United States Department of Agriculture

 Forest Southwestern MB-R3-09-03 June 2015

 Service Region

Record of Decision for the 

Prescott National Forest Land 

and Resource Management 

Plan

Yavapai and Coconino 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 – June 2015
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan i

Record of Decision for the 

Prescott National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan

Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Cal Joyner, Regional Forester

333 Broadway Blvd., SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

(505) 842-3292

For Information Contact: Teresa A. Chase

Forest Supervisor

Prescott Forest Supervisor’s Office

2971 Willow Creek Rd, Bldg. 4

Prescott, AZ 86301

(928) 443-8000

Prescott National Forest Webpage - Contact Us: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/contactus/prescott/about-forest/contactus
ii ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Contents

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

Forest Setting .......................................................................................................................1

Land and Resource Management Planning..........................................................................2

Collaboration and Public Involvement ................................................................................3

Tribal Consultation ..............................................................................................................4

Needs for Change.................................................................................................................4

Alternatives..........................................................................................................................5

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study............................................8

My Decision.......................................................................................................................10

Environmentally Preferred Alternative ..............................................................................17

Net Public Benefits............................................................................................................17

Science Consistency...........................................................................................................18

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian Tribes.............................18

Environmental Justice........................................................................................................19

Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service ...............................................................19

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities...............................................................21

Maintaining the Land Management Plan and Adapting to New Information....................25

Effective Date ....................................................................................................................26

Appeal Information............................................................................................................27

Approval ............................................................................................................................29
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 1

Introduction 

This public record of decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for approving the new 

land and resource management plan (plan) for the Prescott National Forest (Prescott NF or 

forest). This revised plan provides forest-specific guidance and information for project and 

activity decisionmaking and will guide all resource management activities on the forest for the 

next 10 to 15 years. It replaces the previous plan, which was approved in 1987 and has been 

amended 17 times. 

Forest Setting

The Prescott NF occupies 1.2 million acres in a mountainous section of central Arizona located 

mostly within Yavapai County, with a small portion in Coconino County. The forest includes two 

geographically separate areas and three ranger districts. Ranger district offices are located in 

Camp Verde, Chino Valley, and Prescott. The Prescott NF shares boundaries with the Coconino, 

Kaibab, and Tonto National Forests; the Agua Fria National Monument and other Bureau of Land 

Management lands; Arizona State Trust lands; the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Reservation; and 

several rural communities. 

The supervisor’s office is located in the city of Prescott, the former Arizona Territorial Capital 

and home to the world’s oldest rodeo. Traditional western lifestyles still influence the values and 

cultures found within Yavapai County. Local residents rely on public lands for resources to help 

sustain western traditions and lifestyles but also look to the Prescott NF to provide opportunities 

for helping to sustain retail businesses and tourism associated with modern-day vibrant cities and 

towns. In 2010, the mostly rural Yavapai County included more than 211,000 residents making it 

the third largest metropolitan statistical area in Arizona after Phoenix (4.2 million) and Tucson (1 

million). 

American Indian tribes and people in nearby communities have long-standing connections to the 

forest. The Prescott NF has lands traditionally used by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi, 

Hualapai and Tonto-Apache Tribes, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe.

The Prescott NF contains a diversity of vegetation types due to its range of elevation and soil 

types. Semi-desert grasslands cover 24 percent of the forest and are found at lower elevations. As 

elevation increases, grasslands transition to chaparral (24 percent) and piñon-juniper woodlands 

(40 percent) and then ponderosa pine forests (10 percent) at the higher elevations. Desert shrub 

communities, riparian gallery forests, and wetland vegetation are present in small, yet important,

areas. This range of vegetation provides for a variety of wildlife habitat and recreation settings. 

The purpose of the original forest reserves, now part of the Prescott NF, was to protect and 

conserve water supplies for communities of central Arizona. The rugged topography of the 

Prescott NF provides essential watersheds for both the Verde and Colorado River systems. Within 

these watersheds are many important continuously or seasonally flowing streams which provide 

habitat for riparian and aquatic species and water supply to local communities, including the 

Phoenix metropolitan area downstream. 

A variety of year-round recreation opportunities exist on the Prescott NF. Visitors and local 

citizens alike enjoy having such opportunities nearby, and during the summer, recreate in the 

Prescott NF where temperatures are moderate. In the winter, people visit the Verde Valley and 

other snow-free areas to recreate where temperatures are mild. Recent increases in population 

have led to increased demand for trails and other recreation opportunities. 
2 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Land and Resource Management Planning

Nature of Forest Plan Decisions

The nature of forest plan decisions is outlined in the 1976 National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA). NFMA requires all forests in the National Forest System to develop plans that direct 

resource management activities on the Forests. These plans are to be revised when conditions 

have changed significantly, or on a 10- to 15-year cycle. 

The revised plan establishes a framework for future decisionmaking by outlining a broad, 

interdisciplinary program for achieving the desired goals, objectives, and future conditions of the 

forest. It represents decisions that are strategic in nature, does not make a commitment to the 

selection of any specific project, and does not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed 

to conduct the Forest Service’s internal operations (e.g., personnel matters, law enforcement, fleet 

management, organizational changes). By applying programmatic management direction, the plan 

is carried out through the design, implementation, and monitoring of site specific activities such 

as relocating a trail, conducting a prescribed burn, or harvesting timber. Subsequent decisions for 

these activities will be designed to be consistent with the strategic decisions made in the revised 

plan and are subject to separate analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The revised plan is accompanied by a final environmental impact statement (FEIS), which 

provides analysis that discloses the environmental consequences of the alternative management 

strategies considered and discusses how these alternatives respond to issues and concerns raised 

during internal and collaborative processes.

The Revised Forest Plan

Forest plan revision on the Prescott NF was initiated based on legal requirements and significant 

changes that have occurred in conditions, demands, and scientific understanding since the 1987

plan went into effect. Need for revision is based on the following:

 The plan is beyond the 10- to 15-year duration provided by the National Forest 

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1606(e)(5)(A)).

 Assessment of the sustainability of social, economic, and ecological forest resources in 

light of continued management under the 1987 plan indicated several needs for change, 

which are documented in the “Analysis of the Management Situation” (AMS), as 

required by the 1982 Planning Rule. The “Needs for Change” section later in this ROD 

provides further detail.

 New science and information has become available since the current plan was developed 

more than 25 years ago.

With this decision, the selected alternative will become the new “Prescott National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan.” This revised plan replaces the 1987 plan. This new plan is part 

of the long-range resource planning framework established by the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA), and the 2012 Revision of the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan. The 

FEIS and revised plan were developed according to the NFMA, its implementing regulations at 

36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and the 

Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 3

According to transition language of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), the 

responsible official may elect to complete and approve the plan revision in conformance with the 

provisions of a prior planning regulation (36 CFR part 219, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2010). For this revision of the Prescott National Forest’s Land and Resource 

Management Plan, I have elected to follow these provisions, referred to collectively in this 

document as the 1982 rule.

This decision applies only to National Forest System lands of the Prescott NF located in the 

aforementioned counties. It does not apply to any other Federal, State, or private lands, although 

the effects of activities occurring on these lands and the effects of my decision on lands that 

surround the national forest are also considered.

Collaboration and Public Involvement

A variety of opportunities for meaningful dialogue and collaboration were provided throughout 

the plan revision process, including the initial ecological and socioeconomic sustainability 

assessments, development and finalization of the plan, and the consideration of effects in the 

FEIS. The Prescott NF hosted multiple public meetings in nearby communities; attended 

meetings with local, state, federal, and tribal governments; and provided topic-based meetings on 

outdoor recreation opportunities and challenges, wilderness, ecological sustainability, wildlife,

and watershed management. 

In addition to traditional public involvement activities, the forest utilized human geographic 

mapping (areas defined by human interactions with nature), and identified informal community 

networks and community leaders. Three local area interest groups organized themselves to assist 

the forest with plan revision efforts (Stewardship Forum, Verde Front, and Community Forest 

Trust). These groups along with the Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership hosted crosscommunity gatherings where the forest could listen in as citizens shared their values and desires 

for the forest and could explore ways to support and sustain stewardship of the Prescott NF. As an 

outcome of these listening sessions, 11 community landscape vision statements were developed 

which informed the creation of new management area boundaries, desired conditions and 

guidelines for the revised plan. These community groups also hosted several well-attended 

workshops where citizens provided specific content suggestions as plan components were 

iteratively developed. 

Participants in the meetings and workshops included individuals and representatives from local 

user groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona State Game and Fish Department, 

Arizona Wilderness Coalition, Arizona and Yavapai Cattle Growers Associations, Friends of 

Arizona Rivers, Mingus Area Preservation Society, Public Lands Council, Sierra Club-Yavapai 

Group, and the Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership.

Key partnerships with local area interest groups (Stewardship Forum, Verde Front, and 

Community Forest Trust, Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership) provided valuable analysis 

and support throughout the plan revision process. They remain active today, assisting the forest 

with ongoing stewardship activities. 

