Page 1 of 13

Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition 

Updated 05/24/2016

Introduction 

The 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR §219) requires that all forest plans follow the monitoring requirements 

of the 2012 Rule, regardless of which rule they were developed under. The 2015 revision of the Prescott 

Forest Plan was developed under the 1982 Rule provisions and as a result, must be brought in-line with 

the 2012 Rule monitoring requirements. To achieve this, an administrative change is needed to Chapter 6. 

Monitoring and Evaluation of the Prescott NF Forest Plan. 

The changes include a shift from Management Indicator Species to focal species, additions to and minor 

modifications of the plan monitoring questions to better address the effects of climate change and the 

social and economic sustainability of communities in the plan area, and the removal of questions that are 

no longer required for monitoring. In addition, the language used to describe the action, effect, or resource 

to be measured was clarified in some cases. The necessary changes are being kept to a minimum as the 

original monitoring section in the revised plan incorporates many of the new planning rule concepts and 

has already gone through a period of public review and comment. 

These proposed revised monitoring questions will be posted to the web and notification will be sent to 

key stakeholders who expressed interest during the Prescott NF Forest Plan revision process. Following a 

period of review and consideration of comments received, the Prescott NF will make an administrative 

change to the plan in accordance with the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR §219.13(c) (2)), whereby changes 

to content that are not plan amendments or revisions may be made following public notice. 

Plan Monitoring Program 

The 2012 Planning Rule provides direction for a set of monitoring questions and associated indicators that 

must be part of every plan monitoring program. The responsible official can consider additional factors 

and add questions and indicators. The unit’s plan monitoring program is to contain, at a minimum, one or 

more monitoring questions and associated indicators addressing each of the following eight categories 

listed below (36 CFR §219.12(a)(5)). 

1. The status of select watershed conditions (219.12(a)(5)(i) 

2. The status of select ecological conditions (including key characteristics of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems) (219.12(a)(5)(ii) 

3. The status of focal species to assess ecological conditions (219.12(a)(5)(iii) 

4. The status of select ecological conditions that contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed & candidate species, and maintain a viable 

population of species of conservation concern (219.12(a)(5)(iv) 

5. The status of visitor use, visitor satisfaction, and progress toward meeting recreation objectives 

(219.12(a)(5)(v) 
Page 2 of 13

6. Measureable changes on the plan area related to climate change and other stressors 

(219.12(a)(5)(vi) 

7. Progress toward meeting desired conditions and objectives (including those for multiple uses) 

(219.12(a)(5)(vii) 

8. The effects of management systems so that they do not substantially and permanently impair the 

productivity of the land (219.12(a)(5)(viii) and 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C) – NFMA) 

Below is a table of the proposed monitoring questions. Many address more than one factor (e.g. 

watershed conditions and desired conditions or ecological conditions and climate change effects). 

Monitoring Questions

Table 1. Monitoring Questions 

Action, Effect, or 

Resource to be 

Measured

Monitoring Question Performance Measure Monitoring

Frequency

Monitoring 

Category

Theme 1 – Legally Required Monitoring

Progress toward 

meeting the desired 

conditions and 

objectives in the plan. 

(Section 219.12(a)(5) 

(vii))

Are we achieving plan 

objectives within the 

estimated ranges?

Proportion of 

objectives 

accomplished

Annually 7. Plan 

Components

The effects of each 

management system 

to determine that they 

do not substantially 

and permanently 

impair the productivity 

of the land. (Section 

219.12(a)(5) (viii))

Are the effects of 

forest management 

resulting in significant 

changes to the 

productivity of the 

land?

Changes in watershed 

condition class (6th

level hydrologic units)

Annually 8. Productivity

Status of focal

species1to assess 

ecological conditions 

due to management 

actions (Section 

219.12(a)(5) (iii)).

What is the habitat 

occupancy of focal 

species in response to 

management actions 

within the plan area?

Focal species habitat 

attributes; focal 

species occurrence 

and distribution

Every 1-5

years, 

depending on 

species

3. Focal 

Species

Lands not suited for 

timber production. 

(Section 219.11(a)(2))

Have areas classified 

as unsuited for timber 

production become 

suitable?

