United States Department of Agriculture

Record of Decision

for the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests Land 

Management Plan

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, Arizona

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests MB-R3-01-09 August 2015
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 

TDD). 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 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
i 

Record of Decision 

for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

Land Management Plan

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Calvin N. Joyner 

Regional Forester

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region

333 Broadway Blvd. SE 

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

For information, contact: Thomas D. Osen

Forest Supervisor

Forest Supervisor’s Office

P.O. Box 640 

30 S. Chiricahua Drive 

Springerville, AZ 85938 

(928) 333-4301 

Mailroom_R3_Apache_Sitgreaves@fs.fed.us

iii

Contents 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision Topic 1 - Maintenance and Improvement of Ecosystem Health .............................. 5

Revision Topic 2 - Managed Recreation ................................................................................. 5

Revision Topic 3 - Community-Forest Interaction .................................................................. 6

Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6

Alternative A (1987 Plan) ....................................................................................................... 6

Alternative B – Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 7

Alternative C ........................................................................................................................... 8

Alternative D ........................................................................................................................... 9

My Decision .............................................................................................................................. 16

Components of the Decision ................................................................................................. 18

Rationale for Decision ........................................................................................................... 21

Response to Public Concerns ................................................................................................ 24

Environmentally Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................... 27

Net Public Benefits ................................................................................................................... 27

Science Consistency .................................................................................................................. 28

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian Tribes.................................... 28

Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 29

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................. 29

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities ...................................................................... 31

National Forest Management Act .......................................................................................... 31

National Environmental Policy Act ....................................................................................... 32

Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................................ 32

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act ........................................................................................ 33

Clean Air Act ......................................................................................................................... 33

Clean Water Act .................................................................................................................... 33

National Historic Preservation Act ........................................................................................ 33

Roadless Area Conservation Rule ......................................................................................... 34

Project Consistency ................................................................................................................... 34

Implementation Schedules and Budgets ................................................................................ 35

Maintaining the Land Management Plan and Adapting to New Information ........................... 35

Adaptive Management........................................................................................................... 35

Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................... 36

Plan Amendments .................................................................................................................. 36

Effective Date ........................................................................................................................... 37

Appeal Information ................................................................................................................... 37

Approval.................................................................................................................................... 40

1

Introduction 

This public Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for approving the 

new Land Management Plan (Plan) for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ApacheSitgreaves NFs or Forests). This revised Plan provides specific guidance and information for 

project and activity decision making, and will guide all resource management activities on the 

Forests for the next 10 to 15 years. It replaces the previous Plan, which was approved in 1987 and 

has been amended 15 times. 

Forest Setting

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 2.1 million acres are managed as a single administrative unit by the 

Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Forests are located in the 

White Mountains of east-central Arizona. The Gila National Forest administers the portion of the 

Apache National Forest located in New Mexico.

The Forests are divided into five contiguous ranger districts: Black Mesa, Lakeside, Springerville, 

Alpine, and Clifton. Ranger district offices are located in Overgaard, Pinetop-Lakeside, 

Springerville, Alpine, and Clifton. The Supervisor’s Office is located in Springerville. The Forests 

share boundaries with the Gila, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests; Fort Apache and San 

Carlos Apache Indian Reservations; Bureau of Land Management; State land; several cities, 

towns, and communities; and private lands. 

The Forests are located along and below the Mogollon Rim, an abrupt escarpment which is the 

southern boundary of the Colorado Plateau and which splits Arizona into low elevation deserts 

and high elevation mountains and plateaus. The Forests encompass mountains, hills, cinder cones, 

plains, plateaus, deep canyons, and escarpments. Elevations range from about 3,500 feet in the 

Clifton area to 11,400 feet on Mount Baldy near Springerville.

The diverse vegetation ranges from semi-desert grasslands to high elevation spruce-fir forests. 

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs contain a portion of the largest ponderosa pine forest in the world 

and the most extensive montane and subalpine grasslands in Arizona. Many of the unique riparian 

vegetation types of Arizona are found within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are a distinctive and important component of the arid Southwest, 

containing over 30 lakes and reservoirs and more than 1,000 miles of rivers and perennial 

streams, more than any other Arizona national forest. The Forests contain the headwaters of 

several major Arizona river systems, including the Little Colorado, Black, Blue, and San 

Francisco.

Diverse ecosystems provide habitat for a wide array of wildlife, fish, and plants; some of which 

can only be found in this area. Unique species include Apache trout, Springerville pocket mouse, 

White Mountains ground squirrel, Three Forks springsnail, and Mogollon paintbrush. The 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are one of two national forests in the Nation to provide a home for the 

recovery of the Mexican gray wolf.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are an important part of the social and economic environment for the 

four counties on the Forest and in the surrounding area. Jobs and income are generated by wood 

products, livestock grazing, recreation, and the contribution of local government offices. The 

forests enhanced their economic contributions to the community through the White Mountain 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

2

Stewardship Project over the past decade, and will continue to build on that success with projects 

to be implemented under the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI).

Most visitors to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs come from Arizona’s metropolitan areas, seeking a 

respite from the desert heat or the noise and/or confinement of urban living. Many are drawn to 

the water-based activities; while others enjoy the diverse scenery of vast rolling grasslands, 

rugged desert terrain, and lush alpine forests.

Visitors enjoy the recreation opportunities of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, including three scenic 

byways and several popular developed recreation areas. The Forests also provide an abundance of 

dispersed recreation opportunities. Three wilderness areas and the Nation’s last remaining

primitive area provide opportunities for solitude and back-country experiences. Over a thousand 

miles of trails provide ample hiking, bicycling, horseback, and off-highway vehicle access to 

natural highlights of the Forests’ landscape. Big game hunting and fishing in some of the best 

lakes and streams of the Southwest are popular activities. The Forests are also a destination for 

winter activities: snow play, snowmobiling, ice fishing, cross-country skiing, and sledding.

Many people, some of whom have long-time connections to the Forests, have an interest in and 

use the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. American Indian tribes and many local residents have traditional 

ties, such as forest product collection, hunting, and large group gatherings. Loggers and ranchers 

continue to be an important part of the Forests’ history, and their traditional uses remain an 

important part of the cultural landscape.

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 directs 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 decision making by outlining a broad, 

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

Forests. 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, or 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.
Record of Decision

3

The Revised Forest Plan

Forest plan revision on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 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 NFMA (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 Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Land 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 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 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.

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 299, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2010). For this revision of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land 

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

document as the 1982 Planning Rule.

This decision applies only to National Forest System lands of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs located 

in the aforementioned counties. It does not apply to any other Federal (including those Apache 

National Forest lands administered by the Gila National Forest), State, or private lands, although 

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

surround the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 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 Apache-Sitgreaves NFs hosted multiple public meetings in nearby communities and 

attended meetings with local, State, Federal, and tribal governments.

In addition to traditional public involvement activities, the Forests sponsored a collaborative 

workshop where counties and local governments provided feedback on the socio-economic 

assessment. Two citizen-led discussion groups formed to further explore and help in the 

development of livestock grazing and wildlife-related plan components and provide baseline 

information for the species viability analysis. Active participants in the revision process included 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

4

several conservation groups (The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, Center 

for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, etc.), utility companies, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Arizona State Land Department, 

range permittees, a regional wood products association, state wildlife and caving groups, a mining 

company, local motorized and wilderness interest groups, and local county governments (Apache, 

Navajo, Gila, Graham, and Greenlee Counties in Arizona and Catron County, New Mexico).

Key partnerships with The Nature Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, White Mountain 

Conservation League, Natural Resources Working Group, the Ranching Heritage Alliance, and 

Arizona Game and Fish have provided valuable analysis and support throughout the plan revision 

process.

The notice of intent to revise the 1987 Plan and prepare an environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register (74 FR 68776-68779) on December 12, 2009. In March and 

April 2010, four public meetings and an informal comment period were held to gather feedback 

on the initial set of draft alternatives. Comments received early in the public involvement process 

were used along with science-based evaluations (e.g., Analysis of the Management Situation) to 

draft the initial proposed Plan.

The notice of availability announcing the release of the proposed Plan and draft environmental

impact statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 11171) on February 15, 

2013. Following the publication of the notice of availability, the Forest Supervisor, local line 

officers, and planning team members hosted three public meetings in the communities of Show 

Low, Springerville, and Clifton, Arizona, to answer questions and solicit comments. In addition, 

the Forests published a newspaper insert announcing the release of the documents with a set of 

frequently asked questions and a link to a Reader’s Guide containing tips for reviewing and 

commenting. The Forest Supervisor and planning team attended meetings with local town 

councils, the Ranching Heritage Alliance, Natural Resource Working Group, and the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. 

Tribal Consultation

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

for traditional, cultural, or spiritual activities, including the White Mountain Apache Tribe, San 

Carlos Apache Tribe, Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, Tonto 

Apache Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and the Ramah 

Chapter of the Navajo Nation. Concerns identified by the tribes include access to the Forests and 

protection of sacred sites and archaeological sites as traditional cultural properties, natural water 

sources, and plants (e.g., spruce pollen, aspen, yucca, piñon nuts, acorns, reeds) for subsistence, 

medicine, and religious purposes.