The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 

2010. At that time, the draft plan was posted to the Prescott NF planning Web site 1and made 

available for review. Comments were used to iteratively make adjustments to the draft plan, 

 

1 www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement
4 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

identify issues, and develop alternatives. All five versions of the draft plan were posted on the 

Prescott NF planning Web site and made available to the general public for comment.

Following the release of the draft EIS and proposed plan on August 25, 2012, the planning team 

hosted public meetings in the communities of Camp Verde, Chino Valley and Prescott to inform 

local residents and solicit comments. Presentations were also made at the request of the Yavapai 

County Board of Supervisors and the Yavapai Cattle Growers Association. Meetings were also 

held with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

Arizona Wilderness Coalition to discuss comments.

Tribal Consultation

The Prescott NF has coordinated with area tribes, in particular the tribal governments that have a 

special connection with the area encompassed by the forest. Meetings were held with tribal 

elders, government representatives, and community members from the Fort McDowell Yavapai 

Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, 

and Yavapai-Prescott Tribe. Discussions addressed a wide range of resources including springs, 

ceremonial sites, piñon and traditionally used plants, and opportunities for developing wildland 

firefighting skills. Tribal concerns were primarily focused on the private development along the 

forest edge and concern for having continued access to ceremonial sites and forest products for 

traditional/cultural use; resource damage from extractive undertakings such as mining; and 

providing increased campground capacity for area visitors during area events and festivals. 

Needs for Change

In light of the changing circumstances on the forest and availability of new information, five 

priority needs for change to the 1987 plan emerged from the “Analysis of the Management 

Situation.” These needs for change reflect aspects of management that would benefit most from 

updated forest plan direction. They are: 

1. Restoring vegetation structure, composition and desired fire characteristics of 

selected ecosystems. In forest and woodland vegetation types, tree cover and fuels are far 

denser and more continuous across the landscape than in reference conditions. When 

wildfires occur under current conditions, they are increasingly likely to result in severe 

fire effects such as sterilizing soils, increasing the spread of invasive plants, and killing 

large, old trees, which take many years to replace. There has also been significant tree 

and shrub encroachment into grassland ecosystems over the past 100 years. This change 

has reduced the quantity and quality of available habitat for grassland-associated species. 

Many rural communities are adjacent to the Prescott NF creating more than 43,000 acres 

of wildland-urban interface and concern for human health and safety from the impacts of 

wildfire and smoke emissions. The multiple ecological, social, and economic benefits of 

restoring historic ecosystem structure and composition and reducing the risk of 

uncharacteristic fires are primary areas of focus.

2. Retaining or improving watershed integrity and hydrological function. The Prescott 

NF includes essential watersheds for the Verde and Colorado River systems. Surface 

waters and groundwater dependent ecosystems provide habitat for riparian and aquatic 

species as well as municipal water supplies for several communities of central Arizona.

The 1987 Forest Plan offers little guidance for managing these important resources. 

Aquatic and riparian areas are centers of high biological diversity, have historical cultural 

significance, and are popular recreation destinations. 
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 5

3. Providing for varied but sustainable recreation opportunities. This was the most 

common concern raised by the public and Prescott NF partners during plan revision. This 

is due in part to the mild climate of the area that encourages year-round recreation 

activity and the increased levels of Forest visitation in recent years. The 1987 Forest Plan 

offers little guidance for managing these important resources in light of changing 

population demographics, community-based values, conflicts between various types of 

recreation activities, and contributions from adjoining lands and outdoor recreation 

partners.

4. Providing desired habitat for native fish species. Native fish and other aquatic species 

are in decline in several Prescott NF watersheds. Furthermore, native aquatic species are 

no longer known to be present in five watersheds where historically they were present. In 

responding to the decline in native fish species, the Prescott NF can manage habitat and 

watershed characteristics that will support these species and address the control of 

nonnative species in partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. 

5. Enhancing the value of open space provided by the Prescott NF. Retention of open 

space (i.e., undeveloped land near or within sight of local communities) is highly valued 

by citizens for its scenic value and contribution to low population density. The Prescott 

NF has a unique opportunity to enhance value and identify desired visual character on its 

lands as population density may increase on other ownership through acquisition or 

exchange of lands within areas near or viewed by those in local communities.

In addition to these needs for change, there is a need to provide for sustainable uses that support 

vibrant communities and honor the forest’s human history, while meeting current management 

demands. There is also a need for clearer direction related to livestock grazing and special uses on 

the forest. Finally, there is a need to establish a monitoring framework that enables adaptive 

management. Monitoring in the 1987 plan was focused on outputs rather than progress toward 

attainment of desired conditions. Monitoring in the revised plan uses the best available 

information and focuses on outcomes and progress toward desired conditions through an iterative 

process that specifies data acquisition, assessment, and adaptive response.

Alternatives

This section describes the alternatives considered in this ROD in order to provide important 

context for the decision being made. The Prescott NF analyzed five alternatives in detail: no 

action, the proposed revised plan, two alternatives developed in response to issues raised by the 

public, and the final revised plan, which was developed in response to public concerns raised 

during the 90-day comment period on the draft proposals.

Alternative A 

Alternative A is the no action alternative, and recommends the continuance of the 1987 plan (as 

amended) for the next 10 to 15 years. The 1987 plan:

 Provides for timber and forage production, lands, special uses and minerals management, 

wildlife and fish habitat, recreation and visual resources, wildland fire management, and 

improvement of soil resources.

 Is focused on outputs rather than outcomes that should be attained.
6 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

 Addresses uses and resources separately, without recognition of interrelationships 

between the two and lacks management direction to emphasize ecosystem resilience and 

adaptation to climate change.

 Does not address the priority needs for change

 Provides no or limited desired conditions for many important resources and uses, 

including watershed integrity and hydrological function, aquatic and terrestrial 

ecosystems structure and function, open space, scenery, and special areas.

 Contains standards and/or guidelines that are often unnecessarily prescriptive about how 

to implement a project, instead of focusing on the project’s outcome; do not support 

attaining desired conditions or accomplishing outcomes; are sometimes duplicative and 

conflict with or reiterate direction found in other law, regulation, and policy; are based on 

outdated policy, science, and information; require the use of metrics that are difficult to 

use; and provides minimal guidance for the protection of air and water resources.

Alternative B: Proposed Revised Plan

In light of the needs for change and major themes outlined above and the iterative collaboration 

process, the Prescott NF developed alternative B, the proposed revised plan. This alternative:

 Restores vegetation structure, composition and desired fire characteristics of selected 

ecosystems by providing: 

○ Desired conditions for how terrestrial ecosystems should look and function including: 

species composition, frequency and severity of fire disturbance events; structural 

characteristics such as vegetation density, arrangement, age distribution; and key 

habitat features that provide for the viability of associated terrestrial wildlife species. 

○ Objectives to use fire, mechanical treatments, domestic goats, and weed treatments to 

facilitate ecosystem restoration.

○ Standards and guidelines that limit forest uses or activities affecting vegetation and 

wildlife habitat to: 1) ensure that minimum management requirements are met, and 

maintain or establish a trajectory toward the desired vegetation composition and 

structure; 2) retain important habitat features such as old growth trees, snags, logs, 

woody debris, margins of seeps and springs, canyon cliffs and ledges, and animal 

movement corridors; 3) prioritize fuel reduction treatments near values at risk; and 4) 

minimize the spread of non-native invasive plants.

 Retains or improves watershed integrity, hydrological function and desired habitat for 

native fish species by providing:

○ Desired conditions of the hydrological and soil functions to be retained including: 

water quality, quantity and natural flow regimes; stream channel and flood plain 

features; upland soil and vegetation characteristics that support precipitation 

infiltration and groundwater recharge; and riparian features that support survival, 

growth, reproduction, and migration of native fish and other aquatic species.

○ Objectives that emphasize implementing projects within high-priority watersheds to 

manage towards Class 1 Conditions; and countering critical threats to riparian 

systems and proper functioning condition.

○ Standards and guidelines that limit forest uses or activities affecting watersheds, soils 

and riparian and aquatic habitat to: 1) maintain or establish a trajectory toward the 
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 7

desired upland, riparian and aquatic ecosystem functions; 2) and retain important 

habitat features such as vegetative ground cover, logs and woody debris, pools, riffles 

and stream bank shade. 

 Provides for varied but sustainable recreation opportunities by providing: 

○ Desired conditions describing the number, locations and types of year-round 

recreation opportunities provided on Forest considering current and future funding, 

demographics, and contributions from adjoining lands and outdoor recreation 

partners.

○ Objectives that emphasize improving, maintaining or creating dispersed and 

developed recreation sites with an emphasis on providing a mix of developed and 

dispersed recreation and wilderness solitude opportunities; relocating or 

rehabilitating recreation areas or features (including trails) that show evidence of 

resource damage; and developing strategies to reduce trail use conflicts (e.g. nonmotorized trail use by bikers, hikers and equestrians). 