Amount of unsuited 

versus suitable acres

Every 10 

years

Section 219.11

Timber 

requirements 

based on the 

NFMA

 

1

 The transition to the new monitoring requirements at 36 CFR 219.12(a)(5) resulted in some changes to this plan 

monitoring program. The Management Indicator Species (MIS) used to compare and evaluate the plan alternatives 

were replaced and supplemented with four focal species: northern goshawk, western scrub-jay, western meadowlark, 

and aquatic macroinvertebrates..
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 3 of 13

Action, Effect, or 

Resource to be 

Measured

Monitoring Question Performance Measure Monitoring

Frequency

Monitoring 

Category

Theme 2 – Conserving Biological Diversity

Vegetation diversity

(Obj-1, Obj-2, Obj-3, 

Obj-4, Obj-5, Obj-6, 

DC-Veg-1)

What are the current 

condition and trend of 

key characteristics for 

vegetation identified in 

the desired conditions 

for the plan area?

Vegetation size class, 

percent canopy cover, 

and composition; 

carbon stored in 

vegetation; acres of 

treatment by treatment 

type

Every 4 years 2. Terrestrial & 

Aquatic 

Ecosystems

3. Focal 

Species

7. Plan 

Components How effective are 

management actions 

at maintaining or 

making progress 

toward desired 

conditions for the key 

characteristics of 

vegetation within the 

plan area?

Species diversity

(Obj-1, Obj-2, Obj-3, 

Obj-4, Obj-5, Obj-6, 

Obj-25, Obj-26, Obj27, Obj-28, DCEcosystem Resilience1,DC-Wildlife-1 to 2)

To what extent are 

management activities 

providing ecological 

conditions to maintain 

habitat for populations 

of terrestrial native and 

desired nonnative 

species?

Habitat acres treated; 

miles of fence 

modified; number of 

water developments 

improved; species 

surveys (e.g., fish, 

reptiles and 

amphibians, breeding 

birds, bats)

Every 2-4 

years, 

depending on 

species

2. Terrestrial & 

Aquatic 

Ecosystems

7. Plan

Components

Aquatic species

(Obj-24, DC-Aquatic-1, 

DC-Aquatic-3)

Are management 

actions maintaining or 

making progress 

toward desired habitat 

conditions for native 

fish, amphibian, and 

aquatic reptile 

species?

Aquatic habitat quality; 

stream miles improved

Every 2-4 

years, 

depending on 

species

2. Terrestrial & 

Aquatic 

Ecosystems

7. Plan

Components

Species Conservation

(DC-Ecosystem 

Resilience-1)

Have recovery actions 

for federally listed 

species or 

conservation 

strategies for

regionally sensitive 

species2 been 

implemented?

Number of actions

completed

Every 2-4 

years, 

depending on 

species

2. Terrestrial & 

Aquatic 

Ecosystems

4. Species

Viability

7. Plan

Components

What are the habitat 

trends for federally 

listed species on the 

Prescott NF?

Habitat attributes (e.g. 

acres of habitat, ctitical 

habitat improved)

 

2

 Under current direction, the Prescott NF has chosen to consider regionally sensitive species to be species of 

conservation concern 
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 4 of 13

Action, Effect, or 

Resource to be 

Measured

Monitoring Question Performance Measure Monitoring

Frequency

Monitoring 

Category

Theme 3 – Retaining Ecosystem Resilience

Nonnative invasive 

plant species

(Obj-6, DC-Ecosystem 

Resilience-1, DC-Veg1)

What are the status 

and trend of areas 

infested by invasive 

plant species?

Acres of invasive 

species surveyed; 

acres of infestation 

treated

Annually 6. Climate 

Change

Destructive insects 

and disease (DCEcosystem Resilience1 )

To what extent are 

undesirable outbreaks 

of insects and 

pathogens occurring 

within the plan area?

Acres of infestation 

and tree mortality

Annually 6. Climate 

Change

Fire

(Obj-1, Obj-2, Obj-3, 

Obj-4, Obj-5, DCAirshed-1, DCEcosystem Resilience1)

Are management 

actions moving fire 

regimes toward 

desired conditions?

Acres treated by fire 

severity level and 

frequency

Annually 7. Plan 

Components

To what extent is 

wildland fire used to 

maintain desired fuel 

levels and vegetation 

characteristics? 

