount of land suitable for livestock grazing varies slightly by alternative, there 

would be no anticipated impact on permitted animal unit months (AUMs) in all alternatives. The 

alternatives would continue to provide for continued availability of forage for domestic livestock 

and opportunities for ranching lifestyles consistent with the other desired conditions

Table 152. Acres and percent of NFS land suitable for livestock grazing by alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

1,931,951

(96%)

1,901,512

(94%)

1,901,512

(94%)

1,903,116

(94%)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

452 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would potentially be 

affected by other Forest Service activities, such as mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, 

noxious and invasive weed management, and special designations. Effects of these other activities 

are described in more detail below. As a result, under all alternatives, adjustments in season of 

grazing, grazing intensity, kind and class of livestock, or type of grazing system may occur.

Additionally, livestock grazing may be affected by competition or conflict with other resource 

users (e.g., recreation, wildlife) or through the need to protect other resources such as soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 453

Figure 74. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

454 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 75. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative A – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 455

Figure 76. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternatives B and C – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

456 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 77. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternatives B and C – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 457

Figure 78. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative D – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

458 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 79. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative D – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 459

Vegetation Treatments 

Woody Species Reduction

Table 153 displays the average planned treatment (mechanical and fire) objectives in woodlands 

and grasslands on an annual basis. The action alternatives would have more average annual 

mechanical treatments than alternative A.

Table 153. Woody species reduction treatments in both woodland and grassland PNVTs by 

alternative

Treatments Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Average Acres Treated in Woodland 

PNVTs Per Year

2,294 9,931 6,133 17,396

Average Acres Treated in Grassland 

PNVTs Per Year

568 18,202 500 18,121

Average Yearly Total By Alternative 2,862 28,133 6,633 35,517

By removing trees in woodlands and grasslands, the resulting open canopy would promote 

understory herbaceous plant growth. The improved understory vegetation would benefit from 

reduced competition with trees and would increase in vigor, expand its basal and canopy cover, 

and deposit seeds that could sprout into new plants and result in improved forage conditions and 

ground cover. Seed banks in woodlands and grasslands may be lost due to erosion; this could be 

mitigated by seeding the treated areas. Alternatives D and then B would provide the greatest 

benefit to rangeland condition since the most acres are treated, followed by alternatives C and A. 

Mechanical Vegetation Treatments 

Under all alternatives, mechanical vegetation treatments would have little effect on overall 

livestock operations. In the near to mid-term, up to 20 years from treatment, mechanical 

vegetation treatments and their associated prescribed burns open up the tree canopy and allow 

more light and water for herbaceous plants to grow. This increases the available forage for 

grazing animals, improves watershed characteristics through increased ground cover, organic 

matter, and plant diversity (Bates et al., 2000). The increase in forage would improve livestock 

distribution in pastures, reduce impacts on use on other areas such as meadows, and improve 

rangeland conditions.

Followup treatments would be needed to maintain the reduced tree canopy. Otherwise, areas 

would revegetate with trees and lose the herbaceous component that had developed, thus reducing 

the amount of forage available for domestic livestock. For more information on 

overstory/understory herbaceous cover relationship, see the “Vegetation” section.

Thinning may restore dry springs because of the removal of live trees; trees that would otherwise 

extract shallow groundwater before it can come out in the springs. 

Mechanical treatments have the potential to introduce or encourage the spread of noxious weeds. 

Vehicles transport seeds and expose soils, and tree removal increases light availability. In some 

cases, the weed seeds may have been dormant in the soil for decades; the disturbance from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

460 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

equipment and increased sunlight encourages seed sprouting. A weed infestation could result in 

the loss of the area as a forage base for ungulates and as habitat for wildlife, insects, and native 

plants. However, the risk of weed infestation would be limited under all alternatives because 

there is direction in law, policy, and regulation to contain, control, and eradicate invasive species 

and areas would be reviewed to mitigate the potential emergence of invasive species. 

Fire

Fire removes forage available to livestock in the short term until plants regrow, usually until the 

next season. Grazing management can be affected by burning and may need to be adjusted by 

changing pasture rotations, livestock numbers, or livestock season of use. 

After any prescribed burn or wildfire, the area will be evaluated for ground cover and condition, 

plant composition, infrastructure (e.g., fencing), presence of noxious and invasive weeds, and 

forage production before livestock are authorized to graze. 

Burning would be planned in all alternatives; however, there is not a direct correlation between 

the amount of burning and burned pastures and the need to defer livestock grazing. There are 

times following a burn, based on an evaluation of resource condition, that a pasture may be 

temporarily unavailable to livestock grazing, which may in turn impact the permittee. 

In the near to mid-term, up to 20 years from treatment, burns would open up the tree canopy and 

allow more light and water for herbaceous plants to increase and establish. This would increase 

available forage for grazing animals mostly in upland areas. However, this may be temporary, 

unless followup treatments occur that would maintain the reduced tree canopy. Without 

maintenance, it is likely that treated areas would gradually revegetate with trees and lose the 

herbaceous component that had developed.

The increased herbaceous cover may not lead to noticeable increases in authorized or permitted 

livestock AUMs because forage in upland areas is often underused when compared to the areas 

along streams and meadows, which control how long and how many livestock can graze in a 

pasture without adverse impacts to those areas.

Fire may restore dry springs because of the removal of live trees; trees that would otherwise 

extract shallow groundwater before it can come out in the springs. This effect is much less likely 

with low severity fires than with high severity fires because fewer trees are killed.

Unlike alternative A, the action alternatives would call for establishment of at least one forage 

reserve area per ranger district during the planning period. The reserves would likely be 

developed from vacant grazing allotments, and used as a temporary location to graze displaced 

livestock. This would benefit the permittee by providing a source of forage so that they are not 

forced to sell all or part of their livestock.

Riparian Areas

In all alternatives, the impact of livestock grazing on riparian habitat would be analyzed in sitespecific NEPA analyses, as needed. If desired conditions cannot be achieved through grazing 

management practices (e.g., herding, grazing deferment), then livestock exclosures may be 

necessary around wetlands, cienegas, and riparian areas. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 461

Exclosures areas would likely not be available for forage, but they would not be big enough to 

reduce stocking rates in a pasture. The need for water at exclosures would be mitigated with 

alternative water sources, such as providing lanes to the water, piping to livestock drinkers, or 

other techniques.

Invasive Plants

Increased abundance of invasive weeds would reduce the quality of forage by displacing native 

species and altering nutrient and fire cycles, degrading soil structure, and decreasing the quality 

and availability of forage for livestock and wildlife (Mack et al., 2000). 

Although the 1987 plan (alternative A) provided no direction to manage invasive species, the 

forests actually began to actively manage invasive plants in the mid-1990s. All of the action 

alternatives would provide specific direction to contain, control, and eradicate invasive plant 

species. 

In all alternatives, noxious and invasive weed populations would be treated before they can 

dominate areas, and they would, therefore, not affect forage levels. However, the spread of 

invasive plants into grazing allotments could result in the temporary closure of affected 

rangelands in order to expedite treatment and eradication measures. Treatment should result in 

control of the invasive plants and improvement of the degraded rangeland.

Heber Wild Horse Territory

All alternatives would manage the territory according to the territory management plan currently 

being developed and analyzed. The only difference between alternative A and the other 

alternatives is that the action alternatives would recognize the territory as a separate 

management area. The environmental consequences to the forage resource in the Heber Wild 

Horse Territory would be similar to other areas of the forests (see other parts of this “Livestock 

Grazing” section).

Climate Change

There may be environmental consequences associated with climate change. Warmer and drier 

conditions could result in changes in vegetation patterns (Westerling, 2006; Millar, 2007); 

decreases in overall forest productivity (Forest Service, 2008e); decreases in water availability; 

and greater vulnerability to invasive plants. These conditions would decrease forage availability 

and shorten the season for livestock grazing. Unlike alternative A, the action alternatives

provide guidance (e.g., invasive species treatments, forage reserves) for preventative and adaptive 

measures that respond to climate change.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area for this level of analysis includes adjacent national forests, Bureau of Land 

Management, State, tribal, and private land. It is reasonably foreseeable that livestock grazing 

would continue on these lands. Vegetative treatments (primarily burning and mechanical) are also 

expected to occur on these adjacent lands. These types of treatments would increase forage for 

livestock and improve rangeland condition. All alternatives would be expected to cumulatively 

contribute to this increase in forage availability based on the planned vegetation treatments.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

462 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

An effect associated with mechanical treatments and livestock grazing is the potential to spread 

invasive species from adjacent lands. New weed populations could occur from vehicletransported seeds and increased light availability following mechanical treatments or creation of 

seedbeds by livestock use. Livestock and wildlife can bring in weed seeds, but livestock use 

results in fewer new weed populations than those established along roads and trails by seeds 

spread by vehicle tires, equipment tracks, and/or attached soil (Tyser and Worley, 1992; Tyser and 

Key, 1988; Gelbard and Harrison, 2003). All alternatives would contribute similarly to the 

control, treatment, and eradication of invasive plant species introduced from outside the forests.

Fires from adjacent lands can escape and spread onto the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. If they do, it 

could lead to temporary grazing exclusions and impact ranching operations by requiring the 

permittee to find new forage or sell all or part of the livestock. Unlike alternative A, the action 

alternatives would establish forage reserves that could provide an alternative forage resource and 

limit the impacts of grazing adjustments to permittees. 

See the “Socioeconomic Resources” section for additional cumulative environmental 

consequences.

Minerals and Energy

This section describes the environmental consequences of minerals and energy resources 

development from implementing the alternatives. It compares how each alternative varies in its 

emphasis of mineral and energy activities and development by comparing the amount of land that 

is or may be withdrawn from mineral entry. Information related to special use permits and energy 

corridors and developments can be found in the “Lands and Special Uses” section. The full 

analysis for minerals and energy can be found in the “Minerals and Energy Specialist Report”

(Forest Service, 2012p) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include:

• The Forest Service has the personnel and funding capacity to screen, process, and 

administer mineral activities.

• The economy will fluctuate and influence mineral exploration.

• There are no known leases on the forests for the following leasable mineral resources: oil 

and gas, oil shale, coal, or geothermal. Should valid leasable mineral proposals be 

submitted, the Forest Service would respond as a cooperating agency when requested by 

the BLM, which acts as the lead agency for subsurface mineral extraction. Therefore, the 

effects to leasable minerals were not analyzed.

Affected Environment

Minerals

Individuals operating under U.S. mining laws have a statutory right (General Mining Law of 

1872) to enter NFS lands to locate and develop mineral resources. Mineral resources on federally 

owned lands are separated into three categories by statutory and regulatory direction: locatable, 

leasable, and mineral materials (salable). Mineral activity fluctuates with consumer demand and 

prices. The currently high prices (GoldPrice, 2011) for many minerals could make exploration 

and development more economical. Mineral resource activity on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs has 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 463

historically been low. Mineral activity is presently concentrated in a few scattered areas. 

Commodity use and production have shown declines from the past. However, these forest uses 

contribute to sustaining the lifestyles and traditions of local communities.

The following sections discuss locatable and salable minerals. The potential for locatable and 

leasable minerals on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is low because of the existing geology. 

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals are those valuable deposits subject to exploration and development under the 

General Mining Law of 1872 (as amended). Examples of locatable minerals include, but are not 

limited to, iron, gold, copper, silver, lead, and zinc. The public has a statutory right to explore for, 

claim, and mine mineral deposits found on federally owned lands subject to U.S. mining laws. 

Through a memorandum of understanding with the BLM, the Forest Service administers most 

aspects of operation under the General Mining Law of 1872 on NFS lands. The Forest Service 

will respond to future operating plans for valid locatable mineral development as they are 

submitted. Proposals for development of discoveries would likely be infrequent since there are a 

limited number of claims on the forests.

There are three types of locatable mining claims found on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: lode, 

placer, and mill sites. Mining claims may vary in size, but there are maximum size limits by type 

of claim (BLM, 2008):

• Lode: 1,500 feet by 600 feet or approximately 21 acres.

• Placer: 20 acres per person with a maximum of 160 acres for an association of eight or 

more persons.

• Mill site: 5 acres.

Table 154 displays the number of active mining claims on the forests.

Table 154. Number of active mining claims on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 

2009b)

County Ranger District Placer Claims Lode Claims Mill Site Claims

Apache Springerville 1 7 0

Coconino Black Mesa 9 28 0

Greenlee Clifton 174 97 10

Navajo Lakeside/Black Mesa 40 1 0

A mining claimant on NFS lands is required by 36 CFR 228, Part A, to file an operating plan or 

notice of intent for proposed mining activities that includes the name and address of operators, a 

sketch or map of the location, descriptions of operations, access timing, operating period, and 

environmental protection measures. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs will work with claimants to 

assure that standards and guidelines in the land management plan are met. The operating plan 

requires an environmental analysis and decision before the plan is approved.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

464 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

There is minimal mining activity on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Mining employment occurs on 

non-NFS lands adjacent to the forests near Clifton, Arizona.

Mineral Activity

The potential for locatable minerals on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is low because of the existing 

geology. The following minerals (table 155) may be found in the counties where the ApacheSitgreaves NFs are located: Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo in Arizona. 

Table 155. Minerals that may be found on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Galbraith and 

Brennan, 1970)

County Ranger District Mineral

Apache Alpine/Springerville Cobaltite, Erythrite (Cobalt Bloom)

Coconino Black Mesa Manganese oxide, Dolomite

Greenlee Clifton Gold (lode, placer), Copper, Chalcocite, Sphalerite, Chalcopyrite, 

Covellite, Pyrite, Molybdenite, Cuprite, Tenorite, Pyrolusite, 

Magnetite, Fluorite, Magnesite, Smithsonite, Coronadite, Cerussite, 

Dolomite, Malachite, Azurite, Gerhardtite (Chase Creek Canyon), 

Gypsum, Chalcanthite, Melanterite, Epsomite, Goslarite, 

Brochantite, Antlerite, Alunite, Spangolite, Cyanotrichite, Crocoite, 

Libethenite, Vanadinite, Pyroxene, Tremolite, Garnet, Willemite, 

Zircon, Dioptase, Epidote, Hemimorphite, Glauconite, Serpentine, 

Kaolinite, Nontronite, Chrysocolla

Navajo Lakeside/Black Mesa Gypsum

Additional exploration for locatable minerals would most likely be limited. Active mining claims 

for locatable sandstone are located on the Lakeside Ranger District (six to eight separate 

claimants) and two separate claims on the Black Mesa Ranger District. Each claimant operates 

under an approved plan of operations. Mining claims on the Clifton Ranger District (Greenlee 

County) are generally associated with the adjacent private copper mining operations. There are no 

known abandoned mines on Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands that would require closure. A number 

of small abandoned surface operations and test pits are scattered across the forests and are not 

regarded as hazardous.

Mineral Withdrawals

Mineral withdrawals are under the authority of the 1872 Mining Law for the purpose of limiting 

activities in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserve the area for a particular 

public purpose or program. A withdrawal is the withholding of an area from application of the 

general land laws such as prohibiting the filing of new mining claims in an area. Designated 

wilderness is withdrawn from mineral entry in the enabling legislation. The Forest Service may 

request withdrawal of areas from mineral activity if the activity might conflict with other 

management objectives. Mineral entry withdrawals are generally initiated for administrative sites, 

developed public recreation areas, and areas highly valued by the public, such as scenic corridors. 

The 1987 plan identified several management areas that may be withdrawn from mineral entry, 

but no action has been taken to withdraw those areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 465

Currently, 46,604 acres or 2.3 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry. These withdrawals include wilderness, the Phelps Cabin Research 

Natural Area (RNA), Phelps Cabin Botanical Area, highway corridors, reservoirs, recreation 

areas, administrative sites, and developed campgrounds.

Salable Minerals

Salable mineral (also known as common variety mineral) materials are generally low-value 

deposits of sand, clay, and stone used for building materials and road surfacing. Extracting these 

materials from NFS lands is at Forest Service discretion. The major statutes pertaining to salable 

minerals are the Minerals Materials Act of 1947, Surfaces Resources Act of 1955, and the Federal 

Highways Act of 1956.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have lands that are potential sources of sand, gravel, landscape rock, 

cinders, and crushed rock. There are also off-forest sources to meet private needs. The demand for 

common variety mineral materials from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is currently low. Permitted 

uses are predominantly small private sales from common use pits, a multi-operator commercial 

pit, and various pits for State and county road uses, primarily for road cinders and/or gravel.

The 1987 plan does not allow permitting of mineral material activities in Management Area 14-

Black River (Mainstem), Management Area 15-West Fork Black River, Management Area 16-

Chevelon Canyon, and Management Area 17-East and West Forks Little Colorado River. Also, no 

streambed alteration or removal of mineral materials is allowed if it significantly affects ripariandependent resources, channel morphology, or streambank stability.

Mineral Activity

Sales of mineral materials have varied considerably. In FY2006, 18,400 tons were sold for $9,660 

(USGS, 2006); while 38,600 tons were sold for almost $21,000 in FY2009 (Forest Service, 

2010c). Free use permits were issued for 25,300 tons in FY2006. The Forest Service uses 

materials for routine maintenance of NFS roads; some rock crushing occurs for project-specific 

needs. In FY2006, the Forest Service used almost 500,000 tons of mineral materials. These uses 

are expected to continue. There may be additional pressure for mineral materials as non-NFS 

lands adjacent to the forests are developed.

An increase in demand of common variety minerals could be expected as road construction and 

maintenance occurs on and around the forests. The demand for gravel may increase as 

campgrounds, forest roads, and county roads are improved. Increased work associated with 

Federal and State highway construction, reconstruction, and maintenance may increase the 

demand for construction materials, and the forests may be obligated to provide material under the 

Title 23, Section 317 of the Federal Highways Act.

Leasable Minerals 

There are minimal extractable (leasable) resources on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Potential for 

geothermal development is limited as only small areas are underlain by thermal waters. A small 

coal bed is located along the forests boundary north of Pinedale, but it has not been developed. 

There are no known oil and gas resources.

There are no current leases for oil and gas, geothermal, or coal on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

466 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Energy

Solar energy potential is high and future development would be related to demand. Wind 

potential is low because of sporadic winds and the terrain (Forest Service, 2009b). There may be 

a need for additional energy corridors or developments (e.g., electric transmission lines, pipelines, 

wind turbines) because of the expected demand for electricity to serve the growing populations of 

Arizona and the Southwest and to provide reliable and consistent services. As communities 

expand and as non-NFS lands surrounded by NFS lands are developed, distribution lines may be 

proposed to provide electric services. Energy corridors and energy development (infrastructure) 

are discussed in the “Lands and Special Uses” section.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Minerals

Under all alternatives, decisions regarding mineral activities on the forests would align with law, 

regulation, and policy and would be consistent with plan decisions for other resource areas (e.g., 

cultural resources, wildlife).

Under all alternatives, mineral activities may have adverse environmental consequences on some 

resources in the short term and long term. Short-term environmental consequences could include 

increased human activity, such as motorized traffic, noise from construction equipment, 

temporary roads, ground disturbance during exploration activities, and construction of the 

authorized facilities.

Long-term environmental consequences could include operation and maintenance of the 

authorized facilities over the life of the facility. Operation and maintenance activities may include 

increased human activity and noise, motorized vehicle traffic, or additional ground disturbance. 

Determination and implementation of mitigation measures and design may lessen environmental 

consequences.

Over the long term, the greater public and communities should benefit from services provided by 

mineral activities. Authorizations that are for a long-term commitment (more than 5 years) and 

permit some type of construction or extractive activity or alter the landscape would encumber 

NFS lands for the terms of the authorization and most likely for the foreseeable future. Few 

authorized constructed features are fully removed or the landscape is not fully rehabilitated.

If locatable mineral extraction occurs during plan implementation, it would result in an 

irreversible commitment of the resource because it consumes nonrenewable minerals.

Locatable Minerals

Effects to locatable minerals would be limited to the different amounts of land that could be 

withdrawn from mineral entry in all alternatives. There would be no effects to existing mineral 

claims. The effects to future locatable mineral activities are described in the section below.

Mineral Withdrawals

The current areas that are withdrawn from mineral entry would be carried forward in all 

alternatives. This would equate to 46,604 acres not being available for mineral location and 

development. Because of the low mineral potential of the forests and the very small amount (2.3 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 467

percent) of the forests withdrawn from mineral entry, there would no effects to mining claim 

location and development.

Recommended wilderness (table 156) would be withdrawn from mineral entry if congressionally 

designated as wilderness. Recommended RNAs (table 156) may be withdrawn if they are 

administratively designated. Alternative A would have no effect on mining claim location and 

development because no additional lands would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Alternatives 

B and C would generally have little to no effect on mining claim location and development 

because of the low mineral potential of the forests and the very small percentages (3 percent or 

less) of the forests that could be withdrawn. Alternative D could have the most effect on future 

locatable mineral activities because almost one quarter of the forests could be withdrawn which 

would result in less ground disturbance and fewer effects to resources.

Table 156. Acres that could be withdrawn from mineral entry in the future

Management Area

Alt. A Acres

(percent of 

forests)

Alt. B Acres

(percent of 

forests)

Alt. C Acres

(percent of 

forests)

Alt. D Acres

(percent of 

forests)

Recommended RNA 1,329 1

(<1%)

7,814

(<1%)

7,814

(<1%)

5,957

(<1%)

Recommended Wilderness 0

(0%)

7,074

(<1%)

6,982

(<1%)

681,580

(34%)

Total 1,329

(<1%)

14,888

(<1%)

14,796

(<1%)

687,537

(34%)

1 Acreage from the 1987 plan. Does not include recommended Escudilla RNA, because the area is within Escudilla 

Wilderness

Salable Minerals

Alternative A would allow the development of new common variety mineral sources where 

economic considerations permit and where scenic resource objectives can be met, except in four 

identified management areas. Alternative A would have the most lands available for mineral 

material permitting. The action alternatives would limit common variety mineral activities in 

designated and recommended special areas (e.g., RNAs, wilderness, eligible and suitable wild 

and scenic rivers, national recreation trails, scenic byways) and Chevelon Canyon. Alternatives 

B and C would have less land available than alternative A. The least land would be available in 

alternative D because of the amount of land in the Recommended Wilderness Management Area. 

The effects to resources would be least in alternative D because of less ground disturbance. 

Alternatives A, B, and C would have more lands available to respond to public demand for 

mineral materials than alternative D.

Energy

There would be little to no effects to extractive energy resources in all alternatives because of 

the very limited amount of these resources on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

468 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area for this level of analysis includes those lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

There are no known cumulative environmental consequences associated with minerals and energy 

development on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. There may be requests for transmission corridors 

due to energy development on adjacent lands. See the “Lands and Special Uses” section for a 

discussion of the potential consequences.

Socioeconomic Resources

This section provides social and economic analysis, including past and current conditions and the 

potential consequences of the four alternatives on the social and economic environment.

The earliest inhabitants of the area comprising the present-day Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and 

surrounding lands trod lightly upon the land at least 13,000 years ago. They followed the 

migrating mammoth and later the buffalo, leaving only spear points to mark their presence. As 

early as 2,000 years ago, the Ancestral Puebloans arrived and shared the White Mountains with 

the Mogollon people already there. By the time the Apache, Navajo, and Yavapai arrived in the 

1400s, the Puebloans were gone. After the mid-1500s, the Spanish continued a modest forest use, 

although they used the forests for fuel, structures, and fence posts more than the Native 

Americans did.

From 1821 to 1848, the Mogollon Rim forests were part of the Republic of Mexico. When the 

United States acquired the territory from Mexico, those lands became a part of the “public 

domain” if they were not owned by private individuals, including earlier Spanish and Mexican 

land grants. The land was opened under various laws to settlement, purchase, and use. Only after 

the American Civil War and the completion of the railroads did a great change in public land use 

begin in Arizona. Domestic enterprises like cutting timber, mining, and raising cattle were to 

become corporate enterprises with national and international markets.

The territory of Arizona urged the sale of all of the territorial timberlands at public auction in 

1879. In 1880, Congress authorized the citizens of Arizona to “fell and remove timber from the 

public domain for mining and domestic purposes.” Timber production in Arizona and New 

Mexico, estimated at 8 million board feet in 1879, rose to 22 million in 1889 and 67 million in 

1900. Cattle grazed on the forests’ open ranges in ever greater numbers, increasing from 172,000 

head in 1880 to 1.5 million by 1890. In 1891, Congress authorized the President to designate 

particular areas of forested public domain as “reserves,” to be set aside for future use. The 

reserves were, by law, completely closed to public use and there was no management or 

supervision of the land. Congress restricted the President’s authority in 1897, authorizing him to 

establish reserves only to preserve timber, protect watersheds, and provide lumber for local use.

On August 17, 1898, the Black Mesa Reserve (North and South) was established. By 1900, once 

lush grasslands could no longer support large numbers of livestock. It was becoming painfully 

clear to Southwesterners that the renewable and nonrenewable resources of the Southwest were 

being depleted. The Secretary of Agriculture announced in 1905 the transfer of the Forest 

Reserves to the Department of Agriculture, as authorized by Congress. Some 21 million acres of 

public lands, almost one-eighth of the land area of Arizona and New Mexico, were now to be 

administered by a regional subdivision of the Forest Service. The Forest Service was charged to 

maintain the permanence of national forest resources, while providing for their use. In 1907, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 469

Black Mesa Reserve was made a national forest with its headquarters in Show Low, Arizona. In 

1908, Theodore Roosevelt established the Sitgreaves NF from parts of the Black Mesa North 

Reserve and Tonto NF. The Apache NF was established the same year from portions of the Black 

Mesa South Reserve and other neighboring forest reserves.

Arizona’s population increased dramatically following World War II, but little changed in the 

rural communities surrounding the Apache and Sitgreaves NFs. Logging, grazing, and mining 

were important economic factors in the local communities and the forests provided employment 

where few jobs were available. In 1974, the Apache NF was combined administratively with the 

Sitgreaves NF to become the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

The study areas for the economic analysis are consistent with the areas defined in the “Economic 

and Social Sustainability Assessment” (Forest Service, 2009a). Affected environment analysis 

uses all of Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties in Arizona and Catron and Grant 

Counties in New Mexico. The environmental consequences analysis uses zip code-level data to 

better capture the economic links between the forests and the surrounding communities. The 

northern sections of Apache and Navajo Counties and most of Coconino County are excluded 

from the environmental consequences analysis due to their physical distance from the forests. The 

forests’ land base lies in the Arizona counties; however, the New Mexico counties were also 

included because of use patterns and economic trade flows. Table 157 reports the number of 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs acres by county. 

Table 157. Apache-Sitgreaves NFs acres by county

County, State Acres

Apache County, AZ 493,481

Coconino County, AZ 285,693

Greenlee County, AZ 751,619

Navajo County, AZ 487,257

Catron County, NM1 —

Grant County, NM —

Source: Forest Service, 2008a

1 Apache NF lands in Catron County are administered by the Gila NF and 

are not considered in this analysis.

The assumptions and additional methodology used for this analysis are described in appendix B 

and the “Socioeconomic Resource Report” (Forest Service, 2012d) available in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”

Affected Environment

The affected environment section is split into three parts: (1) population and demographics, (2) 

employment and income, and (3) environmental justice.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

470 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Population and Demographics

This section highlights population and demographic trends in the study area. Population is an 

important consideration in managing natural resources. In particular, population structure (e.g., 

size, composition, density) and population dynamics (how the structure changes over time) are 

essential to describing the consequences of forest management and planning on a social 

environment (Seesholtz et al., 2004). Population increases may lead to conflicts over land use, 

travel management, recreation activities, and values. These are conflicts that Forest Service 

managers attempt to balance when making management decisions.

Population Growth

The study area counties are home to 355,064 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Table 158

displays population data for the counties, their respective states, and the Nation in 1990, 2000, 

and 2010.

Table 158. Population change 1990-2000 and 2000-2010

Area 1990 2000 % Growth, 

1990-2000 2010 % Growth, 2000-2010

Apache County, AZ 61,591 69,423 12.7% 71,518 3.0%

Coconino County, AZ 96,591 116,320 20.4% 134,421 15.6%

Greenlee County, AZ 8,008 8,547 6.7% 8,437 -1.3%

Navajo County, AZ 77,658 97,470 25.5% 107,449 10.2%

Catron County, NM 2,563 3,543 38.2% 3,725 5.1%

Grant County, NM 27,676 31,002 12.0% 29,514 -4.8%

Study Area Total 274,087 326,305 19.1% 355,064 8.8%

Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 40.0% 6,392,017 24.6%

New Mexico 1,515,069 1,819,046 20.1% 2,059,179 13.2%

United States 248,709,873 281,421,906 13.2% 308,745,538 9.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010

The data reveal substantial diversity between counties. The counties range in populations from 

134,421 residents in Coconino County, AZ (which accounts for more than one-third of total study 

area population), to 3,725 in Catron County, NM. Both Coconino and Navajo Counties, AZ, have 

more than 100,000 residents; while Greenlee County, AZ, and Catron County, NM, both have 

fewer than 10,000 residents.

In addition to population size, the counties are diverse in terms of growth rates. All study area 

counties experienced population growth between 1990 and 2000. However, growth slowed 

between 2000 and 2010. Two counties (Greenlee County, AZ, and Grant County, NM) lost 

population during the latter decade. In both periods, the population growth rate in the study area 

was below the population growth rates in Arizona and New Mexico.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 471

Rapid population growth may signal expanding economic opportunities and/or desirable 

amenities. On the other hand, slow or negative population growth may signal an aging population 

(deaths exceed births) and low net migration (or out-migration). Areas with large populations or 

rapid population growth are less likely to be acutely affected by Forest Service management, 

while areas with small populations or stagnant/negative growth are likely more vulnerable to 

Forest Service actions.

Population Density

Population density can serve as an indicator of a number of socioeconomic factors of interest: 

urbanization, availability of open space, socioeconomic diversity, and civic infrastructure (Horne 

and Haynes, 1999). More densely populated areas are generally more urban, diverse, and offer 

better access to infrastructure. In contrast, less densely populated areas provide more open space, 

which may offer natural amenity values to residents and visitors. Table 159 displays the number 

of people per square mile for each of the counties of interest.

Despite population growth in most of the counties, the number of people per square mile remains 

quite low. Every study area county is less dense than its respective state and the Nation as a 

whole. Catron County, NM, has the lowest population density, with only one person for every 2

square miles. Even the most densely populated county (Navajo County, AZ) has many fewer 

people per square mile than either the state (Arizona) or the Nation.

These findings suggest that most of the study area is quite rural. Low population density also 

points to high levels of public ownership. In all of the Arizona counties included in the analysis, a 

minority of the land is privately owned. Navajo County, AZ, has the highest private ownership 

rate, 30 percent, but the majority of land is publicly owned (Forest Service, BLM, and State 

lands) or Indian reservation land. In Greenlee County, AZ, only 8.1 percent of the land is 

privately owned, which accounts for the low population density in the county (Arizona 

Department of Commerce, 2008).

Table 159. Population density

Area People/Square Mile

Apache County, AZ 6.4

Coconino County, AZ 7.2

Greenlee County, AZ 4.6

Navajo County, AZ 10.8

Catron County, NM 0.5

Grant County, NM 7.4

Arizona 56.3

New Mexico 17.0

United States 87.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

472 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Age and Gender

As with other population characteristics, the median age varies substantially between counties. 

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties (AZ) are all relatively young with median 

ages below the state and national medians. In contrast, the New Mexico counties (Catron and 

Grant) exceed the state and national median ages by nearly a decade in Grant County and almost 

20 years in Catron County. A high median age generally indicates that a relatively large number 

of retirees reside in the area. An area with a large percentage of retirees will earn income 

primarily from investments and transfer payments (e.g., dividends, Social Security), rather than 

salaries and wages (table 160).

Table 160. Median age

Area Median Age

Apache County, AZ 32.4

Coconino County, AZ 31.0

Greenlee County, AZ 34.8

Navajo County, AZ 34.7

Catron County, NM 55.8

Grant County, NM 45.9

Arizona 35.9

New Mexico 36.7

United States 37.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP-1

Age data may be relevant for forest management decisions. A population’s age may affect 

community values and uses associated with National Forest System (NFS) lands. For example, 

older populations are more likely to desire easily accessible recreation opportunities.

Gender disparities in counties (i.e., deviations from a 50/50 split) may have numerous 

explanations, including: (1) the significant presence of an industry that is often dominated by one 

gender (e.g., forestry or mining); (2) a large number of single-parent households; (3) a large 

retiree population, which due to differences in life expectancy, often leads to a higher 

concentration of women; and (4) a combination of the above and other unnamed factors.

Table 161 displays the gender breakdown for the study area counties, the states, and the Nation. 

Most of the counties have gender distributions similar to the national distribution. Greenlee 

County, AZ, and Catron County, NM, however, diverge from these trends. In these counties, the 

male population exceeds the female population by 3 percentage points or more.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 473

Table 161. Gender distribution

Area Females (Percent 

Total Population)

Males (Percent

Total Population)

Apache County, AZ 50.1 49.9

Coconino County, AZ 50.4 49.6

Greenlee County, AZ 47.9 52.1

Navajo County, AZ 50.0 50.0

Catron County, NM 47.7 52.3

Grant County, NM 50.9 49.1

Arizona 50.3 49.7

New Mexico 50.6 49.4

United States 50.8 49.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP-1

Educational Attainment

Educational attainment, the measure of people with at least a high school diploma or bachelor’s 

degree, is an important indicator of an area’s social and economic opportunities and its ability to 

adapt to change. Table 162 lists the percentage of the adult population with at least a high school 

diploma and a bachelor’s degree.

Table 162. Educational attainment, percent of persons age 25 and older

Area High School Graduate Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

Apache County, AZ 72.1% 10.3%

Coconino County, AZ 87.0% 31.1%

Greenlee County, AZ 89.8% 13.4%

Navajo County, AZ 80.5% 14.4%

Catron County, NM 86.0% 21.3%

Grant County, NM 85.3% 24.1%

Arizona 85.0% 26.3%

New Mexico 82.7% 25.5%

United States 85.0% 27.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP02

Thirty percent of Coconino County, AZ, residents have at least a bachelor’s degree, a rate that 

exceeds the rate in any other study area county, either state, and the Nation. Catron and Grant 

Counties (NM) have educational attainment rates that are comparable to state and national 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

474 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

averages. Greenlee County (AZ) has a high percentage of high school graduates, but the 

percentage of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree is approximately half of state and national 

averages. Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) have the lowest educational attainment rates in the 

study area. Both counties fall below state and national educational attainment rates.

High educational attainment rates generally exist in areas with plentiful employment 

opportunities for working-age adults with high levels of education. The presence of highly 

educated adults may be self-reinforcing: a highly educated population is a signal that an area 

provides economic and cultural opportunities, which attracts additional college educated adults to 

the area. This process leads to further economic development and job creation. In contrast, areas 

with low levels of educational attainment are less able to adapt to economic change (Florida, 

2002). Areas with lower educational attainment (i.e., Apache and Navajo Counties) are less 

resilient to change. As a result, land management actions are more likely to adversely affect social 

and economic well-being in these counties.

Forest Visitors

Table 163 reports Apache-Sitgreaves NFs visitor activity participation. Relaxing, viewing natural 

features, viewing wildlife, hiking/walking, driving for pleasure, and fishing are activities in which 

more than half of forest visitors engage. Relaxing is the most common main activity (i.e., the 

primary purpose of the forest visit), followed by fishing, hiking/walking, and camping in 

developed sites.

Table 163. Percent participation in activities and primary activities of Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs' recreation visitors1

Activity Percent 

Participation2

Percent Who Indicated 

as Primary Activity

General-relaxing, escaping noise and heat 84.2 41.3

Viewing natural features (scenery) on NFS lands 79.3 3.5

Viewing wildlife on NFS lands 73.5 1.0

Hiking or walking 62.2 8.7

Driving for pleasure on roads 53.3 3.2

Fishing-all types 50.5 19.6

Picnicking and day gatherings in developed sites 47.8 1.5

Camping in developed sites 35.7 7.2

Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, etc. 27.6 0.2

Primitive camping 19.4 3.3

Visiting nature center or visitor information services 18.3 0.5

Resorts and cabins on NFS lands 13.7 0.0

Bicycling, including mountain bikes 11.5 0.3

Off-highway vehicle travel 11.3 4.0
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 475

Activity Percent 

Participation2

Percent Who Indicated 

as Primary Activity

Visiting historic and prehistoric sites 11.0 0.1

Other nonmotorized activities (swimming, sports) 6.9 0.9

Motorized water travel (boats, jet skis) 6.8 0.2

Nonmotorized water travel (canoe, raft) 6.4 0.0

Nature study 4.8 0.0

Backpacking and camping in unroaded areas 4.0 0.1

Horseback riding 3.4 0.4

Hunting-all types 3.0 1.3

Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other) 1.1 0.0

Downhill skiing or snowboarding 0.1 0

Snowmobile travel 0 0

Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 0 0

1 Kocis et al., 2002

2 More than one activity could be checked.

Employment and Income

The previous section assessed demographic trends in the study area relative to the state and 

national averages. This section focuses on economic conditions and trends. This discussion 

provides additional information on the social and economic environment in the study area.

Per Capita Income

Per capita income is a key indicator of the economic well-being of a county. High per capita 

income may signal greater job opportunities, highly skilled residents, greater economic resiliency, 

and well-developed infrastructure. Table 164 provides data on per capita income in 2010 for the 

counties, states, and Nation.

Coconino County, AZ has the highest per capita income in the study area, which is consistent 

with the demographic data presented above. Coconino County has the highest proportion of 

college-educated adults (table 162) and its population grew nearly 40 percent between 1990 and 

2010 (table 158). However, all counties in the study area have lower levels of per capita income 

than their respective states and the Nation.

Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) have the lowest per capita income in the study area. Per capita 

income in Navajo County, AZ is approximately $10,000 less than per capita income in Arizona. 

In Apache County, AZ per capita income is less than half of statewide per capita income. Apache 

County is the 16th poorest county in the Nation, based on per capita income (Navajo County is the 

192nd poorest) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). The per capita income data, grouped with 

demographic data, suggest that many residents of Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) are socially 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

476 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

and economically vulnerable. This is discussed in greater detail in the Environmental Justice 

section.

Table 164. Per capita income in 2010 U.S. dollars

Area Per Capita Income

Apache County, AZ $12,294

Coconino County, AZ $22,632

Greenlee County, AZ $21,281

Navajo County, AZ $16,745

Catron County, NM $20,895

Grant County, NM $21,164

Arizona $25,680

New Mexico $22,966

United States $27,334

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP03

Per capita income considers all sources of income including wages and salary payments, transfer 

payments, investment earnings, dividends, and rents. The poorest counties likely receive much of 

their income in the form of transfer payments, such as unemployment insurance and 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments. These finding are borne out in the “NonLabor Income” and “Employment” sections that follow.

Median Earnings

Per capita income offers an incomplete picture of the economic well-being of an area. Table 165

presents data on median earnings for workers. Whereas per capita income considers all sources of 

income; median earnings includes wage and salary earnings.

When only median earnings for workers are considered, the economic conditions in Apache 

County, AZ, and Navajo County, AZ, do not seem to meaningfully diverge from the rest of the 

counties in the study area. Comparing per capita income and median earnings data for Apache 

and Navajo Counties (AZ) suggests that the residents who are employed in these counties work in 

similarly paying occupations as residents of other study area counties, but that a smaller 

proportion of residents in Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) are employed. The employment 

characteristics of individuals in these counties are addressed further in the two subsequent 

sections: non-labor income and unemployment. The higher median earnings for Greenlee County, 

AZ, reflect the wages paid by the mining industry.

Income and earnings data are incomplete without a discussion of cost of living. The topic is 

addressed further in the “Housing” section.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 477

Table 165. Median earnings for workers in 2010 U.S. dollars

Area Median Earnings for Workers

Apache County, AZ $22,541

Coconino County, AZ $22,473

Greenlee County, AZ $35,068

Navajo County, AZ $22,524

Catron County, NM $24,375

Grant County, NM $21,711

Arizona $29,573

New Mexico $25,115

United States $29,701

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP03

Non-Labor Income

Table 166 displays the role of labor and non-labor income in total personal income for 2000 and 

2009. Non-labor income is any income derived from investments, dividends, rents, or transfer 

payments. In contrast, labor income is salary and wage disbursements from employment. During 

this past decade, the percentage of total income derived from non-labor sources increased in all 

considered areas.

Non-labor income is not directly tied to employment; therefore, it can be more resistant to 

economic downturns. However, as the most recent recession demonstrated, asset markets can be 

quite volatile, and non-labor income that depends on investment returns may be unstable.

An increase in non-labor income may reflect changing demographic characteristics. Older 

populations rely largely on non-labor income, including rents, dividends, and transfer payments 

(e.g., Social Security). High percentages of non-labor income likely indicate higher 

concentrations of retirees.

The finding that in 2009 Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) derive more than half of total 

personal income from non-labor sources seems incongruent with assumption that a high 

percentage of non-labor income indicates a large retiree population. As table 160 shows, both 

Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) have low median ages, below the state and national medians, 

which suggests a relatively small retiree population. However, as table 164 presents, these 

counties have low per capita income and table 167 shows that these counties also have the highest 

unemployment rates in the study area. These findings suggest that residents of these counties are 

dependent on government transfer payments (e.g., unemployment insurance) for income.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

478 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 166. Contribution of labor and non-labor income to total personal income, 2000 and 

2009

Area

2000 2009

Labor % Non-Labor % Labor % Non-Labor %

Apache County, AZ 56% 44% 47% 53%

Coconino County, AZ 64% 36% 62% 38%

Greenlee County, AZ 74% 26% 61% 39%

Navajo County, AZ 58% 42% 47% 53%

Catron County, NM 46% 54% 42% 58%

Grant County, NM 55% 45% 47% 53%

Arizona 68% 32% 62% 38%

New Mexico 66% 34% 62% 38%

United States 69% 31% 64% 36%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2011

The high proportion (exceeding 50 percent) of non-labor income in Catron and Grant Counties 

(NM) is likely the result of large retiree populations. These counties have the highest median ages 

(table 160) in the study area. In these counties, non-labor income likely comes from both personal 

investments (e.g., dividends, rent) and government transfers (e.g., Social Security).

The distribution of labor and non-labor income in Coconino and Greenlee Counties (AZ) mimics 

the state and national distributions.

Unemployment

The unemployment rate provides insight into the correspondence between residents’ skills and 

employment opportunities. The “natural” rate of unemployment is said to be around 5 percent. 

This is the so-called “natural” rate because this is a level that allows for movement between jobs 

and industries, but it does not signal broad economic distress. Recently, the national 

unemployment rate has hovered between 9 and 10 percent. Table 167 provides the 2010 annual 

unemployment rate for the U.S., Arizona, New Mexico, and the study area counties.

As suggested above, the discrepancies between per capita income and median earnings in Apache 

and Navajo Counties (AZ) can be partially explained by high unemployment rates in these 

counties. Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) had the highest unemployment rates among study 

area counties, and they exceeded state and national rates. As a result, many residents in Apache 

and Navajo Counties (AZ) likely rely on unemployment insurance and other transfer programs 

targeting low-income individuals and families. The other counties have unemployment rates that 

are closer to state and national rates.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 479

Table 167. Unemployment rate, 2010 annual, not seasonally-adjusted

Area Unemployment Rate

Apache County, AZ 16.4%

Coconino County, AZ 8.9%

Greenlee County, AZ 11.1%

Navajo County, AZ 15.7%

Catron County, NM 9.5%

Grant County, NM 10.9%

Arizona 10.0%

New Mexico 8.4%

United States 9.6%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011

Housing

The above comparisons of per capita income and median earnings between the study area, states, 

and the Nation are incomplete. Data on local cost of living offer additional context. Of the 

contributions to cost of living, housing costs are among the most substantial. Table 168 presents 

median home values in 2010. Except for Coconino County (AZ), the study area counties have 

relatively low home values, below state and national medians. Therefore, although income is low 

in many study area counties, they also have relatively low living costs.

Table 168. Median value of owner-occupied homes in 2010 U.S. dollars 

Area Median Home Value

Apache County, AZ $80,900

Coconino County, AZ $257,700

Greenlee County, AZ $65,800

Navajo County, AZ $134,300

Catron County, NM $129,400

Grant County, NM $125,000

Arizona $215,000

New Mexico $158,400

United States $188,400

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP04
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

480 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Economic Diversity

Economic diversity generally promotes stability and offers greater employment opportunities. 

Highly specialized economies (i.e., those that depend on very few industries for the bulk of 

employment and income) are prone to cyclical fluctuations and offer more limited job 

opportunities. Determining the degree of specialization in an economy is important for 

decisionmakers, particularly when the dominant industry can be affected by changes in policy. 

For Forest Service responsible officials, this is likely to be the case where the forest products 

industry or the tourism and recreation industries, for instance, are reliant on the local national 

forests.

Figure 80. Employment by industry in the study area (MIG, 2009)

Figure 80 provides a breakdown of employment by industry in the study area. Government is the 

dominant sector: approximately one-third of the area jobs are in government. Retail trade, health 

and social services, and accommodation and food services each account for at least 8 percent of 

local employment. These industries are consistent with findings discussed in the demographic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 481

section: namely, a substantial government presence due to public land management, a retiree 

population that consumes health and social services, and amenities that attract tourists who 

support the retail trade and accommodation and food services sectors.

