United States Department of Agriculture

 Forest Southwestern MB-R3-09-05 June 2015

 Service Region

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Prescott 

National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan, 

Volume 1

Yavapai and Coconino Counties,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – June 2015
FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan i

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Prescott National 

Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Volume 1

Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Responsible Official: Cal Joyner, Regional Forester 

333 Broadway Blvd., SE 

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

(505) 842-3292 

For Information Contact: Teresa A. Chase, Forest Supervisor 

Prescott National Forest Supervisor’s Office

2971 Willow Creek Rd, Bldg. 4 

Prescott, AZ 86301 

(928) 443-8000 

Prescott National Forest Web page - Contact Us: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/contactus/prescott/about-forest/contactus

Abstract: This environmental impact statement discloses the detailed analysis of each of the five 

alternatives for revising the 1987 “Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan” (1987 plan). The analysis displays each alternative’s anticipated progress toward the 

desired conditions as well as its potential environmental and social consequences. Alternative A 

represents no change to the 1987 plan (as amended). Alternative B emphasizes citizen 

collaboration; it was developed to address identified needs for change in existing plan direction 

including: ecosystem restoration, watershed integrity, sustainable recreation, fish habitat, and 

open space. Alternative C is similar to alternative B, but it places greater emphasis on ecosystem 

restoration and wildlife viability. Alternative D is also similar to alternative B, but it places 

greater emphasis on dispersed recreation opportunities. In response to comments received 

between the draft and final versions of the EIS, alternative E was developed as the final revised 

plan (selected). It is a modified version of alternative B, with a more modest emphasis on 

recreation and additional clarity of direction for watershed management, forest access, and land 

acquisitions.
ii FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Summary

The Prescott National Forest (Prescott NF or the forest) proposes to implement a new land and 

resource management plan (plan). The area affected by the plan and alternatives covers 

approximately 1.2 million acres of Yavapai and Coconino Counties in west-central Arizona. The 

forest is currently being managed under the “Prescott National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan” (the 1987 plan) which was approved in 1987. This action is needed because 

environmental conditions and managed activities on the Prescott NF have evolved since 1987 to 

the point where previous guidance must be updated. 

Background

Extensive public involvement and collaboration related to developing the revised plan for the 

Prescott NF has occurred and is ongoing. Informal discussions with the public regarding needed 

changes to the 1987 plan began with a series of public meetings in 2007. This input, along with 

science based evaluations, was used to determine the needs for change. Additional meetings, 

correspondence, news releases, comment periods, Federal Register notices, Web postings, and 

other tools have been used to gather feedback from the public, Prescott NF employees, tribal 

governments, Federal and State agencies, and local governments. These public involvement 

efforts resulted in a proposed land and resource management plan, identified as alternative B 

(proposed revised plan) and two other action alternatives analyzed in the draft environmental 

impact statement.

Three primary issues arose that served as the basis for these other alternatives. The first was that 

the proposed plan did not place a big enough emphasis on ecosystem restoration to maintain 

species viability and habitat. Alternative C was developed to address this issue and features a 

more intensive set of vegetation treatments than alternative B.

The second was the desire to provide more dispersed recreation opportunities than those included 

in the proposed plan, including a greater emphasis on improving existing trail conditions and 

providing additional opportunities on new trails. The third issue was the wide variation of opinion 

on how much potential wilderness to recommend for designation. It ranged from those who felt 

that the existing designated wilderness areas are adequate, to those who felt that nearly all 

potential areas evaluated should be recommended for designation. Alternative D is focused on 

providing more dispersed recreation opportunities and includes the greatest number and extent of 

areas recommended for wilderness designation of any of the alternatives.

During the 90-day open comment period for the draft EIS, concerns were raised by both internal 

and external commenters about access to the forest for public and administrative use and the 

ability to fund the proposed recreation program under projected declining budget scenarios. These 

comments were considered and addressed by evaluating and modifying alternative B to form the 

selected alternative (alternative E). Alternative E has a more modest emphasis on recreation in 

response to increasing budget uncertainty and additional guidance for watersheds, forest access, 

and land acquisitions, including two additional objectives that address water rights and historic 

access. A new set of wilderness recommendations was selected for alternative E to minimize the 

disruption of existing access for recreation and administrative use while still addressing the 

public’s desire to expand the existing wilderness opportunities. 
Summary

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan iii

Alternatives

Alternative A: 1987 Plan Direction

Under alternative A, the 1987 plan would continue to guide management of the Prescott NF. 

Alternative B: Proposed Revised Plan

Alternative B represents the collaborative effort of citizens, agencies, and Prescott NF employees 

to respond to suggested needs for change in existing plan direction. It includes objectives for 

vegetation to address the need to restore vegetation structure and composition; direction to retain 

or improve watershed integrity; an expansion of opportunities for sustainable and diverse 

recreation; direction to restore and improve habitat for native fish species; and a focus on 

enhancing the value of open space provided by the Prescott NF.

Alternative C: Vegetation and Wildlife Emphasis

Alternative C includes many of the same components of alternative B; however, it responds to the 

issue of species viability and habitat by placing increased emphasis on vegetation trends within 

both grassland and ponderosa pine vegetation types. This focus increases the rate of improvement 

in the most departed vegetation types and places less emphasis on other vegetation communities 

and recreation components. In addition, alternative C includes more management treatment for 

native fish and other aquatic species and pronghorn habitats; there are no areas recommended for 

wilderness designation.

Alternative D: Dispersed Recreation Emphasis

Alternative D includes an emphasis on dispersed recreation in response to the issue of providing 

sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities. There would be a reduced emphasis on 

developed recreation and increased emphasis on dispersed recreation compared to alternative B. 

Examples include stronger direction for improving trails, trailheads, and increasing trail mileage, 

and a greater emphasis on designated dispersed sites. This alternative also includes the highest 

number of areas recommended for wilderness designation.

Alternative E: Final Revised Plan (Selected)

Alternative E, the final revised plan (selected), is a modified version of alternative B, with a more 

modest emphasis on recreation and additional guidance for watersheds, forest access, and land 

acquisitions. It includes two additional objectives unique to the alternative that address water 

rights and historic access. It also includes a unique set of areas recommended for wilderness 

designation that were selected to respond to both the public’s concerns for recreation and 

administrative access and the public’s desire to expand existing wilderness opportunities.

Environmental Effects

Chapter 3 of the environmental impact statement presents the affected environment and the 

analysis of potential positive and negative effects. The following is a summary of the potential 

effects, by resource area, predicted to result from the implementation of alternatives A, B, C, D,

or E.
Summary

iv FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Vegetation and Fire 

Alternative A would achieve some desired conditions for some of the potential natural vegetation 

types (PNVTs) in the short term, but over the long term, the end result is the least restoration of 

vegetation and fire characteristics and the least similarity to desired conditions among all of the 

alternatives. 

The higher minimum level of restoration treatments proposed across the landscape in alternatives 

B, D, and E would result in moderate restoration of vegetation and fire characteristics and more 

similarity to desired conditions than under alternative A.

Restoration efforts in alternative C are focused on those vegetation types that currently show the 

greatest gap between the existing and desired conditions and, as a result, the expected outcome is 

that alternative C would provide the most restoration of vegetation and fire characteristics and the 

most similarity to desired conditions among all of the alternatives. 

Smoke and Air Quality

Alternative A would result in the highest potential level of particulate emissions among all of the 

alternatives due to a greater overall vegetative fuel load and an increased presence of ladder fuels 

over the long term. Alternative A also lacks adequate plan components to address the public 

concerns over nuisance smoke. As a result, citizens are less aware of the timing, emission 

sources, and smoke dispersion patterns of prescribed and wildfire managed for resource benefits, 

leading to increased complaints about nuisance smoke, visibility, potential health hazards, and 

less understanding and acceptance of wildland fire as an ecosystem management tool.

Alternatives B and E would create more nuisance smoke and emissions in the short term than 

alternative A, in order to produce a lower likelihood of crown fire behavior and associated 

particulate emissions over the long term. This would result in expected future emission levels that 

are less than alternatives A and D but not as low as alternative C. 

Alternative C would create more nuisance smoke and emissions in the short term in order to 

produce a lower likelihood of crown fire behavior and associated particulate emissions over the 

long term. This would result in expected future emission levels that are the lowest among all of 

the alternatives. 

Alternative D would place less emphasis on managed fire than alternatives B, C, or E but still 

represents an increase over alternative A. This would result in expected future emission levels 

that are less than alternative A but not as low as alternatives B, C, or E.

The action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) address public concerns over nuisance smoke that were 

identified during the plan revision process. Plan components are expected to improve community 

public relations and education to advance public acceptance of the use of wildland fire and 

tolerance for smoke.

Terrestrial Species Diversity and Viability

All alternatives may affect the Mexican spotted owl (MSO), but are not likely to adversely affect 

it, and are not likely to result in adverse modification to its critical habitat. For all alternatives, 

designing and implementing projects in compliance with the “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery 
Summary

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan v

Plan” would be expected to lead to improved habitat conditions for the species. For Sonoran 

desert tortoise, no effect was determined for any of the alternatives. All of the alternatives would 

be expected to maintain or improve desert communities habitat associated with desert tortoise 

habitat needs. 

Future projects implemented under any alternative may render a “May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability” determination for 

regionally sensitive plant and animal terrestrial species. 

Pronghorn antelope was chosen as a management indicator species (MIS) for the grassland 

PNVTs; northern goshawk was chosen as a MIS for ponderosa pine forest PNVTs. All 

alternatives include some plan direction to improve the quality of pronghorn habitat and increase 

the amount and quality of goshawk habitat available on available Prescott NF lands.

Alternative A mitigates the least amount of risk to landscape-level habitat conditions for sensitive 

species, and those associated with grassland and ponderosa pine forest PNVTs are most 

vulnerable because current habitat conditions in these PNVTs are the least similar to desired 

conditions. 

Alternatives B, D, and E propose as much or more landscape-level habitat restoration treatment 

than alternative A. This would result in greater mitigation of the risk to habitat conditions for 

sensitive species and less vulnerability for those associated with grasslands and ponderosa pine 

forest PNVTs. 

Alternative C proposes the highest range of restoration treatments to landscape-level habitat 

conditions of any of the alternative, with focused restoration efforts in the grasslands and 

ponderosa pine forest PNVTs. The result would be the most mitigation of risk to landscape-level 

habitat conditions for regionally sensitive species.

Watershed

Alternative A would result in the slowest rate of improvement in watershed function among the 

alternatives, and contains no plan-level emphasis for watershed restoration. It would also continue 

to address water quality in a reactive, site-specific manner, with improvements in water quality 

occurring at the current rate of progress.

Under the action alternatives (B, C, D, and E), watershed conditions could be reasonably 

expected to trend upward as a result of increased vegetation treatments and recreation 

management. Water quality, quantity, and timing are directly related to the condition and function 

of the watershed, and the current trend in improvement of water quality would be accelerated by 

these vegetation treatments and recreation management proposals. Improvements to watershed 

conditions will also increase the ability of watersheds to adapt to changes in climate without a 

loss of function.

Alternative B would improve overall watershed integrity more than alternatives A and E but less 

than alternatives C and D.

Alternative C would have the greatest long term benefit on vegetation and wildlife habitats but 

the least reduction of recreation impacts. It would improve watershed integrity the most of all of 

the alternatives.
Summary

vi FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative D is similar to alternatives B, C, and E in the protections and benefits provided to 

watershed integrity; however, it focuses more on recreation and less on the restoration of 

vegetation and habitat. The result is that it would have similar long term benefits to vegetation 

and wildlife habitats as alternative B, but would provide more mitigation for recreation impacts. 

Alternative D would improve watershed integrity more than alternative B, but less than 

alternative C.

Alternative E is similar to alternative B but with less emphasis on developed recreation and trail 

maintenance and more emphasis on addressing riparian threats and repairing roads and trails. It 

includes an additional objective addressing water rights that could benefit riparian areas by 

increasing the recharge rate of riparian aquifers. Alternative E would improve overall watershed 

integrity more than alternative A, but less than alternatives B, C, and D.

Recreation

Alternative A continues the direction set forth in the 1987 plan to maintain recreation capacity 

and improve existing facilities, rather than develop new areas to meet future demand. It would 

continue to provide designated dispersed camping in the Prescott Basin, but there would be no 

direction to develop designated dispersed camping opportunities in other parts of the forest.

Alternative A is also vague on the policy for using motorized vehicles for cross-country travel to 

retrieve big game, provides very little guidance for trails management, and recommends no 

potential wilderness areas (PWAs) for wilderness designation. This alternative would result in a 

decrease in the overall quantity and quality of available recreation opportunities. 

Alternatives B and C would increase both the quantity and quality of overall recreation 

opportunities on the forest by creating more developed capacity, improving the condition of the 

existing infrastructure, and expanding the range of available recreation opportunities. They would 

balance the development of dispersed and developed recreation and increase in the ability of 

managers to contain or mitigate recreation impacts, leading to an increase in the quality of the 

recreation opportunities provided. 

Alternative B would recommend an additional 43,000 acres of wilderness of designation in 8 

potential wilderness areas. This is equal to approximately 40 percent of the current existing 

wilderness acreage. In alternative C, there are no PWAs recommended for wilderness designation.

Alternative D would also provide an increase in both the quantity and the quality of the overall 

recreation opportunities on the forest. In alternative D, the emphasis of the recreation program is 

shifted from developed recreation to dispersed recreation. It would result in one or more potential 

developed campground areas being managed instead for designated dispersed camping. It would 

also provide a greater emphasis on trails and trailheads than any of the other alternatives, and 

include additional direction to create new trails and decommission some existing trails.

Alternative D would recommend an additional 116,000 acres of wilderness designation in 16 

potential wilderness areas equaling approximately 110 percent of the current existing wilderness 

acreage. This would result in the largest increase in the number of acres protected for wilderness 

character for any of the alternatives. 

Alternative E would also increase the quantity and quality of recreation opportunities on the 

forest, but with a more modest emphasis that the other action alternatives. Alternative E combines 
Summary

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan vii

the developed recreation direction from alternative D with the dispersed recreation direction 

found in alternatives B and C. It would still increase the flexibility of recreation managers to 

contain or mitigate recreation impacts and expand the range of available recreation opportunities 

to meet changing demand; however, it recognizes that future funding levels are uncertain as 

budgets are projected to decline.

Alternative E would expand both developed and dispersed recreation opportunities by 

establishing new developed sites and designated dispersed camping areas, and improving 

trailheads and fishing opportunities. It would also recommend an additional 23,000 acres of 

wilderness of designation in eight potential wilderness areas equaling approximately 22 percent 

of the current existing wilderness acreage.

Aquatic and Riparian Species Diversity and Viability

Under alternative A, the population trends for federally listed and regionally sensitive aquatic and 

riparian species would be stable, with a slow increase in habitat quality and no change in habitat 

quantity. There would also be a stable population trend for aquatic macro-invertebrates, the 

management indicator species for aquatic habitats. Aquatic macro-invertebrate habitat would 

experience a slow increase in quality, but no change in quantity.

Alternatives B, D, and E would promote increasing population trends for federally listed and 

regionally sensitive aquatic and riparian species, with an accelerated increase in habitat quality 

and no change in habitat quantity. Alternative E would provide additional protection for aquatic 

and riparian habitat in the form of direction to pursue in-stream flow water rights for some 

waterways on the Prescott NF. Aquatic macro-invertebrate population trends would also increase, 

with an accelerated increase in habitat quality but no change in habitat quantity.

Alternative C is expected to show the greatest increase in population trends for federally listed 

and regionally sensitive aquatic and riparian species, with the greatest increase in habitat quality, 

but no change in habitat quantity. Similarly, aquatic macro-invertebrate population trends would 

also increase, with greatest increase in habitat quality but no change in habitat quantity.

Scenery and Open Space

Alternative A fails to address current issues regarding open space and threats to the scenic 

integrity of the forest. This could result in the degradation of the scenic integrity near 

communities that are adjacent to the forest as the visual quality analysis would be performed 

using the outdated 1986 visual quality objectives. In addition, the lack of specific direction to 

consider open space values during land exchanges could negatively affect communities adjacent 

to the forest. The primary focus of land exchanges is on facilitating forest management and 

meeting public and community needs for infrastructure growth, but it does not provide guidance 

for encouraging the retention of open space.

Alternatives B, C, and D would provide specific direction to retain open space values and protect 

riparian habitat by pursuing land acquisition opportunities. Alternative E provides broad direction 

to retain open space values by pursuing land acquisition opportunities. The result of these 

alternatives would be increased protection for visual quality, especially near communities that are 

adjacent to the forest, which in turn would provide positive benefits by retaining scenic integrity 

and helping to preserve the sense of openness and rural character in these communities. The rural 
Summary

viii FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

character and sense of openness would be furthered by plan guidance to act on opportunities to 

acquire land, as feasible, to retain open space values. 

Socioeconomic Resources

Changes to resource availability and uses of the Prescott NF can affect the quality of life for area 

residents and forest visitors. Those who primarily value livestock grazing, mineral removal, 

timber, and forest product collection are unlikely to have their quality of life affected by decisions 

made under any of the alternatives. This leaves recreation and recommended wilderness as the 

sources of potential social consequences between the proposed alternatives.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E are expected to increase the quantity and quality of recreation 

opportunities on the Prescott NF. Therefore, in comparison to alternative A, these alternatives are 

likely to improve the quality of life for those who value recreation. Alternatives B, D, and E are 

expected to appeal to people and groups who seek additional wilderness recreation opportunities 

or the protection of forest resources. Alternatives A and C maintain current levels of wilderness 

and, therefore, they would not affect social well-being related to wilderness values.

From the economic impact analysis, the total number of jobs contributed to the economy by the 

Prescott NF is expected to range between 656 and 664. All of the action alternatives (alternatives 

B, C, D, and E) would provide more jobs than the current management direction (alternative A), 

but the difference between alternatives is not significant.

Environmental Justice

It is unlikely that there would be a disproportionate adverse effect on minority or low-income 

populations from implementing any of the alternatives. In cases where management decisions 

would create jobs and boost the local economy, these populations may directly benefit.

Heritage Resources

Alternative A would have no measurable direct effects on any heritage resources. However, there 

remains the risk of high-intensity wildfires, which could have an indirect effect on fire sensitive 

heritage sites such as those with wooden, glass, or other similar components, and all sites would 

remain at risk from increased soil erosion associated with high-intensity fires.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would have no measurable direct effects on any heritage resources, 

similar to alternative A. Alternatives B, D, and E would place more emphasis on forest restoration 

activities and reduction of fuels near historic sites, coupled with a comparatively lower risk of 

high-intensity fire and associated soil erosion. Alternative C would have the highest emphasis on 

forest restoration activities and reduction of fuels near historic sites, and thus, the lowest risk of 

high-intensity fire and associated soil erosion.

Alternatives B, D, and E recommend potential wilderness areas (PWAs) for designation, which 

would increase the number and acreage of wilderness areas to help protect more known and 

unknown historic sites from direct human impacts. Alternatives A and C do not recommend any 

PWAs for designation.
Summary

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan ix

Livestock Grazing

Alternative A would have the least impact on yearly available forage for livestock of any of the 

alternatives, because it would not increase the number of acres burned in the grassland and 

chaparral vegetation types. However, because it would not increase the number of acres treated, it 

would also provide the least long term increase in available forage. 

The vegetation treatments for grasslands in alternatives B, D, and E would have a greater impact 

on yearly available forage for livestock and a greater long term increase in available forage than 

alternative A, but less than alternative C. The acreages of treatment in the piñon-juniper and 

chaparral vegetation, and thus, the long term increase in available forage, would be comparable or 

greater than alternatives A and C.

Alternative C would have the highest impact on yearly available forage for livestock and the 

greatest long term increase in available forage because it provides direction for the greatest 

increase in acres of grassland treated. In addition, it directs treatment for at least as much acreage 

in the piñon-juniper vegetation and chaparral as alternatives B, D, and E. 

Minerals

Most of the direction that affects minerals activities comes from the Forest Service Manual and 

Handbook. The laws, regulations, and policies governing minerals are independent from forest 

plan direction and do not change across alternatives.

Alternatives A and C would have the greatest potential for negative impacts to other resources 

and the greatest potential to expand the development of minerals resources.

Alternatives B, D, and E would have less potential for negative impacts to other resources and 

less potential to expand the development of minerals resources due to the areas recommended for 

wilderness designation. If any of these areas were to be designated as wilderness, they would be 

closed to new claims for locatable minerals such as copper or gold, but any valid existing claim 

would not be affected. Recommended wilderness areas would become closed to new mineral 

leases for coal, oil shale, oil and gas, phosphate, potash, sodium, and geothermal resources and 

new mineral materials development, including sand, stone, gravel, and clay, at the discretion of 

the forest supervisor. 

Forest Products

Based on historic averages, alternative A would result in the lowest volume of both sawtimber 

and firewood production among any of the alternatives. It would have the fewest overall short 

term impacts on scenic quality, visitor experience, soil compaction and erosion, and potential for 

the introduction of nonnative plants, but in the long term, it would result in the least improvement 

to vegetation structure and composition.

Alternatives B and E would result in a volume of sawtimber higher than alternative A and equal 

to the volume in alternatives C and D and the highest volume of firewood production among any 

of the alternatives. It would have the greatest number of short term impacts on scenic quality, 

visitor experience, soil compaction and erosion, and potential for the introduction of nonnative 

plants, but in the long term, it would provide the most improvement to conditions in the piñonjuniper PNVTs.
Summary

x FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives C and D would result in a higher volume of both sawtimber and firewood than 

alternative A, and an equal volume of sawtimber but less firewood than alternative B or E. They 

would have fewer short term impacts on scenic quality, visitor experience, soil compaction and 

erosion, and potential for the introduction of nonnative plants than alternative B or E, but more 

than alternative A. In the long term, alternatives C and D would achieve a little less than half the 

amount (46 percent) of changed condition in piñon-juniper PNVTs than what would be expected 

under alternative B or E, but more than under alternative A. 

Special Uses

Most of the direction that affects special uses comes from the Forest Service Manual and 

Handbook, which are independent from direction in the forest plan. Changes in forest plan 

direction would have little direct effect on special use permits as most of the changes would occur 

at the project, or permit issuance, level.

Transportation System

Under alternative A, erosion from poorly located roads and trails with improper stream and 

drainage crossings is adding to the sediment load and impacting watershed integrity. It can be 

reasonably assumed that in the absence of a change in management direction these impacts will 

continue to accumulate into the future.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E contain specific plan-level guidance for watershed protection that 

would help to mitigate and restore the effects on water quality from the existing transportation 

system. The result would be that these alternatives would improve water quality at a faster rate 

than alternative A.

Alternatives B, D, and E recommend additional acreage for wilderness designation. A 

recommendation for wilderness designation imposes restrictions on any activity that could affect 

the wilderness character of the area; this could include the creation of new or temporary roads in 

these areas that do not contain any National Forest System roads.

Alternatives A and C do not recommend any areas for wilderness designation; there would be no 

restrictions on any activity, such as road building, that could affect wilderness character.

Alternative E is the only alternative to provide direction for the forest to secure legal access along 

National Forest System roads where historic access to the national forest has been lost.

Decision to be Made

Based upon the potential effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether to 

implement one of the alternatives as described above, to vary the plan content through some other 

combination of management direction to meet the purpose and need, or to take no action at this 

time.
xi FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Contents

Summary .................................................................................................................................... ii

Background ............................................................................................................................................ ii

Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................... iii

Environmental Effects .......................................................................................................................... iii

Decision to be Made ............................................................................................................................... x

Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision ...................................................................... 1

Location of the Prescott National Forest ................................................................................................ 1

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Need for Change ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Revised Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Decision Framework ............................................................................................................................... 7

Public Involvement and Collaborative Planning .................................................................................... 8

Other Related Efforts ............................................................................................................................10

Chapter 2. Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 11

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................11

Alternatives Considered in Detail .........................................................................................................11

Alternative that Incorporates the RPA Program Resource Objectives ................................................32

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .............................................................32

Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................34

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

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

Need for Change 1 ................................................................................................................................42

Need for Change 2 ................................................................................................................................97

Need for Change 3 ..............................................................................................................................119

Need for Change 4 ..............................................................................................................................135

Need for Change 5 ..............................................................................................................................178

Social and Economic Values ..............................................................................................................183

Unavoidable Adverse Consequences ..................................................................................................222

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................................222

Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity ...................................................................................222

Other Required Disclosures ................................................................................................................223

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination .......................................................................... 225

Preparers and Contributors .................................................................................................................225

Consultation and Coordination ...........................................................................................................226

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the EIS Were Sent ......................229

Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 231

References ............................................................................................................................... 235

Index ........................................................................................................................................ 249

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Prescott NF ...................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Yavapai County Air Quality Indices 2001-2010 ........................................................... 70

Figure 3. Employment by Industry .............................................................................................. 189
Contents

xii FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of plan components or potential activities by alternative ........................... 34

Table 2. Comparison of the response to needs for change by alternative ..................................... 38

Table 3. Potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) of the Prescott NF ...................................... 43

Table 4. Current conditions of PNVTs found on the Prescott NF ................................................. 45

Table 5. Grassland vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative ......................................... 52

Table 6. Piñon-juniper vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative ................................... 55

Table 7. Interior chaparral vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative.............................. 57

Table 8. Ponderosa pine vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative ................................. 58

Table 9. Desert Communities vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative ........................ 60

Table 10. Riparian Gallery vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative ............................. 62

Table 11. All PNVTs vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative ..................................... 64

Table 12. Prescott NF plan components that address terrestrial species viability concerns .......... 74

Table 13. Federally listed species critical and occupied habitat .................................................... 76

Table 14. Regionally sensitive species occupied habitat ............................................................... 78

Table 15. Migratory bird and eagle species analyzed ................................................................... 85

Table 16. Management indicator species and occupied habitat .................................................... 86

Table 17. Federally listed species habitat trends by alternative .................................................... 88

Table 18. Regionally sensitive species trends by alternative ........................................................ 90

Table 19. Migratory bird and eagle species effects by alternative ................................................ 92

Table 20. Management indicator species trends by alternative ..................................................... 93

Table 21. Hierarchy of hydrologic units intersecting with the Prescott NF .................................. 98

Table 22. Overall condition class ratings on the Prescott NF ....................................................... 99

Table 23. Aquatic species no longer present ............................................................................... 100

Table 24. Sub-watershed conditions by selected WCC indicator ................................................ 101

Table 25. Reduced watershed condition integrity ....................................................................... 102

Table 26. Soil Conditions by PNVT ............................................................................................ 103

Table 27. Prescott NF water quality by ADEQ assessment category .......................................... 115

Table 28. Developed recreation opportunities by alternative ...................................................... 124

Table 29. Trails opportunities by alternative ............................................................................... 126

Table 30. Information sharing by alternative .............................................................................. 128

Table 31. Dispersed recreation opportunities by alternative ....................................................... 128

Table 32. Recommended wilderness by alternative .................................................................... 131

Table 33. Recreation management response to climate change by alternative ........................... 134

Table 34. Plan components that address aquatic and riparian species viability concerns ........... 137

Table 35. Federally listed species critical and occupied habitat .................................................. 139

Table 36. Regionally sensitive species and habitat ..................................................................... 151

Table 37. Federally listed species trends by alternative .............................................................. 155

Table 38. Regionally sensitive species trends by alternative ...................................................... 173

Table 39. Management indicator species trends by alternative ................................................... 175

Table 40. Existing scenic integrity on the Prescott NF ............................................................... 179

Table 41. Land ownership patterns for Yavapai County compared to Arizona .......................... 184

Table 42. Population trends for Yavapai County compared to Arizona and the U.S. ................. 186

Table 43. Age and gender patterns for Yavapai County compared to Arizona and the U.S. ...... 187

Table 44. Educational attainment, percent of persons age 25+ for Yavapai County .................. 187

Table 45. Per capita income, earnings per job, and median home values ................................... 190

Table 46. Contribution of labor and non-labor income to personal income ................................ 190

Table 47. Employment by program area by alternative .............................................................. 192

Table 48. Labor income by program area by alternative ............................................................. 193
Contents

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan xiii

Table 49. Average annual program expenditures, Prescott NF (FY08–FY10) ........................... 193

Table 50. Average annual program revenues, Prescott NF (FY08–FY10) ................................. 194

Table 51. Present net value (PNV) by alternative ....................................................................... 194

Table 52. Race and ethnicity for Yavapai County compared to Arizona and the U.S. ............... 200

Table 53. Poverty rates for Yavapai County by race and ethnicity ............................................. 200

Table 54. Construction related material sale contracts ................................................................ 210

Table 55. Projected 10-year harvest volume by product type and alternative ............................. 214

Table 56. Projected 10-year harvest acres by PNVT and alternative .......................................... 214

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 1

Chapter 1. Needs for Change 

for Plan Revision

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) (P.L. 91-190) and other relevant Federal 

and State laws and regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental consequences that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The EIS 

is organized into four chapters: 

 Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision: This chapter includes information on the 

history of the plan revision process, needs for change to the 1987 plan, and the Agency’s 

revised plan that responds to these needs for change. This section also briefly describes 

how the Forest Service collaborated with the public to develop needs for change and the 

revised plan. 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives: This chapter provides an overview of the alternative 

development process and details and compares alternative responses to needs for change. 

Finally, this section provides summary tables comparing potential future activities by 

alternative and a summary of the environmental consequences associated with each 

alternative. 

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

summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments affected by the 

revised plan and the environmental consequences of implementing each alternative. This 

analysis is organized by the revision needs for change. 

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

agencies consulted during development of the EIS. 

Other sections in the EIS include:

 Glossary: This section provides explanations for key concepts in the EIS. 

 References: This section provides citations for references made in the EIS. 

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

information to support the analyses presented in the EIS. 

 Index: The section provides page numbers by topic. 

Additional documentation, including specialists’ reports, may be found in the planning record.

Location of the Prescott National Forest

The 1.2 million-acre Prescott National Forest (Prescott NF or the forest) is located in west-central 

Arizona (figure 1) and is within Coconino and Yavapai Counties. Although the Prescott NF 

resides in both Coconino and Yavapai Counties, nearly 97 percent is within Yavapai County. 

Ranger district offices are located in Camp Verde, Chino Valley, and Prescott. The supervisor’s 

office is located in Prescott. The Prescott NF shares boundaries with: the Coconino, Kaibab, and 

Tonto National Forests; the Agua Fria National Monument; Bureau of Land Management—

Hassayampa Field Office; Arizona State Trust lands; and several communities.
Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision

2 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Prescott NF
Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 3

Background

The Prescott NF is managed by the Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). The forest is currently being managed under the “Prescott National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan” (the 1987 plan) which was approved in 1987. The 1987 

plan, including its amendments, is the main document that guides forest managers’ 

decisionmaking with respect to managing natural resources (e.g., soil, water, vegetation, 

ecosystems) and human uses (e.g., recreation, thinning, livestock grazing, firewood gathering, 

special use permits, search for solitude) of the Prescott NF.

The Prescott NF is proposing to revise its 1987 plan. Per direction in the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (P.L. 94-588) and its implementing regulations found in 36 

CFR 2191, every national forest must revise its land management plan:

 Every 10 to 15 years; 

 When conditions or demands in the area covered by the plan have changed significantly; 

 When changes in agency policies, goals, or objectives would have a significant effect on 

forest level programs; and 

 When monitoring and evaluation indicate that a revision is necessary. 

Because the 1987 plan is outdated and does not reflect current conditions, the Prescott NF has 

been engaged in the process of revising its plan since 2006. During this process, the Prescott NF 

developed multiple programmatic strategies (or alternatives) for revising its plan. A summary of 

these alternatives as well as analysis of the environmental consequences they pose are the focus 

of this EIS.

Need for Change

The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate the different alternatives for revising the 1987 plan, 

including disclosure of their environmental consequences. There is a need to revise the 1987 plan 

to: (1) address recommended needs for change; (2) guide natural resource management activities 

on the forest for the next 10 to 15 years; and (3) meet the legal requirements of NFMA and the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule.

Revising the 1987 plan is necessary because environmental conditions and managed activities on 

the Prescott NF have evolved since 1987 to the point where previous guidance must be updated. 

To identify recent changes in ecological, economic, and social conditions and trends, the Prescott 

NF compiled the “Ecological Sustainability Report” (ESR) (Forest Service, 2009a) and the 

“Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment” (ESSA) (Forest Service, 2009b). Using the 

information in these reports as well as information provided through extensive collaboration with 

various public groups, organizations, agencies, officials, and individuals, the Prescott NF 

identified five recommended needs for change in the 1987 plan. The findings from these reports 

and public input are summarized in the “Analysis of the Management Situation” (Forest Service, 

2009c). Conclusions and information from all the preceding reports are incorporated in this EIS 

without further citation, and the reports themselves are included in the planning record.

 

1

 The revised plan was completed using direction from the 2012 Planning Rule; the transition provisions of that rule 

allow use of the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule to revise land management plans. The Prescott NF elected to use 

the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule. 
Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision

4 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Need for Change 1

Restore vegetation structure and composition and desired characteristics of fire to selected 

ecosystems, while responding to citizen concerns related to smoke emissions. 

The ecosystems found on the Prescott NF are complex and diverse, reflecting a range of 

environments that extend from hot valley bottoms to cool mountaintops. These ecosystems 

support a variety of plant communities including cacti, grasslands, chaparral, woodlands, and 

conifer forests. These ecosystems have been classified and mapped into potential natural 

vegetation types (PNVTs). PNVTs are coarse-scale groupings of ecosystems that share similar 

topography, vegetation, and historic ecosystem disturbances such as fire, drought, and browsing 

by native species. PNVTs represent the vegetation type and characteristics that would occur when 

natural disturbance regimes and biological processes prevail. 

Land use patterns and management activities over the last century have resulted in ecosystem 

conditions that are highly departed from those desired, especially for the grasslands, piñonjuniper, and ponderosa pine PNVTs. Ecosystem alterations include: increased tree and shrub 

density and canopy cover, lack of perennial grasses and forbs, the spread of nonnative plants, 

increases in exposed soil surfaces, and a lack of desired fire disturbance. There is a need to restore 

and maintain vegetation structure and disturbance regimes and to increase ecosystem resilience or 

adaptive capacity of plant communities to accommodate expected changes imposed by future 

climate trends for the Southwest. 

Concerns to be addressed:

 Desired conditions and activities to improve vegetation structure, composition, and fire 

regimes are needed to lessen threats to ecosystem sustainability. 

 Ecosystem resilience and adaptation needs to be promoted to respond to climate change. 

 There are social concerns related to smoke in and near communities, such as nuisance 

and possible health sensitivities. These air quality concerns need to be considered as 

planning and managing prescribed fire activity moves forward. 

 Changes in ecosystem conditions and trends may be affecting the diversity and viability 

of native birds, mammals, and plant species. 

Need for Change 2

Retain or improve watershed integrity to provide desired water quality, quantity, and timing of 

delivery. 

Undesirable soil and vegetation conditions have reduced the watershed integrity within several 

sub-basins on the Prescott NF including: Big Chino Wash, Big Sandy River, Burro Creek, and the 

upper Verde River. Additionally, there are stream segments within the Agua Fria, Hassayampa, 

and Upper and Lower Verde River sub-basins which do not currently meet Federal and State 

water quality standards and are classified as impaired. There is a need to improve the health of 

these watersheds and continue to maintain the health of those in good condition in order to 

provide: water quality for human health and safety; water quantity for municipal demands and the 

maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitat; and timing of water delivery that is consistent with 

healthy soils, biological processes, and natural geomorphology. 
Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 5

Some management activities have impacted watershed function and need to be addressed in the 

revised plan such as: (a) some recreation activities or facilities are located too close to water 

bodies or riparian areas; (b) unauthorized motorized routes may cause soil compaction, erosion, 

sedimentation, and vegetation loss; (c) seeps and springs need to be protected from excessive 

animal and recreation use; and (d) riparian systems are being impacted by nonnative, invasive

plant and animal species.

Concerns to be addressed:

 Impairments to watershed function from recreation and management activities need to be 

minimized. 

 Management methods need to be identified that help retain or improve the function of 

riparian areas, seeps, and springs. 

 Desired conditions need to be maintained or restored to better provide needed water 

quality, quantity, and timing of delivery to municipal watersheds and aquatic and riparian 

species habitat. 

 Watershed resilience, in both uplands and near water bodies, needs to be promoted to 

respond to climate change. 

Need for Change 3

Provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider population demographic 

characteristics, reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding and user conflicts, and 

minimize resource damage. 

The need to provide sustainable recreation opportunities was the number one concern at public 

meetings held in early 2009. With increasing populations and visitors to the Prescott NF, conflicts 

between types of activities, overcrowding, and resource impacts resulting from overuse need to 

be addressed. The number of recreationists on the Prescott NF has increased in recent years, both 

from increases in the local population and from an influx of visitors from the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. This has increased potential conflicts among all recreationists and leads to 

unmet expectations for recreation experiences. The increase in recreation use has also impacted 

ecosystems by causing changes in habitat, wearing away vegetation, and spreading seeds of 

nonnative plant species to new locations.

Concerns to be addressed:

 Recreation sites and trails need to be improved to trend toward desired conditions by 

decreasing maintenance backlog, improving trailheads and signage, and addressing 

conflicts on trails. 

 There is a desire for designated recreational target shooting, as well as for limiting this 

activity where potential safety concerns exist. 

 Recreational fishing opportunities need to be retained and improved. 

 Methods of sharing information with visitors need to be expanded. 

 Potential resource impacts due to dispersed recreation activities need to be mitigated or 

restoration methods applied, and boundary markings for designated wilderness 

boundaries need to be improved where there is evidence of motorized incursion. 

 Additional areas that provide wilderness character should be identified. 
Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision

6 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

 Resilience to the expected outcomes of climate change, such as increasing numbers of 

visitors and changes in timing of visits, needs to be promoted. 

Need for Change 4

Provide desired habitat for native fish species. 

Native fish and other aquatic species are in decline within several watersheds. Native aquatic 

species are no longer found in five watersheds that overlap with the Prescott NF. There is a need 

to provide habitat and watershed characteristics that will support native fish species. The Prescott 

NF could also cooperate with the State of Arizona in addressing the control of nonnative species.

Concerns to be addressed:

 The diversity and viability of native fish, amphibians, aquatic reptiles, and invertebrate 

species need to be addressed. 

 Habitat for desired aquatic and riparian species needs to be retained or improved. 

Need for Change 5

Enhance the value of open space provided by the Prescott NF by defining the visual character 

within areas near or viewed by those in local communities. 

The high rate of population growth within Yavapai County combined with limited lands for 

development sensitizes residents to land development, land exchange, and land use issues. The 

Prescott NF has an opportunity via the revised plan to ensure that scenic values are taken into 

consideration as population density is expected to increase on other ownerships. Defining the 

value of open space on the Prescott NF will help to display the benefits these lands provide to 

local communities, should a land exchange be proposed.

Concerns to be addressed:

 Scenic integrity near communities and especially within the Verde Valley is an important 

social value and needs to be retained. 

 Options for acquiring lands by the Prescott NF need to be investigated, especially in areas 

that provide riparian benefit and areas that help to retain open space values. 

Social and Economic Values

Although the social and economic aspects of the 1987 plan were not identified as a need for 

change, the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule require an analysis of the social and economic 

impacts of each alternative. Aspects addressed in this section include:

 The social impact analysis, which uses the baseline social conditions and visitor profiles 

for the forest to discern the primary values that the forest provides to area residents and 

visitors. Social effects are based on the interaction of the identified values with estimated 

changes to resource availability and uses. 

 The economic impact analysis, which estimates the employment and labor income 

consequences of the management actions. 
Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 7

 The financial efficiency analysis, which compares expenditures and revenues throughout 

the life of the revised plan. The result is commonly expressed as present net value (PNV), 

the difference between program revenues (benefits) and program expenditures (costs). 

 The cultural and historic resources on the Prescott NF. 

 The amount of land on the Prescott NF that is suitable for grazing livestock. 

 The mining and mineral resource program on the Prescott NF. 

 The amount of land on the Prescott NF that is suitable for the production of timber. 

Timber suitability determination is based on the land’s productivity, availability, and 

appropriateness. 

 The amount of commercial wood products that may be sustainably harvested on the 

Prescott NF over a long period of time. This sustainable harvest estimate is called the 

long term sustained yield capacity (LTSYC). 

 The expected maximum harvest volume per decade on the Prescott NF. This is the 

allowable sale quantity (AQS), and it is equal to, or less than, the amount of timber that 

could be harvested annually under the LTSYC. 

 The services provided under special use permits on the Prescott NF. 

 The transportation system for motorized access on the Prescott NF. 

Revised Plan

The revised “Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (revised plan)2 was 

prepared in an iterative fashion with input from the public. In this EIS, it is referenced as 

alternative E. The revised plan will provide strategic, program-level guidance for management of 

the Prescott NF, including its natural resources and uses, over the next 10 to 15 years. For each of 

the needs for change described above, the plan revision team, in collaboration with the public and 

other agencies developed a vision for the revised plan, that:

 provides a context for future, project-level planning; 

 identifies strategies to maintain or achieve goals (i.e., desired conditions) over time; 

 identifies land areas as generally suitable or unsuitable for various uses; 

 identifies standards and guidelines to guide the planning of projects and activities; 

 identifies areas with special or unique characteristics; 

 provides monitoring and evaluation requirements; and 

 emphasizes the use of best available science and adaptive management. 

Decision Framework

The analysis in this EIS considers the effects of implementing the revised plan along with its 

alternatives. Many issues are beyond the scope of the plan revision process and will not be 

considered in the EIS. For example, site-specific activities that are addressed by project-level 

decisions are not addressed. Some issues (e.g., hunting regulations), although important, are 

beyond the authority or control of the Prescott NF and will not be considered. In addition, some 

 

2

 A complete copy of the revised plan is available on the Prescott NF Web site: 

www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement. 
Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision

8 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

issues, such as wild and scenic river suitability determinations, will not be undertaken at this time, 

but will be addressed in the future in separate analyses.

The responsible official for this proposed action is the regional forester of the Southwestern 

Region. After considering the results of the impacts analysis of all alternatives evaluated in the 

environmental impact statement, the responsible official will issue a record of decision, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1505.2, that will: 

 Disclose the decision (i.e., identify the Agency’s selected alternative). 

 Identify all alternatives considered by the Forest Service in reaching this decision, 

specifying which one is the environmentally preferred alternative. 

Approval of the revised plan will result in the following components to guide management for the 

next 10 to 15 years.

 Desired conditions (i.e., goals) 

 Objectives 

 Forestwide standards and guidelines 

 Management area desired conditions, standards, and guidelines 

 Suitability of lands for timber production, grazing, and recreation opportunities 

 Monitoring and evaluation requirements 

 Recommendations for special areas, including areas that can only be designated by 

statute, such as wilderness 

Public Involvement and Collaborative Planning

The Prescott NF used both formal and informal collaboration methods to prepare for and carry 

out plan revision. The Prescott NF approach was to augment traditional public participation by 

engaging citizens in planning, implementation, and ongoing stewardship of the forest. This meant 

inviting citizens to discuss and agree on their desires for the future and exploring ways to support 

and sustain stewardship in and around the Prescott NF. 

Informal methods used to engage citizens and local institutions included human geographic 

mapping, gaining understanding of informal community networks, and reaching out to informal 

community leaders. As part of the public involvement process, the Prescott NF made over 300 

informal contacts with individuals, groups, government agencies, and tribal groups. Detailed 

information for each human geographic mapping unit was compiled, and community landscape 

vision statements were developed by 11 communities.

Discussions with citizen groups took place regarding draft versions of the revised plan. Five 

different draft versions were posted on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site for comment via 

email, phone, face-to-face, or online.

Formal methods used to gather feedback included public meetings sponsored by the Prescott NF, 

online feedback forms, and public comments on documents. Information from members of the 

public and Prescott NF personnel contributed to documents such as the “Economic and Social 

Sustainability Assessment,” the “Analysis of the Management Situation,” and the revised plan. 

The notice of intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 2010. The NOI 
Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 9

summarized the “Analysis of the Management Situation,” in particular, the needs for change to be 

addressed in the revised plan. It asked for public comment on the needs for change from January 

9 to February 15, 2010; however, the forest considered substantive comments that were received 

after this date. Comments were used to modify the proposed revised plan and to develop 

alternatives analyzed in the draft environmental impact statement.

The notice of availability (NOA) of the “Draft Prescott National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan” and “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Prescott National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan” was published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2012. 

The NOA announced the availability of these documents for review and asked for public 

comment from August 25 to November 28, 2012. The Prescott NF encouraged reviewers to 

submit substantive comments which may be used to modify alternatives, evaluate new 

alternatives, improve or modify the analysis, and make factual corrections. Review documents, 

including a reader’s guide, were made available on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site.

Public meetings were held during the comment period (October 2012) in the communities of 

Camp Verde, Chino Valley, and Prescott to answer questions about the proposed plan and EIS and 

to elicit feedback and comments.

Following the 90-day formal comment period, the Prescott NF reviewed and analyzed 

correspondence from 116 individuals and organizations. Response topics included water quality, 

trails maintenance and development, wilderness recommendations, protection of wildlife habitat, 

motorized access, prescribed burning, forest thinning, livestock grazing, and target shooting. 

Comment letters were posted on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site.

Between draft and final versions of the plan, the Prescott NF engaged in formal consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and prepared a biological assessment of the final revised plan 

(alternative E). The biological assessment analyzed, in greater detail, the potential impacts 

alternative E would have on federally listed wildlife species and their habitats. As part of the 

consultation process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion of the 

assessment.

A notice announcing the availability of the record of decision, the final revised plan and 

environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register during 2015. These 

documents were posted on the Prescott NF Web site, and hardcopies were distributed to 

stakeholders, tribes, local and State governments, and Federal agencies. Additional hardcopies 

were made available at the Prescott NF district offices in Camp Verde, Chino Valley, and Prescott.

Additional information concerning public collaboration can be found in the “Prescott National 

Forest Collaboration Report for Forest Plan Revision” (Forest Service, 2011n).

Issues

The public and other agencies, both State and Federal, submitted comments in response to the 

2010 NOI comment period and public meetings. These comments were analyzed to identify 

issues and frame their associated cause and effect relationships. Issues were separated into two 

groups: significant and non-significant. Significant issues are those used to develop alternatives 

and modify the proposed action. Non-significant issues are identified as those: (1) outside the 

scope of the proposed action; (2) already addressed by law, regulation, the revised plan, or other 
Chapter 1. Needs for Change for Plan Revision

10 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not 

supported by scientific or factual evidence. 

Issues that served as the basis for alternative development:

 An issue of high concern was the proposed plan did not place enough emphasis on 

ecosystem restoration to maintain species viability and habitat. Lack of fire as a natural 

disturbance process has led to a vegetation structure and composition that does not 

resemble the estimated reference conditions. Some of the public believe the level of 

vegetation treatments in the proposed plan may not achieve the desired conditions in the 

most severely departed vegetation types. 

 Another issue of high concern to Prescott and Verde Valley residents was providing 

sustainable recreation opportunities on the Prescott NF. There was interest in providing 

more dispersed recreation opportunities than those included in the proposed revised 

plan (alternative B), including a greater emphasis on improving existing trail conditions 

and providing additional opportunities on new trails. 

 There was also a wide variation of opinion on how much recommended new wilderness

is appropriate. It ranged from those who felt that the existing designated areas are 

adequate to those who felt that nearly all areas evaluated should be recommended for 

designation. 

Issues and concerns that are outside the scope of the decision to be made:

Some people requested that changes to the forest motor vehicle use map (MVUM) should be 

made via the plan revision process. It was determined that any changes in the designation of 

specific routes, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel and updates to the MVUM are 

outside the scope of the plan revision process; as such agency actions fall under the direction of 

the 2005 Travel Management Rule as stipulated at CFR Title 36 Part 212. 

Other Related Efforts

Two national forests adjacent to the Prescott NF, the Coconino and Kaibab, have been actively 

revising their land management plans. The Coconino NF’s draft revised plan was completed in 

December 2013, and the Kaibab NF’s final revised plan was completed in February 2014. These 

versions were compared to the Prescott NF draft revised plan to determine how well its guidance 

coordinates and interacts with the guidance of these other forests. Results of this analysis indicate 

that there is no conflicting guidance. 

The Bureau of Land Management recently completed resource management plans for the Agua 

Fria National Monument and the Bradshaw Harquahala Management Units that border the 

Prescott NF. The review of those plans also showed that there is no conflicting guidance. 

Additional information concerning other related efforts can be found in “Appendix C. 

Coordination with Other Planning Efforts.”
FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 11

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for revision of the 1987 plan. It 

includes descriptions of each alternative considered; the selected alternative for the forest plan is 

referenced as alternative E. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, 

defining the differences between each alternative and providing a basis for choice among options 

by the decisionmaker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is 

based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., variation in objectives included), and some of the 

information is based upon the potential environmental, social, and economic consequences of 

implementing each alternative.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Five alternatives are analyzed in this EIS: the no action alternative (alternative A) which 

represents the 1987 plan and the four action alternatives (alternatives B, C, D, and E) which 

respond to the needs for change and issues identified from public involvement. 

Alternative Development Process

Information gathered from citizens during the development of community vision statements, the 

“Ecological Sustainability Report” (ESR), the “Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment” 

(ESSA) and the “Analysis of the Management Situation” (AMS) influenced the themes of the 

alternatives.

Alternative B was developed iteratively in a collaborative manner to address the needs for change 

identified in chapter 1. Several drafts of the revised plan were developed for public review, and 

the feedback received from both citizens and Prescott NF employees led to modifications of each 

successive draft. 

There was general agreement on alternative B with the following exceptions: (1) some felt that 

species viability and habitats should have the most emphasis in any alternative; (2) others were 

most concerned about increasing recreation opportunities to meet their desired experience; and 

(3) there was a wide variation in opinion on how much recommended new wilderness is 

appropriate. It ranged from those who felt that the existing designated areas are adequate, to those 

who felt that nearly all areas evaluated should be recommended for designation. 

Alternative C was developed to address the issue specific to species viability and habitat by 

providing a greater focus on the improvement of ecological conditions and wildlife habitats. More 

emphasis was placed on restoring the vegetation types that are the most severely departed from 

desired conditions. Restoration treatment activities are increased within the ponderosa pine and 

grassland PNVTs. More emphasis is also included for native fish habitat and species such as 

pronghorn that are of viability concern. This alternative includes no additional recommended 

wilderness areas for designation. 

Alternative D was developed to address the issue specific to providing a greater quantity and 

diversity of recreation. It focuses on increasing opportunities for sustainable and diverse 

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

trailhead improvement. This alternative also includes the highest number of recommended 

wilderness areas.
Chapter 2. Alternatives

12 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative E was developed between the draft and final EIS in response to internal and public 

feedback during the comment period. It evolved through modifications to alternative B to become 

a separate alternative and was identified by the Prescott NF Leadership Team as the selected 

alternative for the revised plan. Alternative E addresses concerns about access for visitor and 

administrative uses (e.g. mountain biking, watershed and wildlife habitat improvements, range 

management) and responds to questions about future funding levels for recreation management. It

has a reduced recreation emphasis, more clarity of direction for watersheds, forest access, and 

land acquisitions, and includes two new objectives not present in the other alternatives addressing 

historic access and water rights. This alternative also has a new set of recommended wilderness 

areas that minimizes the disruption of existing access and uses while still expanding protection of 

wilderness character.

Features Common to All Alternatives

All five alternatives have a number of elements in common. In particular, they:

 Comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies; 

 Conserve soil and water resources and do not allow significant or permanent impairment 

of the productivity of the land; 

 Provide protections for riparian areas; 

 Maintain air quality that meets or exceeds applicable Federal, State, and/or local 

standards or regulations; 

 Provide for and maintain diversity of plant and animal communities to meet overall 

multiple-use objectives; 

 Provide for species’ viability by providing appropriate habitat that is well distributed 

across the planning area; 

 Include measures for preventing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 

for threatened and endangered species; 

 Use a common list of management indicator species1(MIS); 

 Protect heritage resources; 

 Recognize the unique status of American Indian tribes and their rights retained by trust 

and treaty with the United States, including consultation requirements; 

 Provide sustained multiple uses, products, and services in an environmentally acceptable 

manner (including leasable and locatable minerals, timber, livestock forage, and 

recreation opportunities); 

 Retain existing designated areas (e.g., wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, special 

areas). 

In addition, the following features are common to all alternatives.

 

1

 The list of 10 MIS from the 1987 plan was reviewed and, based on recommendations from forest specialists, modified. The 

following three MIS were used to compare and evaluate the alternatives: pronghorn antelope, northern goshawk, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 13

Desired Conditions

Desired conditions (or goals) that apply to all of the Prescott NF include descriptions of desired 

outcomes as a result of Forest Service management. The desired conditions are described in detail 

in the revised plan which accompanies this document. They are the same for all alternatives.

Management Areas 

Management area direction provides desired conditions, standards, and guidelines that apply to 

specific areas of the Prescott NF. Alternative A (the 1987 plan) identifies eight management areas 

based on vegetation and land use. Alternatives B, C, D, and E use a common set of seven 

management areas based on geographic areas. 

Standards and Guidelines

Forestwide 

Standards and guidelines that apply to all of the Prescott NF include design considerations, 

mitigations, and constraints for project-level decisions. Alternatives B, C, D, and E share a 

common set of standards and guidelines whereas the set that applies to alternative A is unique. In 

a few cases, the standards and guidelines were modified between the draft and final versions of 

the revised plan for clarity or to incorporate changes based on public and internal comments. The 

following is a list of those standards and guidelines2

that were added or significantly modified. 

 Guide-Soils-3 - This new guideline was added to address potential soil and watershed 

impacts from using heavy equipment on steep slopes such as for brush mastication. 

 Guide-Soils-4 - This new guideline was added to address potential soil and watershed 

impacts on steep slopes and to sensitive soils. 

 Guide-Soils-5 - This new guideline was added to provide additional protection to wet 

soils. 

 All of the “Plants” standards and guidelines were renamed “Vegetation” for consistency 

with other plan components. 

 Std-Veg-2 – This standard was renamed from “Std-Plants-2” and the sentence structure 

was modified to clarify that all weed treatments must follow appendix B design features. 

The way the sentence was previously stated could have been misinterpreted as only 

treatments specific to improving federally listed species and their habitats had to follow 

appendix B design features. 

 Guide-Veg-7 – This guideline was added to provide additional protection for old-growth 

vegetation. 

 Guide-Veg-8 – This guideline was added to provide direction for landscape scale 

restoration projects. 

 Guide-WL-9 - This new guideline was added to address concerns for animal entrapments. 

 Guide-WL-10 - This new guideline was added to address concerns about animal 

entrapments in vertical pipes. 

 

2

Forestwide standards and guidelines are found in chapter 4 of the “Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott National 

Forest” (Forest Service, 2015) available on the Prescott NF Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

14 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

 Std-Wildland Fire-3 - This new standard was added to address concerns for protecting 

cultural and heritage sites during wildland fire activities. 

 Guide-Wildland Fire-7 - This guideline was deleted to become Std-Wildland Fire-3 and 

limited in scope to specifically address cultural and heritage sites. 

 Guide-Wildland Fire-10 - This guideline was modified so prescribed fire was not 

precluded from developed recreation sites. 

 Guide-Rec-11 - This guideline was modified to emphasize the desired outcome for tree 

removal rather than the types of trees. 

 Std-Wild-1 - This standard was modified to also emphasize wilderness “characteristics.”

 Guide-Wild-10 - This guideline was added to replace separate management area 

guidelines for each recommended wilderness area in chapter 5. 

 Guide-Lands-4 – The last bullet was moved from Guide-Lands-4 to Guide-Lands-5 to be 

included in the list about guidelines for energy sources. 

 Guide-Lands-6 – This guideline was deleted based on the advice of the forest Lands staff. 

Management Areas 

Management area standards and guidelines apply to specific areas of the Prescott NF. Alternatives 

B, C, D, and E share a common set of management area standards and guidelines; whereas 

alternative A lacks management area specific standards and guidelines. The following is a list of 

those guidelines3

that were added or significantly modified between draft and final. 

 Guide-CK MA-2, Guide-UV MA-4, Guide-WVN MA-3, and Guide-VV MA-4 – These 

guidelines were deleted and replaced with Guide-Wild-10. 

 Guide-PB MA-1 - This guideline was modified to include a reference to designated 

dispersed camping sites. 

 Guide-VV MA-3 - This guideline was modified for specificity. 

Monitoring Strategy

Monitoring and evaluation provides the adaptive management strategy for determining the degree 

to which on-the-ground management is maintaining or making progress toward desired 

conditions. Alternatives B, C, D, and E share a common monitoring framework, whereas the 

monitoring strategy for alternative A is unique.

Suitability of Uses

The criteria for the suitability of various uses (e.g., livestock grazing, timber harvest, recreation 

opportunity) are the same in all alternatives. However, when the criteria is applied to the different 

alternatives, there may be variations in the amount of land suitable for certain uses (i.e., if an 

alternative has more recommended wilderness, there would be less land suitable for timber 

harvest). The amount of land suitable for timber harvest and livestock grazing by alternative are 

listed at the end of chapter 2 in table 2.