Acres of fire managed 

for multiple objectives; 

acres of unwanted fire 

suppressed; postfire 

fuel loadings

Annually 7. Plan 

Components

To what extent is 

unwanted wildfire on 

the landscape 

suppressed?

6. Climate 

Change

To what extent is 

prescribed fire used to 

maintain desired fuel 

levels, mirror natural 

processes, and/or 

restore desired 

vegetation 

characteristics?

Acres of prescribed 

fire by fuel type; 

postfire fuel loadings; 

vegetation species 

structure and density

Annually 7. Plan 

Components

Has the risk for active 

crown fire been 

sufficiently reduced in 

fire-adapted 

ecosystems where 

crown fires were not 

frequent occurrences 

historically?

Predicted fire behavior 

by fuel type/loading

Annually 6. Climate 

Change

To what extent are 

extreme weather 

patterns (e.g., 

precipitation and air 

temperature) affecting 

fire season length and 

severity?

Monthly/daily energy 

release component 

(ERC) estimates by 

fuel type

Annually 6. Climate 

Change
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 5 of 13

Action, Effect, or 

Resource to be 

Measured

Monitoring Question Performance Measure Monitoring

Frequency

Monitoring 

Category

Ecosystem resilience

(DC-Ecosystem 

Resilience-1)

What management 

actions, measures, or 

decisions is the Forest 

Service taking to 

enhance ecosystem 

resilience or 

adaptation in response 

to changing 

environmental 

conditions?

Project level design 

features or mitigations

Every 2 years 7. Plan 

Components

What interacting 

stressors3 are 

impacting the plan 

area?

How are these 

stressors trending, and 

how are these trends 

affecting the plan 

area?

Project level 

identification of 

measurable changes 

resulting from climate 

change

Monthly energy 

release component 

(ERC) estimates by 

fuel type

Acres of unwanted 

wildfire

Acres of infestation 

and tree mortality

Acres of invasive 

species surveyed

Visitor use trends

Annually 6. Climate 

Change

Theme 4 – Maintaining Watershed, Soil, and Air Quality

High priority 

watersheds

(Obj-18)

Are management 

actions being 

implemented to 

improve watershed 

conditions?

Number of projects 

implemented

Annually 1. Watershed 

Conditions

7. Plan 

Components

Watershed features 

(Obj-19, Obj-23)

Are management 

actions being 

implemented to 

improve conditions of 

at-risk riparian areas, 

seeps, and springs? 

Number of projects 

implemented

Annually 1. Watershed 

Conditions

2. Terrestrial & 

Aquatic 

Ecosystems

3. Focal 

Species

7. Plan 

Components

 

3

 Interacting stressors may include fire, insects, invasive species, loss of spatial connectivity, disruption of natural 

disturbance regimes, geologic hazards, water withdrawals and diversions, and changes in social, economic, and 

cultural conditions, among others. 
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 6 of 13

Action, Effect, or 

Resource to be 

Measured

Monitoring Question Performance Measure Monitoring

Frequency

Monitoring 

Category

Watershed Conditions

(Obj-20, Obj-21, Obj22, Obj-31)

Are management 

actions being 

implemented to 

reduce negative 

impacts to watershed 

conditions?

Miles of repaired or 

improved roads, 

routes, or trails

Annually 1. Watershed 

Conditions

7. Plan 

Components Number of improved 

drainage crossings, 

stream channels, and 

floodplains.

Airshed conditions

(DC-Airshed-1)

Are management 

activities contributing 

or responding to air 

quality effects on 

human health or 

human enjoyment?

Particulate matter 

(PM2.5) recorded at 

smoke sensitive sites

Annually 7. Plan 

Components

Are air quality related 

values (e.g., visibility) 

of the Sycamore 

Canyon and Pine 

Mountain Wilderness 

areas being 

maintained?

Visibility using 

Interagency Monitoring 

of Protected Visual 

Environments 

(IMPROVE) program

Theme 5 – Sustaining Recreational and Social Benefits

Diverse recreation 

opportunities 

(Obj-8, Obj-10, Obj-13, 

Obj-14, Obj-16, DCEcosystem Resilience1, DC-Rec-1, DC-RecTrails-2)

How many new 

recreation 

opportunities have 

been added to the 

system?