Needs for Change

The 1987 Plan was approved over 25 years ago and no longer addresses changes that have 

occurred to economic, social, and ecological conditions; new policies and priorities; and new 

information based on monitoring and scientific research. Using extensive public and employee 

collaboration and the Analysis of the Management Situation1 the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

 1 The Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) incorporates the findings of several evaluations including the following: 

Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER), Ecological Sustainability Report, Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment, 

Resource Evaluations, CER Supplement to Meet AMS Requirements, and the Wallow Fire Changed Condition Assessment. 
Record of Decision

5

identified several needs for change in the 1987 Plan. The needs for change are summarized into 

three revision topics, which became major themes of the plan revision process: (1) Maintenance 

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

Interaction. The needs for change include the following:

Revision Topic 1 - Maintenance and Improvement of Ecosystem 

Health

• Better describe desired conditions for the composition, structure, and cover for the vegetative 

communities that will result in resilient, functioning ecosystems. The vegetative communities 

include ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, dry mixed conifer, spruce-fir, and aspen forests, 

piñon-juniper and Madrean pine-oak woodlands, Great Basin, semi-desert, and 

montane/subalpine grasslands, interior chaparral, mixed broadleaf deciduous, montane 

willow, and cottonwood-willow riparian forests, and wetland/cienega riparian areas. 

• Identify the desired fire regime that will help to restore fire to a more natural role as one of 

the Forests’ primary disturbance agents. 

• Provide direction to guide future vegetation management activities, including burning and 

mechanical treatments, to move toward or maintain desired conditions.

• Incorporate management direction to guide future projects to provide habitat to maintain 

viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning 

area.

• Include appropriate standards and guidelines to provide direction to maintain species 

diversity and viability across the planning area.

• Reevaluate and update the management indicator species (MIS) to allow evaluation of the 

differences between alternatives in the EIS. MIS are species whose population changes are 

believed to indicate the effects of management activities. 

• Add plan components to provide future project direction to control, treat, and eradicate nonnative plant and animal invasive species.

• Address the emerging issue of climate change by incorporating adaptive management 

strategies and describing ecological conditions that are resilient to change.

Revision Topic 2 - Managed Recreation

• Update the spectrum of recreation opportunities to reflect current and projected recreation 

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

developed for high use and areas that resemble more natural landscapes.

• Identify the suitability of areas for motorized vehicle use and other recreational activities.

• Incorporate direction for special areas that were not included in the 1987 Plan, including 

recommended research natural areas, the Heber Wild Horse Territory, scenic byways, and 

national recreation trails. 

• Recommend additional special areas (i.e., research natural areas) where needed. 

• Recognize the management requirements for rivers that are eligible for the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

6

• Evaluate lands for wilderness potential and, if determined to be appropriate by the 

responsible official, recommend designation by Congress and provide interim management 

guidance. 

Revision Topic 3 - Community-Forest Interaction

• Provide direction to address communities at risk from uncharacteristic wildfire. This includes 

describing the appropriate vegetation desired conditions and fire regime, and treatment of the 

wildland-urban interface.

• Provide guidelines and suitability determinations for addressing urban interface demands 

(access, trailheads, special use permits). 

• Update guidelines regarding land ownership adjustments that better reflect community 

expansion needs and preservation of open space. 

• Continue to provide a sustainable supply of forest and rangeland resources, the use of which 

promotes the achievement of desired conditions while supporting local communities. 

Determine the suitability of lands for timber production and the allowable sale quantity of 

timber. 

• Identify major existing energy (utility) corridors and provide management direction for these 

areas. Update the criteria for establishing new energy corridors.

In addition to these needs for change, there is a need to update the monitoring plan in chapter 5 of 

the 1987 Plan because it focuses on outputs rather than progress toward attainment of desired 

conditions. 

Alternatives

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

the decision being made. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs analyzed four alternatives in detail: no 

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

public.

Alternative A (1987 Plan)

Alternative A (No Action) represents the 1987 forest plan, as amended, and continues current 

management direction. Alternative A emphasizes timber management as a primary tool for 

providing forest products for local and regional industrial and individual needs while meeting 

wildlife habitat needs.

• Uses both mechanical and wildland fire restoration treatments, with the primary focus in the 

ponderosa pine potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) and around communities to reduce 

threats from wildfire and supply forest products through vegetation treatments. 

• Manages at least 20 percent of each forested and woodland PNVT for, or toward, old growth.

• There are eight areas (totaling 45,506 acres) implemented under special closure orders that 

are managed as wildlife habitat or quiet areas. While not a 1987 Plan management area, these 

areas implement plan direction to benefit wildlife habitat, soil, vegetation, water resources, 

and recreation (improved hunting opportunities). 

• Provides a variety of recreation opportunities, including motorized, nonmotorized, developed, 

and dispersed. Construction of new recreation facilities to meet growing demand is an 

emphasis. 
Record of Decision

7

• Provides direction for three designated wildernesses, Mount Baldy, Escudilla, and Bear 

Wallow. Additionally, The Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions Management Area is 

managed to protect wilderness values. In 1971, the Forest Service submitted a 

recommendation to the President of the United States for the Blue Range Wilderness in New 

Mexico and Arizona. Congress has not acted on the Arizona portion of this recommendation. 

Until Congress acts, the 1971 recommendation remains in place. 

• Does not recommend any additional lands for wilderness.

• Manages 764,872 acres of land for timber production on a regulated basis with planned, 

scheduled entries. It is estimated that an average of 205,000 CCF (hundred cubic feet) of 

wood products, including sawlogs, biomass, and firewood, would be available annually for 

local and regional industry and individual use. 

• Provides direction for one designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin Research Natural 

Area. Continues to recommend four research natural areas totaling 2,569 acres that were 

proposed by the original 1987 Plan, but were never acted upon.

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) was designed to address the needs for change by addressing the 

demands for wildlife habitat, community protection, commodity outputs, and recreation 

opportunities with an emphasis on ecological restoration. The Proposed Action: 

• Provides a framework for ecosystem restoration based on decades of ecological research 

(synthesized in GTR-310, Reynolds et al. 2013) which will move frequent-fire adapted 

systems toward increased resiliency by restoring spatial arrangement, structure, and species 

composition of vegetation. Treatments are focused in those PNVTs that are most divergent 

from desired conditions and priority watersheds and locations identified in community 

wildfire protection plans, including the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area.

• Provides overarching guidance for restoration projects such as 4FRI through a broad 

restoration framework. 

• Restores woody canopy cover in forested PNVTs to historic levels, resulting in increased

water supply in the Little Colorado, Salt, and Upper Gila River Basins for the greater Phoenix 

metropolitan area and for agricultural and industrial users.

• Restores and promotes ecosystem health, which increases resiliency in the face of climate 

change. Management actions which reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire, promote

habitat quality, increase or maintain species and structural diversity, increase water yield, and 

reduce fragmentation all contribute to the forests’ ability to change and adapt to new climatic 

conditions. 

• Promotes recovery of listed species, and where appropriate, provides for management actions 

to protect or enhance habitat of listed species.

• Retains old growth characteristics where they exist and encourages development of old 

growth conditions where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late seral 

stands and species composition on a landscape scale.

• Adds two new wildlife quiet areas to the eight existing areas for a total of 50,173 acres. 

Unlike alternative A, all wildlife quiet areas in this alternative are assigned to the Wildlife 

Quiet Area Management Area.
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

8

• Provides a variety of recreation opportunities, including motorized, nonmotorized, developed, 

and dispersed. New recreation developments are limited; the emphasis is on maintaining 

existing developments. 

• Provides direction for the three designated wildernesses and primitive area similar to 

alternative A.

• Recommends an additional 7,074 acres for wilderness. This includes additions to both 

Escudilla (6,813 acres) and Bear Wallow (261 acres) Wilderness Areas.

• Provides for ecosystem restoration on 596,744 acres of suitable timberlands which, through 

management on a regulated basis with planned, scheduled entries, will yield an annual 

average of 263,000 CCF of wood products, benefiting local and regional industry and 

individual users.

• Carries forward the designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin Research Natural Area

(approximately 290 acres) and recommends adding the Phelps Cabin Botanical Area 

(approximately 100 acres) to it as a recommended research natural area. In addition, it 

recommends designating five new research natural areas totaling 7,814 acres.

Alternative C

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

benefits to local communities through management emphasis on commodity outputs and 

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

economic sustainability through ecological restoration. 

• Emphasizes primarily mechanical treatments, with limited use of fire, to move toward more 

resilient, healthy ecosystems. Treatments are focused in the Community-Forest Intermix 

Management Area, forests suitable for timber production, woodlands, and those grasslands 

encroached by woody species. 

• Does not emphasize the retention or encouragement of old growth characteristics to allow 

additional opportunities to meet forest products desired conditions.

• Carries forward all eight existing wildlife quiet areas for a total of 44,373 acres (two areas 

would be slightly smaller due to the configuration of other management areas). Unlike 

alternative A, all wildlife quite areas in this alternative are assigned to the Wildlife Quiet Area 

Management Area.

• Provides a variety of recreation opportunities with an emphasis on motorized and developed 

opportunities. New recreation facilities would be considered where there is a need to meet 

increasing demand. 

• Provides direction for the three designated wildernesses and primitive area similar to 

alternative A.

• Recommends an additional 6,982 acres for wilderness (additions to Escudilla Wilderness 

totaling 6,982 acres). 

• Provides for ecosystem restoration on 604,746 acres of suitable timberlands which, through 

management on a regulated basis with planned, scheduled entries, will yield an annual

average of 416,000 CCF of wood products, benefiting local and regional industry and 

individual users.
Record of Decision

9

• Carries forward the designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin Research Natural Area

(approximately 290 acres), and recommends adding the Phelps Cabin Botanical Area 

(approximately 100 acres) to it as a recommended research natural area. In addition, 

recommends designating five new research natural areas totaling 7,814 acres.

Alternative D

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

natural processes and nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities. There is an emphasis 

on ecological restoration across all vegetation types.

• Emphasizes natural processes, primarily fire, with some mechanical treatments to move 

toward more resilient, healthy ecosystems. Treatments are focused in priority watersheds and 

are distributed among all PNVTs in riparian areas, forests, grasslands, and woodlands.