 

3

 Mangement area standards and guidelines are found in chapter 5 of the “Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott 

National Forest” (Forest Service, 2015) available on the Prescott NF Web site: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 15

Wild and Scenic Rivers

All alternatives provide direction to protect the outstandingly remarkable values for the eligible 

and designated wild and scenic river segments of the Verde River (Forest Service, 2010c).

Research Natural Areas

The Grapevine Botanical Area was identified as a potential research natural area during plan 

revision (Forest Service, 2010d); however, the forest supervisor elected not to recommend it for 

further consideration. All alternatives retain the direction that was contained in the 1987 plan 

(Amendment 10, 1997) to protect the unique botanic features of this area. No other areas were 

identified or considered for research natural area designation.

Other Special Areas

All alternatives provide continued direction for the Grapevine Botanical Area that was designated 

in 1997 under the 1987 plan (as amended). No new areas are proposed for special designation 

except for the recommended wilderness areas.

Wildland-Urban Interface

All alternatives provide direction for fuels reduction treatments and maintenance of vegetation for 

those areas of resident populations at imminent risk from wildfire, as well as human 

developments having special significance. These wildland-urban interface areas encompass not 

only the sites themselves, but also the continuous slopes and fuels that lead directly to the sites 

regardless of the distance involved. 

Details of the features common to alternatives (as described above) can be found in the 1987 plan 

(as amended) or in the revised plan, “Draft Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott 

National Forest” that accompanies this document.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

These alternatives include management direction for inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) identified 

in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). All alternatives include direction that 

retains the undeveloped character of these areas. 

Management Requirements

All alternatives include sufficient direction in the form of plan components to meet the 

management requirements listed in the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions § 217.27.

These provisions established minimum requirements to be met in accomplishing goals and 

objectives for the National Forest System. During forest plan development, the management 

practices and corresponding forest plan components needed to meet the management 

requirements were identified as minimum management requirements (MMRs). A plan component 

was considered an MMR if it established a minimum outcome or condition and was expected to 

be included as part of each action alternative. The MMR report (Forest Service, 2011t) is 

available on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site4.

 

4

 www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement
Chapter 2. Alternatives

16 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Features that Differ Between Alternatives

Objectives 

Objectives are concise projections of measurable, time specific intended outcomes that achieve, 

maintain, or progress towards the desired conditions. Alternative A contains a set of objectives 

that are unique to the 1987 plan. Alternatives B, C, and D use a common set of 29 objectives 

developed to respond to the Needs for Change. Differences in the quantity or extent of the 

objectives help to define and differentiate the alternatives. Alternative E proposes a set of 31 

objectives that contains the 29 objectives common to the other action alternatives and the 

following two additional objectives5

unique to alternative E.

 Obj-30 – This guideline was added to address concerns about legal access in areas where 

historic access to the national forest has been lost. 

 Obj-31 – This guideline was added to address concerns for additional protections to 

watershed health. 

Recommended Wilderness 

All of the alternatives contain eight existing designated wilderness areas covering over 100,000 

acres, and three of the alternatives (B, D, and E) recommend new areas for wilderness 

designation. For alternatives A and C, there are no new recommended areas or acres. For 

alternative B, 8 additional areas, totaling 43,440 acres, are recommended. For alternative D, 16 

potential areas are recommended, totaling 116,260 additional acres, and for alternative E, 8 areas, 

totaling 23,137 acres, are recommended (Forest Service, 2012a). See appendix B for maps of the 

wilderness recommendations by alternative. 

Alternative A: 1987 Plan Direction

Under alternative A, the 1987 plan would continue to guide management of the Prescott NF. The 

following describes how alternative A responds to each of the needs for change topics.

Need for Change 1

Restore vegetation structure and composition and desired characteristics of fire to selected 

ecosystems, while responding to citizen concerns related to smoke emissions. 

Vegetation and fire: Alternative A would continue management under the 1987 plan for the 

Prescott NF. The plan provides for timber production, firewood harvest, hazardous fuel reduction 

treatments, prescribed fire, and management of wildfires to meet resource objectives. 

Under alternative A, managed fire would average about 7,800 acres per year. Tree and shrub 

thinning treatments would average about 1,000 acres per year. These treatments would focus on 

restoring ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper, and interior chaparral ecosystems with little attention 

given to grassland ecosystems. 

 

5

 Objectives are found in chapter 3 of the “Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott National Forest” (Forest Service, 

2015) available on the Prescott NF Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 17

Ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate change: Alternative A would continue the 

direction found in the 1987 plan; however, it lacks management direction to emphasize ecosystem 

resilience and adaptation to climate change. 

Air quality: Prescribed fire would be coordinated with the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, as well as adjacent land management agencies, to ensure that State or Federal standards 

for ambient air quality are not exceeded.

Species viability and diversity: Alternative A mitigates the risk to landscape-level habitat 

conditions using restoration treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, tree and shrub thinning, brush 

crushing) to meet the desired conditions. For species determined to be at no or low risk, meeting 

and maintaining these desired conditions within the planning area would provide for the viability 

of those species. For species determined to be at some risk, implementing additional direction 

found in species specific conservation and recovery plans would lessen population viability risks 

and provide for the viability of those species.

Need for Change 2

Retain or improve watershed integrity to provide desired water quality, quantity, and timing of 

delivery. 

Impairments to watershed function from recreation and management activities: Watershed 

restoration efforts (e.g., tree and shrub thinning, brush crushing) would continue but not at a level 

sufficient to trend watershed function toward the desired conditions. Recreation activities would 

continue to cause negative impacts at popular dispersed camping sites outside the Prescott Basin 

and along some roads and trails. 

Seeps and springs and riparian function: Flood plains and wetlands would be addressed by 

avoiding adverse impact to the public, facilities, and uses. Riparian area goals would include 

improvement and maintenance so that all areas would be in satisfactory condition. Few time 

specific statements of measureable results that respond to goals would be identified. 

Desired water quality, quantity, and timing: Outdated goals for providing increased waterflow 

via large scale chaparral removal (e.g., Battle Flat project) would remain in place. Water quality 

would be similar to that found currently in streams and other water bodies. Timing of waterflows 

could be influenced by changing climatic characteristics.

Watershed resilience to climate change: Management direction would not take expected 

changes in climate into consideration and watershed resilience would not be emphasized.

Need for Change 3

Provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider population demographic 

characteristics, reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding and user conflicts, and 

minimize resource damage. 

Recreation site/trail improvement: There would be no increase in the number of developed 

recreation sites. Designated dispersed sites would be concentrated in the Prescott Basin and the 

number would remain static. The maintenance backlog for developed recreation sites would 

continue to decrease at a rate of about 88 percent over 10 years. The maintenance backlog for 

trails would continue to increase over this same period. About 3 to 5 percent of trail signage 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

18 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

would be maintained annually. The improvement of trailheads would not be emphasized. There is 

no management direction to address conflicts between various types of recreation activities.

Recreational target shooting: The permit for the only designated recreational target shooting 

area on the forest would not be renewed and development of additional areas would be unlikely. 

Fishing opportunities: Recreational fishing opportunities are not addressed.

Information sharing: Methods for sharing information with visitors would focus on traditional 

maps, brochures, and face-to-face contacts. 

Recreation impacts: The rehabilitation of recreation sites and trails that show evidence of 

resource damage would not be emphasized. Additionally, there would be little emphasis on 

marking wilderness boundaries in areas with high risk of motorized incursion. 

Recommended wilderness: No areas are recommended for wilderness designation. The existing 

eight designated wilderness areas would continue to be managed for wilderness values. 

Recreation management response to climate change: Little emphasis would be placed on 

creating resilience to increasing numbers of visitors and the likelihood of extended seasons of use 

due to changes in climate. Guidance from the 1987 plan is focused on maintaining existing 

facilities and services.

Need for Change 4 

Provide desired habitat for native fish species. 

Diversity and viability of native fish, aquatic herps, and invertebrate species: Alternative A 

mitigates the risk to aquatic and riparian habitat conditions using restoration treatments (e.g., 

tamarisk removal, native fish reintroduction). For species determined to be at no or low risk, 

meeting and maintaining the desired conditions within the planning area would provide for the 

viability of those species. For species determined to be at some risk, implementing additional 

direction found in species-specific conservation and recovery plans would lessen population 

viability risks and provide for the viability of those species.

Aquatic/riparian habitat: Restoration treatments would continue but not at a level sufficient to 

trend aquatic and riparian habitat toward the desired conditions. There would be no plan direction 

emphasizing the identification and restoration of improperly functioning riparian areas or the 

restoration of native fish species to their historic habitat range.

Need for Change 5

Enhance the value of open space provided by the Prescott National Forest by defining the visual 

character within areas near or viewed by those in local communities. 

Scenic integrity: Visual quality would be managed using the outdated 1986 visual quality 

objectives (VQOs). Under these VQOs, only 13 percent of the forest is classified for retention or 

preservation of scenic values. The remaining areas allow for the modification or maximum 

modification of visual character. Most areas with high visual quality goals are found near highly 

traveled roads, roads leading to recreation areas, areas next to the Verde River, and areas 

surrounding developed recreation areas. The predominant VQOs within the Grief Hill and Black 

Canyon areas would be partial retention of scenic values.
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 19

Land acquisition: Under the 1987 plan, criteria for land acquisitions would focus on conveying 

isolated tracts that could not be efficiently managed, consolidating public lands, improving 

management efficiency, providing lands needed for expanding communities, and meeting 

overriding public needs.

Social and Economic Values

Economic impact: The total amount of labor income and jobs contributed by the Prescott NF to 

the local economy would be $23,616,000 and 656 total jobs, including 283 recreation related jobs 

(Forest Service, 2011a). 

Financial efficiency: The present net value (PNV) was calculated over a 15-year period, using a 

4 percent discount rate, as -$23,230,148 (Forest Service, 2011a).

Cultural and historic resources: Most of the direction that affects cultural and historic resources 

comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and the 

Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not 

change across alternatives.

Suitable range acres: The land base determined to be suitable for livestock grazing under 

alternative A is 913,078 acres. This figure is the same across all alternatives.

Mining and mineral resources: Most of the direction that affects minerals activities comes from 

existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and the Forest Service 

Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not change across 

alternatives.

Suitable timber acres: The land base determined to be suitable for timber production under 

alternative A is 44,413 acres.

Long term sustained yield capacity: The sustainable harvest estimate for alternative A was 

determined to be 69,680 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade.

Allowable sale quantity: The expected maximum harvest volume for alternative A was 

determined to be 23,385 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade.

Special use permits: Most of the direction that affects special use permit issuance and 

administration comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service 

Manual and the Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan 

direction and does not change across alternatives. 

Transportation system: The motorized transportation system under alternative A consists of 

1,357 miles of road and 408 miles of trails open to motorized vehicles less than 50 inches wide. 

These figures are the same across all alternatives.

Alternative B: Proposed Revised Plan

Alternative B represents more than two years of collaborative work with citizens, agencies, and 

Prescott NF employees in an iterative manner to respond to suggested changes in plan 

components. It includes a mixture of proposed treatments for vegetation, watershed, recreation 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

20 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

opportunities, open space, and wildlife providing a mixture of benefits. The following describes 

how alternative B responds to each of the needs for change topics. 

Need for Change 1

Restore vegetation structure and composition and desired characteristics of fire to selected 

ecosystems, while responding to citizen concerns related to smoke emissions. 

Vegetation and fire: Alternative B would increase the amount of restoration treatments, using 

thinning and managed fire, across the landscape. Managed fire would range from 10,600 to 

25,300 acres per year on average. Tree and shrub thinning treatments would range from 750 to 

6,500 acres per year on average. These treatments would focus on restoring grassland, ponderosa 

pine, piñon-juniper, and interior chaparral ecosystems. 

Ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate change: Alternative B would encourage 

management decisions that could increase ecosystem resilience to climate change such as:

 Retaining components, processes, and functions of ecosystems. 

 Sustaining functions such as nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and carbon sequestration.

 Managing highly departed ecosystems to trend toward desired conditions.

 Working toward interconnectedness of continuous blocks of habitat to allow for 

adaptation, including genetic and behavioral interactions. 

 Working toward the presence of well-distributed habitats to support recovery or 

stabilization of federally listed and other species.

Air quality: Prescribed fire would be coordinated with the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, as well as adjacent land management agencies, to ensure that State or Federal standards 

for ambient air quality are not exceeded.

Additionally, wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas would be given high priority for fuel 

reduction treatments, using a combination of mechanical methods and domestic animals in lieu of 

prescribed fire to reduce the occurrence and concentrations of smoke near communities. 

Species viability and diversity: Alternative B mitigates the risk to landscape-level habitat 

conditions using restoration treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, tree and shrub thinning, brushcrushing) to meet the desired conditions. For species determined to be at no or low risk, meeting 

and maintaining these desired conditions within the planning area would provide for the viability 

of those species. For those species determined to be at some risk, additional plan components 

(e.g., standards, guidelines, objectives) were developed that included direction from speciesspecific conservation and recovery plans to provide for the viability of those species. 

Alternative B calls for 15,000 to 90,000 acres of habitat improvement plus treatment of two or 

three areas of migration habitat. In addition, movement of pronghorn would be facilitated by 

modification or removal of 3 to 5 miles of fence. Finally, alternative B would improve from 3 to 

15 water developments for wildlife. 

Need for Change 2

Retain or improve watershed integrity to provide desired water quality, quantity, and timing of 

delivery. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 21

Impairments to watershed function from recreation and management activities: Managed 

fire and mechanical vegetation treatments would be used to restore vegetation structure and 

composition, with concurrent improvements to watershed integrity. Twenty to 100 miles of 

designated roads or motorized trails that impact watershed integrity would be maintained, 

repaired, or relocated. Ten miles of unauthorized routes would be obliterated, closed, recontoured 

or revegetated. Approximately 15 to 25 stream or drainage crossings by roads or trails would be 

improved to facilitate flow and sediment transport. 

Seeps and springs and riparian function: Ten to 40 percent of functionally impaired riparian 

areas would be treated to improve conditions within 1 to 5 years of detection. Twenty-five to 55 

seeps and springs would be maintained or enhanced, including such activities as road or trail 

relocation, fencing, pasture rotation, or seasonal grazing restrictions.

Desired water quality, quantity, and timing: Over a 10-year period, 20 to 50 watershed 

improvement projects would improve conditions within high risk watersheds. Activities could 

include range improvements to distribute grazing, treatments to increase vegetative ground cover, 

stream stabilization, and mine site restoration. Trend toward desired conditions in upland 

vegetation would help maintain water quantity for both municipal watersheds and for aquatic 

habitats as well as provide timing that is commensurate with natural geomorphology. 

Watershed resilience to climate change: Watershed improvement activities such as treatments 

that increase vegetative ground cover; repair of roads or trails that impact watershed integrity; and 

enhancing or restoring seeps and springs would increase watershed function and resiliency. 

Need for Change 3

Provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider population demographic 

characteristics, reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding and user conflicts, and 

minimize resource damage. 

Recreation site/trail improvement: In comparison to alternative A, the number of developed 

recreation sites would increase by two to five areas. Similar to alternative A, the maintenance 

backlog would decrease by 80 to 90 percent over 10 years within developed recreation areas. 

Between one and four new designated dispersed camping areas would be developed outside of the 

Prescott Basin. Existing trails would be better maintained by improving 5 to 20 trailheads, 

annually maintaining 10 to 20 percent of signs, and reducing the trail maintenance backlog by 50 

to 75 percent. In addition, 5 to 10 management actions would be carried out to meet desired 

conditions for trails. These could include actions to reduce conflicts between types of recreation 

use, projects to provide both loop and connector trails, or trail improvement projects designed to 

better meet the needs of a growing population. In general, alternative B displays a relative 

balance between increased availability of opportunities within more highly developed sites versus 

those that are more primitive and dispersed. 

Recreational target shooting: Under alternative B, the Prescott NF would seek a partnership to 

create and operate a new designated target shooting area; while alternative A would close the 

existing venue without establishing a new one.

Fishing opportunities: Recreational fishing opportunities in areas like Lynx Lake and Granite 

Basin Lake would continue to be improved with the enhancement of two lakes or ponds. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

22 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Information sharing: Communication with forest visitors would be enhanced by developing two 

to five additional methods of sharing information. Examples include greater use of social media 

and the Prescott NF Web site. 

Recreation impacts: Within two to five designated wilderness areas, the boundaries would be 

marked in places where the risk of motorized incursion is high. In addition, two to five areas or 

trails would be relocated or rehabilitated to mitigate or protect against resource damage. Types of 

activities could include relocating or decommissioning a dispersed recreation site that is too close 

to a spring and rehabilitating the area or moving a campsite away from a stream to prevent 

erosion. 

Recommended wilderness: Eight potential wilderness areas (PWAs), encompassing 43,440 

acres, are recommended for wilderness designation. This set of PWAs was selected to expand 

recreation opportunities in existing wilderness, complement management area desired conditions, 

address public concerns for maintaining open space in the Verde Valley, and to meet the 

operational needs of livestock-grazing permittees. 

Recreation management response to climate change: Managers would have increased 

flexibility to adapt management strategies to respond to shifts in recreation use prompted by 

climate change. This includes ranges instead of fixed numbers for the development of new 

facilities, the incorporation of climate change assumptions in the development of plan 

components, and the integration of climate change guidance into the revised monitoring 

strategies. 

Need for Change 4

Provide desired habitat for native fish species. 

Diversity and viability of native fish, aquatic herps, and invertebrate species: Alternative B 

mitigates the risk to aquatic and riparian habitat conditions using restoration treatments (e.g., 

tamarisk removal, native fish reintroduction). For species determined to be at no or low risk, 

meeting and maintaining the desired conditions within the planning area would provide for the 

viability of those species. For species determined to be at some risk, implementing additional 

direction found in species specific conservation and recovery plans would lessen population 

viability risks and provide for the viability of those species. Under alternative B, the forest would 

work in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to restore native fish species to two or three stream reaches on the 

Prescott NF. 

Aquatic/riparian habitat: Aquatic and riparian habitat would benefit from watershed 

improvement projects and vegetation treatments proposed in this alternative. Ten to 40 percent of 

functionally impaired riparian areas would be treated to improve conditions within 1 to 5 years of 

detection. 

Need for Change 5

Enhance the value of open space provided by the Prescott National Forest by defining the visual 

character within areas near or viewed by those in local communities. 

Scenic integrity: The Scenery Management System (SMS), a new method for defining the 

relative value and importance of scenery, would be used to determine the scenic values on the 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 23

Prescott NF. In alternative B, approximately 42 percent of the forest would be classified as high 

or very high scenic integrity. In addition, a classification of high scenic integrity would be 

assigned to all of the Grief Hill area and about two-thirds of the Black Canyon area. The 

remainder of the Black Canyon area would be classified as moderate scenic integrity. 

Land acquisition: Alternative B would direct the Prescott NF to pursue up to 10 opportunities to 

acquire lands within 10 years. The emphasis would be on acquisitions that would help retain open 

space values or protect riparian habitat. The Prescott NF would take scenic and open space 

values, as well as community vision statements, into account when responding to land exchange

proposals. 

Social and Economic Values

Economic impact: The total amount of labor income and jobs contributed by the Prescott NF to 

the local economy would be $23,882,000 and 664 total jobs, including 291 recreation related jobs 

(Forest Service, 2011a).

Financial efficiency: The PNV was calculated over a 15-year period, using a 4 percent discount 

rate, as -$24,624,817 (Forest Service, 2011a).

Cultural and historic resources: Most of the direction that affects cultural and historic resources 

comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and the 

Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not 

change across alternatives.

Suitable range acres: The land base determined to be suitable for livestock grazing under 

alternative B is 913,078 acres. This figure is the same across all alternatives.

Mining and mineral resources: Most of the direction that affects minerals activities comes from 

existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and Forest Service 

Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not change across 

alternatives.

Suitable timber acres: The land base determined to be suitable for timber production under 

alternative B is 38,462 acres.

Long term sustained yield capacity: The sustainable harvest estimate for alternative B was 

determined to be 60,343 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade.

Allowable sale quantity: The expected maximum harvest volume for alternative B was 

determined to be 40,447 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade. 

Special use permits: Most of the direction that affects special use permit issuance and 

administration comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service 

Manual and Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction 

and does not change across alternatives. 

Transportation system: The motorized transportation system under alternative B consists of 

1,357 miles of road and 408 miles of trails open to motorized vehicles less than 50 inches wide. 

These figures are the same across all alternatives.
Chapter 2. Alternatives

24 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative C: Vegetation and Wildlife Emphasis

Alternative C includes many of the same components of alternative B; however, it responds to the 

issue of species viability and habitat by placing increased emphasis on vegetation trends within 

both grassland and ponderosa pine vegetation types. This focus increases the rate of improvement 

in the most departed vegetation types and places less emphasis on other vegetation communities 

and recreation components. In addition, alternative C includes more management treatment for 

native fish and other aquatic species and pronghorn habitats; there is much less emphasis on 

recommendation of potential wilderness areas. The following describes how alternative C 

responds to each of the needs for change topics.

Need for Change 1

Restore vegetation structure and composition and desired characteristics of fire to selected 

ecosystems, while responding to citizen concerns related to smoke emissions. 

Vegetation and fire: Alternative C would emphasize a higher range of managed fire and a lower 

range of thinning activity compared to alternatives A and B. Managed fire would range from 

15,500 to 22,800 acres per year on average and would focus on restoring grassland and ponderosa 

pine ecosystems. Tree and shrub thinning treatments would range from 750 to 4,000 acres per 

year on average and would focus on restoring ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper, and Interior 

Chaparral ecosystems. 

Ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate change: The plan components used to promote 

ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate change in alternative C are the same as those 

described in alternative B. 

Air quality: The plan components used to address air quality in alternative C are the same as 

those described in alternative B. 

Species viability and diversity: Alternative C places a greater emphasis on mitigating the risk to 

landscape-level habitat conditions using restoration treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, tree and 

shrub thinning, brush crushing) to meet the desired conditions. 

Alternative C calls for 50,000 to 85,000 acres of habitat improvement plus treatment of three to 

six areas of migration habitat. In addition, movement of pronghorn would be facilitated by 

modification or removal of 10 to 15 miles of fence. Finally, alternative C would improve from 5

to 15 water developments for wildlife. 

Need for Change 2

Retain or improve watershed integrity to provide desired water quality, quantity, and timing of 

delivery. 

The plan components used to address this need for change in alternative C would be identical to 

those described in alternative B.

Need for Change 3

Provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider population demographic 

characteristics, reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding and user conflicts, and 

minimize resource damage. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 25

The plan components used to address this need for change in alternative C are the same as those 

described in alternative B except for the items listed below:

Recreation site/trail improvement: Within alternative C, the reduction of the maintenance 

backlog for trails, at 35 to 50 percent, would be less than alternative B. In addition fewer 

trailheads would be improved (5 to 10), but the 5 to 10 actions to improve designated trails to 

meet desired conditions in Desired Condition-Recreation-2 Trails would be the same. 

Recommended wilderness: Alternative C does not recommend any areas for wilderness 

designation. 

Recreation management response to climate change: The ability to respond to increasing 

numbers of visitors and extended seasons of use would be similar to that described in alternative 

B, except there would be less emphasis on trail maintenance and trailhead improvements. 

Need for Change 4

Provide desired habitat for native fish species. 

Diversity and viability of native fish, aquatic herps, and invertebrate species: Alternative C 

places a greater emphasis on mitigating the risk to aquatic and riparian habitat conditions using 

restoration treatments (e.g., tamarisk removal, native fish reintroduction). 

In alternative C, the forest would work in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AZGFD) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to restore native fish 

species to four to six stream reaches on the Prescott NF. Possible restoration projects would be the 

same as those listed for alternative B.

Aquatic/riparian habitat: The strategies used to address aquatic and riparian habitat concerns 

are the same as those described in alternative B. 

Need for Change 5

Enhance the value of open space provided by the Prescott National Forest by defining the visual 

character within areas near or viewed by those in local communities. 

Scenic integrity: The method and plan components used to address scenic integrity are the same 

as that described in alternative B. 

Land acquisition: The plan components used for land acquisition are the same as those described 

in alternative B. 

Social and Economic Values

Economic impact: The total amount of labor income and jobs contributed by the Prescott NF to 

the local economy would be $23,882,000 and 664 total jobs, including 291 recreation related jobs 

(Forest Service, 2011a).

Financial efficiency: The PNV was calculated over a 15-year period, using a 4 percent discount 

rate, as -$23,833,268 (Forest Service, 2011a).
Chapter 2. Alternatives

26 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Cultural and historic resources: Most of the direction that affects cultural and historic resources 

comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and 

Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not 

change across alternatives.

Suitable range acres: The land base determined to be suitable for livestock grazing under 

alternative C is 913,078 acres. This figure is the same across all alternatives.

Mining and mineral resources: Most of the direction that affects minerals activities comes from 

existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and Forest Service 

Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not change across 

alternatives.

Suitable timber acres: The land base determined to be suitable for timber production under 

alternative C is 44,413 acres.

Long term sustained yield capacity: The sustainable harvest estimate for alternative C was 

determined to be 69,680 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade.

Allowable sale quantity: The expected maximum harvest volume for alternative C was 

determined to be 40,447 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade. 

Special use permits: Most of the direction that affects special use permit issuance and 

administration comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service 

Manual and Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction 

and does not change across alternatives.

Transportation system: The motorized transportation system under alternative C consists of 

1,357 miles of road and 408 miles of trails open to motorized vehicles less than 50 inches wide. 

These figures are the same across all alternatives.

Alternative D: Dispersed Recreation Emphasis

Alternative D includes an emphasis on dispersed recreation in response to the issue of providing 

sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities. Vegetation treatments would be similar to those 

in alternative B or slightly reduced. Emphasis on pronghorn and native fish would be identical to 

alternative B. Within recreation opportunities, there would be reduced emphasis on developed 

recreation, such as campgrounds, and increased emphasis on dispersed recreation, such as adding 

trails, improving trailheads, and adding designated dispersed sites. This alternative also includes 

recommendation of the highest number of potential wilderness areas. The following describes 

how alternative D responds to each of the needs for change topics.

Need for Change 1

Restore vegetation structure and composition and desired characteristics of fire to selected 

ecosystems, while responding to citizen concerns related to smoke emissions. 

Vegetation and fire: Alternative D would emphasize less managed fire than alternatives B and C 

and a similar or lower range of thinning activity. Managed fire would range from 10,600 to 

18,800 acres per year on average. Tree and shrub thinning treatments would range from 750 to 

4,000 acres per year on average. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 27

Ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate change: The strategies used to promote 

ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate change in alternative D are the same as those 

described in alternative B. 

Air quality: The plan components used to address air quality in alternative D are the same as 

those described for alternatives B and C. 

Species viability and diversity: The plan components used to address species viability and 

diversity in alternative D are the same as those described in alternative B. 

Need for Change 2

Retain or improve watershed integrity to provide desired water quality, quantity, and timing of 

delivery. 

The plan components used to address this need for change in alternative D would be identical to 

those described for alternatives B and C.

Need for Change 3

Provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider population demographic 

characteristics, reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding and user conflicts, and 

minimize resource damage. 

The plan components used to address this need for change in alternative D are the same as those 

described in alternative B except for the items listed below:

Recreation site/trail improvement: The number of additional developed recreation sites, such as 

campgrounds or day-use sites, would still increase (one or two new sites proposed) compared to 

the existing condition, but would be the least of alternatives B through D. Reduction of the 

maintenance backlog within developed sites would be the less than alternatives B and C at 50 to 

60 percent. Conversely, the number of additional designated dispersed sites would be the highest 

of all alternatives at two to six new areas proposed. The range of trailheads to be improved would 

also be the highest of all alternatives at 10 to 25; while sign maintenance would remain at 10 to 

20 percent annually, the same as alternatives B through C. Alternative D is the only alternative to 

add appreciable amount of mileage to trail systems. It would call for carrying out 5 to 15 actions 

to meet trail desired conditions (Desired Condition-Recreation-2 Trails), propose construction of 

10 to 20 miles of new trail system and include an associated 5 miles of decommissioning 

unneeded trails. (Objective 17 would be modified to reflect these activities.) 

Recreation impacts: Alternative D would increase the dispersed (primitive) camping 

opportunities to decrease the impacts to popular camping areas, especially near water bodies. 

Sites would be kept smaller and more distant from riparian areas than the existing user-created 

sites, providing increased protection. Periodic closure of some sites for rehabilitation would also 

be possible. Relocation or decommissioning sites to avoid or mitigate resource impact would be 

the same as that described in alternative B. Designated wilderness boundary marking would also 

be the same as descriptions in alternative B.

Recommended wilderness: Sixteen potential wilderness areas (PWAs), encompassing 116,260 

acres, would be recommended for wilderness designation. These areas were selected to more than 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

28 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

double the acreage managed for wilderness character while still retaining the existing motorized 

recreation opportunities. 

Recreation management response to climate change: The ability to respond to increasing 

numbers of visitors and extended seasons of use would be similar to that described in alternative 

B, except there would be more emphasis on trail maintenance, trailhead improvements, and 

designating dispersed camping areas.

Need for Change 4

Provide desired habitat for native fish species. 

Diversity and viability of native fish, aquatic herps, and invertebrate species: The plan 

components used to address aquatic and riparian species diversity and viability are the same as 

those described in alternative B. 

Aquatic/riparian habitat: The plan components used to address aquatic and riparian habitat 

concerns are the same as those described in alternative B. 

Need for Change 5

Enhance the value of open space provided by the Prescott National Forest by defining the visual 

character within areas near or viewed by those in local communities. 

Scenic integrity: The method and plan components used to address scenic integrity are the same 

as that described in alternative B. However, the recommended potential wilderness areas are not 

visible from the Verde Valley or Quad Cities area.

Land acquisition: The plan components used for land acquisition are the same as those described 

in alternative B. 

Social and Economic Values

Economic impact: The total amount of labor income and jobs contributed by the Prescott NF to 

the local economy would be $23,850,000 and 663 total jobs, including 290 recreation related jobs 

Forest Service, 2011a).

Financial efficiency: The PNV was calculated over a 15-year period, using a 4 percent discount 

rate, as -$24,558,106 (Forest Service, 2011a).

Cultural and historic resources: Most of the direction that affects cultural and historic resources 

comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and 

Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not 

change across alternatives.

Suitable range acres: The land base determined to be suitable for livestock grazing under 

alternative D is 913,078 acres. This figure is the same across all alternatives.

Mining and mineral resources: Most of the direction that affects minerals activities comes from 

existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and Forest Service 

Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not change across 

alternatives.
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 29

Suitable timber acres: The land base determined to be suitable for timber production under 

alternative D is 38,063 acres.

Long term sustained yield capacity: The sustainable harvest estimate for alternative D was 

determined to be 59,706 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade.

Allowable sale quantity: The expected maximum harvest volume for alternative D was 

determined to be 40,447 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade. 

Special use permits: Most of the direction that affects special use permit issuance and 

administration comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service 

Manual and Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction 

and does not change across alternatives. 

Transportation system: The motorized transportation system under alternative D consists of 

1,357 miles of road and 408 miles of trails open to motorized vehicles less than 50 inches wide. 

These figures are the same across all alternatives.

Alternative E: Final Revised Plan (Selected)

Alternative E, the final revised plan (selected), is based on alternative B, with changes that 

address concerns about access for public and administrative uses and the future availability of 

recreation funding. It has a more modest emphasis on recreation in response to increasing budget 

uncertainty and additional guidance for watersheds, forest access, and land acquisitions, including 

two objectives unique to the alternative that address water rights and historic access. Vegetation 

treatments would be the same as those in alternative B, as would the emphasis on pronghorn and 

native fish habitat recovery. The wilderness recommendations were selected to minimize the 

disruption of existing access for recreation and administrative use. The following describes how 

alternative E responds to each of the needs for change topics.

Need for Change 1

Restore vegetation structure and composition and desired characteristics of fire to selected 

ecosystems, while responding to citizen concerns related to smoke emissions. 

Vegetation and fire: Alternative E contains the same levels of thinning and managed fire found 

in alternative B. Managed fire would range from 10,600 to 25,300 acres per year on average. Tree 

and shrub thinning treatments would range from 750 to 6,500 acres per year on average. These 

treatments would focus on restoring grassland, ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper, and interior 

chaparral ecosystems.

Ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate change: The plan components used to promote 

ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate change in alternative E are the same as those 

described in alternatives B and D.

Air quality: The plan components used to address air quality in alternative E are the same as 

those described for alternatives B, C, and D.

Species viability and diversity: The plan components used to address species viability and 

diversity in alternative E are the same those described in alternatives B and D, except that 

alternative E would improve up to 25 existing and 5 new water developments for wildlife. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

30 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Need for Change 2

Retain or improve watershed integrity to provide desired water quality, quantity, and timing of 

delivery. 

Impairments to watershed function from recreation and management activities: The plan 

components used to address this issue in alternative E would be similar to those described for 

alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative E differs in that it calls for 20 to 100 miles of designated 

roads or motorized trails that impact watershed integrity to be repaired or relocated and does not 

count routine maintenance towards meeting this objective.

Seeps and springs and riparian function: One to 3 critical threats to riparian system 

functionality would be addressed within 2 to 3 years of detection. Twenty-five to 55 seeps and 

springs would be maintained or enhanced, including such activities as road or trail relocation, 

fencing, pasture rotation, or seasonal grazing restrictions. Alternative E also contains an objective 

(Objective 31) not present in the other alternatives that provides direction to apply for 8 to 10 instream flow water rights to help provide for channel and floodplain maintenance and the recharge 

of riparian aquifers.

Desired water quality, quantity, and timing: Over a 10-year period, 5 to 50 essential projects 

would improve conditions within high risk watersheds. Activities would be the same as under the 

other action alternatives and could include range improvements to distribute grazing, treatments 

to increase vegetative ground cover, stream stabilization, and mine site restoration. 

Watershed resilience to climate change: This concern would be addressed the same way as that 

described in alternatives B, C, and D.

Need for Change 3

Provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider population demographic 

characteristics, reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding and user conflicts, and 

minimize resource damage. 

The plan components used to address this need for change in alternative E are the same as those 

described in alternative B except for the items listed below:

Recreation site/trail improvement: Alternative E is the same as alternative D with regard to 

developed recreation. The number of additional developed recreation sites, such as day-use sites, 

developed river access, or campgrounds would still increase (1 or 2 new sites proposed) 

compared to the existing condition, and the reduction of the maintenance backlog within 

developed sites would be 50 to 60 percent of the baseline which is the same as alternative D. The 

direction for additional designated dispersed camping areas outside of the Prescott Basin is the 

same as that in alternative B (1 to 4 areas), as is the direction for improving trailheads (5 to 20 

trailheads), maintaining signage (10 to 20 percent), and carrying out management actions to meet 

desired conditions for trails (5 to 10 actions). However, alternative E removed the direction to 

reduce the maintenance backlog for trails.

Recreational target shooting: Alternative E differs from alternatives B, C, and D in that it 

emphasizes the development and implementation of strategies to raise awareness of responsible 

target shooting practices as a means of promoting visitor safety, rather than creating and operating 

a new designated target shooting area.
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 31

Recommended wilderness: Eight potential wilderness areas (PWAs), encompassing 23,137 

acres, would be recommended for wilderness designation. These PWAs were selected to respond 

to both the public’s concerns for recreation and administrative access and the public’s desire to 

expand existing wilderness opportunities.

Recreation management response to climate change: The ability to respond to increasing 

numbers of visitors and extended seasons of use would be similar to that described in alternative 

D, except there would be less emphasis on designating dispersed camping areas and trail 

maintenance.

Need for Change 4

Provide desired habitat for native fish species. 

Diversity and viability of native fish, aquatic herps, and invertebrate species: The plan 

components used to address aquatic and riparian species diversity and viability are the same as 

those described in alternatives B and D. 

Aquatic/riparian habitat: The plan components used to address aquatic and riparian habitat 

concerns are the same as those described in alternatives B and D. 

Need for Change 5

Enhance the value of open space provided by the Prescott National Forest by defining the visual 

character within areas near or viewed by those in local communities. 

Scenic integrity: The method and plan components used to address scenic integrity are the same 

as that described in alternative B. However, the recommended potential wilderness areas are not 

visible from the Verde Valley or Quad Cities area.

Land acquisition: Alternative E would direct the Prescott NF to pursue up to 10 opportunities to 

acquire lands within 10 years, with an emphasis on parcels that would help retain open space 

values. It also contains an additional objective (Objective 30) to act on up to 10 opportunities to 

restore historic access to the national forest. As with alternative B, the Prescott NF would take 

scenic and open space values, as well as community vision statements, into account when 

responding to land exchange proposals.

Social and Economic Values

Economic impact: The total amount of labor income and jobs contributed by the Prescott NF to 

the local economy would be $23,735,000 and 660 total jobs, including 287 recreation related jobs 

(Forest Service, 2011a).

Financial efficiency: The PNV was calculated over a 15-year period, using a 4 percent discount 

rate, as -$24,731,896 (Forest Service, 2011a).

Cultural and historic resources: Most of the direction that affects cultural and historic resources 

comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and 

Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not 

change across alternatives.
Chapter 2. Alternatives

32 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Suitable range acres: The land base determined to be suitable for livestock grazing under 

alternative E is 913,078 acres. This figure is the same across all alternatives.

Mining and mineral resources: Most of the direction that affects minerals activities comes from 

existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service Manual and Forest Service 

Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not change across 

alternatives.

Suitable timber acres: The land base determined to be suitable for timber production under 

alternative E is 38,875 acres.

Long term sustained yield capacity: The sustainable harvest estimate for alternative E was 

determined to be 60,996 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade.

Allowable sale quantity: The expected maximum harvest volume for alternative E was 

determined to be 40,447 hundred cubic feet (CCF) per decade. 

Special use permits: Most of the direction that affects special use permit issuance and 

administration comes from existing laws, regulations, and policies found in the Forest Service 

Manual and Forest Service Handbook. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction 

and does not change across alternatives. 

Transportation system: The motorized transportation system under alternative E consists of 

1,357 miles of road and 408 miles of trails open to motorized vehicles less than 50 inches wide. 

These figures are the same across all alternatives.

Alternative that Incorporates 

the RPA Program Resource Objectives

The 1982 Planning Rule Provisions at 219.12(f)(6) require land management plans to respond to 

and incorporate the Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) (P.L. 93-378) 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 

(Section 219.35(e)). The last RPA Program was developed in 1995. In lieu of the RPA Program, 

the “USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan FY 2007-2012” (Forest Service, 2007a) provides broad 

overarching national guidance for land management planning and national objectives for the 

Agency as required by the Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62). All of the 

alternatives in this EIS address these broad strategic objectives.

Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not 

developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received during the plan revision process 

provided suggestions for the revised plan. Some of these suggestions may not have been part of 

identified needs for change, were duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or were 

determined to contain components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 33

A number of alternatives were considered but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons 

as summarized in the following paragraphs. 

Alternative that responds to the changing climate: An alternative that responds to changes in 

global and regional climate due to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases 

was suggested during the comment period. Climate change effects to resources are addressed in 

all of the action alternatives throughout the EIS. Plan direction also facilitates in building 

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

and adaptive capacity is expected to be achieved through the restoration of vegetation structure, 

vegetation composition, and appropriate fire regimes to ecosystems on the Prescott NF. 

Alternative that phases out issuance of livestock grazing permits over time: An alternative 

emphasizing ecosystem restoration that would phase out livestock grazing forestwide over the life 

of the revised plan was suggested by the public. In the Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act of 1960 

(P.L. 86-517), Congress declared that the national forests are established and shall be 

administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. The 

National Forest Management Act of 1974 (P.L. 94-588) reiterates this commitment to multiple 

use in Section 6 – National Forest System Resource Planning. Given these legal requirements, it 

was determined that this alternative was not consistent with the mission of the Forest Service and, 

therefore, outside the scope of this decision. 

Alternative that adopts a “hands-off” management approach: An alternative was suggested 

that would maximize long term vegetative health and the retention of water and forage for 

wildlife through the implementation of a minimal management strategy. However, this type of 

“hands-off” approach is contrary to the best available science that recommends active restoration 

efforts for many of the departed ecosystems on the Prescott NF. The action alternatives address 

long term vegetative health in the desired condition statements of how the various vegetation 

types on the Prescott NF should look and function. Management action is necessary to trend these 

ecosystems towards the desired conditions and strengthen ecosystem resilience in the face of 

expected changes in the climate of the Southwest.

Alternative that adjusts relative mileage of motorized and nonmotorized trails: A recreation 

oriented alternative was suggested that would increase the miles of nonmotorized trails relative to 

the miles of motorized trails. Current trail mileage for nonmotorized use is approximately equal 

to the mileage of motorized or multi-use trails (394 miles of nonmotorized trails versus 408 miles 

of motorized trails). An alternative was suggested that would provide direction to adjust the 

nonmotorized trail mileage to exceed motorized trail mileage by about 40 percent to better 

respond to the proportions of visitor use. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

involvement.

Alternative that limits the road density: An alternative was suggested that would prohibit new 

road construction and require a reduction in road density to less than 2 miles per square mile. This 

was not considered as a separate alternative because the current road density (including motorized 
Chapter 2. Alternatives

34 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

trails) of the Prescott National Forest is less than 0.97 miles per square mile and all of the action 

alternatives include direction to minimize, but not prohibit, new road construction. Road density 

on the forest is even less if wilderness areas are included in the calculations. 

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

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

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

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

improve stream and drainage crossings.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the activities by alternative in table 1 and compares effects 

and outcomes of implementing each alternative in table 2. Information in the tables is focused on 

activities and effects where different levels of activities, consequences, or outcomes can be 

distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Figures in table 1 for all 

alternatives are estimated for a 10-year period unless indicated otherwise.

Comparison of Activities by Alternative

Table 1. Comparison of plan components or potential activities by alternative 

Activities Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Vegetation

Use wildland fire to meet 

resource objectives in SemiDesert Grasslands

13,300 acres 25,000 to 

65,000 acres

65,000 to 

85,000 acres

25,000 to 65,000 acres

Use wildland fire to meet 

resource objectives in Great 

Basin Grasslands

400 acres 1,000 to 5,000 

acres

5,000 to 

10,000 acres

1,000 to 5,000 acres

Mechanical treatments or 

wildland fire to meet resource 

objectives in Juniper Grasslands 

and Piñon-Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub

25,000 acres 

of fire

3,100 acres 

of mechanical 

treatment

20,000 to 

90,000 acres

20,000 to 40,000 acres 20,000 to 

90,000 acres

Mechanical treatments, biomass 

removal, or wildland fire to meet 

resource objectives in Interior 

Chaparral

44,400 acres 

of fire

1,600 acres 

of mechanical 

treatment

40,000 to 

100,000 acres

40,000 to 60,000 acres 40,000 to 

100,000 acres

Timber harvest in Ponderosa 

Pine

5,600 acres 2,500 to 8,000 acres

Use wildland fire to meet 

resource objectives in Ponderosa 

Pine

24,300 acres 25,000 to 

50,000 acres

30,000 to 

65,000 acres

25,000 to 50,000 acres
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 35

Activities Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Management of nonnative

invasive plant species

1,240 acres 

of treatment

Control or eradicate 75–95 percent of 

populations within 1 to 2 years of detection.

Treat 

50 percent of 

populations 

within 1 to 2 

years of 

detection

Management of sensitive plant 

species

Project level 

mitigations 

during 

analysis of 

site-specific 

projects

Guidelines-Plants-1 to 6

Std-Plants-1 to 2

Watershed Integrity

Projects to improve watershed 

conditions

4,180 acres, 

3 miles, and 

2 other 

projects. 

Estimate 8 to 

12 projects.

20 to 50 projects 5 to 50 

essential 

projects

Improve conditions in identified 

improperly functioning and at 

risk riparian areas within 1 to 5 

years of detection.

10 acres and 

17 segments 

improved; 

timing 

unknown.

Improve 10–40 percent of identified riparian 

areas

Counter 1 to 

3 critical 

threats to 

riparian 

system 

functionality

Maintain or repair designated 

motorized roads or trails that 

impact watershed integrity.

30 miles, 

2 erosion 

control 

projects, and 

62 acres 

improved.

Maintain or repair 20 to 100 miles of road or 

trail

Repair 20 to 

100 miles of 

road or trail

Obliterate, close, recontour, or 

revegetate unauthorized routes 

that impact watershed integrity.

23 miles 

and 14 acres 

obliterated

Minimum of 10 miles of routes

Improve stream or drainage 

crossings by roads or trails.

2 crossings 

improved

15 to 25 crossings

Enhance and restore water 

dependent ecosystem sites 

(seeps and springs).

12 sites 25 to 55 sites

Apply for in-stream flow water 

rights to provide for channel and 

floodplain maintenance

Not addressed 8 to 10

water rights

Recreation

Additional developed recreation 

areas

No areas 2 to 5 areas 1 or 2 areas

Additional designations of 

dispersed camping areas.

No areas 1 to 4 areas 2 to 6 areas 1 to 4 areas
Chapter 2. Alternatives

36 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Activities Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Percent reduction in 

maintenance backlog—

developed recreation sites.

88 percent 80–90 percent of maintenance 

backlog

50–60 percent of maintenance 

backlog

Percent reduction in 

maintenance backlog—trails.

No reduction, 

expected 

increase

50–75 percent 

of 

maintenance 

backlog

35–50 percent 

of 

maintenance 

backlog

50–75 percent 

of 

maintenance 

backlog

No reduction

Designated target shooting areas. 1 area exists; 

permit will not 

be renewed

1 new area No new area

Improvement in trailheads. None reported 5 to 20 

trailheads

5 to 10 

trailheads

10 to 25 

trailheads

5 to 20 

trailheads

Annual recreation sign 

maintenance. 

3–5 percent of 

signage 

maintained

10–20 percent of signage maintained

Maintain or enhance fishing 

opportunities.

Two lake 

treatments

Two lakes or ponds maintained or enhanced

Enhance means of 

communication with visitors.

No Develop 2 to 5 additional methods

Improved identification of 

designated wilderness 

boundaries.

1 mile marked 2 to 5 at-risk areas

Add protective measures where 

there is evidence of resource 

damage due to recreation use. 

2 locations 2 to 5 locations

Trail improvement to meet 

desired conditions.

No 

documented 

actions

5 to 10 actions 5 to 15 

actions, 

includes 10 to 

20 miles of 

new trail, and 

up to 5 miles 

of trail 

decommission

5 to 10 

actions

Number of areas and acreage of 

designated wilderness and WSR 

segments.

8 wilderness areas: 104,480 acres

1 wild and scenic river segment

Number of areas and total 

acreage of potential wilderness 

recommended.

No areas

No acres

8 areas

43,440 acres

No areas

No acres

16 areas

116,260 acres

8 areas

23,137 acres

Number of eligible wild and 

scenic river segments 

recommended. 

No segments

Number of inventoried roadless 

areas

11 inventoried roadless areas; 139,591 acres
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 37

Activities Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Number of research natural areas 

recommended

No areas; No acres

Aquatic and Terrestrial Species Habitat

Improvement of habitat for 

native fish species.

76 acres of 

tamarisk 

treatment 

along Verde 

Wild & Scenic 

River

Work with 

AZGFD and 

USFWS to 

improve 2 or 3 

stream reaches

Work with 

AZGFD and 

USFWS to 

improve 4 to 6 

stream reaches

Work with AZGFD and 

USFWS to improve 2 or 3 

stream reaches

Improvement of pronghorn 

habitat: modification or fence 

removal.

None 

reported; 2 

miles 

estimated

3 to 5 miles of 

fence

10 to 15 miles 

of fence

3 to 5 miles of fence

Improvement of pronghorn 

habitat: habitat quality.

4,750 acres 15,000 to 

90,000 acres

50,000 to 

85,000 acres

15,000 to 90,000 acres

Improvement of pronghorn 

habitat: migration corridors.

Little focus on 

corridors 

specifically

2 or 3 

corridors

3 to 6 

corridors

2 or 3 corridors

Improve water developments 

with AZGFD.

5 water 

developments

3 to 15 water 

developments

5 to 15 water 

developments

3 to 15 water 

developments

25 existing 

and 5 new 

water 

developments

Acres of northern goshawk 

nesting habitat (MIS).

62,125 to 62,761 acres

Acres of northern goshawk 

foraging habitat (MIS).

17,524 acres 18,651 to 22,518 acres

Acres of pronghorn habitat 

(MIS).

164,350 acres 177,485 to 

196,930 acres

196,930 to 

203,980 acres

177,485 to 196,930 acres

Miles of aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat (MIS).193 miles

Open Space

Act on opportunities to acquire 

land to retain open space.

1 opportunity Up to 10 opportunities in the Verde Valley and 

along the Verde River to retain open space and 

protect riparian habitat

Up to 10 

opportunities

Visual integrity objectives 

within Grief Hill and Black 

Canyon areas.

Moderate High

Act on opportunities to secure 

legal access to national forest 

land.

Not addressed Up to 10 

opportunities
Chapter 2. Alternatives

38 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Table 2 contains a qualitative comparison of how each alternative addresses the needs for change 

and a quantitative comparison of the social and economic effects. It also illustrates the response to 

the primary issues that served as the basis for alternative development: ecosystem restoration, 

dispersed recreation opportunities, and recommended wilderness. The emphasis on ecosystem 

restoration is captured under “Terrestrial Ecosystems,” “Watershed Integrity,” and “Aquatic and 

Riparian Species Habitat” in the table below. Dispersed recreation opportunities and 

recommended wilderness are both captured under “Recreation.” This table summarizes the 

analysis of the alternatives discussed in further detail in chapter 3 of this EIS.

Table 2. Comparison of the response to needs for change by alternative 

Need for Change Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Improve vegetation 

structure, composition, 

and fire regime

Least 

improvement 

Moderate 

improvement

Most 

improvement

Moderate improvement

Improve ecosystem 

resilience to climate 

change

No change Moderate 

improvement

Most 

improvement

Moderate improvement

Predicted air quality Most 

particulate 

emissions

Some 

particulate 

emissions

Least 

particulate 

emissions

Some particulate emissions

Address public concerns 

over smoke

Less emphasis More emphasis

Consider air quality 

impacts in restoration 

needs

Moderate ratio 

of thinning to 

fire

Highest ratio of 

thinning to fire

Lowest ratio of 

thinning to fire

Moderate ratio 

of thinning to 

fire

Highest ratio 

of thinning to 

fire

Animal species viability Some risk Less risk to animal species viability

Plant species viability Some risk Less risk to plant species viability

Watershed Integrity

Impact to watersheds from 

vegetation management

No change Increased short 

term impacts, 

more long term 

benefit

Greatest short 

term impacts, 

most long term 

benefit

Increased short term impacts, 

more long term benefit

Impact to watersheds from 

recreation activities

No change Some reduction Least reduction Most reduction Some reduction

Functional improvement 

to riparian areas, seeps, 

and springs

No change in 

rate of 

improvement

Accelerated rate of improvement

Provide needed water 

quality, quantity, and 

timing

No change Some increase
Chapter 2. Alternatives

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 39

Need for Change Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Strengthen watershed 

resilience to climate 

change

No change Faster rate of improvement

Apply for in-stream flow 

water rights

No Yes

Recreation

Improve recreation sites Yes, but no new 

facilities

Yes, more new facilities Yes, fewer new facilities

Reduce developed sites 

maintenance backlog

Yes, at current rate Yes, but at a slower rate

Improve trails Yes, least Yes, some Yes, most and 

creates new 

trails

Yes, some

Improve trailheads No Yes, more Yes, least Yes, most Yes, more

Improve signage Yes Yes, at an accelerated rate

Reduce trails maintenance 

backlog

No Yes Yes, at a slower 

rate

Yes No

Address conflict on trails No Yes

Replace shooting venue No Yes No

Improve fishing Maintenance 

only

Yes

Expand methods of 

information sharing

No Yes

Mitigate dispersed 

recreation impacts Yes Yes, with stronger direction

Mitigate impacts from 

dispersed camping

Designated in 

Prescott Basin 

only

Yes, some new designated areas 

across forest

Yes, most new 

designated 

areas across 

forest

Yes, some 

new 

designated 

areas across 

forest

Mark wilderness 

boundaries

Yes Yes, at an accelerated rate, with stronger direction

Potential wilderness 

recommended

None Some None Most Least

Adapt management to 

climate change

Additional 

effort required

Integrated into plan

Aquatic and Riparian Species Habitat

Aquatic species 

distribution and 

abundance 

Decreasing Increasing
Chapter 2. Alternatives

40 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Need for Change Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Riparian species 

distribution and 

abundance

Stable

Aquatic habitat quantity, 

quality, and distribution

Stable Increasing

Riparian habitat quantity, 

quality, and distribution

Stable

Open Space

Scenic integrity near 

communities

Least 

protection, long 

term decrease 

in visual quality

Most protection 

for scenic 

integrity, 

improved visual 

quality

Protection for 

scenic integrity, 

most long term 

improvement

Protection for scenic integrity, 

improved visual quality

Open space values No emphasis Strong emphasis

Restore historic access No Yes

Social and Economic Values

Labor income generated $23,616,000 $23,882,000 $23,850,000 $23,735,000

Total jobs contributed 656 664 663 660

Present net value -$23,230,148 -$24,624,817 -$23,833,268 -$24,558,106 -$24,731,896

Heritage resources Least potential 

to disrupt sites

Most potential 

to disrupt sites

Some potential to disrupt sites Most potential 

to disrupt sites

Livestock grazing Fewest short 

term impacts, 

fewest long 

term benefits

Increased short 

term impacts, 

more long term 

benefit

Greatest short 

term impacts, 

most long term 

benefit

Increased short term impacts, 

more long term benefit

Suitable range 913,078 acres

Minerals No effect on 

new or existing 

claims

Some possible 

effect on new 

claims, no 

effect on 

existing claims

No effect on 

new or existing 

claims

Some possible effect on new 

claims, no effect on existing 

claims

Suitable timber 44,413 acres 38,462 acres 44,413 acres 38,063 acres 38,875 acres

Long term sustained yield 

capacity (LTSYC) 

69,680 CCF1

per decade

60,343 CCF per 

decade

69,680 CCF per 

decade

59,706 CCF per 

decade

60,996 CCF

per decade

Allowable sale quantity 

(ASQ) 

23,385 CCF per 

decade

40,447 CCF per decade

Special uses No effect on 

new or existing 

permits

Possible effect on new permits, no effect on existing permits, project 

specific analysis required

Transportation system No effect Improved conditions for NFS roads and trails

1

 Hundred cubic feet of volume 
FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 41

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

planning area and the environmental consequences that may occur by implementing each 

alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the 

comparison of alternatives presented in chapter 2. More detailed information, including 

methodology, assumptions, and effects analyses, can be found in appendix B or the specific 

resource specialist report located in the planning record and available upon request.

Plan Decisions and Site-Specific Projects and Activities

The revised plan and EIS alternatives do not authorize implementation of management activities 

described in the effects analyses. The revised plan and EIS alternatives provide a programmatic 

framework that guides site-specific actions but does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project 

or activity. 

Because the land management plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or 

activities (including ground-disturbing actions), there can be no direct effects. However, there 

may be implications, or longer term environmental consequences, of managing the forest under 

this programmatic framework. The revised plan sets the stage for what future management 

actions are needed to achieve desired outcomes (e.g., desired conditions, objectives, special 

areas), and provides the sideboards (e.g., suitability, standards, guidelines) under which future 

activities may occur in order to manage risks to ecological, social, and economic environments. 

To actually implement site-specific projects, project- and activity-level planning, environmental 

analysis, and decisions must occur. For example, the revised plan contains direction to close or 

rehabilitate roads in order to benefit riparian areas; however, a subsequent site-specific analysis 

and decision must be made for each proposal that involves any specific road closure or 

obliteration.

Environmental Analyses

During development of the environmental analyses that follow, the best science was considered 

and documented in the planning record. The environmental analyses were focused on the needs 

for change to the existing plan and issues identified through the scoping process and examined 

those potential effects to Prescott NF programs and resources. 

The discussions here refer to the potential for the consequences to occur, realizing that in many 

cases, these are only estimates. For estimating the consequences of alternatives at the 

programmatic plan level, the assumption has been made that the kinds of resource management 

activities allowed under the prescriptions will in fact occur to the extent necessary to achieve the 

objectives and move toward or achieve the desired conditions of each alternative. This analysis is 

useful in comparing and evaluating alternatives on a forestwide basis but is not to be applied to 

specific locations on the forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Several assumptions were made in the analyses of alternatives, including:

 Plan decisions (i.e., desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, special areas, 

suitability, monitoring) would be followed when planning or implementing site-specific 

projects and activities. 

 Implementation of the land management plan would facilitate progress toward the 

attainment of desired conditions for each resource. 

 Law, policy, regulations, and applicable best management practices (BMPs) would be 

followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects and activities. 

 Monitoring would occur and the land management plan will be amended, as needed. 

 The planning period is 10 years; other timeframes may be used to compare expected 

future trends. 

Environmental Consequences of Each Alternative

All relevant resources were analyzed for anticipated environmental consequences from 

implementing each alternative. Specialist reports containing further documentation of the 

analyses and resulting consequences can be found in the planning record located at the Prescott 

NF Supervisor’s Office in Prescott, Arizona. This section examines, in detail, five different 

alternatives for revising the 1987 “Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan” (1987 plan). 

Need for Change 1

Restore vegetation structure and composition and desired characteristics of fire to selected 

ecosystems, while responding to citizen concerns related to smoke emissions. 