○ Standards and guidelines that limit forest uses or activities affecting recreational 

opportunities and settings across the Forest.

 Enhances the value of open space provided by the Prescott NF by providing: 

○ Desired conditions that consider the role and contributions of Prescott NF resources 

to the social, economic, and cultural structure and stability of rural communities; 

describe scenery and open space values inherent to the landscapes of the Prescott NF, 

and those community and place-based values expressed in the 11 community 

landscape vision statements. 

○ Objectives that emphasize acquiring lands within and around the Prescott NF to 

retain open space values, protect scenery, and provide a richer sense of place.

○ Standards and guidelines that limit forest uses or activities affecting land uses, open 

space and scenery across the Forest.

○ Seven management areas that consider geographically-oriented social and economic 

concerns and community landscape vision statements in the site-specific management 

of social and ecological resources. 

 Establishes a monitoring framework that enables adaptive management by providing an 

overall monitoring strategy and identifying the monitoring questions and data acquisition 

methods. The monitoring framework was developed with the 2012 planning rule in mind 

to facilitate the transition to the 2012 rule monitoring requirements. 

 Identifies 8 potential wilderness areas (43,440 acres) for wilderness recommendation. 

Alternative C: Vegetation and Wildlife Emphasis

Alternative C was developed in response to issues related to placing more emphasis on and 

concern for terrestrial and aquatic species viability. Alternative C is similar to alternative B with 

these exceptions:

 Several objectives were modified to place greater focus on the improvement of ecological 

conditions and wildlife habitats in those vegetation types that are most severely departed 

from desired conditions. Specifically, restoration treatment activities are increased within 

the ponderosa pine and grassland potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) during the 
8 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

life of the plan. Additional projects to improve habitat for native fish and pronghorn 

antelope are identified. 

 Less emphasis is given to trails-related recreation objectives.

 Identifies no potential wilderness areas (0 acres) for wilderness recommendation. 

Alternative D: Dispersed Recreation Emphasis

Alternative D was developed in response to issues related to providing a greater quantity and 

diversity of recreation. Alternative D is similar to alternative B with these exceptions:

 Several objectives were modified to increase opportunities for sustainable and diverse 

recreation through additional trail mileage, more designated dispersed camping, and more 

trailhead improvement. 

 Less emphasis is given to the improvement of ecological conditions and wildlife habitats 

within piñon-juniper and chaparral PNVTs.

 Identifies 16 potential wilderness areas (116,260 acres) for wilderness recommendation.

Alternative E: Final Revised Plan

Alternative E was developed after the release of the DEIS in response to several issues and 

concerns heard during the public comment period. Alternative E is similar to alternative B, but 

with less emphasis on developed recreation opportunities and wilderness, and additional guidance 

for watersheds and forest access. The components of alternative E (final revised plan), differ from 

alternative B (proposed revised plan) in the following ways:

 Modified a recreation objective to reduce the number of new developed sites to be 

constructed and maintained.

 Modified a recreation objective to refocus efforts towards implementing strategies that 

address safe shooting practices across the forest, rather than developing a new target 

shooting area.

 Added an objective to obtain instream base flows to enable the Prescott NF to provide for

watershed functionality, channel and floodplain maintenance and recharge of riparian 

aquifers.

 Added an objective to pursue legal access to areas of the forest where historic access has 

been lost.

 Identifies 8 potential wilderness areas (23,137 acres) for wilderness recommendation.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

In addition to the five alternatives described above, several alternatives were considered but not 

given detailed study. These alternatives considered public comments received in response to the 

proposed action and provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the plan revision process or 

already addressed by the alternatives considered in detail. The following alternatives were 

considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. Further 

detail on these alternatives can be found in the FEIS chapter 2.
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 9

Resource Planning Act Alternative

The provisions of the 1982 planning rule regulations at 219.12(f)(6) require forest plans to 

respond to and incorporate the Renewable Resource Planning Act Program objectives for each 

national forest as displayed in regional guides. There is no longer a regional guide for the 

Southwestern Region. This was withdrawn as required by the 2000 planning rule at 

219.35(e)(2000 rule). The last Renewable Resource Planning Act Program was developed in 

1995. In lieu of the Renewable Resource Planning Act Program, the Forest Service Strategic Plan 

2007–2012 provides broad overarching national guidance for forest planning and national 

objectives for the agency as required by the Government Performance Results Act. All 

alternatives in this FEIS address these broad strategic objectives. 

Alternative that Responds to a Changing Climate

During the comment period, an alternative that responds to changes in global and regional climate 

due to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases was suggested. The EIS 

addresses climate change effects to local and regional resources for all of the alternatives. The 

four action alternatives also contain plan direction that facilitates building ecosystem resilience

through desired conditions, objectives, and monitoring. Ecosystem resilience and adaptive 

capacity to a changing climate are expected to be achieved through the restoration efforts in the 

four action alternatives that focus on desired vegetation structure, vegetation composition, and 

fire regimes. 

Alternative that Phases Out Livestock Grazing 

An alternative emphasizing ecosystem restoration that would phase out livestock grazing across 

the forest over the life of the revised plan was suggested by the public. In the Multiple Use–

Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-517), Congress declared that the 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 in Section 6 – National Forest System Resource Planning. Given 

these legal requirements, it was determined that this alternative was not consistent with the 

mission of the Forest Service and, therefore, outside the scope of this decision. 

Alternative that Adopts a “Hands-Off” Management Approach

An alternative was suggested that would maximize long-term vegetative health and the retention 

of water and forage for wildlife through the implementation of a minimal management strategy. 

However, this type of “hands-off” approach is contrary to the best available science that 

recommends active restoration efforts for many of the departed ecosystems on the Prescott NF. 

The action alternatives address long-term vegetative health in the desired condition statements of 

how the various vegetation types on the Prescott NF should look and function. Management 

action is necessary to trend these ecosystems towards the desired conditions and strengthen 

ecosystem resilience in the face of expected changes in the climate of the Southwest.

Alternative that Adjusts Relative Mileage of Motorized and Non-Motorized 

Trails

A recreation oriented alternative was suggested that would increase the miles of nonmotorized 

trails relative to the miles of motorized trails. Current trail mileage for nonmotorized use is 

approximately equal to the mileage of motorized or multi-use trails (394 miles of nonmotorized 
10 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

trails versus 408 miles of motorized trails). An alternative was suggested that would provide 

direction to adjust the nonmotorized trail mileage to exceed motorized trail mileage by about 40 

percent to better reflect the proportions of visitor use.

The five alternatives considered in detail vary from adding no new system trails to adding 10 to 

20 miles of trail; however, none of them would adjust the relative trail mileages to the extent 

suggested. Due in part to the average speed of travel, it is reasonable to expect that more miles of 

trail are required to provide the opportunity for a desired experience to an OHV rider than to a 

hiker. Motorized or non-motorized designation for trails will be determined at the site-specific 

level after specific proposals are identified and analyzed and there is the opportunity for public 

involvement.

Alternative that Limits the Road Density

An alternative was suggested that would prohibit new road construction and require a reduction in 

road density to less than 2 miles per square mile. This was not considered as a separate alternative 

because the current road density (including motorized trails) of the Prescott NF is less than 0.97 

miles per square mile and all of the action alternatives include direction to minimize, but not 

prohibit, new road construction. Road density on the forest is even less if wilderness areas are 

included in the calculations. 

All of the action alternatives address the impacts of roads and motorized trails by providing 

guidance for maintaining and restoring the health of watersheds and aquatic and riparian habitats 

impacted by existing roads. This includes objectives to repair or relocate roads or trails that 

impact watershed integrity, rehabilitate unauthorized routes that impact watershed integrity, and 

improve stream and drainage crossings.

My Decision

I select alternative E for the new land and resource management plan for the Prescott National 

Forest. The new plan will: 

 Restore vegetation structure, composition and desired fire characteristics of selected 

ecosystems. This will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fires and invasive plants; support

sustainable levels of forest products, and forage for browsing and grazing animals; and 

increase ecosystem resilience to natural disturbances under warmer and drier climatic 

conditions. 

 Retain or improve watershed integrity and hydrological function of impaired and at-risk 

watersheds, riparian areas and groundwater dependent ecosystems; and contribute to the 

municipal water supplies of communities in central Arizona. This direction will retain 

watershed and soil functions and features that support native fish and other aquatic and 

riparian species, and increase ecosystem resilience to natural disturbances under warmer 

and drier climatic conditions. 

 Provide for varied but sustainable recreation opportunities considering the contributions 

and partner-supported strategies available across all lands and ownerships. This will 

ensure that recreation management activities achieve a balance between increased 

availability of opportunities at more highly developed sites with those that are more 

primitive and dispersed such that visitors enjoy the cultural and biophysical resources and 

settings of the forest while minimizing damage to those resources.
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 11

 Ensure that values shared by residents and the general public including open space and 

scenery are taken into consideration when responding to public access, land use, 

development and exchange proposals, tourism-based special uses, and quality of life 

concerns for area residents and visitors. 