How many recreation 

sites or locations have 

been improved, 

relocated, or 

decommissioned in 

response to known 

resource damage?

Number of facilities or 

dispersed sites

Every 2 years 5. Recreation

7. Plan 

Components

Does the number of 

recreation 

opportunities limit 

overcrowding, reduce 

user conflicts, and 

minimize resource 

damage?

Does the range of 

recreation 

opportunities consider 

population 

demographic 

characteristics and 

desires of the local 

communities?

Visitor use trends, 

recreation impact 

assessments, user 

satisfaction surveys 

(e.g., National Visitor 

Use Monitoring)

Every 4-6 

years

5. Recreation

6. Climate 

Change

7. Plan 

Components
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 7 of 13

Action, Effect, or 

Resource to be 

Measured

Monitoring Question Performance Measure Monitoring

Frequency

Monitoring 

Category

To what extent are 

visitor information 

opportunities/ 

education activities 

being provided to the 

public?

Number and type of 

visitor information and 

education activities

Annually 5. Recreation

7. Plan 

Components

Wild and scenic rivers

(DC-Wild & Scenic-1)

Has there been 

adequate protection of 

outstandingly 

remarkable values 

(ORVs) of wild and 

scenic river segments 

that are eligible or 

designated?

Changes to ORVs Every 4-6 

years

5. Recreation

7. Plan 

Components

Wilderness areas 

(DC-Wilderness-1)

Has there been 

adequate protection of 

wilderness 

characteristics of 

areas that are existing 

wilderness or 

recommended for 

wilderness 

designation?

Changes to wilderness 

character

Every 4-6 

years

5. Recreation

7. Plan 

Components

Land adjustment

(DC-Open Space-1, 

DC-Lands-1, Obj-29, 

Obj-31)

To what extent is the 

Prescott NF land 

adjustment program 

supporting or 

enhancing plan 

desired conditions 

(e.g., open space, 

scenery values, 

historic access)? 

Area of land 

adjustment that meets 

community open 

space needs and 

provides for natural 

resource values

Every 4-6 

years

5. Recreation

7. Plan 

Components

Theme 6 – Maintaining Infrastructure Capacity

Roads, trails, and 

facilities 

(Obj-9, Obj-11, Obj-12, 

Obj-15, Obj-17)

(DC-Rec-Trails-2, DCTransportation & 

Facilities-1)

How many miles of the 

designated roads and 

trails are maintained to 

standard?

Miles of roads and 

trails

Annually 1. Watershed 

Conditions

5. Recreation

7. Plan 

Components

How many developed 

and designated 

recreation sites are 

being maintained?

Percentage of sites 

maintained

Annually 5. Recreation

7. Plan 

Components

What proportion of 

trailheads and 

wilderness boundaries 

are adequately signed 

or marked?

Percentage of total 

trailheads; miles of 

wilderness boundary

Annually 5. Recreation

7. Plan 

Components
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 8 of 13

Focal Species 

When the Prescott National Forest revised its plan in 2015, it identified three Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) that were used in the analysis and comparison of plan alternatives in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). They were chosen to represent those habitats where the species 

occur and would reflect changes in vegetative conditions associated with management actions. In the 

2012 Planning Rule, MIS monitoring has been replaced with monitoring of focal species. Focal species 

are defined as: 

A small subset of species whose status permits inference to the integrity of the larger 

system to which it belongs and provides meaningful information regarding the 

effectiveness of the plan in maintaining or restoring ecological conditions to maintain the 

diversity of plan and animal communities... commonly selected based on their functional 

role in ecosystems (36 CFR §219.19) 

When making the shift to focal species, the final rule considered the challenges the Forest Service faced 

in monitoring MIS under the 1982 rule. MIS monitoring has been the subject of much of the legal debate 

around the species provisions of the 1982 rule. The 2012 Rule does not include requirements to designate 

MIS or monitor their population trends. The concept of MIS as a surrogate for the status of other species 

is not supported by current science, and population trends are difficult and sometimes impossible to 

determine within the lifespan of a plan. 