Mechanical treatments would be used around communities in the Community-Forest Intermix 

Management Area and, in some cases, as pretreatment for prescribed fire.

• Emphasizes retention of old growth and large trees with a standard to “retain all large and old 

trees regardless of size or condition.”

• Includes seven of the eight existing wildlife quiet areas (minus Hulsey Bench) plus five more, 

for a total of 58,379 acres. Unlike alternative A, all wildlife quiet areas in this alternative are 

assigned to the Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area.

• Provides a variety of recreation opportunities with an emphasis on dispersed and 

nonmotorized opportunities. There is no emphasis on building new highly developed 

recreation facilities; however, recreation development that provides for dispersed recreation 

(e.g., trailheads, wildlife viewing areas, trails) may occur. 

• Provides direction for the three designated wildernesses and primitive area similar to 

alternative A.

• Recommends a total of 688,170 acres for wilderness on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, 

including 23 new stand-alone areas; 10 additions to Escudilla, Bear Wallow, and Mount 

Baldy Wilderness Areas; and 2 additions to the Blue Range Primitive Area. It also 

recommends almost all of the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential additions 

(196,868 acres) for wilderness. 

• Manages no land for timber production on a regulated basis. However, it is estimated that an 

average of 118,000 CCF of wood products including sawlogs, biomass, and firewood would 

be available annually for local and regional industrial and individual needs as a byproduct of 

restoration treatments.

• Carries forward the designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin Research Natural Area

(approximately 290 acres), and recommends adding the Phelps Cabin Botanical Area 

(approximately 100 acres) to it as a recommended research natural area. In addition, 

recommends designating two new research natural areas totaling 5,957 acres. 

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 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

10

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 the FEIS address these broad strategic objectives. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

In addition to the four 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.

June 2009 Working Draft Land Management Plan

The Forests released a working draft land management plan for review and comment in 

June 2009. This alternative, based on public and agency input, evolved into what is now the 

proposed plan.

Initial Draft Alternatives

In March 2010, the Forests released a set of three draft alternatives for public review and 

comment. These alternatives, based on public and agency input, evolved into the three action 

alternatives analyzed in the FEIS.

Alternatives with No Timber Harvest or Large Increase in Timber Harvest

These alternatives were considered to address public comments regarding whether timber 

harvesting should be allowed on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, and if so, at what level. It was

determined that an alternative to eliminate timber harvesting is inconsistent with the mission of 

the Forest Service. Timber harvesting is a necessary management tool to maintain and restore 

vegetation communities to desired conditions, produce commercial wood products, create and 

maintain varied wildlife habitat conditions, and treat areas identified in community wildfire 

protection plans. An alternative that called for large increases in timber harvest was also 

considered but not analyzed in detail, because maximizing timber production would not meet the 

desired condition to manage and protect other resources. 

The Plan provides for timber harvests on 596,744 acres of suitable timberland to restore 

vegetation communities to desired conditions. These harvests will be planned and regulated to 

provide a steady supply of forest products which will support forest products industries and local 

communities while protecting other uses and resources. 

Alternatives with No Livestock Grazing 

This alternative was considered in response to public comments preferring no grazing on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. A no grazing alternative would not meet the intent of the polices and 

goals of the National Forest Management Act or Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act which direct

forests to be managed using multiple use, sustained yield principles. Also, it would not allow the 

attainment of the desired condition for livestock grazing to contribute to the social, economic, and 

cultural diversity and stability of rural communities. Therefore, a no-grazing alternative is 
Record of Decision

11

inconsistent with the mission of the Forest Service and the land management plan’s desired 

conditions, and is outside the scope of this decision. 

The Plan provides management direction to guide project-level stocking decisions and ensure that 

land within active grazing allotments moves toward desired conditions for all resources. 

Minimum Management Alternative

This alternative was considered in response to public comments that there should be no or 

minimal human intervention in the management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This alternative 

would not meet the intent of the policies and goals of the National Forest Management Act or 

Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act which direct forests to be managed using multiple use, 

sustained yield principles. Active management is also needed to maintain or move toward desired 

conditions, (e.g., restore forest ecosystems, maintain recreation opportunities, reduce the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfires to communities, maintain the availability of forest products).

The Plan recommends, in addition to the 222,738 acres of existing primitive area and wilderness, 

an additional 7,074 acres of wilderness. In addition, the Plan provides for 322,000 acres of 

Inventoried Roadless Areas, which are managed to preserve their roadless character, and 8,075 

acres of designated and recommended Research Natural Areas, which are managed to maintain 

natural conditions. Additional areas are managed as Natural Landscapes, in which management is 

directed toward maintaining natural appearance and restoring ecosystems, and Wildlife Quiet 

Areas, where management emphasizes wildlife habitat and motorized access is prohibited. 

Wilderness Alternatives

Requests for new wilderness areas were submitted by several groups. These areas were 

considered in light of the evaluation of potential wilderness that was completed by the ApacheSitgreaves NFs for the plan revision process. Portions of these external proposals are further 

considered in alternatives B, C, and D. Other portions were dismissed from detailed consideration 

because they did not meet the criteria for potential wilderness. 

The Plan recommends an additional 7,074 acres of wilderness, and provides for the maintenance 

of the majority of potential wilderness on the forests in a natural or roadless condition. 

Wildlife Conservation Area Alternative

Based on input from several groups, an alternative was considered to manage portions of the 

Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts as wildlife conservation areas. The wildlife 

conservation area proposal included various components such as existing and new wildlife habitat 

areas, wildlife corridors, core black bear and mountain lion habitat, Mexican spotted owl (MSO)

protected activity centers, northern goshawk post-fledging family areas, and rivers eligible for 

designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Although this alternative was considered, it 

was not further analyzed because many of its components are included in the three action 

alternatives. 

The Plan provides for 50,173 acres of Wildlife Quiet Areas, managed under closure orders to 

maintain high-quality wildlife habitat. These areas are focused on enhancing core habitat for 

wide-ranging predators such as black bear and mountain lion and big game animals like elk, deer, 

and pronghorn, threatened and endangered species including MSO, and sensitive species 

including northern goshawk. Additional provisions of the Plan restrict timber management in 

MSO protected activity centers and northern goshawk post-fledging family areas, while 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

12

permitting management actions, including tree cutting and prescribed fire, that promote desired 

conditions and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. 

Alternatives to Designate or Remove Wild and Scenic Rivers

These alternatives were considered in response to public comments that specific river segments 

should be designated or removed from the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Designation 

or removal of a wild and scenic river is a congressional action. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs do 

not have any rivers designated in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; therefore, there 

are no rivers that can be removed. 

Before a river can be recommended to Congress for designation into the system, a suitability 

study must be conducted. A suitability study for any additional river segments is beyond the scope 

of this plan revision process.

There are 25 rivers eligible or suitable for designation that must be managed to maintain or 

enhance their outstandingly remarkable values. The Plan provides for the protection of the status 

of eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers by restricting management activities within a onehalf mile wide corridor along the river. Eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers are considered 

special areas by the Forest Service. 

Changes to the Road and Motorized Trail System and Elimination of OHV Use

These alternatives were considered in response to public comments to change the road and 

motorized trail system and to eliminate the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs). The land 

management plan provides a framework to guide future changes to the transportation system, 

including use. Potential changes to the Forests’ transportation system would be evaluated in 

separate project-level analyses including the implementation of the Travel Management Rule

(TMR) (36 CFR § 212). As a result, these alternatives were dropped from detailed consideration.

Expanding Existing Energy Corridors

Arizona Public Service (APS), an Arizona electric utility company, recommended that the Forest 

Service establish designated corridors for all existing transmission facilities and expansion of 

high voltage transmission corridors. The action alternatives establish an Energy Corridor 

Management Area that provides guidance for existing facilities. The management area boundary 

follows the existing rights-of-way. In order to increase the width of the corridor, further analysis 

and a project-level decision would be needed. Although it was determined that this is beyond the 

scope of this revision process and would not be considered in further detail in this analysis, the 

issue can be revisited in future analyses. A future multimodal energy corridor was designated in 

2009 under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This corridor is 27.8 miles long and 3,500 feet wide 

and crosses the Sitgreaves NF, paralleling an existing APS utility corridor. The existence of this 

corridor does not authorize any projects, nor does it mandate that future rights-of-way locate in 

the corridor, or preclude the Forest Service from denying a project or requiring design revisions. 

However, under the Energy Policy Act, applications for construction of energy-related 

infrastructure within this corridor would be expedited. 

Alternatives with No Road or Motorized Trail Construction and Road Density 

Requirements

Comments received on the proposed plan and DEIS recommend an alternative with no road or 

motorized trail construction, and other comments requested the Forest Service set limits for road 

density. An alternative to forbid new road or motorized trail construction was considered not to be 
Record of Decision

13

feasible (e.g., new road construction may be required when access to a particular resource or 

private inholding is needed). The action alternatives address the impacts of roads and motorized 

trails on forest resources. Any new road or motorized trail construction would only be authorized 

following project-level NEPA analysis and would be accomplished using best management 

practices to minimize resource impacts while providing for forest access needs. 

An alternative to include a road density standard was considered; the standard would limit the 

road system to a minimum number of miles of road per square mile of land. This alternative was 

considered but not analyzed in detail because future project-level planning efforts, including the 

implementation of the TMR, would determine the designated road system. The Plan provides for 

new road construction only in cases when access is needed to a resource or to a private inholding. 

Alternatives with No Mining and Drilling

Comments received on the proposed plan and DEIS supported recommending an alternative that 

would prohibit mining and drilling. This was considered; however, Congress declared in the 

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 that it is the continuing policy of the Federal 

Government, in the national interest, to foster and encourage the development of domestic 

mineral resources. In addition, the Forest Service does not have the discretionary authority to 

prevent mining of locatable minerals on public domain lands as prescribed by the 1872 Mining 

Law (as amended). 