Figure 81 provides the employment specialization index (ratio of the percent employment in each 

industry within the study area to an average percent of employment in that industry for the State 

of Arizona). Within the agriculture sector (3 percent of study area employment), commercial 

logging accounts for 35 percent of employment and 29 percent of output, while cattle ranching 

accounts for 28 percent of employment and 40 percent of output (MIG, 2009). Both of these 

activities occur on the forests.

Whereas figure 80 considers the study area in isolation, figure 81 compares industry 

concentration in the study area to the state as a whole. The numbers on the x-axis of figure 81

show the degree of specialization in the local economy. A score of one indicates that the study 

area and the state (Arizona) are equally specialized in the sector. A score above one indicates that 

the study area is more specialized in the sector than the state. A score below one indicates that the 

study area is less specialized in the sector than the state. 

As the two figures demonstrate, these two methods of data analysis suggest quite different results. 

Mining accounts for five percent of employment in the study area, a relatively modest figure until 

it is put in the context of the state. A resident of study area is nearly 10 times more likely to be 

employed in the mining sector compared to residents of Arizona as a whole. Similarly, although 

government employment dominates in figure 80, the study area is only somewhat specialized in 

government employment compared to the state. Across Arizona, government employment 

provides a substantial percentage of total employment. Public lands (e.g., national forests, 

national parks, BLM-managed public lands, and state-owned lands), military installations, and 

tribal lands are common across the state. All of these features, in addition to the large share of 

state and local government employment, contribute to a sizable government presence in Arizona.

The large role that government plays in the Arizona economy makes it more likely that Forest 

Service decisions would affect economic activity and well-being. Since the study area is 

specialized in economic sectors that have direct links to public lands, particularly mining and 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, Forest Service management actions may have a more 

pronounced economic influence relative to an area with smaller natural resource sectors.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

482 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 81. Employment specialization (MIG, 2009)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 483

Payments to States and Counties

As mentioned previously, the forests encompass approximately 2.1 million acres of eastern 

Arizona. The Forest Service makes payments to states and counties that contain NFS lands. These 

payments fall into two categories: Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act payments (SRSCS). Table 169 displays the payments to 

counties from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Federal agencies do not pay property taxes; therefore, PILT is distributed to counties to 

compensate for the local services that support activities on Federal lands, such as law 

enforcement and road maintenance.

SRSCS payments are intended to improve public schools, maintain infrastructure, improve the 

health of watersheds and ecosystems, protect communities, and strengthen local economies.

Table 169. Payments to states and counties from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Area SRSCS (FY2009) PILT (FY2010) Total FS 

Payments

Apache County, AZ $1,373,662 $1,183,201 $2,556,863

Coconino County, AZ $392,119 $94,408 $486,527

Greenlee County, AZ $903,978 $625,620 $1,529,598

Navajo County, AZ $1,626,447 $274,601 $1,901,048

Total $4,296,206 $2,177,830 $6,474,036

Source: Forest Service, 2010g and DOI, 2010

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.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for Federal 

agency decisionmakers to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse with 

respect to minority and low-income populations and identify alternatives that would avoid or 

mitigate those impacts. Environmental justice, minority, minority population, low-income

population, and human health and environmental effects are defined in the glossary.

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy 

environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

484 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

According to U.S. Census data reported in table 170, study area counties differ substantially in 

their racial and ethnic composition.

Table 170. Race and ethnicity by counties, states, and Nation

Area White

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian or 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Hispanic 

or 

Latino1

Apache 

County, 

AZ

23.3% 0.2% 72.9% 0.3% 0.0% 1.3% 2.0% 5.8%

Coconino 

County, 

AZ

61.7% 1.2% 27.3% 1.4% 0.1% 5.2% 3.1% 13.5%

Greenlee 

County, 

AZ

77.2% 1.1% 2.3% 0.5% 0.1% 15.0% 3.8% 47.9%

Navajo 

County, 

AZ

49.3% 0.9% 43.4% 0.5% 0.1% 3.4% 2.5% 10.8%

Catron 

County, 

NM

89.8% 0.4% 2.7% 0.2% 0.0% 3.8% 3.1% 19.0%

Grant 

County, 

NM

84.9% 0.9% 1.4% 0.4% 0.1% 9.6% 2.8% 48.3%

Arizona 73.0% 4.1% 4.6% 2.8% 0.2% 11.9% 3.4% 29.6%

New 

Mexico

68.4% 2.1% 9.4% 1.4% 0.1% 15.0% 3.7% 46.3%

United 

States

72.4% 12.6% 0.9% 4.8% 0.2% 6.2% 2.9% 16.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, Table DP-1 1 Hispanic or Latino ethnicity may be of any race

Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) have very high concentrations of American Indian residents

(73 and 43 percent, respectively). The Navajo Nation and the Fort Apache Indian Reservation are 

in both counties. The Hopi Indian reservation is in Coconino and Navajo Counties (AZ). 

Coconino County, AZ, also has a relatively large percentage (27 percent) of American Indian 

residents, resulting from the five reservations that exist in the county. Forty-three percent of the 

land in the study area is Native American land (Forest Service, 2009a). Grant County, NM, and 

Greenlee County, AZ, have higher percentages (48 percent in each county) of Hispanic/Latino 

residents than Arizona (30 percent), New Mexico (46 percent), and the Nation (16 percent).

Table 171 lists the poverty rates for the counties, states, and Nation. Apache and Navajo Counties 

(AZ) have the highest percentage of residents living in poverty. As with much of the other social 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 485

and economic data presented for these counties, this finding suggests that Apache and Navajo 

Counties may be particularly vulnerable to changes that could affect livelihoods.

Apart from Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ), the study area counties have poverty rates that are 

roughly consistent with state and national rates. As of 2009, Apache County, AZ, has the 35th

highest poverty rate in the Nation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

Table 171. Percent of persons living in poverty

Area Poverty Rate

Apache County, AZ 34.4%

Coconino County, AZ 18.6%

Greenlee County, AZ 13.5%

Navajo County, AZ 24.4%

Catron County, NM 15.3%

Grant County, NM 14.8%

Arizona 15.3%

New Mexico 18.4%

United States 13.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP03

Based on the minority status and poverty data presented above, Apache and Navajo Counties 

(AZ) appear most at risk for environmental justice issues. However, even in counties with 

relatively small minority populations and low poverty rates, disproportionate impacts to 

vulnerable groups may occur. The impact analysis considers the potential for Forest Service 

management actions to adversely affect all area residents, with a particular attention to any 

potential disproportionate impacts on minority and/or low-income residents.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Economic Impact Analysis

Economic impact analysis estimates the employment and labor income consequences of forest 

management actions. Table 172 provides employment estimates by alternative. Table 173

provides labor income estimates by alternative. These tables are referenced in the alternativespecific descriptions of economic impacts.

Data on use levels under each alternative were collected from the forests’ resource specialists. In 

most instances, the precise change is unknown. Therefore, the changes are based on the 

professional expertise of the forests’ resource specialists (1982 Planning Rule, 219.12(g)). 

Regional economic impacts are estimated based on the assumption of full implementation of each 

alternative. The actual changes in the economy would depend on individuals taking advantage of 

the resource-related opportunities that would be supported by each alternative. If market 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

486 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

conditions or trends in resource use are not conducive to developing some opportunities, the 

economic impact would be different than estimated here.

Wood products jobs, labor income, revenues, and present net value (tables 172, 173, 175, and 

176) are shown as ranges for alternatives B, C, and D because low and high mechanical 

treatment acres were modeled (see table 3, chapter 2). Mechanical vegetation treatment acres also 

vary by alternative theme (most acres cut in alternative C, followed by alternatives B, D, and 

A). Alternatives A and B use a mix of mechanical and fire to accomplish restoration treatments, 

while alternative C emphasizes mechanical treatments and alternative D uses primarily fire 

treatments. Acres that are mechanically treated (cut) result in wood products that could be offered

to individuals and local and regional markets (see table 150 for wood product volumes) and 

would affect the number of jobs created, labor income created, and NFS program expenditures 

and revenues.

Across many program areas, the employment estimates do not vary substantially between 

alternatives. Changes in forest product removal drive most of the expected difference in 

employment between alternatives, with alternative C offering the highest expected wood 

products-related employment.

Although recreation management emphasis varies between alternatives, none of the alternatives is 

expected to change the economic impact of recreation. The alternatives may change how and 

where people choose to recreate (e.g., an increase in one type of activity and a decrease in

another) but none of the changes are expected to lead to a net economic change. However, 

changes in recreation management emphasis may have social consequences that are not captured 

in employment and income data. The possible social consequences are discussed later in this 

document.

Table 172. Employment by program area by alternative

Program Area

Number of Jobs Contributed

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Recreation 2,939 2,939 2,939 2,939

Grazing 120 120 120 120

Minerals 0 0 0 0

Wood Products 287 113–511 164–1,113 60–198

Payments to States and Counties 58 58 58 58

FS Expenditures 364 364 364 364

Total 3,768 3,594 – 3,992 3,645 – 4,594 3,541 – 3,679

Source: IMPLAN 2009

As with the employment estimates, labor income is not expected to differ substantially between 

alternatives. Most of the difference is driven by wood products-related labor income, which is 

estimated to be highest under alternative C due to greater volumes of forest product removal. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 487

Table 173. Labor income by program area by alternative

Program Area

Labor Income Contributed

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Recreation $86,629,000 $86,629,000 $86,629,000 $86,629,000

Grazing $1,296,000 $1,296,000 $1,296,000 $1,296,000

Minerals $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000

Wood Products $9,562,000 $3,757,000 -

$17,010,000

$5,454,000 -

$37,035,000

$2,011,000 -

$6,597,000

Payments to States and Counties $2,588,000 $2,588,000 $2,588,000 $2,588,000

FS Expenditures $17,520,000 $17,520,000 $17,520,000 $17,520,000

Total $117,614,000 $111,809,000 -

$125,062,000

$113,506,000 -

$145,087,000

$110,063,000 -

$114,649,000

Source: IMPLAN 2009

Alternatives A and B would support approximately the same employment and income in the 

local economy. Alternative C would support the highest levels of Forest Service related 

employment and income in the local economy. Alternative D would support the lowest levels of 

employment and income in the local economy. 

Financial Efficiency Analysis

Financial efficiency analysis compares forest expenditures and revenues throughout the life of a 

land management plan. Present net value (PNV) is used as an indicator of financial efficiency and 

presents one tool to be used in conjunction with many other factors in the decisionmaking 

process. PNV combines benefits and costs that occur at different times and discounts them into a 

sum. A positive PNV indicates that the alternative produces more than one dollar of value 

(revenues) for each dollar spent (expenditures). Financial efficiency analysis is not intended to be 

a comprehensive analysis that incorporates monetary expressions of all benefits and costs. Many 

of the values associated with natural resource management are best handled apart from, but in 

conjunction with, a more limited financial efficiency framework. 

Table 174 presents annual forest expenditures, by program area. These figures are based on 

average expenditures over the three fiscal years (FY2007 to FY2009). Only the wood products 

expenditures are expected to vary in alternatives C and D because of the greater and lesser, 

respectively, amounts of mechanical vegetation treatments proposed.

Table 174. Annual Apache-Sitgreaves NFs program expenditures by alternative

Program Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Grazing $470,000 $470,000 $470,000 $470,000

Recreation $1,371,000 $1,371,000 $1,371,000 $1,371,000

Minerals $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000

Wood Products $1,335,000 $1,335,000 $1,602,000 $1,068,000
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

488 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 175 shows annual forest revenues by program area. Where available, these figures are 

based on average revenues over three fiscal years (FY2007 to FY2009). When 3 years of data 

were unavailable, the most recent year has been used. The wood products estimates are based on 

average inflation adjusted wood products values per CCF. Grazing and mineral revenues are not 

expected to vary by alternative; there are no foreseeable changes. The only factor that could 

change grazing revenue is if the charge per HM or AUM is increased or decreased; however, that 

figure is set at the national level and is beyond the control of the Forest Service. Recreation 

revenues are not expected to change because most of this money is associated with recreation 

special use permits. The large campgrounds on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are under permit to 

concessionaires, with fees generally offset by maintenance of and improvements to the facilities. 

The wood products revenue figures are based on the outputs from the vegetation modeling.

Table 175. Annual Apache-Sitgreaves NFs program revenue by alternative

Program Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Grazing $175,500 $175,500 $175,500 $175,500

Recreation $152,049 $152,049 $152,049 $152,049

Minerals $15,963 $15,963 $15,963 $15,963

Wood Products $722,382 $260,999 -

$1,255,757

$380,434 -

$2,689,133

$143,017 -

$791,053

Table 176 lists present net value (PNV) by program area and alternative. PNV is the difference 

between program revenues (benefits) and program expenditures (costs). The annual expenditures 

presented in table 174 were summed over 15 years using a 4 percent discount rate (so that one 

dollar today is valued higher than one dollar in 10 years). The sum of the discounted annual 

expenditures represents the present value of costs. The same exercise was conducted using the 

annual program revenues presented in table 175. The sum of the discounted annual revenues 

represents the present value of benefits. The difference between the present value of costs and the 

present value of benefits is present net value. The higher the present net value, the more 

financially efficient the alternative. For example, alternative B has a total PNV of approximately 

negative $20 million which is higher than the negative $27 million in alternative A.

The range of values in the PNV (table 176) in the action alternatives reflects the range between 

the high and low mechanical treatment objectives. Alternative A is based on the average 

mechanical treatment objective.

The differences in PNVs between alternatives arise primarily from changes in the expected 

volume of forest product removal from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (table 150). The wood 

products-related revenues and expenditures vary by alternative because of the different vegetation 

treatment acres.

Table 176. Present net value (PNV) by alternative and program area1

Program Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Grazing ($3,568,865) ($3,568,865) ($3,568,865) ($3,568,865)

Recreation ($14,771,720) ($14,771,720) ($14,771,720) ($14,771,720)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 489

Program Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Minerals ($1,078,985) ($1,078,985) ($1,078,985) ($1,078,985)

Wood Products ($7,423,943) ($13,015,166) –

($960,299)

($14,803,410) -

$13,174,304

($11,209,304) –

($3,356,152)

Total PNV ($26,843,513) ($32,434,737) –

($20,379,869)

($30,987,371) –

($3,009,657)

($33,628,874) –

($22,775,722)

Source: QuickSilver6 2010

1 Figures in parenthesis indicate a negative number.

The expected value (average) PNV of alternative A would be approximately equivalent to the 

PNV of alternative B. Therefore, these alternatives are expected to be similar in financial 

efficiency. The potential PNV range of alternative C would be much greater than the range of 

PNVs under the other alternatives due to the large difference between high and low treatment 

objectives. The expected value PNV of alternative C would be the highest (most financially 

efficient) of any considered alternative. The expected value PNV of alternatives A, B, and D is 

approximately equivalent. 

Social Consequences

Area residents and visitors attach numerous values to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. For some, NFS 

lands provide economic opportunities in rural communities. To others, the forests are valued for 

leisure. This binary classification ignores the nuances of peoples’ values. Furthermore, many 

individuals are likely to rely on the forests for both economic opportunities and leisure pursuits.

The “Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment” (Forest Service, 2009a) identified social 

values associated with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, including: (1) preservation of open space; (2) 

protection of ecosystem service and other forest-related amenity values; (3) economic 

opportunities from both commodity and noncommodity sources; (4) accessible and varied 

outdoor recreation opportunities; and (5) traditional tribal uses, such as gathering boughs and 

visiting sacred sites. Wood products management and lands recommended for wilderness are the 

main sources of potential social and economic consequences between alternatives.

As the “Affected Environment” section describes, the study area has very low population density, 

relatively low earnings and income, high dependence on transfer payments, and an economy 

dominated by government employment. These factors suggest that Forest Service decisions, and 

other Federal actions, may have a substantial effect on social and economic well-being in the 

study area. The range of employment and labor income consequences (presented in tables 164

and 165) do not differ dramatically; based on the ranges, it is possible that the action alternatives

would provide equivalent levels of employment and income. However, alternative C has the 

highest expected values of employment and income. For individuals who primarily value the 

forests for economic opportunities, alternative C is likely to be favored. Alternative A is 

expected to provide the second-highest levels of employment and labor income to the local 

economy, followed by alternative B and then alternative D.

Individuals who value resource protection above resource use are likely to derive benefit from the 

recommendation of additional lands for wilderness, regardless of intention to recreate in 

wilderness. Under current management (alternative A), approximately 1.5 percent of visits to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

490 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are to designated wilderness (Forest Service, 2001). Although wilderness 

visits account for a relatively small percentage of total visits, wilderness also has non-recreation 

values, such as ecosystem services. Alternative D is expected to appeal to people and groups 

who seek additional primitive recreation opportunities and/or the protection of forest resources. 

Alternatives A, B, and C are less likely to be favored among individuals who primarily value 

resource protection and wilderness recreation opportunities.

Recreation management emphasis varies between alternatives. While the economic impact 

analysis finds no change resulting from recreation management emphasis changes, social 

consequences are expected. Alternative C emphasizes motorized and developed recreation 

opportunities, and therefore is likely to provide the most value to individuals who participate in 

motorized recreation activities. There would also be decreases in nonmotorized and dispersed 

recreation opportunities that could displace users to other areas or result in fewer users who prefer 

those types of recreation. Alternative D, with a greater emphasis on nonmotorized and dispersed 

recreation opportunities, may attract those who prefer nonmotorized and/or dispersed recreation 

activities, while not encouraging those with motorized/developed preferences. Therefore, 

recreation management emphasis would lead to distributional consequences related to visitor 

satisfaction and quality of life related to forest leisure activities.

Alternatives B and C would increase vegetation treatment. Increases in prescribed burns would 

create the potential for social consequences related to smoke emissions. Language barriers make 

communicating about burn plans more difficult, which can reduce the ability of individuals to 

engage in behaviors to avoid smoke. Nonnative English speakers and recent immigrants may be 

unable to understand or know where to find information about planned burns or other Forest 

Service activities that may affect their communities. Individuals who are sensitive to smoke, 

children, the elderly, asthmatics, and those with illnesses, would be most affected by the increase 

in smoke from prescribed burns.

The environmental justice analysis finds that the study area has large percentages of American 

Indian and Hispanic/Latino residents as well as high poverty rates. These findings raise the 

likelihood of observing disproportionate adverse effects to low income and/or minority residents. 

However, analysis of the decisions to be made under the alternatives finds no environmental 

justice consequences. Since all alternatives would continue to support similar levels of 

employment and income, none of the decisions is expected to exacerbate the poverty rate or 

disproportionately worsen the economic well-being of low-income individuals. Under all 

alternatives, American Indian residents would be able to gather forest products and visit sacred 

sites. None of the alternatives is expected to disproportionately adversely impact racial and/or 

ethnic minority individuals.

Recreation

Approximately 2.1 million visitors recreate on the forests annually. These visitors support 

approximately 2,939 (full- and part-time) jobs and $86.6 million in labor income in the local 

economy on an average annual basis. None of the decisions to be made in all alternatives is 

expected to change the economic impact of recreation. The social impact of recreation, including 

consumer surplus (the value of recreation above what is paid for the experience), is discussed 

above. The number of recreation visits is expected to increase by 3 percent annually as a result of 

outside factors. The management decisions to be made may affect the recreation opportunities. 

Recreation participation may change as a result of population growth, demographic change, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 491

recreation preferences (e.g., a growth in OHV use). None of these trends is expected to be 

affected by Forest Service management decisions.

Minerals

Stone, sand, and gravel are removed from the forests. The quantities removed are not expected to 

differ between all alternatives. Since most of the firms that extract stone, sand, and gravel exist 

outside of the IMPLAN study area (ADMMR, 2007), the extraction of minerals from the forests 

is not expected to support employment and income in the local economy. However, these 

activities would have economic impacts outside of the study area.

Grazing

Under all alternatives, grazing would support approximately 120 jobs and $1.3 million in labor 

income, annually. However, these figures assume that available animal unit months (AUMs) are 

fully utilized. Based on current use levels, approximately 66 jobs and $713,000 in labor income 

are supported by grazing on the forests. 

The benefit to permittees of public forage, below the market price, is approximately $994,500. 

The average private land grazing fee per AUM in Arizona is $9, compared to the $1.35 public 

land grazing fee (USDA NASS, 2011). If the forests’ grazing permittees had to replace their 

public land forage with private land forage, the annual cost of grazing would be $1,170,000 

(130,000 AUMs at $9 per AUM). With Forest Service forage, permittees pay $175,500 (130,000 

AUMs at $1.35 per AUM). Therefore, the economic benefit to ranchers is not fully captured in 

the employment and labor income figures presented above. However, the surplus to the ranchers 

can also be seen as a cost to providers of private forage. 

Wood Products

The number of jobs and labor income supported by the availability of forest products can be 

found in tables 164 and 165. Alternative C would provide the highest number of wood products 

jobs and income, followed by alternatives B and A. Alternative D would provide the smallest 

number of wood products jobs and income.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The geographic scope for the social and economic cumulative environmental consequences 

analysis is the six-county region39 identified in the affected environment section. This analysis 

considers how past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on lands throughout the 

region may interact under all alternatives to affect the social and economic environment. The 

social and economic analysis of all alternatives is unique among the resources and uses in that 

the effects occur primarily off the forests. In this way, the indirect effects described above are 

cumulative in nature; they evaluate the effects of all alternatives both on and off the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. However, the indirect effects analysis does not address how actions taken on 

adjacent lands affect the social and economic consequences of all alternatives.

 39 Apache, Navajo, Coconino, and Greenlee Counties in Arizona and Catron and Grant Counties in New Mexico.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

492 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

All alternatives emphasize ecosystem restoration. Current and proposed activities on adjacent 

NFS lands also emphasize ecosystem restoration. The scale of the proposed treatments (on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and adjacent lands) is expected to draw new forest product harvesting 

and processing firms to the region. The wood products and ecosystem restoration estimates 

presented in the environmental consequences section are based on a static model of the economy. 

However, if additional firms locate in the area because of regionwide restoration efforts, the local 

economic impact of activities under all alternatives would increase.

The recreation-related effects identified in the social and economic environmental consequences 

section may be influenced by trends and activities that occur off the forests. In fiscal year 2010, 

Arizona State Parks closed 13 of its 28 parks. Although most of these parks have reopened, a 

number are open on a reduced schedule. Lyman Lake, the only state park in Apache County and 

30 miles north of the forests, is open on a reduced schedule through local partnerships. 

Furthermore, the possibility of future closures remains because of ongoing budget uncertainty. 

The reduction of recreation opportunities in local state parks may slightly increase demand for 

recreation on the forests. All alternatives support diverse recreational opportunities on the 

forests. Increased recreation use of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would lead to a slightly higher 

economic impact than predicted in the indirect effects discussion. However, other adjacent lands 

(BLM, NPS, other NFS lands, and undeveloped state lands) continue to provide recreation 

opportunities.

Under all alternatives, portions of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs may provide a corridor to support 

reasonably foreseeable alternative energy development in the region. This could facilitate 

alternative energy development in the region, which would support local area employment.

Other Required Disclosures

The regulations for implementing 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.” As a proposed Federal 

project, the proposed plan decisions are subject to compliance with other Federal and State laws. 

Throughout the development of the proposed plan, there has been collaboration and cooperation 

with various State and Federal agencies. The following actions have been taken to document and 

ensure compliance with laws that require consultation and/or concurrence with other Federal 

agencies.

• Endangered Species Act, Section 7: Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, regarding federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species and 

designated and proposed critical habitat, is in progress. Biological assessments (BAs) for 

fisheries and wildlife are being prepared for the preferred alternative and will be 

submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consultation according to the ESA. 

• National Historic Preservation Act: Consultation with the Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) is underway as mandated by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. The Southwestern Region also subscribes to a programmatic 

agreement with SHPO for ways in which consultation can be conducted. The various 

appendices of the programmatic agreement are particularly directed to Southwestern 

Region projects and issues. 
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 493

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors 

The following individuals and Forest Service staff groups contributed to the development of this 

environmental impact statement:

Responsible Official

Corbin Newman, Regional Forester for the Southwestern Region

Official Responsible for Preparing the DEIS

James E. Zornes, Forest Supervisor

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Table 177. Interdisciplinary team members for plan revision

Name Title and DEIS 

Contribution Education and Experience

Monica Boehning Forest Silviculturist

(Forest Products and Forest 

Health Specialist Reports, 

VDDT model calibration)

B.S.F., Forestry, Northern Arizona University 

School of Forestry

30 years with the Forest Service, 19 years as a 

certified silviculturist in USFS Region 3

Randall L. Chavez Recreation and Lands Staff

Lakeside Ranger District

(Lands and Minerals and 

Energy Specialist Reports)

B.S., Agricultural (Range Management), New 

Mexico State University

18 years with the Forest Service

Michelle W. Davalos Forest Planner

(Team Leader)

B.S., Geography, James Madison University

23 years with the Forest Service

Ryan Domsalla Former Recreation and Lands 

Program Manager

(review)

B.S., Biology (Wildlife 

Management),University of Wyoming

15 years with the Forest Service

Elizabeth Dykstra Realty Specialist – Coconino 

NF

(Lands and Minerals and 

Energy Specialist Reports)

B.S. Resource Management, University of 

Wisconsin

M.S. Resource Planning, University of New 

Mexico

23 years with the Forest Service

David Evans Range Program Manager

(review)

M.S. Environmental Resources, Range 

emphasis, Arizona State University

11 years with the Forest Service

Genice Froehlich Former Wildlife Biologist

(Initial species viability 

evaluation)

B.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University 

of California, Davis

M.S., Wildlife Management, University of 

Arizona

21 years with the Forest Service

Deryl Jevons Former Planning Staff Officer

(review)

B.S., Forest and Range Management, Colorado 

State University

35 years with the Forest Service
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

494 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Name Title and DEIS 

Contribution Education and Experience

Nancy Loving GIS Specialist

(GIS analytical and mapping 

support)

B.S., Forestry, Northern Arizona University

16 years with the Forest Service

Chris Nelson Watershed Program Manager 

- Soil Scientist

(Air Quality, Soils, 

Watershed, Water, and 

Riparian Specialist Reports)

B.S., Watershed Management, University of 

Arizona

34 years with the Forest Service

Debbie Macivor, P.E. Forest Engineer

(Infrastructure Specialist 

Report)

B.S., Civil Engineering, University of New 

Mexico

24 years with the Forest Service, Arizona State 

Registered Professional Engineer

Daniel Mindar Former Forest Fuels Specialist

(FFE modeling)

A.S., Fire Science, Utah Valley State College

Graduate, Technical Fire Management 

Washington Institute and Colorado State 

University

20 years with the Forest Service

Judy Palmer Forest Fuels Specialist

(Fire Specialist Report)

Graduate, Technical Fire Management 

Washington Institute and Colorado State 

University

27 years with the Forest Service

Adriane Ragan Writer/Editor

(review and formatting)

M.A. English, Northern Arizona University

B.A. History, University of Missouri-Kansas 

City

8 years with the Forest Service

Melissa Schroeder Forest Archaeologist

(Cultural Resources and 

American Indian Rights and 

Responsibilities Specialist 

Reports)

M.A., Anthropology emphasis in Archaeology, 

California State University Fullerton

B.A., Anthropology emphasis in Archaeology, 

California State University, Fullerton

25 years with the Forest Service, Park Service, 

and private sector

Evelyn Treiman Recreation Planner

(Recreation, Wilderness, Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, and Scenic 

Resources Specialist Reports, 

review of TEAMS 

Socioeconomic Resource 

Report)

M.S., Environmental Studies, University of 

Montana

B.A., Biology and Environmental Studies, 

University of California, Santa Cruz

27 years with the Bureau of Land Management 

and Forest Service

Jerry Ward Fish Biologist

(Fisheries Specialist and 

Viability Report, Biological 

Assessment)

B.S., Fisheries, Humboldt State University

24 years with the Forest Service
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 495

Name Title and DEIS 

Contribution Education and Experience

Mitchel R.White, PhD Ecologist

(Vegetation, Invasive Species, 

and RNA Specialist Reports, 

VDDT modeling)

PhD, Forest Science, Northern Arizona 

University

M.S., Range and Wildlife Science, New Mexico 

State University

B.S., Forest Science, Northern Arizona 

University

30 years with the Forest Service and Natural 

Resource Conservation Service

Linda WhiteTrifaro Wildlife Biologist

(Wildlife Specialist Reports, 

Biological Assessment)

M.S., Range and Wildlife Science, New Mexico 

State University

B.S., Public Administration, University of 

Arizona

31 years with the Forest Service, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, and Bureau of 

Land Management

Denise VanKeuren Former Range Program 

Manager

(Range Specialist Report)

B.S., Natural Resources Management emphasis 

in Range, Arizona State University

33 years with the Forest Service

Other Forest Service Contributors

Review and input in the development of the proposed plan and DEIS were received from the 

staffs of the Alpine, Black Mesa, Clifton, Lakeside, and Springerville Ranger Districts, 

Supervisor’s Office, and Southwestern Regional Office. Delilah Jaworski, social scientist with 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit, prepared the “Socioeconomic Resource Report.” Tamara Conner, forest 

environmental coordinator, provided NEPA review and oversight.

Consultation and Coordination

The Forest Service consulted the following tribes, Federal, State, and local agencies, groups, and 

individuals during the development of this environmental impact statement:

Tribes

The following nine tribes and one chapter were consulted: White Mountain Apache Tribe, San 

Carlos Apache Tribe, Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, Tonto 

Apache Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and the Ramah 

Chapter of the Navajo Nation.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Numerous Federal, State, and local agencies have been consulted in the development of the 

proposed plan and this DEIS. Complete mailing lists for the scoping periods are available in the 

“Plan Set of Documents.” Some of the agencies consulted include: 

U.S. Federal Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

496 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

U.S. Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. National Park Service

U.S.D.A. Animal Damage Control

U.S.D.A. Farm Services Agency

U.S.D.A. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service

U.S. Congress Members

U.S. Senate Members

Arizona State Representatives

Arizona State Senators 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality

Arizona Department of Mines and 

Mineral Resources

Arizona Department of Public Safety

Arizona Department of Transportation

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona Governor's Office

Arizona State Forestry Division

Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Office

Arizona State Land Department

Arizona State Parks

New Mexico Department of Game and 

Fish

Apache County Natural Resource 

Conservation District

Apache County Board of Supervisors

Apache County Cooperative Extension 

Office

Apache County Planning and Zoning

Apache County Sheriff's Office

Catron County Board of Commissioners

Coconino County Board of Supervisors

Coconino County Planning and Zoning

Graham County Board of Supervisors

Greenlee County Board of Supervisors

Greenlee County Road Department

Navajo County Cooperative Extension

Navajo County Sheriff's Office

City of Holbrook

City of Show Low

City of St. Johns

City of Winslow

Clay Springs-Pinedale Fire Department

Eagar Town Council

Forest Lake Fire District

Greer Fire District

Heber-Overgaard Fire Department

Lakeside Fire Department

Show Low Planning and Zoning 

Commission

Town of Taylor 

Town of Clifton

Town of Duncan

Town of Eagar

Town of Pinetop-Lakeside

Town of Snowflake

Town of Springerville

Town of Taylor

Winslow Chamber of Commerce

Others

Numerous groups and individuals participated in the process through written comments and by 

attending public meetings. Complete mailing lists are available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Some of the groups consulted include:

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests' 

Permit Holders

Alpine Action Alliance

Alpine Chamber of Commerce

American Sportfishing Association

Animal Defense League of Arizona
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 497

Animal Welfare Institute

Apache County ATV Roughriders

Apache County Historical Society

Archery Trade Association

Arizona Cattle Growers' Association

Arizona Council of Trout Unlimited

Arizona Deer Association

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society

Arizona Elk Society

Arizona Grazing Lands Conservation 

Association

Arizona Healthy Grazing Coalition

Arizona Nature Conservancy

Arizona OHV Coalition

Arizona Public Service

Arizona Riparian Council

Arizona Trail Riders

Arizona Trappers Association

Arizona Wilderness Coalition

Arizona Wildlife Federation

Arizona Wool Producers Association

Arizona Zoological Society

Back Country Horsemen of America

Back Country Pilots

Backcountry Horsemen of Arizona

Bear Trust International

Blue Ribbon Coalition

Blue River Cowbelles

Blue River Watershed Association

Campaign for America's Wilderness

Campfire Club of America

Center For Biological Diversity

Center for Desert Archaeology

Citizens for Multiple Land Use and 

Access (CMLUA)

Defenders of Wildlife

Disabled Explorers

Ducks Unlimited

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization

Ecological Restoration Institute

Economic Development for Apache 

County

Forest Guardians

ForestERA

Foundation for North American Wild 

Sheep

Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, 

Inc.

Friends of Anderson Mesa

Friends of Arizona Rivers

Graham County Republicans

Grand Canyon Trust

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project

Greenlee County Cattle Growers 

Association

Greenlee County Cowbelles

Izaak Walton League of America

Little Colorado River Plateau RC&D

Little Colorado River Watershed 

Coordinating Council

Local Homeowner's Associations

Maricopa Audubon Society

National Assembly of Sportsmen's 

Caucuses

National Rifle Association of America

National Shooting Sports Foundation

National Wild Turkey Federation

Natural Heritage New Mexico

Navajo County ATV Roughriders

Navopache Electric Co-op

New Mexico Cattle Growers 

Association

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance

North American Bear Foundation

North American Grouse Partnership

Northern Arizona University

People of the West

Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility

Public Lands Foundation

Quails Unlimited

Quality Deer Management Association

Recreational Boating and Fishing 

Foundation

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Ruffed Grouse Society
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

498 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Safari Club International

Sand County Foundation

Save the Peaks Coalition

Sierra Club

Sky Island Alliance

Southwest Center for Biological 

Diversity

Southwest Environmental Center

Southwest Forest Products

Springerville-Eagar Regional Chamber 

of Commerce

The Nature Conservancy

The Northern Arizona Wood Products 

Association

The Rewilding Institute

The Wilderness Society

The Wildlands Project

TRACKS

Trout Unlimited

Tucson Electric Power

University of Arizona

Upper Eagle Creek Watershed 

Association

Upper Little Colorado River Watershed 

Partnership

Western Environmental Law Center

Western Lands Exchange Project

White Mountain Audubon Society

White Mountain Conservation League

White Mountain Open Trails 

Association

White Mountain Regional Development 

Corporation

White Mountain Shooters Association

WildEarth Guardians

Wilderness Watch

List of Agencies, Organizations and 

Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent

Notice of the availability of this DEIS was mailed to the public, forest employees, tribal 

governments, Federal and State agencies, and local governments. In August 2010, the forests sent 

postcards to the entities on the plan revision mailing list requesting they return the card if they 

wanted a copy of the DEIS sent to them, and to specify what format they would like it in. The 

DEIS was mailed to those that asked to receive a copy. These mailing lists can be found in the 

“Plan Set of Documents” and are available on request.
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 499

Glossary

Adjudication – The legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and 

argumentation, including legal reasoning, set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a 

decision which determines water rights and obligations between the parties involved.

Administrative use – Use by the Forest Service.

Age class – Trees or plants that originated within a relatively distinct range of years. Typically the 

range of years is considered to fall within 20 percent of the average natural maturity of a 

particular species (e.g., if 100 years is required to reach maturity, then there would be five 20-year 

age classes).

Allelopathy – The suppression of neighboring plants or the release into the environment by one 

plant of a substance that inhibits the germination or growth of other potential competitor plants of 

the same or another species

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ) – The quantity of timber that may be sold from the area of 

suitable land covered by the land management plan for a time period specified by the plan. This 

allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is usually expressed on an annual basis as the “average annual 

allowable sale quantity.” For timber resource planning purposes, the allowable sale quantity 

applies to each decade over the planning horizon and includes only chargeable volume. 

Consistent with the definition of timber production, do not include firewood or other 

nonindustrial wood in the allowable sale quantity.

Aspen clone – A genetically identical set of aspen trees all connected by the same root system, 

such that they can be vegetatively propagated. A clone may be a distinct aspen stand, or it may be 

a smaller inclusion within a conifer stand, or it may cover an entire mountainside as a large stand 

or patch.

Available forage – That amount of growth of a vigorous and healthy plant that can be utilized as 

feed (regardless of what animal is using it) without impairing the plant’s long-term health and 

productivity or other uses such as riparian filtering. The amount of available forage may be less 

where there is a need to restore health and vigor of forage plants. That amount may also depend 

on time of year and plant physiological stage, or other conditions such as drought.

Basal area – The cross-sectional area of the stem or the stems of the plant or all plants in a stand. 

Herbaceous and small woody plants are measured at diameter at root collar (d.r.c.) or near ground 

level; larger woody plants are measured at diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or other appropriate 

height. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by plants; it is expressed in 

square feet per acre for woody species.

Beneficial use – Beneficial use of water from rivers and streams is allocated by prior 

appropriation, meaning the first user to divert water and put it to a “beneficial use” obtains a 

priority right, and that right is to be satisfied before any other user has access to the water. The 

definition of what constitutes a “beneficial use” has evolved. Although the Arizona Legislature 

added habitat for wildlife and fish as one of the beneficial uses in 1941, it wasn’t until 1976 that 

the court ruled this included a right for instream flow, and the first instream flow permit was not 

issued until 1990. Obtaining a permit for instream flow allows users to leave their allocation of 

water in the river rather than diverting, consuming, or losing it for nonuse.
Glossary

500 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Best management practices (BMPs) – Methods, measures, or practices selected by an agency to 

meet its nonpoint source control needs. BMPs include but are not limited to structural and 

nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, 

during, and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of 

pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2(m)).

Biomass – see woody biomass.

Bolt – Short piece of pulpwood, pole, or log.

CCF – hundred cubic feet.

Chargeable volume – All volume included in the growth and yield projections for the selected 

management prescriptions used to arrive at the allowable sale quantity, based on regional 

utilization standards. Consistent with the definition of timber production, planned production of 

firewood is not included in the allowable sale quantity and therefore is nonchargeable.

Class I airshed – An airshed classification where areas require the highest level of protection 

under the Clean Air Act of 1963.

Class II airshed – An airshed classification representing National Forest System land that is not 

classified as a Class I airshed. These areas may receive a greater amount of human-caused 

pollution than Class I areas.

Clearcutting regeneration method – The cutting of essentially all trees, producing a fully 

exposed microclimate for the development of a new age class.

Clump – A tight cluster of two to five trees of similar age and size originating from a common 

rooting zone that typically lean away from each other when mature. A clump is relatively isolated 

from other clumps or trees within a group of trees, but a stand-alone clump of trees can function 

as a tree group.

Critical habitat – When a species is listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), it is protected which includes protection of the habitat it occupies. In addition, 

specific areas may be designated as particularly necessary for the species’ recovery whether the 

species is present or not; these areas are called “critical habitat.” Besides requiring Federal

agencies to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the survival of an endangered or 

threatened species itself, the ESA also requires that their actions not destroy or adversely modify 

designated critical habitat. ESA requirements have no implications on non-Federal lands unless 

activities thereon are undertaken with Federal funding or require a Federal permit.

Coarse woody debris – Woody material, including logs, on the ground greater than 3 inches in 

diameter—a component of litter. Large coarse woody debris is often considered to be downed 

logs at least 12 inches in diameter and 8 feet in length.

Common variety minerals – Salable mineral materials/common variety minerals are 

synonymous terms for the same class of minerals that can be sold under a mineral material 

contract, and are common. These minerals are relatively low value per volume, for example, sand, 

gravel, cinders, common building stone, and flagstone. Many of the materials are used for road 

surfacing, boulders, and engineering construction or may be specialty resources such as soil 

amendments or decorative stone, including flagstone. These minerals are typically sold unless 
Glossary

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 501

used internally, by another government agency, or for ceremonial uses. In these cases they may be 

provided free of charge

Communications site – An area of National Forest System land used for telecommunications 

services. A communications site may be limited to a single communications facility, but most 

often encompasses more than one facility. Existing Apache-Sitgreaves NFs communications sites 

are listed in appendix C of the proposed plan.

Communities-at-risk – As identified in the Federal Register, high risk urban communities within 

the wildland-urban interface.

Community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) – Plans for at-risk communities that identify 

and prioritize areas for hazardous fuels treatments. The CWPPs that cover the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs include CWPP for the At-Risk-Communities in Apache County, CWPP for At-RiskCommunities in Greenlee County, and the Sitgreaves CWPP (includes Apache, Coconino, and 

Navajo Counties).

Connectivity – The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to 

move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by 

corridors of appropriate vegetation; the opposite of fragmentation.

Cultural affiliation – A relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced 

historically or prehistorically between a present day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization 

and an identifiable earlier group. (25 U.S.C.3001 (2))

Deciview – A measurement of visibility. A low deciview number reflects clearer visibility; while 

a high deciview number reflects increased haziness.

Desired condition – A description of social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the 

plan area, or portion of the plan area, toward which management of the land and resources should 

be directed.

Developed recreation site – A distinctly defined area where facilities are provided by the Forest 

Service for concentrated public use (e.g., campgrounds, picnic areas, and swimming areas).

Diameter – The diameter of a tree species, usually measured by two primary methods:

• Diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) – The diameter of a forest tree species at the bole (or 

trunk) typically measured at 4.5 feet above ground level.

• Diameter at root collar (d.r.c.) – The diameter of a woodland tree species typically 

measured at the root collar (the part of a tree where the main roots join the trunk, usually 

at or near ground level) or at the natural ground line, whichever is higher.

Dispersed recreation – Outdoor recreation in which visitors are spread over relatively large 

areas. Where facilities or developments are provided, they are more for access and protection of 

the environment than for the comfort or convenience of the visitors.

Ecological restoration – The process of assisting a degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystem 

in the recovery of its resilience and adaptive capacity. Restoration focuses on establishing the 

composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic 
Glossary

502 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions. In the 

Southwestern Region, achievement of desired conditions means that the ecosystem has been 

restored. Restoration treatments are those that move ecosystem components toward desired 

conditions.

Ecoregion – Ecoregion sections and subsections are units in the National Hierarchy of Ecological 

Units ranging in size from 13 million acres (section) down to 10,000 acres (subsection) that 

describe areas of similar environmental and biological features. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs fall 

completely within the White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim ecoregion section.

Ecosystem – A spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous unit of the earth that includes all 

interacting organisms and components of the abiotic (nonliving) environment within its 

boundaries. An ecosystem is commonly described in terms of its: (1) composition: major 

vegetation types, rare communities, aquatic systems, and riparian systems; (2) structure: 

successional stages, water quality, wetlands, and floodplains; and (3) function: ecological 

processes such as stream flows and natural disturbance regimes.

Ecosystem services – Benefits obtained from ecosystems, including: (1) provisioning services 

such as food, fresh water, fuel, and fiber; (2) regulating services such as climate, water, 

pollination, and disease regulation; (3) supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient 

cycling; and (4) cultural services such as educational, aesthetic, and cultural values as well as 

recreation and tourism opportunities.

Endemic – A population of native insects, diseases, plants, or animals which perform a functional 

role in the ecosystem when they are present at low levels, or constantly attack just a few hosts 

throughout an area, but can become potentially injurious when they increase or spread to reach 

outbreak (epidemic) levels.

Energy corridor – A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of utility 

right-of-way (e.g., above or belowground electric transmission line, gas pipeline).

Energy development – Infrastructure associated with the provision or transport of energy (e.g., 

biomass power generation, wind turbines, and solar panels).

Environmental justice – To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations 

are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in 

the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and 

adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the 

environment.

Even-aged stands – Stands that are composed of one or two distinct age classes of trees.

Even-aged management – The application of a combination of actions that result in the creation 

of stands in which trees are essentially the same age. Managed even-aged forests are 

characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and therefore, tree size) throughout the 

forest area. Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree cutting methods produce even-aged stands.

Federal reserved water rights (reserved rights) – When Congress designates Federal lands for 

a specific purpose it also reserves sufficient water to serve the purposes of that designation. These 

water rights are known as “Federal reserved water rights” or simply, reserved rights. Reserved 
Glossary

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 503

rights are implied rights, meaning that Congress need not expressly state in a bill that it intends to 

reserve Federal water right. The right exists whether or not Congress explicitly mentions it.

Federally listed species – Threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act, as amended. Candidate and proposed species are species which are being considered for 

Federal listing.

Fire regime – The patterns, frequency, and severity of fire that occur over a long period of time 

across a landscape and its immediate effects on the ecosystem in which it occurs. There are five 

fire regimes which are classified based on frequency (average number of years between fires) and 

severity (amount of replacement of the dominant overstory vegetation) of the fire. These five 

regimes are: 

• Fire regime I – 0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common, isolated 

torching can occur) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of dominant overstory 

vegetation replaced)

• Fire regime II – 0- to 35-year frequency and high severity (greater than 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

• Fire regime V – 200+-year frequency and high severity.

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) – FRCC is a metric that quantifies how departed a system 

is from historical conditions in relation to fire, the role fire historically played in that system, and 

the vegetative structure (Hann and Bunnell 2001, Hardy et al. 2001, Hann et al. 2004).