 Establish a monitoring framework that enables adaptive management. 

 Provide guidance for 7 management areas across the forest that considers the

geographically-oriented social and economic concerns and community landscape vision 

statements for the site-specific project decisions and management of social and ecological 

resources.

 Recommend approximately 23,137 acres for wilderness designation. These areas are 

adjacent to existing wilderness and will be managed to improve and/or maintain their 

wilderness values. 

Components of the Decision

Components of plan decisions are outlined in the National Forest Management Act (1976) and 

Forest Service implementing regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 219. A plan establishes a framework 

for future decision making by outlining a broad, interdisciplinary program for achieving the 

desired conditions of the national forest. A plan does not make a commitment to the selection of 

any specific project and does not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on 

the Forest Service’s internal operations. However, the plan is implemented through the design, 

execution, and monitoring of site specific activities that are consistent with the plan.

The decisions I am making in this record of decision for the new “Prescott National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan” are:

Establishment of forestwide multiple-use goals (characterized by desired conditions) and

objectives (1982 Rule, Section 219.11 (b))

Forestwide goals, termed in this plan as desired conditions, are found in chapter 2 of the revised 

plan. While the plan addresses all uses and values of the forest, the desired conditions emphasize:

(1) restoration of forests, shrublands and grasslands to provide terrestrial species habitat and to 

improve their ecological resilience under a changing climate; (2) providing for watershed 

integrity, hydrological function and aquatic species habitat; and (3) offering sustainable 

recreation, open space and scenery, and forest uses that honor the social, economic, and cultural 

values important to local residents and American citizens alike. Desired conditions are also 

established in the plan’s chapter 5 for the management areas described above.

Objectives provide ways of achieving the desired conditions through specific actions and are 

established in the plan’s chapter 3 for a full array of resources, uses, goods and services.

Establishment of forestwide management requirements (standards & guidelines) (1982 

Rule, Section 219.27)

Forestwide standards and guidelines are found in chapter 2 of the revised plan. Standards are 

limitations on actions or thresholds that are not to be exceeded. Guidelines are requirements that 

must be followed unless a different management action demonstrably achieves the same intent as 

the guideline. After careful review, I believe that the standards and guidelines provide sufficient

requirements for management, provide for resource protection, and reflect the intent of the new 

plan. To simplify the planning document and to keep it up-to-date, laws, policies, Forest Service 
12 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Manual and Forest Service Handbook direction, or other regional directives are incorporated by 

reference from the original source and are not duplicated in the plan. 

Establishment of management prescriptions and associated standards and guidelines 

(1982 Rule, Section 219.11 (c))

The revised plan provides direction for management areas that have specific management 

direction that differs from the general forest. Management areas are described and mapped in 

chapter 5 of the plan. The plan provides desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines 

for 7 management areas: Agua Fria, Crown King, Prescott Basin, Upper Verde, Verde Valley, 

Williamson Valley North, and Williamson Valley South. These management areas consider 

geographically-oriented social and economic concerns and community landscape vision 

statements in the site-specific management of social and ecological resources.

Determination of land that is suitable for timber production (1982 Rule, Section 219.14) and 

establishment of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of timber (1982 Rule, Section 219.16)

The identification and description of lands suitable for timber production are found in chapter 7 

of the revised plan. The FEIS for the revised plan discusses the timber suitability analysis in the 

“Forest Products” section of chapter 3. The land area designated suitable for timber production on 

the Prescott NF totals 38,875 acres. The amount of wood that is estimated to be available for sale 

annually from the suitable land within the plan area for the first decade of plan implementation is 

called the allowable sale quantity (ASQ). The ASQ is better described as the “average allowable 

sale quantity” because it may be exceeded in a given year as long as the 10-year average is not 

exceeded. For this plan, the ASQ is 40,447 CCF (hundred cubic feet) which includes both sawlog 

and pulpwood products. This is an increase from 23,385 CCF under the previous plan, which is 

due to the revised plan placing more emphasis on restoration of ponderosa pine forests (sawlogs) 

and piñon-juniper woodlands (pulpwood). More information on timber suitability and ASQ is 

available in FEIS appendix C.

Recommendations for non-wilderness allocations and recommendations for wilderness 

status (1982 Rule, Section 219.17)

During the analysis process leading to this decision, a total of about 277,700 acres was evaluated 

for potential wilderness across the forest. I recommend 8 potential wilderness areas (PWAs) 

totaling 23,137 acres for Congressional designation as wilderness. These areas are identified on 

map 5 in appendix A of the revised plan. The areas recommended all have high wilderness 

character and are adjacent to existing wilderness, which would provide for better manageability 

of the existing wilderness. Until Congress considers this recommendation, the plan has

management direction for these areas to improve and/or maintain wilderness character.

This recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further 

review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, 

and the President of the United States. Congress has reserved the authority to make final 

decisions on wilderness designation.

Of the PWAs considered, but not being recommended for wilderness designation, almost half of 

the acres are within inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) and would generally be managed to 

maintain their roadless character. The other half of the PWA acreage is in semi-primitive areas 

with limited access. The plan components for these areas would retain their recreation and 

scenery settings. 
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 13

Recommendations for wild and scenic rivers or other special use designations as 

appropriate (1982 Rule, Section 219.17)

The eligibility review process for wild and scenic rivers completed under this forest plan revision 

effort consisted of a review of the existing eligibility for a 38-mile section of the upper Verde 

River for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The 38-mile section of the 

upper Verde River has been listed as eligible for classification as “recreation” in the Nationwide 

Rivers Inventory since 1993. Previously, the full extent of the upper Verde River was classified 

as recreational; however, the updated classifications completed in 2010, identified the following 

segments: 5.6 miles classified as wild, 25.4 miles classified as scenic, and 6.7 miles classified as 

recreational. Plan components provide that these recommended classifications remain intact and 

for the protection of the outstandingly remarkable values (i.e., archaeological, scenic, fishery, 

wildlife, recreational, and botanical) for these eligible river segments until further study is 

conducted or designation by Congress.

More information is available in FEIS appendix B.

Designation of lands suitable for grazing and browsing (1982 Rule, Section 219.20)

Approximately 73 percent of the Prescott NF is suitable for livestock grazing. The areas 

designated unsuitable for grazing were either closed to grazing in the 1987 plan or have been 

closed to grazing based on site specific NEPA decisions for grazing allotments. Since the 1987

plan was approved, more than 50 of the active allotments on the Prescott NF (74 percent) have

received site specific environmental review for the authorization of grazing. Chapter 7 of the 

revised plan and appendix B of the FEIS contain more information about the grazing suitability 

and capability determinations on the forest. 

Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (1982 Rule, Section 219.11 (d))

Monitoring and evaluation requirements are found in chapter 6 of the revised plan. Specific 

monitoring questions are identified regarding achievement of desired conditions and objectives or 

meeting regulatory requirements. The monitoring plan strives to be realistic in terms of budget 

and capacity, provides for robust study designs and statistically valid conclusions, and will 

facilitate adapting management in response to results and new information. Application of this 

monitoring plan will inform achievement of the desired conditions and objectives, and serve as 

the basis for adjusting management actions.

Determination of lands administratively available for oil and gas leasing (36 CFR 228.102 

(d))

This determination is not addressed in the revised plan. 

Rationale for Decision

My decision to select alternative E as the new “Prescott National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan” is based on a careful and reasoned comparison of the environmental 

consequences of and responses to issues and concerns for each alternative. I selected alternative E 

because it represents the best mix and balance of management strategies that: (1) meet the 

purpose of and need for action by addressing the priority needs for change and major themes that 

drove plan revision; (2) provide the direction necessary for moving the forest’s resources toward 

desired conditions while including measures to protect sensitive ecological and cultural elements 

of the forest; (3) are responsive to the issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed by the public 
14 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

and other agencies; (4) establish ambitious but achievable objectives for ecosystem restoration 

and maintenance and recreation opportunities and management; and (5) manage land uses in 

ways that are socially and economically sustainable. 

Alternative E will most effectively restore vegetation structure, composition, and desired fire 

characteristics of selected ecosystems. This will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic disturbance 

from high-severity fires, insect epidemics, and invasive plants. These disturbance events and their 

associated adverse impacts to soils, watershed, wildlife, visual quality, and other human uses and 

values present the most significant risks to ecosystem sustainability on the Prescott NF. 

Alternative E best provides conditions supporting sustainable levels of forest products, forage for 

browsing and grazing animals, and terrestrial ecosystem resilience to disturbance under warmer 

and drier conditions.