The plan contains desired conditions, guidelines, and suitability determinations for minerals and 

geology-related projects and activities, including surface occupancy stipulations. Any specific 

mining or drilling proposals will be evaluated to ensure consistency with plan decisions. Specific 

projects could be modified to include additional site-specific mitigation measures to protect forest 

resources.

Alternative with Maximum Treatments (Mechanical and Wildland Fire)

Comments received on the proposed plan and DEIS suggested an alternative that would 

maximize mechanical treatments (timber sales) and acres treated with wildland fire (planned and 

unplanned ignitions) with over 100,000 acres burned on an annual basis. Alternative C represents 

the maximum mechanical treatments, while alternative D represents the maximum wildland fire 

treatments the Forests anticipate being able to accomplish within the planning period. An 

alternative that would maximize both treatment types was not considered to be feasible based on 

anticipated future budgets.

The Plan presents a balanced approach to restoring ecosystems through mechanical treatments 

and wildland fire treatments. Allocation of treatments is based on management area suitability for 

the treatment, compatibility of the treatment with other land uses, and realistic expectations of 

future budgetary resources. Areas are prioritized for restoration based on watershed condition and 

risk of uncharacteristic wildfire to adjacent communities. 

Alternative with Different Livestock Grazing Management

Comments received on the proposed plan and DEIS recommended an alternative that provides a 

different strategy for managing livestock grazing than that analyzed in the DEIS. It would provide 

management direction that would maximize long-term vegetative health through a conservative 

strategy toward grazing including restrictive standards to reduce unsatisfactory lands and improve 

forage and grassland habitat.
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

14

A change in the management of livestock grazing was not identified as need for change from the 

1987 Plan (see the “Purpose and Need for Change” section in chapter 1) and therefore, the topic 

of livestock grazing management did not drive alternative development. Nevertheless, guidelines, 

standards, desired conditions, and objectives for livestock grazing, riparian habitats, aquatic 

habitats, and PNVTs which support grazing in the new Plan provide much greater specificity and 

direction for promoting progress towards desired conditions and preventing resource damage. 

All alternatives contain a primary desired condition for livestock grazing to “balance livestock 

grazing with available forage” on suitable grazing lands. Stocking decisions (amount of livestock 

grazing authorized) are authorized through term grazing permits (a long-term authorization 

subject to forestwide standards and guidelines), allotment management plans, and annual 

operating instructions. Changes to these authorizations would be made through project-level 

analyses. 

The Plan provides direction for healthy and resilient vegetation, riparian areas, and water 

resources conditions in the short and long term. Two riparian PNVTs were selected as ecological 

indicators to provide a way to measure the effects of forest management, including grazing, on 

fragile ecosystems. Therefore, the Plan provides the framework for livestock stocking decisions 

that would provide for the health of vegetation and retention of water and forage for wildlife,

because those decisions must be consistent with applicable plan direction.

Alternative Based on the Old Growth Protection and Large Tree Retention 

Strategy

Comments received on the proposed plan and DEIS recommended an alternative based on the 

Old Growth Protection and Large Tree Retention Strategy (OGPLTRS) developed by 

stakeholders for implementation in 4FRI.

The action alternatives provide guidance to retain appropriate amounts of large and old trees 

and/or old growth. In addition, alternative D analyzes a strategy similar to OGPLTRS because it 

contains a standard to retain all old and large trees.

Although OGPLTRS does not dictate a universal upper cutting size limit (diameter cap); it does 

universally dictate keeping all pre-European-settlement (old) trees in all cases. The OGPLTRS 

proposes very specific tree retention requirements that are not appropriate for a programmatic 

land management plan. It reduces the flexibility that project-level decision makers may need to 

design treatments that promote site-specific desired conditions. Concepts from the OGPLTRS, 

including those which are more restrictive than those in the Plan, could be analyzed and 

incorporated at the project level, if applicable.

The Plan and FEIS were developed on nearly the same timeline as the Four-Forests Restoration 

Initiative (4FRI) and related Objection Resolution process. The Plan and FEIS closely evaluated 

the discussions of the 4FRI effort, and the Plan components will provide essentially the same 

direction. Specifically: 

• The Plan is fully consistent with the MSO Recovery Plan, providing for protection and 

active management of MSO PACs and restoration of habitat, as well as monitoring of 

MSO, northern goshawk, and pronghorn antelope and their habitats. 

• The Objection Resolution (and final decision) for the 4FRI on the issues of grazing are 

addressed in the Plan and FEIS. The FEIS specifically acknowledges the connection 
Record of Decision

15

between grazing and alteration of fire regimes and vegetation cover through removal of 

fine fuels. 

• Objectives, standards and guidelines are in place to promote progress toward desired 

conditions for riparian areas, aquatic habitats, aspen, and other PNVTs which support 

livestock grazing. 

• The Plan also integrates landscape-scale diversity, retention of old growth, and 

restoration of historic ranges of ecosystem structure, function, and processes, including 

the historic ranges of canopy cover. 

Alternative to Manage Forests as a Refuge for Fish and Wildlife

Comments received on the proposed plan and DEIS recommended an alternative that emphasizes 

biodiversity and errs on the side of ecological caution (a “no regrets strategy”) by managing the 

national forests as a safe harbor and refuge for fish and wildlife, even at the expense of competing 

multiple use activities, such as livestock grazing, timber production, and motorized recreation. 

The alternative would increase protection of forest resources, including species viability, in 

response to climate change.

The alternative was not considered in detail because, by focusing solely on fish and wildlife 

habitat over other uses, it would not meet the intent of the policies and goals of the National 

Forest Management Act or Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act which direct forests to be managed 

using multiple use, sustained yield principles. Also, in light of changes predicted by current 

climate models (e.g., increased wildfires, greater vulnerability to invasive species, changes in 

timing of precipitation), there is a need to reduce vulnerability by maintaining and restoring 

resilient native ecosystems which would be an outcome in alternatives B, D, C, and A (in order 

from greatest resilience to least). Management practices that sustain healthy plant and animal 

communities (e.g., thinning for age class diversity and structure, reclaiming and restoring native 

grasslands) promote resilience and reduce opportunities for disturbance and damage.

The primary focus area, or revision topic, for the action alternatives is “Maintenance and 

Improvement of Ecosystem Health.” The alternatives provide specific direction to provide for 

biodiversity and protect endangered species, other animals, and habitat. They provide for the 

viability of all terrestrial and aquatic species. The Plan further provides specific direction for 

management to ensure the viability of listed species, species of concern, wide-ranging predators, 

big game species, sensitive species, and others. Management indicator species and ecological 

indicators are designated so that the effects of management actions on species viability can be 

assessed. 

Alternative to Compare Viability for the Mexican Spotted Owl

Comments received on the proposed plan and DEIS recommended an alternative that would 

include the following: (1) implement standards and guidelines from the 1987 Plan; (2) forbid new 

road construction in Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs); (3) incorporate fuel 

treatment concepts to minimize risk of stand-replacing fire in PACs, including large tree 

retention, management of surface fuels and sub-canopy forest structure, and spatial orientation of 

treatments; and (4) apply fuel treatment modeling in Mexican spotted owl habitat conducted by 

Northern Arizona University Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis. The intent of the alternative 

is to help the decision maker and the public compare impacts to Mexican spotted owl and its 

critical habitat.
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

16

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because the implementation of 1987 Plan

standards and guidelines is considered in the alternative A analysis in the EIS. The Plan provides 

direction that projects and activities would be managed consistent with the Mexican spotted owl 

recovery plan, including constraints on road construction and fuel treatments. Methodologies for 

fuel treatment modeling would be determined by the responsible official on a site-specific basis. 

The Northern Arizona University Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis may be used if 

determined applicable. Mexican spotted owl is identified as a management indicator species in 

the Plan, ensuring that it will be the focus of continued monitoring and that its viability will be 

considered in project-level planning. The Plan provides guidance that new roads and trails should 

avoid MSO PACs. MSO PACs are not suitable for timber production, but are suitable for tree 

cutting for habitat improvement, fuel management, restoration, or other purposes. 

Alternative Proposed by Counties

Several Arizona counties (Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and Navajo) and the Eastern Arizona Counties 

Organization recommended a new alternative during the comment period for the proposed plan 

and DEIS. That alternative would have included provisions from existing alternatives to treat 

grasslands, increase logging, prioritize mechanical thinning over prescribed fire, consider more 

new motorized areas and trails in the future, prevent catastrophic wildfire, restore watersheds, and 

alter the designation of management areas. The alternative would also have proposed changes to 

rangeland management; support for local wood-based industries; guidance for TMR; guidelines 

to integrate the OGPLTRS; a comparison of the 10 priority watersheds; more clearly 

differentiating between degrading factors and their effects and between natural processes and 

management effects; providing more information on the proposed natural landscape areas; a 

rationale for proposed elimination of IRAs; more specific information on and plans for 

monitoring; and guidelines to integrate social and economic sustainability, science, and 

considerations into decision making.

This alternative was not considered for detailed study because several components were analyzed 

in alternatives in the EIS, addressed in plan direction, or beyond the scope of the plan and plan 

revision process. The suggested provisions from existing alternatives were analyzed as 

alternatives B and C in chapters 2 and 3 of the EIS. The Plan provides a monitoring strategy in 

chapter 5. The Plan’s interdisciplinary team considered the OGPLTRS in its entirety, but 

recommended that it not be analyzed in detail. The plan provides guidance to retain appropriate 

amounts of large and old trees and/or old growth to move ecosystems toward desired conditions. 