Fire severity – Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; also used to describe 

the product of fire intensity and residence time; usually defined by the degree of soil heating or 

mortality of vegetation.

Priority 6th level HUC watershed – The designated watersheds where restoration activities will 

concentrate on the explicit goal of improving watershed condition.

Foliar – Pertaining to foliage (green tree leaves or needles).

Forage reserve – An area that is normally not allocated for livestock grazing, although may be 

used when an authorized pasture or allotment is unavailable.

Forest highway – A forest road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority 

and open to public travel. (23 U.S.C.101). The Forest Highway Program falls under 23

U.S.C.202, 203, and 204.

Forest road or trail – A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the NFS

that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization 

of the NFS and the use and development of its resources (23 U.S.C. 101, 36 CFR 212.1, 36 CFR 

251.51, 36 CFR 261.2, Forest Service Manual 7705).

Free-flowing – Existing or flowing in natural conditions without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway.
Glossary

504 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Firewood – Wood that is round, split, or sawn and/or otherwise generally refuse material cut into 

short lengths or chipped for burning.

Fugitive dust – Fine particulate matter from windblown soil and dust which becomes airborne.

Geomorphic – Refers to the process of erosion and sediment transport and deposition.

Goshawk post-fledgling family areas (PFAs) – The areas that surround nest areas. They 

represent an area of concentrated use by the northern goshawk family until the time the young are 

no longer dependent on adults for food. PFAs are approximately 420 acres in size (not including 

the nest area acres).

Gross growth – Ingrowth plus accretion. A measurable increase in wood volume due to the 

addition of new trees per acre added or grown into size classes which count toward total stand 

volume (ingrowth), plus added increases in tree diameter increment and height of trees already 

existing in those same size classes (accretion).

Group – A cluster of two or more trees with interlocking or nearly interlocking crowns at 

maturity surrounded by an opening. Size of tree groups is typically variable depending on 

forested PNVT and site conditions and can range from fractions of an acre (a two-tree group) 

(i.e., ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer) too many acres (i.e., wet mixed conifer, spruce-fir). 

Trees within groups are typically non-uniformly spaced, some of which may be tightly clumped.

Group selection – An uneven-aged management method in which trees are removed and new age 

classes are established in groups, adjacent to other groups of different age classes. Group cut size 

is determined by the reproduction requirements of the species desired, and by the number or total 

acreage of different age classes desired across the stand.

Herbaceous – Grass and/or forb vegetation.

Herbivory – Loss of vegetation due to consumption by another organism.

Highly interactive species – A species that has a disproportionate effect on its ecosystem. The 

virtual or effective absence of a highly interactive species leads to significant changes in some 

feature of its ecosystem. Such changes include structural or compositional modifications, 

alterations in the import or export of nutrients, loss of resilience to disturbance, and decreases in 

native species diversity.

Historic range of variability (HRV) – Description of the change over time and space in the 

ecological condition of vegetation types and the ecological processes that shape those types 

(Schussman and Smith, 2006).

Human health and/or environmental effects - As used in USDA Departmental Regulation 

5600-002 includes interrelated social and economic effects.

Hydrologic – Refers to the movement, distribution, and quality of water.

Hydrologic function – the behavioral characteristics of a watershed described in terms of ability 

to sustain favorable conditions of waterflow. Favorable conditions of waterflow are defined in 

terms of water quality, quantity, and timing.
Glossary

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 505

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) – The U.S. is divided and subdivided into successively smaller 

hydrologic units which are identified by unique hydrologic unit codes (HUCs). The ApacheSitgreaves NFs is contained within three 3rd level HUC watersheds: Little Colorado, Gila, and 

Salt Rivers. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs intersect thirteen 4th level HUC watersheds, thirty-two

5th level HUC watersheds, and two hundred and fifteen 6th level HUC watersheds. The average 

size of a 4th level HUC watershed is 1 million acres, 5th level HUC watersheds are around 

165,000 acres, and 6th level HUC watersheds are about 21,000 acres.

Hydrophytic vegetation – The sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the 

frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically 

saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.

Individual tree selection – An uneven-aged management method where individual trees of all 

size classes are removed more or less uniformly throughout the stand, to promote growth of 

remaining trees and to provide space for regeneration.

Industrial wood – All commercial roundwood products, except firewood.

Instream flow – Seasonal streamflows needed for maintaining aquatic and riparian ecosystems, 

wildlife, fisheries, and recreation opportunities at an acceptable level. 

Invasive species – Species that are not native to the ecosystem being described and that cause, or 

have the potential to cause, ecological or economic harm. 

Irruption – Sudden or drastic increase of an insect population which rises to epidemic levels for 

a period of time, after which the population returns to endemic levels. Cyclical population 

explosions and crashes are normal for some insect species, while for others this behavior only 

occurs in response to conditions tipped abnormally in their favor.

Leasable minerals – Leasable minerals include coal, oil, gas, oil shale, sodium, phosphate, 

potassium, and geothermal. Leasable minerals also include the hardrock minerals, if they are 

found on lands that have “acquired” status. Leases are obtained through the Bureau of Land 

Management to extract these mineral resources.

Litter – Litter consists of dead, unattached organic material on the soil surface that is effective in 

protecting the soil surface from raindrop splash, sheet, and rill erosion and is at least 1⁄2 inch thick. 

Litter is composed of leaves, needles, cones, and woody vegetative debris including twigs, 

branches, and trunks.

Livestock grazing – Foraging by permitted livestock (domestic foraging animals of any kind).

Locatable minerals – In general, the hardrock minerals mined and processed for metals (e.g., 

gold, silver, copper, uranium, and some types of nonmetallic minerals such as sandstone). They 

are called “locatable,” meaning subject to mining claim location under the United States mining 

laws. Locatable minerals are limited to lands with “reserved public domain” status.

Long-term sustained-yield capacity (LTSYC) – The highest uniform wood yield from lands 

being managed for timber production that may be sustained, under specified management 

intensity, consistent with multiple-use objectives.
Glossary

506 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Low-income population – Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in 

geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 

geographically dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by USDA programs 

or activities. Low-income populations may be identified using data collected, maintained and 

analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty thresholds 

from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty.

Mechanical treatment – For the purposes of this analysis, mechanical treatments include most 

vegetation treatments except fire. They may include mechanical thinning, hand thinning, and 

other silvicultural treatments.

Mechanized travel – Movement using any contrivance over land, water, or air, having moving 

parts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user and that is powered by a living or 

nonliving power source. This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, hang gliders, parachutes, 

bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as 

necessary medical appliances. It does not include skis, snowshoes, rafts, canoes, sleds, travois, or 

similar primitive devices without moving parts.

Mexican spotted owl protected activity center (PAC) – An area established around an occupied 

Mexican spotted owl site to help ensure successful reproduction and species viability. A PAC is 

no less than 600 acres in size and includes the best owl nesting and roosting habitat. Management 

in PACs is focused on forest health and includes retention of key habitat elements such as higher 

levels of basal area and canopy cover to provide the cool understory conditions owls need, and 

the down woody debris and forage (cover, fungi, seeds) needed by their prey. Management may 

involve thinning and/or burning to reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire, often with timing 

restrictions to prevent disturbance to owls during the breeding season (March 1 through August 

31).

Minority – A person who is a member of one or more the following population groups: American 

Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic.

Minority population – Any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in 

geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 

geographically dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by USDA programs 

or activities.

Motorized travel – Movement using machines that use a motor, engine, or other nonliving power 

sources other than a vehicle operated on rails or a wheelchair or mobility device, including one 

that is battery powered, designed solely for the use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, 

and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. 

National Forest System (NFS) – As defined in the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act, the “National Forest System” includes all national forest lands reserved or 

withdrawn from the public domain of the U.S., all national forest lands acquired through 

purchase, exchange, donation, or other means; the national grasslands and land use projects 

administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tennant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 

1010-1012); and other lands, waters, or interests therein administered by the Forest Service or are 

designated for administration through the Forest Service as part of the system.
Glossary

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 507

National Forest System road – A road wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

resources. A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally documented 

right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority. (36 CFR 212.1)

National Forest System trail – A trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

resources A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a legally documented rightof-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority. (36 CFR 212.1)

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System – Created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 

16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and 

recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future 

generations.

Natural disturbance regime – The historic patterns (frequency and extent) of fire, insects, wind, 

landslides, floods, and other natural processes in an area.

Natural fire regime – The fire regime that existed prior to human-facilitated interruption of 

frequency, extent, or severity.

Net growth – Gross growth in forest wood volume minus natural (noncut) mortality volume.

Nonmotorized travel – Movement not relying on machines that use a motor, engine, or other 

nonliving power source (e.g., walking, canoeing, and horseback riding).

Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) – NPS refers to water pollution affecting water quality from 

diffuse sources, such as polluted runoff from agricultural areas draining into lakes, wetlands, 

rivers, and streams. NPS can be contrasted with point source pollution, where discharges occur to 

a body of water at a single location, such as discharges from a chemical factory, urban runoff 

from a roadway or storm drain. NPS may derive from many different sources with no specific 

solution to rectify the problem, making it difficult to regulate.

Noxious weed – The term “noxious weed” means any plant or plant product that can directly or 

indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, 

poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United 

States, the public health, or the environment. The term typically describes species of plants that 

have been determined to be undesirable or injurious in some capacity. Federal noxious weeds are 

regulated by USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service under the Plant Protection Act of 

2000, which superseded the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974. When the species are native, 

they are not considered invasive species by the Federal Government.

Offsite vegetation type – Vegetation type where certain tree or plant species would not survive 

or successfully reproduce when natural control processes function normally to control their 

encroachment. Example: exclusion of regular fire intervals permits white fir to encroach where it 

does not naturally belong in the ponderosa pine forest. Thus, ponderosa pine forest is an offsite 

vegetation type for white-fir.
Glossary

508 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Old growth – In southwestern forested ecosystems, old growth is different than the traditional 

definition based on northwestern infrequent fire forests. Due to large differences among 

Southwest forested PNVTs and natural disturbances, old growth forests vary extensively in tree 

size, age classes, presence, and abundance of structural elements, stability, and presence of 

understory. Old growth refers to specific habitat components that occur in forests and woodlands 

– old trees, dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and structure diversity. 

These important habitat features may occur in small areas, with only a few components, or over 

larger areas as stands or forests where old growth is concentrated. In the Southwest, old growth is 

considered “transitional,” given that that the location of old growth shifts on the landscape over 

time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality). Some species, notably 

certain plants, require “old forest” communities that may or may not have old growth components 

but have escaped significant disturbance for lengths of time necessary to provide the suitable 

stability and environment. See appendix B in the proposed plan for a more detailed description.

Outstanding Arizona Waters – Surface water designated by Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality as an outstanding State water resource. These are waters with exceptional 

quality where water quality should not be degraded.

Outstandingly remarkable value – A value that a river or river segment possesses that reflects 

its unique, rare, or exemplary qualities. In the Wild and Scenic River Act, river values identified 

include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. 

Examples of other similar values include botanical, hydrological, paleontological, scientific, or 

heritage. A river must have at least one outstandingly remarkable value to be eligible for wild and 

scenic river designation.

Patches – Areas larger than tree groups in which the vegetation composition and structure are 

relatively homogeneous. Patches comprise the mid-scale, thus they range in size from 100 to 

1,000 acres. 

Plan Set of Documents – The complete set of documentation supporting the land management 

plan; it may include but is not limited to evaluation reports, documentation of public involvement, 

the plan including applicable maps, applicable plan improvement documents, applicable NEPA 

documents, and the monitoring program for the plan area.

Planning horizon – The overall time period considered in the planning process that spans all 

activities covered in the analysis or plan and all future conditions and effects of proposed actions 

which would influence the planning decisions.

Planned ignition – A fire ignited by management actions under certain predetermined conditions 

to meet plan desired conditions. Prescribed fire is a synonymous term.

Planning period – The life of the plan, generally 10 to 15 years from plan approval. As a general 

rule, this analysis uses 15 years to define the planning period.

Potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) – Coarse-scale groupings of noncontiguous land that 

share similar aspect, elevation, vegetation, soil parent material, and natural disturbances such as 

fire or drought cycles. Identification of PNVTs is based on the terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES).

Primitive recreation – The reliance on personal, nonmotorized, or nonmechanized skills to travel 

and camp in an area, rather than reliance on facilities or outside help.
Glossary

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 509

Proper functioning condition (PFC) – Proper functioning condition (PFC) is a qualitative 

method for assessing the condition of riparian-wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe 

both (1) the assessment process or tool, and (2) a defined, on the-ground condition of a riparianwetland area. 

• (1) The PFC tool is designed to assess if the physical elements (abiotic and biotic) are in 

working order relative to an area’s capability and potential. When these physical 

elements are in working order, then channel characteristics develop that provide habitat 

for wildlife and other uses. Functionality comes first, then desired conditions are 

achieved. 

• (2) A riparian-wetland area is considered to be in proper functioning condition when 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to:

○ dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality; 

○ filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; 

○ improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; 

○ develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; 

○ develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the 

water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl 

breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity (BLM, 1998).

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) – A framework for defining the types of outdoor 

recreation opportunities the public might desire, and identifying that portion of the spectrum a 

given national forest area might be able to provide. The ROS map can be found in the “Plan Set 

of Documents.” The broad classes are: 

• Primitive (P) – Characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment. Interaction 

between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. Essentially free from 

evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is 

generally not permitted. Very high probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to 

nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and risk.

• Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (SPNM) – Characterized by a predominantly natural or 

natural-appearing environment. Interaction between users is low, but there is often 

evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls 

and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is generally not permitted. 

High probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, 

and risk.

• Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM) – Characterized by a predominantly natural or naturalappearing environment. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other 

users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on site controls and restrictions 

may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is generally permitted. Moderate 

probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and 

risk.

• Roaded Natural (RN) – Characterized by a predominantly natural-appearing 

environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of other humans. Such 
Glossary

510 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users 

may be low to moderate but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are evident but harmonize with the natural 

environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and 

design of facilities. Opportunity to affiliate with other users in developed sites but with 

some chance for privacy.

• Roaded Modified (RM) – Characterized by substantially modified natural environment 

except for campsites. Roads and management activities may be strongly dominant. There 

is moderate evidence of other users on roads. Conventional motorized use is provided for 

in construction standards and design of facilities. Opportunity to get away from others, 

but with easy access.

• Rural (R) – Characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to 

maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and 

the interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of 

facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided 

for special activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites. 

Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available. Opportunity to observe 

and affiliate with other users is important, as is convenience of facilities.

• Urban (U) – Characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the 

background may have natural-appearing elements. Resource modification and utilization 

practices are to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and 

manicured. Sights and sounds of humans onsite are predominant. Large numbers of users 

can be expected, both onsite and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor 

use and parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people 

throughout the site. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is very 

important, as is convenience of facilities.

Reference conditions – Environmental conditions that infer ecological sustainability. Reference 

conditions are often represented by the historic range of variation (i.e., the characteristic range of 

variation, not the total range of variation) for a particular attribute, prior to European settlement 

and under the current climatic period. For some ecosystems, the historic range of variation 

reflects native burning prior to settlement. .

Reference landscape – For inventoried roadless areas, reference landscapes of relatively 

undisturbed areas can serve as a barometer to measure the effects of development on other parts 

of the landscape.

Reforestation – The natural or artificial reestablishment of an area with forest tree cover.

Regulated – The technical (rather than legal or administrative) aspect of controlling forest 

stocking, periodic harvests, growth, and yields to meet management objectives including 

sustained yield. This control can be done either by area, or by volume of growing stock or by 

basal area or stand density index measures. An uneven-aged, regulated forest is one which has a 

balanced progression of three or more age/size classes, such that each younger/smaller class is 

advancing to replace the class above it on approximately the same acreage, until mature for 

harvest or other resource objectives. A regulated forest reaches sustained yield when the volume 

cut periodically equals the amount of net volume growth for that same period.
Glossary

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 511

Research natural area – A physical or biological unit in which current natural conditions are 

maintained insofar as possible. These conditions are ordinarily achieved by allowing natural 

physical and biological processes to prevail without human intervention. Research natural areas 

are principally for nonmanipulative research, observation, and study. They are designated to 

maintain a wide spectrum of high quality representative areas that represent the major forms of 

variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, and natural situations that have scientific 

interest and importance that, in combination, form a national network of ecological areas for 

research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity.

Resiliency – The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining 

the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the 

capacity to adapt to stress and change.

Restoration – see ecological restoration.

Riparian area – Terrestrial ecosystems characterized by wet soils and plant species that are water 

loving and dependent on the water table or its capillary fringe zone (a zone in the soil just above 

the water table that remains saturated or almost saturated).

Road maintenance – The upkeep of the entire transportation facility including surface and 

shoulders, parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic control devices as are necessary for 

its safe and efficient utilization (36 CFR 212.1). This work includes brushing of roadside 

vegetation, falling danger trees, road blading, cleaning ditches, cleaning culvert inlets and outlets, 

etc.

Road maintenance level – Defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required 

for, a specific road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. (Forest 

Service Handbook 7709.59, 62.32)

• Maintenance level 1 – These are roads that have been placed in storage between 

intermittent uses. The period or storage must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance 

is performed to prevent damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to 

perpetuate the road for future resource management needs. Emphasis is normally given to 

maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur 

at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate” all 

traffic. Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction 

standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are 

open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular/ 

motorized traffic but may be available and suitable for nonmotorized uses.

• Maintenance level 2 – Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. 

Passenger car traffic, user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. Warning 

signs and traffic control devices are not provided with the exception that some signing, 

such as “Warning No Traffic” signs may be posted at intersections. Motorists should 

have no expectations of being alerted to potential hazards while driving these roads. 

Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, 

permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this 

level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (a) discourage or prohibit 

passenger cars or (b) accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles.
Glossary

512 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Maintenance level 3 – Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent 

driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered 

priorities. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is applicable. 

Warming signs and traffic control devices are provided to alert motorists of situations 

that may violate expectations. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, 

with single lanes and turnouts. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either 

“encourage” or “accept.” “Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for 

certain classes of vehicles or users.

• Maintenance level 4 – Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort 

and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate 

surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or 

dust abated. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is applicable. The 

most appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.” However, the “prohibit” 

strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

• Maintenance level 5 – Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and 

convenience. These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be 

aggregate surfaced and dust abated. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD) is applicable. The appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.”

Roundwood products – Logs, bolts, or other round sections cut from trees, excluding firewood.

Sacred sites – Defined in Executive Order 13007 as “any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated 

location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to be 

an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its 

established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the 

tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of 

the existence of such a site.”

Scenic integrity – The state of naturalness or a measure of the degree to which a landscape is 

visually perceived to be “complete.” The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those 

landscapes that have little or no deviation from the landscape character valued by constituents for 

its aesthetic quality. Scenic integrity is the state of naturalness or, conversely, the state of 

disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Scenic integrity is measured in five levels: 

• Very high (unaltered) – A scenic integrity level that generally provides for ecological 

change only.

• High (appears unaltered) – Human activities are not visually evident. In high scenic 

integrity areas, activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture found 

in the existing landscape character.

• Moderate (slightly altered) – Landscapes where the valued landscape character 

“appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the 

landscape character being viewed.

• Low (moderately altered) – Human activities must remain visually subordinate to the 

attributes of the existing landscape character. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or 

texture common to these landscape characters, but changes in quality of size, number, 

intensity, direction, pattern, and so on, must remain visually subordinate to these 

landscape characters.
Glossary

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 513

• Very Low (heavily altered) – Human activities of vegetative and landform alterations 

may dominate the original, natural landscape character but should appear as natural 

occurrences when viewed at background distances.

Seed cut – One step of an even-aged regeneration cutting method in which the healthiest, most 

desirable trees are left, and stand conditions are created for them to become good cone producers. 

The intention is to promote natural tree regeneration where needed.

Seral state – A particular plant and animal community developmental stage which is transitional 

between other stages along the continuum of succession or change. Changes in seral states can 

take place over time or very quickly and movement between states can be in either direction. 

Aspen is an example of a seral state that, without disturbance over time, will eventually be 

replaced by a subsequent seral state dominated by conifers.

Silviculture – The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, 

and quality of forests and woodlands using species silvics to meet the diverse needs and values of 

landowners and society on a sustainable basis.

Slash – The residue (e.g., branches, bark) left on the ground after a management activity, such as 

logging, or natural ecological process such as a storm or fire.

Snags – Standing dead or partially dead trees (snag topped), often missing many or all limbs 

and/or bark. Snags (generally 12 inches or larger) provide essential wildlife habitat for many 

species and are important for forest ecosystem function.

Soil burn severity – Burn severity indicators are classified and defined as follows (Parsons et al.,

2010): 

• Low soil burn severity – Surface organic layers are not completely consumed and are 

still recognizable. Structural aggregate stability is not changed from its unburned 

condition, and roots are generally unchanged because the heat pulse below the soil 

surface was not great enough to consume or char any underlying organics. The ground 

surface, including any exposed mineral soil, may appear brown or black (lightly charred), 

and the canopy and understory vegetation will likely appear “green.” 

• Moderate soil burn severity – Up to 80 percent of the pre-fire ground cover (litter and 

ground fuels) may be consumed but generally not all of it. Fine roots (~3/32 inch 

diameter) may be scorched but are rarely completely consumed over much of the area. 

The color of the ash on the surface is generally blackened with possible gray patches. 

There may be potential for recruitment of effective ground cover from scorched needles 

or leaves remaining in the canopy that will soon fall to the ground. The prevailing color 

of the site is often “brown” due to canopy needle and other vegetation scorch. Soil 

structure is generally unchanged. 

• High soil burn severity – All or nearly all of the pre-fire ground cover and surface 

organic matter (litter, duff, and fine roots) is generally consumed and charring may be 

visible on larger roots. The prevailing color of the site is often “black” due to extensive 

charring. Bare soil or ash is exposed and susceptible to erosion, and aggregate structure 

may be less stable. White or gray ash (up to several centimeters in depth) indicates that 

considerable ground cover or fuels were consumed. Sometimes very large tree roots (> 3 

inches in diameter) are entirely burned extending from a charred stump hole. Soil is often 
Glossary

514 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

gray, orange, or reddish at the ground surface where large fuels were concentrated and 

consumed.

Soil productivity – The inherent capacity of the soil to support appropriate site-specific 

biological resource management objectives, which includes the growth of specified plants, plant 

communities, or a sequence of plant communities to support multiple land uses.

Special use authorization – A permit, term permit, temporary permit, lease, easement, or other 

written instrument that grants rights or privileges of occupancy and use subject to specified terms 

and conditions on National Forest System land.

Stand – A contiguous group of trees generally uniform in age class distribution, composition, 

condition, and structure, and growing on a site of generally uniform quality, to be a 

distinguishable unit, such as mixed, pure, even-aged, and uneven-aged stands. A stand is the 

fundamental unit of silviculture reporting and record-keeping.

Streamside management zones – An area of vegetation or forest litter located adjacent to 

streamcourses and/or riparian areas for the purpose of filtering sediment, providing bank stability, 

and providing shade for fisheries habitat in tree/shrub ecosystems.

Structure – Structure includes both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of a vegetation type or 

plant community. The horizontal structure refers to spatial patterns of individual and groups of 

plants and openings, as well as plant size and species composition. The vertical component refers 

to the layers of vegetation between the forest floor and the top of the canopy. Each vegetation 

type has its own structure. For example, forests have greater vertical structure than a grassland or 

woodland based on the height of the dominant species.

Suitable timberlands – Land to be managed for timber production on a regulated basis. Such 

lands are those which have been determined to meet the following criteria: (a) are available for 

timber production (i.e., not withdrawn for wilderness or other official designation by Congress, 

the Secretary of Agriculture, or Chief of the Forest Service); (b) are physically capable of 

producing crops of industrial wood without irreversible resource damage to soils productivity or 

watershed conditions; (c) adequate tree restocking within 5 years of final harvest is reasonably 

assured; (d) adequate information exists about responses to timber management activities; (e) 

timber management is cost efficient over the planning horizon in meeting forest objectives that 

include timber production; (f) timber production is consistent with meeting the management 

requirements and multiple-use objectives specified in the forest plan or plan alternative; and (g) 

other management objectives do not limit timber production activities to the point where it is 

impossible to meet management requirements set forth in 36 CFR 129.27 (per Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.13, WO Amendment 2409.13-92-1, O Code and Chapter 20).

Sustainability – Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of 

future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability is composed of desirable social, economic, 

and ecological conditions or trends interacting at varying spatial and temporal scales embodying 

the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

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 the transportation atlas. (36 CFR 212.1).
Glossary

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 515

Terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES) – Also called the terrestrial ecological unit inventory, the 

TES identifies ecological units for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs that are distinct from each other in 

terms of their soil, vegetation, and climate components.

Thinning – An intermediate treatment made to reduce the stand density of trees primarily to 

improve growth, enhance forest health, to recover potential mortality, or to emphasize desired tree 

species. Includes crown thinning (thinning from above, high thinning), free thinning, low thinning 

(thinning from below), mechanical thinning (geometric thinning), and selection thinning 

(dominant thinning). Thinning can be used with both even and uneven-aged management 

systems.

Timber production – Is the purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of 

regulated crops of trees for cutting into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or 

consumer use. It does not include firewood or harvests from unsuitable lands. (Forest Service 

Manual 1900).

Total maximum daily load (TMDL) – A TMDL is 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.

Traditional cultural properties (TCP) – Defined in National Register Bulletin 38 as properties 

associated “with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that 

community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community.” TCPs can range from structures, mountains, and other landforms to plant gathering 

locations to communities. These areas are considered historic properties that may be eligible to 

the National Register of Historic Places

Travel Management Rule (November 29, 2005, 36 CFR 212.51) – requires that each national 

forest designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if 

appropriate, by time of year. Once the system is designated, the rule will prohibit motor vehicle 

use off the designated system.

Tree cutting – The cutting or removal of trees for wood fiber use and other multiple-use 

purposes. Sometimes referred to as “timber harvest.”

Unauthorized road or trail – A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road 

or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1, Forest Service 

Manual 2353.05, Forest Service Manual 7705).

Uneven-aged forests – Forests that are comprised of three or more distinct age classes of trees, 

either intermixed or in small groups.

Uneven-aged management – The application of combined actions needed to simultaneously 

maintain continuous 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 
Glossary

516 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

size classes. Cutting methods that develop and maintain uneven-aged stands are single-tree 

selection and group selection.

Unplanned ignition – A wildfire, not including planned ignitions.

Wild and scenic rivers – These rivers are free flowing and have at least one outstandingly 

remarkable value. Eligible and suitable rivers are given a tentative classification of wild, scenic, 

or recreational. These rivers may be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

• Wild – Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and 

waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

• Scenic – Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads. 

• Recreational – Those rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by road or railroad 

that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone 

some impoundment or diversion in the past.

Wild horse (wild free-roaming horse) – All unbranded and unclaimed horses and their progeny 

using National Forest System lands on or after December 15, 1971. This definition does not 

include any horse introduced onto National Forest System lands on or after December 15, 1971, 

by accident, negligence, or willful disregard of private ownership. Animals that stray from other 

lands onto National Forest System lands are not considered wild free-roaming horses and are not 

under Forest Service protection. No known records or documentation exists that the Apache NF 

had any unbranded and unclaimed horses prior to December 15, 1971. See CFR 220 and Forest 

Service Manual 2260 for more information

Wildland-urban interface (WUI) – The WUI includes those areas of resident populations at 

imminent risk from wildfire, and human developments having special significance. These areas 

may include critical communications sites, municipal watersheds, high voltage transmission lines, 

church camps, scout camps, research facilities, and other structures that if destroyed by fire, 

would result in hardship to communities. These areas encompass not only the sites themselves, 

but also the continuous slopes and fuels that lead directly to the sites, regardless of the distance 

involved. (Forest Service Manual 5140.5).

Windthrow – Trees susceptible to wind damage (e.g., bole breakage, uprooting, toppling). 

Woody biomass – The trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other 

woody parts, grown in a forest, woodland, or grassland environment, that are the byproducts of 

forest management used to produce bioenergy and the full range of biobased products.
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 517

References

Abella, Scott R., Peter Z. Fulé, and W. Wallace Covington. (2006). Diameter caps for thinning 

Southwestern ponderosa pine forests: Viewpoints, effects, and tradeoffs. Journal of 

Forestry, 104:407–414. Society of American Foresters.

Aber, J.D.; and Melillo, J.M. (1991). Terrestrial ecosystems. Sounders College Publishing, 

Philadelphia, PA. 430 pp.

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 the Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

493 pp.

Alexander, Robert R. (1974). Silviculture of subalpine forests in the central and southern Rocky 

Mountains: The status of our knowledge. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-121, 

88 pp. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Allen, C.D. (1984). Montane grasslands in the landscape of the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. 

Unpublished MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 195 pp.

Allen, C.D. (1998). Where have all the grasslands gone? Quivera Coalition Newsletter, 

Spring/Summer.

Anhold, John. (2011). Potential for Douglas-fir beetle activity in Wallow Fire. USFS File Code 

3420, Biological Evaluation Report by AZ Zone Leader. USFS SW Region Forest Health, 

AZ Zone Office, Flagstaff, AZ.

Arcese, P.; and Smith, J.N.M. (1999). Impacts of nest depredation and brood parasitism on the 

productivity of North American passerines. In: Adams, N.J.; and Slotow, R.H. (eds.) 

Proceedings 22nd International Ornithological Congress, Durban: 2,953–2,966. 

Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa.

Archer, S.R., and K.I. Predick. (2008). Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern 

United States. Rangelands, June 2008: 23–28.

Arizona Department of Commerce. (2008). Profile: Yavapai County, Arizona. Accessed 27 

December 2010, 

<http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/yavapai%20county.pdf>.Covington, W. 

W.; Everett, R. L.; Steele, R.; [and others]. (1994). Historical and anticipated changes in 

forest ecosystems of the inland West of the United States. Journal of Sustainable Forestry.

2: 13–63.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (2003). Arizona State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) to Maintain and Improve Air Quality. Phoenix, AZ. 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/haze/download/2sip.pdf

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (2009). 2006-2008 Status of ambient 

surface water quality in Arizona. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) 

Listing Report.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (2011). Arizona State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) to Maintain and Improve Air Quality. Phoenix, AZ.
References

518 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (2012). 2010 Status of Water Quality. 

Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. 

Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR). (2007). Arizona Mining 

Update – 2007. Accessed 27 May 2011. <http://www.mines.az.gov>.

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). (2009a). Arizona Water Atlas; Volume 2 

Eastern Plateau Planning 

Area. http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/documents/Volume_

2_final_web.pdf

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). (2009b). Arizona Water Atlas; Volume 3 

Southeastern Arizona Planning 

Area. http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/documents/Volume_

3_final.pdf

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). (2009c). Arizona Water Atlas; Volume 5 

Central Highlands Planning 

Area. http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/CentralHighlands/

documents/Volume_5_Final.pdf

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2000-2010). AZGFD formal riparian monitoring 

and informal Forest Service monitoring from 2000 to 2010.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2011a). Arizona Statewide Elk Management 

Plan. 49 pp. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2011b). Guidelines for the 2012-2012 and 2013-

2014 hunting seasons: Deer management goals and season prescriptions. Pp. 8–11. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2012). Assessment of Management Indicator 

Species, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests from 2005 to 2011. Prepared under

agreement for the forests.117 pp.

Arizona State Parks. (2007). 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 

Phoenix, Arizona. p. 89.

Arizona State Parks. (2009). Arizona Trails 2010: A Statewide Motorized and Nonmotorized

Recreational Trails Plan. Phoenix, AZ.

Bailey, D.W., and Copeland, O.L. (1961). Low flow discharges and plant cover relations on two 

mountain watersheds in Utah. International Association of Hydrological Sciences 

Publication 51:267–278.

Baker, M.B., L.F. DeBano, P. F. Folliott. (1999). Changing values of riparian Ecosystems, In: 

Baker, M.B., DeBano, L.F., Folliott, P.F., Gottifried, G.J., and Overby, S.T. 1999. History 

of watershed research in the central Arizona highlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-29. 

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Fort Collins, CO. P. 56.

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T. Das, G. Bala, A.W. Wood, T. 

Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. (2008). Human-induced changes 

in the hydrology of the western United States. Science, 319: 1080–1083.
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 519

Bartos, D.L.; and Mueggler, W.F. (1981). Early succession in aspen communities following fire in 

western Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 34: 315–318.

Basso, Keith. (1983). Western Apache. In Handbook of North American Indians: Southwest, Vol.

10, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 462-488. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

Basso, Keith. (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western 

Apache. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NM.

Basso, Keith. (1997). Wisdom Sits in Places: Notes on Western Apache Landscape, in Senses of 

Place, edited by Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso, pp. 53–90. School of American 

Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Bates, Jon D., R. Miller, T. Svejcar. (2000). Understory Dynamics in Cut and Uncut Western 

Juniper Woodlands. Journal of Range Management. 53:119–126.

Belnap, Jayne, R. Rosentreter, S. Leonard, J.H. Kaltenecker, J. Williams, D. Eldridge. (2001). 

Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. USDI BLM Technical Reference 

1730-2.

Belsky, J.A. and D.M. Blumenthal. (1997). Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and 

soils in upland forests of the interior west. Conservation Biology, Vol. 11 (2). pp. 315–

327.

Beschta, R.L., Ripple, W.J. (2010). Mexican wolves, elk, and aspen in Arizona: Is there a trophic 

cascade? Forest Ecology and Management 260 (2010) 915–922. Elsevier 

B.V. www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco

Beschta, R.L., Ripple, W.J. (2011). The role of large predators in maintaining riparian plant 

communities and river morphology. Geomorphology, 

doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.042.

Beschta, R.L., D.L. Donahue, D.A. DellaSala, J.J. Rhodes, J.R. Karr, M.H. O’Brien, T.L. 

Fleischer, and C.D. Williams. (2012). Adapting to Climate Change on Western Public 

Lands: Addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates. 

Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9964-9. Accepted for publication 

13 September 2012.

Binkley, D.; T. Sisk; C. Chambers; J. Springer; and W. Block. (2007). The role of old-growth 

forests in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12(2) 18–34. Available at: 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art18/

Blackburn, W.H., Thurow, T.L., and Taylor, C.A. (1986). Soil erosion on rangeland, pp. 31-39. In: 

Proceedings, Symposium on Use of Cover, Soils and Weather Data in Rangeland 

Monitoring. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO.

Blankenship, J.O. (1991). Air Quality Related Values, Sensitive Receptors, and Levels of 

Acceptable Change for the Mount Baldy Wilderness: A Workshop Report. Earth 

Resource Consultants, Tucson, AZ.

Bodner, G.; and Simms, K. (2008). State of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Part 3. 

Condition and trend of riparian target species, vegetation and channel geomorphology. 

Prepared for the USDI Bureau of Land Management by The Nature Conservancy, 

Tucson, AZ. 69 pp.
References

520 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Breece, C.R., T.E. Kolb, B.G. Dickinson, J.D. McMillin, K.M. Clancey. (2008). Prescribed Fire 

Effects on Bark Beetle Activity and Tree Mortality in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine 

Forests. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008). pp. 119–128.

Brewer D. (2008). Fact Sheet: Accounting for watershed and other resource values –

considerations in the NEPA analysis. ESRI, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

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 yield and other multiple use 

values on ponderosa pine forest lands. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper RM-129. 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 36 pp.

Brown J.H., Valone T.J., Curtin C.G. (1997). Reorganization of an arid ecosystem in response to 

recent climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 94:9729–9733.

Brown, J.K. (1995). Fire Regimes and Their Relevance to Ecosystem Management. Pages 171–

178 In Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention, Sept. 18–22, 

1994, Anchorage, AK. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC.

Burger, J.A, G. Gray, D.A. Scott. (1998). Using Soil Quality Indicators for Monitoring 

Sustainable Forest Management. In: Scientific Background for Soil Monitoring on 

National Forests and Rangelands: Workshop Proceedings. Page-Dumroese, D, D. Neary, 

C. Tritten tech eds. RMRS-P-59. Fort Collins, CO. Department of Agriculture, FS, 

RMRES 126 pp.

Burns, Russell and Barbara H. Honkala (Technical Coordinators). (1990). Silvics of North 

America - Vol. 2, Hardwoods. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654. USFS 

Timber Management Research, Washington, DC. (pages applicable to aspen).

Burroughs, E.R. Jr., J.G. King. (1989). Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. U.S. Forest 

Service Intermountain Research Station, GTR-INT-264. Ogden, UT.

Chong, G., Simonson, S., Stohlgren, T., and Kalkhan, M. (2001). Biodiversity: aspen stands have 

the lead, but will nonnative species take over? pp. 261-266. In: Shepperd, W., Binkley, 

D., Bartos, D., Stohlgren, T., and Eskey, L. (comps). Sustaining aspen in western 

landscapes: Symposium Proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 460 pp.

Clark, J.S. (1998). Why trees migrate so fast: Confronting theory with dispersal biology and the 

paleorecord. The American Naturalist, 152(2): 204–224.

Clary, W.P. (1971). Effects of Utah juniper removal on herbage yields from Springerville soils. 

Journal of Range Management 24: 373–378.

Clean Line Energy Partners, Centennial West Clean Line. (2011). Web site accessed April 2011. 

Houston, TX. http://www.cleanlineenergy.com/

Cline, P. (1976). They came to the mountains, Northland Press. Flagstaff, AZ.

Colorado State University. (2006). Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE). http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/Web/Data/DataWizard.aspx
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 521

Committee on Rangeland Classification (CRC). (1994). Rangeland health: new methods to 

classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 

180 pp.

Conklin, D.A.; Fairweather, M.L. (2010). Dwarf Mistletoes and their management in the 

Southwest. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. R3-FH-10-01. 23

pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health

Conklin, D.A.; Fairweather, M.L.; Ryerson, D.E.; Geils, B.W.; Vogler, D.R. (2009). White Pines, 

Blister Rust, and Management in the Southwest. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region, R3-FH-09-01. 16pp. [http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health]

Conklin, David A. and Brian W. Geils. (2008). Survival and sanitation of dwarf mistletoe-infected 

ponderosa pine following prescribed underburning. West. J. Appl. For. 23(4), pp. 216–

222

Cordell, H. Ken., C.J. Betz, G.T. Green, S. Mou, V.R. Leeworthy, P.C. Wiley, J.J. Barry, and D. 

Hellerstein. (2004). Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America. State College, PA: 

Venture Publishing, Inc.

Cordell, H. Ken; Betz, Carter, J.; Butler, Brett J.; Bergstrom, John C. (2008). Trends in ForestBased Recreation: Reports for the 2010 Montreal Process Indicators for the 

U.S. http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec8rpt.pdf

Cordell, H. Ken; Green, Gary T.; Betz, Carter J. (2009). Long-term National Trends in Outdoor 

Recreation Activity Participation---

1980. http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec12rpt.pdf

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (1997). “Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act.” Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Courlander, Harold. (1971). The Fourth World of the Hopis. Reprint University of New Mexico 

Press, Albuquerque, NM.

Covington, V.V., and M.M. Moore. (1994). Southwestern ponderosa pine forest structure: changes 

since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92:39-47.

Covington, W. Wallace, Peter Z. Fulé, Margaret M. Moore, Stephen Chart, Thomas E. Kolb, Joy 

Namaste, Stephen S. Sackett, and Michael R. Wagner. (1997). Restoring ecosystem 

health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. In Journal of Forestry: Vol. 95, No. 4, 

April, 1997: pp. 23–29. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD.

Crawford, R. (2011). Ecological integrity assessment: Rocky Mountain aspen forest and 

woodland. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. pp. 11. Version: 

2.23.2011. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/communities/pdf/eia/rm_aspen.pdf.

Daubenmire, R. (1968). Plant communities. Harper and Row Publishing Company. New York, 

NY.

DeBano, L.F., L.J. Schmidt. (1989). Improving Southwestern riparian areas through watershed 

management. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research and Experimental Station: 

General Technical Report RM-182. 
References

522 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

DeBano, L.F.; Folliott, P.F.; Baker, M.B., Jr. (1996). Fire severity effects on water resources. In: 

Folliott, P.F.; DeBano, L.F.; Baker, M.B., Jr.; Gottfried, G.J.; Solis-Garza, G.; Edminster, 

C.B.; Neary, D.G.; Allen, L.S.; Hamre, R.H. (tech. coords.). Effects of fire on Madrean

Province ecosystems: a symposium proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-289. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 

77–84.

DeByle, Norbert V. and Robert P. Winokur, editors. (1985). Aspen: Ecology and Management in

the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-119.

DeGomez, T., C.J. Fettig, J.D. McMillin, J.A. Anhold, and C. Hayes. (2008) Managing slash to 

minimize colonization of residual leave trees by Ips and other bark beetle species 

following thinning in southwestern ponderosa pine. University of Arizona. College of 

Agriculture and Life Sciences Bulletin AZ1448, 12 pp.

Donaldson, Bruce R. (n.d.) Heritage Sites and Where to Find Them. MS on file Apache 

Sitgreaves National Forest Supervisors Office, Springerville, AZ.

Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI). (2011). Fact Sheet: Post-wildfire fuels and regeneration 

dynamics – What to expect following severe wildfires in ponderosa pine forests. March 

2011. Ecological Restoration Institute. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

www.eri.nau.edu.

Elliot, W.J.; Foltz, M. (2001). Validation of the FS WEPP Interfaces for Forest Roads and 

Disturbances. ASAE paper number 01-8009, presented at the 2001 ASAE Annual 

International Meeting sponsored by American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 

Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento, California, USA, July 30--August 1, 2001. 

ASAE--2001: An Engineering Odyssey. Technical Session 21: Forest soil erosion and 

water quality. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE. 16 pp.

Ellis, Florence Hawley. (1974). The Hopi: Their History and Use of Lands. In Hopi Indians, pp.

25–278. Garland Press.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1990). National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). USEPA Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999). EPA Regional Haze Rule 40 CFR Part 51. EPA 

Office of Air and Radiation, Technology Transfer Network, OAR Policy and Guidance 

Record. http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/meta/m31943.html

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2005). National Management Measures to Control 

Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry. Nonpoint Source Control Branch Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds , Office of Water. Washington, DC.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2006). EPA list of nonattainment areas. EPA Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

NC. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html

Fairweather, M.L.; McMillin, J.; Rogers, T.; Conklin, D.; Fitzgibbon, B. (2006). Field guide to 

insects and diseases of Arizona and New Mexico forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, MR-R3-16-3. Albuquerque, NM.
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 523

Fairweather, Mary Lou. (2008). Insect and Disease Activity in Hall Ranch WUI, Springerville 

RD. File Code 3420, Project Report by Forest Pathologist, USFS Southwestern Region 

Forest Health, AZ Zone Office, Flagstaff, AZ.

Fergurson, T.J. (1980). Zuni Settlement and Land Use: An Archaeological Perspective. Zuni Tribe 

vs. United States, Docket No. 161-79L, before the United States Court of Claims.

Fergurson, T.J. (1981). Rebuttal Report. Zuni Tribe vs. United States, Docket No. 161-79L, 

before the United States Court of Claims.

Fergurson, T.J. (2007). Chapter 19. Zuni Traditional History and Cultural Geography, in Zuni 

Origins, edited by David A. Gregory and David R. Wilcox. Pp 377–403. The University 

of Arizona Press. Tucson, AZ.

Fergurson, T.J. and Kurt Dongske. (1994). Navajo Transmission Project EIS, Hopi Ethnographic 

Overview. Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, Kykotsmovi, AZ.

Feth, J.H., and Hem, J.D. (1963). Reconnaissance of head water springs in the Gila River 

drainage basin, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1619-H. 54 pp.

Fettig, C.J., K.D. Klepzig, R.F. Billings, A.S. Munson, T.E. Nebeker, J.F. Negron, 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.

Finch, D.M. (ed.). (2004). Assessment of grassland ecosystem conditions in the southwestern 

United States. GTR-RMRS-135-vol. 1. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, CO. 168 pp.

Fire Family Plus Software (Version 3.0.1.2). Computer program for weather and fire information 

and analysis. Available from http://firemodels.org

Florida, R. (2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

Folliott, P.F.; Neary, D.G. (2003). Impacts of a historical wildfire on hydrologic processes: a case 

study in Arizona. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association international 

congress on watershed management for water supply systems; 2003 June 29–July 2. New 

York, NY. Middleburg, VA: American Water Resources Association. 10 pp.

Franklin, J.F.; Hall, F.; Laudenslayer, W.; Maser, C.; Nunan, J.; Poppino, J.; Ralph, C.J.; Spies, T. 

(1986). Interim definitions for old growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer forests in the 

Pacific Northwest and California. Res. Note PNW-RN-447. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 15 pp.

Franklin, J.F.; D.A. Perry; T.D. Schowalter; M.E. Harmon; A. McKee; and T.A. Spies. (1989). 

Importance of ecological diversity in maintaining long-term site productivity, Chapter 6 

pp. 82-87. In: Franklin, J.F.; Perry, D.A.; Schowalter, T.D (eds.). Maintaining the long –

term productivity of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Freethey, G.W., and Anderson, T.W. (1986). Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial 

basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: US Geological 

Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-664, scale 1:500,000.
References

524 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Friedel, M.H. (1991). Range condition assessment and the concept of thresholds: a viewpoint. 