Focal species are not surrogates for the status of other species. Focal species monitoring provides 

information regarding the effectiveness of the plan in providing the ecological conditions necessary to 

maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of native species in the plan 

area. Forest Service handbook direction for the selection of focal species can be found in FSH 1909.12 

chapter 30 § 32.13c. The criteria for selection may include: the number and extent of relevant ecosystems 

in the plan area; the primary threats or stressors to those ecosystems, especially those related to 

predominant management activities on the plan area; the sensitivity of the species to changing conditions 

or their utility in confirming the existence of desired ecological conditions; the broad monitoring 

questions to be answered; factors that may limit viability of species; and others. 

The 2012 Rule allows the use of any existing or emerging approaches for monitoring the status of focal 

species that are supported by current science, giving managers greater flexibility for monitoring focal 

species than was afforded MIS under the 1982 rule requirements. Further, it facilitates better and more 

meaningful data that will allow for improved efficiencies and more responsive management within plan 

time frames. Monitoring methods for evaluating the status of focal species may include measures of 

abundance, distribution, reproduction, presence/ absence, area occupied, survival rates, or others. 

The objective is not to choose monitoring techniques that will provide the most information about the 

focal species, but to choose monitoring techniques that will provide useful information with regard to the 

purpose for which the species is being monitored. The expectation is that monitoring key ecosystem and 

watershed conditions along with monitoring the status of a set of well-chosen focal species will provide 

timely information regarding the effectiveness of plan components related to plant and animal diversity. 
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 9 of 13

Focal species are selected because they are believed to be responsive to ecological conditions in a way 

that can inform future plan decisions. Forest Service handbook direction (§ 31.13c) for focal species 

further specifies that every plan monitoring program must identify one or more focal species and one or 

more monitoring questions and associated indicators addressing the status of the focal species. The 

purpose for monitoring the status of focal species over time is to provide insight into the following: 

1. Integrity of ecological systems on which focal species depend, 

2. Effects of management on those ecological conditions, 

3. Effectiveness of the plan components to provide for ecological integrity and maintain or restore 

ecological conditions, and 

4. Progress towards achieving desired conditions and objectives for the plan area. It is not expected 

that a focal species be selected for every element of ecological conditions. 

Focal species are expected to provide more useful information or to be more efficiently monitored than 

other potential indicators. There may be situations where key ecological indicators could be monitored 

directly, but monitoring focal species as an overall measure of composition, structure, function, and 

connectivity may be a more appropriate indicator of integrity. 

The requirement for the responsible official to monitor focal species allows discretion to determine the 

most appropriate method and geographic scale for monitoring, within the financial and technical 

capabilities of the unit. Some focal species may be monitored at scales beyond the plan area boundary, 

while others may be more appropriately monitored and assessed within the plan area. Monitoring focal 

species is intended to address situations where they provide more value than monitoring other potential 

indicators. 

Key Considerations for selecting focal species: 

 Can the species be effectively monitored? 

 Is it difficult (e.g., cryptic or rare species) to detect? 

 Is it within financial capability of the Forest to monitor the species? 

 Do standardized monitoring approaches exist? 

 Does the species provide feedback that is necessary to inform management? 

 Are focal species abundant enough to measure change in status? 

 Are species responses to management activities and other stressors well known? 

 Are there ‘off-site’ stressors that would mask the response to activities / conditions on NFS lands? 

 Is there potential to monitor the focal species across multiple units? 

 Are there opportunities for multi-party monitoring? 

In review of the considerations for selecting focal species, it was determined that two of the three MIS 

chosen under the 1982 Rule provisions would serve as good focal species (northern goshawk and aquatic 

macroinvertebrates) and one would not (American pronghorn). 
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 10 of 13

Focal Species Overview 

The following section describes the Prescott NF’s focal species and how they will inform management in 

terms of maintaining ecological integrity and ecosystem diversity. Four species were identified as focal 

species for the Prescott NF: northern goshawk, western meadowlark, western scrub-jay, and aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

The northern goshawk was selected as a focal species for the ponderosa pine PNVTs. They are known to 

occur on all three of the Ranger Districts of the Prescott NF, including areas near Mingus Mountain, 

Camp Wood, Prescott Basin, and Crown King. Selection was based on its association with ponderosa 

pine and tree features for every aspect of its life history from nesting, to roosting, to foraging. Northern 

goshawk nesting habitat consists of mature and old growth forest stands with relatively high canopy 

closure. Foraging habitat for the northern goshawk would primarily consist of early, more open seral 

stages that provide habitat for key prey species including small mammals and passerine birds. 