The “Watershed” section in chapter 3 of the EIS was updated based on the recommendation to 

clarify degrading factors.

The Plan contains guidance for treating grasslands to control invading woody vegetation, 

provides a balanced approach to treating forested PNVTs with mechanical treatments and fire, 

emphasizes the restoration and maintenance of watersheds, and gives a framework for 

implementation of the TMR. TMR will address the travel issues of motorized big game retrieval, 

dispersed camping, and firewood collection and harvesting. Through restoration of forested 

PNVTs, the Plan provides direction for producing a steady, sustainable flow of forest products 

which will support local economies. 

My Decision

I select alternative B for the new Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests. The new Plan will: 
Record of Decision

17

• Maintain or improve the structure, composition, and processes of the Forests’ fire-adapted 

vegetation types toward desired conditions. This will result in conditions that are more 

resilient to disturbances, including uncharacteristic fire, human activities, and climate 

variability. Management actions which reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire, promote 

habitat quality, species diversity and structural heterogeneity, increase water yield, and reduce 

fragmentation all contribute to the forests’ ability to change and adapt to new climatic 

conditions. 

• Use a mix of both mechanical and wildland fire treatments to restore fire-adapted ecosystems 

with a focus on treating priority watersheds, areas identified in community wildfire protection 

plans, and lands in the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area. This will result in 

improved watershed conditions and reduced threats to communities from uncharacteristic 

wildfire. Wood products, forage, and clean water would be byproducts from the 

implementation of the Plan’s restoration activities.

• Protect and improve soil and water resources that support terrestrial and aquatic habitat,

including fens, bogs, and springs, and contribute to high levels of biodiversity consisting of 

more than 2,500 plant and animal species. 

• Provide for the viability of all species, including the 109 wildlife and fish species identified 

as having viability concerns, through habitat desired conditions needed by those species and 

standards, guidelines, and objectives that address species-specific needs. 

• Guide managers to control, treat, and eradicate non-native plant and animal invasive species.

This will result in lowering risks to native species, ecosystem function, and the production of 

goods and services.

• Provide a balanced spectrum of recreation opportunities that visitors seek while managing to 

protect the Forests’ other resources. New recreation development will be considered on a 

limited basis; the emphasis is to maintain existing recreation developments.

• Move vegetation toward desired conditions and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires 

and the threat to surrounding communities. The Community-Forest Intermix Management 

Area includes lands one-half mile around high-risk communities where fuels treatments 

would be the management emphasis.

• Address urban-interface demands (e.g., access to the Forests, utility corridors, roads, special 

use permits) and emphasize the need to understand adjacent community expansion needs.

• Restore forests, woodlands, and grasslands that will result in an abundant source of wood that 

can contribute to local and regional wood-processing and biomass industries and provide 

fuelwood for local families and trees to tribes for traditional and cultural purposes. This 

restoration would build on the trend initiated during the White Mountain Stewardship Project

and continued by the 4FRI project. The Plan also provides for continued livestock grazing 

that will contribute to the cultural diversity and stability of local communities.

• Establish a monitoring strategy that enables and promotes adaptive management by focusing 

on outcomes.

• Provide guidance for 12 management areas on the Forests. Five management areas are similar 

to management areas in the 1987 Plan (Wilderness, Primitive Area, Research Natural Area, 

Recommended Research Natural Area, and High Use Developed Recreation Area). Three 

management areas provide direction for existing areas that lacked guidance in the 1987 Plan 

(Energy Corridor, Wild Horse Territory, and Wildlife Quiet Area). Four management areas are 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

18

newly established (General Forest, Community-Forest Intermix, Natural Landscape, and 

Recommended Wilderness).

• Provide guidance for managing other special areas including scenic byways, eligible and 

suitable wild and scenic rivers, and national recreation trails.

• Recommend approximately 7,100 acres for wilderness designation. These areas are adjacent 

to existing wilderness and will be managed to retain their wilderness characteristics until a 

congressional decision on wilderness designation is made.

• Recommend five research natural areas (7,500 acres). These areas contribute to the ecological 

diversity of the regional network of research natural areas and are managed to provide for

research, observation, and study. 

Components of the Decision

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

Forest Service implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 29. 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 Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Land Management Plan are:

Establishment of forestwide multiple-use goals (characterized by desired 

conditions) and objectives (1982 Planning Rule, Section 219.11 (b))

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

Plan. Desired conditions set forth the desired social, economic, and ecological attributes of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. They paint a picture of what we (the public and Forest Service) desire 

the forests look like or the goods and services we desire them to provide. While the Plan 

addresses multiple uses and values of the Forests, the desired conditions emphasize (1) restoring 

the Forests’ fire-adapted vegetation types to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and improve 

ecological resilience in the face of climate change with an emphasis on treating priority 

watersheds and areas identified in community wildfire protection plans, (2) managing for a 

balance of recreation opportunities the public desires in a sustainable manner, and (3) 

contributing to the social and economic sustainability of communities while maintaining the 

ecological sustainability of the Forests. Desired conditions are also established in the Plan’s 

chapter 3 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 2 for a full array of resources, uses, goods and services. 

Objectives are concise, time-specific statements of measurable planned results that make progress 

toward or maintain desired conditions. 

Establishment of forestwide management requirements (standards and

guidelines) (1982 Planning 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. A project or activity must be 

consistent with all standards applicable to the type of project or activity and its location in the 
Record of Decision

19

plan area. Guidelines are requirements that must be followed unless a different management 

action demonstrably achieves the same intent as the guideline, with such deviations being

documented within the project record. 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 revised plan. To simplify the planning document and to keep it up to date, 

laws, policies, Forest Service 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 Planning 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 in chapter 3 of the 

plan and are mapped in appendix F. The plan provides desired conditions, standards, and 

guidelines for 12 specific areas on the Forests. Two types of areas are identified: designated areas 

and management areas.

Designated areas (also known as special areas) are lands given special designation through statute 

or a preexisting administrative process due to their unique or special characteristics. Designated 

areas in the revised Plan include Heber Wild Horse Territory (Wild Horse Territory Management 

Area), Phelps Cabin Research Natural Area (Research Natural Area Management Area), Blue 

Range Primitive Area (Primitive Area Management Area), Mount Baldy Wilderness, Bear Wallow 

Wilderness, and Escudilla Wilderness (Wilderness Management Area). There are other designated 

areas that are not mapped as management areas; these include national recreation trails (Blue 

Ridge, General George Crook, Eagle, and Escudilla) and scenic byways (Coronado Trail Scenic 

Byway, From the Desert to Tall Pines Scenic Road, and White Mountain Scenic Road). Direction 

for these areas is found in forestwide direction in chapter 2 of the Plan.

Management areas are delineated to aid in management and provide plan direction for specific 

sites. Management areas established in the revised Plan are General Forest, Community-Forest 

Intermix, High Use Developed Recreation Area, Energy Corridor, Wildlife Quiet Area, Natural 

Landscape, Recommended Research Natural Area, and Recommended Wilderness. 

Determination of land that is suitable for timber production (1982 Planning Rule, 

Section 219.14) and establishment of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of timber 

(1982 Planning Rule, Section 219.16)

The identification and description of lands suitable for timber production is found in chapter 4 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 Apache-Sitgreaves NFs totals 596,700 acres. The amount of wood that is estimated to be 

available for sale 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 122,000 CCF (hundred cubic feet) per 

year. This is an increase from 73,000 CCF under the previous plan, which is due to the revised 

plan placing more emphasis on restoration treatments. More information on timber suitability and 

ASQ is available in the FEIS appendix B.
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

20

Recommendations for non-wilderness allocations and recommendations for wilderness 

status (1982 Planning Rule, Section 219.17)

During the analysis process leading to this decision, a total of about 714,938 acres in 38 areas 

were found to have wilderness potential. I recommend the 7,074 acres identified in the

Recommended Wilderness Management Area for Congressional designation as Wilderness. The 

areas recommended are adjacent to existing wilderness and would provide for better 

manageability of the existing wilderness because wilderness boundaries would be more 

identifiable by the public and Forest Service employees. Until Congress considers this 

recommendation, the Plan has management direction for these areas to improve and/or maintain 

wilderness character. The 199,000-acre Blue Range Primitive Area was recommended as 

wilderness in 1971, and will continue to be managed as primitive, maintaining its wilderness 

character, until such time as Congress acts upon the recommendation.

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. 

Most of the areas identified as potential wilderness, but not recommended for wilderness, would 

be managed under Natural Landscape Management Area direction, which would help maintain 

wilderness characteristics. All inventoried roadless areas would be managed consistent with the 

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which would help maintain roadless characteristics.

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

appropriate (1982 Planning Rule, Section 219.17)

The eligibility review process for wild and scenic rivers is described in the Eligible and Suitable 

Wild and Scenic Rivers section of the FEIS. Approximately 339 miles of 23 rivers were 

determined eligible to be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There are 

172 miles classified as wild, 66 miles as scenic, and 101 miles classified as recreational. Suitable 

rivers include portions of the Blue River and KP Creek; these rivers were found to be suitable for 

inclusion in the national system through a separate environmental analysis. The revised Plan 

provides guidance to protect the river characteristics and outstandingly remarkable values through 

application of interim management guidelines for river segments that are eligible (Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 82.5).

As previously described, the revised Plan provides management direction in chapters 2 and 3 for 

designated areas that have been established through statute or a preexisting administrative process 

because of their unique or special characteristics. These include the wild horse territory, research 

natural area, primitive area, three wildernesses, four national recreation trails, and three scenic

byways. 