Journal of Range Management 44: 422–426.

Friederici, Peter. (2003). Fuels treatments and forest restoration: An analysis of benefits. Working 

Paper 4 in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Series. Ecological 

Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 5 pp.

Furniss, R.L., and V.M. Carolin. (1977). Western Forest Insects. Miscellaneous publication No. 

1339. USDA Forest Service. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. P 339 of 

654 pp.

Galbraith, Frederic W. and Daniel J. Brennan. (1970). Minerals of Arizona. The Arizona Bureau 

of Mines Bulletin 181. The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

GCVTC. (1996). “Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission: Recommendations for 

Improving Western Vistas”. http://www.wrapair.org/WRAP/reports/GCVTCFinal.PDF

Gelbard, J. and S. Harrison. (2003). Roadless Habitats as Refuges for Native Grasslands: 

Interactions with Soil, Aspect and Grazing. Ecological Applications 13:2. pp. 404–415.

Goguen, C.B.; and Mathews, N.E. (2001). Brown-headed cowbird behavior and movements in 

relation to livestock grazing. Ecological Applications, 11: 1533–1544.

GoldPrice. 2011. Web site accessed May 4, 2011. http://www.goldprice.org/

Gori, D.F.; and Enquist, C.A.F. (2003). An assessment of the spatial extent and condition of 

grasslands in central and southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico and northern 

Mexico. The Nature Conservancy, Arizona Chapter, Tucson, AZ. 37 pp.

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 U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southwestern Region by 

The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 141 pp.

Grahame, John D., and Thomas D. Sisk. (2002). Essays on : Logging, Wildfire, History and 

Ecology, Anglo Settlement, and Forest Management Policies in Canyons, cultures, and 

environmental change: An Introduction to the land-use history of the Colorado Plateau, 

edited by John D. Grahame and Thomas D. Sisk, 

[11/05/03]. http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/

Grant, G.E., S.E. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel and J.J. McDonnell. (2008). Effects of Forest 

Practices and Consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Oregon and 

Washington. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-760.

Hagle, Susan K. (2004). Root Disease Management. USDA, FS, Forest Health Protection and 

State Forestry Organizations, publication 11.0. 4 pp.

Hanavan and Boehning. (2010). Defoliator risk indicators/measures. Professional written 

correspondence (two emails) between Forest Entomologist of USDA Forest Service 

Forest Health, AZ Zone office and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Forest Silviculturist, regarding 

analysis of defoliator pest risks. 2 pp.

Hann, W.J. D.L. Bunnell. (2001) Fire and land management planning and implementation across 

multiple scales. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 10:389–403.
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 525

Hann, W.J., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. 

Hamilton, J. Jones, M. Levesque, and C. Frame. (2004). Interagency Fire Regime 

Condition Class Guidebook. Last update June 2008: Version 1.3. www.frc.gov

Hardy, C.C., Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.M., Samson, N.R. (2001). Spatial Data for National Fire 

Planning and Fuel Management. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:353–372.

Harris, L.D. (1984). The fragmented forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 211 

pp.

Hart, R.J., Ward, J.J., Bills, D.J, and Flynn, M.E. (2002). Generalized hydrogeology and groundwater budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin and parts of the Verde and 

Salt River basins, Arizona and New Mexico. USDI-USGS Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 02-4026, Tucson, AZ.

Haufler, J.B. (1999). Strategies for conserving terrestrial biological diversity. Pages 17–34 in R.K. 

Baydack, H. Campa III and J.B. Haufler (eds.). Practical approaches to the conservation 

of biological diversity. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Hilpert, Bruce E. (1996). The Indé (Western Apaches) The People of the Mountains, in Paths of 

Life American Indians of the Southwest and Northern Mexico, edited by Thomas E. 

Sheridan and Nancy J. Parezo. Pp 61–90. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson, AZ.

Holthausen, R.S. (2002). White paper on managing for population viability. Draft. July 2003. 

Horman, Chad S. and Val Jo Anderson. (2003). Understory Species Response to Utah Juniper 

Litter. Journal of Range Management 56: 68–71. 

Horne, A., & Haynes, R. (1999). Developing Measures of Socioeconomic Resiliency in the 

Interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PNW-GTR453. April 1999.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Climate change 2007: the physical 

science basis. In: Solomon S., Qin D., Manning M., Chen Z., Marquis M., Avery K.B., 

Tignor M., Miller H.L. (eds.). Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 

UK.

Jameson, Donald A. (1967). The Relationship of Tree Overstory and Herbaceous Understory 

Vegetation. Journal of Range Management 20:247–249.

Johansen, J.R., J. Ashley, and W.R. Rayburn. (1993). The effects of rangefire on soil algal crusts 

in semiarid shrub-steppe of the Lower Columbia Basin and their subsequent recovery. 

Great Basin Naturalist 53: 73–88.

Johnston, R. (1997). Introduction to Macrobiotic Crusts. Soil Quality Institute, USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 
References

526 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Jones, J.R.; and Schier, G.A. (1985). Growth. pp. 19-24. In: DeByle, N.V.; and Winokur, R.P. 

(eds.), Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. GTR RMRS-119. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 283 pp.

Jones, John R. (1974). Silviculture of southwestern mixed conifers and aspen: The status of our 

knowledge. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-122, 44 pp. Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Joyce, L., J. Aber, S. McNulty, V. Dale, A. Hansen, L. Irland, R. Neilson, and K. Skog. (2001). 

Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the forests of the United 

States. Chapter 19, pp. 489–522. In: Climate change impacts on the United States: The 

potential consequences of climate variability and change. National Assessment Synthesis 

Team (ed.). A Report for the US Global Change Research Program. Cambridge 

University Press. New York, NY.

Joyce, L., R. Haynes, R. White, and R.J. Barbour, (tech. coords.). (2006). Bringing climate 

change into natural resource management: Proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-706. 

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 156 pp.

Karl, T.R, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, (eds.). (2009). Global climate change impacts in the 

United States. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY.

http://www.globalchange.gov/ publications/reports/scientific-assessments/usimpacts

Kay, C.E. (1997). Is aspen doomed? Journal of Forestry 5: 4–11.

Kaye, J.P., and Hart, S.C. (1998). Ecological restoration alters nitrogen transformations in a 

ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Ecological Applications 8: 1,052–1,060. 

Kenaley, S.C., R.L. Mathiasen, 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.

Khera, Singrad, and Patricia S. Mariella. (1983). Yavapai. Handbook of North American Indians: 

Southwest Vol. 10. Edited by Alfonso Ortiz. pp.38–54. Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, D.C.

Knight, R.W. (1993). Managing stocking rates to prevent adverse environmental impacts. pp. 97–

107. In: Cox, J.R., and Cadenhead, J.F. (eds.), Managing livestock stocking rates on 

rangeland: Project Range Care. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX. 153 pp.

Knutson, Lea K. and Virginia L. Naef. (1997). Management Recommendations for Washington’s 

Priority Habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 

pp. ill.

Kocis, S.M., English, D.B.K, Zarnoch, S.J., Arnold, R, and Warren, L. (2002). National Visitor 

Use Monitoring Results: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Report prepared for U.S. 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region.

Laing, L., Ambos, N., Subirge, T., McDonald, C., Nelson, C., and Robbie, W. (1987). Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. U.S. Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 453 pp.
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 527

Landfire. (2011). LANDFIRE Project, U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior. 

Available: http://www.landfire.gov/index.php

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. 331 pp.

Laughlin, D.C.; Bakker, J.D.; and Fulé, P.Z. (2005). Understory plant community structure in 

lower montane and subalpine forests, Grand Canyon National Park, USA. Journal of 

Biogeography 32: 2083–2102.

Laughlin, D.C.; and Grace, J.B. (2006). A multivariate model of plant species richness in forested 

systems: old-growth montane forests with a long history of fire. Oikos 114: 60–70.

Laughlin, D.C.; Moore, M.M.; Bakker, J.D.; Casey, C.A.; Springer, J.D.; Fulé, P.Z.; and 

Covington, W.W. (2006). Assessing targets for the restoration of herbaceous vegetation in 

ponderosa pine forests. Restoration Ecology 14: 548–560.

Lenart, M. (2007). Global warming in the Southwest: Projections, observations, and impacts. 

Climate Assessment for the Southwest. University of Arizona, Institute for the Study of 

Planet Earth, Tucson, AZ. 88 pp.

Linz, G.M.; Homan, H.J.; Gaukler, S.M.; Penry, L.B.; and Bleier, W.J. (2007). European 

Starlings: A review of an invasive species with far-reaching impacts. Pages 378–386 In: 

Witmer, G.W.; Pitt, W.C.; Fagerstone, K.A.; and Clark, C.A. (eds.) Managing vertebrate 

invasion species. Proceedings of an international symposium, USDA Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services’ National Wildlife Research Center, Fort 

Collins, CO.

Little, E.L. (1976). Southwestern trees: a guide to the native species of New Mexico and Arizona. 

Agriculture Handbook No. 9. USDA Forest Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. 109 pp.

Litzchert, S.E., L.H. MacDonald. (2009). Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery 

pathways from forest harvest units to streams: Forest Ecology and Management 259 

(2009), p. 143–150.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2004a). Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk 

Communities of the Apache National Forest in Apache County. Tempe, AZ. 

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2004b). Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk 

Communities of the Sitgreaves National Forest in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo 

Counties. Tempe, AZ.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2005). Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan for 

At-Risk Communities of the Apache National Forest in Greenlee County. Tempe, AZ.

Lynch, Ann M. (2004). Fate and characteristics of Picea damaged by Elatobium abietinum

(Walker) (Homoptera: Aphididae) in the White Mountains of Arizona. Western North 

American Naturalist 64:7–17.

Lynch, Ann M., John A. Anhold, Joel D. McMillin, Steve M. Dudley, Roberta A. Fitzgibbon, 

Mary Lou Fairweather. (2010). Forest insect and disease activity on the ApacheSitgreaves NF, and Fort Apache Indian Reservation, 1918-2009: Report for the Apache-
References

528 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Sitgreaves NF/Regional Analysis Team. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Tucson AZ; and Arizona Zone Office Forest Health Protection, USFS, Flagstaff, 

AZ.

MacDonald, L.H., and D.B.R. Coe, (2008). Road sediment production and delivery: processes 

and management. In Proceedings of the First World Landslide Forum, United Nations 

University, Tokyo, Japan. International Consortium on Landslides, Japan, pp. 385–388.

Mack, M.C., F.S. Chapin, E.S. Zavaleta, V.T. Eviner, R.L. Naylor, P.M. Vitousek, H.L. Reynolds, 

D.U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O.E. Sala, S.E. Hobbie, S. Diaz. (2000). Consequences of 

changing biodiversity. Nature 405: 234–242, 11 May 2000.

Marcot, B.G. (2002). An ecological functional basis for managing decaying wood for wildlife. pp.

895-910 in Laudenslayer, Jr., W.F.; Shea, P.J.; Valentine, B.E.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; and 

Lisle, T.E. (tech. coords.) Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management 

of dead wood in western forests, November 2-4, 1999, Reno, Nevada. General Technical 

Report PSW-GTR-181. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 949 pp.

Marshall, R., List, M., and Enquist, C. (2006). Ecoregion-based conservation assessments of the 

Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico: a geodatabase for six ecoregions, 

including the Apache Highlands, Arizona-New Mexico Mountains, Colorado Plateau, 

Mojave Desert, Sonoran Desert, and Southern Rocky Mountains. Prepared by The Nature 

Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 37pp. Available at www.azconservation.org.

Martin, K., K. Aitken, and K. Wiebe. (2004). Nest sites and nest webs for cavity nesting 

communities in Interior British Columbia, Canada: Nest characteristics and niche

partitioning in The Condor 106:5-19.

Martin, T.E. and J.L. Maron. (2012). Climate impacts on bird and plan communities from altered 

animal-plant interactions. Nature Climate Change 2:195–200.

McGinty, A., Thurow, T.L., and Taylor, C.A. (1995). Improving rainfall effectiveness on 

rangelands. Texas Agricultural Extension Service Publication E-155. Texas A&M 

University, College Station, TX. 6 pp.

McMillin and Boehning. (2010). Bark beetle risk measures/indicators. Professional written 

correspondence (two emails) between Forest Entomologist of USDA Forest Service 

Forest Health Protection, AZ Zone office and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Forest 

Silviculturist, regarding analysis of bark beetle pest risks. 2 pp.

McMillin, Joel D. (2009). Mountain pine beetle activity in Chitty Fire Salvage Sale and Bear 

Wallow Wilderness. USFS File Code 3420, Biological Evaluation Report by AZ Zone 

Entomologist. USFS SW Region Forest Health, AZ Zone Office, Flagstaff, AZ.

McMillin, Joel D. and Roberta Fitzgibbon. (2008). Insect activity in the Chitty Fire Salvage Sale. 

USFS File Code 3420, Biological Evaluation Report by AZ Zone Entomologists. USFS 

SW Region Forest Health, AZ Zone Office, Flagstaff, AZ.

Megahan W.F. (1974). Erosion over time on severely disturbed granitic soils: a model. U.S. 

Forest Service Research Paper INT-156, Ogden, UT. 14 pp.

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(8): 2145–2151.
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 529

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). (2009). IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0.

Moore, M.M., and Deiter, D.A. (1992). Stand density index as a predictor of forage production in 

northern Arizona pine forests. Journal of Range Management 45: 267–271.

Mueggler, W. (1985). Vegetation associations. pp. 45-55 In: DeByle N. and Winokur, R. (eds.). 

Aspen: ecology and management. GTR RMRS-119. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 1,663 pp.

National Riparian Service Team (NRST). (2000). Blue River watershed trip report ApacheSitgreaves National Forests October 31-November 2, 2000. Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, Springerville, AZ.

NAU and SWCA (Northern Arizona University and SWCA, INC). (1996). Final Report, AnimasLa Plata Ethnographic Study, Volume I: A Traditional Cultural Properties Survey. 

Northern Arizona University and SWCA, Inc., Flagstaff, AZ.

Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. (2005). Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. Ogden, Utah: 

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 pp.

Nilsson, M.C., and Wardle, D.A. (2005). Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: 

Evidence from the northern Swedish boreal f forest. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 3: 421–428.

O’Brien, Renee A. Jan. (2002). Arizona’s Forest Resources, 1999. Resource Bulletin RMRS-RB2. USDA-FS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

O’Gara, B.W. and J.D. Yoakum. (2004). Pronghorn ecology and management. Tech. Ed. R. E. 

McCabe. Univ. Press of Colorado. 903 pp.

Page-Dumroese, D.S., M. Jurgensen, and T. Thomas. (2010). Maintaining soil productivity during 

forest or biomass-to-energy thinning harvests in the Western United States. West.J. 

Appl.For. 25(1) :5–10.

Parker, Thomas J., Karen M. Clancy and Robert L. Mathiasen. (2006). Interactions Among Fire, 

Insects, and Pathogens in Coniferous Forests of the Interior Western United States and 

Canada. The Royal Entomological Society, Agricultural and Forest Entomology 8,

pp.167–189.

Parks, C.G.; Radosevich, S.R.; Endress, B.A.; Naylor, B.J.; Anzinger, D.; Rew, L.J.; Maxwell, 

B.D.; and Dwire, K.A. (2005). Natural and land-use history of the Northwest mountain 

ecoregions (USA) in relation to patterns of plant invasions. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, 

Evolution and Systematics 7: 137–158.

Parsons, Annette; Robichaud, Peter R.; Lewis Sarah A; Napper, Carolyn; Clark, Jess T. (2010). 

Field guide for mapping post-fire soil burn severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-243. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 49 pp.

Perry, Richard. (1991). Western Apache Heritage: People of the Mountain Corridor. University of 

Texas Press, Austin, TX.
References

530 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Peters, E.F., and S.C. Bunting. (1994). Fire conditions pre-and post-occurrence of annual grasses 

on the Snake River Plain. In: Monsen, S.B., and S.G. Kitchen, eds. Proceedings—

Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR313. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Pages 31–36.

Petit, L. (no date). Brown-headed cowbirds: from buffalo birds to modern scourge. Smithsonian 

Migratory Bird Center Fact Sheet No. 3. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/migratorybirds/fact_sheets/default.cfm?fxsht=3 (Page Last 

Modified: 3/29/2012).U.S. Forest Service. (2008). Land Areas of the National Forest 

System, FS-383.

Plog, Fred. (1981a). Cultural Resources Overview: Little Colorado Area, Arizona. U.S. Forest 

Service Southwestern Region, Albuquerque and Bureau of Land Management Arizona 

State Office, Phoenix, AZ.

Plog, Fred. (1981b). Managing Archaeology: A Background Document for Cultural Resource 

Management on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Arizona. Cultural Resources 

Management Report No. 1. U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Region.

Potyandy, John and Theodore W. Geier. (2010). Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework 

Implementation Guide; A guide for assessing and tracking changes to watershed 

conditions. USDAFS Fort Collins, CO.

QuickSilver Version 6. (2010). Accessed 2 February 2011. 

<http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/PAG/Economics_Center/software/QuickSilver/index.shtml>.

Reed, J.E., W.B. Ballard, P.S. Gipson, B.T. Kelly, P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, and D.B. Wester. 

(2006). Diets of free-ranging Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. Wildlife 

Soc. Bull. 34(4):1127–1133.

Renard, K.G., G.A. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, and D.C. Yoder. (1997). Predicting Soil 

Erosion by Water: A Guide to the Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil 

Loss Equation (RUSLE). USDA-ARS, Agriculture Handbook Number 703.

Riblett, C.H.; Hinck, J.H.; Scofield, W.L.; Warner, W.R.; Rencher, G.B.; Patterson, E.R.; Sizer, 

J.H.; Winn, F.; Rogers, B.S.; Wylder, T.E.; Adams, J.A.; and W.M. Baker. (1915). Range 

reconnaissance field survey of the Apache National Forest, 1913-1915, (unpublished 

data). USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, AZ. 224 

pp.

Rich, L.R. and J.R. Thompson. (1974). Watershed management in Arizona’s mixed conifer 

forests: The status of our knowledge. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper RM-130. 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 15 pp. 

Robinson, A.T., Paretti, N.V., and Cordy, G.E. (2006). Ecological Assessment of Arizona’s 

Streams and Rivers, 2000-2004. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, 

Tech. Guidance Bull. No. 7, Phoenix, AZ. 52 pp.

Robson, S.G., E.R. Banta. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States; Arizona, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah. HA730-C, USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_c/C-text8.html

Roccaforte, John P., Peter Z. Fulé, W. Walker Chancellor, and Daniel C. Laughlin. (2012). Woody 

debris and tree regeneration dynamics following severe wildfires in Arizona ponderosa 
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 531

pine forests. Can. J. For. Res. 42: 593-604. NRC Research Press. 

www.nrcresearchpress.com

Rogers, Paul. (2003). Forest Resources of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. USDA-FS 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Rogers, Paul C. (ed.) (2008). Summary and Abstracts from Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) 

Meeting. Compilation of case studies presented at the Ft. Collins, CO, meeting of SAD 

researchers held Feb. 12–13, 2008.

Rogers, Paul C. (2009). Letter to Apache-Sitgreaves forest supervisor regarding aspen decline in 

northern Arizona, dated August 25, 2009. Wildland Resources Department. Logan, UT: 

Utah State University.

Rogers, Paul C. (2011). Letter to U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Region regional forester 

summarizing post-Wallow Fire aspen conditions and regeneration, dated October 24, 

2011. Wildland Resources Department. Logan, UT: Utah State University.

Rolf, J.A. (2001). Aspen Fencing in Northern Arizona: A 15-year Perspective. In: Shepperd W.D.; 

Binkley D.; Bartos D.L.; Stohlgren T.J.; Eskew L.G., compls. Sustaining Aspen in 

Western Landscapes: Symposium proceedings; 13–15 June 2000; Grand Junction, CO. 

Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO: USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: pp.193–196.

Rothstein, S.I. (1994). The cowbird’s invasion of the far west: history, causes, and consequences 

experienced by host species, pp. 301-315. In: Jehle, J.; and Johnson, N. (eds.). A century 

of avifaunal change in western North America. Studies in Avian Biology, 15.

Ryan, M., S. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, 

R. Oren, J. Randerson, and W. Schlesinger. (2008). Land resources. Chapter 3, pp. 75–

121. In: The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and 

biodiversity. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, D.C.

Savage, Melissa and Joy Nystrom Mast. (2005). How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine 

forests after crown fires? Can. J. For. Res. 35: 967–977. NRC Research Press.

Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W. J. Hann, D.L. Bunnell, (2002). Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 41 

pp.

Schussman, H. and Smith, E. (2006). Historical range of variation for potential natural vegetation 

types of the Southwest. Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region by 

The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 22 pp.

Seesholtz, D., Wickwar, D., and Russell, J. 2004. Social Economic Profile Technical Guide. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inventory Monitoring Institute.

Senior, Louise. (2003). Personnel Communication. In preparation: An Ethnographic Resources 

Inventory of the Rodeo-Chediski Burn Area. Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts, 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache and Navajo Counties, Arizona. SWCA 

Cultural Resources Report No. 03-164, SWCA Inc., Environmental Consultants, Tucson, 

AZ.
References

532 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Senior, Louise. (2005). Rim Country Ethnicity: An Ethnographic Resources Inventory of the 

Rodeo-Chediski Burn Area. Prepared for USDA Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

SWCA Cultural Resources Report, SWCA Inc., Environmental Consultants, Tucson, AZ.

Shepperd, W.D. and M.L. Fairweather. (1994). Impact of Large Ungulates in Restoration of 

Aspen Communities in a Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem. In: Covington W.S.; 

DeBano L.F. (eds.), Sustainable Ecological Approach to Land Management. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-247. Fort Collins, CO: USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station: pp. 344–347.

Silva Ecosystem Consultants, (1992). Old growth literature review. Silva Forest Foundation. 

Slocan Park, British Columbia Canada V0G 2E0. pp. 60. Available at: 

http://www.silvafor.org/assets/silva/PDF/Literature/OldGrowthEcology.pdf.

Simard S.M., J.L. Heineman, W.J. Mather, D.L. Sachs, and A. Vyse. (2001). Effects of 

operational brushing on conifers and plant communities in the southern interior of British 

Columbia. Ministry of Forests. 215 pp.

Sitko, S., S. Hurteau, (2010). Evaluating the impacts of forest treatments; The first five years of 

the White Mountain Stewardship Project. The Nature Conservancy. Phoenix, AZ.

Smith, J.B., R. Richel, and B. Miller. (2001). The potential consequences of climate variability 

and change: The western United States, Chapter 9, pp. 219-245. In: Climate change 

impacts on the United States: The potential consequences of climate variability and 

change. National Assessment Synthesis Team (ed.). A Report for the US Global Change 

Research Program. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY.

Soulé, M.E., Estes, J.A., Berger, J. and C. Martinez Del Rio. (2003). Ecological effectiveness: 

conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology vol. 17(no. 5). 1238–

1250 pp.

Sprigg, W.A. and T. Hinkley. (2000). Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change: Southwest. A Report of the Southwest 

Regional Assessment Group. University of Arizona. The Institute for the Study of Planet 

Earth. Tucson, AZ, US Global Change Research Program. 60 pp.

Stacey, P.B. (1995). Diversity of rangeland bird populations. pp. 33-41. In: West, N.E. (ed.). 

Biodiversity on rangelands. Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Logan: 

UT. 125 pp.

State of New Mexico. (2005). Potential effects of climate change on New Mexico. Agency 

Technical Work Group. [Musick, B. (ed.), J. Allen, T. Darden, R. Floyd, M. Gallaher, D. 

Jones, K. Kostelnik, K. Kretz, R. Lucero, R. Romero, B. Toth, M. Uhl, and L. Weaver 

(contribs.)]. NM.

Stevens, V. (1997). The ecological role of coarse woody debris: an overview of the ecological 

importance of CWD in B.C. forests. Working Paper 30. Research Branch, British 

Columbia Ministry of Forestry, Victoria, British Columbia. 26 pp.

Stritar, Michelle L., Jennifer A. Schweitzer, Stephen C. Hart, Joseph K. Bailey. (2010). 

Introduced ungulate herbivore alters soil processes after fire. Biol Invasions (2010) 

12:313-324. Springer Science+Business Media B.V
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 533

Stynes, D. J. and E.M. White. (2005). Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM Four 

Year Report. Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI. [online] URL: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/NVUM4YrSpending.pdf

Swank, Wayne, and DeBano, Leonard, and Nelson, Devon. (1989). Effects of Timber 

Management Practices on Soil and Water. Pages 79-106. From the Scientific Basis for 

Silvicultural and Management Decisions in National Forest System. General Technical 

Report WO-55.

Swetnam, T.W., and Baisan, C.H. (1996). Fire effects in southwestern forests. Proceedings of the 

Second La Mesa Fire Symposium, March 29–31, 1994, Los Alamos, NM. U.S. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-286. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 216 pp.

Swetnam, T.W., and Betancourt, J.L. (1990). Fire-southern oscillation relations in the 

southwestern United States. Science 249:1017–1020.

Swetnam, T.W., and J.L. Betancourt. (1997). Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response to 

decadal climatic variability in the American Southwest. Journal of Climate, 11: 3128–

3147.

Tellman, B.R., Yarde, M.W. (1997). Arizona’s changing rivers, how people have affected the 

rivers. Water Resources Research Center, Univ. of Arizona. Tucson, AZ. 198 pp.

Thill, R.E., Folliott, P.F., and Patton, D.R. (1983). Deer and elk forage production in Arizona 

mixed conifer forests. Research Paper RM-248. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 13 pp.

Thomas, J.W., and D.E. Toweill, eds. (1982). Elk of North America: ecology and management. 

Stockpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 698 pp.

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.

Troendle, C.A. and W.K. Olsen. (1994). Potential Effects of Vegetation Harvest and Watershed 

Management on Streamflow Dynamics and Sediment Transport. In: Sustainable 

Ecological Systems Proceedings, U.S., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, GTR RM-247, pp. 34–41.

Troendle, C.A.; Wilcox, M.S.; Bevenger, G.S.; Porth, L.S. (2001). The Coon Creek water yield 

augmentation project: implementation of timber harvesting technology to increase 

streamflow. Forest Ecology and Management. 143: 179–187.

Trunkle, P., and Fay, P. (1991). Transportation of spotted knapweed seeds by vehicles. 

Department of Plant and Soil Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.

Tyser, R. and C. Key. (1988). Spotted Knapweed in Natural Area Fescue Grasslands: An 

Ecological Assessment. Northwest Science 62:4. pp. 151–160.

Tyser, R. and C. Worley. (1992). Alien Flora in Grasslands Adjacent to Road and Trail Corridors 

in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.). Conservation Biology 6:2. pp. 253–262. 

Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2386247
References

534 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2011). Local Area Personal Income. Accessed 21 April 2011. 

<http://www.bea.gov>.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Local Area Unemployment. Accessed 21 April 2011. 

<http://www.bls.gov/lau>.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). American FactFinder. Accessed 14 December 2010.

<http://www.factfinder.census.gov>.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1995). Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 

1990. http://www.census.gov/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). American FactFinder. Accessed 14 December 2010.

<http://www.factfinder.census.gov>.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). American Community Survey, 2005-2009. Accessed 21 April 2011.

<http://www.census.gov/acs>.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American FactFinder2. Accessed 28 March 2012.

<http://www.factfinder2.census.gov>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011). National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). 

QuickStats 1.0. Accessed 22 March 2011. 

<http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats_1.0/index.asp>.U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (1998). Riparian area 

management: A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting 

science for lotic areas. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Tech.Ref. 1737-15. 

Denver, CO. 126 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2003). Riparian area 

management. A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting 

science for lentic areas. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Tech. Ref. 1737-16. 

Denver, CO. 109 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2008). Mining Claims and 

Sites on Federal Lands. BLM/WO/GI002+4130+REV07. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__RE

ALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy.Par.28664.File.dat/MiningClaims.p

df

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). (1995). Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Colorado River Storage Project, Coconino 

County Arizona. Salt Lake City, UT.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1995). Recovery Plan for the 

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). Vol. 1. Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2003). Biological Opinion: 

Blue and San Francisco Rivers Grazing Consultation. AESO/SE: 2-21-01-F-21, 12-21-

01-F-300, 2-21-01-F-302, 2-21-01-F-303, 2-21-01-F-306, 2-21-01-F-307, 2-21-95-F-441, 

2-21-95-F-442, 2-21-95-F-443, 2-21-95-F-446, 2-21-95-F-447, 2-21-01-F-105. January 

31, 2003. Phoenix, AZ.
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 535

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2008). Birds of Conservation 

Concern 2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. 85 

pp. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2011). Mexican wolf web site 

at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf. Accessed September, 2012.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2012). Biological and 

conference opinion for the continued implementation of the land and resource 

management plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs of the Southwestern region USDA 

Forest Service. Consultation 2012-F-0001. 589 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2010). Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). Accessed 20 

December 2010. <http://www.doi.gov/pilt>.

U.S. Forest Service. (1974). Agriculture Handbook Number 462. National Forest Landscape 

Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, The Visual Management System. U.S. Government

Printing Office: Washington, DC. 47 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (1982). Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Users Guide. USDA, Forest 

Service, Washington, DC. 40 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (1990). ROS Primer and Field Guide. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, 

DC. 10 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (1991). General ecosystem survey. U.S., Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, 

NM. 188 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (1995). Agriculture Handbook Number 701. Landscape Aesthetics, A 

Handbook for Scenery Management. Washington, DC.

U.S. Forest Service. (2000). Roadless Rule Final EIS, Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation

Final EIS. Washington, DC. http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/

U.S. Forest Service. (2001). National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUM). Accessed 21 

March 2011. <http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/products/NVUM_Results/index.shtml>.

U.S. Forest Service. (2002). Little Colorado Landscape Assessment. U.S. CEEM. ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2003). First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic 

Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation 

Officer and Arizona Historic Preservation Officer and Texas and Oklahoma and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the United States Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service Region 3. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Forest Service. (2005). Highway Right-Of-Way Mitigation for All Threatened, Endangered 

and Sensitive Species That Occur on The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests for 

ADOT’s Management of Noxious Weeds And Hazardous Vegetation on Public Roads on 

National Forest Systems Lands In Arizona. Compiled by: M.R. White, Ph.D. ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ.
References

536 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

U.S. Forest Service. (2006). National visitor use monitoring report, round 1 output forest-level 

visitation and confidence 

intervals. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/revised_vis_est.pdf

U.S. Forest Service. (2007 and 2008). Best Management Practices Annual Monitoring Reports. 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2007). Recreation facility analysis: 5-year program of work and 

programmatic results of implementation. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

Southwestern Region.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008a). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Comprehensive Evaluation 

Report. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008b). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Resource Evaluations. U.S. 

Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008c). Apache-Sitgreaves NFs streamside management zone guidance. 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008d). Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact: 

Environmental Assessment for the A-SNFs Integrated Forest-Wide Noxious or Invasive 

Weed Management Program. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008e). Ecological Sustainability Report. Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests. U.S. Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008f). Watershed and hydrologic recovery through soil stabilization and 

vegetation regeneration. Prepared by M.R. White, Ph.D., forest ecologist. 14 pp. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2009a). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Economic and Social 

Sustainability Assessment. Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2009b). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Mineral Resource Report, 

Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2009c). Research Natural Area Process for Forest Plan Revision under the 

1982 Planning Rule Provisions. Southwestern Region RNA Work Group. Southwestern 

Region. Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010a). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests CER Supplement to meet AMS 

Requirements. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010b). Climate Change Resource Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/ 

accessed October 2012.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010c). Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Public Motorized Travel 

Management Plan Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010d). Final Environmental Assessment for the Blue River and KP Creek 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability. Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 537

U.S. Forest Service. (2010e). Historic riparian condition photographs. Compiled by J. Ward and 

L. WhiteTrifaro. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010f). INFRA – Special Use Database (SUDS) Mineral Materials database. 

Forest Summary by Commodity, report MMGS017L. accessed 10/20/2010.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010g). Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act 

Payments. Accessed 20 December 2010. <http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts>.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010h). 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. Southwestern Region Climate Change and Forest 

Planning Work Group, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010i). The Four Forest Restoration Initiative: A Collaborative Effort to 

Restore Forest Ecosystems on Four National Forests. Southwestern Region. MB-R3-04-

13.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010j). Unpublished soil disturbance and soil condition data. ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2011a). Biological assessment for re-initiation of consultation on the 

continued implementation of the land and resource management plans for the eleven 

national forests and grasslands of the Southwestern Region. 348 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2011b). GIS Core Data View for Developed Recreation Sites Report. Pulled 

on March 16, 2011 from the Infra Database. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2011c). Land Area Report. Table 4 – Areas by 

State. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR2011/LAR_Table_04.pdf

U.S. Forest Service. (2011d). Wallow Fire Emergency Consultation for BAER Activities on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests. BAER Consultation Team. Oct. 2011. 

#22410-2011-IE-0276.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012a). Addendum to the 2009 Eligibility Report for the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012b). Air Quality Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012c). American Indian Rights and Interests Specialist Report Forest Plan 

Revision DEIS. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012d). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan 

Socioeconomic Resource Report. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012e). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Public Participation Plan.

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012f). Cultural Resources Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012g). Fire Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. Springerville, 

AZ.
References

538 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

U.S. Forest Service. (2012h). Fisheries Specialist and Viability Report Forest Plan Revision 

DEIS. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012i). Forest Health Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012j). Forest Products Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012k). Infrastructure Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012l). Invasives Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012m). Iterative Update to Species Considered and Identification of Forest 

Planning Species Report. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012n). I-Web Database – Infra Roads. 

U.S. Forest Service. (2012o). Lands Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012p). Minerals and Energy Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012q). Range Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012r). Recreation Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012s). Report on the Selection of Management Indicator Species and 

Ecological Indicators. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012t). Research Natural Area Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012u). Riparian Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012v). Scenic Resources Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012w). Soils Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012x). Vegetation Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012y). Wallow Fire Changed Condition Assessment. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012z). Water Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012aa). Watershed Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.
References

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 539

U.S. Forest Service. (2012bb). Wild and Scenic Rivers Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision 

DEIS. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012cc). Wilderness Resources and Inventoried Roadless Areas Specialist 

Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012dd). Wildlife Specialist Report – Bald Eagles, Migratory Birds, and 

Important Bird Areas. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012ee). Draft Wildlife Specialist Report –Biological Assessment [i.e., the 

ESA species]. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012ff). Draft Wildlife Specialist Report –Biological Evaluation [i.e., the 

sensitive species]. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012gg). Wildlife Specialist Report - Viability. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2006). Mineral commodity summaries for crushed stone, sand 

and gravel, and pumice. 

January. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2006/mcs2006.pdf

Utah Forest Restoration Working Group - Ecology Committee (UFRWG) [O’Brien, M., Rogers, 

P., Mueller, K., MacWhorter, R., Rowley, A., Hopkin, B., Christensen, B., and Dremann, 

P.]. (2010). Guidelines for aspen restoration on the National Forests in Utah, Western 

Aspen Alliance, Utah State University, Logan, UT. 48 pp.

Vander Lee, B., Smith, R., and Bate, J. (2006). Methods (Chapter 2). In: Ecological and 

biological diversity of National Forests in Region 3. Southwest Forest Assessment 

Project. The Nature Conservancy. Tucson, AZ.

Vannette, Walter M, and Alison Feary. (1981). Navajo Sacred Places and Resource Use in and 

near the Coconino, Kaibab, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Confidential ms on 

file, Supervisors Office, Apache Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, AZ.

Weisz, Reuben, D. Vandendriesche, M. Mouer, M. Boehning, L. Wadleigh, J. Triepke, M. White, 

C. Nelson, J. Palmer, J. Youtz, B. Higgins, T. Nicolet, P. Bostwick, D. Mindar, M. Pitts, 

M. Manthei, W. Robbie. (2012). White Paper O: Process overview of using FVS to create 

VDDT models. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Regional Office, 

Albuquerque, NM. Interoffice publication.

Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and J.A. Jones. (2001). Forest roads and geomorphic process 

interactions, Cascade Range, OR. 26(2): 191–204.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hildalgo, and T.W. Swetnam. (2006). Warming and earlier spring increase 

western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science, 313: 940–943.

Whisenant, S.G. (1990). Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and 

management implications. In: McArthur, E.D., E.M. Romney, S.D. Smith, and P.T. 

Tueller, eds. Proceedings—Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off, and Other 

Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. General Technical Report INT-276. USDA 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Pages 4–10
References

540 Programmatic DEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

White, M.R. (2002). Characterization of, and changes in the subalpine and montane grasslands, 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of 

Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 206 pp.

White, M.R. (2008). Field guide to noxious and invasive weeds known to occur or are occurring 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 

MR-R3-01-2. Albuquerque, NM. 233 pp.

White, M.R. (2011). Field guide to invasive plants of the national forests and grasslands in 

Arizona and New Mexico. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, MR-R3-16-6. 

Albuquerque, NM. 144 pp.

Woodward, H.D.; and Stoleson, S.H. (2002). Brown-headed cowbird attacks southwestern willow 

flycatcher nestlings. The Southwestern Naturalist, 47(4), 626–628.

Youngblood, Andrew, James B. Grace, and James D. McIver. (2009). Delayed conifer mortality 

after fuel reduction treatments: interactive effects of fuel, fire intensity, and bark beetles. 

Ecological Applications, 19(2), 2009, pp. 321–337

Youtz, James A, and Don Vandendriesche. (2012). White paper entitled: National Forest Planning 

and Sustained Yield of the Timber Resource Long-Term Sustained-Yield Calculations for 

Forest Land and Resource Management Planning. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region, Albuquerque, NM, and Washington Office Forest Management Service Center. 

32 pp.

Zuni Cultural Advisory Team. (2011). Personal communication to Melissa R Schroeder at Sacred

Sites Listening Session Meeting February 22, 2011. Pueblo of Zuni, NM.
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 541

Appendix A. Public

Comments and Responses

This appendix is reserved for the final environmental impact statement. It will contain comments 

received on this DEIS and the associated responses.

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 543

Appendix B. Description 

of the Analysis Process

This appendix shares important features of the analysis that compared alternatives and provided 

information for the programmatic draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). 

In order to understand the ability of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to be managed in different ways 

to address resource issues, a series of analyses were performed. Much of the analysis relied on the 

forests’ Geographic Information System (GIS) database and existing inventories. A number of 

analysis tools and computer models were used to help specialists understand the potential effect 

of management actions.

This appendix highlights some of the main analyses processes that were used in the development 

of this DEIS. For each resource area that is described in the DEIS, the relative specialist report 

contains methodology and analysis descriptions. These specialist reports are available in the 

“Plan Set of Documents.” Other key documents and evaluations (including, but not limited to, 

wilderness, RNA, and wild and scenic river evaluations) that served as references and laid the 

foundation for DEIS analyses are listed in appendix E and are available in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”

The appendix is organized by the following sections:

• Vegetation Modeling

• Timber Suitability Analysis and Timber Calculations

• Livestock Grazing Suitability Analysis

• Species Viability Analysis

• Socioeconomic Resources Analysis

• Research Needs

Vegetation Modeling

The vegetation analysis modeled the potential vegetation conditions resulting from natural 

disturbances and succession in conjunction with proposed management (mechanical, planting,

and burning treatments) for each of the alternatives. Analyses were conducted on vegetation using

potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs), existing mid-scale vegetation types1

, and soil types 

 1 Mid-scale vegetation types were determined using satellite data and are mapped at the scale of 1:100,000. The midscale vegetation inventory for all Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ vegetation types analyzed in this report was conducted in 

2005 and 2006. As a result of the 2011 Wallow Fire, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ midscale mapping product was 

updated to reflect changed conditions. This product represents a rapid assessment done to help identify changed 

vegetation condition within the perimeter of the Wallow Fire. The assessment utilized mid-scale existing vegetation 

data products for vegetation dominance type, tree size, and overstory canopy cover map units as well as RAVG (Rapid 

Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire) data produced by the Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC) 

representing overstory canopy cover mortality classes. The datasets were combined using a standard rule-set, developed 

by the U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office, to determine where mid-scale map units had changed 

according to fire severity. This outcome is intended as a rapid assessment of changed condition and does not represent 

an update of the official mid-scale map products.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

544 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

from the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey2. 

For each PNVT, model projections were used to show the departure from desired conditions for 

each alternative, and to estimate trends and future conditions.

Modeling projected trends in state and transitions were derived through the use of the Vegetation 

Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT), Version 6.0.25 (ESSA Technologies, 2006). VDDT 

software is a non-spatial model that allows the user to model vegetation change over time as a 

series of vegetation states that differ in structure, composition, and cover and to specify the 

amount of time it takes to move from one vegetation state to another in the absence of 

disturbance3

. 

Various disturbance agents affecting the movement of vegetation between states (or transitions) 

are incorporated (e.g., mechanical vegetation treatments, surface fires, mixed-severity fires, 

stand-replacing fires, grazing, insect outbreaks, and drought events). By varying the types and 

rates of disturbance across the landscape, the effects of different disturbance regimes, such as 

historic and current fire regimes, or different management treatments, such as planned and 

unplanned fire ignitions, fire suppression, grazing practices, and mechanical fuel treatments, on 

vegetation can be investigated (Schussman and Smith, 2006). Input data used in modeling came 

directly from forest management activities and fire data over the last 25 years.

State destinations and transition probabilities for vegetation treatments were derived from Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS), modeling, Version 6.31. FVS is a distance-independent; individualtree forest growth model widely used in the United States and is used to compare alternatives. 

State destinations for natural fires and fire treatments were derived from FVS, modeling, Version 

2.02 and Fire and Fuel Extension (FFE) (Rebain, 2010).

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plot data were used to calibrate the VDDT model to estimate 

relative proportions of even- and uneven-aged conditions on the forests (Weisz et al., 2012).

Some of the drawbacks and limitations of VDDT modeling are:

• Many of the VDDT inputs used were derived from other modeling outputs, e.g., FVS 

timber harvest treatment state transition destinations and the probability of those 

outcomes

• Many of the VDDT inputs used were derived from incomplete data sources such as the 

Forest Service Activity Tracking (FACTS4

) database

 2 The terrestrial ecosystem survey referenced in this document is specific to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and is a 

classification of ecological types. It maps terrestrial ecological units based on soil types and existing vegetation (Laing 

et al., 1987).

3 State and transition models are simple box-and arrow diagrams in which boxes represent observed or theoretical 

ecosystem states and arrows represent the observed or theoretical transitions among these states. These models are 

commonly used to conceptualize either formal mathematical models or the complex behavior of dynamic systems. 

They are essentially a means of mapping system behavior in the absence of adequate predictive models (Westoby et al., 

1989).

4 FACTS is an activity tracking system for all levels of the Forest Service. It supports timber sales in conjunction with 

TIM Contracts and Permits; tracks and monitors NEPA decisions; tracks KV trust fund plans at the timber sale level, 

reporting at the national level; and, it generates national, regional, forest, and/or district reports. FACTS is a nationally 

supported application that tracks land based activities through the NEPA, Layout, and Accomplished stages of a 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 545

• VDDT is a non-spatial model intended mainly for broad scale analysis

• VDDT projects changes in vegetative conditions in response to succession, disturbances, 

and management treatments; however, the VDDT model divides vegetation conditions 

within each PNVT into a small number of discrete states, and it is acknowledged that 

there is more variability within each state and within nature than has been modeled for 

plan revision.

• A small number of states were selected because the VDDT model is driven by the data 

available; the amount of available data was limited

• VDDT modeled the distribution of landscape states over time, and does not model the 

more detailed physical (soil, temperature, precipitation, aspect, elevation, productivity) 

chemical and biological dynamics of what is happening at each scale of spatial resolution

• VDDT is a long-range, broad scale, strategic model, and does not describe what is 

happening at a site-specific level of detail to individual trees, groups of trees, etc.

• VDDT does not model detailed mechanisms of landscape change, but by calibrating the

VDDT models with FVS model outputs (Weisz et al., 2012), VDDT modeling takes 

advantage of some of the detailed mechanisms (mortality, regeneration, background 

dwarf mistletoe presence, natural growth, succession, etc.) that FVS considers

• VDDT models overstory structure, composition, and cover as defined by mid-scale 

vegetation mapping in great detail, but does not model the understory vegetation (for 

example, the species composition of grasses and forbs)

• VDDT models the probability and timing of events (such as fire behavior, management 

activities, insect and disease occurrences, etc.) based on empirical observations, but our 

current information on historical behavior and evidence cannot accurately predict future 

behavior due to climate change and other phenomena which may not have occurred 

within the realm of the statistical evidence which is available to us today

It is assumed the disturbances (e.g., management activities) selected for the VDDT model 

represent the majority of disturbances the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs experience. There could be 

many variations to these disturbances; however these were not modeled in detail for this analysis.

According to Lauenroth and Laycock (1989), and others, succession may follow multiple 

pathways and reach different end-points depending on the effects of disturbance on the life 

history characteristics of the vegetation; causing predictability to be limited by the importance of 

chance or infrequent events.

The following PNVTs were modeled using VDDT software: ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, 

dry mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forests; Madrean pine-oak, and piñon-juniper woodlands; Great 

Basin and semi-desert grasslands. State and transition modeling was not conducted for interior 

chaparral, montane/subalpine grasslands, and the four riparian PNVTs. Separate, regionally 

consistent VDDTs models were not developed for the montane/subalpine and riparian PNVTs.