Western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica) 

Western scrub-jay was selected as a focal species for the interior chaparral PNVT. It is commonly found 

in brushy habitat across foothills, piñon-juniper woodlands, and oak chaparral. It prefers to build its cup 

nests low to the ground in small trees or shrubs, and some evidence suggests that it prefers early 

successional growth habitat that provides cover. The western scrub-jay does not migrate; therefore, this 

species is expected to be found year-round. 

Originally, an indicator species was not chosen for the interior chaparral PNVT. After considering the 

number of acres of chaparral treated, it was decided that a focal species for this PNVT would be 

appropriate. Because the scrub-jay is expected to be found in the vegetation type year-round, its presence 

or absence could be considered an indication of the quality of the habitat. 

Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) 

Western meadowlark was selected as a focal species for the grassland PNVTs. It is a grassland obligate 

species that occurs year-round, generally preferring open, treeless areas with intermediate grass height 

and moderate levels of litter. The meadowlark is sensitive to the encroachment of woody vegetation, and 

population density has been shown to be positively influenced by vertical grass cover and vegetation 

density. Meadowlark presence has been noted in moderately grazed pastures, however, abundance has 

shown a negative response to heavy grazing. 

American pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) was originally chosen as a Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) for the grassland PNVTs. Pronghorn was dropped from consideration as a focal species for two 

reasons: 1) as a managed game species, pronghorn population numbers may not accurately reflect the 

species’ response to Forest Service habitat management actions, and 2) changes and impacts to the 

majority of the pronghorn habitat that occurs off of NFS lands may influence population levels more 

strongly than habitat improvements on the Prescott NF limited habitat. 
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 11 of 13

 Aquatic macroinvertebrates 

For the forest plan revision process under the 1982 Rule provisions, macroinvertebrates were the MIS 

associated with aquatic habitat and late seral riparian habitat. They were selected as an MIS as an 

indicator of water quality based on their responsiveness to changes in water quality and physical features 

of stream channels essential for quality aquatic and riparian habitat. 

It was determined that as a class, aquatic macroinvertebrates were also suitable as a focal species for 

water quality and aquatic habitat. Aquatic macro-invertebrates include mayflies, stoneflies, caddis flies, 

black flies, beetles, midges, freshwater earthworms, snails, and many others. Each species has specific 

habitat needs and so they respond differently to changes in either the chemical, physical, or biological 

components of their habitat. Monitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities will provide 

information on management actions occurring alongside the aquatic/riparian zone as well as actions 

within the watershed that affect water quality and aquatic habitat. 

Strategy for Monitoring Focal Species 

Northern goshawks have been monitored for the past two to three decades on NFS lands with solid 

distribution and occupancy information to use as the basis for future project area assessments. The survey 

protocol is established and securely in place. 

Songbirds are relatively easy to survey because data can be collected on many species at one time without 

additional effort. The existing breeding bird survey data maps show less than 1.5 percent change in the 

population trends for both western scrub-jay and western meadowlark in Arizona from 1966-2013 

(http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/tr2013/tr05011.htm). This suggests at least a stable trend for both 

small bird species across the state. This data would serve as a solid baseline for future analyses. 

Monitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrates will employ methods and data sources from the USDA Forest 

Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, Arizona Department of Environment Quality 

(http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/riverandstream.html), and best available science to 

assess the status of the focal species. 

Climate Change 

The plan monitoring program must contain one or more monitoring questions associated with indicators 

to determine whether there are measurable changes on the plan area related to climate change and other 

stressors that may be affecting the plan area. Taken together, the planning framework and these 

requirements will ensure that information related to climate change will be addressed in a consistent and 

strategic fashion. This monitoring requirement may relate to other monitoring requirements or to 

interacting stressors that individually or collectively may be affecting the plan area. Interacting stressors 

may fire, insects, invasive species, loss of spatial connectivity, disruption of natural disturbance regimes, 

geologic hazards, water withdrawals and diversions, and changes in social, economic, and cultural 

conditions, among others. 
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 12 of 13

The plan monitoring program incorporates provisions that should improve understanding of the 

relationships between key plan components and climate change. Information about aquatic habitat factors 

that may be associated with climate change, such as water temperature and flow rates, can be useful for 

tracking variability within ecosystem condition and trends observed over a prescribed evaluation period. 