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

219.20)

Approximately 94 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is suitable for livestock grazing. The 

areas designated unsuitable for grazing include research natural areas, recommended research 

natural areas, and those lands not in a grazing allotment. The Plan sets the framework for sitespecific determinations relating to allotment management, such as the grazing systems (e.g., 

season of use, permitted livestock numbers, forage use levels) to meet desired conditions and the 

range developments needed to implement those systems. Chapter 4 of the revised Plan and the 
Record of Decision

21

Livestock Grazing section and appendix B of the FEIS contain more information about the

grazing suitability and capability determinations on the Forests. 

Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (1982 Planning Rule, Section

219.11 (d))

Monitoring and evaluation requirements are found in chapter 5 of the revised Plan. Specific 

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

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

and capacity and will facilitate adapting management in response to results and new information. 

Application of this monitoring strategy will inform achievement of the desired conditions and 

objectives, and serve as the basis for adjusting the land management plan.

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

228.102 (d))

This determination is not a part of the revised Plan. 

Rationale for Decision

My decision to select alternative B as the new Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land 

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 B 

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 Forests’ resources toward 

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

of the Forests; (3) are responsive to the diverse needs, issues, concerns, and opportunities 

expressed by the public and other agencies; (4) establish ambitious but achievable objectives for 

maintenance and improvement of ecosystem health, managed recreation, and community-forest 

interaction; and (5) manage land uses in ways that are ecologically, socially, and economically 

sustainable.

Alternative B will effectively maintain or move vegetation toward desired conditions. Alternative 

B provides direction to restore forests, woodlands, grasslands, riparian areas, and chaparral; 

maintain or establish well-distributed occurrences of old growth; reestablish native species 

understory; and regenerate aspen. Analysis shows the ecological composition, structure, and 

processes of the Forests’ vegetation types would be closer to reference conditions, allowing the 

reestablishment of natural patterns and processes within vegetation communities that allow for 

natural resiliency. Resiliency is especially important when faced with uncharacteristic wildfire, 

presence of invasive species, human activities, and climate change.

Alternative B uses a mix of both mechanical and wildland fire treatments to maintain or move 

vegetation toward desired conditions. Mechanical treatments will result in a sustainable flow of 

wood products to local and regional industry. The use of wildland fire treatments would assist in 

restoring fire to a more natural role and provide an economical alternative to mechanized 

thinning.

Alternative B consistently addresses the same issues as the Four Forest Restoration Initiative 

(U.S. Forest Service, 2015a), which provides for mechanical and prescribed fire treatments to 

restore frequent-fire ecosystems at landscape scale, reduces the incidence of uncharacteristic 

wildfires, and produces economic benefits for communities. Desired conditions, objectives, 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

22

standards, and guidelines for forested PNVTs in the plan provide for treatments to reduce tree 

density, restore natural fire regimes, promote high quality habitat and healthy ecosystems, reduce 

fire hazard, provide forest products, and promote resiliency to climate change. 

Alternative B promotes healthy watersheds through desired conditions, standards, and guidelines 

that protect and improve soil, water resources, riparian, and upland vegetation conditions. 

Alternative B prioritizes treatments in priority watersheds and contains an objective to improve 

the condition class on at least 10 priority watersheds by removing or mitigating degrading factors.

Analysis shows that soil conditions under alternative B would remain static or improve over the 

planning period and alternative B would provide the best opportunity for restoring or maintaining 

watersheds across the Forests. Analysis shows that under alternative B, water quality will trend 

toward desired conditions and water yield may increase because of implementation of ecological 

restoration treatments that result in more open forests, woodland, and grassland conditions.

Restoration to, and maintenance of, desired conditions in forested vegetation types will result in 

increased water yields for important watersheds which supply agricultural and urban areas of 

Arizona and recharge groundwater. Major watersheds on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs include the 

Salt River, which provides the greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area with water and hydropower 

through the Salt River Project, the upper Gila River basin, which provides water for agriculture

and mining interests, and the Little Colorado River, which also provides irrigation water in its 

upper watershed. Alternative B is expected to result in a positive trend for riparian areas, based on 

the overall focus on ecosystem restoration and resiliency, in addition to specific objectives to treat 

riparian areas and remove motorized routes that impact riparian condition.

The plan components within Alternative B provide for improvement of vegetation cover and the 

health of riparian areas, increasing resiliency to climate change and extreme weather events. The 

plan provides for reduction of uncharacteristic wildfires, increased water yield, and increased 

economic benefits by restoring healthy structure in frequent-fire systems. Provisions in the plan to 

improve ecosystem health and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire will in turn result in 

fewer opportunities for epidemic-level outbreaks of insects and diseases and invasion of exotic 

species, as well as specific direction to control and eradicate exotic invasive species. 

Alternative B provides a mix of recreation opportunities with a balanced approach in providing 

developed, dispersed, motorized, and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Alternative B 

emphasizes maintenance of existing recreation developments with limited new development. 

Analysis shows that the Forests’ deferred maintenance backlog will be reduced during the 

planning period. Alternative B provides the framework to guide future changes to the 

transportation system. Specifically, the plan identifies existing Forest Service roads and 

motorized trails, as well as designated motorized areas, as being suitable for motorized travel, 

while identifying the rest of the Forest as being unsuitable for motorized travel unless specific 

exemptions apply. Restrictions on motorized travel in areas deemed to be unsuitable cannot be 

enforced until the implementation of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR § 212) and its 

associated NEPA environmental effects analysis, as required by Executive Order 11644. The 

result of TMR analysis will be a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) displaying where motorized 

travel is allowed. Any proposed future site-specific changes to the Forest’s transportation system 

will be evaluated in annual NEPA-based adjustments to the MVUM, accomplished under the 

framework of the Plan’s suitability and other plan guidance.

Analysis shows that alternative B would provide the greatest benefit of reducing the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire and the resulting threat to communities and ecosystems and potential 

losses from fire. Treatments within the wildland-urban interface (including the Community-Forest 
Record of Decision

23

Intermix Management Area) would help protect communities and protect the Forests from fire 

that starts on private lands. These treatments would also benefit firefighter and public safety. 

Analysis in the FEIS shows that Alternative B will contribute to social and economic 

sustainability. It is expected to produce approximately 3,800 jobs and $118 million in labor 

income for the local economy, a 1 percent increase over the 1987 Plan, mostly generated through 

the recreation, livestock grazing, minerals, and wood products programs. Wood products, made 

available to local markets from suitable timberlands and through tree cutting for purposes such as 

safety, firewood, and biomass on non-suitable lands, are anticipated to total between 124,000 and 

400,000 CCF per year. This steady and sustainable flow of wood will provide incentives for the 

forest products industry to invest in local wood utilization infrastructure, building on the success 

of past efforts, particularly the White Mountain Stewardship Project. 

The White Mountain Stewardship Project was a 10-year stewardship project which provided for 

mechanical restoration treatments on up to 15,000 acres per year. Key lessons from the project 

include the importance of an existing, viable wood products market to implement restoration 

treatments at a meaningful scale. It also became apparent that one forest cannot support a viable 

industry large enough to absorb expected supplies from future restoration actions, including those 

anticipated under the Four-Forest Restoration Initiative (U.S. Forest Service 2015b). Alternative 

B provides the vision for partnership between forests, tribes, and industry to build a critical mass 

of capacity, labor, and supply to support an effort like 4FRI.

Alternative B includes recommended wilderness adjacent to Escudilla Wilderness and Bear 

Wallow Wilderness totaling about 7,100 acres that meet the wilderness inventory criteria to 

improve the manageability of existing wilderness areas. I believe these areas will make excellent

additions to the wilderness system.

The 199,000-acre Blue Range Primitive Area was recommended as wilderness in 1971. 

Alternative B provides direction to continue managing the Blue Range Primitive Area as 

primitive, maintaining its wilderness character, until such time as Congress acts upon the 

recommendation.

Alternative B recommends five research natural areas totaling approximately 7,500 acres. These 

areas provide representation in four ecological types (riparian forest, ponderosa pine forest, semidesert grassland, and wetland/cienega riparian area) that will broaden ecological diversity of the 

regional network of research natural areas. These additions will provide additional opportunities 

for research, observation, and study.

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

for change identified in the Analysis of the Management Situation. The current plan has no 

articulated desired conditions for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 14 PNVTs. There are very few 

desired conditions for other resources. After reviewing the FEIS and summary in table 3 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 B rather than alternative C for several reasons. Although alternative C, 

because of its increased amount of mechanical treatments, would restore ponderosa pine forests 

the best, it would result in a trend away from desired conditions for riparian areas and would 

restore the least amount of grasslands. Alternative C does not emphasize the retention or 

encouragement of old growth characteristics as much as alternative B. In addition, alternative C 

emphasizes motorized and developed recreation and will result in decreases in nonmotorized and 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

24

dispersed recreation opportunities. Finally, alternative C considered forest management without 

inventoried roadless areas and so is inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

I selected alternative B rather than alternative D for several reasons. Alternative D would not 

restore the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests toward desired conditions as well as 

alternative B. Alternative D would provide the least wood volume for meeting social and 

economic desired conditions for local and regional markets and related jobs. This is because of its 

emphasis on wildland fire as a primary treatment tool, as well as the standard to retain all large 

and old trees. This may result in an overabundance of large trees, conversion of stands to evenaged condition, and a movement away from desired conditions. Uniform stands of large trees lack 

the canopy gaps which allow them to regenerate to desirable species and have a higher risk of 

stand-replacing wildfire. Alternative D emphasizes nonmotorized and dispersed recreation and 

will result in decreases in motorized and developed recreation opportunities. 

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 full 

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 or if 

wood processing infrastructure is not available within a feasible distance.

In summary, I believe alternative B 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 Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

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 Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ plan revision. I have made my decision to select 

alternative B with due consideration of the input from those diverse stakeholders. I will now share 

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

those concerns.