Various spreadsheets for calculating the relative differences between alternatives for similarity to 

desired and reference conditions, interspersion of states, acres of aspen, and understory 

production as a function of overstory tree density were used for processing the output results.

 

project. The features in GIS represent the activity unit on which these activities occur and are depicted in GIS as 

polygons, lines or points. FACTS version 2.0 uses a total of three feature classes for each feature type - polygon, line, 

point. Within each feature class, there exists three “subtypes” to identify the stage an activity is in - NEPA, Layout, 

Accomplished. The appropriate stage of an activity unit is determined by the status of the project.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

546 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Assumption: The population and calibration of VDDT using FIA plots and FVS 

modeling of growth and disturbances generally represents the response of forested 

PNVTs well enough to compare the potential responses of alternatives in a relative way.

Goals or desired conditions used to evaluate contributions to sustainability come from the desired 

conditions in the proposed plan. These desired conditions are a combination of: 

• Forest Service Southwestern Region consistent desired conditions, which were developed 

using an interdisciplinary process and various scientific references. 

• Apache-Sitgreaves NFs specific desired conditions that supplement the Region 3 

consistent desired conditions. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs also developed desired 

conditions for PNVTs not addressed in the regionally-consistent process.

Additional information about the analysis process can be found in the “Vegetation,” “Forest 

Products,” and “Fire Specialist” reports in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Vegetation Treatments

The following tables provide the variables that were input into individual VDDT models to 

determine the resulting movement toward or away from desired condition and vegetation state

makeup. The input variables represent potential management activities by alternative including 

the acres treated mechanically, by planting, or by fire. Table 178 provides a summary by PNVT 

and alternative. Table 179 displays more detail, including the treatment types, for the modeled 

PNVTs.

References

ESSA Technologies Ltd. (2006). http://www.essa.com/downloads/vddt/index.htm

Laing, L.; Ambos, N.; Subirge, T.; McDonald, C.; Nelson, C.; and Robbie, W. (1987). Terrestrial 

ecosystem survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 453 pp. 

Lauenroth, W.K.; and W.A. Laycock. (1989). Secondary succession and the evaluation of 

rangeland condition. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO. 163 pp.

Rebain, Stephanie A. (comp.). (2010) (revised 2012). The fire and fuels extension to the forest 

vegetation simulator: updated model documentation. Internal Report (revised March 20, 

2012). USDA Forest Service. Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO. 397

pp.

Schussman, H. and Smith, E. (2006). Vegetation models for Southwest Vegetation. Prepared for 

the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, 

AZ. 11 pp.

Weisz, R.; Vandendriesche, D.; Mouer, M.; Boehning, M.; Wadleigh, L.; Triepke, J.; White, M.; 

Nelson, C.; Palmer, J.; Youtz, J.; Higgins, B.; Nicolet, T.; Bostwick, P.; Mindar, D.; Pitts, 

J.; Manthei, M.; and Robbie, W. (2012). White Paper O: process overview of using FVS 

to create VDDT models. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Interoffice 

Publication, Albuquerque, NM.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 547

Westoby, M.; Walker, B.; and Noy-Meir, I. (1989). Opportunistic management for rangelands not 

at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42: 266–274
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

548 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 178. Summary of modeled annual treatment objectives (acres) by PNVT and alternative for the high, average, and low levels

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low

Ponderosa Pine Forest (602,206 acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 7,119 NA 11,025 6,289 1,552 24,255 13,341 2,426 9,450 5,434 1,417

Acres treated by Planting NA 450 NA 1,200 875 550 1,400 1,100 800 400 263 125

Acres treated by Fire NA 3,150 NA 11,025 6,300 1,575 10,187 5,614 1,040 22,050 12,679 3,308

Total Acres Treated NA 10,719 NA 23,250 13,464 3,677 35,842 20,055 4,266 31,900 18,376 4,850

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest (147,885 acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 1,808 NA 2,772 1,584 396 6,160 3,388 616 2,400 1,380 360

Acres treated by Planting NA 100 NA 450 338 225 500 383 265 200 150 100

Acres treated by Fire NA 800 NA 2,910 1,663 416 2,772 1,525 277 5,880 3,381 881

Total Acres Treated NA 2,708 NA 6,132 3,585 1,037 9,432 5,296 1,158 8,480 4,911 1,341

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest (177, 995acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 2,147 NA 3,325 1,900 475 7,315 4,023 731 2,851 1,640 428

Acres treated by Planting NA 325 NA 500 375 250 700 575 450 0 0 0

Acres treated by Fire NA 950 NA 3,325 1,900 475 3,135 1,725 314 6,650 3,824 998

Total Acres Treated NA 3,422 NA 7,150 4,175 1,200 11,150 6,323 1,495 9,501 5,464 1,426
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 549

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

HighAvg Low HighAvg Low HighAvg Low HighAvg Low

Spruce-Fir Forest (17,667 acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 108 NA 95 55 14 208 112 16 36 216

Acres treated by Planting NA5 NA 50 35 20 1085000

Acres treated by Fire NA 100 NA 606 347 87 892 493 93 964 555 145

Total Acres Treated NA 213 NA 751 437 121 1,110 613 114 1,000 576 151

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland (397,927 acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA0 NA000000000

Acres treated by Fire NA 1,063 NA 11,143 7,429 3,714 5,000 3,125 1,250 22,335 13,029 3,722

Total Acres Treated NA 1,063 NA 11,143 7,429 3,714 5,000 3,125 1,250 22,335 13,029 3,722

Piñon-Juniper Woodland (222,166 acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 500 NA 2,341 1,561 780 4,213 2,633 1,053 4,042 2,358 673

Acres treated by Fire NA 713 NA 1,412 941 470 600 375 150 3,443 2,009 575

Total Acres Treated NA 1213 NA 3,753 2,502 1250 4,813 3,008 1,203 7,485 4,367 1248

Great Basin Grassland (185,523 acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 500 NA 10,269 7,702 5,135000 6,161 4,621 3,081

Acres treated by Fire NA 41 NA 10,000 7,500 5,000000 14,000 10,500 7,000

Total Acres Treated NA 541 NA 20,269 15,202 10,135000 20,161 15,121 10,081
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

550 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low

Semi-Desert Grassland (106,952 acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acres treated by Fire NA 27 NA 3,000 2,500 2,000 0 0 0 3,000 2,500 2,000

Total Acres Treated NA 27 NA 3,000 2,500 2,000 0 0 0 3,000 2,500 2,000

Montane/Subalpine Grassland (51,559 acres on NFS Land) - Not Modeled in VDDT

Acres treated Mechanically NA 0 NA 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Acres treated by Fire NA 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Acres Treated NA 0 NA 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Riparian Forests and Areas (48,241 acres on NFS Land) - Not Modeled in VDDT

Acres treated Mechanically NA 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acres treated by Fire NA 0 NA 350 350 350 0 0 0 450 450 450

Total Acres Treated NA 0 NA 350 350 350 0 0 0 450 450 450
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 551

Table 179. Acres by treatment type used to model the low and high annual treatment objectives

PNVT Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Ponderosa Pine Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA 1,240 396 2,814 683 6,826 11 77

C Thin from below to target BA 2,090 287 2,042 243 2,42600

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 1,9990000 1,348 8,987

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 1,370 677 4,807 1,071 10,706 50 331

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA 420 192 1,362 429 4,2978 55

G Clearcut with legacy trees0000000

H Clearcut-Coppice0000000

I Plant Seedlings 450 550 1,200 800 1,400 125 400

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 2,836 551 3,858 364 3,565 1,158 7,718

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 316 866 6,064 571 5,602 1,820 12,128

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0 157 1,102 104 1,020 330 2,205

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA0000000

Dry Mixed Conifer Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA 221 19 110 20 19200

C Thin from below to target BA 3729 70 14 14000

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 35500000 1,193

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 244 227 1,585 380 3,96100

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA 74 23 175 60 66000
552

Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

G Clearcut with legacy trees0000000

H Clearcut-Coppice0000000

I Plant Seedlings 100 225 450 265 500 100 200

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 720 99 693 66 660 210 1,400

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 80 277 1,940 185 1,848 588 3,920

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0 40 277 26 264 83 560

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA 542 118 832 142 1,207 360 1,207

Wet Mixed Conifer Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA 150 14 94 26 25400

C Thin from below to target BA 258 13 94 64 63500

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 60000000 1,973

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 450 286 2,000 346 3,4230 80

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA 203 20 21 21100

G Clearcut with legacy trees 34 13 93 86 84600

H Clearcut-Coppice 34 13 93 86 84600

I Plant Seedlings 325 250 500 450 70000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 855 159 1,107 105 1,044 332 2,214

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 96 317 2,218 208 2,091 665 4,436

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions 951000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA 601 133 931 102 1,100 428 798
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 553

PNVT Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Spruce-Fir Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA3031700

C Thin from below to target BA 17020700

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 1800005 31

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 27 10 70 11 13700

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees 10131 1300

H Clearcut-Coppice 17131 1300

I Plant Seedlings5 20 505 1000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 90 28 201 31 297 48 321

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 10 58 404 62 596 97 643

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA 162 142 3115

Piñon-Juniper Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA 18000 96 38300

C Thin from below to target BA0000000

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 1500000 647 3,884

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 40 780 2,341 957 3,830 26 158

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees 130000000
554

Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

H Clearcut-Coppice0000000

I Plant Seedlings0000000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 81000000

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions9 470 1,412 150 600 575 3,443

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA0000000

Madrean Pine-Oak Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA0000000

C Thin from below to target BA0000000

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA0000000

E GroupSelect with matrix thin0000000

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees0000000

H Clearcut-Coppice0000000

I Plant Seedlings0000000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 797000000

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 266 3,714 11,143 1,250 5,000 3,722 22,335

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA0000000
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 555

PNVT Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Great Basin Grassland Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA0000000

C Thin from below to target BA0000000

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA0000000

E GroupSelect with matrix thin0000000

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees 250 5,135 10,26900 3,081 6,161

H Clearcut-Coppice 250000000

I Plant Seedlings0000000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions0000000

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 41 5,000 10,00000 7,000 14,000

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA0000000

Semi-Desert Grassland Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA0000000

C Thin from below to target BA0000000

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA0000000

E GroupSelect with matrix thin0000000

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees0000000
556

Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

H Clearcut-Coppice0000000

I Plant Seedlings0000000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions0000000

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 27 1,333 2,00000 1,333 2,000

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0 667 1,00000 667 1,000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA0000000
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 557

Timber Suitability Analysis

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule require lands which are not suited for timber 

production to be identified. Timber production is the purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and 

regeneration of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for 

industrial or consumer use. The term timber production does not include production of firewood.

An analysis was completed to determine the acres suitable and not suitable for timber production 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This analysis was completed in three main steps to determine: (1) 

the lands tentatively suitable for timber production; (2) the cost efficiency of meeting forest 

objectives, including timber production; and (3) the lands suitable for timber production by 

alternative. The analysis process and results are summarized and displayed below.

The forests followed guidance set forth by the Southwestern Region guidance (Forest Service,

2009), National Forest Management Act, and provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule for 

determining suitability. Further descriptions of the analysis process can be found in the “Forest 

Products” section of this DEIS and the “Forest Products Specialist Report” in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”

Step 1: Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production

Tentatively suitable acres were based on the following criteria (table 180). Starting with the entire 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, GIS data was used to overlay and subtract the features listed below. The 

analysis resulted in 808,368 acres that were carried forward into the next step of the suitability 

process. Alternative A resulted in a slightly different tentatively suitable acreage (807,289 acres) 

because more lands were in the research natural area category (1,882 acres).

Table 180. Criteria and acres used to identify lands as tentatively suitable for timber 

production

Tentatively Suitability Lands Acres Total 

Acres

Total Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 2,110,196

Non-NFS Land 94,844

Total NFS Lands 2,015,352

Non-forest Lands

Areas not defined as forest land (>10% at maturity) 4,250

quarry, urban/agriculture, water

Grasslands 344,033

Great Basin, montane/subalpine, semi-desert

Woodlands 617,094

Madrean pine-oak, piñon-Juniper

Interior chaparral 55,981
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

558 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Tentatively Suitability Lands Acres Total 

Acres

Wetland/cienega 17,900

Lands withdrawn from timber production

Designated Wilderness 20,628

Bear Wallow, Escudilla, Mount Baldy

Blue Range Primitive Area 43,258

Research Natural Area 219

Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river segments classified as wild 23,085

Irreversible resource damage likely

Unsuited/unstable soils (sensitive and unstable) 23,952

Inadequate restocking

Low reforestation potential based on soil properties 56,584

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 808,368

The above table reflects the same step 1 common to all action alternatives.

Acres of “unsuited/unstable soils” and “low reforestation potential” were derived from the 

“Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey” (Laing et al., 1987). They were not 

modified after the 2011 Wallow Fire, because the forest soil scientist believes it is too early (in 

2012) to determine accurate estimates of soil productivity losses due to fire consumption of the 

organic layers and/or subsequent erosion of topsoil. The fire area soils, watersheds, and ground 

cover have not yet stabilized post-burn. This is a site-specific determination that will need to be 

made at the project level and based on soils monitoring over time. Any estimates made of 

possible site conversion from forested PNVTs to grass/rock/shrubland in the “Forest Products 

Specialist Report” for this analysis are purely estimates based on a search of relevant literature, 

which will also require onsite monitoring for validation. 

Adjustments to the suitable timberland acreage within the Wallow Fire and other high-severity 

fires may be appropriate in the next 10 years during the scheduled review and update of the forest 

suitability classification process. 

Step 2: Cost Efficiency Analysis

Alternative D was not analyzed for timber harvest economic efficiency because of the alternative 

theme and its incompatibility with regulated timber production.

The tentatively suitable land for Alternatives A, B, and C was categorized into four strata using 

GIS:

1. Roaded tractor operable (slopes under 40 percent with an existing road system in place);
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 559

2. Unroaded tractor operable (slopes under 40 percent but with no roads existing, thus 

requiring new construction);

3. Cable/helicopter operable (steep slopes over 40 percent with roads close enough to serve 

for cable yarding and/or short-turn helicopter yarding);

4. Too isolated or too small to log (areas of otherwise operable ground, but in isolated 

locations such that logging is impractical).

Stratum 4 was removed from further considerations because logging would be impractical. 

Alternative A (1987 plan) did not account for these same strata. 

Acres of spruce-fir forest were not analyzed in this step because they are located inside lands 

withdrawn for timber production, are on sensitive/unstable soils, and/or are included in strata 4 

above.

Economic efficiency spreadsheets developed by the U.S. Forest Service Washington Office were 

used to generate the cost efficiency outputs. All economic efficiency analysis spreadsheets are on 

file in the Plan Set of Documents. The operability costs associated with ponderosa pine, dry 

mixed conifer, and wet mixed conifer including market revenue values and associated costs, of 

strata 1 through 3 were input to determine present net values and benefit:cost ratios. Table 181

displays the financial results:

Table 181. Net revenue, present net value, and benefit:cost ratio for ponderosa pine and 

dry mixed conifer for strata 1 to 3

Stratum PNVT Undiscounted 

Net Revenue

Present Net 

Value at 3% 

Discount

Benefit:Cost Ratio 

at 

3% Discount

1 Ponderosa Pine -$6,558/acre -$1,473/acre

0.0190

1 Dry Mixed Conifer -$6,666/acre -$1,509/acre 0.0185

1 Wet Mixed Conifer -$7,264/acre -$1,687/acre 0.0141

2 Ponderosa Pine -$6,770/acre -$1,637/acre 0.0171

2 Dry Mixed Conifer -$7,304/acre -$1,785/acre 0.0157

2 Wet Mixed Conifer -$7,834/acre -$1,970/acre 0.0121

3 Ponderosa Pine -$19,912/acre -$4,580/acre -0.0479

3 Dry Mixed Conifer Not modeled NA negative

3 Wet Mixed Conifer Not modeled NA negative

Benefit:cost ratios for strata 1 and 2 in all three PNVTs are low but positive, while the value for 

stratum 3 is negative. There was no need to model dry and wet mixed conifer in stratum 3, 

because they have benefit:cost ratios more negative than the ponderosa pine result, are on steep 

slopes, and are MSO protected habitat that has management requirements which conflict with 

timber harvest. Any species mix harvested in the dry and wet mixed conifer brings lower market 

sale value than ponderosa pine, while the costs of operating in these two PNVTs are higher than 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

560 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

the ponderosa pine costs. The excessively high costs to manage a regulated timber production 

program associated with stratum 3 (cable/helicopter operable lands) on all PNVTs were 

considered cost-prohibitive and were removed from further consideration.

Forest Service roads budgets have been declining dramatically. Less than 10 miles of new NFS 

road construction has been done in the past 5 years, and this trend is expected to continue. 

Additive costs of deferred maintenance roads in stratum 1, combined with new construction roads 

and future maintenance for stratum 2 under current budget trends, would also make stratum 2 

cost-inefficient for this planning period. 

Although there are short-term costs associated with stratum 1, long-term benefits of treatments 

include fewer acres of trees/timber and wildlife habitat lost to uncharacteristic fire, better tree 

growth rates and overall forest health, and greater resiliency to climate change. There are also 

benefits associated with contributions to the local economy through a steady flow of timber 

products.

It was determined that 0 (zero) acres in alternative A, 69,590 acres in alternative B, and 85,234 

acres in alternative C are not economically cost efficient. These acres were subtracted from the 

tentatively suitable land base and not carried forward to the next step.

Step 3: Lands Suitable for Timber Production

The final step in the suitability evaluation was to apply any remaining criteria identified in 

chapter 4 Suitability of the proposed plan. These criteria (table 182) include lands where 

management objectives limit timber harvest (e.g., Recommended Wilderness Management Area, 

Mexican spotted owl (MSO) protected lands). GIS was used to identify the not suitable areas.

Accessible and operable acres in alternative D are not available for commercial timber 

production, due to this alternative’s emphasis on using one single cutting entry, with maintenance 

by natural processes (e.g., fire) thereafter. Therefore, due to the intentional design of alternative 

D, all 808,368 acres of tentatively suitable lands are not appropriate for timber production and no 

economic or further suitability analysis was needed.

Table 182. Lands suitable or not suitable for timber production

Area Suitable Not Suitable

General Forest Management Area X

Community-Forest Intermix Management Area X

High Use Developed Recreation Area Management Area X

Energy Corridor Management Area X

Wild Horse Territory Management Area X

Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area X

Natural Landscape Management Area X

Recommended Research Natural Area Management Area X

Research Natural Area Management Area X
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 561

Area Suitable Not Suitable

Primitive Area Management Area X

Recommended Wilderness Management Area X

Wilderness Management Area X

Communications sites X

Developed recreation and administrative sites X

Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river X

MSO protected lands X

Since management areas change by alternative, the resultant acres identified as suitable for timber 

production vary. These are identified in the results section below.

Results

The following tables (tables 183, 184, and 185) display the criteria and resulting acres considered 

to be suitable for timber production by alternative. Differences in final acres of suitable 

timberlands between the alternatives are a result of different reductions shown from the 

tentatively suitable lands due to the differing theme of each alternative.

Table 183. Alternative A timber production suitability determination

PNVT 

Acres Acres SubtotalAcres

Total 

Acres

Total Apache-Sitgreaves NFS Land 2,015,352

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 807,289

Lands where Management Area Prescriptions Precludes 

Timber Production

12,258

 Special Management Areas, Energy Corridor, and Water 12,258

Lands where Management Objective Limit Timber 

Harvest

30,159

 Riparian 19,407

 Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river corridors 

 classified as recreational or scenic

10,752

Lands not economically cost efficient 0

 The 1987 plan did not limit suitable acres

 to cost efficient lands

0

Lands Not Appropriate for Timber Production 42,417
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

562 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT 

Acres Acres SubtotalAcres

Total 

Acres

Lands Suitable for Timber Production

(38 percent of NFS land)

764,872 764,872

 Dry mixed conifer 108,208

 Ponderosa pine 503,412

 Spruce-fir 5,180

 Wet mixed conifer 148,072

Lands Not Suitable for Timber Production

(62 percent of NFS land)

1,250,480

Table 184. Alternative B timber production suitability determination

PNVT 

Acres Acres SubtotalAcres

Total 

Acres

Apache-Sitgreaves NFS Land 2,015,352

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 808,368

Lands where Management Area Prescriptions Precludes 

Timber Production 65,497

 High Use Developed Recreation Area, Energy Corridor, 

 Natural Landscape, Recommended Research Natural Area, 

 and Recommended Wilderness Management Areas 

65,497

Lands where Management Objective Limit Timber 

Harvest 76,537

 Riparian 15,696

 Communications sites 91

 Developed recreation sites and administrative sites 5,862

 Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river corridors classified

 as recreational or scenic 8,258

 Mexican spotted owl protected lands (PACs) 46,630

Lands not economically cost efficient 69,590

 Steep slope but loggable 54,466

 Dry mixed conifer 18,631

 Ponderosa pine 6,327

 Spruce-fir 2,548

 Wet mixed conifer 26,960

 Unroaded areas 12,511

 Dry mixed conifer 1,292

 Ponderosa pine 9,589

 Spruce-fir 32
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 563

PNVT 

Acres Acres SubtotalAcres

Total 

Acres

 Wet mixed conifer 1,598

 Too isolated or too small to log 2,613

Lands Not Appropriate for Timber Production 211,624

Lands Suitable for Timber Production

(29.6 percent of NFS land) 596,743 596,7441*

 Dry mixed conifer 65,086

 Ponderosa pine 445,440

 Wet mixed conifer 86,217

Lands Not Suitable for Timber Production

(70.4 percent of NFS land) 1,418,608

* Difference from subtotal due to rounding

Table 185. Alternative C timber production suitability determination

PNVT 

Acres Acres SubtotalAcres

Total 

Acres

Apache-Sitgreaves NFS Land 2,015,352

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 808,368

Lands where Management Area Prescriptions Precludes 

Timber Production 27,321

 High Use Developed Recreation Area, Energy Corridor, 

 Natural Landscape, Recommended Research Natural Area, 

 and Recommended Wilderness Management Areas

27,321

Lands where Management Objective Limit Timber 

Harvest 91,067

 Riparian 19,927

 Communications sites (buffer to 5 acres) 94

 Developed recreation sites and administrative sites 6,341

 Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river corridors 

 classified as recreational or scenic 12,174

 Mexican spotted owl protected lands (PACs) 52,531

Lands not economically cost efficient 85,234

 Steep slope but loggable 62,261

 Dry mixed conifer 21,415

 Ponderosa pine 8,731

 Spruce-fir 3,086

 Wet mixed conifer 29,029
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

564 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT 

Acres Acres SubtotalAcres

Total 

Acres

 Unroaded areas 13,637

 Dry mixed conifer 1,295

 Ponderosa pine 10,381

 Spruce-fir 82

 Wet mixed conifer 1,879

 Too isolated or too small to log 9,336

Lands Not Appropriate for Timber Production 203,622

Lands Suitable for Timber Production

(30.0 percent of NFS lands) 604,746 604,746

 Dry mixed conifer 65,778

 Ponderosa pine 451,179

 Wet mixed conifer 87,789

Lands Not Suitable for Timber Production

(70.0 percent of NFS lands) 1,410,606

For alternatives B and C all acres of spruce-fir forest were classified as nonsuitable because they 

are located inside withdrawn lands, are too isolated or small to log, and/or are in MSO protected 

habitat. Some acres of spruce-fir forest were classified as suitable timberlands in the 1987 plan.

MSO protected activity centers (PACs) were eliminated as “lands where management objectives 

limit timber harvest” due to a 9-inch diameter cutting cap limitation required by the current 

“MSO Recovery Plan.” Additional MSO protected habitat on steep slopes outside of PACs was 

further eliminated as not cost-efficient to harvest. Care was taken to avoid double-counting these 

acreage deductions when more than one reason exists for the deduction. Should the “MSO 

Recovery Plan” be revised during this planning period, changes in timberland suitability 

classification may need to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.

Timber Calculations

The “Forest Products Specialist Report” and report appendices (Forest Service, 2012) in the “Plan 

Set of Documents” provides complete records of all assumptions, rationale, data sources, 

methodologies, and references used to estimate timber volumes by alternative. The following is a 

brief summary of how the ASQ, LTSYC, and nonindustrial wood volumes were derived.

All wood volumes cut under each alternative are considered as byproducts of vegetation 

restoration treatments that maintain or move toward desired conditions. The PNVTs from which 

wood could be cut that were modeled in VDDT include ponderosa pine forest, dry and wet mixed 

conifer forests, spruce-fir forest, piñon-juniper woodland, and Great Basin grassland.

Two models were used to estimate volumes of wood cut under each alternative: (1) Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and (2) Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT). Various 

cutting simulations modeled in the FVS were used by the U.S. Forest Service Southwestern
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 565

Region to produce estimates of three product categories: cubic feet per acre of industrial timber, 

and nonindustrial firewood cut, as well as tons of biomass per acre resulting from proposed 

restoration treatments (Weisz et.al., 2012). The per-acre estimates from FVS were then 

incorporated into the VDDT model as another outcome attribute for the first 5 decades of 

treatments simulated for each PNVT, and expanded for multiple acres cut in each alternative.

The resulting VDDT wood volumes were entered into MS Excel spreadsheets for further 

summation of the three different wood product categories, as estimates for treated acres of both 

suitable timberlands and nonsuitable timberlands. Those volumes only represent green trees 

expected to be cut and offered to markets under plausible cutting methods to implement each 

alternative. The same average volume estimate of green and dead poles, posts, firewood, 

powerline corridor/roadside hazard tree salvage small sales, and other wood products sold 

annually under personal and commercial use permits to meet local public demand (not modeled in 

VDDT) was also included in the total volume estimated for each alternative.

ASQ Volume Calculations

Only volumes of industrial conifer timber species and commercial sizes cut from suitable 

timberlands, and used as logs, bolts, or roundwood (excluding firewood) are included in the ASQ 

calculation. See the “Forest Products Specialist Repor” (Forest Service, 2012) for industrial 

definitions and tree species included. Because the modeling only represents one possible greentree cutting scenario under each alternative, the resulting volume outputs are too precise for a 

forestwide programmatic assessment. Therefore, all ASQ values have been rounded to the nearest 

thousand CCF.

According to the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), dead salvage volume of wildfirekilled and insect/disease-killed trees from suitable timberlands does not contribute to the ASQ. 

Because such volume may be unpredictable and highly variable, it is an additional volume that 

can be offered above the ASQ. 

LTSYC Calculations

When a forest has achieved the desired regulated condition, the basic concept of long-term 

sustained yield is that annual harvest levels should cut no more than the net annual growth. Net 

growth is gross growth less natural mortality. In cases when net growth volume exceeds total cut 

volume, an excess of overgrowth poses an imbalance in the ecosystem that eventually is not 

sustainable. Such an imbalance can contribute to higher risks of severe stand-replacement 

wildfire, and outbreaks of insect or disease species which capitalize on trees weakened by overcrowding. Figure 82 below illustrates this concept.

Long term sustained yield capacity (sustainable harvest) for suitable timberlands was determined 

for each alternative using the following formula:

LTSYC = (24 cubic feet /acre/year of net growth) x (number of suitable timberland 

acres in the alternative) 

The net growth volume per acre per year is based on an average 30-year re-entry cutting cycle 

modeled in FVS for each forested PNVT by the USFS Southwestern Region as the ideal 

timeframe to maintain desired forest conditions stated in the proposed plan and for implementing 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

566 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

an uneven-aged cutting system to reach forest regulation for sustained harvest yields (Youtz and 

Vandendriesche, 2012).

Figure 82. Conceptual diagram of ideal cutting level for a sustainable 

forest and sustainable harvest

For simplification of analysis, the long-term sustained yield of 24 cubic feet per acre per year 

used is a rounded, weighted average value for all suitable timberlands, using the regional model 

run results for each PNVT, based on the proportional acres of each forested PNVT present on the 

Apache–Sitgreaves NFs suitable land base. Only the Southwestern Region’s high-site model run

for the ponderosa pine/grass type was used in this calculation, because soils not capable of 

producing at least 20 cubic feet/acre/year (approximately site index of 70 or greater) were 

eliminated from the tentatively suitable land base with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’soils 

assessment (see the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012)). Because acres of 

suitable timberland vary by PNVT, a weighted average was used to verify the correct average to 

be used for all analyses of all PNVTs combined. Table 186 below shows how this average was 

derived mathematically.

Table 186. Average LTSY calculation for all suitable timberland PNVTs on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs by alternative

PNVT Suitable Acres1 LTSY in cubic 

feet/acre/year2

Multiplication 

Product

Alternative A

Ponderosa Pine3 503,412 23.6 11,880,523

Dry Mixed Conifer 108,208 22.9 2,477,963

Wet Mixed Conifer 148,072 24.7 3,657,378

Spruce-Fir 5,180 0 0

Totals 764,872 71.2 18,015,864

Weighted Average: 18,015,864 / 764,872 = 23.6, rounded to 24 cubic feet/acre/year
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 567

PNVT Suitable Acres1 LTSY in cubic 

feet/acre/year2

Multiplication 

Product

Alternative B

Ponderosa pine3 445,440 23.6 10,512,384

Dry Mixed Conifer 65,086 22.9 1,490,469

Wet Mixed Conifer 86,217 24.7 2,129,560

Spruce-Fir 0 0 0

Totals 596,743 71.2 14,132,413

Weighted Average: 14,132,413 / 596,743 = 23.7, rounded to 24 cubic feet/acre/year

Alternative C

Ponderosa pine3 451,179 23.6 10,647,824

Dry Mixed Conifer 65,778 22.9 1,506,316

Wet Mixed Conifer 87,789 24.7 2,168,388

Spruce-Fir 0 0 0

Totals 604,746 71.2 14,322,528

Weighted Average: 14,322,528 / 604,746 = 23.7, rounded to 24 cubic feet/acre/year

1 See the “Forest Products Specialist Report,” appendix A-2 for additional information.

2 From Youtz and Vandendriesche, 2012.

3 Only the regional ponderosa pine/grass type high site index LTSY model result was used.

Because this net growth average of 24 cubic feet per acre per year does not vary by alternative, it 

was used in all LTSYC calculations for all alternatives in DEIS chapter 3, table 149.

To comply with legal requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and 

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA), long-term sustained yield also means that ASQ 

volumes harvested from suitable timberlands cannot decline from one decade to the next. Ideally, 

harvest volumes below the LTSYC should continue increasing to eventually reach the LTSYC 

and then level off at or near that regulated value. The only exception to this rule is if the cutting 

volumes are departed above the LTSYC, in which case they would be expected to decline toward 

the LTSYC over time.

Alternative A’s ASQ volumes for decades 1 through 5 are all within 1 to 2 percent of each other, 

which indicates a flat line of sustained yield harvests. VDDT methodology used in this analysis 

did not permit the ability to model the most logical changes in cutting methods for subsequent reentries on acres previously treated with the model inputs. By decade three, less intermediate 

thinning treatments to cut smaller sized trees would be used; instead more uneven-aged group 

selection cuts which require cutting bigger trees would be used, thus producing greater harvest 

volumes than those shown here for decades 3 through 5.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

568 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Alternatives A and B comply with legal requirements by cutting at levels which do not decline 

and are below the LTSYC. The first 5 decades of VDDT modeling do not produce substantially 

increasing harvest volumes that ramp up closer to the LTSYC, due to predicted cutting levels on 

suitable timberlands according to budget and workforce estimates for these alternatives in this 

planning period. 

ASQ cutting departures above the LTSYC can be temporarily justified to correct the imbalance of 

excess net growth, provided the volumes cut decline over time to eventually level out at or below 

the LTSYC. This is the case for Alternative C. This declining volume trend came from the VDDT 

model runs for decades 1 through 5 and is based on treatment inputs for each alternative that are 

documented in the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012). A declining trend 

is logical when heavy restoration cuts are needed early to prevent excessive tree mortality from 

severe wildfires, competition, and insect/disease outbreaks. Once overgrowth levels have been 

reduced, then subsequent decades should produce volumes which taper down toward reaching 

desired conditions that are intended to promote a more sustainable forest. Because VDDT 

modeling was not done beyond 50 years, it is assumed that continued aggressive cutting levels 

beyond decade five would be needed to bring forested conditions closer to desired conditions and 

the LTSYC. 

Alternatives A and C were found to comply with the nondeclining even flow legal requirement by 

continuing the same treatment strategy each decade in the initial level of VDDT modeling. In the 

case of alternative B, however, the initial VDDT model runs which repeated the same treatment 

strategy in subsequent decades after this planning period produced ASQ volumes that consistently 

declined each decade, while staying below the LTSYC. Therefore, additional analysis at a more 

refined level of modeling revealed that treatment strategy would need to change after the 15-year 

planning period for alternative B.

In order to sustain a nondeclining even flow of ASQ volumes on suitable timberlands in 

alternative B, additional modeling revealed that the restoration strategy for decades 2 through 5

would need to do the following: increase treatment acreages in closed canopy transition 

vegetation states in the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer PNVTs; and shift to using lowseverity prescribed fire as a maintenance tool for thinning just the seedling/sapling sizes. 

These modeling shifts represent adaptive management that is predictable because as more acres 

are restored to desired open-canopy in these two PNVTs, cuts in each transition state would 

produce less volume per acre; thus the need to cut more acres overall to sustain the same total 

volume yields. Likewise, using moderate-high-severity fire as a thinning tool would predictably 

reduce measurable volume available for ASQ harvest. Thinning only seedlings/saplings that have 

very little measurable wood volume by using only low-severity fire would not impact available 

ASQ volume.

These shifts in management methodology could begin after the planning period. It is assumed that 

continued restoration treatments toward desired conditions beyond decade five would eventually 

bring alternative B ASQ levels up closer to the LTSYC, provided uncharacteristic disturbances 

don’t occur first to drastically alter the trends shown in this analysis. 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 569

Base Sale Schedule 

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule call for a base sale schedule, or timber sale schedule. 

This planning effort emphasizes proposed management outcomes rather than outputs. The desired 

outcome is to restore the forested PNVTs toward desired ecological conditions, while also 

providing wood products to the economy as a byproduct of the restoration activities. Therefore, 

listing site-specific volume outputs tied to individual sales for each of ten years is not appropriate 

to provide here as a forest program target. The action alternatives offer a flexible range of annual 

cutting volumes, based on the realistic objective levels that help to frame the alternative. Annual 

volume levels offered for sale will vary as budgets, market demand, and opportunities occur.

For example, the annual cutting level for alternative B may vary from one year to the next 

between the high and low range of ASQ volumes shown in the DEIS chapter 3 table 148 (ASQ 

volume from suitable timberlands for the first decade), provided the decade total does not exceed 

the annual average times ten. Therefore, forestwide ASQ cutting volumes could fluctuate between 

122,000 CCF and 26,000 CCF each year, provided that the total maximum volume of all cuts in 

the decade would not exceed 736,000 CCF for the 10-year total ASQ.

ASQ volumes from suitable timberlands only constitute a fraction of the total wood products that 

would result from cutting treatments implemented to restore forested acres toward the ecological 

desired conditions. In reality, a majority of industrial tree species in the traditional sawtimber, 

pulp, and pole size classes are no longer sold as these products. Many are currently sold as 

firewood, and/or extracted from the forest and scaled as tons of biomass, which are not included 

in the definition of ASQ volume. This trend is expected to increase, as the nation continues to 

emphasize alternative energy (heat and electricity) generation from green biomass fuel. The 4FRI 

contract identifies traditional sawtimber, roundwood products, and biomass offerings which all 

can be provided from a mix of suitable and nonsuitable timberlands on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs.

Non-ASQ Volume Calculations

All sizes of industrial conifer species cut on lands classified as nonsuitable timberlands were also 

estimated from VDDT model runs, and tabulated as cubic feet of non-ASQ wood volume. Noncommercial sizes of industrial species cut from both suitable and nonsuitable timberlands were 

tabulated as tons of biomass. Woodland species cut from both suitable timberlands and 

nonsuitable lands were tabulated as cubic feet of firewood. These non-ASQ volumes would be 

available for market and public offerings.

Total Wood Products 

The total of all wood products of all categories potentially available to offer markets in the first 

decade was tabulated for each alternative, by high and low treatment objective levels in table 187.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

570 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 187. Estimated ranges of annual wood product volumes potentially available to offer 

in decade 1, by alternative from all NFS lands (suitable and nonsuitable timberlands)

Product Class

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Average High Low High Low High Low

Cuts on Suitable Lands

ASQ Industrial Species1

(Timber 9+” and Pulp 5-9”) in CCF 

74,392 121,591 25,585 268,353 38,522 0 0

Firewood

(5+” non-industrial conifer and 

hardwood species) in CCF, NonASQ 

14,606 17,530 8,533 33,615 10,019 0 0

Biomass

(0+” non-industrial sizes and 

species) in Tons, Non-ASQ 

323,302 400,667 59,336 1,202,219 128,463 0 0

Cuts on Nonsuitable Lands

Non-ASQ Industrial Species

(Timber 9+” and Pulp 5-9”) in CCF

5,780 17,804 2,959 31,192 3,402 48,403 6,065

Firewood2

(5+”non-industrial conifer and 

hardwood species) in CCF , NonASQ

10,976 76,528 46,633 18,413 8,699 59,438 32,203

Biomass

(0+”non-industrial sizes and 

species) in Tons, Non-ASQ 

24,822 185,132 82,848 122,548 13,418 246,798 66,026

Summary of Total Cuts on All Treated Lands (ASQ and Non-ASQ Combined)

Industrial Species1

(Timber 9+” and Pulp 5-9”) in CCF

80,172 139,395 28,544 299,545 41,924 48,403 6,065

Firewood2

(non-timber conifer and hardwood 

species) in CCF

25,582 94,058 55,166 52,028 18,718 59,438 32,203

Biomass

(non-industrial sizes and species) in 

Tons:

Or Converted to CCF3

348,124

or

99,464

585,799

or

167,371

142,184

or

40,624

1,324,767

or

378,505

141,881

or

40,537

246,798

or

70,514

66,026

or

18,865

Grand Total of All Wood 

Products, All in CCF 

205,218 400,824 124,334 730,078 101,179 178,355 57,133

Averaged Grand Total of All 

Wood Products, All in CCF 205,218 262,579 415,629 117,744

1 Industrial species for all alternatives include different live trees modeled in VDDT for restoration cutting, plus 

additional constant volume sold in small sales and on TIM permits (miscellaneous live and dead small salvage sales, 

road and recreation site hazard trees, pulp and poles).

2 Firewood for all alternatives is different live trees modeled for restoration cutting plus additional constant TIM permit 

sales for dead/down firewood sales, plus posts sold in TIM. 

3 Conversion factor used: 3.5 tons = 1 CCF. Source: R3 Measurements Specialist, based on R3 weight scale study 

conducted locally.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 571

The table above is the source for table 150 in the DEIS chapter 3, and shows how those volumes 

were further summarized for DEIS display. The same alternative averaged grand total volumes in 

the table above are shown in figure 83.

Figure 83. Total annual wood product volume estimates for decade 1 (from both suitable 

and nonsuitable timberlands)

References

Laing, L., Ambos, N., Subirge, T., McDonald, C., Nelson, C., and Robbie, W. (1987). Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. U.S. Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 453 pp.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

572 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

U.S. Forest Service. (2009). Identification of Lands Suitable for Timber Production –

Southwestern Region (R3) Plan Revisions. Version 3.0 – October 2009. Albuquerque, 

NM.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012). Forest Products Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

Weisz, Reuben, D. Vandendriesche, M. Mouer, M. Boehning, L. Wadleigh, J. Triepke, M. White, 

C. Nelson, J. Palmer, J. Youtz, B. Higgins, T. Nicolet, P. Bostwick, D. Mindar, M. Pitts, 

M. Manthei, W. Robbie. (2012.) White Paper O: Process overview of using FVS to create 

VDDT models. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Regional Office, 

Albuquerque, NM. Inter-office publication.

Youtz, James A, and Don Vandendriesche. (2012). White paper entitled: National Forest Planning 

and Sustained Yield of the Timber Resource Long-Term Sustained-Yield Calculations for 

Forest Land and Resource Management Planning. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region, Albuquerque, NM, and Washington Office Forest Management Service Center. 

32 pp.

Livestock Grazing Suitability Analysis

Provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule require that the capability and suitability for producing 

forage for grazing animals on NFS lands be determined. The analysis process and results are 

discussed in the following sections.

Capability is the potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and 

allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of 

management intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as 

climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, 

such as silviculture, burning, or insect and disease treatments.

Suitability is the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land, in consideration of relevant social, economic, and ecological factors. A 

unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices.

Capability and suitability are required to be analyzed on a forestwide basis by the provisions of 

the 1982 Planning Rule. The identification of lands suitable for livestock grazing is not a decision 

to authorize grazing. Decisions to authorize grazing are made at the project (allotment) level of 

analysis consistent with direction in the land management plan utilizing procedures for projectlevel analysis and decisionmaking. National Forest System grazing allotments have long histories 

of monitoring resource conditions and monitoring actual livestock grazing use, which can be 

correlated on the site-specific basis. Livestock numbers are based on monitoring of resource 

conditions, including riparian and other critical and key areas, and then taking actions to adjust 

management (e.g., timing, frequency, duration of use) to control livestock impacts affecting 

progress toward a wide range of resource goals and desired conditions.

Step 1: Capability

Capability to produce forage for grazing animals was originally determined in the 1980s during 

the development of the 1987 plan and was based on individual allotment data. Landscape scale 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 573

conditions that determine capability have not changed since the first evaluation. The Analysis of 

the Management Situation (1983) and the Environmental Impact Statement (1987) document the 

analysis of grazing capability and suitability for the 1987 plan. 

Step 2: Suitability

Suitable rangeland is that which is appropriate for the activity of livestock grazing in 

consideration of relevant social, economic, and ecological factors. To identify the lands suitable 

for livestock grazing, additional criteria (table 188) from chapter 4 Suitability of the proposed 

plan were used.

Table 188. Lands suitable or not suitable for livestock grazing

Management Area

Suitable

for Livestock 

Grazing

Not Suitable

for Livestock 

Grazing

General Forest X

Community-Forest Intermix X

High Use Developed Recreation Area X

Energy Corridor X

Wild Horse Territory X

Wildlife Quiet Area X

Natural Landscape X

Recommended Research Natural Area X

Research Natural Area X

Primitive Area X

Recommended Wilderness X

Wilderness X

Other Areas

Active and vacant grazing allotments X

Current National Forest System land not in a grazing 

allotment

X

Black River Conservation Area X

Results

Table 189 displays the acres of land that are suitable for livestock grazing in alternative A and 

table 190 displays the action alternatives. To calculate the acres suitable for livestock grazing in 

the action alternatives, GIS was used to subtract areas not in an allotment, the Black River 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

574 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Conservation Area, and the designated and recommended research natural areas. The 1987 plan 

was used as the baseline to identify lands suitable for livestock grazing in alternative A.

Table 189. Alternative A acres suitable for livestock grazing as identified in the 1987 plan

Management Area Acres Management Area Acres

1: Forest Land 836,288 11: Water 0

2: Woodland 611,025 12: Bear Wallow Wilderness 11,080

3: Riparian 6,870 13: Escudilla Wilderness 5,200

4: Grasslands 243,126 14: Black River 7,176

5: Developed Recreation Site 0 15: West Fork Black River 3,465

7: Mount Baldy Wilderness 7,079 16: Chevelon Canyon 0

8: Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions 187,410 17: East and West Forks Little Colorado 

River 2,360

9: Escudilla Demonstration Area 10,872 18: Sandrock 0

10: Research Natural Area 0

Total Acres Suitable for Livestock Grazing = 1,931,951

Table 190. Acres suitable for livestock grazing by action alternative

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Total Acres of NFS Land 2,015,352

Acres of NFS Land in the Black River 

Conservation Area

-28,430

Acres of NFS Land outside grazing 

allotments

-77,270

Acres of NFS Land in Research Natural 

Area and Recommended Research Natural 

Area Management Area

-8,140 -6,536

Total Acres Suitable for 

Livestock Grazing

1,901,512 1,903,116

References

U.S. Forest Service. (1983). Analysis of the Management Situation. Southwestern Region. 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

U.S. Forest Service. (1987). Environmental Impact Statement for the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Plan. Southwestern Region. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 575

Species Viability Analysis Process

The process of analyzing all the forest planning species (FPS), potential natural vegetation types 

(PNVTs), habitat elements, and four plan alternatives is complex. It therefore relies heavily on an 

approach that categorizes species, habitats, and management and compares plan alternatives. The 

viability process involved a series of steps for analyzing the 95 non-fish FPS, consisting of 30 

mammals, 22 birds, 6 amphibians/reptiles, 12 invertebrates, and 25 plants. The same process was 

followed, but in a more generalized manner, for the remaining fourteen FPS, consisting solely of 

fish species. A description of the species viability analysis process follows.

Step 1: Characterize Species

The first part of the process characterizes the existing condition of FPS relative to their current 

abundance and distribution. Species most subject to risk for viability are generally those that are 

rare or uncommon or those whose habitat is most likely to be substantially affected by forest 

management and activities. 