This section summarizes current terrestrial ecosystem conditions, air quality conditions on the 

Prescott NF, and the consequences of implementing the revised plan or its alternatives. It has been 

organized by concerns associated with “Need for Change 1” in chapter 1 and the broad issue of 

ecosystem restoration and its relationship to species viability. This includes restoring vegetation 

structure, composition and desired fire frequency, improving ecosystem resilience to the expected 

outcomes of climate change, maintaining air quality, addressing public concerns about smoke, 

and assessing effects to terrestrial plant and animal species viability and diversity. The full 

analyses can be found in the “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision Vegetation and Fire Ecology 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2011b), “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision Air Quality 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2011c), “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Vascular 

Plant Viability Analysis” (Forest Service, 2011d), “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2011e), and “Prescott National Forest Plan 

Revision EIS Terrestrial Species Viability Report” (Forest Service, 2011m).

Vegetation and Fire

Background

During plan revision efforts, the terrestrial ecosystems of the Prescott NF were classified into 

potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) based on similar units of vegetation, soil, climate, and 

disturbance at a landscape scale. PNVTs represent the vegetation type and characteristics that 

would occur when natural disturbance regimes and biological processes prevail. The PNVT 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 43

classifications were developed from data available in the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the 

Prescott National Forest” (Robertson et al., 2000) and from information on vegetation dynamics 

and natural variability compiled by The Nature Conservancy1

and the Landscape Fire and 

Resource Management Planning Tools Project2(commonly called LANDFIRE). 

The initial classification of PNVTs resulted in 13 categories as reported in the “Prescott NF 

Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009a). Additional data gathering and 

assessment since 2009 resulted in a refinement of the PNVT classification. Based on updated 

midscale vegetation inventory, field visits, and data review, the number of PNVTs identified on 

the Prescott NF was adjusted from 13 to 10. Table 3 lists these 10 PNVTs and their area.

Table 3. Potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) of the Prescott NF 

PNVT Acres Percent

Semi-Desert Grassland 125,712 10

Great Basin Grassland 38,389 3

Juniper Grassland 137,274 11

Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub 463,296 37

Interior Chaparral 315,445 25

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak 63,539 5

Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak 49,052 4

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 36,263 3 

Desert Communities 5,919 < 1

Riparian Gallery Forest 12,439 1

Total 1,247,328 100

Refinements in the identification and classification of PNVTs included: 

 The Mixed-Conifer with Frequent Fire PNVT (6,600 acres) was combined with the 

Ponderosa Pine Forest PNVT because they are described by the same biophysical setting 

model (e.g., vegetation structure and disturbance regime) developed by the Nature 

Conservancy3. The Ponderosa Pine Forest PNVT was later renamed as Ponderosa PineGambel Oak PNVT. 

 The Mixed-Conifer with Aspen PNVT (80 acres) was determined to be a 

misidentification and the acres were added to the Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak PNVT. 

 The Madrean Encinal Woodland PNVT (5,500 acres) map units were grouped with 

adjoining PNVT units because of concerns about their identification. Most of the 

 

1 www.azconservation.org/downloads/category/southwest_regional/

2 www.landfire.gov

3 TNC biophysical setting model “Ponderosa Pine/Bunchgrass”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

indicator species describing this PNVT, with the exception of the Mexican pines, were 

observed during field visits to the small and scattered map units assigned to this PNVT. 

These units were found to be interspersed with Interior Chaparral and Ponderosa PineEvergreen Oak PNVTs, suggesting the possibility that multiple fire disturbance regimes 

existing in close proximity to one another could account for the observed variations in 

vegetation composition and structure. There is uncertainty in how much the observed 

vegetation structure may reflect recent land use and/or disturbance history versus the 

presence of a distinct PNVT. Until additional information is available to address the 

uncertainty associated with identification of the Madrean Encinal Woodland PNVT, it 

was decided to manage the vegetation of these map units based on their adjoining PNVT. 

 The Colorado Plateau Grassland PNVT also known as Colorado Plateau/Great Basin 

Grassland4 was shortened in name to Great Basin Grassland PNVT to acknowledge the 

fact that the Prescott NF does not reside on the Colorado Plateau. The Riparian Forest 

PNVT5 was renamed Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT in recognition of the long and 

narrow patterns that this PNVT forms along perennial and intermittent streams found on 

the Prescott NF. 

PNVT reference conditions that identified the relative amount of each vegetation state, and the 

frequency of transitions between states, were estimated based on scientific literature (Schussman 

and Smith, 2006a) and Forest Service experience within the western U.S. (Hann et al., 2008). 

Existing mid-scale vegetation mapping6 was used to represent the PNVT current conditions. 

Comparisons between the PNVT reference conditions, current conditions, and desired conditions 

were made to identify potential vegetation and fire treatment objectives for each of the 

alternatives. Computer models and published literature were then used to estimate future PNVT 

conditions and ecological effects based on current PNVT conditions and the proposed vegetation 

and fire treatment levels of the various alternatives (see appendix B for analysis methodology).

The “Prescott NF Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009a), summarized threats 

to terrestrial ecosystem sustainability using comparisons of PNVT reference conditions to PNVT 

current conditions. The differences between these PNVT conditions were reported as the 

departure from reference conditions. 

In the present analysis, comparisons between PNVT current conditions and PNVT desired 

conditions are emphasized, and the differences between PNVT conditions are referred to as 

similarity to desired conditions. This change in terminology was intentional for the purpose of 

measuring progress toward desired conditions over time using positive rather than negative terms. 

For this analysis, similarity and departure share an inverse relationship. In other words, a PNVT 

that exhibits a high similarity to desired conditions, would exhibit a low departure from reference 

conditions. 

 

4

 LANDFIRE biopysical setting model 1511350 “Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland”

5

 LANDFIRE biophysical setting model 1511552 “North American Warm Desert Riparian Systems”

6

 Mid-scale vegetation mapping was conducted in 2005 and 2006 using satellite data and is mapped at the scale of 

1:100,000. The map contains geospatial polygons with characteristics of life form (tree, shrub, grass, and forbs), size 

class (for trees and shrubs), and canopy cover. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 45

Affected Environment 

Based on mid-scale vegetation assessments compiled in 2010, the current conditions for some 

PNVTs show a high similarity to the desired conditions (e.g., Piñon-Juniper Woodland and 

Interior Chaparral) as shown in table 4 below. For many of the PNVTs, however, the vegetation 

and fire characteristics currently exhibit a low similarity to the desired conditions. 

Table 4. Current conditions of PNVTs found on the Prescott NF

Potential 

Natural 

Vegetation 

Type

Acres

Percent 

of 

PNF 

Area

Similarity to 

Desired 

Conditions –

Vegetation

Structure

Similarity to 

Desired 

Conditions –

Fire 

Disturbance

Management 

Concerns

PNVT

Group

Semi-Desert 

Grassland 125,712 10 Low Low

Lack of desired fire 

disturbance; tree and 

shrub encroachment; 

increases in exposed 

soil surface and 

spread of nonnative

plants. 

Grassland 

PNVTs

Great Basin 

Grassland 38,389 3 High Moderate

Juniper 

Grassland 137,274 11 Moderate Moderate Lack of desired fire 

disturbance; 

increased tree and 

shrub density and 

canopy cover; lack of 

perennial grasses and 

forbs.

PiñonJuniper 

PNVTs

Piñon-Juniper 

Evergreen 

Shrub

463,296 37 Low Moderate

Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland 36,263 3 High High

Interior 

Chaparral 315,445 25 High High

Wildfire threat to 

human life and 

property.

Ponderosa 

Pine-Evergreen 

Oak

63,539 5 Low Low

Increased tree and 

shrub density; 

increased fuel load, 

increased risk of 

uncharacteristic highintensity fire, 

proximity to human 

life and property.

Ponderosa 

Pine 

Ponderosa PNVTs

Pine-Gambel 

Oak

49,052 4 Low Low

Desert 

Communities 5,919 <1 High High Threat of humancaused fire.

Riparian 

Gallery Forest 12,439 1 High High

Invasion by 

nonnative plants; 

trampling of 

vegetation.

Grand Total: 1,247,328 100
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Current conditions and ecosystem concerns summarized above are described in more detail for 

each PNVT in the sections that follow. Several of the PNVTs have been grouped to facilitate 

discussion throughout the remainder of this document: Grassland PNVTs (Semi-Desert and Great 

Basin), Piñon-Juniper PNVTs (Juniper Grassland, Evergreen Shrub, and Woodland), and 

Ponderosa Pine PNVTs (Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak and Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak). 

Grassland PNVTs 

There are two grassland PNVTs classified for the Prescott NF: Semi-Desert and Great Basin. 

Grassland PNVTs are characterized as having less than 10 percent tree cover.

The Semi-Desert Grassland PNVT encompasses roughly 126,000 acres at elevations ranging 

from 3,000 to 4,500 feet. These grasslands are bounded by desert communities at the lowest 

elevations and Piñon-Juniper Woodlands or Interior Chaparral at higher elevations. Species 

composition and dominance varies based on soils and topography. The more common grass 

species include black grama, blue grama, hairy grama, tobosa, and giant sacaton. Various shrubs 

species also inhabit these grasslands including: creosote bush, catclaw acacia, mimosa, 

burroweed, broom snakeweed, and mesquite.

The Great Basin Grassland PNVT encompasses almost 38,000 acres and intermingles with 

piñon-juniper ecosystems adjacent to Chino Valley. This grassland PNVT is higher in elevation 

(approximately 4,700 to 7,600 feet) and climatically cooler and moister than the Semi-Desert 

Grassland PNVT. Vegetation consists mostly of grasses and forbs with interspersed shrubs. Grass 

species may include, but are not limited to, Indian ricegrass, threeawns, blue grama, needle grass, 

bottlebrush squirreltail, James’ galleta, dropseed, and tobosa grass. Shrub and half-shrub species 

may include, but are not limited to, saltbush, snakeweed, winterfat, buckwheat, and juniper.

The grasslands PNVTs of the Prescott NF have undergone some dramatic changes over the last 

130 years. Changes include encroachment by trees and shrubs, loss of perennial grass cover, loss 

of cool season plant species, increase in exposed soil surface, and the spread of nonnative annual 

grasses. 

Fire plays a key role in the ecological sustainability of grasslands (McPherson, 1995). Fire 

historically occurred every 10 to 30 years in the Great Basin Grassland PNVT and 2 to 10 years 

in the Semi-Desert Grassland PNVT. Current fire activity within these grasslands is considerably 

less often than desired. 

A mid-scale assessment of vegetation conditions shows the Semi-Desert Grassland PNVT having 

a low similarity to desired conditions for vegetation structure. Current conditions are as those 

described above with encroachment by trees and shrubs, loss of perennial grass cover, and 

increases in exposed soil surfaces and nonnative plant species. The Great Basin Grassland PNVT 

in contrast, demonstrates a high similarity to desired conditions for vegetation structure and 

composition, based on a mid-scale assessment. However, other field-based vegetation surveys 

(Forest Service 2009a, Robertson et al., 2000) suggest that species richness (i.e., plant 

composition) and perennial grass canopy cover within the Great Basin Grassland PNVT are in 

decline.

Healthy grasslands are important habitat for a variety of wildlife species and are essential to 

maintaining pronghorn antelope populations. Pronghorn antelope was chosen as a management 

indicator species (MIS) for the grasslands PNVTs because it demonstrates a strong and/or 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 47

predictable response to proposed management activities including prescribed fire; shrub and tree 

thinning/removal; road and/or trail maintenance; and watershed or rangeland improvements. 

Piñon-Juniper PNVTs 

At roughly 636,800 acres, the three piñon-juniper PNVTs cover a majority of the Prescott NF 

landscape and represent one of the most extensive plant communities in the Southwest. These 

PNVTs are characterized by piñon and/or juniper species at elevations ranging from 4,500 to 

7,500 feet. The piñon component includes Colorado and single leaf species. The juniper 

component is a variable mix of alligator, oneseed, Utah, and Rocky Mountain. Annual and 

perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs can be found beneath the woodland overstory. Species 

composition, stand structure, and density vary by location primarily due to disturbance history, 

precipitation, elevation, temperature, and soil type. On erosive soil types within these 

communities, shrub, tree, and herbaceous ground cover help to lessen raindrop intensity and soil 

movement.

The piñon-juniper ecosystems on the Prescott NF have been classified as three distinct PNVTs: 

Juniper Grassland, Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and Piñon-Juniper Woodland. Each one is 

described in more detail in the following sections.

The Juniper Grassland PNVT, with a grass and forb-dominated understory and scattered 

overstory trees, generally occurs on flats, basins, gentle sloping foothills, and transitional valleys 

at generally lower elevations. The soils associated with Juniper Grasslands are generally deep and 

productive. Juniper Grasslands cover about 137,300 acres of the Prescott NF.

Existing conditions for the Juniper Grassland PNVT are moderately similar to desired ecological 

conditions. Fire has been excluded from this PNVT for most of the last century, allowing for 

increases in the age, density, and canopy cover of trees and shrubs and a reduction in firestimulated regrowth and germination of perennial grasses and forbs. The desired fire frequency is 

every 1 to 35 years.

The Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT, with an understory dominated by a mix of shrub 

species, generally occurs on elevated and lowland plains, hills, and lower-mountain slopes. The 

soils associated with this PNVT are variable and include those derived from granite, limestone, 

basalt, sandstone, and alluvium. Covering more than 463,000 acres, this is the most common 

piñon-juniper PNVT on the Prescott NF.

The Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT has a low similarity to desired conditions for 

vegetation structure. For example, there are too many young and mid-aged trees and shrubs 

growing closely together. Also, there is a higher proportion of recently disturbed, open-canopy 

grass-forb-shrub state than expected. This is likely due to management activities during the 1950s 

to 1970s that involved “juniper pushes” where juniper trees were removed for firewood or to 

increase grass cover for livestock grazing. The fire regime for this PNVT is moderately similar to 

desired conditions with less than desired frequency, but similar severity and intensity of fires 

when they do occur.

The Piñon-Juniper Woodland PNVT has a persistent tree overstory and a discontinuous 

understory of grasses and shrubs. It generally occurs on flats, ridgetops, rugged uplands, and 

steep slopes at various elevations and on soils that are shallow and rocky. Covering about 36,000 

acres, this PNVT is the least abundant of the piñon-juniper vegetation types on the Prescott NF. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Fire in this PNVT is less frequent and more variable than in the Juniper Grassland and PiñonJuniper Evergreen Shrub PNVTs due to differences in the amount and arrangement of vegetative 

ground cover and fine fuels. Vegetation structure and fire regimes within the Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland PNVT exhibit a high similarity to desired ecological conditions. 

Interior Chaparral PNVT 

The Interior Chaparral PNVT extends over 315,400 acres and represents the second largest PNVT 

on the Prescott NF. Interior Chaparral occurs at mid-elevations (3,400 to 6,600 feet) on foothills 

and lower mountain slopes. It is bordered by ponderosa pine or piñon-juniper woodlands and 

shrublands at the upper elevations and semi-desert grasslands at the lower elevations. Interior 

Chaparral vegetation has a uniform dense structure dominated by shrubs with thick, often stiff, 

waxy evergreen leaves. 

The vegetation composition, structure, and fire characteristics within the Interior Chaparral 

PNVT on the Prescott NF exhibit a high similarity to desired conditions. Prescribed fires and 

hazardous fuel reduction activities implemented under the 1987 plan have contributed to these 

conditions. Wildland-urban interface7areas occur within this PNVT. A range of prescribed fire 

and fuel treatment objectives are evaluated in the proposed alternatives to maintain these desired 

conditions and to address concerns about the proximity of this wildland vegetation to human 

developments, life, and property. 

Ponderosa Pine PNVTs 

There are two ponderosa pine PNVTs classified for the Prescott NF: Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen 

Oak and Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak.

The Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak PNVT covers more than 63,500 acres of the Prescott NF 

at elevations ranging from approximately 6,000 to 7,500 feet. This PNVT is dominated by 

ponderosa pine and can be distinguished from the Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak PNVT by one or 

more well represented evergreen oak tree species (e.g., Emory oak and Arizona white oak), 

juniper species, piñon pine species, and Arizona cypress in some locations. This PNVT has an 

understory of primarily evergreen shrubs including manzanita, turbinella oak, sumac species, and 

mountain mahogany species. 

Conditions found within the Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak PNVT show a low similarity to 

desired ecological conditions. Fuel loads have accumulated on the forest floor. This PNVT has 

too many young and mid-aged trees and shrubs growing closely together. The current fire regime 

is dissimilar to the desired regime that includes: a frequency of every 6 to 12 years with low 

intensities to maintain an open pine forest with a mix of young evergreen oaks and shrubs 

underneath (Schussman and Smith, 2006a). When wildfires occur under current conditions, they 

are more likely to kill many of the large and old trees, moving the vegetation structure further 

from desired conditions, and thereby, increasing the time it would take to restore forest structure 

to groups of uneven aged, multistoried stands described in the desired conditions. 

 

7

 The wildland-urban interface includes those areas of resident populations at imminent risk from wildfire, as well as 

human developments having special significance. These areas encompass not only the sites themselves but also the 

continuous slopes and fuels that lead directly to the sites regardless of the distance involved. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 49

Approximately two-thirds of this PNVT includes areas of wildland-urban interface. A range of 

prescribed fire and fuel treatment objectives are evaluated in the proposed alternatives to address 

concerns about the proximity of this wildland vegetation to human developments, life, and 

property. 

The Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak PNVT occurs on about 49,000 acres of the Prescott NF at 

elevations ranging from 5,500 to 9,000 feet. This PNVT is dominated by ponderosa pine and 

Gambel oak and commonly includes other tree species such as New Mexico locust, juniper, and 

piñon. Occasionally, tree species such as aspen, Douglas-fir, and white fir may be present, 

especially in relatively moist or shady areas. Desired conditions include an understory of grasses 

and forbs with occasional shrubs. 

This PNVT has a low similarity to desired conditions. As with the Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak 

PNVT, fine fuels in this PNVT have accumulated on the forest floor. There are too many young 

and mid-aged trees and too few old trees. The natural fire regime is dissimilar to the desired 

regime that includes: a frequency of every 1 to 15 years with low intensities to maintain an open 

pine forest with abundant herbaceous cover (Covington, 2003). When wildfires occur under 

current conditions, they are more likely to kill many of the large and old trees, moving the 

vegetation structure further from desired conditions, and thereby, increasing the time it would 

take to restore forest structure to groups of uneven aged, multistoried stands described in the 

desired conditions for the Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak PNVT. 

Healthy pine forests provide important habitat for a variety of wildlife species and are essential to 

maintaining bird populations such as the northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl. Northern 

goshawk was chosen as a management indicator species (MIS) for the ponderosa pine PNVTs, 

because it demonstrates a strong and/or predictable response to proposed management activities

including: prescribed fire, timber harvest, shrub and tree thinning/removal, and road and/or trail 

maintenance.

Desert Communities PNVT 

The Desert Communities PNVT covers approximately 5,900 acres of the lowest elevations of the 

Prescott NF. They most often have the appearance of a scrubland or low woodland of leguminous 

trees with intervening spaces characterized by one to several open layers of shrubs, cacti, and 

perennial succulents. This PNVT is found on broken ground and dissected sloping plains. 

Historically, weather events such as drought, frost, and wind thinned the dominant overstory 

plants. Vegetation within the Desert Communities PNVT is not thought to have supported fuel 

loads to sustain large fires prior to European habitation of the region. Fires would have been 

associated with dry lightning coincident with monsoonal storms during years when previous 

winter precipitation was abundant to create a thick fine fuel bed of annual plants. Fires killing a 

high proportion of the overstory plants were very rare or absent (averaging about once in 100 to 

998 years) (LANDFIRE, 2007). 

The vegetation composition and structure within the Desert Communities PNVT exhibit a high 

similarity to desired conditions. Over the last few decades, however, some nonnative grasses have 

invaded this PNVT providing fuel for uncharacteristic and more frequent fire. Currently, the 

natural disturbance regime has been altered somewhat by the periodic occurrence of humancaused wildfires.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

In the Desert Communities PNVT, projected warming and drying could enhance the invasion of 

nonnative plant species that are adapted to fire. These species grow quickly in the spring and then 

dry and cure so that wildfire risks increase. The natural vegetation within this PNVT is not 

adapted to fire and can require long time periods to reproduce. Fire can greatly change the plant 

composition, and thus, change the desert plant communities so that birds and other wildlife 

species may be affected.

Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT 

The Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT occurs along perennial or intermittent streams and around 

springs and seeps. It covers approximately 12,400 acres and ranges in elevation from 2,000 to 

8,000 feet (Forest Service, 2009a). The two major vegetation communities within it are 

cottonwood-willow and mixed broadleaf deciduous forests. The dominant woody vegetation 

varies according to elevation, substrate, stream gradient, and depth to groundwater. The 

juxtaposition of flood plains and stream terraces contribute to the mix of vegetative structures 

within the PNVT, including narrow stringers of mixed deciduous trees (gallery forest) and 

willow-, desert willow-, or mesquite-dominated shrublands. Common species include: Fremont 

cottonwood, narrowleaf, Gooding, and Bebb willow; Arizona sycamore; velvet and green ash; 

Arizona alder; Arizona walnut; and box elder. Herbaceous plants include several forbs, sedges, 

rushes, and grasses. Desert willow, mimosa, rubber rabbitbrush, and mesquite shrubs occur in 

dewatered areas.

Flooding and time between floods are the driving developmental forces in the Riparian Gallery 

Forest PNVT. In addition to periodic flooding, American Indians had an influence on vegetation 

composition and structure by favoring edible plants (e.g., mesquite), collecting firewood, and 

burning to flush animals and increase accessibility to open water and agricultural fields 

(LANDFIRE, 2007). These influences were likely limited to areas near perennial stream courses 

and not to areas adjacent to either intermittent water or springs and seeps imbedded in the upland 

vegetation (LANDFIRE, 2007). Outside of possible American Indian influence, wildland fires 

appear to have been infrequent in riparian communities dominated by cottonwood, willow, and 

mesquite species prior to invasion by tamarisk (Busch and Smith, 1993).

The Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT exhibits a high similarity to desired conditions for vegetation 

structure and fire regime. However, the spread of nonnative invasive plant species, soil 

compaction, and loss of vegetation due to visitor use are known threats to the health of this 

PNVT.

Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptation to Changing Climate Conditions 

Currently there appears to be broad agreement among climate modelers that the Southwestern 

United States is experiencing a drying trend that will continue well into the later part of the 21st

century (Sprigg et al., 2000). Regional drying and warming trends have occurred twice during the 

20th century (1930s Dust Bowl and the 1950s Southwest Drought), and may have been even more 

severe during what is known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly, an interval of warm, dry 

conditions with regional variability from A.D. 900 to 1350 (Hughes and Diaz, 1994). According 

to model scenarios, the slight warming trend observed in the last 100 years in the Southwest may 

continue into the next century, with the greatest warming to occur during winter. These climate 

models depict temperatures rising approximately 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030 and between 

7 and 12 degrees Fahrenheit by 2090 (Seager et al., 2007). This trend would increase pressures on 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 51

the region’s already limited water supplies, as well as increase energy demand, alter fire regimes 

and ecosystems, and create risks for human health and safety (Swetnam and Betancourt, 1998; 

Sprigg et al., 2000). 

The potential ecological implications of climate change trends in the Southwest indicate:

 More extreme disturbance events, wildfires, intense rain and wind events, etc. (Swetnam 

et al., 1999). 

 Greater vulnerability to invasive species, including insects, plants, fungi, and vertebrates. 

(Ryan et al., 2008). 

 Long term shifts in vegetation patterns (Westerling et al., 2006; Millar et al., 2007). 

 An anticipated shift in the geographic range of several tree and shrub species northward 

and upward in elevation (Shafer et al., 2001). 

 Climate models suggest the reduced precipitation will act as a limiting factor to overall 

forest productivity (Forest Service, 2005). 

Some scientists suggest that climate change presents an extreme challenge for establishing 

ecosystem resilience and adaptation because uncharacteristically rapid alteration of environments 

are possible and novel combinations of disturbances and nonnative biotic factors may occur and 

create conditions never before encountered by modern day land and resource managers (Fulé, 

2008).

Environmental Consequences

Vegetation Structure, Composition, and Fire Characteristics 

The environmental consequences of proposed vegetation and fire treatments were evaluated using 

three indicators that describe key PNVT characteristics: desired conditions similarity index, open 

state proportions, and fire frequency. These indicators and the methods for calculating them are 

briefly explained in the paragraphs below. The full analysis can be found in the “Prescott National 

Forest Vegetation and Fire Ecology Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2011b). 

Desired Conditions Similarity Index: Computer models were used to gauge the similarity of 

future vegetation structure and composition to desired conditions descriptions for each PNVT. 

Estimates of the current situation (year 0), short term outcomes (10 to 20 years), and long term 

outcomes (40 to 80 years) were calculated for each alternative. An 80-year timeframe was the 

upper limit chosen for the computer modeling—providing sufficient information to identify both 

short term and long term outcomes and trends; estimates of the outcomes beyond an 80-year 

timeframe were not calculated. Index values were used to summarize this information: values of 1 

to 33 indicated a low similarity between estimates and desired condition descriptions; values 

between 34 and 66 indicated a moderate similarity; and values between 67 and 99 indicated high 

similarity between future conditions and desired conditions. 

Open State Proportions: The amount of tree and shrub thinning and managed fire achieved 

under each alternative influences the attainment of open vegetation states (defined as less than 30 

percent canopy cover) by altering existing horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and 

spacing. The proportion of open states provides an inference of the level of desired fire behavior, 

as open vegetation states promote surface fire, rather than active crown fire within woodland and 

forest vegetation types (Zimmerman, 2003). Surface fires typically burn at lower intensities 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

because they consume less biomass than crown fires, resulting in less mortality to live vegetation 

and less risk to life and property. This concept also applies to portions of grassland vegetation 

experiencing shrub and tree encroachment. Computer models were used to calculate the 

proportion of open state conditions expected in the short term (10 to 20 years) and long term (40 

to 80 years) for each PNVT compared to the desired proportions. An 80-year timeframe was the 

upper limit chosen for the computer modeling based on professional judgment; estimates of the 

outcomes beyond an 80-year timeframe were not calculated.

Fire Frequency: For each PNVT, estimates of future fire frequency were calculated using the 

total area of each PNVT divided by the high end amount of the wildland fire treatments 

(prescribed fire and wildfire managed for resource benefits) proposed under a given alternative. 

This produced an estimate of how long it would take to burn each acre in the PNVT once given 

the proposed fire treatment rate (acres/year). The fire frequency estimate will vary depending on 

annual fire treatment rates and the size of the PNVT. An example equation is shown below: 

PNVT area of 100,000 acres/10,000 acres fire treatment per year = a fire 

frequency of once every 10 years, or 1:10 years.

The environmental consequences of proposed vegetation and fire treatments were compiled for 

individual PNVTs and then summarized to provide estimates of effects for all PNVTs combined. 

Descriptions of effects to individual PNVTs (as measured by the PNVT key indicators) begin 

with the Grassland PNVTs and table 5 below. The effects of the proposed treatments considering 

all PNVTs are discussed using a comparison between alternatives in a subsequent section “All 

PNVTs Combined.” 

Grassland PNVTs 

Table 5. Grassland vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative 

Indicator PNVT Desired 

Conditions Alternative A Alternatives B, D, and E Alternative C

Similarity 

Index

Semi-Desert 

Grassland

High Low Increases to 

Moderate

Low Increases to 

High

Low Increases to 

High Soonest

Great Basin 

Grassland

High High Declines to 

Moderate

High Stays High

Open States

Semi-Desert 

Grassland 80% 23–35% 30–84% 44–86%

Great Basin 

Grassland 93% 86–93% 86–95%

Fire 

Frequency

Semi-Desert 

Grassland 1:10–15 yrs 1:138 yrs 1:19 yrs 1:15 yrs

Great Basin 

Grassland 1:10–30 yrs 1:300 yrs 1:72 yrs 1:36 yrs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 53

Alternative A 

Similarity Index: In Great Basin Grasslands, the structural characteristics (mostly grass and 

forbs with an open canopy) would remain near desired proportions in the short term but would 

show evidence of decline over the long term. Under current management direction there would be 

little to no reintroduction of fire to the landscape, leading to an increase in trees and shrubs from 

encroachment and a concurrent decrease in perennial grass cover. 

Semi-Desert Grasslands are expected to achieve low to moderate levels of similarity to the 

desired vegetation structure and composition. Under current management direction, continued 

encroachment by trees and shrubs is expected to increase the tree and shrub density and canopy 

cover and to decrease perennial grass cover. 

For both grassland PNVTs, increases in tree and shrub density would decrease moisture, 

nutrients, and sunlight that otherwise would be available to the native perennial grasses and forbs 

and lead to a decrease in perennial grass cover. This reduced perennial grass cover would deposit 

and incorporate less organic matter into the soil matrix and favor increased erosion, loss of 

surface and soil organics, and a decrease in hydrologic function. Fewer perennial grasses and 

forbs across the landscape would provide more opportunities for the spread of nonnative invasive 

plants. Changes in plant composition (native versus nonnative species) can affect the amount of 

fine fuels available which can result in undesired fire frequency and behavior. 

The existing ecological conditions described above can adversely affect the quality and quantity 

of existing and potential habitat for pronghorn, the management indicator species (MIS) 

associated with the grassland PNVTs, and outdoor recreation experiences associated with the 

grassland PNVTs. 

Open States: Alternative A proposes about 400 acres of wildland fire treatments (prescribed fire 

and wildfire managed for resource benefits) over 10 years in Great Basin Grasslands. With this 

level of treatment, the structural characteristics of mostly grass and forbs with open canopy would 

remain near desired proportions (86 to 93 percent).

Alternative A also proposes about 13,000 acres of wildland fire treatments (prescribed fire and 

wildfire managed for resource benefits) over 10 years in Semi-Desert Grasslands. At this level of 

treatment, Semi-Desert Grasslands would achieve only low levels of open canopy conditions. The 

current level of wildland fire treatments is not extensive enough to reduce the existing closed 

canopy state that tree and shrub encroachment has created over the last several decades. These 

higher proportions of canopy closure can adversely affect pronghorn herd movement and habitat 

use. 

Fire Frequency: Estimated fire occurrence under this alternative would be about 10 times less 

frequent than these arid grassland systems are ecologically adapted to. Managed livestock grazing 

in these PNVTs is not effective at reducing and maintaining desired woody fuel levels. The lack 

of frequent fire in grasslands also affects plant productivity by precluding regular nutrient cycling 

between the organic material on the surface and the soil and roots of living plants below. 

Alternatives B, D, and E 

Similarity Index: Under alternatives B, D, and E, Great Basin Grassland conditions would 

remain stable, retaining their current high similarity to desired conditions over both the short and 

long term.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

In Semi-Desert Grasslands, the proposed range of restoration activity in alternatives B, D, and E 

(Objective 1) is expected to achieve a moderate to high level of similarity to vegetative desired 

conditions over the short term and a high level of similarity in vegetation and fire characteristics 

over the long term. Expected trends in vegetation structure include an increase in both perennial 

bunchgrass cover and vigor and a decrease in shrub and tree density. 

Open States: Alternatives B, D, and E propose 1,000 to 5,000 acres of wildland fire treatments 

(prescribed fire and wildfire managed for resource benefits) over 10 years in the Great Basin 

Grasslands (Objective 2). The structural characteristics of mostly grasses and forbs with open 

canopy would remain near desired proportions, similar to alternative A. 

Alternatives B, D, and E also propose 25,000 to 65,000 acres of wildland fire treatments 

(prescribed fire and wildfire managed for resource benefits) over 10 years in the Semi-Desert 

Grasslands. As a result, the Semi-Desert Grasslands would achieve a range of open canopy 

conditions under these alternatives, depending on the extent of the treatments. At the high end of 

the proposed treatment levels, open canopy conditions would be close to desired proportions 

(table 5). Prescribed fire treatments are expected to reduce the existing closed canopy states that 

have resulted from shrub and tree encroachment and increase the proportions of grasses and forbs 

with open canopy. 

For both grassland PNVTs, a higher proportion of open state conditions would reduce the chance 

of crown fire occurrence within the grassland PNVTs and reduce the likelihood of crown fires 

spreading to adjacent woodland PNVTs. A higher proportion of open states would also enrich 

pronghorn antelope habitat conditions for movement and forage.

Fire Frequency: Estimated fire occurrence under alternatives B, D, and E would be fairly close 

to desired frequency levels for Semi-Desert Grasslands and about five times more frequent for the 

Great Basin Grasslands than alternative A. Some potential, but uncertain, consequences of 

prescribed fire treatments may occur depending upon whether: (1) the necessary level of 

coordination with grazing permittees leads to desired fuel levels both before and after treatment 

and (2) postfire precipitation is adequate to encourage grass recovery and restore ground cover for 

inhibition of invasive plant species. 

Alternative C 

Similarity Index: This alternative would restore the most grassland acres of any of the 

alternatives. Alternative C proposes 5,000 to 10,000 acres of wildland fire treatments (prescribed 

fire and wildfire managed for resource benefits) over 10 years in the Great Basin Grasslands 

(Objective 2). The current state of the Great Basin Grasslands is close to desired conditions, but 

under this alternative, they would continue to recover over both the short and long term. 

Alternative C also proposes 65,000 to 85,000 acres of wildland fire treatments (prescribed fire 

and wildfire managed for resource benefits) over 10 years in the Semi-Desert Grasslands 

(Objective 1). The Semi-Desert Grasslands are expected to achieve a high level of similarity to 

vegetative desired conditions after only 10 years and this positive trend would continue over time. 

This is an increase in the rate of development toward desired conditions compared to alternatives 

A, B, and D. 

Open States: In Great Basin Grasslands, the structural characteristics of mostly grasses and forbs 

with open canopy would remain near desired proportions, similar to alternatives A, B and D. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 55

Semi-Desert Grasslands would achieve the same or higher levels of open canopy conditions 

under alternative C compared to alternatives B and D. At the high end of the proposed treatment 

levels, open canopy conditions would be close to desired proportions, and even at the low end, 

open canopy conditions would be closer to desired proportions than the low end of any of the 

other alternatives (table 5). 

Alternative C achieves the highest proportion of open state conditions, thereby providing the 

highest quality and quantity of wildlife habitat among the alternatives. Alternative C also 

minimizes the threat of uncharacteristic and damaging crown fires occurring within the grassland 

PNVTs or spreading to adjacent woodland PNVTs.

Fire Frequency: Restoration treatments proposed under alternative C would establish and 

maintain fire frequencies that are the closest to desired conditions for the grassland PNVTs of any 

of the alternatives. However, the uncertainties associated with the timing and coordination of 

prescribed fire treatments discussed for alternatives B and D also apply to alternative C. 

Piñon-Juniper PNVTs 

Table 6. Piñon-juniper vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative 

Indicator PNVT Desired 

Conditions Alternative A AlternativesB, D, and E Alternative C

Similarity 

Index

Juniper 

Grassland High Moderate Increases to High

Piñon-Juniper 

Shrub High Low Increases to Moderate

Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland High High Stays High

Open States

Juniper 

Grassland 75% 43–60%

Piñon-Juniper 

Shrub 95% 32–52%

Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland 25% 25–39%

Fire 

Frequency

Juniper 

Grassland 1:1–35 yrs 1:192 yrs 1:98 yrs

Piñon-Juniper 

Shrub 1:35–100 yrs 1:215 yrs 1:56 yrs 1:215 yrs

Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland 1:35–200+ yrs 1:400 yrs

Common to All Alternatives 

Similarity Index: The vegetation and fire characteristics for the piñon-juniper PNVTs would 

either progress or remain close to desired conditions regardless of the range of restoration 

treatments proposed between the alternatives (table 6). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

56 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The Juniper Grasslands would achieve a high level of similarity to desired conditions, with a 

generally open landscape appearance where trees occur as individuals and occasionally in small 

groups. Open areas would be a mixture of widely scattered shrubs with a dense cover of grasses 

and forbs that would support forage for grazing animals and a frequent surface fire regime.

The Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub vegetation characteristics would achieve a moderate level of 

similarity to desired conditions, with many small groups and individual trees ranging from young 

to old and a moderate density of evergreen shrubs growing underneath. However, there would 

continue to be more area of closed canopy trees than desired on the landscape over the long term. 

Computer modeling results indicate that treating additional areas in the Piñon-Juniper Evergreen 

Shrub PNVT, over and above those levels proposed in alternative A would not increase the 

similarity to desired conditions within the 80-year timeframe used in the simulation. The desired 

conditions include high proportions of late development open canopy trees with low to moderate 

density evergreen shrubs growing underneath. Current vegetation conditions are such that even 

80 years is not enough time to grow and develop the mature and old-age piñon and juniper trees 

that are desired across this landscape. At best, forest restoration within this PNVT can be 

initiated, but not fully achieved, within 80 years, although it should be noted that there is no predetermined date by which the desired conditions must be achieved. The inability to achieve a high 

level of similarity to desired conditions in the short term would adversely affect the quality and 

quantity of wildlife habitat associated with old tree features within this PNVT. 

Conditions within the Piñon-Juniper Woodlands would remain stable, retaining their current high 

similarity to desired conditions over both the short and long term. Over the next 80 years, a slight 

but gradual increase in the amount of dense, old piñon-juniper forest occupying the landscape 

would occur. This increase in closed-canopy forest would move this PNVT even closer to desired 

conditions than currently exists, promoting this ecosystem’s resilience to expected future climate 

shifts. 

Open States: For the Juniper Grassland and Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVTs, all of the 

alternatives would create a more open state condition than currently exists but less open than the 

desired conditions (table 6). 

More canopy closure than desired would have a negative effect on vegetation density, plant 

composition, and fire behavior in these two PNVTs. The consequence is an increased risk of 

direct and indirect mortality from future insect attacks, drought stress, and uncharacteristic 

wildfire occurrence. 

These closed state conditions would increase the likelihood of damaging crown fires spreading to 

adjacent woodland and forest PNVTs. High-intensity fires or uncharacteristic fire occurrence can 

cause soils to become hydrophobic and repel water, thereby reducing the potential for water 

infiltration into the soil and increasing overland flow, erosion, soil loss, and sedimentation. 

A high proportion of evergreen shrubs and trees relative to grasses and forbs in these PNVTs 

would also limit the rate at which organic matter is deposited on soil surfaces as ground cover and 

incorporated into the soil matrix. This condition favors increased erosion, loss of surface and soil 

organics, and a decrease in hydrologic function. Any increase in the amount of open space 

condition would contribute to the recovery of the impaired and unsatisfactory soil conditions 

currently found in the piñon-juniper PNVTs. Further discussion of this condition can be found in 

the “Impairments from Recreation and Management Activities” section in “Need for Change 2.” 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 57

The lack of open canopy conditions may also adversely affect the visual quality experienced by 

forest visitors desiring open vistas and distant views. 

For the Piñon-Juniper Woodland PNVT, all of the alternatives would decrease the amount of open 

state condition than currently exists (table 6). This trend would move this PNVT closer to the 

desired conditions. 

Alternative A 

Fire Frequency: Estimated fire occurrence under this alternative would be about six times less 

frequent than desired for Juniper Grasslands and two to six times less frequent than desired for 

Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub vegetation. With limited reintroduction of fire in these two piñonjuniper PNVTs, there are some lost opportunities to reduce tree and shrub density and canopy 

cover to desired levels and create openings for the establishment and growth of perennial grasses 

and forbs.

There is no difference between alternatives in the expected fire frequency for the Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland PNVT. Fire in this PNVT is less frequent than in the Juniper Grassland and PiñonJuniper Evergreen Shrub types and variable depending on the amount and distribution of fine 

fuels across the ground that can promote or discourage fire spread. The estimated fire occurrence 

for the Piñon-Juniper Woodland PNVT would be infrequent and within the desired range of once 

every 200 or more years.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

Fire Frequency: There is no difference between alternatives A and C in the expected fire 

frequency for Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub or between alternatives B, C, D, and E in the 

expected fire frequency for the Juniper Grasslands (table 6). Fire frequencies for the PiñonJuniper Evergreen Shrub under alternatives B, D, and E would be closer to desired levels than 

under alternatives A and C but still only about one-third as often as desired for the Juniper 

Grasslands. Alternatives B, D, and E best approximate the desired frequencies for the PiñonJuniper Evergreen Shrub vegetation, but this fire characteristic is achieved with no additional 

beneficial development of the desired vegetation characteristics described above.

Interior Chaparral PNVT 

Table 7. Interior chaparral vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative 

Indicator PNVT Desired 

Conditions Alternative A AlternativesB, D, and E Alternative C

Similarity Index Interior 

Chaparral High High Stays High

Open States Interior 

Chaparral N/A Open states are not a reasonable indicator of fire behavior for this PNVT

Fire Frequency Interior 

Chaparral 1:35–100 yrs 1:97 yrs 1:46 yrs 1:75 yrs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

58 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Common to All Alternatives 

Similarity Index: The vegetation and fire characteristics of Interior Chaparral are expected to 

remain very similar to desired condition descriptions for both the short and long term, regardless 

of the restoration treatments proposed under any of the alternatives (table 7). Between 89 and 93 

percent of this PNVT would consist of shrubs that grow very closely together, 5 to 8 percent 

would consist of grass and open shrubs, and the remainder would consist of grass and forb 

regeneration. 

The proximity of Interior Chaparral vegetation to human developments creates a concern over the 

threat of wildfire. To address this concern, priority would be given to implementing thinning 

treatments within wildland-urban interface areas to reduce the wildfire risk to people and 

structures. 

Open States: Interior Chaparral is one of several mild climate scrubland communities found 

within the Southwest. One of the unifying characteristics of these scrublands is an abundance of 

shrubs species with a tendency for dense, compact crowns; small, hard, thick, evergreen leaves; 

and deep, wide-spreading root systems (Brown, 1994). These shrub species are usually well 

adapted to fire, and reproduce prolifically from heat scarified seed or sprout vigorously from 

enlarged root crowns. Closed-canopy conditions are usually achieved in 6 to7 years postfire. As 

such, the proportion of open states to closed states is not a reasonable indicator of fire behavior 

and it was not evaluated for this PNVT. 

Fire Frequency: Proposed restoration treatments under all alternatives would create and maintain 

fire frequencies that are within the desired range for Interior Chaparral ecosystems (table 7). 

Ponderosa Pine PNVTs

Table 8. Ponderosa pine vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative 

Indicator PNVT Desired 

Conditions Alternative A AlternativesB, D, and E Alternative C

Similarity 

Index

Pine-evergreen oak High Low Increases to Moderate

Pine-Gambel oak High Low Stays Low

Open States

Pine-evergreen oak 84% 24–32% 22–34%

Pine-Gambel oak 83% 17–31% 18–36% 17–31%

Fire 

Frequency

Pine-evergreen oak 1:6–12 yrs 1:44 yrs 1:8 yrs 1:7 yrs

Pine-Gambel oak 1:1–15 yrs 1:122 yrs 1:46 yrs 1:23 yrs

Common to All Alternatives 

Similarity Index: Under all alternatives, short and long term desired condition similarity indices 

would have low to moderate similarity for Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak forests and low 

similarity for Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak forests (table 8). 

For Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak forests, the landscape proportions of mature to old forest with 

widely separated trees and open canopy cover would increase from the current 3 percent to 27 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 59

percent but would not reach the desired proportion of 84 percent (Forest Service, 2011d) under 

any of the alternatives. 

For Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak forests, the landscape proportions of mature to old forest with 

widely separated trees and open canopy cover would increase from the current 1 percent to 16 

percent but would not reach the desired proportion of 79 percent (Forest Service, 2011b) under 

any of the alternatives.

None of the alternatives would achieve all of the desired conditions for vegetation structure and 

composition within the modeled 80-year timeframe. The current vegetation conditions are such 

that 80 years is not enough time to grow and develop the necessary amount of mature and old-age 

ponderosa pine trees that are desired across the landscape. Forest restoration efforts within these 

PNVTs can be initiated, and many desired conditions achieved, but some desired condition 

characteristics require 100 years or more time to develop. 

Open States: Open state conditions would expand by one-half to one-third under all alternatives, 

but the ponderosa pine PNVTs would still only achieve a low level of open canopy compared to 

the desired level (table 8). There are slight differences among the alternatives, but these are 

ecologically insignificant. The range of mechanical thinning and prescribed fire treatments 

proposed would create openings between tree canopies and reduce the tree density for all size 

classes. An increase in the size and distribution of canopy openings would lessen the chance of 

wildfire spreading between tree crowns in treated areas. 

The risk of uncharacteristic wildfire would remain in untreated areas of these PNVTs that have a 

high tree and shrub density. There would also be a concurrent risk of hydrophobic soils forming 

due to uncharacteristic fire occurrence. As noted above, these soils repel water and reduce the 

potential for water infiltration, which can contribute to increased overland flow, erosion, soil loss, 

and sedimentation. 

All of the alternatives leave a greater percentage of closed state conditions than is desired on the 

landscape. The consequence of not achieving the desired level of open canopy conditions is an 

increased risk of direct and indirect mortality from future insect attacks, drought stress, and 

uncharacteristic wildfire occurrence. Such ecosystem alterations may adversely affect the quality 

and quantity of existing and potential habitat for northern goshawks, the MIS associated with the 

ponderosa pine PNVTs. 

The lack of open canopy conditions may also adversely affect the visual quality experienced by 

forest visitors desiring open vistas and distant views. 

Alternative A 

Fire Frequency: Alternative A proposes about 24,000 acres of wildland fire treatments 

(prescribed fire and wildfire managed for resource benefits) over 10 years. The estimated fire 

occurrence under this alternative would be four to seven times less frequent than desired for 

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak forests and eight times less frequent than desired for Ponderosa 

Pine-Gambel Oak forests. With limited reintroduction of fire in the ponderosa pine PNVTs, there 

are lost opportunities to reduce undesired tree and shrub density and canopy cover levels and to 

create openings for the establishment and growth of grasses and forbs. The risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire in these PNVTs would remain where fuels have accumulated in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

absence of wildland fire treatments. This wildfire risk for these PNVTs is highest under 

alternative A. 

Alternatives B, D, and E 

Similarity Index: For Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak forests, the restoration activity proposed 

under alternatives B, D, and E (Objective 5) is expected to result in a moderate level of similarity 

to desired conditions if implemented at the high end of the proposed treatment range. However, as 

noted above, it would take over 80 years to achieve these results. Overall, alternatives B, D, and E 

would result in higher proportions of desired conditions for the ponderosa pine vegetation types 

compared to alternative A. 

Fire Frequency: Alternatives B, D, and E propose a higher range of wildland fire treatments 

(Objective 5) than alternative A but a lower range than alternative C. Under alternatives B, D, and 

E, Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak forests would achieve an expected fire frequency within the 

desired range of every 6 to 12 years. Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak forests would experience fire 

three times less often than desired. This range of treatment acres would reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire in these PNVTs compared to alternative A but not as much when 

compared to alternative C.

Alternative C 

Similarity Index: For Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak forests, the restoration activity proposed 

under alternative C (Objective 5) is expected to result in a moderate level of similarity to desired 

conditions if implemented at the high end of the proposed treatment range. Since there are more 

acres treated at the high end of the range in alternative C than in alternatives B and D, it achieves 

the same outcome, but the results are realized in 40 years rather than after 80 or more years 

(Forest Service, 2011b). 

Fire Frequency: Alternative C proposes the highest range of wildland fire treatments (Objective 

5) of any of the alternatives. Fire frequency in the Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak forests would 

be similar to alternatives B and D and within the desired range of every 6 to 12 years. Fire 

occurrence in the Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak forests under alternative C would move the closest 

to the desired frequency of any of the alternatives (table 8). This alternative best approximates the 

desired frequencies for the ponderosa pine PNVTs, and the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire in 

these PNVTs would be the least of any of the alternatives due to the increased emphasis on 

treatment.

Desert Communities PNVT 

Table 9. Desert Communities vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative 

Indicator PNVT Desired Conditions Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Similarity Index Desert Communities High High Stays High

Open States Desert Communities NA Open States are not a reasonable indicator 

of fire behavior for this PNVT

Fire Frequency Desert Communities 1:100–998 yrs 1:106 yrs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 61

Common to All Alternatives 

Similarity Index: There are no proposed vegetation and fire treatments for this PNVT under the 

revised plan or its alternatives. All alternatives would achieve a high level of similarity to desired 

conditions for vegetation structure and composition of the Desert Communities PNVT over the 

short term (table 9). This means that under current management direction, between 95 and 99 

percent of this PNVT would continue to consist of widely spaced, well developed cacti, 

succulents, trees, and shrubs and 1 to 5 percent of the PNVT would consist of young, postdisturbance grasses and forbs. Habitat conditions for desert species such Sonoran desert tortoise 

would continue to be provided in sustainable proportions to reduce population viability concerns 

to a low risk level. 

Over the long term, vegetation structure and composition of the Desert Communities PNVT is 

expected to trend slightly away from desired conditions due to the introduction and spread of 

nonnative plant species. Nonnative annual grasses (Bromus species) have been observed on 

occasion within this PNVT, but the spatial extent of such invasions is not known with certainty. 

The spread of nonnative grasses can increase fine fuel loads and increase the likelihood of severe 

fire effects to native vegetation structure and composition when wildfires do occur (McLaughlin 

and Bowers, 1982). These shifts in the vegetation structure and composition could adversely 

modify wildlife habitat.

The long term threats posed by the spread of nonnative grasses and increased wildfire risk in this 

PNVT would be addressed through specific plan components (i.e., 1987 plan amendment 14, 

Treatment of Noxious and Invasive Weeds; Proposed Plan Desired Condition-Vegetation-1, 

Objective-6, Guideline-Plants-2, Standard-Wildland Fire-2) that focus on the control and 

reduction of nonnative plants and human-caused wildfires. 

Open States: Open state proportions were not evaluated for this PNVT. Desert Communities are 

usually dominated by desert plants with an overstory canopy cover ranging from 1 to 20 percent. 

The proportion of native grass cover is inherently low. Open canopy conditions prevail in this 

PNVT and fires that kill a high proportion of the overstory plants have been historically very rare 

or absent. As such, the proportion of open states is not a meaningful indicator of fire behavior. 

Fire Frequency: There are no proposed fire treatments for this PNVT under the revised plan or 

its alternatives. Based on recent wildfire activity (1950 to present), estimated fire frequencies for 

this PNVT would be about once every 106 years. This estimate falls at the low end of the desired 

fire frequency range (averaging about once in 100 to 998 years). 

The long term consequences to the Desert Communities PNVT from a fire regime at the low end 

of the desired range are not definitely known, but they are likely to include some shifts in species 

composition and abundance due to direct fire mortality in favor of species (including nonnative 

ones) that are adapted to more frequent fire occurrence. Historically, fires were very rare or 

absent in paloverde mixed-cacti desert ecosystems. If they did occur, it was only during 

conditions of extreme fire behavior after consecutive years of above average winter precipitation. 

These rare fires had tremendous influence on plant community structure and composition because 

the dominant overstory plants (e.g., giant saguaro, paloverde trees, cacti, mesquite, acacia, jojoba) 

are extremely susceptible to fires, even those of low intensity (LANDFIRE, 2007). These types of 

alterations to desert ecosystems create adverse effects to the quality and quantity of associated 

wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation experiences. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives B, C, D, and E include a monitoring strategy for assessing vegetation characteristics 

and disturbance trends that would inform future management decisions if current conditions 

within the Desert Communities PNVT become unfavorable or begin trending away from desired 

conditions. 

Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT

Table 10. Riparian Gallery vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative 

Indicator PNVT Desired Conditions Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Similarity Index Riparian Gallery High Indicator trend data not available

Open States Riparian Gallery NA Open states not evaluated for this PNVT

Fire Frequency Riparian Gallery 1:600 yrs

1:20–50 yrs 1:76 yrs

Common to All Alternatives 

Similarity Index: Computer modeling was not available to determine the current and projected 

future similarity of the vegetation structure and composition to the desired conditions for the 

Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT. 

Based on literature available for warm desert riparian ecosystems, the vegetation structure and 

composition of the Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT is expected to retain a high level of similarity 

to desired conditions over the short term. Longer term trends and outcomes are uncertain and are 

dependent on the extent and severity of future nonnative plant invasions, potential soil 

compaction, erosion and vegetation loss from visitor use, and uncharacteristic fire. 

Tamarisk dominated communities are known to accumulate fuels more rapidly than cottonwoodwillow dominated riparian communities and consequently burn more frequently (about every 10 

to 20 years). The native vegetation is usually replaced by the fire adapted tamarisk (Busch and 

Smith, 1993; Kerpez and Smith, 1987; Ohmart et al., 1977; Turner, 1974). Future nonnative plant 

invasion and spread that alters the composition and structure of the riparian vegetation will likely 

alter the fuel types and amounts and increase the odds for uncharacteristic wildfire occurrence 

within this PNVT. Subsequent losses or alterations to vegetation structure may increase the 

amount of soil exposure and subsequent erosion and sedimentation. These ecosystem alterations 

may adversely affect the quality and quantity of existing and potential habitat for macroinvertebrates (the MIS associated with the Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT), other riparian 

dependent species, and water- or riparian-based outdoor recreation experiences.

Open States: Open state proportions were not evaluated for the Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT. 

Fire Frequency: No wildland fire treatments (prescribed fire and wildfire managed for resource 

benefits) are proposed for this PNVT under the revised plan or its alternatives. Based on recent 

wildfire activity (1950 to present), infrequent fires of low severity and occasionally mixed 

severity are expected to occur about once every 76 years throughout this PNVT over the short 

term. This estimate falls between estimates of the historic fire frequency for areas under American 

Indian influence (about once every 20 to 50 years) and estimates for areas not under American 

Indian influence (about once every 600 years) (LANDFIRE, 2007). Because the extent of historic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 63

use by American Indian groups is unknown on the Prescott NF, it is assumed that a combination 

of these fire regimes occurs for the Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT. 

As previously mentioned, the extent of future nonnative plant invasions will affect changes to 

fuel types and amounts, and likely increase the frequency of wildfire occurrence within this 

PNVT. Uncharacteristic fire occurrence in this PNVT (i.e., frequent high-intensity fire) can lead 

to soils becoming more water repellent (hydrophobic), and thereby, reducing the potential for 

water infiltration into the soil and causing increasing overland flow.

Alternative A 

Alternative A would continue management under the direction set in the 1987 plan. The riparian 

area goals under current direction would include actions to bring all areas to a functioning 

condition. Although the Prescott NF has made progress toward this goal, undesirable conditions 

exist within the Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT, including the presence of tamarisk and other 

nonnative invasive plants. Additionally, mature and old trees that provide a multilayered canopy 

habitat for riparian associated bird species occur in proportions that are slightly less than desired. 

Under alternative A, riparian areas would not benefit from the additional protection afforded by 

the management emphasis on dispersed recreation proposed in the action alternatives. The 

turbidity and reduced water quality that result from vegetation loss and sedimentation due to 

recreation and management activities would continue and could reasonably be expected to 

increase with increased visitation. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The objectives for riparian area restoration are the same for these three alternatives. Guidance 

under these alternatives would accelerate restoration activities for riparian areas, springs, and 

seeps by providing specific, time-bound objectives for their recovery. Between 10 percent and 40 

percent of the impaired or at risk riparian areas would be improved within 1 to 5 years (Objective 

19), in contrast to 10 acres over 10 years under the 1987 plan direction. This could result in 

restored conditions within the Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT in up to 26 sub-watersheds, 

depending on the final location and intensity of the restoration activities. 

These areas would also indirectly benefit from increased recreation and vegetation management. 

Alternatives B, C, and D would reduce the trampling of riparian vegetation and degradation of 

streambanks by shifting recreation use away from these areas and on to more durable surfaces. 

Further analysis can be found in the “Impairments from Recreation and Management Activities” 

section in “Need for Change 2” and in the “Dispersed Recreation” section in “Need for Change 

3.” 

Alternative E 

Alternative E, similar to the other action alternatives, would accelerate restoration activities for 

riparian areas, springs, and seeps by providing specific, time-bound objectives for their recovery. 

It provides guidance to implement projects to counter 1 to 3 critical threats to riparian system 

functionality, within 2 to 3 years of detection (Objective 19). This proactive approach focuses on 

identifying issues that cause impairments to riparian systems and restoring conditions within the 

Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

These areas would also indirectly benefit from increased recreation and vegetation management 

similar to that in Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative E could reduce impacts from trampling 

and streambank degradation by shifting dispersed recreation use to managed sites with more 

durable surfaces.

All PNVTs Combined 

Table 11. All PNVTs vegetation and fire indicator trends by alternative 

Indicators Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Similarity Index

Least development 

toward desired 

conditions

Moderate 

development 

toward desired 

conditions

Most development 

toward desired 

conditions

Moderate 

development 

toward desired 

conditions

Open States Least Progress Moderate Progress Most Progress Moderate Progress

Fire Frequency Least Progress Moderate Progress Most Progress Moderate Progress

Alternative A 

Following the trends established under the 1987 plan direction, alternative A would restore 

conditions on the fewest acres of any of the alternatives (average of 8,862 acres per year). 

Alternative A would achieve some desired conditions for some of the PNVTs in the short term, 

but over the long term, the end result is the least restoration of vegetation and fire characteristics 

and the least similarity to desired conditions among all of the alternatives. 