Some stakeholders expressed support for more recommended wilderness, while other 

stakeholders expressed a preference for less wilderness. Related to this, some stakeholders

disagreed with the wilderness evaluation process. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs wilderness 

evaluation process is consistent with the 1982 planning rule, directives, and regional guidance. 

The EIS studied alternatives that included a wide range of recommended wilderness (0 to 

485,000 acres). My decision considered the needs for active management to decrease the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire. My decision recommends areas that are adjacent to existing wilderness 

areas to improve manageability of the Escudilla and Bear Wallow Wildernesses. The 199,000-

acre Blue Range Primitive Area was recommended as wilderness in 1971, and will continue to be 

managed as primitive, maintaining its wilderness character, until such time as Congress acts upon 

the recommendation. 
Record of Decision

25

Stakeholders requested that mechanized use (e.g., bicycles) be prohibited in recommended 

wilderness. In response to this request, the recreation suitability for recommended wilderness was 

changed by removing the allowance for mechanized use to provide consistent direction with 

adjacent wilderness. 

Some stakeholders opposed consideration of alternative C in which inventoried roadless areas 

(IRAs) would be managed with no direction to retain their undeveloped character. Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations allow an alternative outside the legal jurisdiction of the agency 

to be analyzed if it is reasonable and responsive to public concerns. This alternative was 

developed in response to scoping comments but was not selected. My decision contains desired 

conditions to maintain the overall roadless character of all IRAs consistent with the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Stakeholders expressed a preference for more emphasis on managing for biological diversity and 

at-risk species especially to address scientific uncertainty and controversy regarding climate 

change impacts. In light of changes predicted by current climate models (e.g., increased wildfires, 

greater vulnerability to invasive species), there is a need to reduce vulnerability by restoring and 

maintaining resilient native ecosystems which would be an outcome of my decision. Management 

practices that sustain healthy plant and animal communities (e.g., thinning for age class diversity 

and structure, reclaiming and restoring native grasslands) promote resilience and reduce 

opportunities for disturbance and damage. My decision contains specific direction to provide for 

biodiversity and protect endangered species, other animals, and habitat.

Concerns were raised by stakeholders about the species viability process. The viability analysis is 

documented in the EIS. Wildlife species viability was conducted in accordance with the 1982 

Planning Rule to assure the plan (and plan decisions) maintain viable populations of wildlife 

relative to well-distributed habitat, species occupancy, and maintenance or restoration of habitat. 

My decision contains protections for the viability of all species through desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines, including a guideline to follow species recovery plans. 

Some stakeholders questioned the number of management indicator species (MIS) and the basic 

concept of MIS. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs followed the 1982 Planning Rule requirements for 

selecting and analyzing effects of MIS; this is also documented in the EIS. The role of MIS and 

the basis for their selection is to estimate the effects of each alternative on wildlife species. These 

species are also monitored throughout the life of the plan to assess the effects of management on 

their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs. My decision 

identifies three MIS that represent vegetation types where extensive restoration objectives are 

planned.

Many stakeholders and partners voiced concerns about OHV use and motorized cross-country 

travel. Some requested that roads and trails be evaluated for addition or removal during the plan 

revision process. Others requested that the plan provide guidance for upcoming travel 

management planning (TMR) for dispersed camping, big game retrieval, firewood collection, and 

dispersed shooting. My decision provides the framework through desired conditions and

standards for the TMR analysis process that will resume in 2015 on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Some stakeholders commented that they wanted the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to eliminate or

reduce livestock grazing, while others commented that livestock grazing should be increased. 

Alternatives to eliminate, reduce, or increase livestock grazing were considered in the EIS but 

eliminated from detailed study. Elimination of grazing is not consistent with the multiple-use 

mission of the Forest Service, and stocking decisions are made at the project level using a site-
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

26

specific analysis. Livestock grazing contributes to the social, economic, and cultural diversity and 

stability of rural communities. The grazing program on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs has multiple 

mechanisms to evaluate, review, and adapt management as needed to effectively protect resources 

and respond to changing conditions. My decision contains desired conditions and guidelines to 

balance livestock grazing with available forage. My decision would also improve ecological 

conditions on uplands, increasing available forage for grazing animals. This would provide an 

opportunity to reduce grazing pressure on riparian areas, providing for T&E species such as the 

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as described in the Biological Assessment and Biological 

Opinion.

Some stakeholders questioned the range capability and suitability determinations and the clarity 

and feasibility of achieving vegetation desired conditions, standards, and guidelines. Based on the 

concerns, desired conditions, standards, and guidelines were modified to clarify the intent and 

update grass height desired conditions. 

Stakeholders expressed concerns about the establishment, implementation, and management of 

forage reserves. Alternatives B, C, and D of the DEIS analyzed the effect of forage reserves,

while alternative A considered no forage reserves. Due to concerns regarding maintenance of 

rangeland improvements, associated economics, and impacts to wildlife, forage reserves were 

removed from the FEIS. My decision would not preclude the future establishment of forage 

reserves if needed.

Some stakeholders expressed a preference for emphasizing old growth and forbidding the harvest 

of old-growth trees. Some suggested that the plan include the 4FRI stakeholders’ “Old Growth 

Protection and Large Tree Retention Strategy” (OGPLTRS). The EIS evaluated an alternative 

with direction to retain all large and old trees. My decision contains desired conditions and 

guidelines to sufficiently retain and encourage old growth. The OGPLTRS proposed very specific 

tree retention requirements that are not appropriate for a programmatic land management plan. It 

reduces the flexibility that project-level decision makers may need to design treatments that 

promote site-specific desired conditions. Concepts from the OGPLTRS could be incorporated at 

the project level where applicable.

Some stakeholders and partners requested more direction for fire and fuels management (e.g., fire 

suppression priorities). In response to these concerns, a “Wildland Fire Management” section was 

added to the plan. My decision contains desired conditions and guidelines that better describe the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ fire and fuels management intent.

Some stakeholders requested more protections for water, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems using 

key watersheds, riparian reserves, and additional standards and guidelines. Some landowners 

were concerned that their water rights would be affected. My decision contains desired 

conditions, standards, and guidelines to protect water resources and riparian and aquatic habitat. 

My decision also contains a guideline to establish streamside management zones to maintain 

water quality and temperatures. Existing water rights will not be affected by this decision.

I appreciate all the stakeholders’ constructive contributions to the development of the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan. That input has resulted in an improved Plan 

that will serve the Forests, its priceless resources, and the public well into the future. 
Record of Decision

27

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 B is the environmentally preferred alternative, but only slightly more than alternative

D. All alternatives facilitate restoration of the structure, composition, and processes of 

ecosystems and protect and restore rare and unique resources that support important habitats. All 

alternatives ensure the protection of soil and watershed function; provide for threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, rare, and narrow endemic species; protect historic and cultural resources; 

and mitigate the effects of climate change. Overall, alternatives B and D would provide for the 

greatest movement toward resilient ecosystems; therefore, forest resources and fish and wildlife 

species would be most resilient to changes in climate.

All alternatives set the ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types on a 

trajectory toward achievement of desired conditions, thereby reducing the risk of landscape-scale 

high-severity wildfire. Alternatives A and C focus treatments around communities, while 

alternatives B and D emphasize treatments in priority watersheds and around communities. 

Alternatives A and C also focus treatments in forests and woodlands with very little treatment 

planned for grasslands. Alternatives B and D balance restoration objectives across forests, 

woodlands, and grasslands. Over time, alternative B would move the Forests’ vegetation types 

closer to reference conditions and more quickly than alternative D. This would more effectively 

and more quickly reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire and improve conditions in priority 

watersheds and grasslands.

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 Planning 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. 

Alternative B would contribute over 3,594 jobs and over $111,809,000 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 

4 percent discount rate. The expected PNV for alternative B is approximately equivalent to the 

other alternatives except alternative C. Alternative C would have increased program revenues 

because of the greater amount of mechanical treatments. Not included in the economic impact 

and financial efficiency analysis are the substantial benefits associated with improvements in 

ecosystem function and integrity, resource protection, and aesthetic and cultural benefits.
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

28

Overall, alternative C was shown to be the most economically efficient alternative and provide 

the largest contribution in jobs and labor income. However, I have determined alternative B to be 

the combined most environmentally (see section above) 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 

Forests. 

Science Consistency

The revised Plan contains a strong framework for adapting management of Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs’ 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, development of the plan, and preparation of the EIS. 

Extensive site-specific peer-reviewed literature was available and used in developing many plan 

components for many resource areas, particularly restoring ponderosa pine ecosystems. In 

addition to published scientific literature and reports, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs solicited input 

from subject matter experts, and used state-of-the-art ecological modeling, including the Forest 

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

The revised Plan provides a framework for frequent-fire ecosystem restoration (ponderosa pine 

and dry mixed conifer) based on decades of ecological research. Its emphasis on restoring spatial 

arrangement, structure, and species composition of vegetation is consistent with the best available 

scientific information synthesized in GTR-310 by Reynolds et al. (2013).

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 Forests, 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 Apache-Sitgreaves NFs engaged in a number of discussions with these entities 

throughout 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 affiliated tribes ensured the Plan components reflect tribal concerns and needs with respect 

to the Forests. Appendix C of the FEIS documents the review of other Federal, State, and local 

governments and tribal planning efforts and their potential impact on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

and vice-versa. Appendix F of the FEIS details the collaboration and coordination with other 

public agencies and tribes the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs engaged in throughout the plan revision 

process.
Record of Decision

29

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. 