Alternative E retains or improves watershed integrity and hydrological function of impaired and 

at-risk watersheds, riparian areas and groundwater dependent ecosystems, and contributes to the 

municipal water supplies of communities in central Arizona. Alternative E best retains watershed 

and soil functions and features that support native fish and other aquatic and riparian species, and 

aquatic ecosystem resilience to disturbances under warmer and drier conditions. 

Alternative E will most effectively provide for varied but sustainable recreation opportunities 

considering the contributions and partner-supported strategies available across all lands and 

ownerships. Alternative E will ensure that recreation management activities achieve a balance 

between increased availability of opportunities at more highly developed sites with those that are 

more primitive and dispersed such that visitors enjoy the cultural and biophysical resources and 

settings of the forest while minimizing damage to those resources.

The analysis shows that alternative E best achieves the several social, economic, and cultural 

values important to local residents including sustainable levels of tourism, open space and 

scenery, and a strong sense of place and community. Alternative E ensures that these shared 

values are taken into consideration when responding to public access, land use, development and 

exchange proposals, tourism-based special uses, and quality of life concerns for area residents 

and visitors. 

Alternative E includes recommended wilderness in several areas totaling about 23,130 acres that 

meet the wilderness inventory criteria, have high wilderness capability and would either improve 

the manageability of existing wilderness areas or include an outstanding, distinct landform 

feature. I believe these areas will make fine additions to the wilderness system.

I selected alternative E rather than alternative A because alternative A does not address the needs 

for change identified in the “Analysis of the Management Situation.” The 1987 plan has no 

articulated desired conditions for watershed integrity and hydrological function, aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems structure and function, open space, scenery, or special areas. There are very 

few desired conditions for other resources. After reviewing the FEIS and summary in table 2 of 

the FEIS, it is clear to me that alternative A is generally the poorest of all the alternatives in terms 

of its ability to achieve desired conditions.

I selected alternative E rather than alternatives B, C and D for several reasons. Alternatives B and 

C have more focus on providing and maintaining developed recreation opportunities on forest and 

less focus on opportunities for dispersed recreation. Alternatives B, C, and D do not fully 

consider the contributions from other area recreation providers and partnership opportunities 

across all lands. Alternatives B, C, and D do not adequately address public concerns about safe 
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 15

target shooting practices across the forest, nor do they address the need to pursue legal access to 

areas of the forest where historic access has been lost. Alternatives B, C, and D lack direction to 

obtain instream base flows to enable the Prescott NF to provide for watershed functionality, 

channel and floodplain maintenance and recharge of riparian aquifers.

Alternative E recommends approximately 23,130 acres for wilderness designation; while 

alternative B recommends 43,440 acres. Alternative D recommends 116,260 acres and 

alternatives A and C both recommend 0 acres. The potential wilderness areas in alternative E

possess the highest degree of wilderness character, and are adjacent to existing wilderness. The 

areas in alternatives B and D have management needs for range, wildlife, and watershed 

improvement that would be more difficult to address without mechanical or motorized means. 

Additionally, there is relatively abundant wilderness that currently exists in and around the 

Prescott NF. As a result, I am choosing to include the fewest but highest quality potential 

wilderness areas.

The revised plan is responsive to the Forest Service’s National Strategic Plan (2007-2012) and 

meets our legal obligations to the people and environment that surrounds them. The optimal 

implementation rate for the new plan could require higher funding levels in some areas than those 

currently allocated; however, I believe the management direction changes envisioned in the new 

plan are attainable under current budget levels. The achievement of desired conditions and 

outputs in some areas, however, may be prolonged or reduced if future budgets decrease. 

In summary, I believe alternative E sets the framework for future decisions better than the other 

alternatives because it best addresses the needs for change to the current plan. It is overall best in 

achieving desired conditions and therefore best provides for social, economic, and ecological 

sustainability on the Prescott NF.

My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows thorough incorporation of relevant 

scientific information, a consideration of opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete 

or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. 

Response to Public Concerns

Many stakeholders shared their concerns and preferences during the collaboration and public 

involvement for the Prescott NF plan revision. I have made my decision to select alternative E 

with due consideration of the input from those diverse stakeholders. I will now share my views 

regarding the key concerns expressed for the Prescott NF plan and how my decision responds to 

those concerns.

Many stakeholders and commenters expressed preferences for or against one of the alternatives 

based on the amount of wilderness area that was recommended. The EIS studied alternatives that 

included a wide range of areas (0 to 16 areas and 0 to 116,260 acres) and levels of wilderness 

capability. My decision recommends areas that are adjacent to existing wilderness areas and offer 

high quality wilderness character for congressional designation as wilderness. My decision 

considered the needs for the active management for range, watershed, and wildlife resources as 

well as more opportunities for mountain biking. My decision also includes a desired condition 

that existing roadless areas, including those having low or moderate wilderness capability are free 

from activities that alter their roadless character.

Stakeholders voiced concerns about loss of forest access and travel corridors where locked gates 

have been installed along some National Forest System roads at locations that cross private 
16 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

property and that the proposed plan does not adequately address this issue. My decision provides 

direction to actively pursue administrative and public access along these roads that cross private 

property using available legal means (e.g., reroutes, purchase or reciprocal rights-of-way) during 

the life of the plan. 

Many residents commented that they want unsafe shooting behavior on the Prescott NF to be 

better addressed in the revised plan. In response to this concern, a recreation objective was 

modified to refocus efforts towards implementing strategies that address safe shooting practices 

across the forest rather than developing a new target shooting area.

Concerns were raised by many stakeholders and partners about the ability of the Prescott NF 

alone to provide sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities and environments over the longterm, considering declining budgets and increasing demand for outdoor recreation and tourism. In 

response to this concern, the number of new developed sites to be constructed was reduced. My 

decision shifts the management emphasis towards sustainable levels of dispersed recreation 

opportunities on the forest and away from more-highly developed recreation, due to contributions 

and partner-supported strategies across all lands and ownerships.

Several stakeholders expressed concerns that more emphasis should be given to watershed and 

soil conditions and protections for associated riparian/aquatic habitats. In response, language was 

added to desired conditions to clarify that upland vegetation and soils, water quality, and ground 

water recharge are important features of healthy watersheds. A plan objective was added to 

pursue in-stream flows to provide for channel and floodplain maintenance, recharge of riparian 

aquifers, and protection of riparian and aquatic habitat. Three new guidelines were added to limit 

uses and activities on steep wet or erosion prone soils. My decision highlights the importance of 

the Forest Service’s responsibility for providing for healthy watersheds and water.

Some commenters claimed that the proposed plan lacked sufficient protections for Mexican 

spotted owl (MSO) and northern goshawk habitat, and other species, particularly related to tree 

canopy and old growth features. In response, desired conditions language was updated for 

openings and surrounding tree groups, guidelines were added for the retention of old growth tree 

features across the landscape, and language was added to better reference recovery plans

developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. My decision provides for the protection and 

conservation of large old trees in two ways. First, it includes a requirement that project design and 

treatment prescriptions should generally not remove large old trees, and large dead and “green” 

snags. Second, under certain stand structure conditions where large trees are more common, my 

decision allows for some older trees to be removed where needed to provide for breaks in the 

canopy and reduce the risk of stand replacing fire. By doing so, increased protection will be 

provided to the remaining large trees. I believe my decision best protects and provides for old 

growth.

Some stakeholders are concerned that the proposed plan overestimates the amount of suitable 

livestock grazing and such use causes watershed, stream, and grassland degradation. The grazing 

program on the Prescott NF has multiple mechanisms to evaluate, review, and adapt management 

as needed to effectively protect resources and respond to changing conditions. Based on the 

concern, standards and guidelines were reviewed and clarified to ensure that protections for soil, 

watershed, vegetation and wildlife resources were clear.

Stakeholders requested more protections and special status for the upper Verde River, including 

designation as a research natural area (RNA). Because the upper Verde River is eligible for 

inclusion as a wild and scenic river, and the revised plan already contains desired conditions and 
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 17

standards and guidelines that protect the outstandingly remarkable values of the eligible river 

segments, it is my decision that designation as an RNA would not provide additional meaningful 

protection. 

I appreciate all the stakeholder’s constructive contributions to the development of this Prescott 

NF plan. That input has resulted in an improved plan that will serve the forest, its priceless 

resources, and the public well into the future.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality has defined the “environmentally preferred” alternative 

as: “...the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA’s 

section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological 

and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.”

Alternative E, the proposed action, is the environmentally preferred alternative, but only slightly 

more than Alternative C. Alternative E’s desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and objectives 

best provide the direction and management flexibility necessary to facilitate restoration of the 

structure, composition, and processes of frequent fire ecosystems and protect and restore rare and 

unique resources that support important habitats. It also ensures the protection of soil and 

watershed function; provides for threatened, endangered, sensitive, rare, and narrow endemic 

species; protects historic and cultural resources; and mitigates the effects of climate change. 