Alternative A would create the fewest short term impacts to forest visitors and local residents 

including smoke and areas of blackened or charred vegetation, and possible delays or denial of 

access due to temporary road, trail, and area closures from management activity. Alternative A 

would have the fewest short term impacts to available forage and yearly livestock authorizations 

due to the limited prescribed fire activity in the grassland, chaparral, and ponderosa pine PNVTs.

In the long term, alternative A achieves the smallest increase in perennial grass cover and open 

state conditions, leaving a greater threat of uncharacteristic and damaging crown fire occurrence 

within and between PNVTs. The lack of restoration of vegetation structure and composition 

would leave soil and watershed conditions mostly unaddressed and would provide the lowest 

quality and quantity of wildlife habitat compared to the action alternatives. 

Alternatives B, D, and E 

Alternatives B, D, and E propose a higher minimum level of restoration treatments (average of 

11,350 acres per year) compared to alternative A. Treatment activity within each individual 

PNVT would also be higher under alternatives B, D, and E. The additional restoration efforts 

proposed across the landscape would result in moderate restoration of vegetation and fire 

characteristics and more similarity to desired conditions compared to alternative A. 

Alternatives B, D, and E would create more short term impacts to forest visitors and local 

residents than alternative A, which would include smoke and areas of blackened or charred 

vegetation, and possible delays or denial of access due to temporary road, trail, and area closures 

from management activity. Compared to alternative A, additional short term impacts to available 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 65

forage and yearly livestock authorizations are expected because of the increase in prescribed fire 

activity in the grassland, chaparral, and ponderosa pine PNVTs under alternatives B, D, and E.

In the long term, alternatives B, D, and E achieve a greater increase in perennial grass cover and a 

higher proportion of open state conditions, compared to alternative A, and thereby, reducing the 

threat of uncharacteristic and damaging crown fires within and between PNVTs. This restoration 

of vegetation structure and composition would reduce soil erosion, increase water infiltration, and 

provide a higher quality and quantity of wildlife habitat compared to alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C proposes the highest minimum level of restoration treatments (average of 16,250 

acres per year) among all of the alternatives. Restoration efforts are focused on those vegetation 

types that currently show the greatest gap between the existing and desired conditions, and as a 

result, alternative C proposes more acres of fire treatments in the grassland and ponderosa pine 

PNVTs than alternatives B and D. The expected outcome is that alternative C would provide the 

most restoration of vegetation and fire characteristics and the most similarity to desired 

conditions among all of the alternatives. 

Compared to the other alternatives, alternative C would create the most short term impacts to 

forest visitors and local residents including smoke and areas of blackened or charred vegetation, 

and possible delays or denial of access due to temporary road, trail, and area closures from 

management activity. Alternative C would also create the most short term impacts to available 

forage and yearly livestock authorizations from prescribed fire activity in the grassland, chaparral, 

and ponderosa pine PNVTs.

In the long term, alternative C achieves the greatest increase in perennial grass cover and the 

highest proportion of open state conditions, thereby reducing the threat of uncharacteristic and 

damaging crown fires within and between PNVTs. This restoration of vegetation structure and 

composition would reduce soil erosion, increase water infiltration, and provide the highest quality 

and quantity of wildlife habitat among the alternatives. 

Ecosystem Responses to Changing Climate 

Common to All Alternatives 

The sustainability of several terrestrial ecosystems on the Prescott NF is at risk (especially for the 

grasslands and ponderosa pine PNVTs), and restoring their health and function is key to 

strengthening their resilience and adaptation capacity. In the coming years, it is expected that the 

Southwest will experience a shift in climatic conditions. Mean annual temperatures could 

increase 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, and summer heat waves could last 2 weeks or more. 

Winter temperatures would also be warmer, with a corresponding reduced snowpack. Overall, 

precipitation could decrease. Monsoon rains could arrive later in the summer, and a greater 

percentage of the precipitation could arrive in the form of high-intensity rain events (Forest 

Service, 2010a). 

Indirectly, increasing temperatures, water shortages, and changing vegetative conditions will 

likely affect biodiversity and put pressure on plant and animal populations, distribution, viability, 

and migration patterns. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Under warmer and dryer climate conditions, the terrestrial ecosystems found on the Prescott NF 

would be susceptible to decreases in plant productivity from water limitations and increased heat; 

increases in insect attacks; colonization of invasive plant species; longer and more severe fire 

seasons; and changes in the timing, intensity, and frequency of other ecological disturbances (e.g., 

droughts, flash flooding, landslides, windstorms). 

Grasses make use of moisture in the upper soil layers. Intense precipitation events may lead to 

increased runoff but decreased effective water infiltration (McAuliffe, 2003). This could decrease 

vigor of native plants and lead to increased colonization of nonnative invasive plant species. 

Climate change is anticipated to shift the geographic range of several tree and shrub species 

northward and upward in elevation (Schafer et al., 2001). There may be increasing challenges to 

the regeneration of ponderosa pine trees within their current range, especially on warmer, drier 

areas such as south-facing slopes. It is possible that there may be some shifts in distribution 

between the three piñon-juniper PNVTs depending on amount and timing of precipitation and site 

specific conditions such as terrain and soils. In addition, the abundance and distribution of piñon 

trees may decrease from increased insect attack or lack of moisture. Insects and disease 

outbreaks, drought, and other stressors accompanying climate change may have future roles as 

large-scale disturbances which may result in type conversions or the creation of new PNVTs 

across the landscape (Fulé, 2008).

Hotter and drier environments are expected to increase the occurrence of wildfire as well as 

increase their size and severity (Westerling et al., 2006). Such weather driven fires are likely to

occur in the infrequent fire vegetation types that comprise about 67 percent of the Prescott NF 

(e.g. Interior Chaparral PNVT, Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT, and Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland PNVT). Increasing the amount of vegetation and fire characteristics that are adapted to 

a more fire prone environment would enhance ecosystem resilience landscape-wide. 

Restoration treatments that create more open conditions would enhance individual plant resilience 

to natural and human stressors, encourage persistence of native vegetation, and facilitate 

ecosystem transition from current to new climate conditions (Millar et al., 2007). 

Alternative A 

Under the direction of the 1987 plan, alternative A has the least emphasis on vegetation 

management and ecosystem restoration. Ecosystems would show some development toward 

desired conditions from the vegetation and fire treatments, but the beneficial effects of these 

restoration efforts would be at greater risk of reversing due to the direct and indirect effects of 

climate change identified above. Alternative A provides the least amount of ecosystem resilience 

and capacity for plant communities to adapt to changing climate and a less aggressive strategy for 

treating nonnative invasive plants, compared to the action alternatives. 

Alternatives B, D, and E 

Under alternatives B, D, and E, the increased prescribed fire activity in the grassland ecosystems 

is expected to discourage shrubby vegetation and encourage bunchgrasses. Nutrient cycling 

would also be enhanced. Tree and shrub thinning and prescribed fire activity in the ponderosa 

pine ecosystems would produce more of the desired structure and composition characteristics 

than alternative A. The more frequent application of prescribed surface fires compared to 

alternative A would help remove fuels and reduce the threat of large, destructive wildfires on the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 67

landscape. Alternatives B, D, and E would also provide a more aggressive approach to controlling 

nonnative invasive plants than alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C places the most emphasis on vegetation management and ecosystem restoration 

compared to alternatives A, B, D, and E. Alternative C would provide the most ecosystem 

resilience within the grassland and ponderosa pine PNVTs compared to the other alternatives due 

to the higher range of restoration treatment activities proposed. Alternative C offers the same 

direction for controlling nonnative invasive plants as alternatives B, D, and E, which is more 

aggressive than alternative A. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of reasonably foreseeable activities on nonPrescott NF lands that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on the Prescott 

NF, may intensify, negate, enhance, or otherwise affect the vegetation types and species’ habitats 

of the Prescott NF. Below are considerations of consequences of activities that will likely occur 

on adjacent or nearby ownerships to the Prescott NF. 

Reducing Fuel Loads 

Research has shown that most pine forests in the Southwest are at much higher risk of highintensity and severe fire than they were prior to European settlement. Several large, destructive 

wildfires in Arizona over the past several years have highlighted the interest and need to modify 

the structure, composition, and fuel load of several vegetation types on tribal, Bureau of Land 

Management, and Forest Service lands. The restoration of these landscapes was initiated after the 

Rodeo-Chediski Fire (2002) and will likely continue into the future, considering more recent 

large-scale wildfires including the Willow Fire (2004), the Cave Creek Complex (2005), and the 

Wallow Fire (2011) that each burned hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation and habitat that 

is adjacent to or similar to that found on the Prescott NF.

Restoring Desired Vegetation Structure and Composition 

Two national forests adjacent to the Prescott NF are proposing to carry out landscape scale 

restoration of ponderosa pine forests in northern Arizona. Restoration activities include the 

thinning of trees, prescribed fire treatments, and watershed and road restoration within 988,764 

acres of the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. Proposed treatments include more than 

205,000 acres of prescribed fire treatments and more than 388,000 acres of thinning and 

watershed restoration treatments (Forest Service, 2011k). 

Common to All Alternatives 

Reducing fuel loads and modifying vegetation structure and composition under the framework of 

the revised plan, combined with ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities on adjacent lands, 

would likely have these cumulative environmental consequences across the greater landscape:

 Move vegetation structure and diversity toward desired conditions by creating a mosaic 

of interspaces and tree groups of varying sizes and shapes; 

 Move vegetation diversity and composition toward desired conditions by maintaining and 

promoting Gambel oak, aspen, and perennial grasses; 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

 Move toward having a resilient forest by reducing the potential for undesirable fire 

behavior and its effects; 

 Move toward maintaining a mosaic of tree groups and interspaces with frequent, low 

severity fire by having a forest structure that does not support widespread crown fire; 

 Improve forest health by reducing the potential for stand density related mortality and by 

reducing the level of insect attacks and tree pathogens; and 

 Move toward a forest structure with all age and size classes represented to maintain 

northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl habitat. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C is expected to have the highest beneficial cumulative consequences because it 

proposes the highest amount of restoration activity in the vegetation types (the ponderosa pine 

and grassland PNVTs) that suffer the greatest risk to ecosystem sustainability. Alternatives B, D, 

and E would have moderate cumulative consequences, and alternative A would have the lowest. 

Smoke and Air Quality

Background

In 1955, Congress passed the first Federal Clean Air Act (P.L. 84-159), with later amendments in 

1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990. Although a Federal law, its implementation is largely left up to the 

individual states. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has developed a 

state implementation plan (SIP) for achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act and statutes to 

regulate burning, including the use of wildland fire on Federal and State lands (Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality, 2003 and 2004a). The two types of air quality impacts 

addressed by these laws and regulations are health hazards from pollutants and impacts to 

visibility in Class I Airsheds.

The Clean Air Act establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal 

pollutants that pose human health hazards: carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, nitrogen dioxide, 

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Air quality is affected by pollutants that are generated 

locally, such as smoke from wildfires, but also by pollutants that flow into the area from other 

sources. This might include wood smoke from homes or prescribed fire and dust from rock 

quarries or roads. Long-range transport of pollutants from metropolitan areas and large industry 

many miles away is also possible.

Particulate matter is the primary pollutant of concern in smoke from wildland fires. The particles 

larger than 10 microns in size tend to settle out of the air, but the smaller particles (less than 2.5 

microns in size) remain airborne and can cause respiratory problems. The public is also sensitive 

to the issue of nuisance smoke, defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as smoke 

that interferes with a right or privilege common to members of the public. Public outcry regarding 

nuisance smoke often occurs long before smoke exposures reach levels that violate NAAQS 

(Achtemeier et al., 2001). This is of particular concern because nuisance smoke in and near 

communities adjacent to the Prescott NF was one of the concerns raised in the public comments 

during the plan revision process. 

To protect visibility in areas of high scenic value, Congress designated all wilderness areas over 

5,000 acres and all national parks over 6,000 acres as mandatory Federal Class I areas in 1977, 

subject to visibility protection requirements in the Clean Air Act. The national visibility goal of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 69

the Clean Air Act is, “the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas in which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 

Manmade sources of visibility impairment include industry, transportation, construction, mining, 

agricultural activities, and home heating. Prescribed fire also falls into this category; however, 

wildfires are considered to be natural sources of visibility impairment, and as such, their impacts 

are generally considered to be outside state control or prevention.

Additionally, the Regional Haze Rule, 40 CFR 51.308-309 (U.S. EPA, 1999), provides direction 

to the states for developing and adopting regional haze implementation plans. Under section 309, 

the State of Arizona has developed a state implementation plan (SIP) with long term strategies out 

to the year 2064 to make “reasonable progress in improving visibility in Class I areas inside the 

State and in neighboring jurisdictions” (U.S. EPA, 1999), and it focuses on anthropogenic sources 

of emissions. The Arizona SIP outlines an Enhanced Smoke Management Plan meeting criteria in 

the Regional Haze Rule that comprises a series of key policies and management practices to 

address visibility protection.

Affected Environment 

Air quality monitoring data has been collected in Yavapai County for three of the six criteria 

pollutants that pose a threat to human health (ground level ozone, particles larger than 10 

microns, and particles less than 2.5 microns in size) on a limited basis since 1993. Monitoring 

sites have varied from year to year with no one location having a complete monitoring record 

(U.S. EPA, 2009a). Ground level ozone measurements have been collected from only one site in 

western Yavapai County. The annual average ozone concentration exceeded the national standard 

7 out of 8 years during the period from 1997 to 2004. For both sizes of particulate matter (larger 

than 10 microns and less than 2.5 microns), several locations throughout Yavapai County were 

monitored, and the seasonally adjusted annual averages were far less than the national standard 

for each of the years 1990 to 2010. 

The EPA has developed an air quality index (AQI) for reporting how clean or unhealthy the air is 

and the associated health effects that may be a concern to the general public or sensitive groups 

(e.g., children, older adults, or those suffering from asthma or lung disease). The index is 

calculated from raw measurements and converted into a separate AQI value for each pollutant 

(ground level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide). The highest of 

these AQI values is reported as the AQI value for that day.

Air quality data used to calculate the AQI indicate that most residents of Yavapai County and 

visitors to the Prescott NF enjoy good air quality (see figure 2). Since 2001, 73 percent or more of 

the days monitored8 were assigned to the “good” category of the EPA Air Quality Index. Good is 

the best rating, where air pollution poses little risk to human health. Less than 3 percent of days 

per year were rated in the “unhealthy for sensitive groups” category, and no days were rated 

“unhealthy,” “very unhealthy,” or “hazardous” (U.S. EPA, 2010). These air quality index ratings 

include emissions from Prescott NF prescribed fire activity that has averaged 7,640 acres per year 

under the direction of the 1987 plan.

Threats to air quality in the form of particulate emissions can originate from many sources. The 

most prevalent ones include fossil fuel combustion, electricity generation, residential wood 

 

8

 Some counties may not measure every pollutant used to calculate the AQI, and the number of days each pollutant is measured may 

vary from one county to another. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

combustion, wildland fires, and road dust (U.S. EPA, 2009b). In central and northern Arizona, the 

primary sources of particulate emissions are the activities associated with wildland fire 

management. Dust from rock quarries and roads has not been demonstrated to be a measurable 

contributor on a regional level to visibility in the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness and 15 other 

Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau (ADEQ, 2003).

There are 12 mandatory Class I areas in Arizona, two of which—Sycamore Canyon Wilderness 

and Pine Mountain Wilderness—are within or adjacent to the Prescott NF. Visibility within the 

Class I areas adjacent to the Prescott NF is projected to steadily improve with implementation of 

regional guidelines and the Arizona SIP (Forest Service, 2009a).

Figure 2. Yavapai County Air Quality Indices 2001-2010 

Source: www.epa.gov/aircompare/index.htm

Environmental Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives 

Transient impacts to air quality from wildland fire are present in all alternatives. Most of the 

Prescott NF is occupied by fire adapted vegetation types (Forest Service, 2009c), and smoke from 

fires, regardless of ignition source or combustion stage, is inevitable. Under all alternatives, 

prescribed fire and wildfire managed for resource benefits would be coordinated with the ADEQ, 

as well as with adjacent agencies, to ensure that State or Federal standards for emissions are not 

exceeded.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 71

Smoke from both prescribed fire and wildfire managed for resource benefits contributes to air 

quality impacts; however, it is expected that all alternatives would achieve the Prescott NF 

desired conditions for air quality. These desired conditions include: (1) smoke and dust levels do 

not exceed NAAQS and (2) Forest Service management activities do not diminish visibility 

within the Class I areas. It is important to note that it is not the total amount of emissions from a 

fire that have effects on human health, but rather the concentration of particulates in a given 

period of time. Atmospheric conditions during a fire, such as wind speed and direction or 

atmospheric stability, have a considerable influence on how particulate matter is distributed and 

its potential to affect public health.

Emissions from wildfires are considered to be natural events and are excluded from 

determinations of exceedances and NAAQS violations. On most wildfires, fire managers can 

influence the emission production through management decisions such as suppressing fires when 

small, performing burnout operations during optimal ventilation conditions, or limiting acreage 

burned when ventilation is poor. However, some wildfires burn with rates of spread and intensity 

levels that are largely outside the control of fire managers; these wildfires burn outside the 

historic range of variability, outside of proposed desired conditions for the vegetation type, and 

produce large quantities and concentrations of emissions. 

Prescribed burning and vegetation thinning are often used to restore the fire regimes to a more 

natural frequency. They can also reduce the likelihood of high severity wildfires and contribute to 

a long term reduction in smoke emissions. These activities alter stand structure so that wildfires 

burn as surface fires in the accumulated litter and duff on the forest floor by reducing the overall 

amount of available fuel, removing mid-story vegetation that can act as a path for fire to reach the 

overstory, and opening up the canopy to inhibit the spread of fire among tree crowns. Surface 

fires typically produce less smoke because they consume less live biomass than crown fires, 

resulting in less overall impact to air quality. 

Alternative A 

Under alternative A, removal or thinning of shrubs and trees would continue to occur on about 

1,000 acres per year. About 7,835 acres per year would be treated using managed fire across all 

vegetation types. Alternative A would result in the fewest acres of ecosystem restoration. The 

estimated outcome is higher proportions of closed canopy vegetation and a higher likelihood of 

crown fire behavior and associated particulate emissions due to a greater overall fuel load and an 

increased presence of ladder fuels over the long term. This would result in the highest potential 

level of particulate emissions among all of the alternatives. 

Alternative A lacks adequate plan components to address public concerns over nuisance smoke 

from managed fires. As a result, citizens are less aware of the timing, emission sources, and 

smoke dispersion patterns of prescribed fire and wildfire managed for resource benefits, along 

with information on the role and benefits of fire as a landscape process. This leads to increased 

complaints about nuisance smoke, visibility, potential health hazards, and less understanding and 

acceptance of wildland fire as an ecosystem management tool. With less public support for the 

use of wildland fire, land managers face more challenges and fewer options for achieving desired 

ecosystem conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives B and E 

Alternatives B and E would increase the amount of thinning and managed fire occurring across 

the landscape. Managed fire would range from an about 10,600 to 25,300 acres per year on 

average. Removal or thinning of trees and shrubs would range from about 750 to 6,500 acres per 

year on average. With more prescribed fire proposed than alternative A, these alternatives would 

create more nuisance smoke and emissions in the short term in order to provide more open 

canopy conditions. These conditions would produce a lower likelihood of crown fire behavior and 

associated particulate emissions due to a lower overall fuel load and a decreased presence of 

ladder fuels over the long term. This would result in expected future emission levels that are less 

than alternative A. 

Alternatives B and E address public concerns over nuisance smoke that were identified during the 

plan revision process. Plan components propose more emphasis on making citizens aware of the 

timing, emission sources, and smoke dispersion patterns of prescribed fire and wildfire managed 

for resource benefits, along with information on the role and benefits of fire as a landscape 

process. These are expected to improve community public relations and education to advance 

public acceptance of the use of wildland fire and tolerance for smoke. 

In addition, where practical, wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas would be given high priority 

for fuel reduction treatments using mechanical methods, domestic animals, or a combination, in 

lieu of prescribed fire. These treatments would result in fewer emissions and less nuisance smoke 

near homes and businesses, while still reducing the risk of wildfire to life and property. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would emphasize more managed fire and thinning compared to alternative A and a 

higher minimum range of managed fire and less thinning overall compared to alternative B. 

Estimated prescribed fire and wildfire managed for resource benefits would range from about 

15,500 to 22,800 acres per year on average. Estimated thinning treatments would range from 

about 750 to 4,000 acres per year on average. With more prescribed fire proposed than 

alternatives A and B, this alternative would create more nuisance smoke and emissions in the 

short term in order to provide more open canopy conditions. These conditions would produce a 

lower likelihood of crown fire behavior and associated particulate emissions due to a lower 

overall fuel load and a decreased presence of ladder fuels over the long term. This would result in 

expected future emission levels that are the lowest among all of the alternatives. 

The response to public concerns over nuisance smoke and WUI treatments in alternative C is the 

same as that described for alternatives B and E.

Alternative D 

Alternative D would place less emphasis on managed fire than either alternative B or C and 

would provide direction for the same range of thinning as alternative C. Estimated prescribed fire 

and wildfire managed for resource benefits would range from about 10,600 to 18,800 acres per 

year on average. Estimated thinning treatments would range from about 750 to 4,000 acres per 

year on average. This alternative contains the lowest range of treated acres among the three action 

alternatives but still represents an increase over alternative A. Alternative D would produce less 

nuisance smoke and emissions in the short term compared to alternatives B and C. In the long 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 73

term, this would lead to future fire behavior that could be expected to produce emission levels 

that are greater than alternatives B and C and less than alternative A. 

The response to public concerns over nuisance smoke and WUI treatments in alternative D is the 

same as that described for alternatives B and E. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of foreseeable activities on non-Prescott NF 

lands that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on the Prescott NF, may 

intensify, negate, improve, or otherwise affect air quality of the Prescott NF. 

Reducing fuel loads and modifying vegetation structure and composition using prescribed fire are 

activities proposed on tribal, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service lands adjacent to 

the Prescott NF (these have been described previously in “Cumulative Environmental 

Consequences” section for vegetation and fire). Below are considerations of consequences of 

activities that will likely occur on adjacent or nearby ownerships to the Prescott NF.

Common to All Alternatives 

 Air quality impacts from smoke are transient in nature because changing meteorological 

conditions limit how much smoke the airshed can absorb at any point in time without 

violating NAAQS or visibility thresholds. 

 Through implementation of the Enhanced Smoke Management Program, a component of 

the Arizona SIP, cumulative effects from wildland fire that are under the control of 

Federal and State land managers, are mitigated to keep air quality across Arizona within 

desired conditions. These desired conditions include keeping emissions below the 

NAAQS, protecting visibility in Class I Areas, and promoting public support for wildland 

fire management programs. 

Terrestrial Species Diversity and Viability 

Background

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences to terrestrial 

species that may result from the adoption of a revised land management plan for the Prescott NF. 

It provides a summary of terrestrial species viability assessments and examines in detail 

consequences to federally listed and proposed species and critical habitat, Forest Service 

regionally sensitive species, migratory birds, eagles, and management indicator species. 

Environmental consequences to aquatic and riparian associated species are disclosed in “Need for 

Change 4.”

Terrestrial Species Viability 

An assessment of species diversity for the Prescott NF was completed as part of the “Prescott 

National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009a). From an initial list of 

815 species, 121 species (terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian species) were determined to have a 

potential viability concern. The species identified included: 11 mammals, 33 birds, 3 reptiles, 2 

amphibians, 12 fish, 4 invertebrates, and 56 plants. Species viability assessments for those 121 

species were prepared according to Forest Service policy (FSM 2670) and documented in three 

specialist reports (Forest Service, 2011d, 2011i, and 2011m).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Viability risks to terrestrial species were based on assessments of:

 Availability and current conditions of the habitat or habitat features with which the 

species are typically associated; 

 Population occurrence and distribution; and 

 Threats from Forest Service management actions expected to occur within the planning 

area9

. The results of these assessments provided a determination of no, low, or some risk 

to viability for each species evaluated. 

As part of the plan revision process, coarse filter plan components (i.e., desired habitat conditions 

statements) were developed that describe the desired outcomes and conditions for terrestrial 

vegetation, riparian habitats and features, and aquatic habitats and features within the planning 

area. For species determined to be at no or low risk, meeting and maintaining these desired 

conditions within the planning area would provide for the viability of those species. For those 

species determined to be at some risk, additional fine filter plan components (e.g., standards, 

guidelines, and objectives) were developed to lessen population viability risks to a low level. 

Of the 121 species indicating a potential viability concern, 92 terrestrial species were assessed 

including 54 plants, 10 mammals, 27 birds, and 1 reptile. Forty-one species were found to have 

no risk, 27 have low risk to their viability, and 24 were found to have some additional risk to their 

population viability. The other remaining 29 species are addressed in the “Aquatic and Riparian 

Species Viability” section in “Need for Change 4.”

Table 12 lists the terrestrial species for which there is a viability concern and the corresponding 

Prescott NF plan components (coarse or fine filter) needed to reduce those population viability 

concerns to a low risk level. 

Table 12. Prescott NF plan components that address terrestrial species viability concerns 

Viability Filter 

Category Taxon Associated Plan Components Species

Coarse filter plan 

components alone are 

sufficient to reduce 

viability to a level of 

no or low risk

Plants Desired Conditions-Vegetation-1, 

3, 4, 5

Tonto Basin agave, Phillips’ agave, Mt. 

Dellenbaugh sandwort, Greene milkweed,

Creeping milkvetch, Utah bladder fern, 

Metcalfe’s ticktrefoil, Rock fleabane,

Flagstaff pennyroyal, Eastwood alumroot, 

New Mexico alumroot, Flagstaff 

beardtongue, Oak Creek triteleia

Mammals PNVT Desired Conditions Gunnison’s prairie dog, plains harvest mouse

Birds PNVT Desired Conditions

Gilded flicker, Gila woodpecker, elf owl, 

Lucy’s warbler, purple martin, Grace’s 

warbler, juniper titmouse, Gray vireo, piñon 

jay, Virginia’s warbler, western burrowing 

owl, western grasshopper sparrow 

 

9

“Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native 

vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has 

the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed 

in the planning area...” 36 CFR § 219.19 (1982).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 75

Viability Filter 

Category Taxon Associated Plan Components Species

Coarse filter plan 

components (various 

desired condition 

statements) plus fine 

filter plan 

components are 

necessary to reduce 

viability to a level of 

no or low risk

Plants

Standard-Plants-1, StandardRecreation-1, Standard-Locatable 

Minerals-2,

Guidelines-Plants-1, 2, 3, 5, 6 

Guideline-Range-4,

Guideline-Recreation-5, 

Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2

Arizona wild buckwheat, Basin bladderpod, 

White Mountain bladderpod, Mearns lotus, 

Macdougal’s bluebells, Skunk-top scurfpea, 

Verde breadroot, Arizona phlox, Hualapai 

milkwort, Mearns sage, Black dropseed, 

Southwestern ringstem, Heathleaf wild 

buckwheat, Ripley’s wild buckwheat

Mammals Guidelines-Wildlife-2, 3, 6, 8, 10

Objectives-25 to 28

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, pocketed 

free-tailed bat, pronghorn antelope

Birds Guidelines-Wildlife-1, 2, 4, 5, 7

American peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted 

owl, red-faced warbler, Cordilleran 

flycatcher, Bendire’s thrasher, northern 

goshawk

Reptiles Guidelines-Wildlife-1, 2 Sonoran desert tortoise

Affected Environment

The Prescott NF is home to a variety of habitats for terrestrial plants and animals. At the lowest 

elevation, the primary vegetation includes cactus desert and semi-arid grasslands. As the elevation 

increases, extensive evergreen shrublands (chaparral) become common, followed by piñon pine 

and juniper savannas and woodlands. Above that, ponderosa pine forests dominate the landscape. 

The 10 potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) found on the Prescott NF have been fully 

described in the “Affected Environment” section for vegetation and fire in “Need for Change 1.” 

Additional affected environment descriptions are provided below for those habitat elements 

within a PNVT or those habitat features that meet the life history requirements of a given species 

or group of species.

Federally Listed Species 

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are those plant and animal species formally 

listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under authority of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA) (P.L. 93-205), as amended. Pursuant to Section 7 (2)(a) of the ESA, a 

biological assessment was prepared to assess the effects of implementing the “Prescott National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” selected alternative on endangered or threatened 

species and to ensure that proposed actions in the selected alternative would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of listed species. All federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and 

designated and proposed critical habitats that the USFWS has identified in its Southwestern 

Region threatened/endangered species list 10 were considered in this analysis. The terrestrial 

species that occur on the Prescott NF are shown in table 13.

 

10 www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/EndangeredSpecies_Lists/
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 13. Federally listed species critical and occupied habitat 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Extent on 

the Prescott NF Critical Habitat

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened126,448 acres Yes

Sonoran desert tortoise Gopherus morafkai

Candidate2

Sensitive3 5,919 acres No

1 Listed threatened under the ESA: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

2 Listed candidate, ready for proposal for listing under the ESA.

3 The species is listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Southwestern Region of the Forest 

Service.

Mexican Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat 

Distribution – Populations of Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) are distributed 

from southern Utah and central Colorado, south through the mountains of Arizona, New Mexico, 

and western Texas, into northern Mexico (Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995). The geographic range 

of Mexican spotted owl (MSO) populations within the United States is divided into six ecological 

management units or EMUs (Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995, 2012). The Prescott NF lies 

completely within the Basin and Range West EMU. Known nesting sites on the Prescott NF 

include areas near Mingus Mountain, in Prescott Basin, and at Crown King for a total of 15 

protected activity centers (PACs). 

Habitat – Mexican spotted owls are known to occur on the Prescott NF in ponderosa pineGambel oak forests where habitat features such as medium/large trees, dense overstory, and 

woody debris including snags and downed logs occur. Existing habitat on the Prescott NF totals 

26,448 acres. 

There are three designated MSO critical habitat areas that coincide with 44,814 acres of Prescott 

NF lands. The Upper Gila Mountain unit (UGM-13) includes a portion of the Prescott NF in the 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. However, none of the Prescott NF acres that occur within this unit 

qualify as recovery or protected habitat as defined in the revised MSO Recovery Plan (Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2012). 

The other two critical habitat areas associated with the Prescott NF are located on the Bradshaw 

Ranger District. The Basin and Range West units (BRW-2 and BRW-3) are found near Prescott 

Basin and Crown King, respectively. Per the Federal Register publication designating critical 

habitat, “WUI project areas, State and private lands are not designated as critical habitat” (Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2004). For the BRW-2 unit, the acres associated with the Boundary WUI 

project area have been excluded from designation. For the BRW-3 unit, the Crown King/Ash 

Creek WUI project area acres are also exempt from designation. 

Therefore, within the three designated critical habitat units on the Prescott NF, the total area of 

protected habitat is limited to 4,058 acres; and the total area of forested nest/roost recovery 

habitat is limited to 6,231 acres. The acres of riparian recovery habitat within the critical habitat 

have not been estimated at this time. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 77

Risk Factors – Primary threats to MSO on the Prescott NF include uncharacteristic, high-severity 

wildfire, recreation, mining and grazing activities; and from residential development and firefuels hazard mitigation activities within the wildland urban interface. 

Sonoran Desert Tortoise 

Distribution – Within the United States, the range of the Sonoran population of desert tortoise is 

limited entirely to Arizona. Distribution in Arizona occurs south and east of the Colorado River 

and is largely defined to the north by the limits of the Sonoran Desert (Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2010). Desert tortoise occurrence on the Prescott NF is known for the south end of the Bradshaw 

Ranger District near the town of Cleator. One unconfirmed sighting of a tortoise of unknown 

species on the Mayer-Goodwin Road has also been reported. No formal surveys have been done 

to determine the full extent of the species or its habitat on the Prescott NF. 

Habitat – This species is most closely associated with low density shrub vegetation types of the 

Sonoran and Mojave deserts. Habitat commonly consists of steep, rocky slopes and bajadas as 

well as paloverde-mixed cacti plant associations. Availability of shelter burrow habitat is 

important as tortoises require loose soil to excavate burrows below rocks and boulders but also 

use rock crevices and occasionally burrow under vegetation. Habitat on the Prescott NF is 

restricted to the Desert Communities PNVT (5,919 acres) which show high levels of similarity to 

desired conditions. 

Risk Factors – A number of habitat related risk factors are identified for this species. Invasion of 

nonnative plants leading to a change in frequency, duration, intensity, and magnitude of wildfires 

in desert habitats is described as the most significant habitat modification factor. Off-highway 

vehicles in desert tortoise habitat can result in damage to soil, increased erosion, and lead to 

spread of invasive species. Livestock grazing has the potential to damage lower elevation tortoise 

burrows (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). There are no fire or vegetation treatments (i.e., plan 

objectives) proposed for the Desert Communities PNVT in any of the alternatives. 

Regionally Sensitive Species 

The Regional Forester’s sensitive species program is the Forest Service’s dedicated initiative to 

conserve and recover plant and animal species according to Agency policy found at FSM 2670. 

The Prescott NF improves habitat and restores ecosystems for sensitive species through 

vegetation treatments and management practices. Sensitive species are those plant and animal 

species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as 

evidenced by the following:

 Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density; and 

 Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution. 

The Regional Forester’s sensitive species list from 2007 was updated in 2013. Between draft and 

final versions of this EIS additional analysis was conducted for several species new to the list. 

Table 14 reflects the 2013 list of regionally sensitive species that are known or are likely to occur 

in terrestrial habitats within the planning area. 

The occupied acreage estimates reported in table 14 are based upon the habitat elements within 

potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) or habitat features that meet the life history 

requirements of the species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 14. Regionally sensitive species occupied habitat 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Extent on the 

Prescott NF

Animals:

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Sensitive Rock features – cliffs/ledges: 8,829 

acres

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Sensitive Ponderosa pine forests: 54,011 acres

Pale Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

Corynorhinus townsendii 

pallescens

Sensitive Rock features – cliffs/ledges: 8,829 

acres

Plants:

Greene milkweed* Asclepias unicialis Sensitive Grasslands: 202,004 acres

Hualapai milkwort Polygala rusbyi Sensitive Grasslands: 202,004 acres; also 

Verde Formation

Metcalfe’s ticktrefoil Desmodium metcalfei Sensitive Ponderosa pine forests: 54,011 acres

Flagstaff beardtongue* Penstemon nudiflorus Sensitive Ponderosa pine forests: 54,011 acres 

Limestone and sandstone outcrops

Rock fleabane* Erigeron saxatilis Sensitive Rock features – cliffs/ledges: 8,829 

acres

Flagstaff pennyroyal Hedeoma diffusum Sensitive Rock features – cliffs/ledges: 8,829 

acres

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort Arenaria aberrans Sensitive Moist, north-facing slopes

Eastwood alum-root Heuchera eastwoodiae Sensitive Moist, north-facing slopes

Tonto Basin agave Agave delamateri Sensitive Cobbly ridges/hills

Phillips’ agave Agave phillipsiana Sensitive Cobbly ridges/hills

Arizona phlox Phlox amabilis Sensitive Cobbly ridges/hills

Mearns sage Salvia dorrii ssp. mearnsii Sensitive Cobbly ridges/hills; also Verde 

Formation
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 79

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Extent on the 

Prescott NF

Heathleaf wild buckwheat Eriogonum ericifolium Sensitive Verde Formation: 5,249 acres

Ripley’s wild buckwheat Eriogonum ripleyi Sensitive Verde Formation: 5,249 acres

Verde breadroot* Pediomelum verdiensis Sensitive Verde Formation: 5,249 acres

*Species added to Regionally sensitive species list between DEIS and FEIS 

Rock Features - Cliffs/Ledges 

Associated Species – American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), Pale Townsend’s big-eared 

bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), Rock fleabane (Erigeron saxatilis) and Flagstaff 

pennyroyal (Hedeoma diffusa).

Distribution/abundance – American peregrine falcon breeds in western North America. Most 

breeding in Arizona occurs on the Mogollon Rim, Grand Canyon, and Colorado Plateau (Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, 2002b). Known breeding is reported for the Prescott NF. Two nest 

sites near Thumb Butte and Granite Mountain are monitored on-forest; the last confirmed 

fledging of young occurred in 2006.

The geographic range for Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat extends from southern California, east 

to western Texas, and south to northern Mexico. In Arizona, the species is widespread (Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, 2003f). This species appears to be relatively common at suitable 

roosting sites on the Prescott NF. Abandoned mines used by Townsend’s big-eared bats occur on 

all three ranger districts, with the majority of them on the Bradshaw RD.

Flagstaff pennyroyal is endemic to Coconino, Mohave, Pima, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, 

with 56 occurrences. The total distribution range is 290 miles; in south-central Coconino County 

there are 43 occurrences, ranging 24 miles; in northeast Mohave County, there is 1 occurrence; in 

northern Pima County there is 1 occurrence; and in northeastern Yavapai County, there are 20 

occurrences, ranging 18 miles (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2003d). The remaining five 

records have insufficient locality data. Populations of Rock fleabane are less abundant being 

endemic to Coconino, Gila, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. 

Habitats – Suitable habitat in Arizona for American peregrine falcon, and Townsend’s bigeared bat consists of steep, sheer cliffs and ledges to caves and mines. Suitable habitats for the 

Prescott NF were derived by modeling slope associated with digital elevation models (DEMs), 

with slopes greater than 65 percent selected to represent cliffs and ledges. Approximately 8,829 

acres of cliffs and ledges habitat are estimated for the Prescott NF. 

Flagstaff pennyroyal and Rock fleabane prefer shaded cliffs and ledges within canyons and on 

rock outcrops. 

Risk Factors – Primary threats to rock features, such as cliffs and ledges, include some sort of 

human presence or activity that either alters the character or nature of the features or, by mere 

presence, renders the features unavailable for a particular species’ use such as nesting, roosting, or 

rooting. Site-specific plant and animal species needs would be addressed where the types of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

human activity in or on these rock features are regulated through permit, which defines 

appropriate operating parameters for the activity relevant to the purpose and the resources of 

concern. There are no proposed treatments or management actions (i.e., plan objectives) relevant 

to these habitat features in any of the alternatives. 

Ponderosa Pine Forests 

Associated Species – Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Metcalfe’s ticktrefoil (Desmodium 

metcalfei), and Flagstaff beardtongue (Penstemon nudiflorus).

Distribution – In North America, goshawks breed throughout most forested areas, from Alaska 

east to eastern Canada, south to New England, and in southern New Mexico and northern Mexico 

(NatureServe, 2010). In Arizona, goshawks are found in high, forested mountains and plateaus 

statewide, usually above 6,000 feet elevation (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2003e). On 

the Prescott NF, six to eight sites were monitored from 2002 to 2005, with nine post-fledgling 

family areas (PFAs) monitored in 2009. Successful fledgling at monitored sites has been low.

Metcalfe’s ticktrefoil has a wide range from Arizona to New Mexico and south into Sinaloa, 

Mexico, ranging over 800 miles. There are 15 documented occurrences in Arizona including 1 

locality in southern Coconino County and 1 in southern Yavapai County. The one occurrence in 

Yavapai County is southeast of Crown King in the Bradshaw Mountains on the Prescott NF.

Flagstaff beardtongue ranges from western New Mexico (Sandoval and Bernalillo counties) to

most of central and northwestern Arizona (Apache, Coconino, Gila, Navajo, and Yavapai 

counties). Several specimens have been collected from the Prescott NF.

Habitats – Northern goshawk nesting habitat consists of mature and old growth forest stands 

with relatively high canopy closure. The northern goshawk is associated with the ponderosa pine 

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

Goshawks are known to occur on all three of the ranger districts of the Prescott NF including 

areas near Mingus Mountain, Camp Wood, Prescott Basin, and Crown King. Existing nesting 

habitat for this species is estimated at 50,489 acres, consisting of ponderosa pine stands with 

medium and large trees with open and closed canopies. Existing foraging habitat for goshawks 

includes approximately 3,522 acres of seedling/sapling and small trees with open canopies in both 

ponderosa pine PNVTs.

Populations of Metcalfe’s ticktrefoil tend to occur within ponderosa pine forests along washes, 

in substrates that include limestone, granite, and limy shale. Elevation ranges between 2,700 feet 

and 8,000 feet with a mean elevation of 5,350 feet. 

Flagstaff beardtongue is found on scattered limestone and sandstone outcrops within ponderosa 

pine forests with relatively undisturbed habitats that include alligator juniper, Gambel oak, and 

blue grama. Elevation ranges from 4,500 to 7,000 feet. 

Risk Factors – Primary threats to northern goshawks include activities that remove older, larger 

trees and simplify stand structure; removal of dead and down trees; and stand-replacement 

wildfire. Management concerns also include grazing that reduces or eliminates understory 

vegetation and human disturbance during nesting (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1999).

Most populations of Metcalfe’s ticktrefoil and Flagstaff beardtongue are recorded from 

habitats where fire is common, but the effects of fire on the species are not well known. One 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 81

population of Flagstaff beardtongue has responded favorably to low intensity prescribed fire on 

the Kaibab NF. Both species are at risk from trampling by livestock or off road vehicle use. 

Grasslands 

Associated Species – Hualapai milkwort (Polygala rusbyi) and Greene milkweed (Asclepias 

unicialis) 

Distribution/abundance – Hualapai milkwort is endemic to Maricopa, Mohave, and Yavapai 

Counties, Arizona, with 91 occurrences documented. The total distribution range is 237 miles; in 

north Maricopa County, there are 4 occurrences, ranging 15 miles; in central Mohave County, 

there are 5 occurrences, ranging 19 miles; and in northeast and central Yavapai County, there are 

78 occurrences, ranging 102 miles. Twenty occurrences for the species are spread over the 

Prescott NF, ranging 50 miles; there are 6 occurrences in the vicinity of Cottonwood and 14 in the 

vicinity of Paulden.

Greene milkweed occurs over a large geographical area (Wyoming to New Mexico), but it is 

currently only known from about 25 to 30 localities. In Arizona, it is known from Coconino, 

Pima and Santa Cruz Counties. It exhibits a natural rarity and low population sizes. There are 

no documented surveys for the species in Yavapai County (Dr. Marc Baker, personal 

communication 2014). Greene milkweed can be easily overlooked by surveyors, due to its 

extremely small size, early bloom period, and the lack of widespread botanical focus. 

Habitats –Populations of Hualapai milkwort tend to occur in grasslands and on ridgetops and 

open mesas with substrates including powdery gypsiferous limestone of tertiary lakebed deposits 

(Verde Formation), red-wall limestone, and limestone-sandstone. Greene milkweed is most 

commonly associated with grasslands, growing on lower hill slopes and at the base of mesas, 

canyons, and bluffs in areas within or adjacent to madrean evergreen woodland communities. It is 

most often found on bare, open patches of soil between clumps of grasses within these habitats. 

Risk Factors – Greene milkweed does not tolerate competition from weedy annuals. Its 

responses to fire and grazing are unknown, but it may not tolerate factors that cause general 

habitat degradation. There are few threats to populations of Hualapai milkwort within the 

Prescott NF. Severe degradation of grasslands caused by overgrazing is the most viable threat, 

followed by off-road vehicle damage. At least some populations of the species occur in areas of 

the Verde Formation, and thus, should be included within the conservation of that habitat.

Moist, North-facing Slopes 

Associated Species – Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort (Arenaria aberran) and Eastwood alum-root 

(Heuchera eastwoodiae)

Distribution/abundance – Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort is endemic to Apache, Coconino, Gila, 

Mohave, and Yavapai Counties with 29 documented occurrences. The total distribution range is 

257 miles. In central Coconino County, there are 7 occurrences, ranging 53 miles, and in central 

Yavapai County there are 13 occurrences, ranging 62 miles. Six locations are found on the 

Prescott NF ranging 29 miles, with three locations within 1 mile of each other. 

Eastwood alum-root is endemic to Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, 

with 50 documented occurrences. The total distribution range is 158 miles; in east-central 

Coconino County, there is 1 occurrence; in north, central, and west Gila County, there are 4 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

occurrences, ranging 70 miles; in east Maricopa County, there is 1 occurrence; throughout 

Yavapai County, there are 43 occurrences, ranging 98 miles. Thirty-three occurrences for the 

species are widespread over the Prescott NF, ranging 49 miles.

Habitats – Populations of these species tend to occur on north and northeast-facing slopes and 

along ridges; with substrates including basalt, granite, Quaternary alluvial, rich organic soil, and 

sandy soils. Elevation ranges between 4,200 feet and 7,870 feet with a mean elevation of 6,035 

feet. 

Risk Factors – Most populations are recorded from habitats where fire is common, but the effects 

of fire on the species are unknown. Being primarily herbaceous, these plants are probably grazed 

by cattle; however, they often occur in microhabitats that are inaccessible to livestock.

Cobbly Ridges/Hillsides 

Associated Species – Tonto Basin agave (Agave delamateri), Phillips’ agave (Agave 

phillipsiana), Arizona phlox (Phlox amabilis), and Mearns sage (Salvia dorrii ssp. mearnsii).

Distribution/abundance – Populations of Tonto Basin agave are largely clonal and thought to 

have originally been cultivated by pre-European cultures (Hodgson, 1999). The species is 

endemic to Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, with 103 

documented occurrences. The total distribution range is 112 miles. In Coconino County, there are 

4 localities in the southern portion, ranging only 3 miles; and in Yavapai County, there are 36 

occurrences in the eastern portion, ranging 37 miles. Five locations are listed for the Prescott NF 

ranging 38 miles, with two locations within 5 feet of each other.

Populations of Phillips’ agave are largely, if not entirely, clonal and were likely brought into the 

region as cultivars (Hodgson, 2001). The species is endemic to Yavapai, Coconino, and Gila 

Counties, Arizona, with 38 documented occurrences. The total distribution range for Agave 

phillipsiana is 195 miles. In Coconino County, there are 15 localities in the northwest portion 

ranging 35 miles; in Yavapai County, 21 localities in the northeast to the south-central portion, 

ranging 55 miles. Individuals per site vary from one to several with probably fewer than 100 

individuals known for the species.

Within the Prescott NF, clones of this species occur primarily south of Wilhoit along the 

Hassayampa River and its tributaries. Twelve occurrences are spread over a distance of less than 

3 miles, with some within 130 yards of one another. 

Arizona phlox is endemic to Coconino, Maricopa, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, with 

52 occurrences listed. The total distribution range is 230 miles; throughout Coconino County 

there are 17 occurrences, ranging 170 miles; in north Maricopa County, there is 1 occurrence; in 

north central Mohave County, there are 7 occurrences, with a range of 100 miles; and throughout 

Yavapai County, there are 27 occurrences, ranging 81 miles. Nine occurrences for the species are 

known across the Prescott NF, ranging 46 miles. Arizona phlox are probably common in Prescott 

NF, but the similarity between it and its close relatives makes identification very difficult. It 

differs from its closest relative only in the length of its stamens and styles.

Mearns sage is endemic to Yavapai County, Arizona, with 74 occurrences documented. The total 

distribution range for Verde Valley sage is 42 miles; with 38 occurrences of the species spread 

over Prescott NF, ranging 38 miles; 29 occurrences are near Paulden; and 9 occurrences are in the 

vicinity of Cottonwood.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 83

Habitats – These species occur on cobbly ridges and hillsides in open areas, with substrates that 

include cobbly granite, limestone, sandstone, basalt rocks, or mixtures of sandstone and limestone 

alluvium. Elevation ranges between 1,200 feet and 8,970 feet with a mean elevation of 3,650 feet. 

Risk Factors – Primary threats to the species occupying cobbly ridges and hillsides include some 

sort of human presence or activity that alters the character or nature of the feature such as heavy 

equipment disturbance or off-highway vehicle activity. At least some populations of Mearns sage

occur in areas of the Verde Formation, and thus, should be included within the conservation of 

that habitat.

Verde Formation 

Associated Species – Heathleaf wild buckwheat (Eriogonum ericifolium),Ripley’s wild 

buckwheat (Eriogonum ripleyi) and Verde breadroot (Pediomelum verdiensis) occur exclusively 

on Verde Formation soils within the Prescott NF; Mearns sage and Hualapai milkwort, as 

previously described, also occur in the Verde Formation but not exclusively.

Distribution/abundance – Heathleaf wild buckwheat is endemic to Mohave and Yavapai 

Counties, Arizona, with 25 documented occurrences. The total distribution range is 136 miles, 

with 1 locality in the northern portion of Mohave County and the remaining 22 localities in the 

eastern portion of Yavapai County, ranging 19 miles. One location is in the White Hills, southeast 

of Cottonwood on the Prescott NF. In terms of number and distribution of populations, this may 

be the rarest species that occurs on the Prescott NF.

Ripley’s wild buckwheat is endemic to Maricopa, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona, with 

44 occurrences listed. The total distribution range is 200 miles; in north-central Maricopa County, 

there are 7 occurrences, ranging 6 miles; in northern Mohave County, there is 1 occurrence; and 

in northwest and east-central Yavapai County, there are 28 localities, ranging 100 miles. The 

remaining eight collections have insufficient locality data. Six occurrences for the species are 

spread over the Prescott NF ranging 25 miles, with five within 1 mile of each other and all within 

the Verde Formation. 

Verde breadroot is known to occur in Arizona at four sites in Coconino County and 12 sites in 

Yavapai County. Eight locations are known on the Prescott NF all within the Verde Formation. 

Habitats – The Verde Formation is composed of tertiary lakebed deposits of powdery, calcareous, 

and gypseous soils from secondary deposition of limestone and dolomite alluvium, often mixed 

with red-brown clayey and sandy soils. Areas of the Verde Formation within the Prescott NF are 

limited in both acreage and geography, occurring along the easternmost boundary of the forest. 

Elevation ranges between 3,500 feet and 5,807 feet with a mean elevation of 4,635 feet.

Risk Factors – Since individuals are restricted to the Verde Formation, the areas in which plants 

occur are restricted geographically. Plant densities tend to be low on these soils, with few large 

shrubs and cacti, making the sites attractive to off-highway vehicles. Outside of the Prescott NF, 

the Verde Formation habitat is threatened by gypsum quarries, urban development, utility rightsof-way, and off-highway vehicle use. Combinations of these land uses threaten the viability of 

populations on forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Migratory Birds and Eagles 

Background 

Section 3(e) of Executive Order (EO) 13186 requires Federal agencies to design migratory bird 

habitat and population conservation principles into Agency plans and planning processes and 

coordinate with other agencies and non-Federal partners in planning efforts.

The viability analysis process described in the “Terrestrial Species Viability” section included 

consideration of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Birds of Conservation Concern 

(BOCC) in accordance with the International Migratory Bird Act. The BOCC species that either 

migrate through or breed in the planning area were determined from lists associated with U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Bird Conservation Regions (BCR). The Prescott NF is associated with 

three BCRs (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a). Ecosystem components (including vegetation 

type and structure and water availability) were evaluated for sustainability and were primary 

factors used to determine a species’ viability. All species were evaluated in the coarse filter/fine 

filter evaluations, and viability risks were determined from availability and condition of 

individual species’ habitat, population evaluation, and effects from Prescott NF management 

actions.

Under the authorities of 50 CFR Part 22, the bald eagle and golden eagle are protected by the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962 (Eagle Act) (P.L. 87-884) and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 710). The MBTA and the Eagle Act protect bald and 

golden eagles from a variety of harmful actions and impacts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to advise land managers under what 

circumstances the protective provisions of the Eagle Act may apply to their activities. A variety of 

human activities can potentially interfere with eagles, affecting their ability to forage, nest, roost, 

breed, or raise young. The guidelines are intended to help minimize such impacts to bald eagles, 

particularly where they may constitute “disturbance,” which is prohibited by the Eagle Act.

The Eagle Act, as amended, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the 

Interior, from “taking” bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs.

The act provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, 

barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any 

bald eagle.. [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” 

The act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, 

molest or disturb.” “Disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that 

causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available:

 injury to an eagle; 

 a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, 

or sheltering behavior; or 

 nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering behavior.” 

In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from humaninduced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not 

present, if upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 85

injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and 

causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment.

Table 15. Migratory bird and eagle species analyzed 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Extent on the 

Prescott NF

Migratory birds 60 species MBTA Varies by species

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive, Eagle Act 3,356 acres

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos canadensis Eagle Act 8,829 acres

Migratory Birds 

Sixty species of migratory birds are expected to occur or could potentially occur within the 

various habitats (PNVTs) or habitat features associated with the Prescott NF. Fourteen species of 

migratory birds are addressed in detail commensurate with their status associated with Federal or 

Forest Service designation. Habitat types and features associated with the remaining 46 species 

are also addressed and considered in the “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision Terrestrial 

Wildlife Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2011e). 

Eagles 

Golden eagles typically nest in rock outcrops or on ledges on cliffs. Suitable habitats for the 

Prescott NF were derived by modeling slope associated with digital elevation models (DEMs), 

with slopes greater than 65 percent selected to represent cliffs and ledges. Approximately 8,829 

acres of cliffs and ledges habitat are estimated for the Prescott NF. The only confirmed nest is on 

the north side of Woodchute Mountain with suitable habitat occurring on all three districts of the 

Prescott NF. They forage primarily within 8 to 12 square miles of the nest site. Typical prey 

includes medium sized mammals including jack rabbits, ground squirrels, and prairie dogs. Other 

prey may include turkeys, new born ungulates, or domestic pets. Projects occurring in the upland 

portions of the landscape may present occasions for impacts to golden eagles including 

disturbance from machinery, people, smoke, and animals. Most impacts or changes would occur 

within foraging habitat. Changes to foraging habitat would simply change the available prey for 

golden eagles and would not be considered to “disturb” eagles enough to warrant a “take.”

Bald eagles are known to occur along the Verde River on the Verde and Chino Valley Ranger 

Districts and at Lynx Lake on the Bradshaw Ranger District. In the winter months, bald eagles 

roost along the Verde River as well as on the slopes adjacent to Goldwater Lake, a city of Prescott 

park surrounded by Prescott NF land. Bald eagles are primarily tied to nesting or roosting near 

water, their primary foraging habitat for waterfowl and fish. They are also known to be 

opportunistic scavengers. Water in the arid southwestern habitats of the Prescott NF also attracts 

numerous people for various recreation activities. Due to the limited availability of water 

associated habitats, occasions for eagle-human conflicts are present year round. 

Management Indicator Species 

Background 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations require that “Fish and wildlife habitat 

shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

vertebrate and invertebrate species in the planning area.” The 2012 Planning Rule adopting the 

1982 Planning Rule provisions to implement the NFMA requires that management indicator 

species (MIS) be identified as part of the forest plan. MIS serve multiple functions in forest 

planning: focusing management direction developed in the alternatives, providing a means to 

analyze effects among alternative on biological diversity, and serving as a reliable feedback 

mechanism during forest plan implementation. The latter is accomplished by monitoring 

population trends in relationship to habitat changes (1982 Planning Rule Provisions 219.19 

(a)(6)).

Management indicator species (MIS) is a concept adopted by the Agency to serve, in part, as a 

barometer for species viability at the planning area level. The role of MIS in meeting viability 

mandates complements that of several other approaches, particularly management of sensitive 

species.

The Prescott NF followed the process and procedures outlined for MIS selection in the “Forest 

Level Analysis of Management Indicator Species” (Forest Service, 2010b). Pronghorn antelope

was chosen an indicator because it demonstrates a strong and/or predictable response to proposed 

management activities within the grasslands PNVTs including prescribed fire; shrub and tree 

thinning/removal; road and/or trail maintenance; and watershed or rangeland improvements. By 

monitoring pronghorn habitats and populations, the health and productivity of grassland 

ecosystems can be assessed. Northern goshawk was chosen as an indicator because it 

demonstrates a strong and/or predictable response to proposed management activities within the 

ponderosa pine PNVTs including prescribed fire; timber harvest; shrub and tree thinning/removal; 

and road and/or trail maintenance. By monitoring Northern goshawk habitats and populations, the 

health and productivity of ponderosa pine forest ecosystems can be assessed. Also chosen as an 

indicator were Aquatic macro-invertebrates (see the “Management Indicator Species” section 

in “Need for Change 4”). 

Table 16. Management indicator species and occupied habitat 

Common Name Scientific Name Management Indicator

Current Habitat 

Extent on the 

Prescott NF

Pronghorn Antelope Haliaeetus leucocephalus Grassland PNVTs 202,004 acres

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Ponderosa pine PNVTs 

medium/large trees 50,489 acres nesting

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Ponderosa pine PNVTs 

seedling/sapling, small/open 3,522 acres foraging

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates1 Suite of species Perennial streams 193 miles

1

See the “Aquatic and Riparian Species Viability” section in “Need for Change 4.”

Pronghorn 

Distribution – Pronghorn antelope are distributed from southeastern Washington, west to western 

North Dakota, south through Nevada and eastern Colorado to northern Mexico (O’Gara, 1978). In 

Arizona, they are found in the north-central portion of the State, with small herds scattered also in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 87

the southeast (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2009b). This species is described as common 

on the Prescott NF.

Habitats – Herds in north-central Arizona are found in a variety of grassland habitats, ranging 

from desert grasslands to forest and mountain meadows (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

2009b). Development of private lands has removed primary habitat and forced herds into less 

favorable habitats where predation rates are higher. Overall population trends on the forest vary 

among hunt units, but based on data compiled from AZGFD surveys for hunt units encompassing 

the herds on the Prescott NF, pronghorn numbers appear to be decreasing (Forest Service, 2010b). 