FPS were evaluated using information from earlier wildlife assessment reports which reflected 

input from Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and other biologists, species specialists, a collaborative 

wildlife group, knowledgeable publics, and Arizona Game and Fish Department. Each FPS was 

given a forest or F ranking described in table 191.

Table 191. Forest (F) rankings for forest planning species (FPS) on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs

F Ranking Description of species abundance and distribution relative to 

reference or desired habitat conditions

F?1 Unknown abundance and distribution

F1 Extremely rare

F2 Rare

F3 Uncommon (including locally common but in rare locations)

F42 Widespread

F5 Secure

1 Because of insufficient information to determine abundance and distribution, F? species are analyzed as F1 

species.

2 Populations of some F4 species could be affected by extensive landscape scale management and activities 

depending on timing, both spatial and temporal.

Some of the rarer or uncommon species are designated threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species. In addition, some of the FPS are noted as being “highly interactive” species. These are 

species that play an important ecological role by impacting their habitat or populations of other 

species, and/or species needing large landscapes and habitat connectivity. 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

576 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Step 2: Characterize Habitat

The second part of the viability process entails identifying important habitat that is most likely to 

influence viability. Habitat can be the broad vegetation type or certain habitat features. For the 

wildlife (non-fish) viability analysis, habitat is characterized by the PNVTs and specific “habitat 

elements” (e.g., snags, dense cover, down woody debris).

Next, future habitat abundance and future habitat distribution are determined for each PNVT and 

habitat element based on plan implementation. An underlying assumption is that habitat 

abundance and distribution within the range of conditions that species have experienced over

evolutionary time is likely to maintain them into the future (Haufler 1999)44. As such, the historic 

or reference condition is the desired condition for habitat in order to sustain FPS viability into the 

future45. 

Future habitat abundance is qualitatively classified as rare, occasional, or common, Future habitat 

distribution is qualitatively classified as poor, fair, or good. Tables 192 and 193 provide a 

description of these classifications. Note that future habitat distribution is classified in terms of

desired conditions; hence, while a PNVT or habitat element’s abundance may be common across 

the planning area in the future, if it is still mostly departed from desired conditions based on 

VDDT modeling states (ESSA, 2006), it would be considered “poorly” distributed. See the 

Vegetation Specialist Report (Forest Service, 2012d) for more information.

Table 192. Values used to classify future habitat abundance

Future Habitat 

Abundance Value Description

rare The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is rare, with limited occurrences, or habitat 

consists of patches generally occurring over a very minor portion of the planning 

area.

occasional The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is encountered occasionally, generally 

occurring over a small portion of the planning area. 

common The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is abundant and frequently encountered, 

generally occurring over much of the planning area.

 44 Note that the scale of abundance and distribution differs among species (Holthausen, 2002) and was so considered 

for this analysis.

45 Historic, called reference, condition for PNVTs was provided by The Nature Conservancy. Desired conditions are 

essentially the same as reference conditions for most PNVTs; however, the desired conditions for three PNVTs were 

adjusted based on three FPS’ needs (see the “Vegetation Specialist Report” for more information). Historic conditions 

for habitat elements are less well understood but are generally described in other plan desired conditions.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 577

Table 193. Values used to classify future habitat distribution

Future Habitat 

Distribution Value Description

poor The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is poorly distributed within the planning area 

relative to historic or desired conditions. Number and size of habitat patches and/or 

their evenness in distribution over the landscape is greatly reduced.

fair The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is fairly well distributed within the planning 

area relative to historic or desired conditions. Number and size of habitat patches 

and/or their evenness in distribution over the landscape is somewhat reduced.

good The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is well distributed within the planning area 

relative to historic or desired conditions. Number and size of habitat patches and/or 

their evenness in distribution over the landscape is similar to those conditions. 

Combined into table 194, the above classes express the likelihood that a particular PNVT or 

habitat element would affect viability of the associated species FPS with plan implementation.

This is referred to as the likelihood of limitation. Table 195 defines the categories of likelihood of 

limitation to viability used to compare plan alternatives. 

Table 194. Likelihood of limitation to FPS viability based on future habitat abundance and 

future habitat distribution

Future Habitat 

Abundance

Future Habitat Distribution

Poor Fair Good

rare High limitation High limitation Moderate limitation

occasional High limitation Moderate limitation Low limitation

common Moderate limitation Low limitation Low limitation

Table 195. Definitions for likelihood of limitation to viability based on future habitat 

abundance and distribution

Likelihood of

Limitation Description

High limitation High probability that the habitat (PNVT or habitat element) will be limiting for 

a species’ viability

Moderate limitation The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) has a likelihood of some limitation for a 

species’ viability

Low limitation The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) will likely not be limiting to a species’ 

viability

Step 3: Characterize the Species-Habitat Relationship

The third part of the process characterizes the relationship between species and associated habitat 

in order to make comparisons between alternatives. The viability risk rating (VRR) value, is 

created by combining F rankings for individual FPS with the likelihood of limitation for its 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

578 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

associated PNVT(s) and habitat element(s). This linkage of species ranking and habitat elements 

is referred to as the species-habitat relationship.

Table 196. Viability risk rating (VRR) values reflecting species' F rank and likelihood of 

limitation

Likelihood of 

Habitat Limitation

FPS F ranking

F? or F1 F2 F3 F4/F51

high very-high high moderately-high moderate/low2

moderate high moderately-high moderate2 low/low2

low moderately-high moderate2 low2 low/low2

1 F4 and F5 species are not species of viability concern but a few are considered FPS as highly interactive species.

2 Moderate and low level risk ratings are not considered viability risk ratings of consequence, see assumptions.

Step 4: Characterize Management Effects

All alternatives include actions to restore or maintain habitat and species viability, but their 

relative effectiveness varies. Hence, the fourth part of the process characterizes management by 

alternative in an overall general manner. The management effect (ME) value describes the 

alternative’s relative consequence to each PNVT or habitat element in terms of minimizing risk 

and contributing to associated species viability as shown in the following table. 

Table 197. Description of relative management effect (ME) rating for alternatives

Rating Management Effect 

1 Greatest relative improvement or maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution through 

management and activities.

2 Intermediate relative improvement or maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution through 

management and activities.

3 Least to no relative improvement or maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution as a result 

of management/activities or lack of thereof (or by factors outside of Forest Service control).

Step 5: Viability Consequences 

The viability risk rating outcomes and the management effect rating outcomes form the basis for 

the determination of environmental consequences to FPS as a result of plan implementation. 

These consequences are expressed as the relative “viability effectiveness” for each alternative for 

the 15-year plan period, with consideration of trend to 50 years.

This step entails summarizing likelihood of limitation and management effect for each PNVT and 

habitat element by alternative (figure 84, box 1). The viability risk ratings for each species-habitat 

relationship by alternative is also summarized (figure 84, box 2).

Next, the number of species-habitat risk ratings of consequence (moderately-high, high, veryhigh) is tallied for both PVNTs and habitat elements by alternative (figure 84, box 3). The number 

of viability risk ratings is summarized by alternative for each of the management effects (figure 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 579

84, box 4). The viability analysis uses the information generated in the above steps to show how 

effectively plan implementation would contribute to species viability by alternative. 

Figure 84. Viability Risk Rating outcomes and Management Effect outcomes that form the 

basis for environmental consequences

Information used in the species viability analysis as described above include forest plan decisions 

such as desired conditions, standards and guidelines, different alternative management area

allocations, different alternative treatment objectives, and different alternative vegetation states 

provided by the VDDT modeling (ESSA, 2006).

Results

The viability risk rating outcomes and the management effect rating outcomes form the basis for 

the determination of environmental consequences to FPS, expressed as the relative “viability 

effectiveness” for each alternative. These species viability results are presented in chapter 3 

(“Wildlife and Rare Plants” and “Fisheries” sections) of this DEIS. Complete details of the 

species viability analysis can be found in the wildlife and fisheries specialist reports (Forest 

Service 2012a, 2012b, and 2012c) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

References

ESSA Technologies Ltd. (2006). http://www.essa.com/downloads/vddt/index.htm

Haufler, J.B. (1999). Strategies for conserving terrestrial biological diversity. Pages 17–34 in R.K. 

Baydack, H. Campa III and J.B. Haufler (eds.). Practical approaches to the conservation 

of biological diversity. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Holthausen, R.S. (2002). White paper on managing for population viability. Draft. July 2002. 

U.S. Forest Service. (2010). Technical Guide Species and Ecosystem Diversity Evaluation. 

February 24, 2010. Washington, DC.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

580 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

U.S. Forest Service. (2012a). Iterative Update to Species Considered and Identification of Forest 

Planning Species Report. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012b). Fisheries Specialist and Viability Report Forest Plan Revision 

DEIS. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012c). Wildlife Specialist Report - Viability. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012d). Vegetation Specialist Report. Forest Plan Revision DEIS.

Springerville, AZ.

Socioeconomic Resources Analysis

Section 219.12(h) of the 1982 Planning Rule directs the planning team to “evaluate the significant 

physical, biological, economic, and social effects of each management alternative that is 

considered in detail. The evaluation shall include a comparative analysis of the aggregate effects 

of the management alternatives and shall compare present net value, social and economic 

impacts, outputs of goods and services, and overall protection and enhancement of environmental 

resources.” The economic analysis helps to fulfill these evaluation requirements.

Data Sources

Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0 (IMpact analysis for 

PLANning, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.) with 2009 data. IMPLAN is an input-output model, 

which estimates the economic impacts of projects, programs, policies, and economic changes on a 

region. IMPLAN analyzes the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. Direct economic 

impacts are generated by the activity itself, such as the value of cattle grazed on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Indirect employment and labor income contributions occur when a sector 

purchases supplies and services from other industries in order to produce their product. Induced 

contributions are the employment and labor income generated as a result of spending new 

household income generated by direct and indirect employment. The employment estimated is 

defined as any part-time, seasonal, or full-time job. In the economic impact tables, direct, indirect, 

and induced contributions are included in the estimated impacts. The IMPLAN database 

describes the economy in 440 sectors using Federal data from 2009.

Data on use levels under each alternative were collected from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

resource specialists. In most instances, the precise change is unknown. Therefore, the changes are 

based on the professional expertise of the forests’ resource specialists (provisions of the 1982 

Planning Rule, 219.12(g)).

Regional economic impacts of the alternatives are estimated based on the assumption of full 

implementation of each alternative. The actual changes in the economy would depend on 

individuals taking advantage of the resource-related opportunities that would be supported by 

each alternative. If market conditions or trends in resource use were not conducive to developing 

some opportunities, the economic impact would be different than estimated here.

Financial efficiency analysis was conducted with QuickSilver Version 6. The financial efficiency 

analysis compares the anticipated Forest Service expenditures and revenues, by alternative over 

the life of the plan. Data on program revenues and program expenditures were provided by the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs budget staff and resource specialists (provisions of the1982 Planning 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 581

Rule, 219.12(e)). A 4 percent discount rate is commonly used for evaluations of long-term 

investments and operation in land and resource management by the Forest Service (Forest Service 

Manual 1971.21). This discount rate was used in the calculation of present net value (PNV). PNV 

is the difference between program revenues (benefits) and program expenditures (costs) over a 

15-year period, using a 4 percent discount rate. The annual expenditures were summed over 15 

years using a 4 percent discount rate (so that one dollar today is valued higher that one dollar in 

10 years). The sum of the discounted annual expenditures represents the present value of costs. 

The same exercise was conducted using the annual program revenues for key resource areas. The 

sum of the discounted annual revenues represents the present value of benefits. The difference 

between the present value of costs and the present value of benefits is PNV. The higher the PNV, 

the more financially efficient the alternative. Inflation can affect PNV; however, due to the 

uncertainty of future inflation, OMB Circular A-94 recommends avoiding assumptions about the 

inflation rate whenever possible. Thus for the purposes of this analysis, inflation is left at zero.

Social impacts use the baseline social conditions presented in the socioeconomic resources 

affected environment section of the DEIS and visitor profiles from the NVUM results for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 2001) to discern the primary values that the forests 

provide to area residents and visitors. Social effects are based on the interaction of the identified 

values with estimated changes to resource availability and uses.

Assumptions

• Information on the timing of costs and benefits was not available for the economic 

efficiency analysis. Furthermore, the analysis does not provide a full accounting of all 

costs and benefits. The only benefits considered are program revenues (i.e., forest 

receipts) and the only costs considered are direct forest expenditures. Therefore, the 

estimates of net present value are limited to the available data, which was sufficient to 

conduct a thorough economic efficiency analysis.

• The economic impact of grazing was estimated using authorized levels. However, actual 

use is permitted annually based on various factors, such as current forage conditions. 

Therefore, the estimated economic impact of grazing is likely to overstate the jobs and 

income provided.

• Changes in use levels were estimated using professional judgment. However, actual 

changes in use are difficult to predict and frequently depend on factors outside the control 

of the Forest Service.

• The framework for the social analysis employs generalities. Area residents and ApacheSitgreaves NFs forest visitors have diverse preferences and values that may not be fully 

captured in the description of social consequences. Nevertheless, the general categories 

are useful for assessing social impacts based on particular forest-related interests. 

References

U.S. Forest Service. (2001). National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUM). Accessed 21 

March 2011. http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/products/NVUM_Results/index.shtml

U.S. Forest Service. (2009). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Economic and Social 

Sustainability Assessment. Springerville, AZ.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

582 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Research Needs

As a result of extensive environmental analysis related to plan revision, several research needs 

have been identified related to the resource topics under review. Future data and information 

provided by research in these areas would help better manage the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• Aspen

○ How can the distinction between elk and livestock impacts be made? 

○ How can the age of aspen clonal root systems be determined?

○ What is the best indicator of a healthy aspen stand? Is it an even-aged or multi-storied 

stand? 

• Recreation Use

○ Are there other monitoring systems, besides the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

program, that can provide more accurate and timely visitor use information?

• Grazing

○ At the project level, how can range readiness be determined based on growing 

degree days?

• Species Habitat

○ What is a reasonable allocation of forage between livestock and wildlife across all 

ownerships?

• Wildlife Quiet Areas

○ What is the effectiveness of wildlife quiet areas?

○ What are the effects of nonmotorized activities, human presence, and level of noise 

on wildlife? 

• Minor species (sensitive species)

○ What are the locations, abundance, genetic exchange, and condition of species where 

this knowledge is lacking?

• White pine blister rust resistance

○ What is the genetic diversity of white pine across the forests to counter the impact of 

white pine blister rust?

• Priority watersheds

○ What indicators should be monitored to show actual improvement of watershed 

condition?

• Fire

○ Are planned and unplanned ignitions an effective tool for moving toward desired 

conditions?

• Research Natural Areas (RNA)

○ What potential research can the recommended RNAs facilitate?
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 583

Appendix C. Coordination 

with Other Public Planning Efforts

Overview

Per the provision of the 1982 planning regulations, the responsible official shall review the 

planning and land use policies of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 

American Indian tribes. In addition, the Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, has called for 

an “all-lands approach” to accomplish ecosystem restoration. This will involve landowners and 

stakeholders working together across boundaries to decide on common goals for the landscapes 

they share. In order to facilitate this all-lands approach, it is important to understand the goals and 

anticipated activities landowners adjacent to the national forest. The following sections provide a 

summary of those goals and activities. Table 198 lists the other public planning efforts that were 

considered in the plan revision process.

Table 198. Other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and American Indian 

tribes planning efforts considered in the plan revision process

Apache County, Arizona Show Low, Arizona Arizona Department of Agriculture

Coconino County, Arizona Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona Arizona Department of 

Transportation

Greenlee County, Arizona Greer, Arizona Arizona Game and Fish Department

Navajo County, Arizona Springerville, Arizona Arizona State Forestry Division

Catron County, New Mexico Eagar, Arizona Arizona State Land Department

Graham County, Arizona Nutrioso, Arizona Arizona State Parks

Gila County, Arizona Alpine, Arizona Governor’s Forest Health Councils

Grant County, New Mexico Blue, Arizona Bureau of Land Management

Heber-Overgaard, Arizona Eagle Creek, Arizona Federal Highway Administration

Forest Lakes, Arizona White Mountain Apache Tribe1 Coconino National Forest

Clay Springs, Arizona San Carlos Apache Tribe Tonto National Forest

Pinedale, Arizona Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality Gila National Forest

Linden, Arizona Arizona Department of Water 

Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1 The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Other Lands and Land Use Plans only reviewed American Indian tribes that 

have reservations that border the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Other tribes that affect forest management are described in 

the DEIS.

Counties

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lie in five counties: Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo 

Counties in Arizona and Catron County in New Mexico. The Apache National Forest portion that 

lies in New Mexico is administered by the Gila National Forest. The forest borders three other 

counties: Graham and Gila Counties in Arizona and Grant County in New Mexico.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

584 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

County comprehensive plans can be used as a source of information on the history of land use 

within the region, the patterns of development, desired conditions, and current county land use 

policies. County governments hold no legal authority over independent jurisdictions such as 

Federal and state lands, incorporated cities and towns or American Indian tribal reservations. 

County land use within the planning area ranges from traditional uses such as farming and 

ranching in rural areas to denser concentrations of residential, industrial, and commercial uses in 

and around more urban areas (e.g., Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside, Springerville, Eagar, HeberOvergaard). One of the common themes is how, and whether, private owners and public land 

managers can manage the competing priorities of resource conservation and economic 

development – in particular how to cope with the growing demands for housing and recreation 

while ensuring preservation of a shrinking natural resource base that contributes to Arizona’s 

highly valued “rural character.”

Apache County

The comprehensive county plan’s (2004) vision statement includes “Apache County offers a rural 

character of natural beauty and abundance. This includes values such as independence, privacy, 

and personal freedom that attract many seeking both permanent residence and seasonal refuge.”

Only 13 percent of the county is privately owned, more than 65 percent is covered by American 

Indian Reservations, and 21 percent is in public ownership. There are three incorporated 

communities in the county, two of which border the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: Springerville and 

Eagar. County lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are classified as range land, 

community village, and rural edge.

The county plan recognizes the National Forest System land exchange process as a growth 

management tool to help facilitate development new communities and discourage development in 

remote or sensitive areas. There is one goal with direct ties to the national forest: 

• Goal 9: Reduce the danger from fire for all residents living in a wildland-urban interface 

or near a national forest boundary.

Greenlee County, Arizona

The vision for Greenlee County from the comprehensive county plan (2003) includes the rural 

character, outdoor recreation, access, and natural resource harvesting and extracting. Forest 

Service land makes up 64 percent of the county. Only 6 percent of the county is privately owned. 

The county has two incorporated towns – Clifton and Duncan. The county goals directly tied to 

the national forest include:

• Connect the forest trails with new trails.

• Return to the multi-use of the land.

• Consider local concerns and implement appropriate actions.

• Maintain a healthy sustainable forest that provides raw materials while limiting 

incompatible uses.

• Develop roads in the forest for people that cannot hike or use horses.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 585

Navajo County, Arizona

The comprehensive county plan (2004) “character areas” describe the vision for the county by 

helping to protect the existing community character while maximizing balanced economic 

development. The lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are characterized as community 

village, rural edge, and rural ranch.

Almost 66 percent of Navajo County is American Indian reservation land. The Forest Service and 

BLM lands make up 9 percent of the county. The county has six incorporated cities/towns: 

Holbrook, Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Snowflake, Taylor, and Winslow. 

The Rodeo-Chediski Fire prompted a focus on long-term forest health as critical to future growth 

and development of the county. In particular, the plan focuses on population centers, paved roads, 

and previously treated forest areas as central to managing similar fires in the future. The plan 

recommends strategically located treatment programs in areas where multiple canyons converge 

or where canyons allow fires from below the Mogollon Rim to reach and gain strength at higher 

elevations. It also recommends that the Mogollon Rim Road and State Route 260 be paved to 

provide broader firebreaks. It also recommends treatment of a defensible area one mile outside 

each populated area. The plan advocates a forestwide management plan and professional 

treatment program that would eliminate excess fuels while providing forest-related jobs for the 

local economy.

Coconino County, Arizona

The comprehensive county plan’s (2003) vision for Coconino County is based on a conservation 

framework and emphasizes healthy landscapes where natural resources are conserved and land is 

used efficiently.

Forest Service land makes up 28 percent of the county, most of the land lies within the Coconino 

and Kaibab National Forests and the rest lies within the Apache-Sitgreaves and Prescott National 

Forests. Incorporated cities/towns include: Flagstaff, Fredonia, Page, Sedona, and Williams.

The county goals tied to the national forest include:

• Improve forest health and promote the restoration of forest ecosystems.

• Manage recreational uses in a manner that minimizes impacts to communities and the 

environment.

• Concentrate development in designated growth areas while preserving open space and 

landscapes.

Catron County, New Mexico

Catron County borders the Apache National Forest along its eastern border. The primary land 

owner along the forest boundary is the Gila National Forest, although there are also several nonFederal parcels. 

The primary purpose of the plan for Catron County (1992) is to protect the custom, culture, and 

livelihoods of county residents in the face of onerous state and Federal regulations. The plan 

states that county citizens are particularly vulnerable to “aggressive” state and Federal land use 

policies given the fact most of the county is managed under other jurisdictions. Government land 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

586 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

agencies (primarily BLM and Forest Service) have jurisdiction on over 70 percent of lands in 

Catron County. Reserve is the only incorporated town in Catron County.

In response to a perceived abuse of Federal authority on county lands, the plan explains “all 

natural resource decisions affecting Catron County shall be guided by the principles of protecting 

private property rights, protecting local custom and culture, maintaining traditional economic 

structures through self-determination, and opening new economic opportunities through reliance 

on free markets”

The plan describes Federal and state land use restrictions as arbitrary barriers that have been 

“illegally imposed” without county government input. This sentiment is found throughout the 

plan and emphasizes close coordination on the development of Federal and state land use policies 

that are responsive to the public interest.

The Catron County plan describes both the custom and culture of the county as being linked to 

traditional land use practices such as livestock grazing, timber harvesting, mining, and hunting. A 

primary basis for the plan is the stated notion that Federal regulations aimed at protecting the 

environment and endangered species have had a particularly detrimental effect on the economy 

and social stability of Catron County.

The plan does not specifically address topics such as preferred locations and densities for 

residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, nor does it provide guidelines or standards 

pertaining to community infrastructure of services. The Catron County plan is currently being 

revised.

Graham County, Arizona

Graham County borders the west side of the Apache National Forest. The San Carlos Indian 

Reservation occupies the county adjacent to the forests. See the “San Carlos Apache Tribe”

section for more info.

Gila County, Arizona

Gila County borders the far southwest portion of the Sitgreaves National Forest along the 

Mogollon Rim. The county lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are not zoned, platted, 

developed, or are in extremely remote or difficult-to-access locations. The goal for these areas is 

to maintain a rural, very low density, large lot residential development (LVA Urban Design 

Studio, 2003).

The “Southern Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan” (Logan Simpson Design, Inc., 

2010) does not identify wildland-urban interface directly adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

There are several wildland-urban interface areas located southwest of the forests within 20 miles.

Grant County, New Mexico

Grant County borders the far southeast portion of the Apache National Forest along the New 

Mexico border. The primary landowner along the boundary is the Gila National Forest, although 

there are also several non-Federal parcels. The county currently does not have a comprehensive 

land use plan.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 587

Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) 

Three community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) outline goals for at-risk-communities within 

and around the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These plans are:

• “Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk Communities of the Apache National 

Forest in Apache County” (Logan Simpson Design, Inc., 2004a)

• “Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk Communities of the Sitgreaves 

National Forest in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties” (Logan Simpson Design, 

Inc., 2004b)

• “Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk Communities of the 

Apache National Forest in Greenlee County” (Logan Simpson Design, Inc., 2005)

The primary goal of the plans is for Federal land to return to Condition Class I where wildfire can 

be incorporated into long-term management practices to sustain forest health. The plans also 

delineate the wildland-urban interface where human development meets and intermingles with 

undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. The plans are used by Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

managers to help prioritize areas for fuel reduction treatments.

Communities, Towns, and Cities

There are several communities, towns, and cities within or adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs. These include Heber-Overgaard, Forest Lakes, Clay Springs, Pinedale, Linden, Show Low, 

Pinetop-Lakeside, Greer, Springerville, Eagar, Nutrioso, Alpine, Blue, and Eagle Creek. 

The communities surrounding the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have a history of involvement with and 

dependence upon the national forests and natural resource topics in general. Arizona has long 

been dependent upon natural resources for commodity production, clean water, tourism, and 

aesthetic enjoyment. As a result the public has frequently expressed interest in the use and 

management of these resources. Some recent examples:

• Town of Pinetop-Lakeside – In 2008, the town inquired about a special designation for 

Woodland Lake Park. The park is under permit by the town and is within city limits, 

however, it is located on NFS land.

• City of Show Low – In 2009, the city adopted a resolution supporting the Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative, a strategy to implement landscape-scale restoration of the region’s 

forests, and authorizing the signing of a letter of support urging Congress to provide the 

necessary resources to implement it.

• Town of Eagar – In 2010, the town council adopted a resolution requesting the ApacheSitgreaves NF maintain the existing management practice (allowing cross-country travel) 

and the accessibility of all existing roadways and trails as they currently are within the 

forests.

One of the most common concerns of these communities is the risk associated with 

uncharacteristic wildfire and hazardous fuel buildup. This issue has been articulated in the 

community wildfire protection plans (see above).
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

588 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Tribes

Federally recognized American Indian tribes occupy about 53.5 million acres (7 percent) of land 

in the western states. Two tribal reservations border the west side of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: 

Fort Apache Indian Reservation and San Carlos Apache Reservation. These tribes are legally 

considered to be sovereign nations, meaning the Forest Service has a government-to-government 

relationship with the tribes. Tribes that enter into contracts with the Federal government do so just 

as state governments or sovereign nations do.

In addition, the Federal government also holds a special responsibility to consult with tribes over 

management concerns that may affect them. This process is governed by a variety of Federal

regulations and policies, including the Forest Service Handbook 1509.13, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, the Tribal 

Forest Protection Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, and several presidential 

executive orders.

Tribes’ use of Forest Service land includes free, non-permitted activities such as gathering boughs 

and basket materials as well as the use of products such as sawtimber. In addition, the ApacheSitgreaves NFs include traditional cultural places, the locations of which are known only to the 

tribes.

Fort Apache Indian Reservation (White Mountain Apache Tribe)

Forest Management

The 2005-2014 Forest Management Plan (Fort Apache Agency, 20050 identifies several 

reservationwide forest management objectives. They include:

• Utilize a variety of silvicultural tools including commercial harvesting, precommercial 

thinning, prescribed fire, site preparation, and natural and artificial regeneration to move 

stand structure, composition, and other characteristics toward that of the target forest.

• To the extent possible, practice uneven-aged management within ponderosa pine and 

mixed conifer stands. Even-aged methods are silviculturally appropriate for spruce and 

aspen stands, fire damaged areas, or areas with severe insect or disease infestations.

• Maintain forest qualities that will protect or provide wildlife habitat, recreational 

opportunities, good forage, quality scenery, clean rivers and streams, and other multipleuse values.

• Improve wildlife habitat by increasing production of forage and browse and diversity in 

species, density, and cover.

• Enhance opportunities for livestock production by increasing abundance and vigor of 

palatable forage, through density management of overstory trees. Work with range 

conservationists to coordinate any grazing deferments or systematic grazing schedules 

that benefit the resource as a whole.

• Protect soil and water quality by developing prescriptions that will enhance watershed 

condition through time.

• Conduct harvest operations to obtain as complete utilization of forest products as 

practical. Assist the White Mountain Apache Tribe in developing markets for previously 

under-utilized forest products or species.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 589

• Minimize threat to life and property, and damage to forests, soils and watersheds from 

catastrophic wildfire through effective fire prevention, enforcement, pre-suppression, and 

suppression programs.

• Provide sufficient initial attack forces to confine fires as soon as possible. For fires which 

escape, or are expected to escape initial attack, systematically build up suppression and 

support forces to the level required to bring about control in a safe, effective, and 

efficient manner.

• Manage natural and activity-created wildland fuels to reduce wildfire size, intensity, 

behavior, and threat to life and property.

The forest management plan divides the reservation into twelve management emphasis areas 

(MEAs) including wilderness, sensitive fish, sensitive plants, water, sensitive wildlife, recreation, 

sensitive sites, scenic byways, community, fuels management, limited management, and forest 

products. 

Recreation and Wildlife

Recreation is managed with a permit system for fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, river rafting, 

sightseeing, picnicking, biking, and cross-country skiing. The tribe offers a trophy elk hunting 

program that has been in operation since 1976 (White Mountain Apache Tribe, 2010).

Transportation

There are approximately 1,000 miles of roadways on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. There 

are also about 128 miles of State highways, including State Route 73 located in the northern part 

of the reservation and passing through the communities of Fort Apache and White Mountain. U.S. 

Highway 60/State Route 77 runs from the Salt River Canyon and the border with the San Carlos 

Indian Reservation to the intersection with State Route 260, just north of the reservation border. 

State Route 260 is an east-west route in the northeast corner of the reservation that goes through 

Hon-Dah and McNary. The BIA agency roads engineer works closely with the tribe on 

transportation. The BIA has staff on the reservation and is responsible for the roads’ programming 

and maintenance. The BIA has a consulting contract to develop the long-range transportation plan 

for the tribe. As of 2004, ongoing and proposed road projects included the reconstruction of BIA 

Road 690, the construction of dirt and gravel roads in residential areas of McNary, the 

stabilization, and resurfacing of an 8-mile stretch of BIA Road 69, and a cooperative project with 

ADOT to improve the intersection of State Road 73 and State Road 260 (FHWA 2004).

San Carlos Apache Tribe (Nde Nation)

Forest Management

The Tribe has a forest resources program, including timber sales, thinning, wood cutting, and fire 

activities (San Carlos, 2011).

Recreation and Wildlife

A recreation permit is required for non-tribal members and allows entry on the Reservation for 

any recreational activities (e.g., hike, picnic, tour, camping), other than hunting or fishing. 

Wildlife resources include Rocky Mountain Elk, Coues whitetail deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

590 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

sheep, desert big horn sheep, javelina, pronghorn antelope, black bear, mountain lion, wild turkey, 

predators, and other small game. The Drylake and Hilltop trophy elk units are managed for older 

age structure and have produced some of the largest elk in the world (San Carlos, 2010). 

Transportation

The San Carlos Apache Tribe does not receive the same Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) transportation planning support as the White Mountain Apache Tribe; however, 

information on transportation concerns on the San Carlos Apache Reservation can be requested 

through the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona’s Transportation Working Group.

State of Arizona

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is located in the State of Arizona. State regulatory agencies, as well 

as adjacent State-owned lands, affect the management of the national forest.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s mission is to protect and enhance public 

health, welfare, and the environment in Arizona. The agency serves as the State’s environmental 

regulatory agency in the areas of air and water quality and waste programs. Forest management 

activities strive to be in compliance with the applicable Arizona Revised Statutes (particularly 

Title 49 which outlines specifics such as water quality standards and total maximum daily loads).

Arizona Department of Water Resources

The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) mission is to secure long-term dependable 

water supplies for Arizona (ADWR, 2011). The ADWR administers and enforces the State’s 

groundwater code and surface water rights laws. Title 45 of the Arizona revised statutes contains 

the provisions related to water and groundwater resources.

Arizona Department of Agriculture

The Arizona Department of Agriculture is the State’s regulatory agency for agriculture, including 

animals, plants, and environmental services (ADA, 2010). Title 3 of the Arizona Revised Statutes 

contains the provisions related to agricultural topics such as dangerous plant pests and diseases, 

pesticides, brands and marks, and seizure of livestock. 

Arizona Department of Transportation

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is responsible for planning, building, and 

operating a state highway system and maintaining bridges.

Improvement and Construction

The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Fiscal Years 2010-2013 (ADOT, 

2010) was completed in January 2010. The 2011-2015 Five-year Transportation Facilities 

Construction Program was approved on June 23, 2010. These documents identify planned 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 591

improvements and construction over the next several fiscal years. The planned improvements to 

the following highways and forest highways may affect forest management:

• Forest Highway 43-1 Sunrise Park to Big Lake – FY2010 grading, drainage and paving 

work were initiated; project expected to be complete in FY2013

• State Route 260 Heber to Show Low – FY2011 construct passing lanes

• U.S. Highway 60 Show Low to Little Mormon Lake – FY2014 widen highway

• National Scenic Byways Statewide – FY2011 install signs

Several highway improvement studies are also underway.

Long Range Planning

ADOT’s long-range transportation plan for 2010-2035 was completed in November 2011 (ADOT,

2011). It serves as the principal high-level capital programming guide for ADOT and identifies 

broader statewide transportation investment needs. 

Scenic Byways

The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Environmental and Enhancement Group prepared 

the “Coronado Trail Corridor Management Plan” in March 2005. This plan identifies the goals 

and objectives for the byway corridor.

Arizona Game and Fish Department

The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AZGFD) Strategic Plan for the Years 2007-2012 

Wildlife 2012 (AZGFD, 2007) provides the management direction for the department’s program 

of work. The plan contains several goals and objectives that may have an impact on ApacheSitgreaves NFs management:

• Wildlife Resource Management – Conserve, preserve, enhance, and restore wildlife 

populations and their habitats.

• Wildlife Recreation – Increase the opportunity for the public to enjoy Arizona’s wildlife 

resources, while maintaining and improving wildlife resources. In addition, address the 

underlying reasons for denial of public access across private lands by providing technical 

and financial assistance to private landowners and educating the public about ethical use 

and habitat protection.

• Public Awareness, Support and Involvement – Maintain an informed and supportive 

public that recognizes its ownership and stewardship responsibilities for wildlife 

resources and helps to disseminate and act upon messages about watercraft safety and the 

safe, responsible and ethical use of off-highway vehicles.

• Off-highway Vehicle, Watercraft and Shooting Sports Recreation Goals – Increase the 

opportunity for the public to enjoy shooting sports. Encourage participation in education 

and information programs supporting safe and responsible use of off-highway vehicles 

and watercraft, while maintaining or improving wildlife resources and habitats.

• Customer Diversity – Increase customer diversity to better reflect the demographics of 

Arizona.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

592 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

• Partnerships – Maintain and develop effective partnerships that enable the Department 

and its partners to reach mutual goals.

The Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan, titled “Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy: 2005-2015” (AZGFD, 2006) provides the vision for managing Arizona’s fish, wildlife, 

and wildlife habitats over the next 10 years. The plan contains several key elements which may 

provide information to or have an impact on Apache-Sitgreaves NFs management:

• Species of Greatest Conservation Need – The AZGFD prioritized a list of species for 

conservation actions aimed at improving conditions for those species through 

intervention at the population or habitat level. Over 300 species were identified as being 

vulnerable or the species with the greatest conservation needs.

• Habitats of Greatest Conservation Need – The AZGFD divided the State into 17 

vegetation types. All of these habitats were treated as habitat in need of conservation. A 

statewide habitat analysis that answers the question of where to focus in each habitat has 

not been completed.

• Stressors/Threats to Arizona’s Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats – The AZGFD identified 

70 stressors that have serious impacts to habitat in Arizona and an additional 4 stressors 

that act on species alone. The stressors were categorized into: a rapidly increasing human 

population, changes to water storage and delivery systems in the Southwest, alteration of 

communities by invasive nonnative species, and the ongoing drought and warming trend.

• Conservation Actions for Arizona’s CWCS – The AZGFD identified several action items 

to address stressors, these action items will be implemented where feasible and 

appropriate.

Arizona State Forestry Division

The Arizona State Forester oversees the Arizona State Forestry Division (ASFD). The ASFD 

mission is to manage and reduce wildfire risk to Arizona’s people, communities, and wildland 

areas and provide forest resource stewardship through strategic implementation of forest health 

policies and cooperative forestry assistance programs. In 2010, the ASFD released the “Arizona 

Forest Resource Assessment” (Arizona State Forestry Division, 2010) and “Arizona Forest 

Resource Strategy” (Arizona State Forestry Division, 2010a).

The strategy identifies major resource issues and their related goals. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

is a key partner and stakeholder in helping to implement this strategy.

• People and Forests-Goal 1: People and communities receive maximum benefits from 

forests and trees.

• People and Forests-Goal 2: Minimized human impacts to trees and forests.

• Ecosystem Health-Goal 1: Resilient and diverse ecosystem structures, processes, and 

functions.

• Ecosystem Health-Goal 2: Progress toward landscape scale outcomes, restoration of 

unhealthy ecosystems, and enhanced sustainability with limited negative impacts.

• Water-Goal 1: Improved water quality and quantity from forested watershed.

• Water-Goal 2: Improved health and resiliency of forested aquatic systems (riparian areas, 

springs, and wet meadows.)
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 593

• Water-Goal 3: Increased public understanding of the importance of forests to Arizona's 

water quality.

• Air-Goal 1: Improved air quality.

• Air-Goal 2: Increased public understanding of the importance and effects of fire on 

Arizona's air quality.

• Fire-Goal 1: Wildland ecosystems where appropriate fire regimes maintain health and 

resiliency of natural vegetation.

• Fire-Goal 2: “Fire Adapted Communities” that provide shared stakeholder responsibility 

for healthy landscapes and wildfire prepared communities.

• Fire-Goal 3: Enhanced wildland fire management capacity in Arizona.

• Fire-Goal 4: An Arizona public and government leadership that is well informed about 

wildland fire management, science, and prevention issues.

• Economics-Goal 1: Realized long-term economic potential of sustainable forest products 

and bioenergy (while achieving Ecosystem Health goals).

• Economics-Goal 2: Protection of areas with economic development potential related to 

ecosystem services.

• Economics-Goal 3: Community recognition of the economic importance to protecting 

healthy natural systems.

• Climate Change-Goal 1: Increased resilience of ecosystems to climate change.

• Climate Change-Goal 2: Reduced rate of future climate change through maximized 

carbon sequestration in Arizona forests and trees.

• Culture-Goal 1: Improved communication between all land management agencies, 

indigenous tribes, and other cultural groups about varying perspectives and beliefs related 

to forests, trees, and other natural resources.

• Culture-Goal 2: Effective collaboration mechanisms for sharing of information about 

resources, priorities, policies, and management strategies between Tribes and non-Tribal 

organizations.

Arizona State Land Department

The practice of allocating public lands for various beneficiaries in Arizona dates back to the 

founding of the territory in 1863. The current system of managing these lands, referred to as State 

Trust lands, was established with the Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD) in 1915 (AZSLD, 

2011a and 2011b).

Since its inception, the AZSLD has been granted authority over all trust lands as well as the 

natural products they provide. This authority over trust land is central to the AZSLD’s primary 

mission of maximizing revenues for its beneficiaries, a role that distinguishes it from other 

agencies charged with management of public lands (e.g., national parks, national forests, state 

parks). 

As of 2008, the AZSLD managed over 9 million acres in land holdings for 14 beneficiaries, the 

most prominent of which is the K-12 public school system. Most of the state lands can be used 

for livestock grazing purposes only. Public use of the lands is regulated by permit. A recreational 

permit allows the signatory limited privileges to use State Trust Land for some recreation, namely 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

594 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

hiking, horseback riding, picnics, bicycling, photography, sightseeing, and bird watching. 

Camping is restricted to no more than 14 days per year. Off-highway vehicle travel on State Trust 

Land is not permitted without proper licensing.

The AZSLD may dispose of (exchange) or lease the lands for natural resource use or commercial 

development purposes. Since state lands border much of the national forests, especially the 

southern portion of the Apache and the northern portions of both the Apache and Sitgreaves, any 

changes in management could affect the management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The AZSLD 

prepares a fire year plan that represents potential areas of concern to initiate land sales and long 

term leases. As of July 2012, this plan was not available. 

Arizona State Parks

The mission of the Arizona State Parks (ASP) is to manage and conserve Arizona’s natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources for the benefit of the people, both in the parks and through our 

partners (Arizona State Parks, 2010).

ASP manages several parks across Arizona. Four of these parks are near or on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs; these include Fool Hollow Lake, Lyman Lake, Tonto Natural Bridge, and Roper 

Lake. The Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area, located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, is operated 

by ASP. 

Arizona State Parks have seen a continual increase in visitation over the years, with over 

1,000,000 visitors in 1985 to over 2,000,000 visitors in 2010 (Arizona State Parks 2010). The 

State and National financial crisis impacted the management of state parks. In FY2010, the ASP 

reduced the number of employees and closed 13 of its 28 parks (Arizona State Parks 2010).

The 2008 “Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan” (SCORP) identifies the 

State’s outdoor recreation priorities. The priority issues include: secure sustainable funding; plan 

for growth/secure open space; resolve conflicts; improve collaborative planning and partnerships; 

respond to the needs of special populations and changing demographics; fill the gaps between 

supply and demand; secure access to public lands and across State Trust Lands; protect Arizona’s 

natural and cultural resources; communicate with and educate the public (Arizona State Parks 

2007). Several action items have the potential to influence NFS lands:

• Look holistically across geographic boundaries, disciplines, governments, private 

interests, and generations and examine all benefits and costs, not just fiscal costs (in 

reference to growth).

• Expand options such as private landowner incentive programs and recreational liability 

laws, which would allow public access across private and State and Federal leased lands,

• Provide for OHV use on public lands but manage it properly, to reduce conflicts with 

other recreation users and minimize the activity’s impacts on natural and cultural 

resources, as is done for other recreational activities. Implement standards for 

constructing sustainable OHV routes, involving user groups in planning, building and 

maintaining satisfactory routes and facilities, and enacting and enforcing consistent OHV 

laws and regulations.

• State and Federal agencies should implement coordinated interagency planning efforts for 

new recreational areas and trail systems to ensure an equitable regional distribution of 

desired recreational opportunities and access to natural environments.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 595

The SCORP also identifies the major impacts and trends related to outdoor recreation in Arizona. 

Arizona offers a wide variety of outdoor recreation opportunities with 6 national forests, 21 

national park sites, 8 national wildlife refuges, 8 Bureau of Land Management field offices, 21 

American Indian tribes, 30 State Parks, 23 State wildlife areas, and hundreds of county and city 

parks and recreation areas. These public lands provide opportunities for activities such as 

picnicking, developed and primitive camping, wilderness backpacking, hiking, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, cross-country skiing, wildlife watching, hunting, fishing, boating, water skiing, 

rock climbing, four-wheel driving, motorized trail biking, all-terrain vehicle riding, and 

snowmobiling, among others (Arizona State Parks 2007).

The Arizona Trails 2010: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Recreation Trails plan provides 

information and recommendations to guide ASP and other agencies in their management of trails. 

The priority recommendations for motorized trails are: protect access to trails/acquire land for 

public access; maintain and renovate existing trails and routes; mitigate and restore damage to 

areas surrounding trails, routes, and areas; and establish and designate motorized trails, routes, 

and areas. The priority recommendations for nonmotorized trails are: maintain existing trails, 

keep trails in good condition; and protect access to trails/acquire land for public access (Arizona 

State Parks 2009).

Governor’s Forest Health Councils

In 2003, Governor Janet Napolitano formed the Forest Health Advisory Council and the Forest 

Health Oversight Council in response to the growing number, frequency, and intensity of 

uncharacteristic wildfires threatening Arizona’s resources and communities. In 2007, the councils 

produced the “Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona’s Forests” (Governor’s Forest Health 

Councils, 2007). The report identifies five key strategies:

1. Increase the human and financial resources dedicated to restoring Arizona’s forests and 

protecting communities.

2. Coordinate and implement action at the landscape scale.

3. Increase the efficiency of restoration, fire management, and community protection 

activities.

4. Encourage ecologically sustainable, forest-based economic activity.

5. Build public support for accomplishing restoration, community protection, and fire 

management across the state.

Federal

Other Federal agencies affect the management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, either because they 

have lands that adjoin the forests (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, other national forests), they 

manage features that occur on the national forest (e.g., Federal Highway Administration), or they 

have oversight responsibilities (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

596 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Bureau of Land Management

The majority of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land that is adjacent to the ApacheSitgreaves NFs occurs on the southern border of the Apache and is administered by the Safford 

Field Office. The 1991 “Safford District Resource Management Plan” (BLM, 1991) provides 

guidance to the district in the management of its resources. The plan addresses the following 

issues: access, area of critical environmental concerns and other types of special management 

areas, off-highway vehicles, riparian areas, wildlife habitat, lands and realty, outdoor recreation 

and visual resource management, energy and minerals, cultural resources, soil erosion, 

vegetation, water resources, air quality, and paleontological resources.

The focus of active management includes riparian improvement treatments, wildlife habitat 

improvement projects (including prescribed fire and suppression), soil erosion reduction, land 

treatments or vegetation manipulation including mechanical, chemical or prescribed fire, and 

firewood cutting. The majority of the public lands are managed to limit off-highway vehicle use 

to existing roads and trails. The 1,708-acre Hot Well Dunes is open to off-highway vehicle use 

anywhere in the area (Brady, 2011).

The only Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) or Coordinated Resource Management 

Plan Area that borders the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is the 120-acre Coronado Mountain Research 

Natural Area (RNA) ACEC. This area is managed to exclude rights-of-way, mineral entry and 

woodcutting; use prescribed fire; and preserve their scenic quality.