Alternative E is the best at setting the ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper, and chaparral and grassland

vegetation types on a trajectory toward achievement of desired conditions, thereby reducing the 

risk of uncharacteristic high severity fire. Alternative E is best helping wildlife species cope with 

climate change because it provides for resilient ecosystems, and was found to have the greatest 

ability to maintain viable wildlife populations over time. Alternative E would provide open 

conditions that are conducive to increased vegetative ground cover, which protects soil surfaces 

from erosion and prevents sediment delivery to water bodies. Under this alternative seeps and 

springs, riparian areas, stream channels and floodplains are likely to be more resilient—providing

better habitat for native fish and aquatic species. Improved herbaceous vegetative cover and 

reduced wildfire risk would result in increased sequestration of atmospheric CO2 and improve 

soil stability, hydrologic function, and nutrient cycling.

Net Public Benefits

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.1) 

state that plans “...shall provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services...in a 

way that maximizes long term net public benefits...” Section 219.3 defines net public benefits as 

“...the long term value to the nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) less all 

associated inputs and negative effects (costs) whether they can be quantitatively valued or not.

Net public benefits are measured by both quantitative and qualitative criteria rather than a single 

measure or index.”

There are two economic analyses required by the 1982 rule provisions—economic impact 

analysis and financial efficiency analysis. Economic impact analysis estimates the employment 

and labor income consequences and compares the relative effects of the alternatives. All of the 

action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) would provide more jobs and labor income than the current 

management direction (alternative A), but the difference between the alternatives is not 
18 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

significant. Alternative E ranks in the middle of providing jobs and labor income. Financial 

efficiency analysis compares forest expenditures and revenues for the expected life (10 to 15 

years) of the forest plan and the efficiency measure is present net value (PNV). PNV is the 

difference between program revenues and program expenditures over a 10-year period, using a 

four percent discount rate. Although PNV is negative for all alternatives and alternative E has the 

lowest PNV, it is important to note that PNV analysis is financial, not economic. This means that 

only quantifiable dollar expenditure and revenue information are included in the calculation. Not 

included are the substantial benefits associated with improvements in ecosystem function and 

integrity.

Alternative E was shown conclusively to be the combined most ecologically and economically 

beneficial alternative and as such, it is the alternative with the greatest net public benefits. This 

alternative most effectively maintains or improves ecosystem integrity and the socioeconomic 

contribution of the Forest. 

Science Consistency

The revised plan contains a strong framework for adapting management of natural and cultural 

resources as new scientific information becomes available and plan monitoring reveals new or 

changing needs. Furthermore, I find that science was considered and applied throughout the 

revision process. Peer reviewed science was used whenever available, reliable, and applicable 

throughout the assessment process, the development of the plan, and preparation of the EIS. 

Extensive peer reviewed literature was available and used in the development of many plan 

components for many resource areas, including ecosystem vulnerability assessments of changing 

climate, restoring grassland and ponderosa pine ecosystems, listed species recovery plans, 

National Visitor Use Monitoring results, and the USFS Watershed Condition Framework. In 

addition to published scientific literature and reports, the Prescott NF solicited input from subject 

matter experts on human-geographic mapping, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classifications, 

Scenery Management Systems, and used state-of-the-art ecological modeling such as the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT).

I find this decision to be consistent with the application of the best available scientific 

information utilized throughout the plan development process during assessment of the original 

1987 plan for needs for change to better reflect management of the forest, during plan 

development and evaluation, and during development of the plan monitoring program. Scientific 

conclusions are drawn from well-supported data sources, and data availability is disclosed. No 

unproven or controversial data or methods are used in analyses. Sources of information are 

referenced, and syntheses do not go beyond what the data indicate.

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian 

Tribes

Forest Service planning regulations require the agency to consider other federal, state, and local 

government and tribal plans and policies. As part of the collaboration effort in developing the 

revised plan, the Prescott NF engaged in a number of discussions with federal, state, local, and 

tribal representatives throughout the duration of the plan revision effort. The new plan was 

developed collaboratively and was coordinated with federal, state, and local agencies including 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and local government 

and community leaders. Consultation with area tribes ensured the plan components reflect tribal 

concerns and needs with respect to the forest. Appendix C of the FEIS details the collaboration 
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 19

and coordination with other public agencies and tribes the Prescott NF engaged in throughout the 

plan revision process and that no conflicts were identified.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (59 Federal Register 7629, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and 

address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority and low-income populations in the local communities. I have determined, 

from the analysis disclosed in the FEIS, that the revised plan is in compliance with Executive 

Order 12898. 

The population of Yavapai County is predominantly white, non-Hispanic (82.3 percent), followed 

by Hispanic or Latino origin (13.2 percent), and American Indian (1.7 percent). Compared to 

Arizona and the U.S. as a whole, Yavapai County is less racially and ethnically diverse. However, 

this finding does not eliminate the need to consider potential disproportionate impacts of Forest 

Service management actions. Both the Hispanic and American Indian populations have a 

presence in the analysis area. These populations have strong ties to the land and its natural 

resources and associate important values with use of the resources found on the Prescott NF. 

While the analysis area may have a low overall concentration of minority residents, it may still 

have areas with a high concentration of minority residents who could be adversely affected by 

management actions.

Key environmental justice concerns relate to smoke and air quality in low-lying communities, 

hardship potential from wildfire evacuations and municipal water supply for the communities in 

the Verde Valley and the city of Prescott.

Overall, the themes that form the foundation of the revised plan (i.e., providing for social and 

ecological sustainability and resilience; emphasizing recreational, educational, and cultural 

opportunities; and providing for forest-based uses that contribute to local economies) should 

make the Prescott NF a healthy and enjoyable place to work, reside near, or visit. Therefore, I 

find no disproportional effects to minority or low-income populations will occur from 

implementing the selected alternative.

Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service

The Prescott NF prepared a biological assessment (BA) to evaluate the potential effects of the 

revised plan on federally proposed and listed species, critical habitats, and candidate species 

within the action area. It analyzed the potential effects on 16 species listed below in table 1. 

Table 1. Species and critical habitats analyzed.

Name Status Critical Habitat Effect

Gila chub (Gila intermedia) Endangered Yes Likely to adversely affect

Gila topminnow

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis) Endangered No Likely to adversely affect

Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) Endangered Yes Likely to adversely affect

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Endangered Yes Likely to adversely affect

Spikedace (Medafitlgida) Endangered Yes Likely to adversely affect

Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) Threatened No Likely to adversely affect
20 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Name Status Critical Habitat Effect

Colorado pikeminnow

(Ptychocheilus lucius) Non-essential No Not likely to jeopardize

Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) Candidate No Not likely to jeopardize

Narrow-headed gartersnake

(Thamnophis rufipunctatus) Threatened Proposed Likely to adversely affect

Northern Mexican gartersnake

(Thamnophis eques megalops) Threatened Proposed Likely to adversely affect

Sonoran desert tortoise

(Gopherus morajkai) Candidate No Not likely to jeopardize

California condor

(Gymnogyps californianus) Endangered No No effect

Southwestern willow flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii extimus) Endangered Yes Likely to adversely affect

Mexican spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis Iucida) Threatened Yes Likely to adversely affect

Western yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Proposed Threatened Potential Likely to adversely affect

Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) Non-essential No No effect

The analysis concluded that the revised plan would have “no effect” on the California condor and 

the Mexican gray wolf. The analysis further concluded that the proposed action is “not likely to 

jeopardize” roundtail chub, Sonoran desert tortoise, and experimental non-essential populations

of Colorado pikeminnow; but is “likely to adversely affect” these species: Gila chub and its

critical habitat, Gila topminnow, Gila trout, spikedace and its critical habitat, loach minnow

and its critical habitat, razorback sucker and its critical habitat, Mexican spotted owl and its

critical habitat, southwestern willow flycatcher and its critical habitat, northern Mexican

gartersnake and its proposed critical habitat, narrow-headed gartersnake and its proposed 

critical habitat, and the yellow-billed cuckoo. 

The BA was transmitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on January 24, 2014, with a request 

for concurrence on the determination that the proposed action is “not likely to jeopardize” three

species, and requested formal consultation on the “likely to adversely affect” determinations for 

the other 11 species.

In the July 9, 2014 BO, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided conference reports 

and concurrence with the determinations for Colorado pikeminnow, Sonoran desert tortoise, and 

roundtail chub. The FWS concluded that implementation of the revised plan may affect but 

would not jeopardize species or adversely modify critical habitat for these 11 species: Gila chub

and its critical habitat, Gila topminnow, Gila trout, spikedace and its critical habitat, loach

minnow and its critical habitat, razorback sucker and its critical habitat, Mexican spotted owl

and its critical habitat, southwestern willow flycatcher and its critical habitat, northern

Mexican gartersnake and its proposed critical habitat, narrow-headed gartersnake and its

proposed critical habitat and the yellow-billed cuckoo.
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 21

The FWS anticipated incidental take of species could occur as a result of implementing the 

revised plan, but identified reasonable and prudent measures necessary and appropriate to 

minimize the effects of take for of Gila chub and Mexican spotted owls.

Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service must comply with the terms 

and conditions of the incidental take statement in the BO, which implement the reasonable and 

prudent measures. The final BO and associated terms and conditions can be found in the planning 

record.

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities

I have considered the statutes governing management of the Prescott NF, and I believe that this 

decision represents the best possible approach to fulfilling the current statutory duties of the 

USDA Forest Service. Following are summaries of how the revised plan addresses the National 

Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and National Historic Preservation 

Act. 

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development, maintenance, 

amendment, and revision of land and resource management plans for each unit of the National 

Forest System. These plans help create a dynamic management system so an interdisciplinary 

approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences 

will be applied to all future actions on the unit (16 U.S.C. 1604(b), (f), (g), and (0)). Under 

NFMA, the Forest Service is to ensure coordination of the multiple uses and sustained yield of 

products and services of the National Forest System (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1)).

NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations for developing and 

maintaining forest plans. On April 9, 2012, the Department of Agriculture issued a final planning 

rule for National Forest System land management planning (2012 rule) 77 FR 68 [21162-21276]. 

According to transition language of the2012 planning rule 36 CFR § 219.17(b)(3), the responsible 

official may elect to complete and approve the plan revision in conformance with the provisions 

of a prior planning regulation (36 CFR part 219, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as 

of July 1, 2010). For this revision of the “Prescott National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan,” I have elected to follow these provisions, referred to collectively in this 

document as the 1982 rule. References in this ROD to sections of 1982 planning rule version of 

36 CFR part 219 are indicated in the citations.

My review of the planning process, the FEIS, and the information provided in the ROD indicates 

the revised plan and its preparation meet requirements for revising plans under the provisions of 

the 1982 planning rule, as allowed in the transition provisions of the 2012 planning rule at 36 

CFR § 219.17. Therefore, the revised plan is fully compliant with the NFMA.

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires public involvement and consideration 

of potential environmental and social effects of implementing federal actions. The environmental 

analysis and public involvement process outlined in the FEIS complies with the major elements 

of the requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR §§ 1500-1508). These include: (1) considering a range of reasonable alternatives, (2) 
22 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

disclosing cumulative effects, (3) using best scientific information, (4) consideration of long-term 

and short-term effects, and (5) disclosure of unavoidable adverse effects.

The Prescott NF considered a range of alternatives in the FEIS and has compiled a 

comprehensive record of the effects relevant to the alternatives (long-term, short-term, and 

cumulative), considering best scientific information. The revised plan adopts all practical means 

to avoid or minimize environmental harm. These means include provisions for providing the 

ecological conditions needed to support biological diversity and standards and guidelines to 

mitigate adverse environmental effects that may result from implementing various management 

practices. The revised plan includes monitoring requirements and an adaptive management 

approach to assure needed adjustments are made over time.

The revised plan does not represent an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. The 

revised plan is a programmatic level planning effort and does not directly authorize any grounddisturbing activities or projects. Future ground-disturbing activities and projects will be consistent 

with this revised plan and subject to additional site specific public involvement, environmental 

analysis, and pre-decisional review processes. Therefore, the revised plan is fully compliant with 

NEPA and CEQ implementation regulations.

Endangered Species Act 

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems 

upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide for the 

conservation of such endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires 

federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. In addition, Section 

7 requires federal agencies to ensure that any agency action does not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species (ESA Section 7(a)(2)). ESA also requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) and Forest Service, respectively, to base the biological opinion and subsequent 

agency action on the use of best scientific and commercially available data [16 U.S.C. 

1536(a)(2)].

In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Act, the FWS identified the listed and proposed threatened 

or endangered species that may be present on the forest. The Forest Service prepared a biological 

assessment for the revised plan. The FWS issued a biological opinion regarding effects of 

implementing the plan on the threatened, endangered, and candidate species present on or near 

the forest. The biological opinion sets terms and conditions to implement reasonable and prudent 

measures.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act requires National Forest lands to be administered to 

provide for multiple uses such as recreation, range, timber, watersheds, wildlife, and fisheries. 

The revised plan establishes a strong multiple use framework by providing desired conditions, 

standards, guidelines, and objectives related to ecosystem structure, process, and function; 

wildlife and fisheries; recreation; traditional and cultural uses; livestock grazing; forestry and 

production of forest products; special uses; mining and minerals extraction; and energy 

transmission and development.
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 23

Clean Air Act

According to the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Forest 

Service has the responsibility to protect the air, land, and water resources from the impacts of air 

pollutants produced within the Forest Service boundaries and to work with states to protect air 

resources from degradation associated with the impacts of air pollution emitted outside of Forest 

Service lands. The revised plan contains desired conditions and guidelines to protect air quality. 

Furthermore, analysis of the effects plan implementation on air quality in the FEIS indicates that 

all alternatives are expected to achieve the desired conditions for air quality but that alternative E 

offers the highest ratio of mechanical thinning to prescribed fire treatments to meet landscape 

restoration objectives, and therefore a lower susceptibility to uncharacteristic, high emissionproducing fires, which have a high potential to negatively impact air quality, over time.

Clean Water Act

The revised plan contains direction to provide for the maintenance or improvement of water 

quality in the natural and constructed waters of the Forest. Furthermore, reducing the risk of 

uncharacteristic high-severity fire will facilitate protection of crucial water sources for municipal 

water supply for the communities in the Verde Valley, Crown King, and the city of Prescott. 

Overall, implementation of the revised plan is expected to contribute to protecting or restoring the 

physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters of the forest in accordance with the Clean 

Water Act. 

National Historic Preservation Act

The revised plan is a programmatic action and does not authorize any site specific projects. 

Projects undertaken in response to direction in the revised plan will fully comply with the laws 

and regulations that ensure protection of cultural resources. The revised plan contains direction 

for cultural resource management, including direction to integrate such management with other 

resource management activities. Since the revised plan does not authorize ground-disturbing 

activities, consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office under the National 

Historic Preservation Act is not required, per the 2003 programmatic agreement between the 

Forest Service’s Southwestern Region and the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) of 

Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. It is my determination that the revised plan 

complies with the National Historic Preservation Act and other statues that pertain to the 

protection of cultural resources. 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Management activities in Inventoried Roadless Areas are conditional on the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (RACR) (36 CFR Part 294 (2001)). During the development of the issues and 

alternatives in this EIS, the 2001 RACR was subject to litigation. However, on March 1, 2012, 

the nationwide injunction on implementing the RACR was vacated and the RACR was placed 

back in effect. Consequently, the 2001 RACR’s restrictions on timber harvesting and road 

building apply to all Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). Management direction contained in each 

of the proposed alternatives (A, B, C, D and E) is consistent with the 2001 RACR.

Project Consistency

I am providing the following transition direction to ensure the orderly implementation of the 

revised plan that is made in this record of decision. The new direction will apply to all project 
24 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

decisions made on or after the effective date of this decision. The new direction does not apply to 

any projects that have had decisions issued prior to the effective date of this decision. Projects 

currently under contract, permit, or other authorizing instrument are not affected by the decision; 

however, projects may be modified to adopt all or part of this direction where Forest Service 

managers deem appropriate. Reissuance of existing authorizations will be treated as new 

decisions, which must be consistent with the new direction described in the revised plan subject 

to valid existing rights.

As required by NFMA and the planning rule, subject to valid existing rights, all projects and 

activities authorized by the Forest Service after approval of this revised plan must be consistent 

with the applicable plan components (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) as described at 36 CFR 219.15 of the 

2012 planning rule. (Although the transition provisions at 36 CFR 219.17 of the 2012 planning 

rule allow revision of this plan under the 1982 regulations, subsequent projects or activities 

approved on units with plans revised under a prior planning rule must comply with the 

consistency requirement at 219.15 of the current rule.)

Consistency with the revised plan will be achieved by developing management activities that are 

designed specifically to achieve the desired conditions and objectives of the new plan and are 

guided by relevant standards and guidelines. To the extent practicable, documentation for such 

projects should identify the elements of the desired conditions, goals, or objectives to be achieved 

by the project. It should not be expected that all projects or activities would contribute to all 

desired conditions, goals, or objectives, but rather to a limited subset. It should also be recognized 

that some projects designed to contribute to some desired conditions, goals or objectives may 

have consequences considered adverse to the achievement of other desired conditions, goals, or 

objectives. In this situation, the responsible official for the project needs to identify and disclose 

these effects in the project documentation and make a decision that balances these considerations.