There are high concentrations of American Indian and Hispanic/Latino residents within the area 

addressed by the Plan. In addition, all of the counties within the planning area have higher 

percentages of persons living in poverty than the national average (13.8 percent) with Apache 

County having the highest poverty rate (34.4 percent). The FEIS analyzed the potential impacts to 

these groups and identified no environmental justice consequences. Since all alternatives, 

including the Plan, would continue to support similar levels of employment and income, they 

would not exacerbate the poverty rate or disproportionately worsen the economic well-being of 

low-income individuals. None of the alternatives were expected to disproportionately adversely 

impact racial and or ethnic minority individuals.

Because of the high proportion of minority populations and high poverty rates, decision makers 

on the Forests will pay careful attention to the potential health and environmental impacts of 

management actions upon these groups. Overall, the themes that form the foundation of the 

revised Plan (i.e., maintenance and improvement of ecosystem health, managed recreation, and 

community-forest interaction), make the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to evaluate the potential effects of the revised Plan on 

federally listed or proposed species, and designated or proposed critical habitat. The BA analyzed 

the potential effects of plan implementation on the following 18 species (table 1).
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

30

Table 1. Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species; and designated or proposed critical 

habitats analyzed in the biological assessment

Species ESA Listing Status ESA Determination of Effects

Mammals

New Mexico meadow

jumping mouse

Zapus hudsonius luteus

Species: Endangered

Critical Habitat: Proposed

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: Not likely to adversely modify 1

Mexican gray wolf

Canis lupus baileyii

Species: Non-essential, 

experimental

Critical Habitat: None

Species: Not likely to jeopardize

Critical Habitat: n/a

Lesser long-nosed bat

Leptonycteris curasoae 

yerbabuenae

Species: Endangered

Critical Habitat: None

Species: No effect

Critical Habitat: n/a

Birds

Mexican spotted owl

Strix occidentalis lucida

Species: Threatened

Critical Habitat: 

Designated

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus

Species: Endangered

Critical Habitat: 

Designated

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis

Species: Threatened

Critical Habitat: Proposed

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: Not likely to adversely modify 1

Amphibians/Reptiles

Chiricahua leopard frog

Lithobates chiricahuensis

Species: Threatened

Critical Habitat: 

Designated

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Narrow-headed 

gartersnake

Thamnophis rufipunctatus

Species: Threatened

Critical Habitat: Proposed

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: Not likely to adversely modify 1

Northern Mexican 

gartersnake

Thamnophis eques 

megalops

Species: Threatened

Critical Habitat: Proposed

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: Not likely to adversely modify1

Invertebrates

Three Forks springsnail

Pyrgulopsis trivialis

Species: Endangered

Critical Habitat: 

Designated

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Fish

Apache trout

Oncorhynchus apache

Species: Threatened

Critical Habitat: None

May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: n/a

Gila chub

Gila intermedia

Species: Endangered

Critical Habitat: 

Designated

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Gila trout

Oncorhynchus gilae

Species: Threatened

Critical Habitat: None

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: n/a
Record of Decision

31

Species ESA Listing Status ESA Determination of Effects

Little Colorado spinedace

Lepidomeda vittata

Species: Threatened

Critical Habitat: 

Designated

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Loach minnow

Tiaroga cobitis

Species: Endangered

Critical Habitat: 

Designated

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: May affect, likely to adversely 

affect

Razorback sucker

Xyrauchen texanus

Species: Endangered

Critical Habitat: 

Designated

Species: No effect

Critical Habitat: No effect

Roundtail chub

Gila robusta

Species: Candidate

Critical Habitat: None

Species: Not likely to jeopardize2

Critical Habitat: n/a3

Spikedace

Meda fulgida

Species: Endangered

Critical Habitat: 

Designated

Species: May affect, likely to adversely affect

Critical Habitat: May affect, likely to adversely 

affect 1 if designated

2 Consultation may be initiated if the roundtail chub were to be listed.

3 Consultation may be initiated if critical habitat for the roundtail chub were to be proposed and designated.

On May 13, 2015, the Fish and Wildlife Service provided a Biological and Conference Opinion 

based on the information provided in the Biological Assessment and concluded that 

“implementation of the ASNFs’ LMP will not jeopardize the continued existence” of any of the 

species covered by the consultation, nor would it “destroy or adversely modify their designated 

critical habitats.” The Fish and Wildlife Service anticipated that incidental take could occur as a 

result of implementing the revised Plan, and identified Reasonable and Prudent Measures and 

Terms and Conditions to minimize the effects of take of Mexican spotted owl, narrow-headed 

gartersnake, Chiricahua leopard frog, Three Forks springsnail, Apache trout, Gila chub, Little 

Colorado spinedace, and loach minnow. Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the 

Forest Service must comply with the Terms and Conditions of the incidental take statements, 

which implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measures. The final Biological Opinion can be 

found in the planning record. 

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities

I have considered the statutes governing management of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

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 land 

management plan addresses the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy 

Act, Endangered Species Act, Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, and the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs 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 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

32

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 directs 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 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 299, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2010). For this revision of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land 

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

document as the 1982 Planning Rule. References in this ROD to sections of 1982 Planning Rule 

version of 36 CFR 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) disclosing cumulative effects, (3) using best scientific information, (4) considering long-term 

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

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 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 Council on Environmental Quality 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 ESA requires 

Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. In addition, the ESA 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that any agency action does not jeopardize the continued 
Record of Decision

33

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

Service (USFWS) 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 ESA, USFWS identified the listed and proposed threatened 

or endangered species that may be present on the Forests. As described above, a biological 

assessment was prepared for the revised Plan and Biological and Conference Opinion rendered by 

USFWS regarding effects of implementing the plan on the threatened, endangered, and candidate 

species present on or near the Forests. The Biological and Conference Opinion concluded that 

none of the species would be jeopardized by implementation of the LMP.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act directs 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, objectives, 

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

fisheries; recreation; cultural resources; livestock grazing; forest products; special uses; mining 

and minerals extraction; and energy transmission and development.

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 of plan implementation on air quality in the FEIS indicates

that all alternatives are expected to achieve the desired conditions for air quality. However, over 

the next 15 years, alternatives D and B would have the greatest movement to overall vegetative 

desired conditions resulting in a reduction of uncharacteristic high emission-producing fires, 

which could negatively impact air quality.

Clean Water Act

The revised Plan contains desired conditions, standards, and guidelines to provide for the 

maintenance or improvement of water quality in the streams and waterbodies of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Overall, implementation of the revised Plan is expected to contribute to 

protecting or restoring the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of water resources of the 

Forests 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. Consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 

under the National Historic Preservation Act is required and was completed, per the 2003 

programmatic agreement between the Forest Service’s Southwestern Region and the State 

Historic Preservation Officers of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. It is my 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

34

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 (IRAs) are conditional on the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). 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 IRAs. While the management direction that was developed in alternative C would allow 

timber harvest and road construction in some IRAs, the 2001 RACR would not allow such 

activities to be implemented. However, the management direction in the other alternatives, 

including the selected alternative (B), is consistent with the 2001 RACR.

Project Consistency

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

revised Land Management Plan that is made in this Record of Decision. The new direction will 

apply to all project decisions made on or after the effective date of this decision. The new 

direction does not apply to any projects that have had decisions made 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. Re-issuance 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 directed 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):
Record of Decision

35

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 

instruments must be made consistent with the revised Plan, subject to existing valid rights, as 

provided at §219.15(d) (2012 Rule).

A land management 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 Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 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:
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

36

• Defining measurable management objectives;

• Monitoring management outcomes and changing circumstances; and

• Revising management strategies accordingly (with appropriate NEPA).

This adaptive management cycle enables the Forests to identify and respond to changing 

conditions, changing public desires, and new information. The Forests’ monitoring strategy is an 

integral part of this adaptive management cycle, and consists of monitoring questions and metrics 

(see chapter 5 of the revised Plan for additional information about the monitoring strategy).

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 strategy is described in chapter 5, “Monitoring Strategy,” of the Plan. This monitoring 

strategy 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 

standards are monitored. Relevancy to issues, compliance with legal 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 decision maker’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. 

In accordance with the monitoring requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule, the monitoring 

components of this Plan will be transitioned to those 2012 Rule monitoring requirements by May 

9, 2016. This monitoring transition will start soon after the revised plan goes into effect.

Plan Amendments

A land management 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, plan monitoring, or other documentation of new information and 

changed conditions or circumstances. The amendment and administrative change process is 

described at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2) 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 
Record of Decision

37

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 began on the effective date of the 2012 Planning 

Rule, May 9, 2012. Since that 3-year transition period has expired, all future plan amendments 

must conform to the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule.

Effective Date

The revised Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land 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).

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 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 newspaper of record for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (The White Mountain Independent). 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:

http://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
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

38

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;

• 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 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).

I encourage anyone concerned about the revised Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land 

Management Plan or Final Environmental Impact Statement, or who would like more 

information, to contact:

Thomas D. Osen

Forest Supervisor

Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Supervisor’s Office

P.O. Box 640

30 S. Chiricahua Drive

Springerville, AZ 85938

(928) 333-4301
Record of Decision

39

Literature Cited

Reynolds, R.T.; A.J. Sanchez Meador; J.A. Youtz; T. Nicolet; M.S. Matonis; P.L. Jackson; D. G. 

DeLorenzo; and A.D. Graves. (2013). Restoring the composition and structure in 

southwestern frequent-fire forests: a science-based framework for improving ecosystem 

resiliency. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-310. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 76 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2015a). Final environmental impact statement for the Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative with errata and objection resolution modifications. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. 575 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service. (2015b). White Mountain Stewardship. Web Page, 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/asnf/workingtogether/partnerships/?cid=STELPRDB52067

33, retrieved June 25, 2015. 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

40

Approval 

I am pleased to announce my decision to select alternative B for the revised Land Management 

Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 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