Future Activities

A review of the 2011 NEPA Project Log for the Safford Field Office (BLM, 2011) showed that no 

projects are currently planned. However, personal communication with the district staff 

highlighted activities that are occurring near Apache-Sitgreaves lands: renewable energy 

(including windfarm installations north of the forest and potential energy transmission corridors), 

potential juniper thinning on BLM lands north of the forest, and burning south of the forests.

The district has several ongoing projects (Aravaipa Ecosystem Management Plan, Proposed 

SunZia Southwest Transmission Line Project, Chiricahua FireScape Project), although they occur 

in the southeastern part of the State.

Federal Highway Administration

The role of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is to ensure that America’s roads and 

highways are safe and technologically up-to-date. Although most highways are owned by State, 

local, and tribal governments, FHWA provides financial and technical support (FHWA, 2011). 

The Federal Lands Highways funding provides dollars for roads and highways within federally 

owned lands, such as national forests. 

The Central Federal Lands Highway division, of which Arizona is a part, is in the process of

developing its long-range transportation plan (FHWA, 2010). The planning effort has identified 

two major trends: (1) Arizona population is increasing primarily in urban areas, and (2) forest 

visitation and recreation is increasing as a result of population increase. Within Arizona, 12 

percent of the paved forest highway network is rated as poor or failed, while 7 percent of the 

unpaved network is rated as poor or failed, and 3 percent of the bridges are in poor condition. 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 597

Forest Highway 43 improvements, including paving, are near completion as of January 2011. 

These upgrades to the highway have the potential to change visitor use.

Table 199. Forest Highways located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Forest Highway Owner Road Type Condition

FH 41 Federal Paved Poor

FH 40 Federal Unpaved Good

FH 11 (SR 260) State Paved Good

FH 30 State Paved Excellent

FH 43 State Paved/Unpaved Excellent

FH 35 (SR 261) State Paved Fair

FH 20 (U.S. 180) State Paved Good

FH 42 Federal Unpaved Good

FH 19 (U.S. 191) State Paved Fair

Forest Service

Three national forests border the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: the Coconino, Tonto, and Gila National 

Forests. Each of these forests’ management is guided by a land management plan. The Coconino 

National Forest is currently in the process of revising their plan; the Tonto and Gila National 

Forests are expected to revise their plans in the near future. As forest management changes are 

proposed, the forests coordinate and adjust their management strategies as appropriate.

Coconino National Forest 

The Coconino National Forest is managed by their forest plan originally developed in August 

1987 (Forest Service, 1987). The plan identifies several forestwide goals for 19 topic areas, 

including: (1) outdoor recreation, (2) wilderness, (3) wildlife and fish, (4) riparian, (5) range, (6) 

noxious and invasive weeds, (7) timber, (8) soil, water and air quality, (9) minerals, (10) lands, 

(11) transportation and administrative facilities, (12) protection, (13) law enforcement, (14) 

research natural areas, botanical areas, and geological areas, (15) Elden environmental study area, 

(16) public affairs, (17) human resources, (18) land management planning, and (19) general 

administration.

The management areas of the Coconino NF that border the western edge of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs are:

• Management Area 10: Grassland and Sparse Piñon-Juniper Above the Rim – The 

management emphasis is range management, watershed condition, and wildlife habitat. 

Other resources are managed to improve outputs and quality. Emphasis is on prescribed 

burning to achieve management objectives. 

• Management Area 7: Piñon-Juniper Woodland, Less than 40 Percent Slope – The 

management emphasis is firewood production, watershed condition, wildlife habitat, and 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

598 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

livestock grazing. Other resources are managed in harmony with the emphasized 

resources.

• Management Area 6: Unproductive Timber Land – Emphasis is a combination of wildlife 

habitat, watershed condition, and livestock grazing. Other resources are managed in 

harmony with the emphasized resources.

• Management Area 3: Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Less than 40 Percent Slope –

Emphasis is a combination of multiple-uses including a sustained yield of timber and 

firewood production, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, high quality water, and dispersed 

recreation.

• Management Area 19: Mogollon Rim – Emphasis is dispersed and developed recreation, 

visual quality, and wildlife travel corridors across the Rim, generally the heads of major 

canyons running to the northeast. Dwarf mistletoe is aggressively treated.

The Coconino NF is currently in the process of revising their forest plan.

Gila National Forest 

The Gila National Forest Plan is managed by their forest plan, originally published in September 

1986 (Forest Service, 1986). The plan identifies goals in 17 topic areas including: (1) range, (2) 

recreation, (3) wilderness, (4) timber, (5) wildlife and fish habitat, (6) minerals, (7) soil and water, 

(8) riparian, (9) air quality, (10) fire, (11) law enforcement, (12) lands and special uses, (13) 

facilities, (14) cultural resources, (15) land management planning, (16) human resources, and (17) 

research natural areas.

The management areas of the Gila NF that border the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs from north to south 

along the New Mexico border are:

• Management Area 3D – management emphasis is to provide for a long term increase of 

about 20 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; 

firewood harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from 

semiprimitive to roaded natural.

• Management Area 3B - management emphasis is to provide for a long term increase of 

about 40 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; 

firewood harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from 

semiprimitive to roaded natural.

• Management Area 3A – management emphasis is to provide for a long term increase of 

about 60 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage wilderness resource to protect and restore natural 

conditions; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; firewood

harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from primitive to 

roaded natural.

• Management Area 4B - management emphasis is to provide for a long term increase of 

about 10 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage wilderness resource to protect and restore natural 

conditions; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; firewood
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 599

harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from primitive to 

roaded natural.

• Management Area 7 – management emphasis is to provide for a long term increase of 

about 30 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage wilderness resource to protect and restore natural 

conditions; firewood harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range 

from semiprimitive motorized to roaded natural.

• Management Area 4C - management emphasis is to provide for a long term increase of 

about 20 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage wilderness resource to protect and restore natural 

conditions; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; firewood

harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from semiprimitive to 

roaded natural.

Tonto National Forest 

The Tonto National Forest is currently managed by their forest plan originally developed in 

October 1985 (Forest Service, 1985). The plan identifies 5 forestwide goals for the following 

topics: (1) soil water and air quality, (2) fire management, (3) pest management, (4) wildlife and 

fish, and (5) transportation and utility corridors.

There is only one Tonto NF management area that lies adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs:

• Management Area 4D: Payson Ranger District, Mogollon Rim Area – The management 

emphasis is to manage for a variety of renewable resource outputs with primary emphasis 

on intensive, sustained yield timber management, timber resource protection, creation of 

wildlife habitat diversity, increased populations of harvest species and recreation 

opportunity. Recreation opportunities range from semiprimitive to urban.

Four-Forest Restoration Initiative

The Four-Forest Restoration Initiative is a collaborative effort to restore forest ecosystems on 

portions of four national forests—Coconino, Kaibab, Apache-Sitgreaves, and Tonto—primarily 

along the Mogollon Rim in northern Arizona. Environmental analysis for the proposed action 

began in 2010 and the contract to begin implementation was awarded in 2012.

The overall goal of the four-forest effort is to create landscape-scale restoration approaches that 

will provide for fuels reduction, forest health, and wildlife and plant diversity. A key objective is 

doing this while creating sustainable ecosystems in the long term. Business will play a key role in 

the effort by harvesting, processing, and selling wood products. This will reduce treatment costs 

and provide restoration-based work opportunities that will create good jobs.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The main role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) is to administer the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) (USFWS, 2011). Section 7 (a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to aid in 

conservation of listed species and section 7 (a)(2) requires that agencies, through consultation 

with the USFWS, ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

600 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. As projects and activities are 

planned, forest managers consult with the USFWS.

The USFWS also issues national polices to promote the conservation and recovery of listed 

species, including species recovery plans. The USFWS is in the process of developing a strategic 

plan to react to climate change.

The USFWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge System; there are no refuges near the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. They occur primarily in the far west and southern portions of Arizona 

and central New Mexico.

Other Landowners

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs border and surrounds other ownerships besides those listed above. 

There is no known inventory of these landowners activities and potential impacts to the forests. 

Conclusion

As identified above, other landowners and land policies have the potential to impact the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and vice-versa. In the development of the land management plan, these 

considerations have been taken into account. Table 200 identifies some of the key potential 

impacts and how the proposed plan deals with those impacts. Table 201 identifies potential 

activities on adjacent lands that may impact forest management. Impacts of actions on adjacent 

lands is analyzed in the cumulative environmental consequences section of chapter 3 in the DEIS. 

No major conflicts with Forest Service planning have been identified at this time. 

Table 200. Potential impacts to forest management and their relationship to the proposed 

plan

Potential Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Call for multiple-use of the 

forests

The overall goal of managing National Forest System lands is to sustain the 

multiple uses of its resources in perpetuity while maintaining the long-term

productivity of the land.

The proposed plan carries out that goal.

Community growth demand The proposed plan identifies a management emphasis to work with local 

communities to understand their community expansion needs and retain access 

to NFS land.

Danger from fire for residents 

living in a wildland-urban 

interface

Desired Condition: The composition, density, structure, and mosaic of 

vegetative conditions reduce uncharacteristic wildfire hazard to local 

communities and forest ecosystems.

Desired Condition: Forest visitors have access to information about topics of 

concern related to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (e.g., ecosystem restoration, 

unmanaged recreation, uncharacteristic wildfire), including appropriate visitor 

behavior (e.g., follow forest orders, pack out trash, appropriate sanitation).

The vegetative treatment objectives are prioritized in priority watersheds and 

areas identified in community wildfire protection plans.

Improve forest health and 

promote the restoration of 

ecosystems

The desired conditions describe a healthy, sustainable forest and the objectives 

identify actions that would help restore ecosystems.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 601

Potential Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Maintain a healthy, sustainable 

forest that provides raw 

materials

Desired Condition: The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs provide a sustainable supply 

of forest products (e.g., small roundwood, sawlogs, biomass, firewood, cones, 

Christmas trees, and wildings) to business and individuals within the capability

of the land.

Forest-related jobs for the local 

economy

Timber production and tree cutting continue and contribute to the local and 

regional economy. Other multiple uses of the forests, including recreation and 

wildlife, also contribute to the local economy. See the “Economic Contribution”

section of the DEIS.

Support local traditional 

custom and culture

The uses of livestock grazing, timber harvesting, mining, and hunting continue 

to be allowed in the proposed plan. The proposed plan recognizes that many 

local residents have traditional ties, such as forest product collection, hunting, 

holiday celebrations, and annual picnics. Loggers and ranchers continue to be an 

important part of the forests’ history and their traditional uses remain an 

important part of the cultural landscape.

Protect private property rights The proposed plan honors the continuing validity of private, statutory, or preexisting rights.

Consider local concerns; 

collaborate with government 

agencies; consult with tribes

Throughout the proposed plan, there is a management emphasis on 

collaboration and cooperation with Federal, State, and local governments, tribes, 

and stakeholders.

Growing demand for 

recreation (e.g., hiking trails, 

designated OHV routes )

Desired Condition: The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs offer a spectrum of recreation 

settings and opportunities varying from primitive to urban and dispersed to 

developed, with an emphasis on the natural-appearing character of the forests.

Although the proposed plan does not identify specific new developments, it 

does allow for it, if needed. The proposed plan focuses on maintaining existing 

recreation opportunities and improving their quality.

Manage recreation and impacts 

to communities

Desired Condition: Apache-Sitgreaves NFS lands provide less developed 

opportunities than residents and visitors find in urban settings, such as 

greenbelts and parks.

Desired Condition: The construction or placement of fences and gates, 

structures, signs, or other private property on NFS land (occupancy trespass) 

rarely occurs. Disposal of personal property (e.g., dumping) rarely occurs on 

NFS lands.

Guideline: Access points to NFS land from adjacent non-NFS developments 

and subdivisions should be limited and provide all residents (not just edge lot 

owners) common entry points. Individual access points should be discouraged

to minimize the development of unauthorized roads or trails.

Tribal use and traditional 

cultural properties

Desired Conditions: Significant cultural resources (i.e., archaeological, 

historic, and traditional cultural properties (TCP) and known American Indian 

sacred sites) are preserved and protected for their cultural importance and are 

generally free from adverse impacts.

Desired Conditions: Members of affiliated tribes have access to gather 

traditional forest resources and products for traditional cultural purposes (e.g., 

medicinal plants, boughs, basket materials, pollen, and plants and minerals for 

pigments).

Desired Conditions: Traditionally used resources are not depleted and are 

available for future generations.

Desired Conditions: Sacred sites and significant TCPs are accessible and 

generally free of adverse impacts allowing for culturally affiliated tribes to 

gather traditional forest products and conduct ceremonies.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

602 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Potential Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Desired Conditions: All sacred objects, human remains, funerary objects, and 

objects of cultural patrimony removed from lands of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are 

repatriated to the appropriate tribe.

Conserve, preserve, enhance, 

and restore wildlife and their 

habitats

Desired Condition: Habitat quality, distribution, and abundance exist to 

support the recovery of federally listed species and the continued existence of 

all native and desirable nonnative species.

Desired Condition: Habitat is well distributed and connected.

In addition, the proposed plan focuses on restoring vegetative conditions and 

wildlife habitat.

Desired Condition: Large blocks of habitat are interconnected, allowing for 

behavioral and predator-prey interactions, and the persistence of 

metapopulations and highly interactive wildlife species across the landscape. 

Desired Condition: Wildlife are free from harassment and from disturbance at 

a scale that impacts vital functions (e.g., breeding, rearing young) that could 

affect persistence of the species.

The proposed plan also contains other desired conditions, including vegetationspecific desired conditions. In addition, the Wildlife Quiet Area Management 

Area focuses on wildlife habitat.

Provide opportunities for 

wildlife-related recreation

Desired Condition: Dispersed recreation opportunities (e.g., hunting, fishing, 

hiking, and camping) are available and dispersed recreation sites (e.g., 

campsites, trailheads, vistas, and parking areas) occur in a variety of settings 

throughout the forests.

Minimize impacts from 

invasive species 

Desired Condition: Invasive species are in low abundance or nonexistent.

Objective: Annually, contain, control, or eradicate invasive species (e.g., musk 

thistle, Dalmatian toadflax, and cowbirds) on 500 to 3,500 acres.

Objective: Annually, control or eradicate invasive species (e.g., tamarisk, 

crayfish) on at least 2 stream miles.

Provide opportunities for 

shooting sports, off-highway 

vehicles, and watercraft

The proposed plan continues to allow these activities.

Threats related to changes in 

water availability

Desired Condition: Water developments contribute to fish, wildlife, and 

riparian habitat as well as scenic and aesthetic values.

Desired Condition: Apache-Sitgreaves NFs water rights are secure and 

contribute to livestock, recreation, wildlife, and administrative uses.

Desired Condition: Surface water is generally not diminished by groundwater 

pumping.

Desired Condition: Dams, diversions, or other water control structures function 

properly to conserve water resources.

Threats related to changes in 

climate

Appendix A of the proposed plan provides information and discussion about 

climate change and considerations for land management planning
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 603

Potential Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Public education to benefit 

wildlife

Desired Condition: Forest visitors have access to information about topics of 

concern related to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (e.g., ecosystem restoration, 

unmanaged recreation, and uncharacteristic wildfire), including appropriate 

visitor behavior (e.g., follow forest orders, pack out trash, and appropriate 

sanitation).

Desired Condition: Forest visitors have access to information about the 

features of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, its ecosystems, multiple uses, and other 

management aspects of the forests.

Desired Condition: Interpretive information (e.g., ecology, cultural resources, 

unique geologic features, and Forest Service mission) is available to forest 

visitors at Apache-Sitgreaves NFs visitor centers, administrative offices, 

recreation sites, and along major forest roadways.

Table 201. Activities on adjacent lands that may impact forest management

Activities on Adjacent Lands that May Impact Forest Management

Land exchanges (changes in ownership) Commercial harvesting and thinning; forest restoration and 

thinning; removal of overstory trees/juniper treatments

Highway improvements Prescribed fires

Fire suppression Recreation improvements and new construction

Permitted recreation use (restrictions on types of 

uses)

Renewable energy development (e.g., wind farms, energy 

corridors)

Removal of nonnative fish species and 

restoration of native aquatic species

Continued livestock grazing

Noxious and invasive weed treatments Four-Forest Restoration Initiative

References

Apache County. (2004). Apache County Comprehensive Plan. St. Johns, 

AZ. http://www.co.apache.az.us/pdfs/PlanningandZoning/P&ZPage/ApacheCountyComp

rehensivePlan.pdf

Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA). Annual Report FY2009-2010. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). (2010). Arizona State Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) Fiscal Years 2010–2013. Phoenix, 

AZ. http://www.azdot.gov/MPD/Priority_Programming/index.asp

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). (2011). What Moves You Arizona, Long-Range 

Transportation Plan 2010-2035. The Arizona Department of Transportation. Phoenix, 

AZ. http://whatmovesyouarizona.gov/PDF/LRTP-2011-1129.pdf

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). (2011). Missions and Goals. Phoenix, 

AZ. http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/PublicInformationOfficer/MissionAndGoals.htm
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

604 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2006). Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy: 2005–2015. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2007). Wildlife 2012 Strategic Plan. Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona State Forestry Division. (2010). Arizona Forest Resource Assessment. Phoenix, 

AZ. http://www.azsf.az.gov/forest_strategy.asp

Arizona State Forestry Division. (2010a). Arizona Forest Resource Strategy. Phoenix, 

AZ. http://www.azsf.az.gov/forest_strategy.asp

Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD). (2011a). Real Estate Division. Phoenix, 

AZ. http://www.land.state.az.us/programs/realestate/futureDisp.htm#apache

Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD). (2011b). State Land Department Historical Overview. 

Phoenix, AZ. http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm

Arizona State Parks. (2007). Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

(SCORP). Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona State Parks. (2009). Arizona Trails 2010: A Statewide Motorized and Nonmotorized

Recreational Trails Plan. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona State Parks. (2010). Arizona State Parks FY09/10 Annual Report July 1, 2009 – June 30, 

2010. Phoenix, AZ.

Brady, Lance. (2011). Personal Communication. Safford District Bureau of Land Management.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (1991). Safford District Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management. Safford, AZ.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2011). U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management Arizona 2011 NEPA Project Log. 

Catron County. (1992). Catron County Comprehensive Land Use and Policy Plan. Bountiful, UT: 

National Federal Lands Conference.

Coconino County. (2003). Coconino County Comprehensive Plan. Flagstaff, 

AZ. http://www.coconino.az.gov/comdev.aspx?id=142

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2010). Planning Update 1: Long Range 

Transportation Plan for Forest Highways in Arizona. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Federal Highway Administration.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2011). About FHWA. U.S. Department of 

Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/

Forest Service. (1985). Tonto National Forest Plan. United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Southwestern Region.

Forest Service. (1986). Gila National Forest Plan. United States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service Southwestern Region.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 605

Forest Service. (1987). Coconino National Forest Plan. United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Southwestern Region.

Fort Apache Agency White Mountain Apache Tribe. (2005). Forest Management Plan 2005 –

2014. White River, AZ.

Governor’s Forest Health Councils, State of Arizona. (2007). The Statewide Strategy for 

Restoring Arizona’s Forests. Aumack, E., T. Sisk, and J. Palumbo, editors. Published by 

Arizona Public Service. Phoenix, AZ.

Greenlee County. (2003). Greenlee County Comprehensive Plan. Clifton, 

AZ. http://www.co.greenlee.az.us/pz/pdfs/ComprehensivePlan.pdf

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2004a). Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk 

Communities of the Apache National Forest in Apache County. Tempe, AZ.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2004b). Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk 

Communities of the Sitgreaves National Forest in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo 

Counties. Tempe, AZ.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2005). Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan for 

At-Risk Communities of the Apache National Forest in Greenlee County. Tempe, AZ.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2010). Southern Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 

Tempe, AZ.

LVA Urban Design Studio, L.L.C., Kimley-Horne and Associates, Inc. (2003). Gila County 

Comprehensive Plan. Globe, AZ.

Navajo County. (2004). Navajo County Comprehensive Plan. 

San Carlos Apache Tribe. (2010). San Carlos Apache Tribe - Recreation and Wildlife. San Carlos, 

AZ. University of Arizona. http://www.scatrwd.com/

San Carlos Apache Tribe. (2011). San Carlos Forestry Web Site. http://forestry.scatnsn.gov/publicweb/forestry.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2011). Consultations – Overview. United States 

Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/consultations-overview.html

White Mountain Apache Tribe. (2010). Wildlife and Outdoor Recreation Division. Whiteriver, 

Arizona. http://wmatoutdoors.org/

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 607

Appendix D. Management Area Descriptions

This appendix describes the management areas used in the alternatives. The action alternatives 

share a similar set of management areas. The no action alternative (1987 plan) used a different set 

of management areas. The management areas are described in this appendix, and table 202 below 

shows how they generally relate to one another. 

Table 202. Crosswalk showing the general comparison of the action alternatives and the 

no action alternative management areas

Action Alternative Management Area No Action Alternative Management Areas

General Forest = Forest Land, Woodland, Grasslands, Riparian, Water

Community-Forest Intermix = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management 

area

High Use Developed Recreation Area = Developed Recreation Site

Energy Corridor = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management 

area

Wild Horse Territory = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management 

area

Wildlife Quiet Area = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management 

area

Natural Landscape = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management 

area

Recommended Research Natural Area = Research Natural Area

Research Natural Area = Research Natural Area

Primitive Area = Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions

Recommended Wilderness = The 1987 plan does not recommend any areas for 

wilderness designation

Wilderness = Bear Wallow Wilderness, Escudilla Wilderness, Mount 

Baldy Wilderness

Management Areas – Action Alternatives

There are twelve management areas identified in the action alternatives. A brief description of 

each follows. For more detailed information about these management areas, including suitability 

of various uses, see the proposed plan.

1. General Forest: This management area allows the broadest variety of uses. These areas 

are managed to restore ecosystem integrity while providing for sustainable economic and 

social values and uses. A variety of forest products are available, including commercial 

and noncommercial, that may contribute to local and regional communities. This 

management area contains undeveloped areas as well as developed facilities and open 

roads and trails.

2. Community-Forest Intermix: This management area includes lands within 1⁄2 mile of 

communities-at-risk. Due to the threat of fire moving into or from developed areas, 
Appendix D. Management Area Descriptions

608 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

higher levels of management, including regular maintenance, may be needed to restore 

fire-adapted ecosystems.

3. High Use Developed Recreation Area: This management area includes areas with high 

levels of developed recreation use that provide a wide variety of opportunities and 

experiences to a broad spectrum of visitors. High use developed recreation areas contain 

one or more facilities and may accommodate large numbers of people.

4. Energy Corridor: This management area includes the three existing high power energy 

corridors. It is limited to the existing rights-of-ways corridor. This area is managed to 

facilitate the operation and maintenance of the energy infrastructure.

5. Wild Horse Territory: This management area contains the Heber Wild Horse Territory. 

The territory was established in 1973 under the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act 

of 1971 with the purpose of providing use by and for the protection of wild horses.

6. Wildlife Quiet Area: This management area provides relatively undisturbed habitat 

where big game and other wildlife can reside with minimal disturbance from motorized 

vehicle use. Management activities, including habitat improvement projects, may occur 

in this area.

7. Natural Landscape: This management area is managed to retain its natural appearance 

and low level of development. It provides primitive and semiprimitive recreation 

opportunities, both nonmotorized and motorized. Management activities for ecological 

restoration purposes may occur, but are limited.

8. Recommended Research Natural Area: These areas are recommended for designation 

as research natural areas.

9. Research Natural Area: This management area is managed for the purpose of scientific 

study and education. It also contributes to the maintenance of biological diversity.

10. Primitive Area: This management area consists of the Blue Range Primitive Area and 

the Presidential recommended additions to the area. It is managed similar to wilderness, 

with one exception; the area is open to mineral prospecting and mineral development.

11. Recommended Wilderness: These areas are recommended for wilderness designation 

and are managed to retain wilderness characteristics.

12. Wilderness: Wilderness is managed to protect its values according to the Wilderness Act 

of 1964. Wilderness areas provide opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation and other ecosystem and societal benefits.

Management Areas – No Action Alternative

There are 16 management areas used in the no action alternative (1987 plan). A brief description 

of each management area follows. For more details, see the August 1987 “Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests Plan.”

1. Forest Land: Forested lands managed for a variety of values and uses.

2. Woodland: Woodlands managed for a variety of values and uses.

3. Grasslands: Grasslands managed for a variety of values and uses.
Appendix D. Management Area Descriptions 

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 609

4. Riparian: Riparian areas managed to maintain or improve conditions.

5. Water: Management emphasis is the production of fish and wildlife and dispersed 

recreation use.

6. Escudilla Demonstration Area: Area for scientific research on a variety of forest 

management practices.

7. Sandrock: An area deferred from livestock grazing to accelerate recovery of the 

watershed.

8. Research Natural Area: This management area contains one research natural area and 

four recommended areas that are managed for scientific study and education.

9. Black River: Managed for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System.

10. Chevelon Canyon: Managed for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River 

System.

11. West Fork Black River: Managed for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River 

System.

12. East and West Forks Little Colorado River: Managed for possible inclusion into the 

Wild and Scenic River System.

13. Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions: Managed similar to wilderness, except open 

for mineral prospecting and development.

14. Bear Wallow Wilderness: Managed to protect wilderness values.

15. Escudilla Wilderness: Managed to protect wilderness values.

16. Mount Baldy Wilderness - Managed to protect wilderness values.

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 611

Appendix E. Other Supporting 

Documentation

The “Plan Set of Documents” is the complete set of documentation supporting the land 

management plan. It includes, but is not limited to, evaluation reports, documentation of public 

involvement, the plan including applicable maps, background documents, and applicable NEPA 

documents. The “Plan Set of Documents” is available in the Supervisor’s Office.

Some of the key components of the “Plan Set of Documents” are outlined in table 203.

Table 203. Other supporting documentation for the DEIS

Document Description

DEIS Supporting Documents

Specialist Reports: 

Air Quality, Soil, Water, Riparian, Watershed, 

Fisheries, Vegetation, Forest Health, Fire, Wildlife, 

Invasive Species, Recreation, Infrastructure, 

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

Wilderness Resources and Inventoried Roadless 

Areas, Research Natural Areas, Scenic Resources, 

Lands, Cultural Resources, American Indian Rights 

and Interests, Forest Products, Livestock Grazing, 

Minerals and Geology, and Socioeconomic

Specialist reports include supplementary information that 

may not appear in the DEIS including methodology, 

relevant laws, regulations, and policy, assumptions, 

adaptive management considerations, and other planning 

efforts.

Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation Evaluation of the effects of the preferred alternative to 

federally listed species and Regional Forester designated

sensitive species.

Species Viability Evaluations Species viability evaluations are documented in the wildlife 

and fisheries specialist reports.

2012 Report on the Selection of Management 

Indicator Species and Ecological Indicators

Documents the process and rational for selection of 

management indicator species (MIS) and ecological 

indicators (EI)

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Other Lands 

and Land Use Plans (May 2011)

A review of the planning and land use policies of other 

Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 

American Indian tribes.

Suitability Analyses Suitability analyses for livestock grazing, timber, and 

recreation can be found in the respective specialist report.

Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic 

River System (May 2009)

Addendum to the Eligibility Report for the National 

Wild and Scenic River System

(April 2012)

Documents the administrative review process, required by 

Forest Service policy, to identify rivers that are eligible for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System.

The addendum updates river conditions in light of the 2011 

Wallow Fire

Final Potential Wilderness Evaluation Reports

(December 2010)

As required by the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs developed an inventory of 

potential wilderness areas and evaluated each area.

Research Natural Area Evaluation (March 2012) The RNA evaluation is documented in the Research 

Natural Area Specialist Report.

Scenery Management System (SMS) Inventory 

Report (March 2009)

Documents the SMS inventory and assessment process for 

the plan revision.
Appendix E. Other Supporting Documentation

612 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Document Description

Need for Change

Comprehensive Evaluation Report

(December 2008)

This report highlights the social, economic, and ecological 

conditions and trends in and around the Apache-Sitgreaves, 

as detailed in the Ecological Sustainability Report, the 

Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ Resource Evaluations. 

It summarizes the need for change for revising the 1987 

plan.

CER Supplement to Meet AMS Requirements

(March 2010)

Documents how the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ assessments

conforms to the 1982 Planning Rule provisions.

Wallow Fire Changed Condition Assessment

(March 2012)

Documents the change to existing conditions and the 

proposed plan caused by the 2011 Wallow Fire.

Recreation, Grazing, Minerals and Timber Demand 

Analysis of the Management Situation

(December 2009)

Estimates of recreation, grazing, mineral, and timber 

demand to help define need for change. Prepared by Joshua 

Wilson and Henry Eichman Economists TEAMS Planning 

Enterprise Unit

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Planning Team Supplement 

to the Demand Report

(February 2010)

Prepared by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ interdisciplinary 

(ID) planning team to supplement the above report.

Ecological Sustainability Report

(December 2008)

Describes how the forests contribute to ecological 

sustainability and defines the ecological needs for change.

Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment 

(January 2009)

Describes how the forests contribute to social and 

economic sustainability and defines the social/economic 

needs for change.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ Resource 

Evaluations

(July 2008)

This document provides detailed information about the 

individual resource and program areas outlined in the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 1987 plan. It describes the current 

conditions and trends, how well the plan is working, and 

what needs to change. 

Vegetation

Mid-scale Existing Vegetation Map

(2009, updated 2012)

Forestwide GIS map of vegetation type, canopy cover, and 

structure (size class).

Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVT) Map Forestwide GIS map showing potential vegetation based on 

terrestrial ecosystem survey.

Ecological and Biological Diversity of National 

Forests in Region 3: Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

(August 2006)

Describes the extent and distribution of PNVTs, condition 

of low-elevation grasslands, distribution of stream reaches 

with native fish, and species richness and conservation 

status. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy.

Historical Range of Variation for Potential Natural 

Vegetation Types of the Southwest

(2006)

Consists of several papers that document the historical 

range of variation for various PNVTs (chaparral, aspen 

forest and woodland, Madrean encinal woodland, montane 

subalpine grassland, mixed conifer, piñon-juniper 

woodland, ponderosa pine forest, semi-desert grassland, 

and spruce-fir forest). Prepared by The Nature 

Conservancy.
Appendix E. Other Supporting Documentation

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 613

Document Description

Historic Fire Return Intervals for Arizona and New 

Mexico: A Regional Perspective for Southwestern 

Land Managers

(April 2006)

Identifies the historic fire return intervals for 21 PNVTs 

throughout Arizona and New Mexico. Prepared by The 

Nature Conservancy.

Other Background Documents

Forest Insect and Disease Activity on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and Fort Apache Indian Reservation

(February 2010)

Summarizes the historic and contemporary disturbance 

information of the major forest insects and disease. 

Prepared by Rocky Mountain Research Station and the 

Arizona Zone Office of Forest Health Protection.

Socioeconomic Assessment of the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests

(2005)

Provides a summary characterizing the social and 

economic environment surrounding the forests by showing 

the linkage between NFS lands and neighboring 

communities. Prepared by Arizona National Forests 

Socioeconomic Assessment Team and The University of 

Arizona School of Natural Resources. Manager’s 

summary, annotated bibliography and a supplement to the 

socioeconomic assessment are available.

Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs Toward National 

Forest System Lands: Arizona Tribal Peoples

(April 2006)

Describes the context for tribal involvement in plan 

revision and management decisionmaking, the beliefs and 

values about the consultation process, and resource and 

multiple-use beliefs and values. Prepared by John C. 

Russell, Ph D. and Peggy A. Adams-Russell.

Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs Toward National 

Forest System Lands: The Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest (May 2006)

Describes the values, attitudes, and beliefs of local 

stakeholders toward the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Prepared 

by John C. Russell, Ph D. and Peggy A. Adams-Russell.

Collaboration

Public Participation Plan Outlines the public participation strategy for the plan 

revision process.

Collaboration Log Spreadsheet that tracks public involvement and public 

contacts.

ReVision Review and Messages from the Forest 

Supervisor

Newsletters and updates sent to the plan revision mailing 

list and posted to the web to help inform stakeholders about 

the revision process.

Mailing lists Mailing lists used for each public outreach effort.

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 615

Appendix F. Collaboration 

and Public Involvement

This appendix describes the collaborative process and key public involvement opportunities for 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan revision effort. More detailed information, including the Public 

Participation Plan (2012b) and the Collaboration Log (2012a), can be found in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”

Plan Revision Timeline

Table 204 below provides a summary of the key steps in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ plan 

revision process. Plan revision has been conducted under several different planning rules since 

revision activities began in 2006 (see information in the next section). This table also lists the 

planning rule that was in effect at various points in the process.

Table 204. Timeline of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ plan revision process

Date Started Key Step Planning 

Rule in Effect

April 2006 Interdiciplinary (ID) planning team is formed to begin revision of the 

1987 plan

2005

Spring 2006 Public and Forest Service employee meetings to identify need for 

change

2005

March 2007 U.S. District Court in California enjoined the Forest Service from 

using the 2005 planning rule

April 2008 The 2008 planning rule is published in the Federal Register

August 2008 Iterative Development of the Proposed Plan - the initial set of draft 

desired conditions is made available for review and comment

2008

September 2008 Iterative Development of the Proposed Plan - public meetings to 

gather feedback on the draft desired conditions

2008

December 2008 Comprehensive Evaluation Report and related documents (Ecological 

Sustainability Report and Economic and Social Sustainability 

Assessment) are available for review and comment

2008

December 2008 Notice of Initiation (to revise the forest plan) is published in the 

Federal Register

2008

June 2009 Iterative Development of the Proposed Plan - the Working Draft Land 

Management Plan is available for review and comment

2008

June 2009 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California enjoined 

the Forest Service from using the 2008 planning rule

December 2009 Notice of Intent (to revise the forest plan and to prepare an EIS) is 

published in the Federal Register; revision efforts proceed following 

the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule

2000/1982

March 2010 Development of Initial Alternatives – public meetings to gather 

feedback on the initial alternatives 

2000/1982

May 2010 Interdisciplinary (ID) planning team finalizes alternatives and begins

analysis and development of the DEIS and Proposed Plan

2000/1982
Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement

616 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Date Started Key Step Planning 

Rule in Effect

May 2011 Wallow Fire – 538,000 acre fire on the Apache National Forest 

interrupts plan revision

2000/1982

August 2011 ID planning team begins to inventory, assess , and document the 

changed conditions caused by the Wallow Fire. The information is 

used to update the DEIS

2000/1982

April 2012 The Forest Service publishes the final rule and record of decision for 

the 2012 planning rule

2012/1982

Early 2013 Publication of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs proposed plan and DEIS 

for public review and comment

2012/1982

Planning Rules

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires every national forest or 

grassland managed by the Forest Service to develop and maintain a land management plan. The 

process for the development and revision of the plans, along with the required content of plans, is 

outlined in the planning regulations, or planning rule. Individual forests and grasslands then 

follow the direction of the planning rule to develop a land management plan specific to their unit.

When the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ plan revision started in 2006, the planning team followed 

direction under the 2005 Planning Rule, which had been finalized by the Forest Service and 

published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2004. The following year, on March 30, 2007, 

the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction that ordered the 

Forest Service to discontinue use of the 2005 Planning Rule. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

complied with the court order, and further planning activities undertaken were in compliance with 

laws and rulings not affected by the injunction. Much of the information and public comments 

gathered prior to the injunction remained useful in the planning effort. Work continued until 

finalization of the 2008 Planning Rule occurred on April 21, 2008. At that time, plan 

development began following guidance from the 2008 rule.

A little over a year later, on June 30, 2009, the 2008 Planning Rule was enjoined by the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of California and the revision of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs plan was again interrupted. The U.S. Department of Agriculture subsequently determined on 

December 18, 2009, that plans could be amended, revised, or developed using the 2000 Planning 

Rule, as amended. The 2000 Planning Rule’s transition provisions allowed use of the provisions 

of the planning rule in effect prior to the effective date of the 2000 rule, commonly called the 

1982 Planning Rule. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ planning effort moved forward using the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule and a notice of intent to revise the plan and publish a DEIS 

was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 1009.

The Forest Service published the current planning rule, the 2012 Planning Rule, in the Federal 

Register on April 9, 2012. The transition provision, 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), of the 2012 Planning 

Rule allows the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to continue to use the provisions of the 1982 planning to 

revise the plan.
Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 617

Key Collaboration and Public 

Involvement Steps in the Revision Process

This section lists some of the key collaboration and public involvement activities that have 

occurred in the revision process. In addition to the activities listed in the tables below, several 

other tools were used to communicate with the public and other entities. Information about the 

process, including assessments, draft documents, timelines, letters, and meeting announcements 

were posted to the forests’ Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/asnf/. Newspaper articles, radio 

announcements, flyers, legal notices, comment periods, presentations to groups, phone calls, oneon-one meetings, and other tools were used to share information about revision and gather input.

Identification of the Need for Change

The initial step in revising the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 1987 plan was to identify the need for 

change in the land management plan. Two primary methods were used to do this: (1) public and 

employee input and (2) science-based evaluations. A series of meetings and workshops were 

conducted to ask “what needs to change in the current forest plan or current forest management.”

Public and employee input were supplemented with science-based reports describing conditions, 

trends, and risks to sustainability that indicate where the 1987 plan does not provide adequate 

guidance for the present and future management of the forests. Some of the key actions taken to 

identify the need for change are outlined in table 205 below.

Table 205. Key actions related to the identification of the need for change

Date Action Description

2005 Report - Socioeconomic 

Assessment for the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests

The report profiles the social and economic 

environment surrounding the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs.

March 2006 Mailing and Flyers Letter to mailing list lets receipents know that 

the forests are beginning forest plan revision. 

Invites them to be involved by returning 

postcard so that the mailing list can be updated.

Flyers distributed via frontliners, meetings, post 

offices, campgrounds, etc. Intent to notify folks 

this summer (especially visitors).

March 2006 Meetings with Employees Meetings at all ranger districts and the 

Supervisor’s Office to provide an overview of 

revision and conduct an exercise to identify 

geographic areas, themes, and need for change.

April 2006 Report – Values, Attitudes and 

Beliefs Toward National Forest 

System Lands: Arizona Tribal 

Peoples

The report contains information on values and 

beliefs of Arizona tribal peoples about national 

forest lands based on discussion/focus groups.

May 2006 Report - Values, Attitudes and 

Beliefs toward National Forest 

System Lands: The ApacheSitgreaves National Forests

The report documents the results of a project to 

identify values, attitudes, and beliefs (VAB) 

about forest resources and their management for 

all national forests and grasslands in the 

Southwestern Region, including the ApacheSitgreaves NFs.
Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement

618 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Date Action Description

May – July 2006 Meetings with Greenlee, Navajo, 

Apache Counties, Arizona Game 

and Fish Department (AZGFD),

Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, and Natural Resource 

Conservation District (NRCD).

Meetings to provide an overview of plan 

revision and ask for input on the need for 

change.

July – September 2006

7/17 – Clifton

7/18 – Safford

7/19 – Greer

7/20 –

Eagar/Springerville

8/1 – San Carlos

8/3 – Pinetop-Lakeside

8/9 – Whiteriver

8/10 – Alpine

8/29 – Heber/Overgaard/

Forest Lakes

8/30 – Clay 

Springs/Linden/

Pinedale

8/31 – Nutrioso

9/14 – Blue

9/19 – Vernon

9/21 – Snowflake/Taylor

9/27 – Winslow

Public Meetings Meetings to share information about the forests, 

the new planning rule, the planning schedule, 

and how interested parties can become 

involved. Participants were asked what they 

value about the national forests, what significant 

changes have occurred over the last 20 years, 

and what forest managers should focus on 

during the next 20 years. Participants 

encouraged to join discussion groups to further 

explore topics or issues.

October 2006 Mailing – Letter from the Forest 

Supervisor

A followup to the July-Sept 2006 public 

meetings – the letter explains where to find 

meeting notes and announces the next round of 

public meetings.

October – November 

2006

Comment Analysis ID planning team reviews public comments and 

summarizes need for change.

December 2006 Mailing – ReVision Review 

Newsletter

Newsletter outlines what we've heard so far as 

well as background on revision and how folks 

can become involved. 

January 2007

1/9 – Clifton

1/11 – Alpine

1/16 – Eagar

1/17 – Heber/Overgaard

1/18 – Show Low

Pubilc Meetings/Workshops Meetings to obtain more information about 

issues/topics. Participants asked to share what 

they feel is a priority (or are priorities) to focus 

on during revision. 

January – February 2007 Employee Meetings Meetings to gather feedback from employees on 

issues/topics and what they feel is a priority (or 

are priorities) to focus on during revision.
Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 619

Date Action Description

February 2007 Mailing – Message from the 

Forest Supervisor

Followup to January 2007 public meetings. The 

letter explains where to find meeting notes and 

discusses the development of the 

Comprehensive Evaluation Report, next 

meetings, and dates for upcoming meetings on 

the Tonto NF.

March 2007

3/5 Mesa

3/13 Cave Creek

Public Meetings – Tonto NF During Tonto NF revision meetings, provide

status of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs revision 

process and encourage folks to sign up for the 

mailing list and submit comments.

March 2007 Meeting with local, state, and 

tribal representatives – social and 

economic sustainability 

assessment

Opportunity for participants to provide feedback 

on the draft social and economic sustainability 

assessment.

April 2007 Public Meetings Sponsored by the 

Arizona Game and Fish 

Department

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

informational meetings on how to become 

involved in the process of Federal land 

management plan. Forest representatives attend 

and answer questions.

July 2007 Mailing – ReVision Review 

Newsletter

Newsletter outlines the key findings of 

assessments, public input, and need for change 

and requests comments.

August 2007 Wildlife Discussion Group A group of interested publics, Forest Service, 

and other agency representatives meet to 

discuss the key findings from the draft 

ecological sustainability report and species list.

October 2007 Mailing – Update from the Forest 

Supervisor

The letter includes information about new 

proposed planning rule, upcoming public 

meeting to share technical information 

regarding processes, and science used in the 

upcoming need for change report. Next step 

together (sometime in 2008) will be describing 

the desired ecological, economic, and social 

outcomes of forest management. 

November 2007 Public Meeting – Findings from 

the Sustainability Reports

A public meeting to share the more technical 

findings regarding need for change. The

findings are a result of the work completed so 

far on the social-economic and ecological 

sustainability reports.

November 2007 Meeting - Range Discussion 

Group

A group of interested publics, Forest Service, 

and other agency representatives discuss status 

of revision and next steps of revision process:

desired conditions and objectives.

April 2008 Mailing – Message from the 

Acting Forest Supervisor

Letter announces retirement of former Forest 

Supervisor Elaine Zieroth, release of the 2008 

Planning Rule, and notice of amendment to 

current 1987 plan.
Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement

620 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Date Action Description

June 2008 Meeting – Wildlife Discussion 

Group

A group of interested publics, Forest Service, 

and other agency representatives meet to review 

and refine the species diversity lists.

July 2008 Report – Forest Plan Revision 

Resource Evaluations

The report details information about individual 

resource and program areas outlined in the 1987 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan.

December 2008 Mailing – ReVision Review 

Newsletter

Newsletter provides status of revision, including 

message from new forest supervisor, upcoming 

publication of the NOI, and summary of need 

for change. 

December 2008 Report – Ecological Sustainability 

Report

Report about the ecological environment of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the surrounding 

area. This report profiles the diversity of 

ecosystems and species, and identifies threats 

and associated risks. It also provides 

information regarding needs for ecological 

change.

December 2008 Report – Comprehensive 

Evaluation Report

This report highlights the social, economic, and 

ecological conditions and trends in and around 

the forests, as detailed in the Ecological 

Sustainability Report, the Economic and Social 

Sustainability Assessment, and the Resource 

Evaluations.

December 2008 Notice of Initiation The Notice of Initiation to begin forest plan 

revision was published in the Federal Register 

on 12/16/2008. The legal notice was published 

in the White Mountain Independent.

January 2009 Report – Economic and Social 

Sustainability Assessment

The report documents the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs contribution to economic and social 

sustainability within the assessment area.

May 2009 Report – Eligibility Report of the 

National Wild and Scenic River 

System

Comprehensive evaluation of the potential for 

rivers on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to be 

eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. Note: addendum 

completed in April 2012

June 2009 Report – Draft Potential 

Wilderness Evaluation

Draft reports made available for public 

comment. The Forest Service evaluated all 

lands possessing wilderness characteristics for 

potential wilderness during plan revision. The

reports presents the evaluation findings.

June 2009 Comment Analysis ID planning team reviews comments received 

during the Notice of Initiation comment period 

and validates the need for change topics

February 2010 Report – Forest Insect and 

Disease Activity on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and Forest 

Apache Indian Reservation

An assessment of insect and disease impacts.
Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 621

Date Action Description

March 2010 Report – CER Suppment to Meet 

AMS Requirements

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule

require the completion of an Analysis of the 

Management Situation (AMS). The previously

published Comprehensive Evaluation Report 

met most of this requirement. This report 

addresses the remaining AMS requirements. 