Pronghorn habitat includes grassland dominated portions of the Semi-Desert, Great Basin, and 

Juniper Grassland PNVTs where shrub/tree cover is less than 10 percent. Existing habitat is 

estimated at 202,004 acres. 

Risk Factors – Movement and population interactions are limited by fencing and highway 

development. Habitat loss is occurring due to urban development. Tree and shrub encroachment 

into grasslands is impacting habitat quality (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2009b).

Northern Goshawk 

Distribution – In North America, goshawks breed throughout most forested areas, from Alaska 

east to eastern Canada, south to New England, and in southern New Mexico and northern Mexico 

(NatureServe, 2010). In Arizona, goshawks are found in high, forested mountains and plateaus 

statewide, usually above 6,000 feet elevation (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2003e). On 

the Prescott NF, six to eight sites were monitored from 2002 to 2005, with nine post-fledgling 

family areas (PFAs) monitored in 2009. Successful fledgling at monitored sites has been low.

Habitats – Northern goshawk nesting habitat consists of mature and old growth forest stands 

with relatively high canopy closure. The northern goshawk is associated with the ponderosa pine 

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

Goshawks are known to occur on all three of the ranger districts of the Prescott NF including 

areas near Mingus Mountain, Camp Wood, Prescott Basin, and Crown King. Existing nesting 

habitat for this species is estimated at 50,489 acres, consisting of ponderosa pine stands with 

medium and large trees with open and closed canopies. Existing foraging habitat for goshawks 

includes approximately 3,522 acres of seedling/sapling and small trees with open canopies in both 

of the ponderosa pine PNVTs.

All 14 prey species listed for the northern goshawk in the “Management Recommendations for 

Northern Goshawks” (MRNG) (Forest Service, 1992) are associated with medium/large tree 

vegetative structural stages. Medium/large trees are important habitat components to 13 of the 14 

prey species for maintaining sustainable populations. Canopy openings are important for 

maintaining sustainable populations for 8 of the 14 prey species listed in the MRNG. Herbaceous 

and shrub components are important for 13 of the 14 prey species. Ten of the 14 prey species 

listed in the MRNG are associated with early seral stages including seedling/saplings and small 

trees. All 14 prey species need an interspersion of vegetative structural stages to maintain 

sustainable populations.

Risk Factors – Primary threats to northern goshawks include activities that remove older, larger 

trees and simplify stand structure; removal of dead and down trees; and stand-replacement 

wildfire. Management concerns also include grazing that reduces or eliminates understory 

vegetation and human disturbance during nesting (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1999).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Environmental Consequences

Federally Listed Species 

Table 17. Federally listed species habitat trends by alternative 

Species Trends Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Mexican 

Spotted owl Existing: 26,448 acres

Decreases to

25,507 acres

Decreases to 22,564 - 25,016 acres

Increase in habitat quality and features

Sonoran 

desert tortoise Existing: 5,919 acres Stable trend: No change in habitat quality or quantity

Mexican Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat 

Common to All Alternatives 

Recovery Plan Guidance – For all alternatives, designing and implementing projects using both 

the revised MSO recovery plan and best available science would be expected to lead to improved 

habitat conditions for the species. This combination of approaches would provide the flexibility 

necessary to manage for the recovery of the species, which could eventually have beneficial 

effects for individual MSO. 

All alternatives would provide the “primary constituent elements” of critical habitat including: 

 a range of tree species with an average diameter greater than 12 inches; 

 shade canopy covering 40 percent or more of the habitat; 

 snags with an average diameter greater than 12 inches; and 

 various prey species habitat components. 

Action Alternatives B, C, D and E 

All action alternatives include treatment objectives that support the attainment of desired 

conditions for wildlife species and their habitats. Moving the ecosystem components of the 

ponderosa pine-Gambel oak PNVT toward desired conditions would be expected to improve 

MSO habitat across the landscape. For example, desired conditions and guidelines for snags 

would ensure the presence of snags across the landscape. Increasing the abundance and 

distribution of large trees across the landscape would provide additional nesting habitat for MSO. 

Reducing the amount of canopy closure and increasing the amount of understory vegetation 

would improve habitat for MSO prey species across the landscape. Improving these two facets of 

the MSO habitat would be expected to have beneficial impacts to the species on the Prescott NF. 

Although the relative proportion of ponderosa pine-Gambel oak PNVT with medium/large trees 

and closed canopy slightly decreases in all alternatives, the improved quality of foraging habitat 

in the medium/large trees with open canopy may have an overall beneficial effect to MSO. The 

most important benefit of the proposed treatments within the ponderosa pine-Gambel oak PNVT 

is the reduced risk of high severity, landscape scale, stand-replacing wildfires that could eliminate 

MSO habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 89

For all of the action alternatives, in the process of implementing projects/activities, some tree 

habitat features would be negatively impacted for a short term. However, moving toward the 

desired conditions for the Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak PNVT would provide additional tree 

habitat features across the landscape as young and mid-size/age trees are cultivated to grow into 

larger and/or older trees in the long term. 

Future site-specific projects and activities with potential to impact MSO or its habitat would be 

developed consistent with the direction provided in Guide-WL-1, including breeding season 

timing restrictions and other relevant mitigations to minimize or eliminate adverse effects to 

MSO and its habitat. This guideline applies to all program areas including: recreation 

management; transportation, minerals, or land acquisition management; rangeland management; 

wildland fire and fuels management; forestry and forest health; watershed and soils management; 

wilderness and special areas management; and wildlife, fish, and rare plants management.

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments, watershed and 

soils management, and wildlife, fish, or rare plants management may have short term adverse 

effects to ponderosa pine forest habitat, but would result in long term beneficial effects to 

maintaining or improving proposed critical habitat and species populations on the forest. 

Plan components related to recreation management, and lands, minerals, transportation and 

special uses management may have both short- and long term adverse effects to Mexican spotted 

owl and Mexican spotted owl critical habitat. All of the alternatives would result in a “May 

Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for Mexican spotted owl and Mexican spotted 

owl critical habitat. 

Sonoran Desert Tortoise 

Common to All Alternatives 

Sonoran desert tortoise habitat (i.e., Desert Communities PNVT) on the Prescott NF currently 

exhibits high similarity to desired conditions and is expected to remain near desired conditions 

over the next 40 to 80 years. No change in habitat quantity is expected from implementation of 

plan direction under any of the alternatives.

While Sonoran desert tortoise is protected under the ESA as a candidate species, there is no 

species-specific direction for the tortoise at this time. For all of the alternatives, the various 

guidelines for sensitive species would be expected to maintain or improve ecosystem features of 

the desert communities habitat associated with desert tortoise habitat needs. Sensitive species 

guidelines would include developing breeding season timing restrictions and other project design 

features to alleviate impacts from disturbance from resource management activities occurring 

within Desert Communities PNVT. Wildlife guidelines would provide for following current 

AZGFD handling guidelines for any tortoises encountered during project implementation. 

The implementation of plan components related to wildland fire and fuels management, and 

watershed and soils management may have some short term adverse effects to Sonoran desert 

vegetation but would result in long term beneficial effects to maintaining habitat and Sonoran 

desert tortoise populations on the forest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Plan components related to rangeland management, recreation management, transportation, 

minerals, or land acquisition may have both short and long term adverse effects to Sonoran desert 

tortoise populations. All of the alternatives would result in a “Not Likely to Jeopardize” 

determination for Sonoran desert tortoise. 

Regionally Sensitive Species 

Table 18. Regionally sensitive species trends by alternative 

Trend 

Habitat trends for species 

associated with rock features

Habitat trends for species 

associated with ponderosa 

pine

Habitat trends for species 

associated with grasslands

Habitat trends for species 

associated with moist, northfacing slopes

Habitat trends for species 

associated with cobbly ridges 

/hillsides

Habitat trends for species 

associated with Verde 

Formation

Alternative A Alternative C B, D, and E 

No change from existing habitat of 8,829 acres 

Projected future habitat: 62,125 to 62,761 acres 

An increase from existing habitat of 54,011 acres 

196,930 to 203,983 164,351 acres 177,486 to 196,930 acres acres 

Decrease from existing Decrease from existing Decrease from existing 202,004 acres 202,004 acres 202,004 acres 

No change from existing habitat acres of unknown quantity 

No change from existing habitat acres of unknown quantity 

No change from existing habitat of 5,249 acres 

Alternatives 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of vegetation treatments guided by plan components; recreation 

management; watershed management; wildlife, fish, or rare plants management; or land 

acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short term indirect effects on terrestrial habitat or 

species populations but would produce long term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of 

habitats and species populations on the Prescott NF. Future projects implemented under any 

alternative may render a “May impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss of viability” determination. 

Habitats for species associated with rock features, moist, north-facing slopes, cobbly ridges and 

hillsides, and the soils of the Verde Formation are not expected to change across alternatives. 

For all of the alternatives, the various guidelines for sensitive species described in the “Terrestrial 

Species Viability” section would be expected to maintain or improve the habitats associated with 

species needs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 91

Alternative A 

Species viability and diversity – Alternative A mitigates the least amount of risk to landscape level 

habitat conditions using restoration methods (e.g., prescribed fire, tree and shrub thinning, brush 

crushing). Species associated with grasslands and ponderosa pine forests are most vulnerable 

because current habitat conditions in these PNVTs are the least similar to desired conditions. 

Activities near plant species of viability concern would be assessed for potential impacts as sitespecific projects were carried out. 

Alternatives B, D, and E 

Species viability and diversity – Alternatives B, D, and E propose a range of restoration 

treatments to landscape level habitat conditions that equals or is greater than alternative A. 

Proposed average annual treatment levels range from 10,600 to 25,300 acres using managed fire 

and between 750 and 6,500 acres using mechanical methods across all vegetation types. 

Some species depend on specific ecological characteristics such as cliffs, caves, trees, cavities, 

specific soils, or rock formations. Distribution of these characteristics would be retained due to 

guidelines. In addition, migration and other habitat for pronghorn would be improved by 

removing trees and brush using various treatment methods. Alternatives B, D, and E call for 

15,000 to 90,000 acres of habitat improvement plus treatment of two or three areas of migration 

habitat. In addition, movement of pronghorn would be enhanced by modification or removal of 3 

to 5 miles of fence. Alternatives B and D would improve from 3 to 15 water developments for 

wildlife; alternative E would improve up to 25 existing and 5 new water developments for 

wildlife. 

Activities near plant species of viability concern would be guided by Desired Conditions and 

Guidelines-Plants-1 to 6. 

Alternative C 

Species viability and diversity – Alternative C proposes a higher range of restoration treatments to 

landscape level habitat conditions than alternatives A and B. Proposed average annual treatment 

levels range from 15,500 to 22,800 acres using prescribed fire and between 750 and 4,000 acres 

using mechanical methods. More restoration activities would occur in the grasslands and 

ponderosa pine forests under this alternative compared to alternatives A and B. 

Species distribution associated with specific ecological characteristics, such as cliffs, caves, trees, 

cavities, specific soils, or rock formations, would improve due to the same desired conditions and 

guidelines as alternative B and D. Higher emphasis would be placed on improving migration and 

other habitat for pronghorn. Alternative C calls for 50,000 to 85,000 acres of habitat improvement 

and treatment of three to six areas of migration habitat. In addition, movement of pronghorn 

would be increasingly enhanced by modification or removal of 10 to 15 miles of fence. Finally, 

from 5 to 15 water developments for wildlife would be improved as part of alternative C. These 

proposed additional treatments are higher than those proposed under alternative B and D.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Migratory Birds and Eagles 

Table 19. Migratory bird and eagle species effects by alternative

Species Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Migratory bird 

species

Per MBTA, EO13186, and 2008 MOU, priority migratory bird species would be considered in 

any project implemented under any alternative.

Eagle species No programmatic “take” of eagles or their nest sites.

Common to All Alternatives 

Migratory birds – In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Executive Order 13186, 

and the MOU signed December 2008, the revised plan and its alternatives were evaluated for 

their effects on migratory birds. A total of 92 species of migratory birds were assessed for their 

potential to occur on the PNF (Forest Service, 2011s). For any projects implemented under any 

alternative of this plan, priority migratory bird species would be assessed in future project 

planning and analysis. Most birds’ habitats would be accommodated indirectly through vegetation 

treatments that target restoration of vegetation structure and composition. Four important bird 

areas (IBAs) lie near the Prescott NF (Forest Service, 2011e). Guideline-Wildlife-2 would require 

site-specific projects to consider these IBAs and the conservation issues for these areas in project 

level NEPA under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Habitat conditions on adjacent IBAs would be 

expected to improve as landscapes are restored to desired conditions.

Eagles – There would be no programmatic take of eagles under any of the alternatives. For 

alternative A, the requirement to comply with current laws would ensure that projects and 

activities within and adjacent to nest or roost sites would be designed to avoid causing any “take” 

under the Eagle Act. For alternatives B, C, and D, the wildlife guideline (Guideline-Wildlife-2) 

requiring design features and mitigation measures for compliance with other laws including the 

Eagle Act, ensures that there would not be any “take” of eagles under the Eagle Act. 

Implementation of Guideline-Wildlife-5 would provide additional protection of all known eagle 

nest sites.

Alternative A 

Migratory birds – Treating the least number of acres, proposing the least recreation projects, and 

proposing few projects for watershed or wildlife, this alternative would have the lowest potential 

for disturbance impacts to migratory birds or their habitats.

Alternatives B and E 

Migratory birds – Treating a moderate number of acres, proposing a moderate range of 

recreation projects, and proposing a moderate range of projects for watershed or wildlife, these 

alternatives would have more potential for disturbance impacts to migratory birds or their habitats 

than alternative A and less potential for impacts than alternative C.

Alternative C 

Migratory birds – Treating the highest number of acres, proposing a moderate range of 

recreation projects, proposing a moderate range of projects for watershed, and proposing the most 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 93

projects for wildlife, this alternative would have the highest potential for disturbance impacts to 

migratory birds or their habitats.

Alternative D 

Migratory birds – Treating a moderate number of acres, proposing the most recreation projects, 

and proposing a moderate range of projects for watershed or wildlife, this alternative would have 

a potential for disturbance impacts to migratory birds or their habitats similar to alternative B. 

Management Indicator Species 

Table 20. Management indicator species trends by alternative 

Species Trends Alternative A Alternatives 

B, D, and E Alternative C

Pronghorn 

Antelope

Trends in 

species 

populations

Static to decrease Static or possible 

increase Probable increase

Trends in 

species habitat 

from 202,004 

acres

Decrease in quantity; 

some improvement in 

quality

164,351 acres

Slight decrease in 

quantity; moderate 

improvement in 

quality

177,486–196,930 acres

Slight increase in 

quantity; most 

improvement in quality

196,930–203,983 acres

Northern 

Goshawk

Trends in 

species 

populations

Increase in 

population Greater increase in population

Trends in 

species nesting 

habitat from 

50,489 acres 

Similar increase in quantity and improvement in quality for all alternatives 

62,125–62,761 acres

Trends in 

species foraging 

habitat from 

3,522 acres

Increase in quantity; 

improvement in 

quality.

17,524 acres

Greater increase in quantity; greater increase in 

quality.

18,651–22,518 acres

Common to All Alternatives 

Pronghorn antelope – All alternatives include some plan direction to improve the quality of 

pronghorn habitat on available Prescott NF lands. As the non-Prescott NF habitat becomes less 

available, Prescott NF habitat for pronghorn will become more crucial to providing for the 

species. Improving the habitat quality and managing for their habitat needs physically, spatially, 

and temporally, will provide the best possible opportunity for contributing to the habitat needs for 

pronghorn on the Prescott NF.

Northern goshawk – All alternatives would provide increases in the amount and quality of 

goshawk habitat available on Prescott NF lands. Over the next 20 years, additional nesting habitat 

for the goshawk would occur from increases in the abundance and distribution of medium to large 

trees growing within the ponderosa pine PNVTs. Proposed vegetation treatments (Objective-5) 

that reduce canopy closure and increase understory vegetation would improve habitat for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

goshawk prey species across the landscape. Improving these two facets of the goshawk habitat 

would be expected to have beneficial impacts to the species on the Prescott NF.

For all of the alternatives, the various guidelines for sensitive species would be expected to 

maintain or improve tree features associated with goshawk habitat needs. Sensitive species 

guidelines include developing breeding season timing restrictions and other project design 

features to alleviate impacts from disturbance from timber harvest, prescribed burning, and other 

resource management activities.

Salafsky et al. (2005) suggested that prey density was an important limiting factor of goshawk 

productivity. Later, studies showed that increased prey density resulted in increased goshawk 

reproduction in ponderosa pine (Salafsky, et al., 2007). Dewey and Kennedy (2001) reported that 

significantly heavier nestlings from nests with supplemental food had higher survival rates than 

nestlings in control nests. In 1996, Ward and Kennedy reported that although there was no 

significant difference in nestling sizes due to additional food availability, they did document 

higher nestling survival due to increased time spent at the nest by females which consequently 

provided protection from predators. Wiens et al., (2006) reported that food availability was the 

primary factor limiting juvenile survival and recommended forest treatments that provide forest 

structural conditions that allow goshawks to access their prey within breeding areas. Reynolds 

and others Forest Service researchers (2013) identified the importance of the grass-forb-shrub 

prey base and how restoring the grass-forb-shrub structural component of frequent-fire forests 

leads to more robust food webs for the northern goshawk.

Reducing canopy cover and increasing understory vegetation would improve habitat for goshawk 

prey species including small mammals and small birds across the landscape. Moving acres into 

the seedling/sapling and small tree vegetative structural stages would create an interspersion of 

structural stages across the landscape. The diversity of habitats associated with the assortment of 

vegetative features would support a greater selection of prey species. This would provide 

conditions supporting a full complement of prey species and habitat less susceptible to 

catastrophic fire and insect and disease impacts. By providing a diverse suite of prey species, the 

goshawk prey base would be more consistent and resilient to impacts from climate, disease, 

predation, and prey species population fluctuations.

Implications for population trends – All alternatives improve acres of nesting habitat for the 

goshawk. The difference among the alternatives is not substantial. Population trends might be 

expected to increase as a result of the increase in nesting habitat acres and improvement in 

nesting habitat conditions.

Alternative A 

Pronghorn antelope – Alternative A continues the current management as directed in the 1987 

plan. Plan direction for managing pronghorn habitats and populations is vague or generally 

lacking other than two guidelines directing that all water developments and fencing on NFS lands 

meet wildlife standards and consider local species needs.

Implications for population trends – This alternative improves the least acres and structures for 

pronghorn. Population trends are expected to remain static or possibly decline under this 

alternative as Prescott NF lands do not provide enough alternate habitats for pronghorn displaced 

from non-Forest Service lands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 95

Goshawk – Alternative A continues the current management as directed in the 1987 plan. An 

estimated five-fold increase in prey species habitat (seedling/sapling and small tree with openings 

vegetation stages) would provide an increase in goshawk nestling condition, parental protection, 

and juvenile survival.

Implications for population trends – The anticipated increase in acres and improvement in habitat 

quality for prey species would be expected to result in a positive population trend for the 

goshawk. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

Pronghorn antelope – For alternatives B, C, D, and E, several plan components are specifically 

designed to improve pronghorn habitat conditions (Objectives 25 to 27). Where suitable habitat 

occurs, Objective 28 would also improve pronghorn habitat quality. By following GuidelineWildlife-3, fence specifications, fawning habitat needs, migration corridors, and general habitat 

improvement would be part of project design and implementation where pronghorn occur and 

pronghorn habitat needs on Prescott NF lands should be addressed.

Implications for population trends – Alternatives B and D improve moderate amounts of habitat 

and structures (e.g., fencing and wildlife water developments) for pronghorn habitat. Alternative 

E also improves a moderate amount of habitat but more structures for pronghorn habitat. 

Population trends might be expected to remain static or possibly increase with these alternatives 

as Prescott NF lands provide alternate habitat for pronghorn displaced from non-Forest Service 

lands. Alternative C improves the most habitat and the most structures for pronghorn. Population 

trends might be expected to possibly increase with this alternative as Prescott NF lands provide 

alternate habitats for pronghorn displaced from non-Forest Service lands.

Goshawk – An estimated five-fold to six-fold increase in prey species habitat (seedling/sapling 

and small tree with openings vegetation stages) would provide a greater increase in goshawk 

nestling condition, parental protection, and juvenile survival than compared to alternative A.

Implications for population trends – The larger increase in acres and more extensive 

improvement in habitat quality for prey species under alternatives B, C, D, and E would be 

expected to result in a more positive population trend for goshawk compared to alternative A. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of foreseeable activities on non-Prescott NF 

lands that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on the Prescott NF, may 

intensify, negate, improve, or otherwise affect the vegetation types and species’ habitats of the 

Prescott NF. Below are considerations of consequences of activities that will likely occur on 

adjacent or nearby ownerships to the Prescott NF and their corresponding effects listed by 

species. 

Common to All Alternatives 

Mexican spotted owl – Private lands are interspersed with Prescott NF lands that contain 

restricted habitat and protected activity centers (PACs). Activities including residential 

development, mining, and timber harvest have occurred on private lands and are expected to 

continue at some level, thereby elevating the importance of Prescott NF lands in providing 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

suitable MSO habitat. Private, State, and BLM Federal lands located outside, but adjacent to, the 

Prescott NF appear to lack potential suitable MSO habitat. Three national forests are adjacent to 

the Prescott NF and contain suitable habitat and designated critical habitat within the Basin and 

Range-West Recovery Unit (Tonto NF) and Upper Gila Recovery Unit (Coconino, Kaibab, and 

Tonto NFs). The Kaibab and Coconino NFs are currently undergoing analysis for forest plan 

revision. Regulatory requirements under ESA and NMFA apply, thereby ensuring adequate levels 

of MSO habitat. 

Sonoran desert tortoise – Occurrence and known range of Sonoran desert tortoise in Arizona 

occurs largely outside Prescott NF lands, which contains only one recorded observation of this 

species and less than 6,000 acres of desert habitat. Lands containing suitable habitats within the 

distribution of this species in Arizona are under a wide variety of ownerships (Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, 2010b). Those in proximity to the Prescott NF include portions in private, State, 

BLM, and the Tonto NF. Status and future condition of habitats on private lands are unknown. 

The species is classified as Tier 1A (species of greatest conservation need) by the State of Arizona 

and managed by BLM as a sensitive species (Bureau of Land Management, 2010); therefore, it 

receives management consideration on lands under both jurisdictions. The species is managed as 

regionally sensitive species on the Tonto NF; therefore, this species’ habitats and populations are 

expected to be maintained. 

American peregrine falcon – Since the nationwide ban on DDT, the threat of pesticide impacts 

to this species has decreased, and populations show increases in Arizona over the past several 

decades. Distribution of recorded peregrine falcon breeding is scattered across most of Arizona, 

with exception of the southwest corner of the State (Corman and Wise-Gervais, 2005). Land 

ownership where nesting occurs varies widely among Federal and non-Federal entities, with 

breeding reported for Kaibab, Coconino, and Tonto NFs in addition to the Prescott NF (Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, 2002b). Current and future status of disturbance at potential roost 

sites on non-Federal lands is unknown. Because the species has management status (regionally 

sensitive species) on adjacent national forests, it is expected that some level of protection from 

disturbance of known nest sites would occur on these lands. 

Northern goshawk – Distribution of recorded goshawk breeding is restricted mainly to upper 

elevation forested portions of the State, with most concentrated on the Kaibab Plateau and 

Mogollon Rim (Corman and Wise-Gervais, 2005). Land ownership where nesting has been 

reported is largely associated with national forest lands. Because the species has management 

status on adjacent national forests, it is expected that habitat maintenance as well as protection 

from disturbance of known nest sites would occur on these lands. 

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat – Townsend’s big-eared bat roosting habitat is scattered 

throughout central Arizona and is expected to occur on both Federal and non-Federal lands 

outside the Prescott NF. Inventory and remediation of abandoned mines that pose a potential 

safety and water quality hazard is identified as a management priority on BLM lands in Arizona, 

including priorities identified within the Hassayampa watershed (Bureau of Land Management, 

2010). Townsend’s big-eared bat roosting habitat is also expected to occur on adjacent national 

forest lands that include the Kaibab, Coconino, and Tonto NFs. The Kaibab and Coconino NFs 

are currently undergoing forest plan revision and have considered Townsend’s big-eared bats 

during the revision process. Because this is a regionally sensitive species applicable to all three 

national forests, management consideration would be provided to preclude a trend toward Federal 

listing. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 97

Pocketed free-tailed bat – Distribution of this specie as described by Hoffmeister (1986) 

indicates that the Prescott NF is located at the northern extent of this species’ range in Arizona. 

Lands to the east, west, and south of the Prescott NF consist of non-Federal, BLM, NPS, and FS 

ownerships. The species has been reported on NPS lands and is listed as a BLM sensitive species 

in Arizona (Bureau of Land Management, 2010) and FS sensitive species for the Prescott and 

Tonto NFs. Current and future status of disturbance at potential roost sites on non-Federal lands is 

unknown. Because the species has management status on adjacent Federal lands, it is expected 

that some level of protection from disturbance of known sensitive roost sites would occur on 

these lands. 

Plain’s harvest mouse – Distribution of this species’ observations as displayed by Hoffmeister 

(1986) indicates that plains harvest mouse distribution in Arizona is patchy, with potential 

isolated populations. Sightings in central Arizona are restricted to central and eastern portions of 

Yavapai County. Areas outside the Prescott NF containing potential habitat include non-Federal, 

BLM, and Coconino NF lands. Portions of historical habitat in Chino Valley have been converted 

for agriculture, residential, or urban development, thereby decreasing habitat availability. 

Structural condition of Semi-Desert Grassland vegetation on BLM and Coconino NF lands are 

likely to be similar to those described for the Prescott NF with increased shrub and tree 

component. Because the plains harvest mouse is a Southwestern Region Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive Species known to occur on the Coconino NF, it is expected that provisions to support 

species habitats and populations will be included as elements of forest plan revision. 

Verde Formation plants – Land ownership of the soils forming the Verde Formation is primarily 

private with some State and Federal ownership including the Prescott and Coconino NFs. Habitat 

conservation efforts on Federal lands that would reduce the risk of gypsum mines, pipelines, 

power poles, and nonnative invasive plants threats within the Verde Formation would be 

beneficial for the species that occur there.

Need for Change 2

Retain or improve watershed integrity to provide desired water quality, quantity, and timing of 

delivery. 

This section summarizes the current hydrological environment and soil conditions on the Prescott 

NF and the consequences to each of implementing the revised plan or its alternatives. It has been 

organized by the concerns identified in “Need for Change 2” in chapter 1. These include avoiding 

impacts to watershed function from recreation and management activities; restoring or 

maintaining the function of riparian areas, seeps, and springs; improving water quality and 

quantity for municipal watersheds and wildlife habitat; and improving watershed resilience to 

changes in climate. The full analysis can be found in the “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2011f). Initial findings reported in 

the “Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009a) on the sustainability and risks to 

watersheds within the planning area are also included as part of this effects analysis.

Background

Watershed integrity is a measure of a watershed’s functional capacity. The functional conditions 

of a watershed affect the water quality, quantity, and timing of delivery downstream. In addition 

to the surface flow that sustains riparian and aquatic habitats, functioning watersheds also 

recharge the groundwater that feeds seeps and springs. Watershed condition on the Prescott NF 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

varies depending on the amount of disturbance that has occurred within the area and the effect of 

the disturbance on the natural integrity of the sub-watershed as a whole. Human-caused 

disturbances that can adversely affect a watershed’s condition within the Prescott NF include 

location of National Forest System (NFS) and non-system roads, trails, recreation sites, grazing, 

prescribed fire, and timber harvest. The severity of effects is influenced in part by the local 

terrain, fire regime, precipitation, and potential geological hazards. Changes in watershed 

condition are reflective of changes in the long term reliability of a watershed to provide the 

expected water quality and quantity. 

In response to a 2006 review of the Forest Service watershed program, a National Watershed 

Condition Team was formed to develop a nationally consistent, science-based approach to 

classify the condition of all NFS watersheds and to develop outcome-based performance 

measures for watershed restoration. The result was the six-step Watershed Condition Framework. 

The Watershed Condition Classification (WCC) system (Forest Service, 2011o) is the first step in 

this process.

The WCC system uses 12 watershed condition indicators to assess and classify the overall state of 

each sub-watershed. These indicators and their attributes represent the underlying factors that 

affect soil and hydrologic function. Most of the indicators can be affected through management 

actions to maintain or improve watershed condition. This structure provides for a direct linkage 

between the classification system and management or improvement activities the Forest Service 

conducts on the ground. 

Each of the individual indicators were assessed and then all were combined to produce an overall 

score which falls into one of three classes:

 Class 1 - Functioning watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition and are functioning properly. 

 Class 2 - At-risk watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition and are functioning at risk of 

impairment. 

 Class 3 - Impaired watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition and are functioning in an impaired condition. 

The Prescott NF land base falls within portions of eight sub-basins; each sub-basin is comprised 

of a number of watersheds, and watersheds are further divided into sub-watersheds. The Prescott 

NF overlaps with portions of 22 watersheds and 127 sub-watersheds. The hierarchical 

relationship of these hydrologic units is displayed below in table 21.

Table 21. Hierarchy of hydrologic units intersecting with the Prescott NF 

River Basin

3

rd level

Sub-basin

4

th level

Watersheds

5

th level

Sub-watersheds

6

th level

Bill Williams River

Big Sandy 1 3

Burro Creek 2 3

Santa Maria 2 16

Verde River Big Chino Wash 4 25
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 99

River Basin

3

rd level

Sub-basin

4

th level

Watersheds

5

th level

Sub-watersheds

6

th level

Upper Verde 5 34

Lower Verde 1 7

Lower Gila / Agua Fria Rivers

Agua Fria 5 30

Hassayampa 2 9

Totals 22 127

Prior analysis for the “Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009a) was performed 

at the sub-basin and watershed levels. The watershed analysis for the forest plan revision 

supplemented this analysis with data from the newer dataset developed for the WCC system, 

which uses the sub-watershed hydrologic unit as the basis for observing and tracking changes in 

watershed conditions over time.

Ninety-seven of the 127 sub-watersheds were analyzed, and of these, 5 are made up entirely of 

National Forest System lands and another 32 are at least 90 percent administered by the Forest 

Service. They vary from about 7,000 to over 48,000 acres in size, although in many cases, only a 

portion covers the Prescott NF.

Table 22. Overall condition class ratings on the Prescott NF 

Condition 

Class

Number of 

Watersheds

Number of SubwatershedsForest Service 

Acres

Non-FS 

Acres

Total 

Acres

1 - Functioning 1 12 147,564 171,151 318,715

2 - At Risk 21 83 1,076,526 618,247 1,694,773

3 - Impaired 0 2 32,407 18,405 50,812

Source: Forest Service, 2011f and Forest Service, 2011p 

As shown above (table 22), 86 percent of the 97 sub-watersheds were rated overall as being in an 

at-risk condition. At the next higher scale, 21 of the 22 watersheds also received an overall at-risk 

rating, the exception being Lower Big Chino. 

In 4 of the 21 at-risk watersheds, there has been a decline in the number of aquatic species that 

were historically present (table 23). Native fish populations within the Lower Colorado River 

sub-region have experienced declines in their distribution because of loss or modification of 

habitat, and from competition and predation by introduced nonnative species. Only 9 of the 15

native fish species known to historically occur in the sub-region currently occur within the 

Prescott NF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 23. Aquatic species no longer present 

Sub-basin Watershed Historically Occurring Species No 

Longer Present

Agua Fria Ash Creek/Sycamore Creek Gila topminnow

northern Mexican gartersnake

Upper Verde River

Cherry Creek

Colorado pikeminnow

Loach minnow

Razorback sucker

Spikedace

Grindstone Wash Colorado pikeminnow

Razorback sucker

Lower Verde River Fossil Creek Gila trout

Source: Forest Service, 2009a 

Impairments from Recreation and Management Activities

Affected Environment

The individual watershed condition indicators in the WCC system that best reflect the 

consequences of recreation use and management are: riparian/wetland vegetation, roads and 

trails, and soils. The indicators soils, fire regime or wildfire, forest cover, and rangeland 

vegetation best illustrate the effects of management activities such as prescribed fire use, 

vegetation treatments, and livestock grazing. The water quality condition indicator is also 

influenced in part by the recreation use and management activities on the Prescott NF and is 

examined in further detail in the “Water Quality” section in “Need for Change 2.” 

All 97 sub-watersheds were rated on these indicators using the same three classes as the overall 

assessment: functioning, at-risk, or impaired. Table 24 below shows the number of subwatersheds in each condition class for the condition indicators most closely associated with 

recreation use and management activities. The definitions for each assessment class are provided 

in the discussion of the indicators below. For a more complete discussion of the watershed 

condition classification process and the indicators used, please reference the “Watershed 

Condition Classification Technical Guide” (Forest Service, 2011o). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 101

Table 24. Sub-watershed conditions by selected WCC indicator 

Condition Class

WCC Indicator -

Water Qualit

y

WCC Indicator -

Riparian 

Vegetation

WCC Indicator -

Roads and Trails

WCC Indicator -

Soils

WCC Indicator -

Fire Regime

WCC Indicator -

Forest Cover

WCC Indicator -

Rangeland Vegetation

Functioning sub-watersheds 68 28 0 6 3 39 2

At-risk sub-watersheds 23 52 12 46 91 4 34

Impaired sub-watersheds 6 17 85 45 3 54 61

Source: Forest Service, 2011p

Recreation use on the Prescott NF tends to be concentrated in areas with a close proximity to 

surface water. Such concentrated use typically results in the trampling and collapse of 

streambanks, damage to riparian vegetation, and soil compaction, leading to increased rates of 

erosion and sedimentation. 

As shown in table 24, the riparian/wetland vegetation condition indicator rated approximately 30 

percent (28 of 97) of the sub-watersheds as functioning, 54 percent as at-risk, and about 16 

percent as impaired. Properly functioning riparian/wetland areas contain needed vegetation to 

stabilize streambanks, reduce erosion and improve water quality, filter sediment, improve 

groundwater recharge, provide habitat, and support biodiversity. In those at risk, disturbance 

partially compromises the properly functioning condition of native vegetation attributes in 

riparian corridors or along wetlands and water bodies. In the impaired sub-watersheds, a large 

percent of the native vegetation attributes along riparian corridors, wetlands, and water bodies are 

not functioning properly. 

Roads—and to a lesser extent, trails—are the most significant source of increased sediments into 

stream channels on the Prescott NF. Hard surface roads create linear features with impermeable 

surfaces that have low roughness. Many roads and trails on the Prescott NF are located in 

proximity to surface water and concentrate runoff into these drainages, increasing sediment 

transport, and reducing infiltration rates. The extent of these impacts on the Prescott NF has been 

captured in the WCC roads and trails condition indicator which rated 12 of the 97 sub-watersheds 

(12 percent) as being at-risk (table 24). In these sub-watersheds, there is a moderate chance that 

the stream channels and flows, sediment amounts, water quality, and riparian conditions have 

been substantially altered due to the density and distribution of the roads and trails. The 

remaining 88 percent were rated as impaired, meaning that there is a higher probability that the 

hydrologic conditions have been substantially altered by the roads and trails. 

As noted above, unmanaged recreation use can contribute to the degradation of soil conditions 

through erosion, compaction, and displacement. Degraded soil conditions can contribute to poor 

ratings for other watershed condition indicators such as water quality, riparian or rangeland 

vegetation, and forest cover due to increased sedimentation and the inability to support 

vegetation.

Findings from the ESR analysis (Forest Service, 2009a) shows that the uplands within 15 of the 

22 watersheds have reduced watershed condition integrity due to departed soil conditions (table 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

25). The problem is compounded in five of these watersheds by departed conditions for upland 

vegetation.

Table 25. Reduced watershed condition integrity 

Sub-basin Watershed Reduced Watershed Integrity 

Due to Soil or Vegetation

Agua Fria River

Ash Creek / Sycamore Creek Soils

Bishop Creek Soils

Big Chino Wash

Lower Big Chino Wash Soils

Lower Partridge Creek Soils

Middle Big Chino Wash Both

Williamson Valley Wash Soils

Big Sandy River Muddy Creek Both

Burro Creek

Boulder Creek Both

Upper Burro Creek Both

Santa Maria River Sycamore Creek Soils

Upper Verde River

Cherry Creek Soils

Granite Creek Both

Grindstone Wash Soils

Hell Canyon Soils

Sycamore Creek Soils

Source: Forest Service, 2009a 

In addition to the watershed scale analysis, the soils were evaluated by PNVT for the ESR. It was 

determined that about 48 percent of the soil on the Prescott NF was functioning properly (i.e., 

within its ecological capability to sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental quality, 

and promote plant and animal health), and its ability to sustain outputs was high. Thirty-five 

percent of the soil was classified as impaired, with a reduced ability to function properly, and 17 

percent was in unsatisfactory condition, meaning that it was unable to sustain outputs or naturally 

recover from impacts (table 26).

The greatest extent of soil in satisfactory condition was found within the Interior Chaparral PNVT 

(287,055 acres). In contrast, the three Piñon-Juniper PNVTs (Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub, 

Piñon-Juniper Woodland, and Juniper Grassland) comprising more than half of the acreage on the 

Prescott NF, have a relatively low percentage of satisfactory soil conditions. The Juniper 

Grassland component has the greatest extent of soil in unsatisfactory condition for any vegetation 

type (85,110 acres), and the Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub component has almost 278,000 acres 

classified as impaired or unsatisfactory, the most of any PNVT. Additionally, the grassland 

PNVTs (Semi-Desert Grassland and Great Basin Grassland) contain approximately 150,000 acres 

of soil in impaired or unsatisfactory condition (table 26).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 103

Table 26. Soil Conditions by PNVT 

Potential Natural 

Vegetation Type Total Acres

Satisfactory 

Soil 

Condition

Impaired 

Soil 

Condition

Unsatisfactory 

Soil Condition

All PNVTs 1,247,328 48% 35% 17%

Semi-Desert Grassland 125,712 11% 85% 4%

Great Basin Grassland 38,389 <1% 46% 54%

Juniper Grassland 137,274 13% 25% 62%

Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub 463,296 40% 46% 14%

Interior Chaparral 315,445 91% 8% <1%

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak 63,539 92% 8% <1%

Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak 49,052 90% 10% <1%

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 36,263 25% 45% 30%

Desert Communities 5,919 57% 43% <1%

Riparian Gallery Forest 12,439 20% 54% 26%

Source: Forest Service, 2009a; and EIS table 3

The analysis for the ESR examined the soil conditions associated with the different PNVTs and 

focused on soil productivity. The analysis for the WCC system employed a different methodology 

that examined conditions at the sub-watershed scale and considered erosion and contamination in 

addition to soil productivity. In the WCC analysis, functioning soils were defined as showing 

minor or no alteration to reference soil condition, including erosion, productivity, and chemical 

characteristics. For those at risk, a moderate amount of alteration to reference soil condition is 

evident and the overall soil disturbance is characterized as moderate. Impaired soils display 

significant alteration to reference soil condition and the overall soil disturbance is characterized 

as extensive.

Using the WCC indicator for soils, only 7 percent of the sub-watersheds (representing 3 percent 

of the acreage) were rated as functioning, 47 percent were rated at-risk, and 46 percent were rated 

impaired (table 24). The greater extent of at-risk and impaired soils in the WCC compared to the 

extent of impaired and unsatisfactory soils in the ESR analysis reflects the different methodology 

and definitions used. The additional factors of erosion and contamination considered in the WCC 

analysis are important factors in evaluating the health of the soils and help to provide a more 

complete representation of conditions at the sub-watershed scale. 

Soils may respond to high-intensity fires by becoming hydrophobic (i.e., water repellant), thereby 

reducing the potential for water infiltration into the soil and increasing overland flow. The fire 

regime or wildfire indicator addresses the potential for altered hydrologic and sediment patterns 

due to altered fire frequency and severity. Three percent of the sub-watersheds were rated as 

functioning, 94 percent were rated at-risk, and 3 percent were rated as impaired for this indicator. 

The functioning sub-watersheds have a low likelihood of losing defining ecosystem components 

because of the presence or absence of fire. The likelihood rises to moderate for at-risk subwatersheds and to a high likelihood for those classified as impaired. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The forest cover condition indicator rated 40 percent of the 97 sub-watersheds as functioning, 4 

percent as being in at-risk condition, and 56 percent as impaired (table 24). These ratings are 

based on the amount of land in the sub-watershed that is cut over, denuded, or deforested. For 

functioning sub-watersheds, this is less than 5 percent; for at-risk sub-watersheds, it is between 5 

and 15 percent. Impaired sub-watersheds are those where more than 15 percent of the land is 

deforested. Extensive loss of forest cover affects runoff, erosion, sediment supply, bank stability, 

large woody debris retention, and stream temperature relationships. 

The rangeland vegetation indicator showed that 63 percent of the sub-watersheds were impaired 

and 35 percent were at-risk (table 24). Only two of the 97 sub-watersheds were deemed 

functioning for this indicator. This indicator addresses impacts to soil and water relative to the 

vegetative health of rangelands. In sub-watersheds that have been rated as impaired for rangeland 

vegetation, the composition of the vegetation has been greatly reduced or unacceptably altered 

compared to the natural potential of the area. In areas rated as at-risk, the vegetation has a slight 

to moderate deviation from natural potential.

Environmental Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives 

All of the alternatives propose both wildland fire and mechanical vegetation treatments that 

would benefit watershed integrity. The common impacts to watershed integrity from vegetation 

management activities include soil erosion, soil compaction, sedimentation, interruption in the 

timing of peak flows, and increased water yield in sub-watersheds. The degree of impact depends 

on site-specific features such as the erosion potential of the soil, steepness of slopes, susceptibility 

to slope movement or landslides, and spatial extent and intensity of the activity. The short term 

impacts on the watershed condition from these activities can often be mitigated and are 

outweighed by the long term benefits from the improvements to the structure and composition of 

the vegetation and the reestablishment of a disturbance regime. The restoration of desired 

vegetation conditions contributes to improved water quality, and thus, improved aquatic habitat 

quality by reducing the amount of runoff and associated sedimentation and turbidity. 

Sedimentation and turbidity can degrade the quality of the existing and potential aquatic and 

riparian habitat and work against habitat restoration and species recovery efforts.

Livestock grazing has occurred in this area since the late 1800s (Forest Service, 2009a). Both 

cattle and sheep have grazed portions of the Prescott NF; however, there is currently no permitted 

sheep or goat grazing on the forest. Historic grazing levels have been documented to be a source 

of impact to water resources (Wildeman and Brock, 2000). Site-specific concerns, including 

impacts to riparian areas and springs, currently exist. These impacts include erosion, 

sedimentation, soil compaction, loss of wildlife and fish habitat, decreased water quality, and 

lowered water tables. When the impacts of livestock grazing range are substantial, modifications 

in the timing or amount of grazing activity can reduce the overall impact in critical areas. 

Currently active grazing allotments do not vary across alternatives, and all alternatives are 

evaluated with the same set of desired conditions.

The number of vacant allotments that are retained for potential restocking does not vary by 

alternative. Any actual reissuance of permits to restock any of the retained vacant allotments will 

be evaluated through site-specific NEPA analyses. Because vacant allotments that are retained 

have not been used for many years and will not be restocked without further analysis, there is no 

change in the risk from grazing to watershed resources from the forest plan decision. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 105

Alternative A 

Alternative A continues the current management as directed in the 1987 plan. Current trends 

would restore the fewest acres using managed fire and mechanical vegetation treatments, and 

produce an increase in the backlog of maintenance needs on trails. The result would be the 

slowest rate of improvement in watershed function among the alternatives and no plan emphasis 

for watershed restoration. The rate of progress in addressing vegetation structure and recreation 

impacts under alternative A is slower than the rate at which these impacts to the watershed have 

been accumulating. It can be reasonably assumed that in the absence of a change in management 

direction these impacts will continue to accumulate into the future. 

The goals in the 1987 plan for providing for increased waterflow via large-scale chaparral 

removal (e.g., Battle Flat project) are outdated but would remain in place under alternative A. 

Vegetation manipulation such as chaparral removal can increase streamflow, but research has 

shown that it takes extensive vegetation manipulation to increase water yield, and that the 

increase is predominantly during flood events (Schmidt and Wellman, 1999 from Forest Service, 

2008a). Projects such as the Battle Flat treatment represent an inefficient approach toward 

improving watershed integrity that is not enough to reverse the decline in watershed function on 

the forest. 

The current levels of prescribed burning and mechanical vegetation treatment have been 

inadequate to affect a recovery in watershed function across the forest. Most of the subwatersheds on the forest are currently in an at-risk condition and the continuation of management 

direction under alternative A would not provide the guidance necessary for measurable 

improvement. 

Areas displaying current poor conditions for soil and forest cover such as Grindstone Wash and 

Hell Canyon watersheds in the Upper Verde sub-basin would be unlikely to recover function. 

Watersheds with a substantial number of sub-watersheds in at-risk or impaired condition, such as 

Williamson Valley Wash in the Big Chino Wash sub-basin, would likely trend downward into 

further impairment. Static and downward trending watershed conditions would complicate efforts 

to provide habitat for, and maintain viable populations of, federally listed aquatic and riparian 

species.

Assessment for the WCC also shows that Grindstone Wash is in an at-risk condition for 

riparian/wetland vegetation. Due to its popularity, unmanaged dispersed camping in this area 

could be reasonably expected to trend this condition from at-risk to impaired for some or all of 

the sub-watersheds. Further loss of riparian vegetation function could contribute to accelerated 

erosion, leading to more sedimentation, increased turbidity, and reduced water quality. 

Alternative B 

The vegetation restoration objectives in alternatives B and E (Objectives 1 to 5) contain guidance 

that would increase the use of both wildland fire and mechanical treatments on the forest 

compared to alternative A, which in turn would improve the condition of sub-watersheds. 

Conditions indicators for soils, forest cover, and rangeland vegetation, which all have over 50 

percent of their watershed acreage classified as impaired, could all be reasonably expected to 

trend upward as a result of increased vegetation management. The vegetation treatments in 

alternatives B and E would improve watershed integrity more than alternatives A and D but less 

than alternative C. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The higher range of piñon-juniper acres treated in alternatives B and E Objective 3 could benefit 

Grindstone Wash and Hell Canyon watersheds in the Upper Verde sub-basin in particular. Both of 

these watersheds contain a high percentage of piñon-juniper vegetation types (89 and 98 percent, 

respectively) as well as an impaired rating for soil in all of their sub-watersheds. They also each 

contain a high percentage of acres rated as impaired for forest cover and rangeland vegetation. 

Vegetation treatments in piñon-juniper types can reduce tree and shrub density and canopy cover 

to levels that allow for the creation of openings for the establishment and growth of perennial 

grasses and forbs. As these vegetative communities recover with annual treatments, soils would 

move toward a satisfactory condition. As organic matter and ground cover increase, the three 

primary soil functions of stability, hydrology, and nutrient cycling would recover in these treated 

areas. Improvements in vegetation and soil conditions would improve the quality of the potential 

habitat for Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker populations, aiding any future 

reintroduction efforts.

Alternatives B and E also provides guidance to double the number of acres of grassland on which 

wildland fire is used for treatment (Objectives 1 and 2), compared to alternative A. The Cherry 

Creek watershed in the Upper Verde sub-basin, which contains approximately 30,000 acres of 

Semi-Desert Grasslands, stands to benefit the most from this increase as all seven sub-watersheds 

within Cherry Creek have been rated impaired for rangeland vegetation. The increase in treatment 

acres could be expected to trend the rangeland vegetation indicator toward better conditions as the 

restoration of the desired fire regime would encourage grass recovery and restore ground cover 

for the inhibition of invasive plant species. 

Black Canyon Potential Wilderness Area is located within this watershed and would be 

recommended for designation under this alternative. Within recommended wilderness areas, there 

may be concerns about the ability to perform vegetation management. Mechanical treatments in 

these areas are implemented at the discretion of the forest supervisor and should be consistent 

with the preservation of the wilderness character of the area.

Watershed conditions would also benefit from more active management of dispersed recreation in 

alternative B, which would reduce erosion and sedimentation from poorly maintained trails, 

improve stream or drainage crossings, and lessen the amount of soil compaction and vegetation 

loss in riparian areas. The recreation guidance in alternative B would improve watershed integrity 

more than alternatives A, C, and E but less than alternative D. 

Alternative B would reduce the impacts to watershed integrity from dispersed recreation use. The 

alternative would provide direction (Objective 8) to create new designated dispersed camping 

areas outside of the Prescott Basin in locations where soil compaction and vegetation loss are 

occurring due to recreation use. The potential location that stands to benefit the most would be 

Grindstone Wash watershed, near the upper Verde River in the Upper Verde sub-basin. The 

functional condition of the riparian vegetation in all six sub-watersheds has been compromised by 

disturbance. By containing dispersed camping within designated sites, managers can target 

mitigation efforts to reduce the amount of soil compaction and vegetation loss in this and other 

areas and trend the vegetation toward a properly functioning condition. 

Alternative B would also provide stronger direction to reduce the impacts to watershed integrity 

from trail use (Objectives 16, 17, 20, and 22). In 85 of 97 sub-watersheds analyzed, there is a 

high probability that stream channels and flows, sediment amounts, water quality, and riparian 

conditions have been substantially altered due to the density and distribution of the roads and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 107

trails. The reduction of the trails maintenance backlog would be emphasized, as would specific 

projects targeted toward mitigating road and trail impacts on watershed integrity, such as 

rehabilitating unauthorized roads or trails and improving stream and drainage crossings. 

The watersheds that would most benefit from these actions would be Williamson Valley Wash in 

the Big Chino Wash sub-basin and Sycamore Creek watershed in the Santa Maria River subbasin. Both of these watersheds have over 90,000 acres rated impaired on the roads and trails 

condition indicator. Alternative B and the other action alternatives would provide a greater 

emphasis on managing motorized recreation in this area than is contained in current direction. 

These watersheds are located in the Williamson Valley South Management Area, where the 

primary focus is on motorized recreation opportunities. Motorized recreation focused projects 

could mitigate the effects of increased surface flow due to the increase of hard surface area within 

a watershed. This mitigation could reduce peak flow during high-intensity rain events and help to 

regulate the timing of water delivery by increasing infiltration rates and groundwater recharge. 

These types of projects could also improve water quality by controlling erosion and reducing soil 

loss into watercourses, thereby decreasing turbidity.

Alternative C 

Alternative C is similar to alternatives B and D in the protections and benefits provided to 

watershed integrity (Objectives 18 to 22). They differ in emphasis, with alternative C focusing 

more on the restoration of vegetation and habitat and less on recreation. The result is that, among 

the three action alternatives, alternative C would have the greatest long term benefit on vegetation 

and wildlife habitats but the least reduction of recreation impacts. It would improve watershed 

integrity the most of all of the alternatives.

Alternative C proposes almost three times as many acres of fire treatments in the grassland 

vegetation types as alternatives B, D, and E (Objectives 1 and 2). The emphasis is placed on those 

vegetation types that currently show the greatest gap between the existing and desired conditions. 

Although overall soil conditions for the pine vegetation types are generally satisfactory, the 

grassland vegetation types show a large percentage (92 percent) in impaired or unsatisfactory 

condition as determined by the ESR analysis (Forest Service, 2009a). This would provide the 

most benefit to the Ash Creek/Sycamore Creek watershed in the Agua Fria sub-basin, Cherry 

Creek watershed in the Upper Verde sub-basin, and Lower Big Chino watershed in the Big Chino 

Wash sub-basin due to their high percentage of acres (19 to 34 percent) in grassland and generally 

poor soil conditions as rated by the WCC indicator. Condition indicators for soils, fire regime, 

forest cover, and rangeland vegetation could all be reasonably expected to trend upward in these 

watersheds as a result of the increased treatments. 

Overall, alternative C would provide the greatest potential improvement due to vegetation 

management. This would entail more soil recovery and improved watershed function in the 

grassland than the other alternatives and at least as much improvement in the piñon-juniper 

vegetation types as alternatives B, D, and E (Objective 3). There would be no concerns about 

vegetation management actions in potential wilderness as there are no areas recommended for 

designation in alternative C. The greater long term benefits would come at the cost of increased 

short term disturbance, but recovery from prescribed fire is expected to occur within 3 to 5 years. 

The Ash Creek/Sycamore Creek watershed in the Agua Fria sub-basin contains 3 miles of 

occupied critical habitat for the endangered Gila chub (Forest Service, 2011i). Expected 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

improvements in the Ash Creek/Sycamore Creek watershed conditions under alternative C could 

contribute more than any of the other alternatives to the maintenance of viable populations of 

Gila chub. 

Grindstone Wash watersheds in the Upper Verde sub-basin contain about 28 miles of unoccupied 

critical habitat for the listed razorback sucker, loach minnow, and spikedace, and there are over 3 

more miles of historic habitat in the Cherry Creek watershed in the Upper Verde sub-basin (Forest 

Service, 2011i). The expected improvements in these watersheds could improve the quality of 

potential habitat and contribute more than any of the other alternatives to the maintenance of 

viable populations of razorback sucker, loach minnow, and spikedace.

Alternative C provides the same direction as alternatives B and D to improve stream crossings 

and reduce impacts to watersheds from roads and trails (Objectives 16, 17, 20, and 22), but places 

less of an emphasis on reducing the maintenance backlog on trails (Objective 9). Alternative C 

also contains the same direction as alternative B and E with regard to designating dispersed 

camping areas (Objective 8). The consequences to watershed integrity from alternative C would 

be similar to those from alternative B but would differ in that there would be a smaller reduction 

in the erosion and sedimentation caused by poorly maintained trails. It is expected that trail 

maintenance projects that contribute to improvements to watershed integrity would be given 

priority, but alternative C would only reduce the trail maintenance backlog by 35 to 50 percent 

over 10 years, compared to a 50 to 70 percent reduction under alternatives B and D. Thus, 

alternative C would provide more recreation mitigation than alternatives A and E but less than 

alternatives B and D.

Alternative D 

As noted above, alternative D is similar to alternatives B and C in the protections and benefits 

provided to watershed integrity (Objectives 18 to 22). Alternative D focuses more on recreation 

and less on the restoration of vegetation and habitat. The result is that it would have similar long 

term benefits to vegetation and wildlife habitats as alternative B but would provide more 

mitigation for recreation impacts. Alternative D would improve watershed integrity more than 

alternative B but less than alternative C. 

Alternative D proposes the same minimum levels of vegetation treatment as alternative B, but the 

upper ends of the treatment ranges for the piñon-juniper and chaparral vegetation types are lower 

(Objectives 3 and 4). The effect would be that any particular watershed may be less likely to 

receive a vegetation treatment. As with alternative B, Grindstone Wash and Hell Canyon 

watersheds could still be the most likely to benefit due to their high percentage of piñon-juniper 

vegetation types and impaired rating for soil in all of their sub-watersheds. Fritsche B and 

Muldoon Potential Wilderness Areas are located within these watersheds and would be 

recommended for designation under this alternative. Within recommended wilderness areas, 

management actions such as vegetation treatments are implemented at the discretion of the forest 

supervisor and should be consistent with the preservation of the wilderness character of the area.

The consequences with respect to recreation impacts would be similar to alternative B, with a 

greater reduction in the soil compaction, vegetation loss, erosion, and sedimentation caused by 

dispersed recreation. Alternative D contains the same direction as alternatives B and C to improve 

stream crossings and reduce erosion and sedimentation from roads and trails (Objectives 16, 17, 

20, and 22), and places the same emphasis on reducing the maintenance backlog on trails as 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 109

alternative B (Objective 9). However, under alternative D there would be guidance to create more 

designated dispersed camping areas and improve more trailheads (Objectives 8 and 11). This 

could result in a greater increase in watershed integrity as more areas are managed to mitigate the 

soil compaction and vegetation loss associated with unregulated dispersed camping. 

Grindstone Wash watershed also contains Muldoon Potential Wilderness Area. Under alternative 

D, Muldoon would be recommended for wilderness designation, and management actions would 

be implemented at the discretion of the forest supervisor. Vegetation treatments in the areas that 

could indirectly improve the quality of razorback sucker, loach minnow, and spikedace habitat 

might not be authorized if they are deemed incompatible with the wilderness character of the 

area. Developed recreation facilities and designated dispersed camping sites would be precluded 

from the boundaries of the area because they would negatively impact the wilderness character of 

the area. 

Alternative D also contains provisions to create new trails, decommission existing trails that are 

unneeded, and rehabilitate unauthorized routes that cause resource damage (Objective 17). This 

would benefit watershed integrity by redirecting users off of user-created trails and roads and on 

to system trails and roads that have been designed to accommodate use and minimize erosion. As 

with alternative B, the watersheds that would most benefit from these actions would be 

Williamson Valley Wash and Sycamore Creek (Santa Maria).

Alternative E 

The vegetation restoration objectives in alternative E (Objectives 1 to 5) contain the same 

guidance as alternative B. Condition indicators for soils, forest cover, and rangeland vegetation, 

which all have over 50 percent of their watershed acreage classified as impaired, could be 

reasonably expected to trend upward as a result of increased vegetation management. The 

vegetation treatments in alternatives B and E would improve watershed integrity more than 

alternatives A and D but less than alternative C. 