Monitoring the frequency and spatial extent of unplanned wildfire occurrences and insect outbreaks 

would help to assess how well management is mitigating for hotter, drier, and more fire-prone conditions, 

and whether existing management is promoting resilient ecosystems. Changes in the climate could lead to 

increased recreation use resulting from more people seeking heat relief at higher elevations during a 

longer, hotter, and drier summer, or higher winter season visitation as warmer winters and reduced 

snowpack allow for greater accessibility to the high country and milder temperatures in the lower 

elevations. 

Social and Economic Sustainability 

Social, economic, and cultural sustainability must also be addressed in the monitoring program because 

sustainability is an inherent part of several of the required monitoring items in the 2012 Planning Rule. To 

carry out this intent, the plan monitoring program must contain one or more questions and associated 

indicators addressing the plan contributions to communities, social and economic sustainability, multiple 

use management in the plan area, or progress toward meeting the desired conditions and objectives related 

to social and economic sustainability (FSH 1909.12, chapter 30, section 13.13f). 

There are multiple plan monitoring questions that address a range of ecosystem services upon which 

communities depend. These include questions related to productivity and vegetation diversity that affect 

the economy of local communities, sustainable recreation opportunities associated with social 

sustainability, and issues such air quality and hazardous fuel reduction that contribute to quality of life in 

local communities. All of these factors are described in the Forest Plan desired conditions, and progress 

towards meeting these plan components is tracked through a number or monitoring questions. 

1982 Planning Rule Elements

Provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule were followed in developing the original monitoring program for 

the revised Forest Plan, however, the 2012 Planning Rule includes a requirement that monitoring 

strategies developed under the provisions of a prior planning regulation are to be modified to meet the 

2012 Planning Rule’s new monitoring requirements. 

Theme 1 included two elements that were subsequently dropped because they were not included in the 

required monitoring categories listed under 36 CFR §219.12(a)(5). They are 

 Comparison of actual and estimated costs of activities estimated in plan objectives 

 Maximum size of openings from even-aged management 

The first element was dropped to avoid the unnecessary burden of developing estimated costs for the plan

objectives. The second element was dropped because the original 1982 Planning Rule direction found in 

Section 219.12(k)5(iii) has been superseded by 2012 Planning Rule direction found in Section 
Prescott NF Forest Plan Monitoring Transition

Page 13 of 13

219.11(d)4. The Section 219.11(d) Limitations on timber harvest. direction is contained in the Forest 

Products standards Std-FP-1 through Std-FP-4. 

Broader-scale Monitoring Coordination 

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the Prescott NF monitoring program is to be coordinated and integrated 

with the Broader-scale Monitoring Strategy (BSMS) developed by the Region/Regional Forester (36 CFR 

§219.12(a)(3)). The regional broader-scale strategy being developed for the Rocky Mountain and 

Southwestern Regions of the USDA Forest Service will include the appropriate BSMS monitoring 

questions, indicators, and associated parameters (scale, databases, and potential governance approaches). 

The framework will be an initial outline of the BSMS for the two regions but will be adjusted over time 

as new priorities and information emerge. The Prescott NF has participated in and will continue to be 

engaged in dialogue that will shape the framework currently under development. As such, the unit 

monitoring will be coordinated and integrated with the broader-scale monitoring strategy when it comes 

on-line. 

Next Steps 

As noted in the introduction, the proposed changes will be posted to the web, and notification will be sent 

to key stakeholders who expressed interest during the Prescott NF Forest Plan revision process. Following 

a period of review and consideration of comments received, the Prescott NF will make an administrative 

change to the plan in accordance with the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR §219.13(c) (2)), whereby changes 

to content that are not plan amendments or revisions may be made following public notice. 

The administrative change will bring the Prescott NF Forest Plan in line with the 2012 Rule monitoring 

requirements. The Forest Plan provides the overall monitoring strategy, and the results of the monitoring 

process with be published in the biannual Prescott NF Monitoring Report. This strategy provides a regular 

process for reviewing recent findings and evaluating the need for modifications in the plan, monitoring 

plan and practices.