Note: planning team supplement completed 

February 2010

December 2010 Report – Final Potential 

Wilderness Evaluation

Reports for those lands that were evaluated and 

met the criteria for potential wilderness. Note: 

reports updated and additional reports

completed in 2012

Iterative Development of the Proposed Plan

The next stage of the revision process was to develop the proposed plan. Initial efforts were 

focused on describing the desired conditions for the forests. Desired conditions are the social, 

economic, and ecological attributes toward which management of the land and resources is to be 

directed. After using public and employee input to refine the desired condition statements, the 

next step was to draft the remaining plan components. The Working Draft Land Management 

Plan was published to provide a foundation for collaborative discussion and feedback which

evolved into the proposed plan. Table 206 below identifies some of the key actions completed 

during the iterative development of the proposed plan.

Table 206. Key actions related to the iterative development of the proposed plan

Date Action Description

August 2008 Initial Draft Desired Conditions The initial set of draft desired conditions are 

available for review and input.

August 2008 Mailing – Message from the 

Acting Forest Supervisor

Letter provides an update on revision, including 

upcoming open houses and an initial draft desired 

conditions packet.

August – October 

2008

Employee Meetings Meetings to provide status of revision, summary 

of need for change, what the revised forest plan 

will look like, and obtain feedback on initial draft 

desired conditions.

September 2008

9/3 – Alpine

9/4 – Show Low

9/5 – Springerville

9/9 – Overgaard

9/11 – Clifton

Public Meetings – Initial Draft 

Desired Conditions

Open houses to answer questions and gather 

input on the initial draft desired conditions.

October 2008 Comment Analysis ID planning team reviews public comments on 

the initial draft desired conditions and uses input 

to update desired condition language.
Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement

622 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Date Action Description

December 2008 Newsletter – ReVision Review Newsletter shares status of revision, including 

message from the new Forest Supervisor, 

upcoming publication of the NOI, and summary 

of need for change.

April-May 2009 Employee Meetings Meetings provide overview of the upcoming

working draft plan, how it is organized, and 

request comment and feedback.

June 2009 Working Draft Land Management 

Plan

The Working Draft Land Mangement Plan is

made available and serves as a foundation for 

collaborative discussion and feedback.

June 2009 Mailing – Message from the Forest 

Supervisor & Users Guide to the 

Working Draft Plan

Letter includes a status of revision and announces 

release of the Working Draft Land Management 

Plan for review. Attached is a Users Guide of the 

Working Draft Plan to aid review.

August 2009 Mailing – Message from the Forest 

Supervisor

Letter includes update on status of revision, 

including update on enjoinment of 2008 Planning 

Rule and discontinued use of the 2008 Planning 

Rule.

September 2009 Comment Analysis ID planning team reviewes public comments on 

the Working Draft Land Management Plan and 

uses input to modify draft plan language and 

identify issues.

December 2009 Mailing – Message from the Forest 

Supervisor

Letter includes update on status of plan revision 

and announces upcoming publication of Notice 

of Intent in the Federal Register. Also announces

that the revision process will follow the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule.

December 2009 Notice of Intent The Notice of Intent to revise the forest plan and 

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) 

published in the Federal Register on 12/29/2009. 

Legal notice published in White Mountain 

Independent.

March –May 2010 Meetings – Catron County Board 

of Commissioners, Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, Greenlee 

County Board of Supervisors.

Meetings to provide update on forest activities, 

including plan revision.

Development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The next stage in the revision process was to develop alternatives to address issues not covered by 

the proposed plan. Once the alternatives were identified, the planning team began to develop the 

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The DEIS analyzes the effects of implementing the 

alternatives. Table 207 below outlines some of the key actions taken during the development of 

the DEIS.
Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 623

Table 207. Key actions related to the development of the DEIS

Date Action Description

March 2010 Initial Draft Alternatives The initial draft alternatives and associated maps (e.g., 

management areas, suitability) are made available for 

review and comment.

March 2010 Mailing – Message from 

the Forest Supervisor

Letter includes update on progress of revision, the 

upcoming development of an EIS, explanation of 

alternatives, presents the initial draft alternatives 

developed by the forest, asks for comment, and 

announces open house meetings in April. Includes

detailed description of the four initial draft alternatives.

March - April 2010 Employee Meetings Meetings to discuss and gather feedback on the initial 

draft alternatives.

April 2010

4/12 – Clifton

4/14 –

Heber/Overgaard

4/15 – Lakeside

4/19 - Eagar

Public Meetings Public open house forum meetings to discuss initial draft 

alternatives and gather feedback.

May 2010 Comment Analysis ID planning team reviews public comments on initial 

draft alternatives and uses to refine alternatives.

August 2010 Mailing - Postcards Postcards sent to the mailing list. Recipients are asked to 

identify the format (printed, electronic, etc) of DEIS they 

prefer.

September 2010 Mailing – Message from 

the Forest Supervisor

Letter includes reference to the comments received on 

the initial draft alternatives and current status of revision.

May-June 2011 Wallow Fire The 538,000 acre Wallow Fire burns the Apache NF. 

Progress on plan revision is interrupted.

August 2011 Mailing – Message from

the Forest Supervisor

Letter provides the status of forest plan revision postWallow Fire. ID planning team is assessing changes and 

working on proposed plan and DEIS.

January 2012 Meetings – Greenlee 

County Board of 

Supervisors, Apache 

County Natural Resouce 

Conservation District, 

Navajo County, Arizona 

Game and Fish Department

Meetings with forest supervisor and deputy forest 

supervisor to discuss status of plan revision.

May 2012 Mailing – Message from 

the Forest Supervisor

Letter provides update on status of revision: ID planning 

team is developing the DEIS. The proposed plan and 

DEIS are scheduled to be available for review and 

comment this fall. Letter references new planning rule 

and states that the forests are still following the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule.
Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement

624 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Tribal Consultation

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have consulted with nine tribes and one chapter that use the forests 

for traditional, cultural, or spiritual activities. The following tribes and chapter were consulted: 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of 

Zuni, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe, and the Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation.

Tribes were initially informed about plan revision in October 2006 through a letter explaining the 

revision process and extending an open invitation to meet with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. A 

consultation letter was sent to the tribes in June 2009 asking for input on the working draft land 

management plan. In December of 2009, the tribes were sent a letter that provided the status of 

revision and the upcoming publication of the notice of intent (NOI) and invited their comments 

and concerns. In addition to consultation, the tribes have been included in all public outreach 

efforts throughout the plan revision process.

Three tribes provided written responses: White Mountain Apache Tribe, Navajo Nation, and 

Tonto Apache Tribe. Consultation meetings were held with the San Carlos Apache Tribe (August 

and November 2006), White Mountain Apache Tribe (August 2006, March 2007, April 2010), 

Navajo Nation (August 2006, September 2008, December 2009), Hopi Tribe (August 2006, 

November 2009), and Pueblo of Zuni (August 2006, September 2008, July 2011).

References

U.S. Forest Service. (2012a). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Collaboration Log.

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012b). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Public Participation Plan.

Springerville, AZ.
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 625

Appendix G. Plan 

Decisions and Species Viability

The following table (table 208) provides a crosswalk that shows how fine filter plan decisions 

meet species viability needs. More detailed information on individual species and the species 

viability analysis can be found in the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 

2012b) and the “Fisheries Specialist and Viability Report” (Forest Service, 2012a).

As part of the plan revision process, coarse filter plan decisions (i.e., desired condition

statements) were developed that describe the desired outcomes and conditions for vegetation, 

riparian, and aquatic features, and other resources within the planning area. These desired 

conditions provide habitat for wildlife which helps to reduce risks to species and provide for their 

viability. Where desired conditions would result in low to moderate risk ratings for some species, 

meeting and maintaining those desired conditions would provide for their population viability. 

This is because low to moderate ratings of risk are assumed to be similar enough to normal 

ecosystem fluctuations and therefore within a species’ ability to adjust, thus posing little risk to 

viability. Where the risk rating would be moderately-high, high, or very high, additional fine filter 

plan components (e.g., standards, guidelines) were developed to address or mitigate risk.

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

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

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

The crosswalk in table 208 below lists those fine filter plan decisions that reduce risks to species 

and provide for viability. Other plan decisions (objectives, special areas, suitability, and 

monitoring) and management area allocations also contribute to species viability and are 

discussed in the “Wildlife and Rare Plants” and “Fisheries” sections of chapter 3 of the DEIS.

In the table below, the following abbreviations are used:

ST = standard 

GL = guideline

PNVT = potential natural vegetation type

MA = management area

FPS = forest planning species
626

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 208. Species crosswalk for how plan decisions meet species’ viability needs

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

All PNVTs, all habitat 

elements, and other factors 

of concern

All FPS GLs for Soil: Projects with ground-disturbing activities should be designed to minimize long- and 

short-term impacts to soil resources. Where disturbance cannot be avoided, project-specific soil and 

water conservation practices should be developed.

Severely disturbed sites should be revegetated with native plant species when loss of long-term soil

productivity is evident.

Locally collected seed should be used where available and cost effective. Seeds should be tested to ensure 

they are free from noxious weeds and invasive nonnative plants at a State-certified seed testing laboratory 

before acceptance and mixing.

Coarse woody debris retention and/or creation should be used as needed to help retain long-term soil 

productivity.

GL for Water Resources: Projects with ground-disturbing activities should be designed to minimize 

long and short-term impacts to water resources. Where disturbance cannot be avoided, projectspecific soil and water conservation practices should be developed.

ST for All PNVTs: Vegetation treatments shall include measures to reduce the potential for the 

introduction of invasive plants and animals and damage from nonnative insects and diseases.

GL for All PNVTs: During project design and implementation, precautions should be taken to reduce 

the potential for damage to residual vegetation in order to prevent premature or excessive mortality.

Landscape scale restoration projects should be designed to spread out treatments spatially and/or temporally 

to reduce implementation impacts and allow reestablishment of vegetation and soil cover.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Management activities should not contribute to the trend toward 

Federal listing.

Habitat management objectives and species protection measures from approved recovery plans should be 

applied to activities occurring within Federally-listed species habitat.

Measures (e.g., fencing, planting/translocation, research) should be implemented to help ensure regional 

forester identified sensitive species do not trend toward Federal listing.

The needs of localized species (e.g., New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, Bebb’s willow, White 

Mountains paintbrush) should be considered and provided for during project activities to ensure their 

limited or specialized habitats are not lost.
Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 627

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

ST for Invasive Species: Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential 

for the introduction of new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or terrestrial 

nonnative populations.

GLs for Invasive Species: Project areas should be monitored to ensure there is no introduction or 

spread of invasive species.

Treatment of invasive species should be designed to effectively control or eliminate them; multiple 

treatments may be needed.

GLs for Landscape Scale Disturbance Events: Erosion control mitigation features should be 

implemented to protect significant resource values and infrastructure such as stream channels, roads, 

structures, threatened and endangered species, and cultural resources.

Projects and activities (e.g., revegetation, mulching, lop and scatter) should be designed to stabilize soils 

and restore nutrient cycling, if needed, and establish movement toward the desired conditions for the 

affected PNVT(s).

GL for Motorized Opportunities: New roads or motorized trails should be located to avoid Mexican 

spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs), northern goshawk post-fledgling family areas (PFAs), 

and other wildlife areas as identified; seasonal restrictions may be an option.

ST for Forest Products: Permits which authorize the collection of forest products shall include permit 

provisions to ensure the needs of wildlife, which depend upon those forest products, will continue to 

be met (e.g., cone and mushroom collection and the overwinter forage needs of squirrels).

GL for Livestock Grazing: Grazing use on seasonal allotments should be timed to the appropriate 

plant growth stage and soil moisture. 

Forage, browse, and cover needs of wildlife, authorized livestock, and wild horses should be managed in 

balance with available forage.

GL for Wildlife Quiet Area MA: Restoration treatments should consider the needs of wildlife (e.g., 

calving/fawning areas, wallows, game crossings) to minimize potential impacts to the species and their 

habitat.

ST for Wilderness MA: Human-caused disturbed areas that do not complement wilderness 

characteristics will be rehabilitated to a natural appearance, using species or other materials native to 

the area.

ST for Recommended Wilderness MA: Human-caused disturbed areas that do not complement 

wilderness characteristics shall be rehabilitated to a natural appearance, using plant species or other 

materials native to the area.
628

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

GL for Research Natural Area MA: To minimize impacts to unique and sensitive plant species, 

recreational activities, other than use on the designated trail, should not be encouraged.

GL for Recommended Research Natural Area MA: To minimize impacts to unique and sensitive 

plant and animal species, recreational activities should not be encouraged.

Forested PNVTs All FPS listed under 

ponderosa pine, dry mixed 

conifer, wet mixed conifer 

and spruce-fir PNVTs

GLs for All Forested PNVTs: Where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late 

seral states and species composition on a landscape scale, old growth characteristics should be 

retained or encouraged to the greatest extent possible within the scope of meeting other desired 

conditions (e.g., reduce impacts from insects and disease, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic 

wildfire). 

Healthy Southwestern white pine should be retained to maintain the wide range of genetic variability that 

contributes to resistance against the nonnative white pine blister rust disease.

Tree species that are less susceptible to root disease should be retained within areas of root disease 

infection to reduce spread of disease.

When thinning dwarf mistletoe infected sites, as much mistletoe should be removed as possible without 

sacrificing the healthiest, most desirable trees for the particular site (in some situations this may involve 

retaining some lightly infected trees in the upper canopy to meet multiple resource objectives).

Trees, snags, and logs immediately adjacent to active red squirrel cone caches, Abert’s squirrel nests, and 

raptor nests should be retained to maintain needed habitat components and provide tree groupings.

Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover should be provided where needed by 

wildlife.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: A minimum of six nest areas (known and replacement) should be 

located per northern goshawk territory. Northern goshawk nest and replacement nest areas should be 

located around active nests, in drainages, at the base of slopes, and on northerly (northwest to 

northeast) aspects. Nest areas should be 25 to 30 acres each in size.

Northern goshawk post-fledgling family areas (PFAs) of approximately 420 acres in size should be 

designated around the nest sites.

During treatments, snags should be retained in the largest diameter classes available as needed to meet 

wildlife or other resource needs.

Active raptor nests should be protected from treatments and disturbance during the nesting season to 

provide for successful reproduction. Specifically for goshawk nest areas, human presence should be 

minimized during nesting season of March 1 through September 30.
Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 629

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Ponderosa pine forest 

PNVT

Arizona myotis bat, Abert’s 

squirrel, northern goshawk, 

Zone-tailed hawk, Grace’s 

warbler, flammulated owl, 

Mexican spotted owl 

(where Gambel oak)

GL for Ponderosa Pine: Where Gambel oak or other native hardwood trees and shrubs are desirable 

to retain for diversity, treatments should improve vigor and growth of these species.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Dry mixed conifer forest 

PNVT

Arizona myotis bat, red 

squirrel, northern goshawk, 

flammulated owl, Mexican 

spotted owl

GL for Dry Mixed Conifer: Where Gambel oak or other native hardwood trees and shrubs are 

desirable to retain for diversity, treatments should improve vigor and growth of these species.

GL for Aspen: Restoration of aspen clones should occur where aspen is overmature or in decline to 

maintain a sustainable presence of this species at the landscape level.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Wet mixed conifer forest 

PNVT

Red squirrel, black bear, 

northern goshawk, redfaced warbler, dusky blue 

grouse, MacGillvray’s 

warbler, Mexican spotted 

owl, yellow lady’s slipper, 

wood nymph, heathleaf 

ragwort, yellow Jacob’s 

ladder, hooded lady’s tress

GL for Aspen: Restoration of aspen clones should occur where aspen is overmature or in decline to 

maintain a sustainable presence of this species at the landscape level.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Spruce-fir forestPNVT Red squirrel, black bear, 

Mexican spotted owl, 

crenulate moonwort, White 

Mountains paintbrush, 

yellow lady’s slipper, wood 

nymph, heathleaf ragwort, 

yellow Jacob’s ladder, 

hooded lady’s tress

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.
630

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Madrean pine-oak 

woodland PNVT

Mule deer (winter), juniper 

titmouse, Mexican spotted 

owl (often in association 

with canyons), gray vireo, 

Bigelow’s onion

GL for All Woodland PNVTs: Treatments should leave single or small groups of medium to large 

trees that are widely-spaced with expanses of herbaceous vegetation and coarse woody debris to 

provide for soil productivity and wildlife needs.

GL for Madrean pine-oak: Where Mexican spotted owls are found nesting in canyons or on north 

slopes within the Madrean pine-oak woodland, adjacent treatments should be modified to meet the 

needs of foraging owls consistent with the species’ recovery plan.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

During treatments, snags should be retained in the largest diameter classes available as needed to meet 

wildlife or other resource needs.

Active raptor nests should be protected from treatments and disturbance during the nesting season to 

provide for successful reproduction. Specifically for goshawk nest areas, human presence should be 

minimized during nesting season of March 1 through September 30.

Montane/subalpine 

grasslands PNVT

pronghorn antelope, 

Gunnison’s prairie dog, 

dwarf shrew, savannah 

sparrow, splachnoid dung 

moss

ST for Grasslands: A moderate to high similarity to vegetation climax conditions for plant canopy 

cover and composition as described in each ecological mapping unit shall be achieved and/or 

maintained.

GLs for Grasslands: Grasslands and openings should provide for sufficient vegetative ground cover 

(45 percent of greater in Great Basin grasslands, 35 percent or greater in semi-desert grasslands, and 

60 percent or greater in montane/subalpine grasslands) to prevent accelerated erosion, dissipate 

rainfall, facilitate the natural fire regime, and provide wildlife and insect habitat.

New fence construction or reconstruction where pronghorn antelope may be present should have a barbless 

bottom wire which is 18 inches from the ground to facilitate movement between pastures and other fenced 

areas. Pole and other types of fences should also provide for pronghorn antelope passage where they are 

present.

Pronghorn antelope fence and other crossings should be installed along known movement corridors to 

prevent habitat fragmentation.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Prairie dog controls should not be authorized except when consistent with approved State of Arizona 

Gunnison’s prairie dog conservation strategies.
Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 631

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

GL for Livestock Grazing: Grazing use on seasonal allotments should be timed to the appropriate 

plant growth stage and soil moisture. 

Great Basin grassland 

PNVT

pronghorn antelope, 

Gunnison’s prairie dog, 

Arizona sunflower

ST for Grasslands: A moderate to high similarity to vegetation climax conditions for plant canopy 

cover and composition as described in each ecological mapping unit shall be achieved and/or 

maintained.

GLs for Grasslands: Grasslands and openings should provide for sufficient vegetative ground cover 

(45 percent of greater in Great Basin grasslands, 35 percent or greater in semi-desert grasslands, and 

60 percent or greater in montane/subalpine grasslands) to prevent accelerated erosion, dissipate 

rainfall, facilitate the natural fire regime, and provide wildlife and insect habitat.

New fence construction or reconstruction where pronghorn antelope may be present should have a barbless 

bottom wire which is 18 inches from the ground to facilitate movement between pastures and other fenced 

areas. Pole and other types of fences should also provide for pronghorn antelope passage where they are 

present.

Pronghorn antelope fence and other crossings should be installed along known movement corridors to 

prevent habitat fragmentation.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Prairie dog controls should not be authorized except when consistent with approved State of Arizona 

Gunnison’s prairie dog conservation strategies.

Semi-desert grassland 

PNVT

Bigelow’s onion, Arizona 

sunflower, superb 

penstemon

ST for Grasslands: A moderate to high similarity to vegetation climax conditions for plant canopy 

cover and composition as described in each ecological mapping unit shall be achieved and/or 

maintained.

GLs for Grasslands: Grasslands and openings should provide for sufficient vegetative ground cover 

(45 percent of greater in Great Basin grasslands, 35 percent or greater in semi-desert grasslands, and 

60 percent or greater in montane/subalpine grasslands) to prevent accelerated erosion, dissipate 

rainfall, facilitate the natural fire regime, and provide wildlife and insect habitat.

New fence construction or reconstruction where pronghorn antelope may be present should have a barbless 

bottom wire which is 18 inches from the ground to facilitate movement between pastures and other fenced 

areas. Pole and other types of fences should also provide for pronghorn antelope passage where they are 

present.
632

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Pronghorn antelope fence and other crossings should be installed along known movement corridors to 

prevent habitat fragmentation.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Sometimes shaded or often 

wet meadow or forest 

opening 

(ponderosa pine, dry 

mixed conifer, wet mixed 

conifer, and spruce-fir 

forests and Madrean pineoak woodland PNVTs)

Mogollon vole, Merriam’s 

shrew, four-spotted 

skipperling butterfly, 

Arizona sneezeweed, 

Mogollon clover, Oak 

Creek triteleia 

GL for All PNVTs: Restoration methods, such as thinning or burning, should leave a mosaic of 

undisturbed areas within the larger treated project area, especially within meadows, openings, and 

swales, to retain or allow recolonization of small mammals and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, 

fritillary butterflies).

GL for Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed Conifer: Where consistent with project or activity objectives, 

canopy cover should be retained on the south and southwest sides of small, existing forest openings 

that are naturally cooler and moister. These small (generally one-tenth to one-quarter acre) shaded 

openings provide habitat conditions needed by small mammals, plants, and insects (e.g., Merriam’s 

shrew, Mogollon clover, four-spotted skipperling butterfly). Where these openings naturally occur 

across a project area, these conditions should be maintained on an average of two or more such 

openings per 100 acres.

GLs for Riparian Areas: Wet meadows and active floodplains with riparian-obligate species should 

provide sufficient herbaceous cover (55 percent or greater) and height (6 to 9 inches or longer) to trap 

sediment, mitigate flood energy, stabilize banks, and provide for wildlife and plant needs.

Wet meadows and cienegas should not be used for concentrated activities (e.g., equipment storage, forest 

product or mineral stockpiling, livestock handling facilities, special uses) that cause damage to soil and 

vegetation.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

GLs for Motorized Opportunities: New roads, motorized trails, or designated motorized areas should 

be located to avoid meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with 

high concentrations of significant archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be 

minimized or mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic species.

As projects occur in riparian or wet meadow areas, unneeded roads or motorized trails should be closed or 

relocated, drainage restored, and native vegetation reestablished to move these areas toward their desired 

condition.
Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 633

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

GLs for Nonmotorized Opportunities: New nonmotorized routes should avoid meadows, wetlands, 

riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high concentrations of significant 

archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or mitigated to reduce 

impacts to aquatic habitat.

GL for Livestock Grazing: Critical areas [e.g., meadow] should be managed to address the inherent 

or unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts.

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate 

measures to reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

Cool understory microclimate 

(dry mixed conifer forest 

and Madrean pine-oak 

woodland PNVTs)

Goodding’s onion, 

Mexican hemlock parsley

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species 

needing these habitat components (e.g., Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains chipmunk).

The needs of localized species (e.g., New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, Bebbs willow, White 

Mountains paintbrush) should be considered and provided for during project activities to ensure their 

limited or specialized habitats are not lost.

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate 

measures to reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

Mosaic of conditions

(species that need 

adjacent untreated areas 

for persistence)

Lesser long-nosed bat, 

long-tailed vole, dwarf 

shrew, White Mountains 

ground squirrel, 

Springerville pocket 

mouse, western burrowing 

owl, Montezuma’s quail, 

plateau giant tiger beetle, 

Greene milkweed

GL for All PNVTs: Restoration methods, such as thinning or burning, should leave a mosaic of 

undisturbed areas within the larger treated project area, especially within meadows, openings, and 

swales, to retain or allow recolonization of small mammals and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, 

fritillary butterflies).

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

ST for Grasslands: A moderate to high similarity to vegetation climax conditions for plant canopy 

cover and composition as described in each ecological mapping unit shall be achieved and/or 

maintained.

Dense, low-mid canopy 

with ample ground 

vegetation/litter and/or 

woody debris 

(dry mixed conifer, wet 

mixed conifer, and 

Southern red-backed vole, 

dusky blue grouse, western 

red bat, ocelot, White 

Mountains chipmunk, black 

bear, red-faced warbler, 

MacGillvray’s warbler

(mixed broadleaf deciduous 

GL for Soil: Coarse woody debris retention and/or creation should be used as needed to help retain 

long-term soil productivity.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species needing these habitat components (e.g., 
634

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

spruce-fir forests and 

riparian forest PNVTs)

riparian forest), Swainson’s 

thrush, gray catbird 

(forested riparian PNVTs), 

southwestern willow 

flycatcher (montane willow 

riparian forest)

Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains chipmunk).

Seasonally wetted swales 

(montane/subalpine and

Great Basin grassland 

PNVTs)

Ferris’ copper butterfly, 

Alberta artic butterfly, 

nitocris fritillary butterfly, 

nanomis fritillary butterfly, 

Parish alkali grass (alkali 

soils only)

GL for All PNVTs: Restoration methods, such as thinning or burning, should leave a mosaic of 

undisturbed areas within the larger treated project area, especially within meadows, openings, and 

swales, to retain or allow recolonization of small mammals and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, 

fritillary butterflies).

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate 

measures to reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

High quality water

(all riparian PNVTs)

water shrew, bald eagle,

Arizona toad, Chiricahua 

leopard frog, northern 

leopard frog, lowland 

leopard frog, northern 

Mexican gartersnake, 

narrow-headed gartersnake, 

false ameletus mayfly, 

California floater, Mosely 

caddisfly, Arizona snaketail

dragonfly, White 

Mountains water penny 

beetle, Three Forks 

springsnail, Blumer’s dock, 

carnivorous bladderwort, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic 

species and riparian vegetation.

GLs for Riparian Areas: Storage of fuels and other toxicants should be located outside of riparian 

areas to prevent spills that could impair water quality or harm aquatic species.

Equipment should be fueled or serviced outside of riparian areas to prevent spills that could impair water 

quality or harm aquatic species.

Construction or maintenance equipment service areas should be located and treated to prevent gas, oil, or 

other contaminants from washing or leaching into streams.

GLs for Water Resources: Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of 

water should be protected from detrimental changes in water temperature and sediment to protect 

aquatic species and riparian habitat.

Streamside management zones should be in place between streams and disturbed areas and/or road locations 

to maintain water quality and suitable stream temperatures for aquatic species.

As State of Arizona water rights permits (e.g., water impoundments, diversions) are issued, the base level of 

instream flow should be retained by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Constraints (e.g., maximum limit to which water level can be drawn down, minimum distance from a 

connected river, stream, wetland, or groundwater-dependent ecosystem) should be established for new 

groundwater pumping sites permitted on NFS lands in order to protect the character and function of water 

resources.

Short-term impacts in watersheds containing Outstanding Arizona Waters may be allowed when long-term 
Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 635

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

benefits to water quality, riparian areas, and aquatic resources would occur.

To protect water quality and aquatic species, heavy equipment and vehicles driven into a water body to 

accomplish work should be completely clean of petroleum residue. Water levels should be below the gear 

boxes of the equipment in use. Lubricants and fuels should be sealed such that inundation by water should 

not result in leaks.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Any action likely to cause a disturbance and take to bald and golden eagles in nesting and young rearing 

areas should be avoided per the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

ST for Dispersed Recreation: Dispersed campsites shall not be designated in areas with sensitive soils 

or within 50 feet of streams, wetlands, or riparian areas to prevent vegetation and bank damage, soil 

compaction, additional sediment, or soil and water contamination.

ST for Motorized Opportunities: Road maintenance and construction activities shall be designed to 

reduce sediment (e.g., water bars, sediment traps, grade dips) while first providing for user safety.

GL for Motorized Opportunities: New roads, motorized trails, or designated motorized areas should 

be located to avoid meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with 

high concentrations of significant archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be 

minimized or mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic species.

GL for Nonmotorized Opportunities: New nonmotorized routes should avoid meadows, wetlands, 

riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high concentrations of significant 

archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or mitigated to reduce 

impacts to aquatic habitat.

GL for Livestock Grazing: To minimize potential resource impacts from livestock, salt or nutritional 

supplements should not be placed within a quarter of a mile of any riparian area or water source. Salt 

or nutritional supplements should also be located to minimize herbivory impacts to aspen clones.

STs for Water Uses: Special uses for water diversions shall maintain fish, wildlife, and aesthetic 

values and otherwise protect the environment.

Streams on NFS lands with high aquatic values and at risk from new water diversions shall be preserved and 

protected with instream flow water rights.

Groundwater withdrawals shall not measurably diminish surface waterflows on NFS lands without an 
636

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

appropriate surface water right.

Healthy riparian 

conditions (i.e., well 

vegetated and untrampled 

streambanks and 

floodplains)

(all riparian PNVTs)

Arizona montane vole, 

water shrew, NM meadow 

jumping mouse, 

southwestern willow 

flycatcher, peregrine 

falcon, Lincoln’s sparrow

(montane willow riparian 

forest), northern Mexican 

gartersnake, narrow-headed 

gartersnake, Blumer’s 

dock, Arizona willow 

(montane willow riparian 

forest only), Bebbs willow, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

GLs for Aquatic Habitat and Species: The needs of rare and unique species associated with wetlands, 

fens, bogs, and springs should be given priority consideration when developing these areas for 

waterfowl habitat and other uses.

Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic species and riparian vegetation.

Projects and activities should avoid damming or impounding free-flowing waters to provide streamflows 

needed for aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

GLs for Riparian Areas: Wet meadows and active floodplains with riparian-obligate species should 

provide sufficient herbaceous cover (55 percent or greater) and height (6 to 9 inches or longer) to trap 

sediment, mitigate flood energy, stabilize banks, and provide for wildlife and plant needs.

Ground-disturbing projects (including planned ignition) which may degrade long-term riparian conditions, 

should be avoided.

Wet meadows and cienegas should not be used for concentrated activities (e.g., equipment storage, forest 

product or mineral stockpiling, livestock handling facilities, special uses) that cause damage to soil and 

vegetation.

Active grazing allotments should be managed to maintain or improve to desired riparian conditions.

ST for Water Resources: Consistent with existing water rights, water diversions or obstructions shall 

at all times allow sufficient water to pass downstream to preserve minimum levels of waterflow which 

maintain aquatic life and other purposes of national forest establishment.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

ST for Motorized Opportunities: Road maintenance and construction activities shall be designed to 

reduce sediment (e.g., water bars, sediment traps, grade dips) while first providing for user safety.

GLs for Motorized Opportunities: New roads, motorized trails, or designated motorized areas should 

be located to avoid meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with 

high concentrations of significant archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be 
Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 637

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

minimized or mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic species.

As projects occur in riparian or wet meadow areas, unneeded roads or motorized trails should be closed or 

relocated, drainage restored, and native vegetation reestablished to move these areas toward their desired 

condition.

Roads and motorized trails removed from the transportation network should be treated in order to avoid 

future risk to hydrologic function and aquatic habitat.

GLs for Nonmotorized Opportunities: New nonmotorized routes should avoid meadows, wetlands, 

riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high concentrations of significant 

archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or mitigated to reduce 

impacts to aquatic habitat.

GLs for Livestock Grazing: Critical areas (e.g., riparian) should be managed to address the inherent 

or unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts.

New livestock troughs, tanks, and holding facilities should be located out of riparian areas to prevent 

concentration of livestock in these areas. Existing facilities in riparian areas should be modified, relocated, 

or removed where their presence is determined to inhibit movement toward desired riparian or aquatic 

conditions.

To minimize potential resource impacts from livestock, salt or nutritional supplements should not be placed 

within a quarter of a mile of any riparian area or water source. Salt or nutritional supplements should also be 

located to minimize herbivory impacts to aspen clones.

To prevent resource damage, trailing of livestock should not occur along riparian areas.

GL for Minerals and Geology: Streambed and floodplain alteration or removal of material should not 

occur if it prevents attainment of riparian, channel morphology, or streambank desired conditions.

GLs for Energy Corridor MA: Trees and shrubs in riparian areas should only be removed when 

there is an imminent threat to facilities and, in these cases, trees should be left for large coarse woody 

debris recruitment to the stream and riparian system.

When planning and implementing vegetation treatments (e.g., corridor maintenance), vegetation within 

riparian zones that provides rooting strength important for bank stability should be encouraged.

Large trees, snags, and/or 

dense canopies

(mixed broadleaf 

deciduous, cotton-willow, 

and montane willow 

beaver, greater western 

mastiff bat, Allen’s bigeared bat, Arizona gray 

squirrel, common blackhawk, evening grosbeak, 

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species needing these habitat components (e.g., 

Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains chipmunk).
638

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

riparian forested PNVTs) yellow-billed cuckoo, bald 

eagle

During treatments, snags should be retained in the largest diameter classes available as needed to meet 

wildlife or other resource needs.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: GL for Landscape Scale Disturbance Events: An adequate number 

and size of snags and logs, appropriate for the affected PNVT, should be retained individually and in 

clumps to provide benefits for wildlife and coarse woody debris for soil and other resource benefits.

Permanent wet meadowlike areas

(wetland-cienega riparian 

area PNVT including fens 

and bogs) 

Ferris’ copper butterfly, 

nitocris fritillary butterfly, 

nokomis fritillary butterfly, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

GL for All PNVTs: Restoration methods, such as thinning or burning, should leave a mosaic of 

undisturbed areas within the larger treated project area, especially within meadows, openings, and 

swales, to retain or allow recolonization of small mammals and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, 

fritillary butterflies).

GLs for Aquatic Habitat and Species: The needs of rare and unique species associated with wetlands, 

fens, bogs, and springs should be given priority consideration when developing these areas for 

waterfowl habitat and other uses.

GL for Motorized Opportunities: As projects occur, existing meadow crossings should be relocated or 

redesigned, as needed, to maintain or restore hydrologic function using appropriate tools such as 

French drains and elevated culverts.

GL for Nonmotorized Opportunities: Meadow crossings should be designed or redesigned to 

maintain or restore hydrologic function using appropriate tools such as French drains and elevated 

culverts.

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate 

measures to reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

Canyon slopes/cliffs, 

caves, rocky slopes (often 

in vicinity of riparian 

areas, often cool microclimate)

(all PNVTs)

Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

spotted bat, greater western 

mastiff bat, Allen’s bigeared bat, peregrine falcon, 

Eastwood alumroot, 

Arizona alumroot, 

Davidson’s cliff carrot 

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Rare, unique habitats (e.g., talus slopes, cliffs, canyon slopes, caves, fens, bogs, sinkholes) should be 

protected.

The needs of localized species (e.g., New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, Bebbs willow, White 

Mountains paintbrush) should be considered and provided for during project activities to ensure their 

limited or specialized habitats are not lost.

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate 

measures to reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).
Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 639

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Habitat connectivity

(all PNVTs)

Mexican wolf, jaguar, 

mountain lion, bear, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

GL for All PNVTs: Landscape scale restoration projects should be designed to spread out treatments 

spatially and/or temporally to reduce implementation impacts and allow reestablishment of 

vegetation and soil cover.

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic 

species and riparian vegetation.

GL for All Woodland PNVTs: Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover 

should be provided where needed by wildlife.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

GLs for Overall Recreation Opportunities: Developed and dispersed recreation sites and other 

authorized activities should not be located in places that prevent wildlife or livestock access to 

available water.

Constructed features should be maintained to standard or removed when no longer needed.

GLs for Motorized Opportunities: Roads and motorized trails should be designed and located so as to 

not impede terrestrial and aquatic species movement and connectivity.

GL for Nonmotorized Opportunities: New trails and trail relocations should be designed and located 

so as to not impede terrestrial and aquatic species movement and connectivity.

ST for Livestock Grazing: New or reconstructed fencing shall allow for wildlife passage, except where 

specifically intended to exclude wildlife (e.g., elk fencing).

GLs for Wildlife Quite Area MA: Fences surrounding and within WQAs should be inspected and 

improved to allow wildlife movement within and outside of the areas. Fences should be removed if no 

longer needed.

Hiding cover and travelways for wildlife should be maintained to provide for security and connectivity of 

habitat.

Restoration treatments should consider the needs of wildlife (e.g., calving/fawning areas, wallows, game 

crossings) to minimize potential impacts to the species and their habitat.
640

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Collection or loss from 

management

nitocris fritillary butterfly, 

nokomis fritillary butterfly, 

yellow lady’s slipper, 

hooded lady’s tress, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

ST for Aquatic Habitat and Species: When drafting (withdrawing) water from streams or other 

waterbodies, measures will be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic organisms and the 

spread of parasites or disease (e.g., Asian tapeworm, chytrid fungus, whirling disease).

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: When new water diversions are created or existing water 

diversions are reanalyzed, measures should be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic 

organisms.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

GL for Invasive Species: Pesticide use should minimize impacts on non-target plants and animals.

ST for Forest Products: Permits which authorize the collection of forest products shall include permit 

provisions to ensure the needs of wildlife, which depend upon those forest products, will continue to 

be met (e.g., cone and mushroom collection and the overwinter forage needs of squirrels).

GL for Forest Products: Permits issued for forest products should include stipulations to protect 

resources.

ST for Special Uses: Special use authorizations for the collection of live species with limited 

distribution (e.g., some invertebrates, plants) shall include permit provisions to ensure the species 

persist onsite.

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate 

measures to reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

GL for Energy Corridor MA: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated 

to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

GLs for Research Natural Area MA: Management measures should be used (e.g., fencing) to protect 

unique features. 

To minimize impacts to unique and sensitive plant species, recreational activities, other than use on the 

designated trail, should not be encouraged.

Research special use authorizations should limit impacts to sensitive resources, unique features, and species 

within the RNA.

GLs for Recommended Resarch Natural Area MA: To minimize impacts to unique and sensitive 

plant and animal species, recreational activities should not be encouraged. 
Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 641

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

If necessary, recommended RNAs should be fenced to manage unique features.

Research special use authorizations should limit impacts to sensitive resources, unique features, and species 

within recommended RNAs.

Recommended RNAs should be managed for nonmotorized access within the area to minimize ground 

disturbances and protect the resources which make these areas unique.

Nest parasitism southwestern willow 

flycatcher, Grace’s warbler

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

ST for Invasive Species: Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential 

for the introduction of new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or terrestrial 

nonnative populations.

Disease Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

spotted bat, western red 

bat, Arizona toad, 

Chiricahua leopard frog, 

northern leopard frog, 

lowland leopard frog, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: To prevent degradation of native species habitat and the 

incidental or accidental introduction of diseases or nonnative species, aquatic species should not be 

transferred through management activities from one 6th level HUC watershed to another.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

GL for Livestock Grazing: Efforts (e.g., temporary fencing, increased herding, herding dogs) should 

be made to prevent transfer of disease from domestic sheep and goats to bighorn sheep wherever 

bighorn sheep occur. Permit conversions to domestic sheep or goats should not be allowed in areas 

inhabited by bighorn sheep.

GL for Minerals and Geology: To reduce disturbances from human activities and prevent the spread 

of disease, bat gates should be constructed and installed in cave and mine entrances used as shelter 

for bats within 3 years of discovery when there are no conflicts with cultural resources.

Caves and abandoned mines that are used by bats should be managed to prevent disturbance to species and 

spread of disease (e.g., white-nose syndrome).

Entrapment FPS that are small 

mammals, bats, young of 

other species, Apache trout, 

Gila chub, Gila trout, Little 

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic 

species and riparian vegetation.

When new water diversions are created or existing water diversions are reanalyzed, measures should be 

taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic organisms.
642

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Colorado spinedace, 

roundtail chub, loach 

minnow, and spikedace

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

STs for Livestock Grazing: New or reconstructed fencing shall allow for wildlife passage, except 

where specifically intended to exclude wildlife (e.g., elk fencing).

New livestock watering facilities shall be designed to allow wildlife access and escape.

GL for Livestock Grazing: During maintenance of existing watering facilities, escape ramps that are 

ineffective or missing should be replaced.

GLs for Special Uses: Environmental disturbance should be minimized by co-locating pipelines, 

powerlines, fiber optic lines, and communications facilities.

Power pole installation or replacement under special use authorization should include raptor protection 

devices in open habitat such as large meadows and grasslands. Raptor protection devices should be installed 

on existing poles where raptors have been killed.

GLs for Wildlife Quite Area MA: Fences surrounding and within WQAs should be inspected and 

improved to allow wildlife movement within and outside of the areas. Fences should be removed if no 

longer needed.

Substantial predation or 

competition from invasive 

species

pronghorn antelope, Three 

Forks springsnail, Apache 

trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, 

Little Colorado spinedace, 

roundtail chub, loach 

minnow, and spikedace

ST for All PNVTs: Vegetation treatments shall include measures to reduce the potential for the 

introduction of invasive plants and animals and damage from nonnative insects and diseases.

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: To prevent degradation of native species habitat and the 

incidental or accidental introduction of diseases or nonnative species, aquatic species should not be 

transferred through management activities from one 6th level HUC watershed to another.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

ST for Invasive Species: Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential 

for the introduction of new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or terrestrial 

nonnative populations.

GL for Invasive Species: Projects and activities should not transfer water between drainages or 

between unconnected waterbodies within the same drainage to avoid spreading disease and aquatic 

invasive species.

ST for Special Uses: Noxious plants and nonnative invasive species monitoring and control shall be 

included in contracts, permits, and agreements.
Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 643

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

GL for High Use Developed Recreation Area MA: Management should focus on operation and 

maintenance, safety, aesthetics, and control of noxious weeds and nonnative invasive species.

GL for Energy Corridor MA: Invasive plant species should be aggressively controlled within energy 

corridors to prevent or minimize spread.

Intentional harassment, 

forced removal, or 

avoidable disturbance

Mexican wolf, Gunnison’s 

prairie dog, black bear, 

many FPS (at least during 

important life cycle 

periods)

GL for All Forested PNVTs: Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover 

should be provided where needed by wildlife.

GL for All Woodland PNVTs: Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover 

should be provided where needed by wildlife.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be 

incorporated to reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for 

species needs, consistent with project or activity objectives.

Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species needing these habitat components (e.g., 

Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains chipmunk).

Spike camps (i.e., a remote camp usually near a fireline) should be located to avoid disturbance to critical 

species.

GLs for Overall Recreation Opportunities: Developed and dispersed recreation sites and other 

authorized activities should not be located in places that prevent wildlife or livestock access to

available water

Food and other items that attract wildlife should be managed to prevent reliance on humans and to reduce 

human-wildlife conflicts.

GLs for Dispersed Recreation: Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to reduce 

conflicts with wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions.

Dispersed campsites should not be located on or adjacent to archaeological sites or sensitive wildlife areas.

ST for Developed Recreation: Where trash facilities are provided, they shall be bear resistant.

GLs for Special Uses: Large group and recreation event special uses should not be authorized within 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, primitive area, wildlife quiet areas, eligible “wild” river 

corridors, Phelps Cabin Botanical Area, Phelps Cabin Research Natural Area (RNA), or 

recommended RNAs to protect the unique character of these areas.

The use of belowground utilities should be favored to avoid potential conflicts with resources (e.g., scenic 

integrity, wildlife, wildfire, heritage).
644

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

GLs for Minerals and Geology: To reduce disturbances from human activities and prevent the spread 

of disease, bat gates should be constructed and installed in cave and mine entrances used as shelter 

for bats within 3 years of discovery when there are no conflicts with cultural resources.

Caves and abandoned mines that are used by bats should be managed to prevent disturbance to species and 

spread of disease (e.g., white-nose syndrome).

GLs for Wildlife Quiet Area MA: All WQAs should be managed to preclude snowmobile use to 

minimize disturbance during the critical winter period.

WQA boundaries should be signed to identify the areas and educate the public about their purpose.

GLs for Research Natural Area MA: Research special use authorizations should limit impacts to

sensitive resources, unique features, and species within the RNA.

GLs for Recommended Resarch Natural Area MA: Research special use authorizations should limit 

impacts to sensitive resources, unique features, and species within recommended RNAs.

References

U.S. Forest Service. (2012a). Fisheries Specialist and Viability Report Forest Plan Revision DEIS. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012b). Wildlife Specialist Report - Viability. Springerville, AZ.
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 645

Appendix H. Maps

The maps in appendix H address management areas and the recreation opportunity spectrum 

(ROS) for the alternatives. Maps of the potential natural vegetation types found on the forests are 

also included.

Appendix H. Maps

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 647

Figure 85. Map of management areas, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix H. Maps

648 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 86. Map of management areas, alternative A – Apache NF
Appendix H. Maps

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 649

Figure 87. Map of management areas, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix H. Maps

650 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 88. Map of management areas, alternative B – Apache NF
Appendix H. Maps

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 651

Figure 89. Map of management areas, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix H. Maps

652 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 90. Map of management areas, alternative C – Apache NF
Appendix H. Maps

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 653

Figure 91. Map of management areas, alternative D – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix H. Maps

654 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 92. Map of management areas, alternative D – Apache NF
Appendix H. Maps

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 655

Figure 93. Map of ROS, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix H. Maps

656 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 94. Map of ROS, alternative A – Apache NF
Appendix H. Maps

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 657

Figure 95. Map of ROS, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix H. Maps

658 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 96. Map of ROS, alternative B – Apache NF
Appendix H. Maps

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 659

Figure 97. Map of ROS, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix H.Maps

660 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 98. Map of ROS, alternative C – Apache NF
Appendix H. Maps

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 661

Figure 99. Map of ROS, alternative D – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix H. Maps

662 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 100. Map of ROS, alternative D – Apache NF
Appendix H. Maps

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 663

Figure 101. Map of PNVTs – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix H. Maps

664 Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 102. Map of PNVTs 

– Apache NF
Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 665

Index

To be added for publication of the final environmental impact statement.