As with alternative B, Grindstone Wash and Hell Canyon watersheds could benefit from the 

higher range of piñon-juniper acres treated in Objective 3, and the Cherry Creek watershed stands 

to benefit the most from the increase in wildland fire treatment in grasslands. The improvements 

in vegetation and soil conditions expected from these treatments would improve the quality of the 

potential habitat for Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker populations, aiding any future 

reintroduction efforts.

Alternative E provide the same dispersed recreation guidance in Objectives 8 and 16 as 

alternative B, and watershed conditions would benefit from this more active management. 

Objective 22 is also the same between these alternatives and would improve stream or drainage 

crossings and lessen the amount of soil compaction and vegetation loss in riparian areas. The 

consequences to watershed integrity from alternative E would differ slightly from alternatives B, 

C, and D due to the removal of language in Objective 9 that addresses trail deferred maintenance. 

This lack of emphasis could contribute to the erosion and sedimentation caused by poorly 

maintained trails. Overall, the recreation guidance in alternative E would improve watershed 

integrity more than alternative A, but less than alternatives B, C, and D. 

Objective 18 in alternative E uses new language to establish the extent of the objective and clarify 

that the emphasis is on high-priority watersheds. Although the minimum number of projects was 

changed from 20 across the forest to 5 in each high-priority watershed, the intent of the objective 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

has not been changed, and it can be reasonably assumed that over a 10-year period this would not 

cause a noticeable change to the consequences described for the other action alternatives. 

Alternative E provides different direction for Objective 20 than that found in alternatives B, C, 

and D. Whereas the other action alternatives propose maintaining or repairing 20 to 100 miles of 

roads or trails, alternative E focuses on repair and relocation and does not include routine 

maintenance towards meeting this objective. In this respect, the guidance in alternative E could be 

reasonably expected to trend the watershed towards desired conditions at a faster rate than the 

other alternatives. The Ash Creek/Sycamore Creek watershed is the largest watershed where all of 

the subwatersheds have been rated poor with regard to impacts from roads and trails; it would be 

the watershed most likely to benefit from this direction. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Watershed integrity is affected by management activities that occur both on the Prescott NF and 

on adjacent land under private, State, or other Federal management. The consequences of these 

actions are cumulative across boundaries. These cumulative actions could produce positive results 

such as increased infiltration and aquifer recharge rates, as would be the case with vegetation 

management, or they could have negative impacts such as an increase in the rate and amount of 

erosion and sedimentation, as with cumulative impacts from recreation or livestock grazing. It is 

not possible to assess cumulative watershed effects analysis at this scale of strategic planning; 

however, detailed quantitative cumulative watershed effects analyses would be completed at the 

project level. 

Reasonably foreseeable management activities on private, State, or other Federal land would be 

similar to vegetation management performed on the forest—prescribed burning to restore fire 

disturbance regimes or the thinning or removal of juniper to increase herbaceous growth—with 

short term impacts and long term benefits similar to those described above. Private landowners 

may implement these actions in conjunction with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) programs to restore watershed health and function or to improve grazing lands. 

Recreation and management actions pertaining to watershed restoration on adjacent national 

forests would also be similar to actions taken by the Prescott NF. The Coconino, Kaibab, and 

Tonto NFs all share common watersheds with the Prescott, and the combined and coordinated 

efforts in these areas would trend watersheds toward functional condition at a faster rate than 

current management direction. Specific management direction for these adjacent national forests 

can be found in their respective forest plans.

Unregulated off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on neighboring lands could increase erosion and 

sedimentation from poorly maintained or impromptu roads and trails. These paths are often 

located in riparian areas or straight up steep slopes, compounding the potential for soil 

displacement. Although the impacts would have little direct effect if they were downstream from 

the forest, they could still have a detrimental effect on the overall health of the watershed. 

Although there are restrictions in place for cross-country use of OHVs on adjacent national 

forests, there is no consistent regulation to prevent these impacts on State and private land. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 111

Riparian Areas, Seeps, and Springs

Affected Environment

Riparian ecosystems comprise the transition area between the aquatic ecosystem (including the 

stream channel, lakebed, water, biotic community, and habitat) and the adjacent terrestrial system. 

Healthy riparian corridors act as buffers between these two environments, metering the water 

yield for late season streamflows. A reduction in the functional capability of a riparian area can 

lead to higher flow rates within stream channels. Higher flow rates have a greater capacity for 

erosion and sediment transport within the stream system, and significant increases in the volume 

and duration of peak flows can adversely impact channel stability and aquatic habitat. Riparian 

vegetation also serves to create roughness that reduces stream velocity and stabilize streambanks, 

thus the removal of riparian vegetation can lead to bank erosion during high streamflows (Neary 

et al., 2010). 

There are approximately 80 miles of perennial streams on the Prescott NF. Other than the Verde 

River, most perennial streams experience spatially interrupted surface flow, especially during 

periods of drought. The climate is variable in nature, and the Prescott NF can experience 

consecutive years of low rainfall and extended droughts, as well as years with high amounts of 

precipitation and associated flooding. Observed temperature and precipitation levels are strongly 

correlated with altitude, with higher elevations experiencing cooler temperatures and receiving 

more precipitation. The combination of high-intensity rainfall events, lack of natural groundcover, 

and steep slopes often generates high magnitude storm events that transform stream channel 

morphology and associated riparian habitat. 

The location of springs and seeps are a result of both precipitation and geologic structure and are 

generally found where an impervious geologic stratum intersects the land surface. Watersheds 

that receive higher amounts of precipitation and contain geologic strata with relatively low 

permeability (e.g., granitic/metamorphic with lower degrees of fracturing) have a higher 

incidence of small local springs. Lake Pleasant, Upper Hassayampa, and Big Bug watersheds in 

the upper portion of the Bradshaw Mountains are in this category (Forest Service, 2009a). Cherry 

Creek, which drains the east side of Mingus Mountain, also has a high density of springs and 

seeps. Watershed areas with more permeable substrates may contribute to groundwater recharge 

which percolates deeper at the point of infiltration and surfaces at springs a further distance from 

the upland areas of precipitation. In these cases, the location of the springs is often downstream 

from the national forest such as the Verde River headwater springs near the confluence with 

Granite Creek (Forest Service, 2009a). 

Groundwater use on the Prescott NF is limited to special-use permittees, developed campgrounds, 

and administrative sites. The permittees include those who hold grazing permits and have wells, 

tanks, or other developed waters to support their operations. Other permits for water development 

have been issued to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) for the installation of 

water sources to support wildlife.

The Prescott NF has 563 springs and seeps inventoried in the National Hydrologic Dataset. 

Overall, at the sub-basin level the forest administers about 13 percent of the land area containing 

32 percent of the known springs and seeps. Three sub-basins, the Agua Fria, Big Chino Wash, and 

Hassayampa, contain the majority of these hydrologic features. In the Big Chino Wash and 

Hassayampa sub-basins, Prescott NF land constitutes 16 percent and 13 percent of the land area, 

respectively, and contains 83 percent and 59 percent of the springs and seeps (Forest Service, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

2009a). Within these two sub-basins, the seeps and springs are disproportionally clustered on the 

Prescott NF, and thus, are susceptible to cumulative effects from actions on adjacent lands. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would continue management under the direction set in the 1987 plan. The result 

would be the status quo—a situation that was identified by the public and forest managers as in 

need of a change. Although there is direction to restore watershed condition and improve riparian 

areas, there are few time specific statements of measureable results that respond to these goals.

Flood plains and wetlands would be addressed by avoiding “adverse impact to the public, 

Government facilities and all uses” (Forest Service, 1987, p. 14). This “adverse impact” is not 

defined, so it is unclear if the focus of this goal is supposed to be public safety or the health and 

function of the watershed. This direction appears weak and vague when compared to the direction 

contained in the action alternatives to the plan to “(m)aintain or enhance...water dependent 

ecosystem sites containing seeps and springs” in Objective 23. The focus of 1987 plan direction is 

reactive, not proactive, and provides no guidance for restoring current departed conditions. Under 

alternative A, recovery of seeps and springs would occur at a slower rate than under the action 

alternatives. Based on historic trends, the rate of recovery under alternative A would be equivalent 

to about 25 to 50 percent of the rate under the action alternatives.

The riparian area goals under current direction would include improvement and maintenance to 

bring all areas to a functioning condition. Although the Prescott NF has made progress toward 

this goal, nearly two-thirds of the sub-watersheds are classified as at-risk for riparian/wetland 

vegetation, and the rate of improvement has made inadequate progress toward correcting this 

situation. At best, alternative A would maintain the status of the 28 sub-watersheds rated 

functioning for the riparian/wetland vegetation condition indicator (table 24). However, lack of 

strong direction and time-bound objectives could lead to a further decline in the number of 

properly functioning sub-watersheds. 

Under alternative A, riparian areas and water dependent ecosystems would not benefit from the 

additional protection afforded by the increased dispersed recreation management proposed in the 

action alternatives. The turbidity and reduced water quality that result from vegetation loss and 

sedimentation would continue and could reasonably be expected to increase with increased 

visitation. The increases in infiltration and groundwater recharge rates from the increased 

vegetation treatments in the action alternatives would also be absent under current direction. 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The objectives for riparian area and water dependent ecosystem restoration are the same for all 

three of these alternatives. Guidance under these alternatives would accelerate restoration 

activities for riparian areas, springs, and seeps by providing specific, time-bound objectives for 

their recovery. Between 10 and 40 percent of the impaired or at-risk riparian areas would be 

improved within 1 to 5 years (Objective 19), in contrast to 10 acres over 10 years under 1987 plan 

direction. This could result in functional improvement in up to 26 at-risk sub-watersheds, 

depending on the final location and intensity of the restoration activities. The number of seeps or 

springs maintained or enhanced over the next 10 years would at least double from the previous 

10, from 12 to 25, and could be as high as 55 groundwater dependent sites (Objective 23). This 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 113

could result in improved function and a better condition class rating for impaired and at-risk subwatersheds in the Big Chino Wash and Hassayampa River sub-basins. 

These areas would also indirectly benefit from the increased recreation and vegetation 

management in the action alternatives. All of the alternatives would reduce the trampling of 

riparian vegetation and the degradation of streambanks by shifting recreation use away from these 

areas and on to more durable surfaces. Vegetation treatments would improve the infiltration in the 

treated areas which would increase the aquifer recharge rate and maintain the continuity of supply 

for seeps and springs. As noted above, there is no change from current management direction 

proposed for livestock grazing in any of the alternatives that were considered in detail. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E, similar to the other action alternatives, would accelerate restoration activities for 

riparian areas, springs, and seeps by providing specific, time-bound objectives for their recovery. 

Objective 23 is the same in alternative E as in the other action alternatives; therefore, the effects 

could be reasonably assumed to be the same. 

However, alternative E uses a different metric for Objective 19 than the other action alternatives, 

stating that the forest will “implement projects to counter 1 to 3 critical threats to riparian system 

functionality” rather than “improve 10 to 40 percent of improperly functioning or at-risk riparian 

areas.” This change was made to shift towards a proactive approach to improve riparian areas as 

opposed to a reactive approach. This proactive approach could result in a functional improvement 

for more sub-watersheds than the other alternatives, although a direct comparison of extent is not 

possible.

Alternative E also contains an objective (Objective 31) not present in the other alternatives that 

provides direction to apply for in-stream flow water rights. Securing these water rights would 

help to provide for channel and floodplain maintenance and the recharge of riparian aquifers, 

benefiting the riparian areas associated with the surface flows and the groundwater dependent 

seeps and springs in the surrounding areas.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects of management activities and the expansion of urban populations in 

vicinity of the Prescott NF indicate a trend toward increased pressure to develop more 

groundwater resources. The results are increased risks of damage to groundwater quality, lowered 

groundwater tables, reduced base flows, loss of seeps and springs, and shifts in riparian species.

Water balance calculations indicate that about 1 to 2 percent of annual precipitation infiltrates and 

recharges the Little Chino and Big Chino aquifers, and about 4 percent of the annual precipitation 

is captured in the Verde Valley aquifer. This amount has probably been reduced since the 

predevelopment period before 1940 (Blasch et al., 2006), and continued future development in 

the Verde Valley and Paulden areas could further lower these recharge rates. The primary cause in 

this reduction would be the increase in hard surface area, leading to a loss of precipitation from 

increased runoff and decreased infiltration. The Big Chino aquifer has been reported as providing 

more than 80 percent of the flow for the Verde River headwater springs (Wirt et al., 2005). 

Potential groundwater withdrawals from the Big Chino aquifer authorized by the Arizona Ground 

Water Transportation Act, along with potential new consumptive uses in the area, could 

potentially and substantially affect streamflows in the Verde River and headwater tributaries.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

These aquifers receive most of their recharge from higher altitudes, predominantly land 

administered by the National Forest System. Overdraft of the regional aquifers is occurring as 

groundwater outflows from all three sub-basins are greater than inflows (Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, 2009). Most groundwater use occurs outside the forest boundary but 

affects the groundwater within Prescott NF lands. Aquifer depletion and drawdown from private 

wells would cumulatively add to the minor consequence of livestock wells and developed waters 

on the Prescott NF that have a similar effect.

Water Quality

Affected Environment

Overall, the Prescott NF water quality is considered to be good to excellent. Ratings for the WCC 

condition indicator water quality showed approximately 70 percent (68 of 97) of the subwatersheds were classified as functioning (table 24). In these sub-watersheds, there is little to no 

impairment to beneficial uses of the water bodies and no documented water quality concerns such 

as excessive sediment or pollution. The 23 sub-watersheds that received an at-risk rating display 

minor impairment to the beneficial use of their water bodies, and the 6 impaired sub-watersheds 

show significant impairment to beneficial uses of the water bodies. 

Areas of greatest concern in the WCC analysis are the Black Canyon Creek watershed in the 

Agua Fria sub-basin and the Cherry Creek watershed in the Upper Verde sub-basin. However, 

there are stream segments within four sub-basins—Agua Fria, Hassayampa, Upper Verde, and 

Lower Verde—that currently do not meet State and National water quality standards and are 

classified by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality as impaired. Overall trends in 

water quality are considered to be upward or improving.

Water quantity and timing are affected by the climate on the Prescott NF. Precipitation is 

generally bimodal, with most occurring during the summer monsoons and winter frontal storms. 

Water yield varies by sub-basin, and the watersheds associated with the Bradshaw Mountains 

receive proportionately more precipitation per acre than areas at lower elevations. Because of the 

relatively higher precipitation in the central highlands, Prescott NF lies within some of the most 

important water producing watersheds in Arizona. These high levels of precipitation contribute 

substantially to surface flows, groundwater recharge, and the maintenance of seeps and springs. 

In natural stream systems with a steady base flow, long term recharge is assumed to be in balance 

with spring and stream discharge from the aquifer. These areas also provide drinking water 

sources for wildlife as well as municipalities downstream. Within several watersheds of the Agua 

Fria, Hassayampa, and Santa Maria River sub-basins the Prescott NF lands provide a high water 

yield potential relative to the overall sub-basin area. 

In 2008, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality included 126 miles of stream courses 

(including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral reaches) on the Prescott NF in their most recent 

water quality assessment. The water quality was assessed by comparing existing conditions with 

the desired conditions set by the State of Arizona, under authority of the Clean Water Act of 1972 

(P.L. 92-500). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 115

Table 27. Prescott NF water quality by ADEQ assessment category 

Category Water Quality Miles Percent

1 Achieved all standards 34 27

2 At least one standard achieved, others inconclusive 

291

23

3 Insufficient data for assessment

4 Impaired or threatened, further analysis not required 43 34

5 Impaired or threatened, further analysis is required 20 16

Source: Forest Service, 2008b 

1

 Categories 2 and 3 were combined in reference (Forest Service, 2008b) 

Approximately 34 miles (27 percent) were rated category 1, meaning that they achieved all 

standards. Another 29 miles (23 percent) were rated as category 2 or 3, due to a lack of data 

needed to determine suitability for all designated uses. Of these 29 miles, less than 4 miles did not 

meet standards for a designated use. Two lakes, Granite Basin Lake and Lynx Lake, are listed in 

the assessment as requiring additional monitoring. 

The remaining 63 miles (50 percent) are classified as impaired category 4 or 5, meaning that the 

segment is impaired or threatened for at least one designated use and may require further analysis. 

Causes for impairment include metal leaching from historic mining operations in the Hassayampa 

River sub-basin and water turbidity in most of the Verde River between Perkinsville Bridge and 

the Tonto NF boundary. Remediation projects and additional assessments in these watersheds are 

ongoing. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would continue management direction under the guidance of the 1987 plan. The 

result would be that water quality would continue to follow the current upward trend, with no 

change in the rate of this improvement. There would be no expected changes to the quantity or 

timing of waterflows. 

Site-specific remediation would continue under the direction of the current plan. These would 

include efforts such as the work completed in July of 2007 on Turkey Creek in the Black Canyon 

Creek watershed to remove tailings from the flood plain, cap tailings with vegetation, and control 

the escape of pollutants from shafts and adits. Ongoing remediation efforts treating the McCleur 

Mine tailings in the Upper Hassayampa River watershed will result in continued improvement for 

this category 4 area.

The result of alternative A would be that water quality issues would continue to be addressed in a 

reactive, site-specific manner as opposed to using a proactive strategy with plan level emphasis. 

Alternative A does not contain the specific guidance for mitigating road and trail impacts to 

watershed integrity (Objectives 16, 17, 20, and 22) as the action alternatives, and thus, would 

continue to improve the water quality at the current rate of progress.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

All of the action alternatives would result in an accelerated rate of improvement in the quality, 

quantity, and timing of water on the Prescott NF. Water quality, quantity, and timing are directly 

related to the condition and function of the watershed and would benefit from the plan 

components focused on watershed integrity and function. The current trend in improvement of 

water quality would be accelerated by the vegetation treatments and recreation management 

proposals contained in these alternatives.

On the Prescott NF, the largest contributors to water quality degradation include past mining 

activities, livestock grazing, roads, and ground disturbances created by inappropriate and illegal 

OHV use such as cross-country travel and motorized use of nonmotorized trails. There is no 

change from current management direction proposed for mining or livestock grazing in any of the 

alternatives that were considered in detail. All of the action alternatives contain guidance for 

mitigating road and trail impacts to watershed integrity (Objectives 16, 17, 20, and 22), and the 

environmental consequences were disclosed in the “Impairments from Recreation and 

Management Activities” section in “Need for Change 2.” As previously noted, the difference in 

the trail maintenance for alternative C would be negligible with regard to impact on water quality. 

However, Objective 9 in alternative E does not address deferred trail maintenance; therefore, it 

can be reasonably assumed that there would be no improvement to water quality associated with 

this objective in alternative E. The action alternatives also contain specific standards (StandardsWatersheds-1 to 3) protecting watersheds from gas, oil, and other contaminates to water quality. 

Although these contaminates are not large contributors to water quality degradation, they 

represent a source of contamination that can be feasibly contained. 

All of these alternatives would trend toward desired conditions in upland vegetation, which would 

help maintain water quantity and quality and provide timing that is commensurate with natural 

geomorphology. In grasslands and piñon-juniper evergreen shrub vegetation types, slowing or 

reversing tree and shrub encroachment would result in increased herbaceous ground cover, which 

in turn would improve water infiltration and aquifer recharge rates. Increased infiltration helps to 

capture some of the water that would be otherwise lost downstream. The groundwater 

accumulated in the aquifer can act as a buffer, helping to even out the timing of water delivery 

and providing a more consistent streamflow. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative effects include activities on the Prescott NF as well as other public and privates lands. 

Urbanization near and adjacent to the forest can contribute to cumulative watershed effects and is 

of particular concern. Although development on inholdings and land adjacent to the forest has 

slowed recently, as economic conditions improve there will likely be renewed interest in these 

areas. Development has the potential to negatively affect water quality downstream through a 

variety of means, including runoff leading to increased erosion and sediment, pollutants from 

vehicles, and increased nutrient loading. However, there are also risks to water quality associated 

with agricultural use such as accelerated erosion, increased sediment, or biological contamination 

from livestock grazing in riparian areas.

The Kaibab NF completed their revised plan in February 2014, and the Coconino NF is currently 

revising their plan. Both of the forests have developed plan guidance to trend watersheds and 

water quality toward identified desired conditions, and along with the Tonto NF, are also using 

the “Watershed Condition Framework” to assess watershed conditions, identify priority 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 117

watersheds, and focus watershed restoration efforts. This will have a positive effect on water 

quality, especially in watersheds shared across boundaries with these other national forests.

Watershed Resilience to Climate Change

Affected Environment

Most of the watersheds on the Prescott NF are at risk of functional impairment, and restoring 

their health and function is crucial to strengthening their resilience. Resilience is the ability of a 

watershed to adapt to changes without a loss of function. In the coming years, it is expected that 

the Southwest will experience a shift in climatic conditions. Mean annual temperatures could 

increase 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, and summer heat waves could last 2 weeks or more. 

Winter temperatures would also be warmer, with a corresponding reduced snowpack. Overall, 

precipitation could decrease. Monsoon rains could arrive later in the summer, and a greater 

percentage of the precipitation could arrive in the form of high-intensity rain events (Forest 

Service, 2010a). 

Environmental Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives 

Changes in climate may directly affect watershed conditions on the Prescott NF by reducing base 

flows for surface waters, resulting in less water available for groundwater recharge. Changes in 

climate could also indirectly affect watershed conditions through an increase in the frequency and 

severity of wildfire or an increase in recreation use during both peak and off-peak seasons. More 

frequent and severe fire and increased year round recreation use would impact watershed 

conditions by accelerating vegetation loss, increasing erosion and sedimentation, and decreasing 

infiltration and aquifer recharge rates.

The treatment of Juniper Grassland and Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub vegetation types would 

modify tree and shrub density and allow for increased herbaceous ground cover, encouraging 

water infiltration and improved resilience to potentially more frequent, high-intensity rain events. 

Modifying vegetation structure and composition to more open conditions would allow individual 

plants to better compete for limited water and would facilitate ecosystem transition from current 

to new conditions (Millar et al., 2007). Improving at-risk and improperly functioning riparian 

areas could benefit deep rooted riparian vegetation and improve resiliency to some flood events. 

The modification methods employed across all alternatives include the use of wildland fire and 

mechanical treatments. Landscape scale application of wildland fire enhances resistance to loss 

and facilitates natural (evolutionary) adaptation and migration as climate changes (Fulé, 2008; 

Hurteau and Brooks, 2011).

Predicted higher mean annual temperatures and milder winters could lead to a shift in vegetation 

patterns and open up new areas to native and nonnative invasive plant species. Of particular 

concern to watershed resilience is tamarisk, which is currently found in riparian areas below 

3,200 feet in elevation. Tamarisk has a detrimental effect on watershed function; it out competes 

native riparian vegetation and reduces in-stream flow by increasing the vegetation evapotranspiration rate. The increase in temperature could allow these plants to expand to higher 

elevations or to survive through the winter with more vigor. This, in turn, could lead to more subwatersheds trending from functioning to at-risk.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Improvements to watershed function will increase the resilience of the affected ecosystems. 

Watersheds that are at risk of functional impairment (class 2) are less able to adapt to changes 

such as increased peak flows and shifts in water delivery and, in the absence of management 

action, are more likely to become impaired (class 3) due to these factors. Watershed improvement 

activities such as treatments that increase vegetative ground cover; repair of roads or trails that 

impact watershed integrity; or restoration and maintenance of seeps and springs would strengthen 

watershed function and resiliency.

Alternative A 

As noted in the “Impairments from Recreation and Management Activities” section (see “Need 

for Change 2”), the rate of improvement in watershed function under alternative A would be the 

slowest among the alternatives, and there would be no plan emphasis for watershed restoration. 

Under this direction, resilience to climate change would not likely be emphasized. Watersheds 

would continue to show some improvement in function, but the rate of progress is slower than the 

rate at which impacts to the watershed have been accumulating. Thus, the improvements would 

be at greater risk of reversing due to the potential effects of climate change. Alternative A 

provides the least amount of resilience and capacity for plant communities to adapt to changing 

climate and a less aggressive strategy for treating nonnative invasive plants. It is likely that this 

would result in the fewest number of class 2 at-risk watersheds improving their function and may 

result in more watersheds becoming class 3 impaired.

Alternative B 

Under alternative B, watershed conditions could be reasonably expected to trend upward as a 

result of increased vegetation management. All of the action alternatives have the same minimum 

number of acres treated in Juniper Grassland and Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub vegetation 

types, but alternatives B and E provide direction for a higher maximum (Objective 3). They have 

a greater potential to improve watershed function, and thus, strengthen resilience at a quicker rate 

than alternatives A and D but not as quickly as alternative C. Alternative B also contains a more 

aggressive approach to controlling nonnative invasive plants than alternative A or alternative E 

(Objective 6). The result would be a greater probability that at-risk class 2 watersheds would be 

better able to adapt to changes such as increased peak flows and shifts in water delivery. There 

would also be less chance that some of these at-risk watersheds lose functionality and become 

class 3 impaired watersheds.

Alternative C 

Alternative C could be reasonably expected to improve watershed function and resilience at the 

quickest rate of all of the alternatives, due to its emphasis on vegetation management and 

ecosystem restoration. Alternative C contains the same direction for controlling nonnative 

invasive plants as alternatives B and D. The result would be that alternative C has the highest 

probability of at-risk class 2 watersheds developing the resilience to adapt to changes such as 

increased peak flows and shifts in water delivery. It would also provide the lowest probability of 

at-risk watersheds losing functionality and becoming class 3 impaired watersheds.

Alternative D 

Alternative D would provide a slower rate of improvement to watershed function than 

alternatives B and C but would strengthen resilience more than alternatives A and E, due to more 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 119

acres of vegetation treatment than alternative A and more mitigation of recreation impacts than 

either of these two alternatives. Alternative D contains the same direction for controlling 

nonnative invasive plants as alternatives B and C, which is more aggressive than alternatives A 

and E. The result would be that alternative D has a greater probability of at-risk class 2 

watersheds developing the resilience to adapt to changes such as increased peak flows and shifts 

in water delivery than alternative A. However, it could be reasonably expected that watershed 

resilience would be more likely to develop, and to develop more quickly, under alternatives B or 

C. Under any of the action alternatives, at-risk class 2 watersheds are more likely to improve their 

functional condition and less likely to become impaired class 3 watersheds than under alternative 

A.

Alternative E 

Alternative E would provide the slowest rate of improvement to watershed function of the action 

alternatives but would strengthen resilience more than alternative A. Alternative E contains the 

same direction for vegetation treatments as alternative B (Objectives 1 through 5) but is less 

aggressive in treating nonnative invasive plants; alternatives B, C, and D direct the control or 

eradication of 75 to 95 percent of nonnative invasive plant species; while alternative E requires 

only treatment of at least 50 percent. Alternative A has no specific plan direction for the treatment 

or control of nonnative invasive plants. The result would be that alternative E has a greater 

probability of at-risk class 2 watersheds developing the resilience to adapt to changes such as 

increased peak flows and shifts in water delivery than alternative A but not as likely or as quickly 

as under alternatives B, C, or D.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative effects take into account the actions of the Prescott NF as well as activities on other 

public and privates lands. Changes in climate will affect both the Prescott NF and adjacent lands, 

and the previously mentions cumulative factors that affect watershed integrity and function, such 

as vegetation treatments and recreation impacts, would also affect the resilience and adaptability 

of the watershed. 

In addition, watershed function can also be affected by control measures, or the lack thereof, 

implemented on invasive plants populations on adjacent lands. A lack of tamarisk control efforts 

in shared watersheds creates a risk that it could spread from adjacent lands onto the forest. This 

could compromise watershed function and reduce ecosystem resilience and adaptability. The 

threat is particularly acute if the population is upstream of forest land; in-stream flow is a 

common method of seed transport for tamarisk and other invasive species.

Need for Change 3

Provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider population demographic 

characteristics, reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding and user conflicts, and 

minimize resource damage. 

This section addresses the issue of providing recreation opportunities that meet user expectations, 

and summarizes the current recreation environment on the Prescott NF and the consequences to 

recreation of implementing the revised plan or its alternatives. The full analysis can be found in 

the “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Recreation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2011g).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Affected Environment

The Prescott’s unique mix of climate zones provide for “cool zone” heat relief 

from the Arizona sun in the summer and a “warm zone” in the winter. The forest 

offers short duration day use recreation on trails supported by development that 

provides staging areas and resource protection. Adventure activities are 

strategically managed to be compatible with one another to preserve the natural 

setting and the ecosystems of the forest.

Prescott National Forest Recreation Niche

As noted in the Prescott National Forest Recreation Niche statement (Forest Service, 2006), the 

mild climate encourages year round recreation on the forest. The primary activities center around 

day use and include viewing scenery; driving for pleasure; and trail use by off-highway vehicles 

(OHVs), hikers, bicyclists, and horseback riders. Most of the visitors are local, from Yavapai or 

Maricopa County. The majority of the forest is located within Yavapai County, and the southern 

portion of the forest is adjacent to Maricopa County and less than 90 miles from the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. 

Developed sites on the Prescott NF include campgrounds, picnic areas, lake access, equestrian 

areas, rental cabins, and a recreational shooting range. The forest also contains almost 800 miles 

of both motorized and nonmotorized trails and over 100,000 acres of designated wilderness. The 

Prescott NF strives to offer a range of opportunities for recreation experiences. Recreation 

experiences are shaped by the activity performed and the setting in which it is pursued. Examples 

of different experiences include camping within a developed campground, driving for pleasure 

along a dirt road, or horseback riding within a designated wilderness. The Prescott NF cannot 

directly create or provide experiences, although through differences in management and level of 

development it can provide a range of settings in which to pursue different activities, and thus, 

provide the opportunity for these experiences. 

Visitors to the Prescott NF

The most recent data available indicates the Prescott NF received approximately 1,278,600 visits 

during Fiscal Year 2007 (Forest Service, 2009d). A majority of visitors to the Prescott NF are 

male (57 percent), predominately Caucasian (98 percent), and non-Hispanic (96 percent). About 

one-third of visitors are under the age of 16, another third are between 16 and 49, and one-third 

are 50 years or older. Primary activities on the forest include hiking/walking, viewing natural 

features/scenery, driving for pleasure, and relaxing. According to National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Results (NVUM) gathered in 2007 and published in 2009, the largest percentage of respondents 

who provided zip code information was from Yavapai County, accounting for 61 percent of the 

survey respondents. Twenty-six percent of the visitors were from Maricopa County, and only one 

percent of the visitors were from the Flagstaff area (Forest Service, 2009c). All of the other 

visitors were from throughout the Nation.

Visitors can find information about the Prescott NF on the forest Web site or in venues on and 

around the forest. Information sharing has been focused on traditional onsite and face-to-face 

methods of communication, and the Prescott NF has been slow to take advantage of electronic 

media. Visitor information, maps, and brochures are available during office hours at the district 

offices in Prescott, Chino Valley, and Camp Verde. In addition, there are bulletin boards and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 121

informational signs at developed sites and a uniformed presence, in the form of staff and 

volunteers, throughout the forest. 

Recreation Use on the Prescott NF

Visitor numbers at Prescott NF developed recreation sites have remained stable or increased 

slightly over time. Between 2002 and 2007, information on numbers of users paying fees at 

developed sites ranged from a low of 204,900 in 2005 to a high of 219,300 in 2004 (Forest 

Service, 2009c). The developed recreation facilities have remained in good condition and 

between 2002 and 2010, the maintenance backlog was reduced 88 percent, from just over 

$1,000,000 to just over $120,000. However, the backlog of needed maintenance can build up as 

visitation increases; this is referred to as deferred maintenance. Deferred maintenance tends to 

accrue the quickest at developed sites that are operating at or over capacity for a majority of their 

season.

The current capacity of developed recreation day-use sites is adequate for the levels of visitation; 

almost 93 percent of visitors to developed day-use sites rated crowding as a 6 or less on a scale of 

1 to 10, with 10 representing “overcrowded” and one representing “hardly anyone there.” The 

overnight developed sites such as campgrounds appear to be under greater pressure from 

visitation; only 59 percent of visitors to overnight developed sites rated crowding as a six or less 

on the same scale. Still, visitors to both day use and overnight developed sites generally 

expressed satisfaction with the facilities, with 88 percent indicating that they were either 

somewhat or very satisfied with the condition and cleanliness (Forest Service, 2009d). 

Outside of the Prescott Basin, a person can generally camp in any location on the forest that is not 

a developed recreation site; this is often called dispersed camping. However, areas that are suited 

for camping can be limited by steep slopes, uninviting vegetation, distance to water, and lack of 

access. Those areas that are desirable receive high use, especially if they are near water or during 

weekends and holiday periods, which can lead to compaction of soils, trampling of ground 

vegetation, and unplanned site expansion. These types of impacts have been noted in popular 

areas such as Mingus Mountain, Camp Wood, the upper Verde River, and the vicinity of Yellow 

Jacket Creek.

In the Prescott Basin, the forest requires that camping outside of developed campgrounds only 

take place in designated sites. At the moment, there is not enough NVUM data available to 

identify a trend; however, field observations indicate increasing use of designated dispersed 

camping sites over the past 5 years. In addition most, if not all, designated dispersed sites are full 

on the weekends in the summer. This would indicate that demand may be nearing capacity, at 

least seasonally.

Almost 5 percent of visitors to the Prescott NF participate in fishing as their primary activity on 

the forest, and an additional 3 percent fish in conjunction with other activities during their visit 

(Forest Service, 2009d). The fishing opportunities include developed day-use sites at three lakes 

and access points along the Verde River for boat launching or bank fishing. Fishing opportunities 

have benefitted from the dredging of Granite Basin Lake and Mingus Lake in the 1990s and more 

recently from the tamarisk eradication projects along the Verde River between 2007 and 2010. 

Participation rates for hunting on the Prescott NF are low—only one-half of 1 percent of visitors. 

However, hunting is considered part of the cultural tradition of the area by some participants and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

was repeatedly mentioned in the community vision statements (Forest Service, 2009c). Although 

there are no use figures available for recreational shooting, the Prescott NF offers a developed 

target shooting range in the Prescott Basin. As residential development has expanded in the 

Prescott area, there has been an increase in public concern with noise and safety issues associated 

with this facility. Discussions have been raised over the discharge of firearms adjacent to 

residential areas and over the potential for groundwater contamination from the spent lead bullets. 

It is slated for closure at the end of 2014 when the current special use permit expires, and there 

are no plans for a replacement venue within the Prescott Basin. There have been proposals, but no 

plans, to develop a replacement venue in a location outside of the Prescott Basin. A new 

developed shooting range would continue to provide the opportunity for a recreational shooting 

experience on the forest and would help to reduce the safety concerns associated with unregulated 

target shooting. 

The majority of visitors to the forest use the trails; there is high demand for desired experiences 

on this finite resource. The trail system on the Prescott NF includes 394 miles of nonmotorized 

trail and 408 miles of multiple-use trail that allows motorized access. The size of the trail system, 

combined with its popularity—44.5 percent of 1.27 million visitors reported hiking or walking as 

their primary activity (Forest Service, 2009d)—has led to a decline in the condition of the trails. 

From 2002 to 2010, the backlog of maintenance needed on the trails increased by 18 percent. As 

trail conditions deteriorate, they create safety issues for visitors and cause damage to other 

resources. 

Recreation Trends on the Prescott NF

The potential for conflict on the trails and at the trailheads is compounded by the diversity of trail 

users. Because of the mild climate, trail use by hikers, bicyclists, horseback riders, and offhighway vehicles occurs year round, rather than the seasonal use found on higher elevation 

forests (Forest Service, 2009d), and so there is no “off season” for conflict. Potential issues 

include horses becoming spooked by bicycles or OHVs, speed related collisions between bicycles 

or OHVs and other trail users, and noise impacts from motorized trail use. There can also be 

competition between user types for parking at trailheads, causing resentment from hikers or 

bicyclists toward horse or OHV trailers taking up additional space. Different user types do not 

have to be present at the same time for conflict to occur; often the problem is related to the 

perception of the impacts of another group, rather than actual interaction with other users. 

Examples include accelerated trail widening caused by users walking or riding abreast, increased 

erosion from users displacing water bars, or erosion and de-vegetation from users short cutting 

switchbacks. These types of impacts can be caused by any type of user but are often attributed to 

a conflicting use.

The forest has eight wilderness areas, comprising over 104,000 acres. Visitors to the wilderness 

have a similar profile to the general Prescott NF visitor—majority male (59 percent), 

predominately Caucasian (97 percent), and non-Hispanic (97 percent). They also tend to be older, 

with only about 3 percent 16 years old or younger, and 38 percent at least 50 years old (Forest 

Service, 2009d). Overall wilderness visitation on the Prescott NF was estimated at approximately 

16,000 visits annually in 2002 and approximately 40,000 annual visits in 2007 (Forest Service, 

2009c). Based on use categories developed by the Forest Service Wilderness Advisory Group, 

this level of visitation (2,000 to 5,000 annual visits per wilderness) is considered low use (Forest 

Service, 2009e). Although visitation data for individual areas are not available, field observations 

suggest that Granite Mountain Wilderness receives the most use due to its close proximity from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 123

Prescott. Crowding in designated wilderness areas is not an issue; 94 percent of visitors to 

wilderness rated crowding as a 6 or less on a scale of 1 to 10 (Forest Service, 2009d).

There is potential for higher demand for recreation resources due to population growth in the 

area. Population growth in Yavapai County far exceeded the rate of increase in overall State 

population from 1980 to 2000 (146 percent versus 89 percent, respectively). Of the increase of 

167,517 residents in Yavapai County between 1990 and 2000, 32 percent moved into Yavapai 

County from another place. Over the last 2 decades OHVs have become more popular for 

recreation; consequently, their use on the forest has increased. If not properly managed, 

overcrowding, visitor conflict, and resource damage could occur in many areas. 

The increase in retirement age citizens may also increase the demand for age specific recreation 

such as more walking trails located near population centers or more motorized recreation 

opportunities (Cordell et al., 2002). The median age in Yavapai County was 49 in 2010 Census, 

up from 45 years in the 2000 Census 42 years in the 1990 Census, and it is higher than Arizona’s 

median age of 36 years in 2010. The percentage of county residents 65 years and older is 22 

percent, substantially higher than the 13 percent that they represent at the State level. 

Access to forest land may be directly affected by increases in population and development. 

Residents who live near the forest boundary may create social trails and unintentionally create 

resource damage. In addition, access for forest management may be affected as lands change 

hands and informal agreements to use roads that cross land under non-Forest Service land 

ownership may require obtaining easements. 

Changes in the climate could lead to increased use resulting from more people seeking heat relief 

during a longer, hotter, and drier summer. Climate change also increases the potential for higher 

winter season visitation as warmer winters and reduced snowpack allow for greater accessibility 

to the high country and milder temperatures in the lower elevations. This potential shift in use 

patterns could create a demand for different types of recreation opportunities and facilities than 

are currently offered on the forest. 

Overall wilderness use is expected to decline by 15 percent on a per capita basis between 2006 

and 2056 because of increases in population proportions for categories that are currently 

negatively correlated with participation in wilderness recreation. Over the next 50 years, the total 

number of wilderness participants is predicted to increase by 26 percent, while the Census Bureau 

growth predictions in Arizona are that its population will increase by 109 percent between the 

years 2000 and 2030 (Forest Service, 2009e). Although recreation pressure is expected to increase 

proportionally with population, designated wilderness on the Prescott NF is expected to 

experience slower demand growth than recreation in general.

Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences of the alternatives have been organized by the “Need for 

Change 3” in chapter 1. This includes needed improvements to recreation sites and trails, 

expansion of the methods for sharing information with visitors, addressing resource impacts due 

to dispersed recreation activities, additional areas that potentially provide wilderness character, 

and plan resilience to the expected outcomes of climate change. Target shooting and fishing 

opportunities are addressed with recreation sites. Further information about the evaluation of the 

potential wilderness areas is contained in the “Prescott National Forest Potential Wilderness Area 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Evaluation Report” (Forest Service, 2012a), and information about the selection of recommended 

wilderness areas for each alternative is included in the “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Recreation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2011g).

Improvements to Recreation Sites

Table 28. Developed recreation opportunities by alternative

Developed 

Recreation 

Opportunities

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Quantity Decrease Increase More Increase Less

Quality Decrease Increase

Alternative A 

Guidance for developed recreation in the 1987 plan (alternative A) is to operate developed sites at 

the standard service level and to maintain facilities in a safe and operable condition. 

Although the 1987 plan recognizes a projected increase in recreation use, the direction is to 

maintain the capacity and improve existing facilities, rather than the development of new areas to 

meet future demand. It also lacks a clear definition of the “standard service level” (Forest Service, 

1987, p. 18) at which developed sites should be operated. It is expected that the emphasis would 

be on reduction of the maintenance backlog for existing facilities. This alternative does not 

address the need for additional facilities, including improvements to fishing opportunities and a 

replacement venue for recreational shooting. If future demand surpasses the available capacity, 

the perception of crowding in developed facilities will increase, and levels of satisfaction could 

be reasonably expected to decrease. This could lead to a reduction in the quantity and an erosion 

of the quality of the available developed recreation opportunities on the forest.

Alternatives B and C 

Alternatives B and C address the need to improve developed recreation facilities by continuing an 

aggressive reduction in the maintenance backlog and creating new developed sites to respond to 

anticipated shifts in demand. They also contain provisions to replace the existing shooting venue 

that is slated for closure, and provide direction to expand the recreational fishing opportunities on 

the forest. These alternatives would increase both the quantity and quality of the developed 

recreation opportunities on the forest by creating more capacity, improving the condition of the 

existing infrastructure, and expanding the range of available developed recreation opportunities.

Under these alternatives, 2 to 5 new developed recreation sites would be created on the forest 

within 10 years and the maintenance backlog would be reduced a further 80 to 90 percent 

(Objectives 7 and 9). These new sites would increase the developed recreation capacity on the 

forest, expand the range of developed recreation opportunities, and move the forest toward 

desired conditions for recreation. These desired conditions envision facilities that can adapt to 

expected changes in visitor demographics and demand, protect natural resources, and provide the 

opportunity for a clean and safe recreation experience. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 125

In areas where unmanaged recreation is causing soil compaction or loss of vegetation, it could be 

expected that these additional developed sites would improve degraded watershed conditions. 

Developed recreation sites would improve water quality in these watersheds by shifting use to 

hardened surface, thereby reducing erosion, slowing soil loss, and decreasing water turbidity. 

Effects to other resources, such as wildlife, would be determined by site-specific analysis. 

Alternatives B and C would give direction to develop a partnership with an outside group to 

create a new shooting range to replace the existing range that is scheduled for closure at the end 

of 2014 (Objective 10). A new range at a different site would address the safety concerns about 

encroaching development around the existing range and would continue to provide a regulated 

shooting venue. There is public support for a designated shooting range to help reduce the 

conflict caused by uncontrolled recreational target shooting on the forest. 

In addition to developing a new shooting range, these alternatives direct the forest to work with 

partners to expand the recreational fishing opportunities at two lakes or ponds (Objective 13). 

These improvements would increase the quality and capacity of the fishing opportunities and 

reduce the potential impacts caused by unmanaged access along the shoreline. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would create only 1 or 2 new developed recreation sites in the next 10 years 

(Objective 7). In this alternative, the emphasis of the recreation program is shifted from 

developed recreation to dispersed recreation. It would still provide the forest with the direction to 

create additional developed recreation sites to respond to changes in demand and maintain a 

diversity of recreation opportunities, but it would result in one or more potential developed 

campground areas being managed instead for designated dispersed camping. It would also 

continue the trend of reducing the maintenance backlog but at a slower pace so that more 

resources could be devoted to dispersed recreation (Objective 9). 

Alternative D would increase both the quantity and quality of the developed recreation 

opportunities on the forest by improving the condition of the existing infrastructure and working 

with partners to create new venues; however, it would create less additional developed capacity 

than alternatives B and C. It contains the same objectives as alternatives B and C with regard to 

developing partnerships to promote shooting and fishing opportunities (Objectives 10 and 13), 

and so it is assumed that the consequences would be the same. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E is similar to alternative D in that it would create only 1 or 2 new developed 

recreation sites in the next 10 years and would reduce the maintenance backlog at a slower pace 

than alternatives B and C. Under alternatives D and E, the developed recreation maintenance 

backlog would be reduced a further 50 to 60 percent (Objective 9), compared to the 80 to 90 

percent reduction in alternatives B and C.

In alternative E, Objective 10 provides direction to develop strategies for raising awareness of 

responsible shooting. Alternative E is similar to alternative A in that there is no direction to 

construct a replacement venue for recreational shooting; however, it does note that the Prescott 

NF would be open to entering into a partnership for a new facility. The language to pursue a 

partnership found in Objective 10 under alternatives B, C, and D was moved to the supporting 

background and rationale in alternative E and thus is not part of the plan component.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative E would be similar to alternative D in that it would increase both the quantity and 

quality of the developed recreation opportunities on the forest; however, it would be a lesser 

increase in the quantity of opportunities as there would not be a replacement shooting venue. 

Improvements to Trails

Table 29. Trails opportunities by alternative

Trails 

Opportunities Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Quantity Decrease Increase Increase Less Increase Most Increase Least

Quality Decrease Increase Increase Less Increase Most Increase Least

Alternative A 

Although alternative A describes an access policy, it provides very little guidance for trails 

management. Due to the lack of emphasis on trails issues, this alternative would result in a 

decrease in the quality of available trail recreation opportunities due to trail maintenance not 

keeping pace with user impacts and an increased potential for conflict from vague policy and 

competing uses. The quantity of available trail recreation would also decrease as increased use 

places additional maintenance pressure on the trail infrastructure, which may result in the forced 

closure of some trails for safety reasons. 

From 2002 to 2010 the trails maintenance backlog increased by 18 percent, and this lack of 

maintenance affects not only the trail users, but also the health of the watershed. Erosion from 

poorly located trails and improper stream and drainage crossings is adding to the sediment load 

and impacting watershed integrity. 

Conflicts that currently exist between and among different user groups would go unaddressed and 

could worsen under alternative A. This could lead to a decline in use by groups that felt that they 

had been displaced, or increased impacts to trails from use that they were not designed to 

accommodate. Although these types of conflict may actually be uncommon, there is a perception 

that they occur frequently. 

Alternative B 

This alternative reverses the trend for trail maintenance by emphasizing improvements to trails 

and trailheads, and a commitment to reducing the maintenance backlog (Objectives 9, 11, and 

17). Alternative B would increase both the quantity and quality of the trail recreation 

opportunities provided by improving and expanding the facilities and providing clear policy and 

guidance to visitors to help reduce conflicts and resource impacts.

Improvements to the trailheads and signage help to mitigate the potential for conflict among trail 

users. By clearly signing the intended use for each trail, managers could reduce conflict that 

arises from unintended use, and users would cause less impact while achieving a better 

experience on a trail that has been designed to suit their needs. Improvements to trailheads could 

also physically separate different user groups to avoid conflict and reduce impacts by providing 

adequate facilities to meet the needs of different groups. Examples would include larger parking 

spots for vehicles with trailers or hitching posts for horses. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 127

Alternative C 

Alternative C is similar to alternative B, but because its focus is on vegetation and wildlife habitat 

restorations, it directs more resources to those programs and fewer resources to trails and 

trailheads. It would result in a lesser increase in the quality of the trail recreation opportunities 

and a potentially smaller expansion of the quantity of trail opportunities.

This alternative still would reverse the trend for trail maintenance, just to a lesser degree than 

alternative B. Alternative C would reduce the maintenance backlog at a slower pace, with a target 

of a 35 to 50 percent reduction over 10 years, rather than the 50 to 70 percent reduction in 

alternative B (Objective 9). This reduction in the final target might change the process for 

prioritizing the schedule to address the backlog, and it could involve more public participation to 

determine which priorities had the most public support. 

This alternative would also potentially improve fewer trailheads, although the difference in the 

alternatives is at the upper end of the range, with alternative B allowing for improvements at up to 

20 trailheads over the next 10 years and alternative C allowing for improvements at up to 10 

(Objective 11). The difference would most likely be felt in those projects that were not a priority, 

either because they did not mitigate current resource damage issues or did not respond to current 

user demands. Examples might include projects developed in response to anticipated shifts in use 

types or visitor demographics. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D provides a greater emphasis on trails and trailheads than any of the other 

alternatives, and it includes additional direction to create new trails and decommission trails that 

receive little to no use, are located in ecologically sensitive areas, or have unsafe conditions. This 

alternative would provide a greater increase in both the quantity and quality of the dispersed 

recreation opportunities than alternatives A, B, or C.

Alternative D provides guidance for a stronger response to public comments for increased trail 

opportunities. It provides direction for improvements to at least twice as many trailheads as either 

alternative B or C (Objective 11). This expansion would allow the forest to accommodate 

improvements for a number of different trail use types to respond to the priorities of different user 

groups. This, in turn, would help to reduce conflict between groups, both at the trailheads and on 

the trails. 

This alternative also places an emphasis on improving the trail system as a whole by directing 

managers to create new trails and decommission existing trails where appropriate (Objective 17). 

Additional trail mileage would allow the forest to improve the existing system through creation of 

loop trails that return users to their starting point and connector trails that help to link 

communities. New trail construction would ensure that trails were properly designed and located 

to minimize the impact they would have on the landscape. There is a desire for these types of 

trails, as expressed in the public feedback received in comments, and if not created by the forest, 

they might become nuisance trails created informally by users. The decommissioning of system 

trails would benefit users by removing those trails that cannot be maintained to minimum safety 

standards. It would also provide managers the option of removing a trail that is causing damage to 

other resources, such as watershed quality or wildlife habitat, and that cannot be safely rerouted. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative E 

Alternative E is similar to alternative B, but it would not direct resources toward reducing the 

backlog of needed trail maintenance. It would result in a lesser increase in the quality of the trail 

recreation opportunities and a potentially smaller expansion of the quantity of trail opportunities.

Sharing Information with Visitors

Table 30. Information sharing by alternative 

Information Sharing Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Match visitors to opportunities No Change Increase

Visitor satisfaction No Change Increase

Alternative A 

Alternative A would continue to provide guidance established in the 1987 plan. This plan was 

developed under an older management framework and is outdated in its approach. As such, it is 

not well suited to addressing the social, ecological, and technological changes that are occurring. 

Information sharing is focused on traditional methods, such as the distribution of printed material 

and onsite visitor contacts and does not include any provisions for the extended use of electronic 

or social media. This can place constraints on the ability of visitors to match their desired 

experiences with the opportunities available on the forest. If visitors are not able to find 

information about the forest before they arrive, they may not discover that it does not provide the 

type of opportunity they desire until they are already here. Or visitors may choose to not visit the 

forest at all. The results would be a mismatch between the visitor’s desired experience for those 

who come or the loss of potential visitors for those who do not.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

The action alternatives propose increasing both the number of outlets and methods of delivery to 

expand visitor access to information (Objective 14). By developing two to five new methods of 

providing information, the forest would provide better service by making information available to 

visitors pre- and post-trip, as well as onsite. Easier access to information would help visitors 

better match their desired experiences to the available opportunities on the forest. This, in turn, 

should result in a reduction in visitor conflicts and an increase in visitor satisfaction. 

Dispersed Recreation

Table 31. Dispersed recreation opportunities by alternative 

Dispersed Recreation 

Opportunities Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Quantity No Change Increase Increase 

Most Increase

Quality Decrease Increase Increase 

Most Increase
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 129

Alternative A 

Dispersed recreation in alternative A would continue under the direction set forth in the 1987 

plan. The focus of the 1987 plan is on managing dispersed recreation areas at an undefined 

“standard service level” (Forest Service, 1987, p. 18) and maintaining facilities in a safe and 

operable condition. The result could be a decrease in the ability of managers to contain or 

mitigate recreation impacts and an increased likelihood that visitors would encounter the effects 

of the impacts, leading to a decrease in the quality of the recreation opportunities provided. 

It would continue to provide designated dispersed camping in the Prescott Basin, but there would 

be no direction to develop designated dispersed camping opportunities in other parts of the forest. 

Managers would have no guidance to designate dispersed camping sites as a means to mitigate 

resource damage in areas where dispersed camping is causing impacts to the natural environment. 

Areas near streams or water sources in particular are very popular places to camp on the forest, 

and due to their riparian vegetation, they are vulnerable to impacts such as trampling and erosion. 

There would be no displacement of campers who want a less regulated experience; however, 

there would continue to be displacement of campers who seek a more pristine, less impacted 

setting.

Alternative A is vague on the policy for using motorized vehicles for cross-country travel to 

retrieve big game. Current policy allows for big game retrieval with a valid permit (Forest 

Service, 1987, p. 19), but does not define either “big game” or “valid permit.” This lack of clarity 

has the potential to create conflict due to differing interpretations of these guidelines by hunters 

and managers. 

Alternatives B, C, and E 

Alternatives B, C, and E balance the development of dispersed and developed recreation to 

provide a diverse set of recreation opportunities. They propose the creation of up to four new 

designated dispersed camping areas on the forest (Objective 8), with the goal of managing 

camping in areas that show high impact from recreation use, while still providing the opportunity 

to camp without the development and regulation of a traditional campground. The result could be 

an increase in the ability of managers to contain or mitigate recreation impacts and a decreased 

likelihood that visitors would encounter the effects of trampling and erosion, leading to an 

increase in the quality of the recreation opportunities provided.

These alternatives place an emphasis on mitigating and rehabilitating the impact of dispersed 

recreation. Its importance is highlighted by the fact that there is direction to address this issue in 

both the recreation and watershed objectives (Objectives 16, 17, 20, and 22). Actions to relocate 

or rehabilitate recreation areas or trails that show evidence of resource damage would foster 

numerous benefits for both the recreation users and surrounding ecosystem. Trail stream 

crossings and recreation sites relocated to more durable or hardened surfaces would require less 

maintenance and would reduce the amount of sedimentation due to runoff. Watershed integrity 

would be improved by reduced sediment load from recreation sites and trail crossings. Riparian 

vegetation and sensitive plants would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were 

relocated away from sensitive areas. In turn, the protected vegetation would benefit the recreation 

setting by providing shade or privacy. 

Some of the popular dispersed camping areas on the forest show signs of impact that include soil 

compaction, trampling of vegetation, and site expansion. By regulating the use in these areas 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

through the designation of sites, these impacts could be managed. Restricting the extent of these 

sites would allow for mitigation efforts to aid in the recovery of areas from the impacts of 

overuse. Designating camping sites could also act as a preventive measure. By channeling use 

onto sites that are more resistant to use, the extent of the impacts could be minimized before they 

become a problem. In some areas, designating sites would increase the capacity of the area by 

making acceptable camping spots more easily identifiable to visitors. However, these restrictions 

could also lead to a loss of capacity in some areas where use would have to be contained. This 

type of management could also displace some of the current users who seek a less regulated 

camping experience.

Part of the strategy to reduce conflict and mitigate recreation impacts is to avoid them in the first 

place. Alternatives B, C, and E would address this in part by marking, or remarking where 

needed, the wilderness boundaries in areas where there is a high risk of motorized or mountain 

bike intrusion (Objective 15). Motorized or mountain bike use in these areas could cause resource 

damage and provoke conflict with wilderness visitors. Although clear boundaries would not stop 

intentional illegal use, it would help to keep unintended motorized and mountain bike use out of 

the designated wilderness. Outside of designated wilderness areas, the alternatives would 

establish clear direction for the use of motorized vehicles for big game retrieval (StandardRecreation-2). By placing restrictions on the timing and routing of motorized access, they would 

limit the off-trail impacts of this use. These impacts include both the physical disturbance to the 

environment and the potential conflicts from off-trail encounters between motorized and 

nonmotorized users. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D emphasizes the development of dispersed recreation opportunities over developed 

recreation, with the same guidance in regard to reducing user conflict, mitigating dispersed 

recreation impacts, and marking wilderness boundaries as alternatives B, C, and E. It proposes to 

manage camping in areas that show high impact from recreation use but still provide the 

opportunity to camp without the development and regulation of a traditional campground. As with 

alternatives B, C, and E, the result could be an increase in the ability of managers to contain or 

mitigate recreation impacts and a decreased likelihood that visitors would encounter the effects of 

the impacts. Alternative D would also provide managers with additional options to extend 

protection to popular dispersed camping areas while potentially causing less displacement of 

visitors.

Alternative D focuses on increasing the opportunities for dispersed recreation by favoring the 

creation of designated dispersed camping areas over the construction of developed campgrounds. 

Designated dispersed sites provide users the option of less regulated, less developed camping. For 

many, this is the preferred setting. Designated dispersed sites offer few amenities—features such 

as tent pads or fire rings are generally for the protection of the resource, rather than the 

convenience of the user. As the level of development for a designated dispersed site is less than 

for a developed campsite, it is expected that there would be less displacement of visitors who 

seek out these areas as an alternative to developed campgrounds. 

The low level of development for designated dispersed sites also means that their initial cost and 

ongoing maintenance would be lower than a developed campground. However, these types of 

sites generally do not charge for use and, therefore, could not generate revenue for their 

maintenance. They also require more frequent patrolling, as they generally do not have a host 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 131

onsite to provide presence. This would hold true for designated dispersed sites, regardless of 

alternative.