A project or activity approval document must describe how the project or activity is consistent 

with the plan by the criteria listed at 36 CFR 219.15(d) (2012 planning rule). Where a proposed 

project or activity would not be consistent with plan direction, the responsible official has the 

following options (36 CFR 219.15(c) 2012 Rule):

1. Modify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan 

components;

2. Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity;

3. Amend the plan so that the project or activity will be consistent with the plan as 

amended;

4. Amend the plan contemporaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that the 

project or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended. This amendment may be 

limited to apply only to the project or activity, and may be adopted at the same time as 

the approval of the project or activity (36 CFR 219.15(c)(4) 2012 Rule).

Any resource plans (e.g., travel management plans) developed by the Forest Service that apply to 

the resources or land areas within the planning area must be consistent with the plan components. 

Resource plans developed prior to plan decision must be evaluated for consistency with the plan 

and amended if necessary (36 CFR 219.15(e) 2012 Rule).

Authorizations for occupancy and use made before the final ROD may proceed unchanged until 

time of reauthorization. At time of reauthorization, all permits, contracts, and other authorizing 
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 25

instruments must be made consistent with the revised plan, subject to existing valid rights, as 

provided at §219.15(d) (2012 Rule).

A forest plan is used as a direction source for future projects, plans, and assessments. It is not 

expected that this new direction be used to re-evaluate or change decisions that have been made 

under the 1987 plan. A smooth and gradual transition to the new plan is anticipated, rather than 

one that forces an immediate reexamination or modification of all contracts, projects, permits, and 

other activities that are already in progress. As new project decisions, contracts, permits, 

renewals, and other activities are considered, conformance to the revised plan direction is 

expected.

Implementation Schedules and Budgets

The revised plan will be implemented through a series of project-level decisions based on sitespecific environmental analysis and public involvement. These analyses will be documented in 

the appropriate NEPA documents. The plan seeks to guide management activities and projects by 

establishing clear desired conditions for the Prescott NF rather than by establishing schedules for 

actions. This approach should leave more flexibility for managers to adapt program and project 

selection as changes take place in budgets, resource capabilities, and management priorities.

Outputs in the FEIS are projections of probable outcomes. They were used to approximate 

activities and practices, in order to estimate the likely environmental effects of following the 

direction provided by the revised plan.

Maintaining the Land Management Plan and Adapting to New 

Information

Adaptive Management

A land management plan is an integral part of an adaptive management cycle that guides future 

management decisions and actions. Adaptive management includes:

 Defining measurable management objectives;

 Monitoring management outcomes and changing circumstances; and

 Revising management strategies accordingly (with appropriate NEPA).

This adaptive management cycle enables the forest to identify and respond to changing 

conditions, changing public desires, and new information. The forest’s monitoring program is an 

integral part of this adaptive management cycle, and consists of monitoring questions and metrics 

(see chapter 6 of the revised plan for additional information about the monitoring plan).

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are used to assess the degree to which on-the-ground management is 

maintaining or making progress toward the desired conditions and objectives in the plan. The 

monitoring program is described in chapter 6, “Monitoring and Evaluation,” of the plan. This 

monitoring program was developed collaboratively and focuses on key plan components where 

management projects and activities are likely to cause a change over time. 

Specific monitoring questions are identified and directly linked to plan desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, and specific regulatory requirements. Only selected goals, objectives, and 
26 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

standards are monitored. Relevancy to issues, compliance with legal requirements and agency 

policy, scientific credibility, administrative feasibility, long- and short-term budget 

considerations, and impact on work force all influence monitoring priorities.

Monitoring information will be evaluated and used to update inventory data, improve current and 

future mitigation measures, and assess the need to change the strategies used in plan 

implementation. Evaluation of monitoring results is directly linked to the decisionmaker’s ability 

to respond to changing conditions, emerging trends, public concerns, and new information and 

technology. No single monitoring item or parameter automatically triggers a change in plan 

direction. An interdisciplinary approach is used to evaluate information and decide what changes 

are needed. 

Plan Amendments

A forest plan may be amended at any time based on a preliminary identification of the need to 

change the plan. The preliminary identification of the need to change the plan may be based on a 

new assessment, forest plan monitoring, or other documentation of new information and changed 

conditions or circumstances. The amendment and administrative change process is described at 

36 CFR 219.13(b) & (c) of the 2012 planning rule.

The revised plan is a dynamic instrument that can be changed with appropriate public 

involvement and environmental analysis. Throughout the life of the plan, amendments may be 

needed to incorporate new information, new policy and direction, or changing values and 

resource conditions. Amendments will keep the plan current, relevant, and responsive to agency 

and public concerns. Amendments are needed whenever any of the plan decisions should be 

changed due to any of the above conditions. The plan also can be amended for specific projects if 

during project design it is determined that the best method of meeting goals and objectives 

conflicts with standards and guidelines in the plan. Deviation from a guideline must be specified 

in either the decision document or elsewhere in the project record with supporting rationale. 

When deviation from a guideline does not meet the original intent, a plan amendment is required. 

Any deviation from a standard requires a plan amendment.

A 3-year transition period for plan amendments begins on the effective date of the 2012 planning 

rule, on May 9, 2012. During the transition period, plan amendments may be initiated under the 

provisions of the 1982 planning rule, or may conform to the requirements of the 2012 planning 

rule. Plan amendments initiated after the transition period must conform to the requirements of 

the 2012 planning rule.

Under the 1982 planning provisions, amendments may be significant or non-significant. The 

Forest Supervisor may implement non-significant amendments to the revised plan after 

appropriate public involvement and environmental analysis. The Regional Forester approves 

significant amendments.

Effective Date

The revised “Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” will become 

effective 30 days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of 

Availability of the FEIS appears in the Federal Register (per 36 CFR 219.17(a), 2012 Rule).
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 27

Appeal Information

This decision is subject to administrative review. According to 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), if the 

responsible official chooses to complete an ongoing planning process under the provisions of the 

prior planning regulation, the responsible official can choose to allow for either an administrative 

appeal or can follow the objection process identified in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B. When the option 

is made to proceed under the 1982 regulations and to follow the administrative appeal process, 

the “Optional Appeal Procedures Available during the Planning Rule Transition Period” (the 

former 36 CFR Part 217 appeal procedures that were in effect prior to November 9, 2000) are to 

be used. For this decision, I have decided to use the “Optional Appeal Procedures”.

A written notice of appeal must be filed in duplicate and postmarked or received within 90 days 

after the date the legal notice of this decision is published in the newspapers of record for the 

Prescott National Forest (The Daily Courier). The appeal must clearly state that it is a Notice of 

Appeal being filed pursuant to the Optional Appeal Procedures. Appeals must meet the content 

requirements of Section 9 of the Optional Appeal Procedures, which are available for review at:

www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/includes/PlanAppealProceduresDuringTransition.pdf

Appeals must be filed with the Chief of the Forest Service at:

Physical address (for UPS and FedEx deliveries):

USDA Forest Service

Attn: Appeal Reviewing Officer

210 14th Street, SW

EMC-LEAP, Mailstop 1104

Washington, DC 20250

(Note: If a phone number is needed for carrier delivery, use: 202-205-1449)

Regular mail:

USDA Forest Service

Attn: Appeal Reviewing Officer

1400 Independence Ave., SW

EMC-LEAP, Mailstop 1104

Washington, DC 20250

Appeals may also be faxed (Fax number is 202-649-1172) or appeals may be mailed 

electronically in a common digital format to:

appeals-chief@fs.fed.us

The notice of appeal must be fully consistent with the Optional Appeal Procedures and include at 

a minimum:

 A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to the Optional 

Appeal procedures;
28 ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

 The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant;

 Identification of the decision to which the appeal is being made;

 Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, 

date of the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer;

 Identification of the specific portion of the decision to which the appeal is made;

 The reasons for appeal, including issues of fact, law, or regulation, or policy and, if 

applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy;

 Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks.

Requests to stay the approval of this land and resource management plan shall not be granted 

(Optional Appeal Procedures, section 217.10 (b)).

Final decisions on proposed projects will be made on a site-specific basis using appropriate 

analysis and documentation in compliance with NEPA. Project decisions may be subject to the 

appropriate administrative review procedures, at the time the project decision is made. 

Recommendations for designations such as additions to the National Wilderness System are 

preliminary administrative recommendations that will receive further review and possible 

modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and/or the President 

of the United States. The Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on 

wilderness on federal lands; therefore, wilderness recommendations in the revised plan are not 

appealable under the agency’s administrative appeal procedures (Section 4 of the Optional 

Appeal Procedures).
ROD for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 29

I encourage anyone concerned about the revised Prescott National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan or Final Environmental Impact Statement, or who would like more 

information, to contact:

Teresa A. Chase

Forest Supervisor 

Prescott Forest Supervisor’s Office

2971 Willow Creek Rd, Bldg. 4

Prescott, AZ 86301

(928) 443-8000

Approval

I am pleased to announce my decision to select alternative E for the revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Prescott National Forest. This new plan has been built on a strong 

foundation of citizen collaboration, the best available science, and engagement with other 

agencies and organizations. 

____________________________________ __________________

Calvin N. Joyner Date

Regional Forester

Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service