Recommended Wilderness 

Table 32. Recommended wilderness by alternative 

Potential 

Wilderness Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Number of 

areas 

recommended

None 8 areas None 16 areas 8 areas

Total acres 

recommended 0 acres 43,440 acres 0 acres 116,260 acres 23,137 acres

Recommended 

PWAs

Note: PWAs 

listed in bold

contain 

inventoried 

roadless areas

None Apache Creek 

A, Apache 

Creek B, Bald 

Mountain, 

Black Canyon,

Castle Creek, 

Juniper Mesa, 

Sycamore 

Canyon A, 

Sycamore 

Canyon C

None Apache Creek 

A, Apache 

Creek B, 

Arnold Mesa, 

Ash Creek,

Castle Creek, 

Cedar Bench A, 

Cedar Bench B, 

Fritsche B, 

Juniper Mesa, 

Muldoon, Pine 

Mountain B, 

Pine Mountain 

C, Sycamore 

Canyon A, 

Sycamore 

Canyon B, 

Sycamore 

Canyon C, 

Woodchute

Apache Creek 

A, Castle 

Creek, Cedar 

Bench A, Cedar 

Bench B, 

Juniper Mesa, 

Pine Mountain 

B, Sycamore 

Canyon A, 

Woodchute 

Alternative A 

In alternative A, there are no potential wilderness areas (PWAs) recommended for wilderness 

designation. The result would be that there would be no restrictions on activities that are 

incompatible with the maintenance of wilderness character. There would be no withdrawal of 

mineral rights, implementation of grazing guidelines, or prohibitions on timber harvest due to 

wilderness designation, although any of these may occur for other reasons. 

There would be no increase in the number of acres protected for wilderness character; however, 

management of any area for multiple use and ecosystem restoration does not preclude 

management for social values that are also associated with wilderness. The “quality of life” 

benefits derived from recreation are not exclusive to primitive or nonmotorized activities. A nonwilderness area can provide a more diverse set of recreation opportunities that could appeal to 

visitors who are not seeking a wilderness experience. These opportunities could include mountain 

bike trails, motorized trails, off-highway vehicle play areas, and developed camping or day-use 

areas. Community benefits, preservation of open space, scientific and educational values, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

biodiversity, promotion of ecosystem services, and other forest related amenity values can be 

promoted in non-wilderness areas as part of a multiple-use management approach.

Alternative B 

Alternative B would recommend eight PWAs for designation, including Black Canyon PWA, 

which contains the Black Canyon Inventoried Roadless Area. The additional 43,440 acres 

recommended is approximately 40 percent of the existing wilderness acreage, and would 

strengthen and expand the opportunities for undeveloped recreation and increase the number of 

acres protected for wilderness character. This would, however, result in the loss of these areas for 

the development of new recreation facilities as management guidance would be to maintain the 

wilderness characteristics of the areas. 

It is assumed that if these areas were to be designated as wilderness, they would contribute little 

additional wilderness visitation. Black Canyon PWA (see appendix B, map of wilderness 

recommendations) is the only separate parcel to be recommended in this alternative; all other 

recommended areas are contiguous to existing wilderness. Black Canyon could be reasonably 

expected to increase wilderness visitation if it were to become designated, as it is located in close 

proximity to the Verde Valley. It would most likely receive sustained local use as well as an initial 

bump in visitation upon designation. 

According to the 2007 NVUM results, wilderness use on the Prescott NF averages around 5,000 

visits per wilderness area (Forest Service, 2009d). Because Black Canyon would be a new, 

separate wilderness area, it could be expected to add about 5,000 additional wilderness visits if it 

were to be designated. It is estimated that the other seven PWAs could add an additional 1,000 

visits combined, mainly due to the fact that they are expansions of existing wilderness areas and 

would receive little in the way of unique visitation; many of these areas already receive visitation 

as users pass through them to access the existing designated wilderness. This is a total estimated 

increase of 6,000 visits or 15 percent. It is not known how much of this increase in wilderness 

visitation would represent new visitors to the areas versus simply reclassifying the existing 

visitation as wilderness use. 

PWAs recommended for wilderness designation would be managed to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics, including their scenic beauty, natural conditions, solitude, and identified special 

features. Recreation use would be managed to minimize the evidence of human use and to 

maintain the outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in the recommended 

areas. Wilderness designation would prohibit any existing and future mountain bike and 

motorized use, including motorized big game retrieval. New facilities would be constructed only 

if they were required for the safety of users or the protection of wilderness resources, and the use 

of mechanized tools for trail construction and maintenance would be restricted. 

However, the forest supervisor may allow the continued use of mechanized and motorized 

equipment in recommended areas if it does not permanently impair the area’s wilderness 

character. This could allow for the use of mechanized and motorized equipment for projects 

designed to mitigate resource impacts caused by recreation. New road construction or 

improvement or the development of recreation facilities in a recommended area would be 

discouraged due to the impact on wilderness character. New road construction to improve access 

is unlikely in Black Canyon PWA as most of the area overlaps with the Black Creek Inventoried 

Roadless Area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 133

Alternative C 

There are no PWAs recommended for wilderness designation in this alternative. Its focus is on 

progressing toward ecological desired conditions at a faster pace by increasing the use of 

management activities such as prescribed fire, mechanical removal of vegetation, and aquatic 

habitat improvements, over more areas of the forest. Management direction for recommended 

wilderness areas could preclude some actions such as the establishment and maintenance of 

firebreaks or the creation of temporary roads for mechanized access. It was determined that these 

types of restrictions could impair restoration efforts in the recommended areas and so 

recommending wilderness designation was incompatible with the goals of this alternative. The 

consequences with regard to potential wilderness are similar to those in alternative A.

Alternative C differs from alternative A in that it provides plan direction to add additional 

developed recreation sites and designated dispersed camping, improve road and trail stream 

crossings, and repair roads and trails that are impacting watershed integrity. Some of the actions 

required to meet these objectives—such as the construction of new access roads or the hardening 

of stream crossings—could permanently impair the wilderness character of the surrounding 

landscape. These activities would not be restricted in any of the identified potential wilderness 

areas, as none of them would be recommended for wilderness designation. 

Alternative D 

The consequences with regard to potential wilderness areas recommended for designation are 

similar to those in alternative B, the difference being that alternative D contains a greater quantity. 

Alternative D would recommend 16 PWAs for designation, containing over 116,260 acres and 

equaling about 110 percent of the existing wilderness acreage. The recommendations include 

Arnold Mesa PWA, Ash Creek PWA, and Muldoon PWA, all of which contain inventoried 

roadless areas identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Alternative D would result 

in the largest increase in the number of acres protected for wilderness character for any of the 

alternatives. It is estimated that, if designated, these areas could increase wilderness visitation by 

approximately 45 percent (Forest Service, 2011g), although, as noted in alternative B, it is not 

known how much of this increase would represent new visitors to the areas versus simply 

reclassifying the existing visitation as wilderness use. This alternative would also include the 

largest potential loss of developed recreation opportunities among the alternatives. 

Alternative E 

The consequences with regard to potential wilderness areas recommended for designation are 

similar to those in alternatives B and D; however, alternative E contains the lowest recommended 

acreage. Alternative E would recommend 23,137 additional acres for designation across 8 PWAs, 

equal to about 22 percent of the existing wilderness acreage. 

If designated, it is estimated that these recommended areas could increase wilderness visitation by 

approximately 3 percent (Forest Service, 2011g). However, since these eight PWAs are 

contiguous to existing wilderness, like alternative B, it is not known how much of this increase in 

wilderness visitation would represent new visitors to the areas. It should also be noted that none 

of the PWAs recommended in alternative E overlap with any of the inventoried roadless areas 

identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Recreation Management Response to Climate Change

Table 33. Recreation management response to climate change by alternative 

Climate Change Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Adapt to climate 

change

Additional 

effort required Integrated into plan

Alternative A 

The 1987 plan does not recognize the potential impacts, such as an increase in both summer and 

winter visitation, which could result from changes to the climate. There is no guidance for 

addressing this issue within the plan; subsequent policy direction would need to be integrated into 

current management. The extent of this effort is unknown, but would involve, at the minimum, an 

amendment to the “Monitoring” section of the plan. The result would be that increased effort 

would be needed to adapt management practices to respond to changes brought on by increased 

temperatures, longer heat waves, and reduced precipitation.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

The four action alternatives recognize that there will be implications from climate change that 

need to be addressed at the strategic level. As a result, these alternatives provide guidance that can 

accommodate the changes in management that may be needed to adapt to changes in conditions. 

All of the plan revision alternatives integrate climate change assumptions into their management 

approach. The revised plan contains the flexibility needed to respond to the potential for 

increased use. The higher end of the range for each objective anticipates the increase in capacity 

needed to accommodate this increased use. There would be an increase in the number and variety 

of developed recreation sites that could accommodate increased visitation. New sites could be 

situated at a higher elevation for more cool relief or at lower elevation for increased winter 

capacity, depending on what use trends demand. Dispersed camping would be increasingly 

controlled in certain popular areas to mitigate the effects of increased use. Improved trailheads 

and trail signage, as well as a reduction of the maintenance backlog, would help improve 

resilience to increased visitor numbers and potential for extended recreation seasons. 

These alternatives also establish a revised monitoring framework to provide managers with the 

information needed to adapt the recreation program and facilities to respond to the anticipated 

changes. Specific direction is to monitor the management actions, measures, or decisions that the 

Forest Service is taking to promote ecosystem resilience in response to changing environmental 

conditions. The monitoring plan incorporates information from the Forest Service infrastructure 

database and the cyclical National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys to provide feedback on 

progress toward meeting the plan objectives and responding to changes in use and visitation.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of foreseeable activities on lands that are not 

managed by the Prescott NF that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on 

the forest, may intensify, negate, improve, or otherwise affect the recreation opportunities on the 

forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 135

The cumulative consequences area includes public and private lands within Yavapai County. The 

Prescott NF plays a central role in providing outdoor recreation opportunities within Yavapai 

County as it accounts for approximately 23 percent of the 5.2 million acres, but it is not the sole 

provider. There are outdoor recreation opportunities provided by other Federal agencies, the State 

of Arizona, and some of the municipalities that range from developed day-use areas to 

backcountry dispersed opportunities. 

To evaluate the cumulative consequences to recreation opportunities, the proposed changes to 

recreation management on the Prescott NF were examined in the context of the contributions to 

recreation opportunities provided by other jurisdictions within Yavapai County. 

On the Federal level, one of the foreseeable future actions that would have cumulative 

consequences on recreation opportunities in Yavapai County is direction within the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management Plan (RMP) to complete 

the Black Canyon National Recreation Trail to connect with trails on the Prescott NF. This would 

provide forest users with access to the national recreation trail and expand opportunities for long 

distance trail rides. This plan also contains guidance to locate and develop staging and camping 

areas to service the north section of this nonmotorized trail, and to locate a motorized route that 

generally parallels the Black Canyon Trail. 

In addition, under the Bradshaw-Harquahala RMP, the Black Canyon Management Unit manages 

13,490 acres adjacent to the Castle Creek PWA that have been “Allocated to Maintain Wilderness 

Characteristics.” If the Castle Creek PWA were recommended for wilderness designation, the 

cumulative effect would be over 43,000 acres managed for wilderness character, including the 

designated Castle Creek Wilderness.

The government of Yavapai County has developed the Yavapai County Master Trails Plan that 

would expand trail-based recreation by creating links between the forest trail system and other 

trail systems in the county. The forest’s trails could provide use corridors between communities, 

and by connecting with the trails in other jurisdictions, there would be increased access to the trail 

system. Participants in the master trails plan would include the BLM, the State of Arizona, the 

Prescott and Coconino NFs, the cities of Prescott and Sedona, and the town of Prescott Valley, all 

of which have existing trail systems or trail plans. 

Alternative A would contribute the least overall to the cumulative recreation opportunities 

available because it does not provide direction for expansion of the recreation program. There is 

also no plan direction to develop collaborative efforts or coordinate recreation opportunities with 

other jurisdictions. Collaboration and coordination would take the pressure off of recreation 

providers to offer as many different opportunities as possible and instead provide better service 

within a well-defined recreation niche. This would also provide the flexibility to adapt to 

changing conditions such as shifts in use patterns or demographics, changes in seasons of use, or 

declines in budgets or revenue sources. 

Need for Change 4

Provide desired habitat for native fish species. 

This section summarizes the current conditions for fisheries, other aquatic and riparian species, 

and associated riparian habitats on the Prescott NF, and the consequences of implementing the 

revised plan or its alternatives. It provides a summary of aquatic and riparian species viability 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

assessments and examines in detail consequences to federally listed and proposed aquatic and 

riparian species and critical habitat, Forest Service regionally sensitive aquatic and riparian 

species and aquatic management indicator species. Environmental consequences to terrestrial 

species are disclosed in “Need for Change 1.”

This section has been organized by the issues identified in the “Need for Change 4” in chapter 1. 

These issues include addressing aquatic and riparian species diversity and viability and retaining 

or improving habitat for desired aquatic and riparian species. The full analysis can be found in the 

“Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Vascular Plant Viability Analysis” (Forest Service, 

2011d), the “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report” (Forest 

Service, 2011i), the “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2011e), and the “National Forest Plan Revision EIS Terrestrial Species 

Viability Report” (Forest Service, 2011m).

Aquatic and Riparian Species Viability

An assessment of species diversity for the Prescott NF was completed as part of the “Prescott 

National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009a). From an initial list of 

815 species, 121 (terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian species) species were determined to have a 

potential viability concern. The species identified included: 11 mammals, 33 birds, 3 reptiles, 2 

amphibians, 12 fish, 4 invertebrates, and 56 plants. Species viability assessments for those 121 

species were prepared according to Forest Service policy (FSM 2670) and documented in three 

specialist reports (Forest Service, 2011d, 2011i, and 2011m).

Viability risks to aquatic and riparian species were based on assessments of:

 Availability and current conditions of the aquatic and riparian habitat or habitat features 

with which the species are typically associated; 

 Population occurrence and distribution; and 

 Threats from Forest Service management actions expected to occur within the planning 

area11. The results of these assessments provided a determination of no, low, or some risk 

to viability for each species evaluated. 

As part of the plan revision process, coarse filter plan components (i.e., desired conditions 

statements) were developed that describe the desired outcomes and conditions for terrestrial 

vegetation, riparian habitats and features, and aquatic habitats and features within the planning 

area. For species determined to be at no or low risk, meeting and maintaining these desired 

conditions within the planning area would provide for the viability of those species. For those 

species determined to be at some risk, additional fine filter plan components (e.g., standards, 

guidelines, and objectives) were developed to lessen population viability risks to a low level. 

Of the 121 species with potential viability concerns, a total of 29 aquatic and riparian species 

were assessed. The aquatic species analyzed include 12 fish, 2 amphibians, 2 reptiles, and 4 

invertebrates; riparian species include 6 birds, 1 bat, and 2 plants. Twenty-one species were found 

to have low or no risk to their viability; and 8 were found to have some risk to their population 

 

11 “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers 

and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area.” 36 CFR § 

219.19 (1982). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 137

viability. The remaining 92 species are addressed in the “Terrestrial Species Diversity and 

Viability” section in “Need for Change 1.”

Table 34 lists the 29 aquatic and riparian species that were assessed and the corresponding 

Prescott NF plan components (coarse or fine filter) needed to reduce population viability 

concerns to a low risk level. 

Table 34. Plan components that address aquatic and riparian species viability concerns 

Viability Filter 

Category Taxon Associated Plan Components Species

Coarse filter plan 

components alone are 

sufficient to reduce 

viability to a level of 

no or low risk

Fish

Desired ConditionsWatershed-1 and 2

Desired ConditionsAquatic-1 and 2

Desired ConditionsWildlife-1 and 2

Desired Condition-Open 

Space-1 and 2

Gila chub, Gila trout, roundtail chub, desert 

sucker, longfin dace, Sonora sucker, 

speckled dace

Amphibians Arizona toad, lowland leopard frog

Macroinvertebratesbrown springsnail, Verde Rim springsnail, 

Maricopa tiger beetle

Mammals western red bat

Birds

Southwestern willow flycatcher, western 

yellow-billed cuckoo, Abert’s towhee, bald 

eagle, common black-hawk, Bell’s vireo

Plants

Desired ConditionsVegetation-1, 4, and 5

Desired ConditionsWatershed-1 and 2

broadleaf lupine, Cochise sedge

Coarse filter plan 

components plus fine 

filter plan 

components are 

necessary to reduce 

viability to a level of 

no or low risk

Fish

Guideline -Fish/Aquatics-1, 

2, and 3

Standard-Range-2

Guideline-Watershed-4, 9, 

10, and 11

Guideline-Recreation-8

Guideline-Lands-2

Guideline-Locatable 

Minerals-2

Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, loach 

minnow, spikedace, Colorado pikeminnow

Reptiles northern Mexican gartersnake, narrowheaded gartersnake

Macroinvertebrates A caddisfly

Species Groups

The species carried forward are associated with habitats or habitat features in the planning area, 

such as aquatic habitats or riparian vegetation features. For birds and mammals, riparian habitat is 

generally applicable; for fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates, aquatic or riparian habitats 

are generally applicable. The following species are associated with riparian habitat: southwestern 

willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, western red bat, broadleaf lupine, 

and Cochise sedge. The following species are associated with aquatic habitat: all fish species, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

lowland leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake, narrow-headed gartersnake, A caddisfly, 

Verde Rim springsnail, and Brown springsnail. 

Affected Environment

Aquatic Habitats

Big Sandy River, Burro Creek, and Santa Maria River sub-basins all flow to the Bill Williams 

River basin, which empties into the mainstem of the Colorado River near Parker, Arizona. The 

Big Chino Wash, Upper Verde, and Lower Verde sub-basins form the Verde River basin, which 

joins the Salt River, a tributary to the Gila River, near Phoenix, Arizona. The Agua Fria and 

Hassayampa sub-basins drain into the Middle Gila River basin, downstream from its confluence 

with the Salt River.

There are 79.4 miles of perennial stream on the Prescott NF, the main one being the Verde River, 

which extends about 52 miles across the forest. There are approximately 38 miles of river within 

the Granite Creek and Grindstone Wash watersheds that form the upper Verde River. This section 

of river is potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Forest 

Service, 1981). The upper Verde River also has a proposal to build a fish barrier for the 

management of listed fish species under the biological opinion for the Central Arizona Project 

(Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b). Cherry Creek watershed and the upper segment of the Fossil 

Creek watershed flow through Verde Valley. This major reach of perennial stream (about 40 

miles) is mainly in private ownership and is highly altered from water diversions and 

development. There are only about 5 miles of Prescott NF lands in this section to provide public 

access to the river. The lower segment of the Fossil Creek watershed is within the Verde Wild and 

Scenic River, about 15.5 miles of which is on the forest. The other 27 miles of streams within the 

Prescott NF are perennial intermittent or intermittent. These streams are mainly in the Ash CreekSycamore Creek and Upper Hassayampa River watersheds. 

The historical extent of perennial stream is inferred to have been similar in location and length to 

current conditions, with similar to slightly more actual flow than current conditions. However, 

shifts in the timing of snowmelt combined with increases in summer temperatures have been 

observed in watersheds and streams in the American West. These shifts may pose challenges to 

reintroducing fish species into their historic range (Forest Service, 2007b; Millar et al., 2007). 

A total of 10 native fish species currently occur within the Prescott NF. The Verde River has the 

highest native fish species diversity in the planning area and has been identified as one of several 

stream systems having the greatest potential for native fish restoration and conservation in 

Arizona (Turner and List, 2007). However, original populations of the Colorado pikeminnow, 

razorback sucker, Gila topminnow, Gila trout, and loach minnow were extirpated from the 

drainage. Efforts to reintroduce these species have been met with mixed success. The majority of 

fish species known on the forest have undergone declines in distribution across the basin. In 

contrast, the majority of nonnative fish that have been introduced into the basin have shown 

substantial increases in their distribution over time. Most nonnative fish species have well 

established populations on the forest and are considered a primary threat to native fish species on 

the forest.

Aquatic reptiles and amphibians have suffered the same fate as native fish in the reduction of 

distribution and abundance throughout their range. The loss or modification of habitat from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 139

various actions and the introduction of nonnative fishes, bullfrogs, and crayfish continue to 

impact populations. 

The aquatic invertebrates have limited distribution in the planning area. The Verde Rim 

springsnail is only known from one spring complex in the headwaters of Sycamore Creek, and the 

Brown springsnail is limited to Brown Springs. Both of these populations occur on private lands, 

though forest activities have some level of impacts on their habitat. A caddisfly is generally 

restricted to cooler spring-fed streams in mountainous areas; however, the extent on the Prescott 

NF unknown.

Riparian Habitats

The Riparian Gallery Forest vegetation type on the Prescott NF occurs along perennial or 

intermittent streams and around springs and seeps. It covers approximately 12,400 acres, 

represents less than 1 percent of the total forest acreage, and ranges in elevation from 2,000 to 

8,000 feet (Forest Service, 2009a). It contains approximately 7,496 acres of suitable understory 

habitat and 4,247 acres of overstory habitat. The two major vegetation communities within it are 

cottonwood-willow and mixed broadleaf deciduous forests. The dominant woody vegetation 

varies according to elevation, substrate, stream gradient, and depth to groundwater. This 

contributes to the mix of vegetative structures within the type, including riparian forests, 

woodlands, and shrublands. Common species include Fremont cottonwood, narrowleaf, Gooding, 

and Bebb willow, Arizona sycamore, velvet and green ash, Arizona alder, Arizona walnut, and 

box elder. Herbaceous plants include several forbs, sedges, rushes, and grasses. Current 

vegetation shows a high similarity to desired conditions; the difference between existing and 

desired conditions is mainly due to the presence of tamarisk and other nonnative plants. 

Federally Listed Species

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are those plant and animal species formally 

listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under authority of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA) (P.L. 93-205), as amended. Pursuant to Section 7 (2)(a) of the ESA, a 

biological assessment was prepared to assess the effects of implementing the “Prescott National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” selected alternative on endangered or threatened 

species. All federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and designated and proposed critical 

habitats that the USFWS has identified in its Southwestern Region threatened/endangered species 

list 12 were considered in this analysis. The aquatic and riparian associated species that occur on 

the Prescott NF are shown in table 35.

Table 35. Federally listed species critical and occupied habitat

Common Name Status Habitat Extent on 

the Prescott NF Critical Habitat

Gila chub Endangered119 miles Yes

Gila topminnow Endangered 0 miles No

Razorback sucker Endangered 16 miles Yes

Spikedace Endangered 32 miles Yes

 

12 www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/EndangeredSpecies_Lists/
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Common Name Status Habitat Extent on 

the Prescott NF Critical Habitat

Loach minnow Endangered 0 miles Yes

Gila trout Threatened21 mile No

Northern Mexican gartersnake Threatened 103 miles Proposed

Narrow-headed gartersnake Threatened 103 miles Proposed

Colorado pikeminnow Experimental416 miles No

Roundtail chub

Candidate5

Sensitive3

51 miles No

Southwestern willow flycatcher Endangered 1,339 acres Yes

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Threatened 7,496 acres Proposed

1 Listed endangered under the ESA: Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.

2 Listed threatened under the ESA: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

3 The species is listed on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list for the Southwestern Region of the Forest 

Service.

4 Listed experimental population, non-essential under the ESA

5 Listed candidate, ready for proposal for listing under the ESA.

Gila Chub and Critical Habitat 

The Gila chub (Gila intermedia) was listed as endangered with critical habitat in 2005 under the 

Endangered Species Act. It commonly inhabits pools in smaller streams, springs, and cienegas 

(i.e., a desert wetland), and it can survive in small artificial impoundments, such as human-made 

ponds. Of 47 known populations, only 29 are considered occupied and all are considered small, 

isolated, and subject to some form of threat. The primary threats to Gila chub across its range 

include predation by and competition with nonnative aquatic species and habitat alteration, 

destruction, and fragmentation from surface water diversions and groundwater withdrawals. 

Because the species exists in small, isolated populations, they are also highly susceptible to 

drought, flood events, and wildfire.

The 29 currently occupied populations are found in 7 major drainages, all in Arizona. 

Approximately 85 to 90 percent of Gila chub historic habitat has been degraded or destroyed, and 

roughly 59 percent of the lands supporting the extant populations are managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management and the Forest Service. 

On the Prescott NF, the species is known to occur in Sycamore Creek, Little Sycamore Creek, and 

Indian Creek in the Agua Fria River drainage (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1995a; 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1996). There is also one known population and designated 

critical habitat located on private lands downstream of the eastern boundary of the forest (west 

half) in Williamson Valley Wash. All three streams on the Prescott NF have perennial-interrupted 

flow, and thus, provide less occupied habitat than available on the forest. There is limited direct 

impact to Gila chub and their habitat from management activities because of exclosures around 

occupied sites or rough terrain that restricts access to the stream. The species distribution and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 141

abundance in each stream have been negatively impacted by the presence of nonnative aquatic 

species which are predatory and/or competitive with the chub. The species has also been 

negatively impacted by the 2005 Cave Creek Complex wildfire through reduced habitat quantity 

and quality due to excess sedimentation filling in pool habitats. 

A total of 19.5 miles of critical habitat occur in Sycamore Creek (11.4 miles), Little Sycamore 

Creek (2.9 miles), and Indian Creek (5.2 miles) in the Agua Fria River drainage on or adjacent to 

the Prescott NF. Land ownership is primarily Prescott NF, but there are private land inclusions 

along all stream systems. The main land use activities in the area include livestock grazing and 

dispersed recreation activities such as OHV and hunting.

The primary potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) within these watersheds are the piñonjuniper PNVTs and grassland PNVTs. They have relatively low percentages of satisfactory soil 

conditions and the watershed conditions are rated “At-Risk” or “Impaired” for several key 

indicators in the Sycamore Creek, Little Sycamore Creek, and Indian Creek sub-watersheds. 

These departures are collectively contributing to an altered hydrologic condition that is affecting 

aquatic habitat quality in Gila chub streams. A more complete discussion of soil and watershed 

conditions can be found in the “Need for Change 2” section of chapter 3.

Primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical habitat include perennial pool habitat, suitable 

water temperature and water quality, adequate food base, adequate cover, a healthy intact riparian 

vegetation community, habitat devoid of nonnative aquatic species or present in levels low 

enough to allow for Gila chub persistence, and a natural streamflow, including periodic flooding. 

All elements of critical habitat are considered to be present within these stream systems with one 

exception; nonnative species are present in abundant quantities to negatively impact Gila chub.

Gila Topminnow 

Gila topminnow (Peociliopsis occidentalis) has gone from being one of the most common fishes 

of the Gila River basin to one that exists in no more than 32 known locations: 14 natural and 18 

stocked, with an additional 20 captive populations also in existence. The reasons for decline 

include dewatering of rivers, springs and marshlands, impoundment, channelization, diversion, 

regulation of flow, land management practices that promote erosion and arroyo formation, and the 

introduction of predacious and competing nonnative fishes. Gila topminnows are highly 

vulnerable to adverse effects from nonnative aquatic species, including nonnative crayfish and 

bullfrogs. Predation and competition from nonnative fishes has been a major factor in their 

decline and continues to be a major threat to the remaining populations.

Historically, there were no documented occurrences of Gila topminnow within the Prescott NF 

(Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999a). Twenty-four sites on the Prescott NF were introduced with 

topminnows in the early 1980s (Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985). All sites failed to maintain 

surviving populations (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2003a). Reasons for failure included 

drying of sites, flooding impacts, reduction of suitable habitat due to vegetation overgrowth, and 

cold temperatures. Potential habitats on the forest need to be assessed for those sites that meet 

habitat criteria for possible reintroduction. Possible sites include those already occupied by Gila 

chub in Sycamore, Little Sycamore, and Indian Creeks.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Razorback Sucker and Critical Habitat 

The razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) was once abundant in the Colorado River and its 

major tributaries throughout the Colorado River Basin; however, its present range is much less 

than its historical distribution (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002a). Wild populations of the 

razorback sucker exist only in the Colorado River, as the populations within the Lower Colorado 

River Basin were extirpated. Hatchery-raised razorback suckers were stocked into the mainstem 

and tributaries of the Salt, Verde, Gila, and lower Colorado Rivers in the recent past. Recaptures 

from these stocking efforts have been scarce to date. Monitoring is difficult, given the large 

reintroduction area and its geography (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002a). Indications are that 

populations are being established in isolated habitats and in the uppermost reservoirs of the 

drainage. Individuals have been captured in the Verde River and Horseshoe Reservoir and in 

Fossil Creek. The few remaining unaltered rivers (e.g., upper Verde and Salt Rivers and their 

tributaries) are vital to the continued existence of razorback suckers (Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2002a).

The Coconino, Prescott, and Tonto NFs manage 113.2 miles of the Verde River that has been 

designated as critical habitat for razorback sucker. Approximately 70 miles of designated critical 

habitat for razorback sucker occurs on and adjacent to the Prescott NF in the Verde River, from 

Perkinsville downstream to the forest boundary below Camp Verde. The uppermost 15 miles of 

river are within Forest Service ownership. The next 40-mile reach of river in the Verde Valley is 

primarily within private ownership. The lowermost 15 miles are again in Forest Service 

ownership. 

The extent of occupied habitat on the Prescott NF is 16 miles in the lower Verde River. Primary 

constituent elements of critical habitat includes a quantity of water of adequate quality delivered 

within a natural hydrologic regime; physical habitat for use in spawning, nursery, feeding, and 

rearing or corridors between these areas; adequate food supply; and areas with few introduced 

nonnative fish species. All elements of critical habitat are considered to be present within the 

Verde River; however, nonnative species are present in abundant quantities to negatively impact 

razorback sucker.

Introductions made into main channels habitats of the Verde River since 1981 have had low 

survival, and recruitment has not been documented (Hendrickson, 1993; Hyatt, 2004). Since 

1994, almost all reintroductions have occurred in the Verde Wild and Scenic River below Camp 

Verde. Between 1981 and 1990, more than 13 million hatchery-produced razorback sucker fry 

and fingerling-sized fish were released at 57 sites into historic habitat in Arizona, primarily in the 

Verde, Gila, and Salt Rivers and their tributaries, where the natural population had been 

extirpated (Hendrickson, 1993). Low short term survival and no long term survival were reported 

from these releases, primarily because of predation by nonnative fishes. Since 1994, over 17,000 

razorback suckers over 12 inches in length have been stocked into the Verde River at Beasley Flat 

and Childs river access points (Jahrke and Clark, 1999). Numerous fish have been recaptured, and 

survival up to two years has been documented. In addition, ripe males have been encountered in 

the Verde River, but no evidence of reproduction or recruitment has been found. Adults were 

recently reported from Fossil Creek, a tributary to the Verde River on Coconino and Tonto NFs 

(Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002a). The goal of the razorback sucker reintroduction program is to 

stock 2,000 fish annually in the Verde River (Jahrke and Clark, 1999). Introductions could also 

occur in the upper Verde River if deemed appropriate by the USFWS and AZGFD. Recently, 

Stillman Lake, at the headwaters to the Verde River, was scheduled for renovation using chemical 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 143

and mechanical removal of nonnative fishes for the purpose of reintroducing razorback sucker 

into this reach of the river (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009a). 

The three 5th level watersheds with current or historical presence of razorback sucker (Grindstone 

Wash-Upper Verde River, Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River, and Fossil Creek-Lower Verde 

River) have relatively low percentages of satisfactory soil conditions and the watershed 

conditions are rated “At-Risk” or “Impaired” for several key indicators. These departures are 

collectively contributing to an altered hydrologic condition that is affecting aquatic habitat quality 

in the Verde River. A more complete discussion of soil and watershed conditions can be found in 

the “Need for Change 2” section of chapter 3.

Trends in species population and habitat in the Verde River have decreased from historical levels 

due to a combination of factors. The most significant factors are those associated with water 

development projects (i.e., dams) that have altered stream morphology, flow patterns, 

temperatures, water chemistry, and silt loads of most major streams throughout the Colorado 

River Basin (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002a). Fish access to most spawning areas has been 

blocked by dams. Water temperature changes resulting from the construction of dams and habitat 

degradation may be having a significant effect; cold water released from reservoirs created by 

dams can inhibit embryonic development and increase early life mortality.

Interactions with nonnative fishes may also be an important factor in the continued survival or 

success of reintroduced populations of razorback sucker. Predation by nonnative channel catfish, 

smallmouth bass, and flathead catfish on young sucker may limit successful reintroduction in 

Arizona. Another specific threat is from pesticides and pollutants (Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2002a).

Spikedace and Critical Habitat 

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) are found in moderate to large perennial streams at elevations ranging 

from 1,620 to 4,500 feet, where they inhabit shallow riffles with sand, gravel, and rubble 

substrates. Recurrent flooding and a natural flow regime are very important in maintaining the 

habitat of spikedace and in helping maintain a competitive edge over invading nonnative aquatic 

species. 

In Arizona, the species is now common only in Aravaipa Creek. The Verde River is presumed 

occupied; however, the last captured fish from this river was from a 1999 survey. Spikedace from 

the Eagle Creek population have not been seen for over a decade, although they are still thought 

to exist in numbers too low for the sampling efforts to detect. Translocated populations are 

present in Hot Springs Canyon and Fossil and Bonita Creeks. During the last century, both the 

distribution and abundance of spikedace have been greatly reduced throughout the species’ range. 

Competition and predation by nonnative fish and habitat destruction have reduced the historic 

range of spikedace by about 85 percent. 

Historically, spikedace were collected in the Verde River above Camp Verde and the lower ends 

of Beaver Creek and West Clear Creek in 1938 and in the Verde River above Camp Verde in 1950 

(Minckley, 1993). The species was first collected in the upper Verde River in the 1890s (Arizona 

State University, 2002). Currently, the upper Verde River is presumed to be occupied by 

spikedace but they are rare based on extensive surveys (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

2000a-b, 2001, 2005a-c; Bahm and Robinson, 2009; Robinson and Crowder, 2009; Forest 

Service, 2010e; Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005). The last capture of a spikedace was documented 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

during surveys in 1999 (Brouder, 2002). Spikedace populations are extirpated from the lower 

Verde River in the Verde Valley (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). 

The nonnative fish populations are well established throughout the Verde River and are a primary 

threat from both predation and competition to native fishes such as razorback sucker, loach 

minnow, and spikedace. Trends in spikedace population and habitat in the Verde River have 

decreased from historical levels due to the establishment of nonnative aquatic species and a 

reduction in habitat quantity and quality. Factors contributing to the degradation of habitat include 

water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural practices, excess sedimentation from land 

development in the watersheds, and the establishment of invasive plant species.

There are about 175 miles of designated critical habitat for spikedace on the Verde River and its 

tributaries Granite Creek, Oak Creek, Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil 

Creek. A total of about 106 miles of designated critical habitat occurs on the Verde River from the 

confluence with Fossil Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam. The uppermost 37 miles of river, from 

the forest boundary downstream to the city of Clarkdale, are primarily within Forest Service 

ownership with a few private land parcels occurring in this reach. The next 45 miles of river in 

the Verde Valley are primarily within private ownership. The lowermost 16 miles are again within 

Forest Service ownership. The critical habitat in Granite Creek occurs off-forest but is potentially 

impacted by Prescott NF management actions in the Granite Creek watershed that drains into this 

area.

As previously noted with other aquatic species, some of the 5th level watersheds associated with 

the Verde River have relatively low percentages of satisfactory soil conditions and the watershed 

conditions are rated “At-Risk” or “Impaired” for several key indicators. These departures are 

collectively contributing to an altered hydrologic condition that is affecting aquatic habitat 

quality. A more complete discussion of soil and watershed conditions can be found in the “Need 

for Change 2” section of chapter 3.

The primary threats to spikedace in the Verde River include nonnative fishes which are predatory 

and/or competitive with the native species and reduced habitat quantity and quality from water 

withdrawals in the Big Chino Aquifer and the Verde Valley. Increasing groundwater withdrawals 

from the Big Chino Aquifer has the potential to decrease perennial flow in the upper Verde River 

which would reduce the amount of habitat for spikedace. The Big Chino Aquifer has been shown 

to contribute at least 80 percent to the upper Verde River baseflow (Wirt et.al, 2005). More than 

67 river diversions in the Verde Valley deliver surface water to agricultural fields and residential 

customers (Garner and Bills, 2012).

Physical and biological features of spikedace critical habitat include habitat to support all life 

stage for the species such as perennial flow and appropriate stream micro-habitat types; abundant 

aquatic insect food base; streams with no or low levels of pollutants; stream courses with 

connective corridors between occupied and seasonally occupied habitat; no nonnative aquatic 

species or levels that are low enough to allow persistence of the species; and streams with a 

natural unregulated flow regime that allows for periodic flooding or where modified that allows 

for adequate river function. All physical and biological features of designated critical habitat are 

considered to be present within the Verde River, except, as noted, the presence of nonnative 

aquatic species at levels that would inhibit the persistence of spikedace. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 145

Loach Minnow and Critical Habitat 

Loach minnow (Rhinichthys osculus) are found in small to large perennial streams and use 

shallow, turbulent riffles with primarily cobble substrate and swift currents. It is rare or absent 

from habitats where fine sediments fill these interstitial spaces. Loach minnow are now restricted 

to portions of the upper Gila River, San Francisco River, and Tularosa River in New Mexico and 

Blue River, Aravaipa Creek, Eagle Creek, and the Black River in Arizona. The present range is 15 

to 20 percent of its historical range, and the status of the species within occupied areas ranges 

from common to very rare. Threats to loach minnow are the same as those for spikedace and 

include habitat modification and destruction from water diversions, improper livestock grazing, 

and presence of nonnative fish species that are predatory and/or compete with the species.

Historically, the loach minnow was collected in the Verde River above Camp Verde and from 

Beaver Creek near its confluence with the Verde River in 1938 (Minckley, 1993), but it has been 

extirpated from the Verde River. Loach minnow were recently introduced into Fossil Creek in 

restoration efforts, but the success has not yet been assessed. 

As with the razorback sucker, trends in population and habitat for loach minnow in the Verde 

River have decreased from historical levels due to the establishment of nonnative aquatic species 

and a reduction in habitat quantity and quality. Factors contributing to the degradation of habitat 

include water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural practices, excess sedimentation 

from land development in the watersheds, and the establishment of invasive plant species.

There are about 136 miles of designated critical habitat for loach minnow on the Verde River and 

its tributaries Granite Creek, Oak Creek, Beaver/Wet Beaver Creek, West Clear Creek, and Fossil 

Creek. A total of about 74 miles of designated critical habitat occurs on the Verde River, from the 

confluence with Beaver Creek upstream to Sullivan Dam. The uppermost 43 miles of river are 

primarily within Forest Service ownership. The next 31 miles of river in the Verde Valley are 

primarily within private ownership. Physical and biological features of loach minnow critical 

habitat include habitat to support all life stage for the species such as perennial flow and 

appropriate stream microhabitat types; abundant aquatic insect food base; streams with no or low 

levels of pollutants; stream courses with connective corridors between occupied and seasonally 

occupied habitat; no nonnative aquatic species or levels that are low enough to allow persistence 

of the species; and streams with a natural unregulated flow regime that allows for periodic 

flooding or where modified that allows for adequate river function. All physical and biological 

features of designated critical habitat are considered to be present within the Verde River, except 

for the presence of nonnative aquatic species at levels that would inhibit the persistence of loach 

minnow. 

Gila Trout 

Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) were originally recognized as endangered under the Federal 

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, and subsequently, they were listed as endangered 

under the ESA of 1973. The Gila trout was downlisted from endangered to threatened in 2006. No 

critical habitat has been designated for Gila trout.

Surveys on most of the 18 existing populations indicate that the recovery efforts to remove 

nonnative fish and prevent their return to the renovated areas have been successful (Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2003; Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011). Historically, there were no naturally 

occurring Gila trout populations on the forest, although they were introduced into Gap Creek, a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

tributary to the Verde River, in 1974. This population persisted until 1990 but was extirpated 

presumably due to drought. It was recommended not to restock this stream because of the 

inconsistency of stream flows. Gila trout were introduced into Grapevine Creek in 2009 (Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, 2009a) and augmented in 2012 along with speckled dace. The 

Grapevine Creek drainage area, with one mile of perennial water, occurs within the Grapevine 

Botanical Area and represents the only occupied Gila trout habitat on the Prescott NF. No 

reproduction has yet been documented. No livestock grazing is authorized within occupied 

habitat in the Grapevine Botanical Area (Forest Service, 1997), recreation use is restricted to dayuse only, and there is management direction for no motorized or mountain bike use of trails. 

There are few threats to occupied Gila trout habitat in Grapevine Creek or to suitable Gila trout 

habitat in Sycamore Creek. Primary threats to Gila trout include hybridization, competition, 

and/or predation by nonnative trout species, habitat degradation, and wildfire. 

Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Critical Habitat 

The Northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops) was designated a candidate 

species for listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2008 (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008c). 

It was proposed for listing as threatened in 2013 (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013a), and its 

threatened listing was finalized in 2014 (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). The designation of its 

critical habitat was proposed in 2013 (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013b) and is expected to be 

finalized in the future.

There are 29 known localities for the northern Mexican gartersnake in the U.S. (Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2013a). The current status for 24 of the 29 localities (83 percent) is considered likely not 

viable and may exist at low populations densities that could be threatened with extirpation or may 

already be extirpated. In most localities where the species may occur at low population densities, 

existing survey data are insufficient to prove extirpation. Only five populations of northern 

Mexican gartersnakes in the U.S. are considered likely viable where the species remains reliably 

detected; one of these localities is the upper Verde River. 

Critical habitat units proposed on the Prescott NF include the Verde River and Little Ash Creek 

(Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013b). A total of 103 miles of proposed critical habitat along the 

Verde River occurs on or adjacent to the Prescott NF. For Little Ash Creek, the first 3.7 miles are 

primarily on BLM lands with some State and private land ownership, and the last 3 miles are on 

Prescott NF lands.

In Arizona, northern Mexican gartersnakes are most abundant in densely vegetated habitat 

surrounding cienegas, cienega-streams, stock tanks, and in or near streams in valley floors and 

open areas. They are not generally found in steep mountain canyon stream habitat (Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, 2001). Most localities are between 3,000 and 5,000 feet elevation in aquatic 

systems of desert grassland plant communities (Rosen and Schwalbe, 1988). This species preys 

primarily on frogs, tadpoles, and native fish. 

Threats to the species include predation, urbanization and lowered water tables, and habitat 

destruction, including that due to overgrazing. Population numbers are decreasing, with 

extirpations at several localities since 1950 as habitat is changed and introduced predators invade 

habitat. Direct predation by nonnative bullfrogs, crayfish, and fishes on northern Mexican garter 

snakes is a significant threat range-wide, as is predation on gartersnake prey species (competition) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 147

by these same groups of nonnative taxa. Nonnative fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs have reduced 

native populations of prey species throughout the range.

While disease is not currently considered a direct threat to northern Mexican gartersnakes, 

chytridiomycosis or Bd does have a widespread effect on anuran prey availability for the species. 

In addition, stress placed on northern Mexican gartersnakes as a result of threats related to habitat 

may affect the health condition of individuals within populations affected by these threats, which 

may increase the potential for disease within current populations in the future.

Threats to northern Mexican gartersnake critical habitat include water diversions, groundwater 

pumping, dams, channelization, and erosion. These are occurring in both the U.S. and Mexico 

and affect the amount of water within occupied habitat, directly affecting its suitability for 

northern Mexican gartersnakes. Threats from development, roads, flood control and water 

diversion, improper livestock grazing, high-intensity wildfire, and undocumented immigration 

that alter the vegetation of occupied northern Mexican gartersnake habitat are documented 

throughout its range and reduce the habitat’s suitability as cover for protection from predators, as 

a foraging area, and as an effective thermoregulatory site.

Nine 5th level watersheds are known to have current or historical presence of northern Mexican 

gartersnake. The main PNVTs within these watersheds are piñon-juniper and grassland PNVTs 

with relatively low percentages of satisfactory soil conditions. Many of these watersheds are also 

rated “At-Risk” or “Impaired” for several key watershed condition indicators. These departures 

are collectively contributing to an altered hydrologic condition that is affecting aquatic habitat 

quality in the Verde River. A more complete discussion of soil and watershed conditions can be 

found in the “Need for Change 2” section of chapter 3.

Historically, this species is found along the Verde River and Little Ash Creek on the forest 

(Rosen and Schwalbe, 1988). A few specimens have been collected in recent years along the 

Verde River (Holycross et al., 2006; Emmons and Nowak, 2013), where populations are 

considered to be at low densities. Trends in species population and habitat in the Verde River 

have decreased from historical levels due to the establishment of nonnative aquatic species and a 

reduction in habitat quantity and quality. Current occupied habitat is estimated at about 47 miles 

along the Verde River. Factors contributing to the degradation of habitat include water diversions, 

nutrient enrichment from agricultural practices, excess sedimentation from land development in 

the watersheds, and the establishment of invasive plant species. Based on available information, 

populations along Little Ash Creek may be at low densities or could be extirpated, but there is 

insufficient evidence to support extirpation (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). 

Narrow-headed Gartersnake and Critical Habitat 

The narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) was proposed for listing as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2013 (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013a), and its 

threatened listing was finalized in 2014 (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). The designation of its 

critical habitat was proposed in 2013 (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013b) and is expected to be 

finalized in the future.

There are 38 known localities for the narrow-headed gartersnake in the U.S. (Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2013a). The current status for 29 of the 38 localities (76 percent) is considered likely not 

viable and may exist at low populations densities that could be threatened with extirpation or may 

already be extirpated. In most localities where the species may occur at low population densities, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

existing survey data are insufficient to prove extirpation. Only three populations of narrowheaded gartersnakes in the U.S. are considered likely viable where the species remains reliably 

detected; the closest of these localities is Oak Creek in Arizona. 

Critical habitat proposed on the Prescott NF includes the Verde River (Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2013b). A total of 103 miles of proposed critical habitat along the Verde River occurs on or 

adjacent to the Prescott NF and is contiguous with proposed critical habitat for northern Mexican 

gartersnake.

In Arizona, the narrow-headed gartersnake is known primarily from streams draining the 

Mogollon Rim and the White Mountains (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2009a). Most 

localities are between 4,000 and 6,000 feet elevation in aquatic systems of piñon-juniper, oakpine belts, or ponderosa pine forests (Rosen and Schwalbe, 1988). It is a highly aquatic species, 

primarily consumes fish, and is associated with cool and clear riffle pool complexes supporting 

high native fish concentrations. Threats to this species from human activities include loss or 

reduction of streamflow, habitat modification, grazing along streambeds, and increased 

recreational use in riparian areas. Other threats include introduced predators such as bullfrogs or 

nonnative fishes and habitat fragmentation. Trends show declines in many populations. 

A few specimens have been collected in recent years along the Verde River (Holycross et al., 

2006; Emmons et al., 2011), but there are no known or historical occurrences within the Agua 

Fria River drainage (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2009a). Nonnative fish populations, 

bullfrogs, and crayfish are well established throughout the Verde River and pose threats of 

predation. Trends in population and habitat for narrow-headed gartersnake in the Verde River 

have decreased from historical levels due to the presence of nonnative species. This is a persistent 

issue for all native species in and along the Verde River.

Information on watershed conditions and threats to narrow-headed gartersnake on the Prescott NF 

are the same as for the northern Mexican gartersnake.

Colorado Pikeminnow 

Wild populations of Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) exist only in the upper 

Colorado River basin above Glen Canyon Dam. Populations in the lower Colorado River basin 

were extirpated. Introduction of pikeminnow have occurred within the Verde and Salt Rivers in 

Arizona as “experimental non-essential” under Section 10J of the Endangered Species Act (Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1985); however, no critical habitat has been designated in Arizona. 

Colorado pikeminnow is adapted to life in big river systems that are highly variable, with 

extremes in flow and turbidity. Habitat includes pools, deep runs, and eddies of medium to large 

rivers. Threats to the species include streamflow regulation, habitat modification, competition 

with and predation by nonnative fish species, and pesticides and pollutants.

Historical and current distribution and status of the Colorado pikeminnow on the Prescott NF is 

the same as for the razorback sucker. Introductions of Colorado pikeminnow made into main 

channel habitats of the Verde River since 1985 have had low survival, and recruitment has not 

been documented (Hendrickson, 1993; Hyatt, 2004). Since 1994, almost all reintroductions have 

occurred in the Verde Wild and Scenic River below Camp Verde. The extent of occupied habitat 

on the Prescott NF is 16 miles, located within the lower Verde River. The nonnative fish 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 149

populations are well established throughout the Verde River and are a primary threat from both 

predation and competition to all native fishes. 

Trends in population and habitat for Colorado pikeminnow in the Verde River have decreased 

from historical levels. This is primarily due to the establishment of nonnative aquatic species and 

a reduction in habitat quantity and quality. Factors contributing to the degradation of habitat 

include water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural practices, excess sedimentation 

from land development in the watersheds, and the establishment of invasive plant species.

Roundtail Chub 

Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) are found in cool to warm water, mid-elevation rivers and streams 

throughout the Colorado River Basin, often occupying open areas of the deepest pools and eddies 

on middle sized to larger streams (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2002a). Roundtail chub 

was once considered common throughout its range, including the Verde River and tributaries; 

however, it has been extirpated from approximately 60 percent of its historic occurrence. Current 

range includes areas varying in elevation from approximately 1,210 to 7,220 feet, although they 

are more commonly found between 2,000 and 5,000 feet. Habitats occupied by roundtail chubs 

are often associated with adjacent cover in the form of boulders, overhanging cliffs, undercut 

banks, or vegetation. 

The greatest threats to roundtail chub are the predation by and competition with nonnative aquatic 

species, particularly fish, and the de-watering of habitat. De-watering can occur due to water 

diversions, groundwater pumping, mining, or urban and agricultural development. (Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2009b). These threats will likely be exacerbated by changes to climatic patterns 

in the southwestern U.S. if the predicted patterns are realized and will be magnified by the 

fragmentation of existing populations.

Populations are found in the Verde River mainstem throughout the forest (Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, 2002a, 2003a, and 2009a), with about 51 miles of the Verde River considered 

occupied habitat. They were also introduced in Gap Creek within the Cedar Bench Wilderness on 

the Prescott NF in 2012. Trends in population and habitat for roundtail chub in the Verde River 

have decreased from historical levels. The primary threats specific to the Verde River include 

nonnative fish and reduced habitat quantity and quality from water withdrawals in the Big Chino 

Aquifer and the Verde Valley. Population growth in the area surrounding the forest is expected to 

continue with residential home and commercial development on private lands and increase 

impacts to watershed integrity.

As previously noted, the main PNVTs within the watersheds along the Verde River are the piñonjuniper and grassland PNVTs with relatively low percentages of satisfactory soil conditions. The 

five 5th level watersheds with occupied roundtail chub habitat are rated “At-Risk” or “Impaired” 

for several key watershed condition indicators. These departures are collectively contributing to 

an altered hydrologic condition that is affecting aquatic habitat quality in the Verde River. A more 

complete discussion of soil and watershed conditions can be found in the “Need for Change 2” 

section of chapter 3.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Critical Habitat 

Occupied sites for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) in Arizona are 

located along permanent watercourses, including the San Pedro, Salt, Gila, and Verde Rivers; 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alamo Lake; and Tonto Creek (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2008a). The southwestern 

willow flycatcher is historically known to occur—nest and migrate—along the Verde River; 

however, no occurrences of this specific subspecies have been reported on Prescott NF lands. 

Several observations of other willow flycatchers were reported in 1997 on the Verde Ranger 

District in the vicinity of the Verde River and Black Canyon, and sites monitored along the Verde 

River have also reported occurrences adjacent to the Prescott NF in Camp Verde (Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, 2008a). 

Critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher was designated in 2013 along 44.7 miles of the 

Verde River, encompassing both Federal and non-Federal land in the Verde Valley. Due to the 

fragmented nature of land ownership through the Verde Valley and the absence of thorough 

flycatcher surveys, it is difficult to determine flycatcher presence on National Forest System 

(NFS) parcels. There are currently no known southwestern willow flycatcher territories on the 

Prescott NF.

Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat requirements include riparian vegetation with dense 

foliage from ground level to 13 feet in thickets of trees and shrubs interspersed with small 

openings. It breeds in dense shrub and tree dominated riparian habitats along streams or other 

wetlands. Slow moving or still surface water is very common, and saturated soils are present at or 

near breeding sites during non-drought years (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002b). 

The threats to southwestern willow flycatcher are often interrelated and include habitat loss or 

modification, vulnerability due to a small population, and migration and winter range stresses 

associated with habitat quantity and quality. Nonnative species negatively impact habitats; 

however, tamarisk also provide a benefit as they are used for nesting. Tamarisk leaf beetle has 

been introduced in some areas as a biological-control agent to eradicate tamarisk and may now be 

considered a threat to southwestern willow flycatcher. Nest predation by brown-headed cowbirds 

can also be a significant contributor to population decline (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002b).

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) is associated with riparian 

habitat features and is most closely associated with understory riparian vegetation. Historically 

the species was locally common and widespread in California and Arizona, locally common in 

New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington, and uncommon in Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, 

Utah, and British Columbia, Canada. Currently, the largest remaining population west of the 

Rocky Mountains is in Arizona., however, yellow-billed cuckoo is relatively common in much of 

the eastern U.S. 

Yellow-billed cuckoos typically occur in narrow riparian cottonwood-willow galleries and are 

known to use salt cedar. Dense understory foliage is an important factor in nest site selection and 

they are known to use mesquite bosques in Arizona. Most reported occurrences in Arizona come 

from riparian habitats containing a variable combination of Fremont cottonwood, willow, velvet 

ash, Arizona walnut, mesquite, and tamarisk (Corman and Wise-Gervais, 2005). 

The threats to the species include the destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range and natural or human-made factors affecting its continued existence (Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2013c). Loss of riparian habitat has been identified as the primary cause of western 

yellow-billed cuckoo population decline. It may be precipitated by dam construction and 

operations, water diversions, river-flow management, stream channelization and stabilization, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 151

conversion of land to agricultural uses, urban and transportation infrastructure, and increased 

incidence of wildfire.

On the Prescott NF, western yellow-billed cuckoo have been documented along the Verde River, 

Sycamore Creek and Little Sycamore Creek, with a total of 13 observations reported between 

2001 and 2003. They have also been documented breeding on the adjacent important bird areas 

(IBAs), Aqua Fria National Monument, and the Upper Verde River. Current status of breeding on 

Prescott NF lands is unknown, but no nesting was reported from monitored sites. 

Habitat availability for this species on Prescott NF lands is approximately 7,496 acres. Habitat 

loss has been attributed to water diversion and impoundment, channelization, livestock grazing, 

off-road vehicle and other recreation uses, as well as increases in nonnative plant species (Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2010). Currently, proposed critical habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo 

has been identified on the Verde River, the Agua Fria River, and tributaries.

Regionally Sensitive Species

The regional forester’s sensitive species program is the Forest Service’s dedicated initiative to 

conserve and recover plant and animal species according to Forest Service policy (FSM 2670). 

The Prescott NF improves habitat and restores ecosystems for sensitive species through 

vegetation treatments and management practices. Sensitive species are those plant and animal 

species identified by the regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as 

evidenced by the following:

 Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, and 

 Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution

The Regional Forester’s sensitive species list from 2007 was updated in 2013. Between draft and 

final versions of this EIS additional analysis was conducted for several species new to the list. 

Table 36 reflects the 2013 list of regionally sensitive species that are known or are likely to occur 

in aquatic or riparian habitats within the planning area. 

The occupied river mile and acreage estimates reported in table 36 are based upon the vegetation 

types, inclusions, riverine, or riparian habitats that meet the life history requirements of the 

species.

Table 36. Regionally sensitive species and habitat 

Common Name Status Habitat Extent on the Prescott 

NF

Desert sucker Sensitive 59 miles

Sonora sucker Sensitive 51 miles

Bald eagle Sensitive 3,356 acres

Western red bat Sensitive 4,247 acres

Lowland leopard frog Sensitive 62 miles

A Caddisfly* Sensitive Unknown
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Common Name Status Habitat Extent on the Prescott 

NF

Brown springsnail Sensitive 0.25 mile

Verde Rim springsnail Sensitive 0.25 mile

Broadleaf lupine Sensitive Unknown

Cochise sedge* Sensitive Unknown

*Species added to regionally sensitive species list between DEIS and FEIS 

Desert Sucker and Sonora Sucker 

Desert sucker (Catastomus clarki) are found in the rapids and flowing pools of streams and rivers, 

primarily over bottoms of gravel-rubble with sandy silt in the interstices. Elevation ranges from 

480 to 8,840 feet. The Sonora sucker (Catastomus insignis) is found in a variety of habitats from 

warm water rivers to trout streams between 1,210 and 8,730 foot elevations. Threats to these 

species and their habitats include the introduction and spread of nonnative aquatic species and the 

destruction of habitat from human activities.

Desert sucker occur in numerous streams in the planning area, and Sonora sucker are found in the 

Verde River mainstem throughout the forest (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1995a, 2002a, 

2003a, and 2009a). Population abundance for these species in the Verde River is being negatively 

impacted due to nonnative predatory fishes (Bonar et al., 2004). Conditions are similar to those 

for razorback sucker, loach minnow, and spikedace, which also reside in the Verde River and face 

similar threats to their populations and habitat.

Abundance in other streams across the forest is influenced by the amount of available habitat in 

these intermittent or perennial-interrupted streams and the presence of nonnative aquatic species. 

Placer mining is a regular occurrence in the Hassayampa, Big Bug Creek, and Turkey Creek 

drainages, and it is an example of the type of activity that is contributing to degradation of desert 

sucker habitat. 

Bald Eagle 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is associated with riparian habitat, as well as rock and tree 

features. Wintering populations occur in both central and northern Arizona (Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, 2010a), and breeding sites are distributed mostly along major rivers in the 

central portion of the State (Southwestern Bald Eagle Management Committee, 2010). Known 

breeding occurrences for the Prescott NF include three monitored nest sites located at Lynx Lake 

and along the Verde River, with confirmed fledgling of at least one young each year from 2002 to 

2009. One winter roost site is also known to occur on the Prescott NF near Goldwater Lake. 

Nesting in Arizona typically occurs on cliff faces, pinnacles, and ledges, generally within 600 feet 

of water or in pine habitats within 1 mile of larger water bodies. Nesting habitat for the bald eagle 

includes 2,780 acres of overstory riparian along the Verde River, 426 acres of cliff habitat along 

the Verde River, and approximately 100 acres of ponderosa pine forest adjacent to Lynx Lake. 

Winter roost habitat includes about 50 acres adjacent to Goldwater Lake. The total acres of bald 

eagle habitat on the Prescott NF is approximately 3,356 acres.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 153

Human disturbance can lead to nest failure. Power line electrocution and automobile collisions 

associated with feeding on road kill are potential mortality factors (Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1999b).

Western Red Bat 

Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) is associated with broadleaf deciduous riparian forests and 

other wooded areas, which comprise roosting habitat as well. It is usually solitary, roosting 

primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs (Western Bat Working Group, 2005); they have also 

been known to “roost” in the leaf litter in the riparian zone. 

Arizona locations are scattered throughout the State but absent from the desert areas (Hoffmeister, 

1986), at elevations ranging from 1,900 to 7,200 feet (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

2003b). One occurrence near the Verde River was reported in 1994 (Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, 1995b) and several other occurrences were reported within Yavapai County, east of 

the Prescott NF (Heritage Data Management System, 2011). Modeling indicates approximately 

4,248 acres of existing habitat on the Prescott NF. 

The loss of dense, mature cottonwood forest is a factor in declining abundance (Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, 2003c). Intensive use of pesticides in fruit orchards may pose a threat to 

individuals and may reduce available prey. Controlled burns have the potential to cause mortality 

of bats roosting in leaf litter during periods of cooler temperatures (Western Bat Working Group, 

2005). 

Lowland Leopard Frog 

The lowland leopard frog (Lithobates yavapaiensis) is found in small to medium streams, small 

springs, stock ponds, and occasionally large rivers. This species is generally restricted to 

permanent waters below elevations of 6,400 feet. The greatest threats to this species are habitat 

alteration and fragmentation, accentuated by the introduction of nonnative predatory and 

competitive fishes, crayfishes, and bullfrogs.

Placer mining is a regular occurrence in the Hassayampa and Big Bug Creek drainages, and it is 

an example of the type of activity that is contributing to degradation of lowland leopard frog 

habitat. Trends in population and habitat in the Verde River and other streams have decreased 

from historical levels because of the introduction and establishment of nonnative aquatic species 

that are predatory and/or competitive with native species and reduced habitat quantity and quality 

from water diversions, nutrient enrichment from agricultural practices, excess sedimentation from 

land development in the watersheds, and introduction and establishment of invasive plant species.

A Caddisfly 

A Caribbean genus, A caddisfly (Wormaldia planae) is more or less restricted to the cooler 

spring-fed streams in mountainous regions of Middle America (Flint, 1968). This species was 

originally described from Chiapas, Mexico but was recently found in Arizona from Gila County 

to Yavapai County (Gila County: Line Fossil Creek, Fossil Creek; Yavapai County: Beaver Creek, 

below outlet of Montezuma Well; unnamed stream at Ward Ranch) (Munoz-Quesada and 

Holzanthal, 2008). These localities and 5th level watersheds are mainly on the Coconino NF. 

There have been no surveys for this species on the Prescott NF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Brown Springsnail 

The total range of the Brown springsnail (Pyrgulopsis sola) is Brown Spring in Yavapai County, 

Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2003a). This occurrence is on private lands but 

with a water diversion to forest lands. Threats include highly restricted distribution with 

associated potential for extinction due to chance events, water development, and groundwater 

depletion. The population has not been monitored since 1988, so population trends are unknown 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2003a).

Verde Rim Springsnail 

The total range of the Verde Rim springsnail (Pyrgulopsis glandulosa) is the Nelson Place Spring 

complex that forms the headwaters of Sycamore Creek in Yavapai County, Arizona (Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, 2003a). This occurrence is on private lands, but the spring is not 

fenced off from livestock grazing within the Sycamore allotment. Forest Trail 159 to Pine 

Mountain Wilderness passes through the spring habitat. Threats include highly restricted 

distribution with associated potential for extinction due to chance events, wildfire, improper 

livestock grazing, and recreational activities. A site visit in September 2010 revealed a large, 

healthy population at the main spring (Stevens and Ledbetter, 2011).

Broadleaf Lupine 

In Arizona, broadleaf lupine (Lupinus latifolius var. leucanthus) occurs in Mohave, Gila, and 

Yavapai Counties. The total distribution range for broadleaf lupine is 175 miles: in southeast 

Mohave County, there are 2 occurrences, ranging less than 1 mile; in north and central Gila 

County, there are 3 occurrences, ranging 35 miles; and in central Yavapai County, there are 21 

occurrences, ranging 50 miles. Nineteen occurrences for the species are widespread over the 

Prescott NF, ranging 45 miles (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2005d). Populations of 

broadleaf lupine within the Prescott NF nearly always occur along perennial streams or where the 

soil is wet all or most of the year. They are also found on north-facing slopes, along streams, and 

near springs, with substrates including granite, granite cobble, and basalt. Elevation ranges 

between 4,265 and 6,900 feet with a mean elevation of 5,600 feet. 

The primary threat to populations of broadleaf lupine is wetland degradation. Healthy populations 

occur where there is a stable source of flowing water, and the drying of soil or severe flooding 

can kill entire stands. There is no evidence that grazing negatively affects plants and, because of 

the perennial nature of its underground stems, most fires do not directly kill individuals. 

However, severe fires could kill stands by impacting wetland stability. Encroaching weeds, 

especially those with perennial rhizomes, are capable of crowding out broadleaf lupine in riparian 

areas.

Cochise Sedge 

Cochise sedge (Carex ultra) is a widespread species occurring from Mexico (Sonora and 

Coahila), to New Mexico (Grant, Hildago, and Sierra counties), and Arizona (Cochise, Coconino, 

Graham, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai counties). Populations of Cochise sedge are most 

often found growing in saturated soil near perennial seeps, streams, and springs, and in shady, 

moist canyon bottoms at elevations ranging between 2,000 and 5,900 feet. Rare plant surveys 

indicate that the species occurs at the southern edge of the Prescott NF, but no plants have been 

found within the Forest boundaries (Forest Service, 2011d). The primary threat to populations of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 155

Cochise sedge is riparian habitat degradation. Grazing and trampling can heavily impact these 

areas if not properly managed (Forest Service, 2013).

Management Indicator Species

Aquatic Macro-invertebrates 

The Prescott NF followed the process and procedures outlined for management indicator species 

(MIS) selection outlined in the “Region 3 Management Indicator Species Selection Process and 

Criteria” (Forest Service, 2010b). Aquatic macro-invertebrates were chosen as an indicator of 

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

stream channels essential for quality aquatic habitat. By monitoring aquatic macro-invertebrate 

populations and/or water quality parameters, the health and productivity of these systems can be 

assessed.

Aquatic macro-invertebrates include mayflies, stoneflies, caddis flies, black flies, beetles, midges, 

freshwater earthworms, snails, and many others. Each species has specific habitat needs and so 

they respond differently to changes in either the chemical, physical, or biological components of 

their habitat. These species are classified or separated according to a number of habitat 

preferences and life history traits. A main distinction between species or groups is their tolerance 

to pollution. Species are classified as pollution intolerant taxon or pollution tolerant taxon. 

Examples of water quality parameters affecting pollution intolerant species are excessive fine 

sediments, low dissolved oxygen, high water temperatures, and nutrient enrichment.

Aquatic macro-invertebrates are a management indicator species for aquatic habitat and late seral 

riparian habitat in the 1987 plan. Population and habitat trend data for macro-invertebrates is 

reported in the “Forest Level Analysis of Management Indicator Species for the Prescott NF” 

(Forest Service, 2010b). Bio-assessments and/or water quality assessments have been completed 

on 193.3 miles of perennial streams across the forest since 1992 by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2000, 2002, 2004b, and 

2009). These assessments are used to evaluate the health of the aquatic habitat found on the 

Prescott NF as described above in the “Affected Environment.” The 193 assessed miles of 

perennial stream habitat represent the known extent of aquatic macro-invertebrate habitat on the 

Prescott NF.

Two terrestrial species—pronghorn antelope and northern goshawk—were also selected as MIS 

(see “Management Indicator Species” section for terrestrial species in “Need for Change 1”).

Environmental Consequences

Federally Listed Species

Table 37. Federally listed species trends by alternative

Trend Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Population trends 

for federally listed 

species 

Stable Increase Greatest 

Increase Increase

Habitat trends for 

federally listed 

Slow increase 

in quality, no 

change in 

Accelerated 

increase in 

quality, no 

Greatest 

increase in 

quality, no 

Accelerated increase in quality, no 

change in quantity
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Trend Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

species quantity change in 

quantity

change in 

quantity

Gila Chub and Critical Habitat 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments, recreation and 

wilderness management, and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses management is 

expected to have insignificant and discountable effects to Gila chub because of the limited extent 

and rate of treatments and the mitigation of effects through implementation of standards and 

guidelines. Plan components related to watershed and soil management, wildlife, fish, and rare 

plants management, transportation, and range management may have short term adverse effects to 

the species and critical habitat but would maintain or improve the quality of occupied habitat and 

primary constituent elements of critical habitat on the forest. All of the alternatives would result 

in a “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for Gila chub and Gila chub critical 

habitat. 

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to Gila chub population and 

habitat trends, primarily due to the low emphasis on native fish restoration. Gila chub populations 

would be maintained at current, lower than historic levels, and there would be no change 

expected in habitat quantity or distribution. Habitat quality would continue to improve at a slow 

rate. Based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that this 

alternative would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF but would not increase trends in 

species populations.

Relevant laws, policies, and manual direction such as FSM 2600 that regulate management of 

federally listed and regionally sensitive species would remain in place, and these species would 

continue to be addressed in project-level analyses. 

Environmental consequences from management actions would be low for Gila chub and its 

designated critical habitat in the Ash Creek-Sycamore Creek watershed. Current populations are 

below historic levels due to the presence of nonnative aquatic species in the suitable habitats. 

Vegetation treatments are intended to restore the natural fire regime, improve forest health, and 

reduce the potential for high severity wildfire in the planning area. The erosion and surface runoff 

from these treatments that would result in short term sedimentation and nutrient loading in 

species habitat would be mitigated by implementation of the standards, guidelines, and best 

management practices prescribed in the 1987 plan. Long term, these treatments would result in 

improved watershed, soil, and vegetation conditions in the planning area, which in turn would 

maintain or improve aquatic habitats and species populations on the forest.

Runoff, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation from recreation use are problems that are 

not adequately addressed under current management direction. These factors degrade the quality 

of the existing and potential aquatic and riparian habitat and can work against habitat restoration 

and species recovery efforts. This could account, in part, for the slow rate of recovery under 

current direction.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 157

Alternatives B and D 

These alternatives would promote increasing trends in Gila chub habitat and populations, and 

based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that they would 

maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternatives B and D provide direction for native fish restoration actions (Objective 24), 

watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and land acquisition of inholdings along 

occupied and critical habitat (Objective 29). They also include specific provisions to incorporate 

any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future management 

actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). 

This direction would have a positive effect on Gila chub by increasing the quality of the existing 

and potential habitat at a faster rate than current guidance. The improvements in habitat quality 

could be expected to lead to increased rates of success for recovery efforts, thus supporting long 

term species viability. The prospects for viability are further enhanced by recreation, range, 

watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and riparian habitat 

(Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 11; GuidelineFish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). There is no 

expected change in the quantity or distribution of Gila chub habitat in either of these alternatives.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B and D. However, 

alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of native fish 

(Objective 24) and departed vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would promote the 

greatest increase in Gila chub populations and the most improvement in the quality of Gila chub 

habitat. This alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or distribution of habitat for Gila 

chub, but based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that it 

would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E would also promote increasing trends in Gila chub habitat and populations, and 

based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that it would 

maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E provides direction similar to alternatives B and D for native fish restoration actions 

(Objective 24), watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and specific provisions to 

incorporate any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future 

management actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). It does not contain specific direction for land 

acquisition of inholdings along occupied and critical riparian habitat as found in Objective 29 of 

the other action alternatives. There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of Gila 

chub habitat in this alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative E contains direction (Objective 31) to apply for water rights on in-stream flows within 

rivers that flow through the Prescott NF. This could complement native fish restoration actions by 

protecting base flows where water rights are granted and help maintain aquatic and riparian 

habitats on the Prescott NF.

Razorback Sucker and Critical Habitat 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; recreation and 

wilderness management; and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses management is 

expected to have insignificant and discountable effects to razorback sucker and razorback sucker 

critical habitat because of the limited extent and rate of treatments and the mitigation of effects 

through implementation of standards and guidelines. Plan components related to watershed and 

soil management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management may have short term adverse effects to 

aquatic habitat but would result in long term beneficial effects to maintaining or improving 

critical habitat and species populations on the forest. Plan components related to range 

management would have short term adverse effects to water quality from livestock use along the 

Verde River but would maintain primary constituent elements of critical habitat on the forest. All 

of the alternatives would result in a “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for 

razorback sucker and razorback sucker critical habitat. 

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to razorback sucker population 

and habitat trends, primarily due to the low emphasis on native fish restoration. Management 

actions would cause no change to habitat quantity or distribution, and habitat quality would 

continue to improve, albeit at a slow rate. Based on the analysis of the effects on aquatic habitat, 

it was determined that species viability would not be achieved on the Prescott NF without the 

restoration of razorback sucker habitat and successful reintroduction of the species.

Relevant laws, policies, and manual direction, such as FSM 2600, that regulate the management 

of federally listed and regionally sensitive species would remain in place, and these species would 

continue to be addressed in project-level analyses. 

Populations of razorback sucker would be maintained at current levels in the Verde River; 

however, these are lower than historic population levels due primarily to the presence of 

nonnative aquatic species and construction of a dam downstream from the Prescott NF. 

Vegetation treatments are intended to restore the natural fire regime, improve forest health, and 

reduce the potential for high severity wildfire in the planning area. The erosion and surface runoff 

from these treatments that would result in short term sedimentation and nutrient loading in 

species habitat would be mitigated by implementation of the standards, guidelines, and best 

management practices prescribed in the 1987 plan. Long term, these treatments would result in 

improved watershed, soil, and vegetation conditions in the planning area, which in turn would 

maintain or improve aquatic habitats and species populations on the forest.

Runoff, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation from recreation use are problems that are 

not adequately addressed under current management direction. These factors degrade the quality 

of the existing and potential aquatic and riparian habitat and can work against habitat restoration 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 159

and species reintroduction efforts. This could account, in part, for the slow rate of recovery under 

current direction.

Alternatives B and D 

Alternatives B and D would promote increasing trends in razorback sucker habitat and 

populations, and based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that 

they would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

These alternatives provide direction for native fish restoration actions (Objective 24), watershed 

integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and land acquisition of inholdings along occupied and 

critical habitat (Objective 29). They also include specific provisions to incorporate any recovery 

plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future management actions 

(Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). This direction would have a positive effect on razorback sucker by 

increasing the quality of the existing and potential habitat at a faster rate than current guidance. 

Improvements in habitat quality could be expected to lead to increased rates of success for 

razorback sucker reintroduction efforts, thus supporting long term species viability. The prospects 

for viability are further enhanced by recreation, range, watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, and 

minerals guidance that protects aquatic and riparian habitat (Guideline-Recreation-8; StandardRange-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 11; Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; GuidelineLands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). However, there is no expected change in the quantity 

or distribution of razorback sucker habitat in either of these alternatives.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B and D. However, 

alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of native fish 

(Objective 24) and departed vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would promote the 

greatest increase in razorback sucker populations and the most improvement in the quality of 

razorback sucker habitat. This alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or distribution 

of razorback sucker habitat, but based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was 

determined that it would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E 

Alternative E would also promote increasing trends in razorback sucker habitat and populations, 

and based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that it would 

maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E provides direction similar to alternatives B and D for native fish restoration actions 

(Objective 24), watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and specific provisions to 

incorporate any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future 

management actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). It does not contain specific direction for land 

acquisition of inholdings along occupied and critical riparian habitat as found in Objective 29 of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

the other action alternatives. There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of 

razorback sucker habitat in this alternative.

Alternative E contains direction (Objective 31) to apply for water rights on in-stream flows within 

rivers that flow through the Prescott NF. This could complement native fish restoration actions by 

protecting base flows where water rights are granted and help maintain aquatic and riparian 

habitats on the Prescott NF.

Spikedace, Loach Minnow, and Critical Habitat 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; recreation and 

wilderness management; and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses management is 

expected to have insignificant and discountable effects to spikedace and loach minnow because of 

the limited extent and rate of treatments and the mitigation of effects through implementation of 

standards and guidelines. Plan components related to watershed and soil management, wildlife, 

fish, or rare plants management, may have short term adverse effects to aquatic habitat but would 

result in long term beneficial effects to maintaining or improving aquatic habitat and species 

populations on the forest. Plan components related to range management would maintain or 

improve upland and riparian vegetation on the forest but would have short term adverse effects to 

water quality from livestock use along the upper Verde River. All of the alternatives would result 

in a “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for spikedace and loach minnow. 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; recreation and 

wilderness management; and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses management is 

expected to have insignificant and discountable effects to spikedace and loach minnow critical 

habitat because of the limited extent and rate of treatments and the mitigation of effects through 

implementation of standards and guidelines. Plan components related to watershed and soils 

management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management may have short term adverse effects to 

aquatic habitat, but would result in long term beneficial effects to maintaining or improving 

primary constituent elements of critical habitat on the forest. Plan components related to range 

management would have short term adverse effects to water quality from livestock use along the 

Verde River but would maintain primary constituent elements of critical habitat on the forest. All 

of the alternatives would result in a “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for 

spikedace and loach minnow critical habitat. 

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to spikedace and loach minnow 

population and habitat trends, primarily due to the low emphasis on native fish restoration. The 

effects are expected to be the same as those for razorback sucker and its designated critical 

habitat. Based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that viability 

would not be achieved on the Prescott NF without habitat restoration and the successful recovery 

of these species.

Alternatives B and D 

Alternatives B and D would promote increasing trends in spikedace and loach minnow habitat 

and populations, and based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined 

that they would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 161

Alternatives B and D provide direction for native fish restoration actions (Objective 24), 

watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and land acquisition of inholdings along 

occupied and critical habitat (Objective 29). They also include specific provisions to incorporate 

any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future management 

actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). This direction would have a positive effect on both 

spikedace and loach minnow by increasing the quality of the existing and potential habitat at a 

faster rate than current guidance. The improvements in habitat quality could be expected to lead 

to increased rates of success for recovery efforts, thus supporting long term species viability. The 

prospects for viability are further enhanced by recreation, range, watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, 

and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and riparian habitat (Guideline-Recreation-8; 

Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 11; Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; 

Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). There is no expected change in the quantity 

or distribution of spikedace or loach minnow habitat in either of these alternatives.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B and D. However, 

alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of native fish 

(Objective 24) and departed vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would promote the 

greatest increase in spikedace and loach minnow populations and the most improvement in 

habitat quality. This alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or distribution of habitat 

for spikedace or loach minnow, but based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it 

was determined that it would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF for both of these 

species.

Alternative E 

Alternative E would also promote increasing trends in spikedace and loach minnow habitat and 

populations, and based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that 

it would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E provides direction similar to alternatives B and D for native fish restoration actions 

(Objective 24), watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and specific provisions to 

incorporate any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future 

management actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). It does not contain specific direction for land 

acquisition of inholdings along occupied and critical riparian habitat as found in Objective 29 of 

the other action alternatives. There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of 

spikedace and loach minnow habitat in this alternative.

Alternative E contains direction (Objective 31) to apply for water rights on in-stream flows within 

rivers that flow through the Prescott NF. This could complement native fish restoration actions by 

protecting base flows where water rights are granted and help maintain aquatic and riparian 

habitats on the Prescott NF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Gila Trout 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; recreation and 

wilderness management; and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses management is 

expected to have insignificant and discountable effects to Gila trout because of the limited extent 

and rate of treatments and the mitigation of effects through implementation of standards and 

guidelines. Plan components related to watershed and soil management, wildlife, fish, or rare 

plants management, and range management may have short term adverse effects to the species 

but would maintain or improve quality of occupied and suitable habitat on the forest. All of the 

alternatives would result in a “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for Gila 

trout.

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to Gila trout population and 

habitat trends, primarily due to the low emphasis on native fish restoration. Based on the analysis 

of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that this alternative would maintain species 

viability on the Prescott NF but would not increase trends in species populations.

Relevant laws, policies, and manual direction, such as FSM 2600, that regulate the management 

of federally listed and regionally sensitive species would remain in place, and these species would 

continue to be addressed in project-level analyses. 

Gila trout populations would be maintained at current levels which are higher than historic 

population levels due to successful introductions in the Big Bug Creek watershed. There would 

be no change expected in habitat quantity or distribution, and habitat quality would continue to 

improve at a slow rate. The environmental consequences of other management actions would be 

similar to those for Gila chub. 

Alternatives B and D 

Alternatives B and D would promote increasing trends in Gila trout habitat and populations, and 

based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that they would 

maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternatives B and D provide direction for native fish restoration actions (Objective 24), 

watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and land acquisition of inholdings along 

occupied and critical habitat (Objective 29). They also include specific provisions to incorporate 

any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future management 

actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). 

This direction would have a positive effect by increasing the quality of existing and potential 

habitat at a faster rate than current guidance. The improvements in habitat quality could be 

expected to lead to increased rates of success for Gila trout recovery efforts, thus supporting long 

term species viability. The prospects for viability are further enhanced by recreation, range, 

watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and riparian habitat 

(Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 11; GuidelineFish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). There is no 

expected change in the quantity or distribution of Gila trout habitat in either of these alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 163

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B and D. However, 

alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of native fish 

(Objective 24) and departed vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would promote the 

greatest increase in Gila trout populations and the most improvement in the quality of Gila trout 

habitat. This alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or distribution of habitat for Gila 

trout, but based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that it 

would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E 

Alternative E would also promote increasing trends in Gila trout habitat and populations, and 

based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that it would 

maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E provides direction similar to alternatives B and D for native fish restoration actions 

(Objective 24), watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and specific provisions to 

incorporate any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future 

management actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). It does not contain specific direction for land 

acquisition of inholdings along occupied and critical riparian habitat as found in Objective 29 of 

the other action alternatives. There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of Gila 

trout habitat in this alternative.

Alternative E contains direction (Objective 31) to apply for water rights on in-stream flows within 

rivers that flow through the Prescott NF. This could complement native fish restoration actions by 

protecting base flows where water rights are granted and help maintain aquatic and riparian 

habitats on the Prescott NF.

Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Critical Habitat 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; recreation and 

wilderness management; and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses management is 

expected to have insignificant and discountable effects to northern Mexican gartersnake and 

proposed northern Mexican gartersnake critical habitat because of the limited extent and rate of 

treatments and the mitigation of effects through implementation of standards and guidelines. Plan 

components related to watershed and soil management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

may have short term adverse effects to aquatic and riparian habitat but would result in long term 

beneficial effects to maintaining or improving proposed critical habitat and species populations 

on the forest. Plan components related to range management would have short term adverse 

effects to aquatic and riparian habitat from livestock use along the Verde River and Little Ash 

Creek but would maintain primary constituent elements of proposed critical habitat on the forest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

All of the alternatives would result in a “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination 

for northern Mexican gartersnake and proposed northern Mexican gartersnake critical habitat. 

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to northern Mexican gartersnake 

population and habitat trends, primarily due to the low emphasis on native fish restoration. 

Management actions would cause no change to habitat quantity or distribution, and habitat quality 

would continue to improve, albeit at a slow rate. Based on the analysis of the effects on the 

riparian habitat, it was determined that viability would not be achieved on the Prescott NF 

without habitat restoration and the successful recovery of the species.

Runoff, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation from recreation use are problems that are 

not adequately addressed under current management direction. These factors degrade the quality 

of existing and potential aquatic and riparian habitat and can work against habitat restoration and 

species recovery efforts. This could account, in part, for the slow rate of recovery under current 

direction.

Alternatives B, D, and E 

Alternatives B, D, and E would promote increasing trends in northern Mexican gartersnake 

habitat and populations, and based on the analysis of the effects on the riparian habitat, it was 

determined that they would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

All of these alternatives provide direction for watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), 

and alternatives B and D provide direction for land acquisition of inholdings along occupied and 

critical habitat (Objective 29) that would directly benefit northern Mexican gartersnakes. They 

also include specific provisions to incorporate any recovery plans and conservation strategies for 

federally listed species into future management actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). This 

direction would have a positive effect by increasing the quality of existing and potential northern 

Mexican gartersnake habitat at a faster rate than current guidance, and the improvements in 

habitat quality could be expected to lead to increased rates of success for recovery efforts, thus 

supporting long term species viability. The prospects for viability are further enhanced by 

recreation, range, watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and 

riparian habitat (Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 

11; Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). 

There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of northern Mexican gartersnake 

habitat in either of these alternatives.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B, D, and E. 

However, alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of 

native fish (Objective 24) and departed vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would 

promote the greatest increase in populations and the most improvement in the quality of northern 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 165

Mexican gartersnake habitat. This alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or 

distribution of habitat for northern Mexican gartersnake, but based on the analysis of the effects 

on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that it would maintain species viability on the Prescott 

NF.

Narrow-headed Gartersnake and Critical Habitat 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; recreation and 

wilderness management; and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses management is 

expected to have insignificant and discountable effects to narrow-headed gartersnake and 

proposed narrow-headed gartersnake critical habitat because of the limited extent and rate of 

treatments and the mitigation of effects through implementation of standards and guidelines. Plan 

components related to watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, may 

have short term adverse effects to aquatic and riparian habitat but would result in long term 

beneficial effects to maintaining or improving proposed critical habitat and species populations 

on the forest. Plan components related to range management would have short term adverse 

effects to aquatic and riparian habitat from livestock use along the Verde River but would 

maintain primary constituent elements of proposed critical habitat on the forest. All of the 

alternatives would result in a “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for narrowheaded gartersnake and proposed narrow-headed gartersnake critical habitat.

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to narrow-headed gartersnake 

population and habitat trends, primarily due to the low emphasis on native fish restoration. 

Management actions would cause no change to habitat quantity or distribution, and habitat quality 

would continue to improve, albeit at a slow rate. Based on the analysis of the effects on the 

riparian habitat, it was determined that viability would not be achieved on the Prescott NF 

without habitat restoration and the successful recovery of the species.

Runoff, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation from recreation use are problems that are 

not adequately addressed under current management direction. These factors degrade the quality 

of existing and potential aquatic and riparian habitat and can work against habitat restoration and 

species recovery efforts. This could account, in part, for the slow rate of recovery under current 

direction.

Alternatives B, D, and E 

Alternatives B, D, and E would promote increasing trends in narrow-headed gartersnake habitat 

and populations, and based on the analysis of the effects on the riparian habitat, it was determined 

that they would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

All of these alternatives provide direction for watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), 

and alternatives B and D provide direction for land acquisition of inholdings along occupied and 

critical habitat (Objective 29) that would directly benefit narrow-headed gartersnakes. They also 

include specific provisions to incorporate any recovery plans and conservation strategies for 

federally listed species into future management actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). This 

direction would have a positive effect by increasing the quality of existing and potential narrowheaded gartersnake habitat at a faster rate than current guidance, and the improvements in habitat 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

quality could be expected to lead to increased rates of success for recovery efforts, thus 

supporting long term species viability. The prospects for viability are further enhanced by 

recreation, range, watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and 

riparian habitat (Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 

11; Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). 

There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of northern Mexican gartersnake 

habitat in either of these alternatives.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B, D, and E. 

However, alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of 

native fish (Objective 24) and departed vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would 

promote the greatest increase in populations and the most improvement in the quality of narrowheaded gartersnake habitat. This alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or distribution 

of habitat for narrow-headed gartersnake, but based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic 

habitat, it was determined that it would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Colorado Pikeminnow 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; watershed and 

soils management; recreation and wilderness management; lands, minerals, transportation and 

range management is expected to have insignificant and discountable effects to Colorado 

pikeminnow because of the limited extent of action and/or mitigation of effects through 

implementation of standard and guidelines. The proposed LRMP would result in a “Not Likely to 

Jeopardize” determination to the §10(j) population of Colorado pikeminnow.

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to Colorado pikeminnow 

population and habitat trends, primarily due to the low emphasis on native fish restoration. The 

effects are expected to be the same as those for razorback sucker and its designated critical 

habitat. Based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that viability 

would not be achieved on the Prescott NF without habitat restoration and the successful 

reintroduction of this species.

Alternatives B and D 

Alternatives B and D would promote increasing trends in Colorado pikeminnow habitat and 

populations, and based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that 

they would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

These alternatives provide direction for native fish restoration actions (Objective 24), watershed 

integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and land acquisition of inholdings along occupied and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 167

critical habitat (Objective 29). They also include specific provisions to incorporate any recovery 

plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future management actions 

(Fish/Aquatic Guideline 1). 

This direction would have a positive effect by increasing the quality of the existing and potential 

habitat at a faster rate than current guidance. The improvements in Colorado pikeminnow habitat 

quality could be expected to lead to increased rates of success for reintroduction efforts, thus 

supporting long term species viability. The prospects for viability are further enhanced by 

recreation, range, watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and 

riparian habitat (Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 

11; Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). 

There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of Colorado pikeminnow habitat in 

either of these alternatives.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B and D. However, 

alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of native fish 

(Objective 24) and departed vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would promote the 

greatest increase in Colorado pikeminnow populations and the most improvement in the quality 

of Colorado pikeminnow habitat. This alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or 

distribution of habitat for Colorado pikeminnow, but based on the analysis of the effects on the 

aquatic habitat, it was determined that it would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E 

Alternative E would also promote increasing trends in Colorado pikeminnow habitat and 

populations, and based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that 

it would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E provides direction similar to alternatives B and D for native fish restoration actions 

(Objective 24), watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and specific provisions to 

incorporate any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future 

management actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). It does not contain specific direction for land 

acquisition of inholdings along occupied and critical riparian habitat as found in Objective 29 of 

the other action alternatives. There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of 

Colorado pikeminnow habitat in this alternative.

Alternative E contains direction (Objective 31) to apply for water rights on in-stream flows within 

rivers that flow through the Prescott NF. This could complement native fish restoration actions by 

protecting base flows where water rights are granted and help maintain aquatic and riparian 

habitats on the Prescott NF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Roundtail Chub 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; recreation and 

wilderness management; and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses management is 

expected to have insignificant and discountable effects to roundtail chub because of the limited 

extent and rate of treatments and the mitigation of effects through implementation of standards 

and guidelines. Plan components related to watershed and soil management, wildlife, fish, or rare 

plants management may have short term adverse effects to aquatic habitat but would result in 

long term beneficial effects to maintaining or improving aquatic habitat and species populations 

on the forest. Plan components related to range management would maintain or improve upland 

and riparian vegetation on the forest but would have short term adverse effects to water quality 

from livestock use along the Verde River and tributaries. All of the alternatives would result in a 

“Not Likely to Jeopardize” determination for roundtail chub. 

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to roundtail chub population and 

habitat trends, primarily due to the low emphasis on native fish restoration. Roundtail chub 

populations would be maintained at current, lower than historic, levels and there would be no 

change expected in habitat quantity or distribution. Habitat quality would continue to improve at 

a slow rate. Based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that this 

alternative would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF but would not increase trends in 

species populations.

Relevant laws, policies, and manual direction, such as FSM 2600, that regulate the management 

of federally listed and regionally sensitive species would remain in place, and these species would 

continue to be addressed in project-level analyses. 

Environmental consequences from management actions would be low to moderate for roundtail 

chub and its habitat in the Verde River. Current populations are below historic levels due to the 

presence of nonnative aquatic species in suitable habitats. 

Vegetation treatments are intended to restore the natural fire regime, improve forest health, and 

reduce the potential for high severity wildfire in the planning area. The erosion and surface runoff 

from these treatments that would result in short term sedimentation and nutrient loading in 

species habitat would be mitigated by implementation of the standards, guidelines, and best 

management practices prescribed in the 1987 plan. Long term, these treatments would result in 

improved watershed, soil, and vegetation conditions in the planning area, which in turn would 

maintain or improve aquatic habitats and species populations on the forest.

Runoff, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation from recreation use are problems that are 

not adequately addressed under current management direction. These factors degrade the quality 

of the existing and potential aquatic and riparian habitat and can work against habitat restoration 

and species recovery efforts. This could account, in part, for the slow rate of recovery under 

current direction. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 169

Alternatives B and D 

These alternatives would promote increasing trends in roundtail chub habitat and populations, and 

based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that they would 

maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternatives B and D provide direction for native fish restoration actions (Objective 24), 

watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and land acquisition of inholdings along 

occupied and critical habitat (Objective 29). They also include specific provisions to incorporate 

any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future management 

actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). 

This direction would have a positive effect on roundtail chub by increasing the quality of the 

existing and potential habitat at a faster rate than current guidance. Improvements in habitat 

quality could be expected to lead to increased rates of success for recovery efforts, thus 

supporting long term species viability. The prospects for viability are further enhanced by 

recreation, range, watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and 

riparian habitat (Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 

11; Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). 

There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of roundtail chub habitat in either of 

these alternatives.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B and D. However, 

alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of native fish 

(Objective 24) and departed vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would promote the 

greatest increase in roundtail chub populations and the most improvement in the quality of 

roundtail chub habitat. This alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or distribution of 

habitat for roundtail chub, but based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was 

determined that it would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E would also promote increasing trends in roundtail chub habitat and populations, and 

based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined that it would 

maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E provides direction similar to alternatives B and D for native fish restoration actions 

(Objective 24), watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and specific provisions to 

incorporate any recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future 

management actions (Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1). It does not contain specific direction for land 

acquisition of inholdings along occupied and critical riparian habitat as found in Objective 29 of 

the other action alternatives. There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of 

roundtail chub habitat in this alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative E contains direction (Objective 31) to apply for water rights on in-stream flows within 

rivers that flow through the Prescott NF. This could complement native fish restoration actions by 

protecting base flows where water rights are granted and help maintain aquatic and riparian 

habitats on the Prescott NF.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Critical Habitat 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; watershed and 

soil management; wildlife, fish, or rare plants management; and range may have short term 

adverse effects to riparian habitat, but would result in long term beneficial effects to maintaining 

or improving proposed critical habitat and species populations on the forest. Plan components 

related to recreation management, and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses 

management may have both short and long term adverse effects to southwestern willow 

flycatcher and southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. All of the alternatives would result 

in a “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for southwestern willow flycatcher 

and southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. 

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to southwestern willow 

flycatcher population and habitat trends. Management actions would cause no change to habitat 

quantity or distribution, and habitat quality would continue to improve, albeit at a slow rate. 

Complying with the relevant management, including the “Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Recovery Plan” (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002b), would ensure that key habitat features are 

provided and available. Based on the analysis of the effects on riparian habitat features, it was 

determined that this alternative would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Relevant laws, policies, and manual direction such as FSM 2600 that regulate the management of 

federally listed and regionally sensitive species would remain in place, and these species would 

continue to be addressed in project-level analyses. Current direction includes the development of 

breeding season timing restrictions and project-level mitigations to alleviate impacts from 

disturbance from mechanical vegetation treatments, prescribed burning, or other resource 

management activities occurring in the adjacent upland habitats.

Runoff, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation from recreation use are problems that are 

not adequately addressed under current management direction. These factors degrade the quality 

of the existing and potential riparian habitat and can work against habitat restoration and species 

recovery efforts. This could account, in part, for the slow rate of recovery under current direction.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would promote increasing trends in southwestern willow flycatcher 

habitat and populations, and based on the analysis of the effects on riparian habitat features, it 

was determined that they would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

All of these alternatives provide direction for watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), 

and alternatives B, C, and D provide direction for land acquisition of inholdings along occupied 

and critical habitat (Objective 29). They also include specific provisions to incorporate 

requirements in the “Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan” (Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 171

2002b) by reference (Guideline-Wildlife-1), and therefore, would inherently comply with the 

management recommendations in that document. 

The objectives in these alternatives would provide greater benefit to riparian vegetation habitat 

features than alternative A. This would have a positive effect on southwestern willow flycatcher 

by increasing the quality of the existing and potential habitat at a faster rate than current 

guidance. The combination of the riparian guidelines (Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 11; Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; 

Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2) and the terrestrial wildlife guidelines for listed species 

(Guideline-Wildlife-1) would also be expected to maintain or improve riparian primary 

constituent elements (PCE) identified in critical habitat designation for southwestern willow 

flycatcher critical habitat. 

The improvements in habitat quality could be expected to lead to increased rates of success for 

southwestern willow flycatcher recovery efforts, thus supporting long term species viability. 

Managing for the recovery of the species could eventually have beneficial effects for individual 

southwestern willow flycatchers. As there are no proposed treatments for riparian vegetation 

types in these alternatives, there is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of 

southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Recreation impacts would be reduced through an 

increased management focus, as riparian vegetation and habitats would be better protected from 

trampling if recreation sites were relocated away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the 

changes to recreation management can be found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

Common to All Alternatives 

The implementation of plan components related to vegetation and fire treatments; watershed and 

soil management; wildlife, fish, or rare plants management; and range may have short term 

adverse effects to riparian habitat, but would result in long term beneficial effects to maintaining 

or improving proposed critical habitat and species populations on the forest. Plan components 

related to recreation management and lands, minerals, transportation and special uses 

management may have both short and long term adverse effects to western yellow-billed cuckoo 

and proposed critical habitat. All of the alternatives would result in a “May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect” determination for western yellow-billed cuckoo and its proposed critical 

habitat. 

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to western yellow-billed cuckoo 

population and habitat trends. Management actions would cause no change to habitat quantity or 

distribution as there are no proposed treatments for riparian vegetation types, and habitat quality 

would continue to improve, albeit at a slow rate. Based on the analysis of the effects on the 

riparian habitat, it was determined that this alternative would maintain species viability on the 

Prescott NF.

Relevant laws, policies, and manual direction, such as FSM 2600, that regulate the management 

of federally listed and regionally sensitive species would remain in place, and these species would 

continue to be addressed in project-level analyses. Current direction includes the development of 

breeding season timing restrictions and project-level mitigations to alleviate impacts from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

disturbance from mechanical vegetation treatments, prescribed burning, or other resource 

management activities occurring in adjacent upland habitats.

Runoff, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation from recreation use are problems that are 

not adequately addressed under current management direction. These factors degrade the quality 

of the existing and potential riparian habitat and can work against habitat restoration and species 

recovery efforts. This could account, in part, for the slow rate of recovery under current direction.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would promote increasing trends in western yellow-billed cuckoo 

habitat and populations, and based on the analysis of the effects on the riparian habitat, it was 

determined that they would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

All of these alternatives provide direction for watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), 

and alternatives B, C, and D provide direction for land acquisition of inholdings along occupied 

and critical habitat (Objective 29). They also include specific provisions to incorporate any 

recovery plans and conservation strategies for federally listed species into future management 

actions (Guideline-Wildlife-1). 

Riparian habitats have a high similarity to reference conditions and are expected to remain near 

reference conditions over the next 40 to 80 years. The objectives in these alternatives would 

provide greater benefit to riparian vegetation habitat features than alternative A. This would have 

a positive effect on western yellow-billed cuckoo by increasing the quality of the existing riparian 

habitat and proposed critical habitat at a faster rate than current guidance. 

Managing for the recovery of the species could eventually have positive effects for individual 

western yellow-billed cuckoos, and improvements in habitat quality could be expected to lead to 

increased rates of success for western yellow-billed cuckoo recovery efforts, thus supporting long 

term species viability. The prospects for viability are further enhanced by recreation, range, 

watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and riparian habitat 

(Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 11; GuidelineFish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). As there are no 

proposed treatments in riparian vegetation types in these alternatives, there is no expected change 

in the quantity or distribution of western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 173

Regionally Sensitive Species 

Table 38. Regionally sensitive species trends by alternative

Trends Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Population trends 

for regionally 

sensitive species

Stable Increase Greatest 

increase Increase

Aquatic habitat 

trends for 

regionally 

sensitive species 

Slow increase 

in quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Accelerated 

increase in 

quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Greatest 

increase in 

quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Accelerated increase in quality, no 

change in quantity

Riparian habitat 

trends for 

regionally 

sensitive species 

Slow increase 

in quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Accelerated 

increase in 

quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Greatest 

increase in 

quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Accelerated increase in quality, no 

change in quantity

Common to All Alternatives 

Implementation of plan components related to vegetation treatments; recreation management; 

watershed management; wildlife, fish, or rare plants management; or land acquisition in any of 

the alternatives may have short term indirect effects on aquatic and riparian habitat or species 

populations, but they would produce long term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of 

habitats and species populations on the Prescott NF. The implementation of any alternative may 

render a “May impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or 

loss of viability” determination. 

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to habitat and population trends 

for regionally sensitive aquatic and riparian species. Based on the analysis of the effects on the 

aquatic and riparian habitat, it was determined that this alternative would maintain species 

viability for all regionally sensitive aquatic and riparian species on the Prescott NF, but trends in 

population would not increase for any of these species.

Relevant laws, policies, and manual direction, such as FSM 2600, that regulate the management 

of federally listed and regionally sensitive species would remain in place, and these species would 

continue to be addressed in project-level analyses. 

Populations of these species would be maintained at current levels in the Verde River and in the 

small streams that are departed from historic conditions due to the presence of nonnative species. 

Management actions would not change habitat quantity or distribution. 

As noted above, vegetation treatments are intended to restore the natural fire regime, improve 

forest health, and reduce the potential for high severity wildfire in the planning area. The erosion 

and surface runoff from these treatments that would result in short term sedimentation and 

nutrient loading in species habitat would be mitigated by implementation of the standards,

guidelines, and best management practices prescribed in the 1987 plan. Long term, these 

treatments would result in improved watershed, soil, and vegetation conditions in the planning 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

area, which in turn would maintain or improve aquatic habitats and species populations on the 

forest.

Runoff, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation from recreation use are problems that are 

not adequately addressed under current management direction. These factors degrade the quality 

of the existing and potential aquatic and riparian habitat and can work against habitat restoration 

and species recovery efforts. This could account, in part, for the slow rate of recovery under 

current direction.

Alternatives B and D 

Alternatives B and D would promote increasing trends in habitat and population for regionally 

sensitive aquatic and riparian species on the Prescott NF. Based on the analysis of the effects on 

the aquatic and riparian habitat, it was determined that they would also maintain viability on the 

Prescott NF for these species.

These alternatives provide direction for native fish restoration actions (Objective 24), watershed 

integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 23), and land acquisition of inholdings along occupied and 

critical habitat (Objective 29). They also include specific provisions that projects incorporate any 

design features, mitigation, or timing considerations needed to ensure that regionally sensitive 

species do not trend toward Federal listing (Guideline-Wildlife-2, Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-2, and 

Guideline-Plants-1). There is also a specific prohibition on collecting regionally sensitive plants, 

other than for research or scientific purposes (Standard-Plants-1).

This direction would have a positive effect by increasing the quality of the existing and potential 

habitat at a faster rate than current guidance. Improvements in habitat quality could be expected 

to lead to increased rates of success for recovery efforts, thus supporting long term species 

viability. The prospects for viability are further enhanced by recreation, range, watershed, 

fish/aquatics, lands, and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and riparian habitat and 

regionally sensitive species (Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 

9, 10, and 11; Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable 

Minerals-2; Guideline-Minerals Materials-5). There is no expected change in the quantity or 

distribution of habitat for any of the regionally sensitive species in either of these alternatives.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced through an increased management focus, as riparian 

vegetation and habitats would be better protected from trampling if recreation sites were relocated 

away from sensitive areas. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be 

found in the “Need for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B and D. However, 

alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of native fish 

(Objective 24) and departed vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would promote the 

greatest increase in populations and the most improvement in the quality of habitat. This 

alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or distribution of habitat for any of the 

regionally sensitive species, but based on the analysis of the effects on aquatic and riparian 

habitats, it was determined that it would maintain regionally sensitive species viability on the 

Prescott NF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 175

Alternative E 

Alternative E would also promote increasing trends in habitat and population for regionally 

sensitive aquatic and riparian species on the Prescott NF. Based on the analysis of the effects on 

the aquatic and riparian habitat, it was determined that it would maintain viability on the Prescott 

NF for these species.

Alternative E provides direction similar to alternatives B and D for native fish restoration actions 

(Objective 24), watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and to ensure that regionally 

sensitive species do not trend toward Federal listing (Guideline-Wildlife-2, GuidelineFish/Aquatics-2, Guideline-Plants-1, and Standard-Plants-1). 

It does not contain specific direction for land acquisition of inholdings along occupied and 

critical riparian habitat as found in Objective 29 of the other action alternatives. There is no 

expected change in the quantity or distribution of habitat for any of the regionally sensitive 

species in this alternative.

Alternative E contains direction (Objective 31) to apply for water rights on in-stream flows within 

rivers that flow through the Prescott NF. This could complement native fish restoration actions by 

protecting base flows where water rights are granted, benefit aquatic and riparian habitats, and 

help maintain regionally sensitive species viability on the Prescott NF.

Management Indicator Species

Table 39. Management indicator species trends by alternative 

Trends Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Population trends 

for aquatic macroinvertebrates

Stable Increase

Habitat trends for 

aquatic macroinvertebrates

Slow increase 

in quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Accelerated 

increase in 

quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Greatest 

increase in 

quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Accelerated 

increase in 

quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Accelerated 

increase in 

quality, no 

change in 

quantity

Alternative A 

Among all alternatives, alternative A would have the least effect to aquatic macro-invertebrate 

population and habitat trends, primarily due to the low level of forest land restoration. This 

alternative would maintain current forestwide trends for aquatic macro-invertebrate habitat and 

populations.

Populations of aquatic macro-invertebrates would be maintained at current levels in the Verde 

River and in the small streams that are departed from reference conditions due to mining impacts 

and impaired watershed conditions. Management actions would not change habitat quantity and 

distribution. Consequences to habitat quality would be the same as for regionally sensitive 

species. As noted in environmental consequences for the “Riparian Areas, Seeps, and Springs” 

section (see “Need for Change 2”), under alternative A, recovery would occur at a slower rate 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

than under the action alternatives. Based on historic trends, the rate of recovery would be 

equivalent to about 25 to 50 percent of the rate under the action alternatives.

Alternatives B and D 

Alternatives B and D would promote increasing trends in aquatic macro-invertebrate habitats and 

populations and would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

These alternatives provide direction for vegetation treatments (Objectives 1 to 5), seep and spring 

enhancement (Objective 23), watershed integrity projects (Objectives 18 to 22), and land 

acquisition of inholdings with suitable or occupied habitat (Objective 29). They also include 

specific provisions that projects incorporate any design features, mitigation, or timing 

considerations needed to insure that regionally sensitive species, such as the Verde Rim 

springsnail or the Brown springsnail, do not trend toward Federal listing (Guideline-Wildlife-2, 

Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-2).

This direction would have a positive effect by increasing the quality of existing and potential 

aquatic macro-invertebrate habitat at a faster rate than current guidance. The improvements in 

habitat quality could be expected to lead to increased rates of success for recovery efforts, thus 

supporting long term species viability. The prospects for viability are further enhanced by 

recreation, range, watershed, fish/aquatics, lands, and minerals guidance that protects aquatic and 

riparian habitat (Guideline-Recreation-8; Standard-Range-2; Guideline-Watershed 4, 9, 10, and 

11; Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-1, 2, and 3; Guideline-Lands-2; Guideline-Locatable Minerals-2). 

There is no expected change in the quantity or distribution of habitat for any of the aquatic 

macro-invertebrate in either of these alternatives.

The environmental consequences from vegetation treatments would be similar to alternative A, 

but the recreation impacts would be reduced by an increased management focus on dispersed 

recreation. Further analysis of the changes to recreation management can be found in the “Need 

for Change 3” section of this EIS.

Alternative C 

The consequences for alternative C are very similar to those for alternatives B and D. However, 

alternative C focuses on habitat restoration, with more emphasis on restoration of departed 

vegetation types (Objectives 1, 2, and 5). This would promote the greatest increase in populations 

and the most improvement in the quality of habitat by improving water quality within the aquatic 

habitat. This increase in water quality would be due to the greater emphasis on restoration of 

departed grasslands, resulting in increased infiltration rates and reduced sedimentation. This 

alternative is not expected to increase the quantity or distribution of habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates, but based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it was determined 

that it would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E 

Alternative E would also promote increasing trends in aquatic macro-invertebrate habitats and 

populations, and would maintain species viability on the Prescott NF.

Alternative E provides direction similar to alternatives B and D for vegetation treatments 

(Objectives 1 to 5), seep and spring enhancement (Objective 23), and provisions that projects 

ensure regionally sensitive species do not trend toward Federal listing (Guideline-Wildlife-2, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 177

Guideline-Fish/Aquatics-2). It does not contain specific direction for land acquisition of 

inholdings along occupied and critical riparian habitat as found in Objective 29 of the other action 

alternatives. This alternative could be reasonably expected to increase the quality of existing and 

potential aquatic macro-invertebrate habitat at a faster rate than current guidance.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of foreseeable activities on non-Prescott NF 

lands that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on the Prescott NF, may 

intensify, negate, improve, or otherwise affect the vegetation types and species’ habitats of the 

Prescott NF. Below are considerations of consequences of activities that will likely occur on 

adjacent or nearby ownerships to the Prescott NF. 

The cumulative consequences analysis area includes the twenty-two 5th-level watersheds that 

encompass the forest planning area. Further description of the hierarchical relationship of these 

watersheds can be found in the “Need for Change 2” section of this EIS.

Groundwater demands from expanding residential home and commercial development on private 

lands are reducing streamflows and available groundwater, and thus, aquatic habitat on the forest. 

The impacts from this development will be greater in the Big Chino Wash and upper Verde River 

sub-basins, as they have a higher amount of private land ownership. The cumulative 

consequences from groundwater removal are also discussed in the “Riparian Areas, Seeps, and 

Springs” section in “Need for Change 2.” 

The city of Prescott has a water right of 2,700 acre-feet per year from Del Rio Springs, near the 

headwaters of the Verde River in the Big Chino Wash sub-basin. The Arizona Groundwater 

Transportation Act (A.R.S. 45-555) also contains an exemption for the city of Prescott that allows 

the city to transfer between 8,000 and 14,000 acre-feet per year from the Big Chino aquifer. As a 

potential mitigation measure for these water transfers, the city has purchased lands with water 

rights in the area with the intent of retiring about 3,600 acre-feet per year of water. Even with 

mitigation, these groundwater withdrawals in the Big Chino aquifer have the potential to reduce 

in-river flow levels in the upper Verde River and negatively affect the quantity and quality of 

existing and potential aquatic habitats.

The riparian dependent birds and mammals analyzed are not confined to the boundaries of the 

Prescott NF. Ownership in the areas containing occupied and suitable habitat consists of a mix of 

private, State, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other Forest Service (Coconino and 

Tonto NFs) lands. Conservation status of suitable habitats and potential future impacts due to 

management on non-Federal lands is not known. For federally listed species such as southwestern 

willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo, the requirements of the Endangered Species 

Act ensure that habitats are managed to support the species on adjacent national forests, BLM, 

and other Federal lands. It is also expected that all habitats and populations for regionally 

sensitive species will be maintained in adjacent areas of the Coconino and Tonto NFs. On lands 

under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, management consideration is 

given to species of greatest conservation need. Two of the species analyzed fall into this category; 

yellow-billed cuckoo, due to its Tier 1A classification, and common black-hawk, which is 

classified as a Tier 1C species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Need for Change 5

Enhance the value of open space provided by the Prescott National Forest by defining visual 

character within areas near or viewed by those in local communities. 

This section summarizes the current scenic environment and open space conditions on the 

Prescott NF and the consequences of implementing the revised plan or its alternatives. It 

addresses the “Need for Change 5” in chapter 1. This includes retaining scenic integrity near 

communities adjacent to the forest, and pursuing land acquisition opportunities that provide 

riparian benefit and retain open space. The full analysis can be found in the “Prescott National 

Forest Plan Revision Scenery and Open Space Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2011j).

Affected Environment

Scenery

The scenery of the Prescott NF is diverse and includes mountains, pine forests, grasslands, lakes, 

streams, rugged canyons, and high desert plains. Visitors are drawn to the area for its open spaces, 

remoteness, tranquility, beautiful scenery, and cool high elevation climate which provides an 

escape from the desert heat. The variety of historic elements is rich in character and culture. 

As noted in the 2009 National Visitor Use Monitoring results (Forest Service, 2009d), visitors to 

the Prescott NF value scenery. The participation rate for “Viewing natural features (scenery)” was 

almost 82 percent, and over 18 percent of visitors said that this was their primary activity on the 

forest. This was the highest overall participation rate, and the second highest primary activity 

behind the 44.5 percent rate for hiking or walking. When asked about facilities or areas used, over 

16 percent indicated that they used the scenic byway.

The Scenery Management System (SMS) was developed to determine the relative value and 

importance of scenery on national forest lands and provides a framework to effectively inventory, 

assess, and manage scenic resources in sustainable and multiple-use contexts. It replaces the older 

Visual Management System (VMS), and the intent is that each national forest will change to the 

new system at the time of the next plan revision. The condition of the scenic resources of the 

Prescott NF is quite good (table 40), but the other resources can have an effect on scenery. Some, 

like certain mining activities, can cause short term impacts and long term degradation to visual 

quality. Other activities, like fire and recent vegetation management techniques, can have short 

term impacts and long term benefits to visual quality. 

One measure of the condition of the scenic resource that is used in the SMS is existing scenic 

integrity (ESI). It indicates the degree to which the landscape matches a desired appearance of 

naturalness, and notes features which are incompatible with the surrounding area. The 2007 ESI 

mapping revealed that just over eight percent of the forest, primarily the designated wilderness 

areas, received a rating of “very high.” For the majority of the remaining forest land, 83 percent is 

naturally appearing and has an ESI of “high.” Only about seven percent of the forest was 

considered “moderate,” and “low” and “very low” combined accounted for less than one percent 

of the acreage on the forest. There were no areas rated as “unacceptably low.” The highest scenic 

integrity ratings are given to those landscapes which most resemble the desired ideal.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 179

Table 40. Existing scenic integrity on the Prescott NF 

Existing Scenic Integrity Acres Percent

Very High 104,487 8.3

High 1,045,737 83.3

Moderate 93,929 7.5

Low 2,795 0.2

Very Low 8,535 0.7

Preservation of the scenic integrity on the forest is an important public concern. The “big 

mountain views” and the importance of the Black Mountain Range as a scenic backdrop were 

specifically mentioned in the community vision for the Verde Valley (Forest Service, 2009c), and 

Prescott NF lands on Mingus Mountain, Granite Mountain, and in the Santa Maria and Bradshaw 

Mountains provide scenic vistas to the residents of the “Quad Cities” (Prescott, Prescott Valley, 

Chino Valley, and Dewey-Humboldt). 

Some of the threats to maintaining the relatively high level of ESI on the Prescott NF include: 

loss of natural landscapes due to increased recreation use; expansion of the communication and 

energy infrastructure; removal of materials associated with mining and quarrying; and visual 

impacts associated with changes in climate. 

Land Ownership

The Prescott NF is approximately 1.2 million acres in size. Within the proclamation boundaries of 

the forest, there are an estimated 168,000 acres in a fragmented pattern of private and other nonFederal land ownership. This mixed ownership is a result of the granting of Federal land to the 

State of Arizona and to individuals in the form of mining and homestead claims. 

In the northwestern section of the forest, the ownership of approximately 50,000 acres alternates 

every other section between Federal and non-Federal land, creating a checkerboard appearance. 

This is the result of the Federal government granting land along proposed railway routes to 

railroad companies. In these checkerboards, private sections surround each Federal section on all 

four sides, and these islands of National Forest System land have been a challenge to manage 

since the passage of the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 (16 U.S.C. 471).

In November of 2005, Congress passed the Northern Arizona Land Exchange and Verde River 

Basin Partnership Act (P.L. 109-110). The purpose of the act was to sanction an exchange of 

approximately 15,000 acres of Federal land, including parcels in the checkerboard, and acreage in 

and adjacent to the communities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde, for approximately 

35,000 acres of non-Federal land in the checkerboard. This exchange would consolidate both the 

Federal and private ownership within the checkerboard and provide land for the expansion of the 

adjacent communities. A date for final resolution is not yet known, but once completed, the Forest 

Service will have acquired approximately two-thirds of the private sections on the west and south 

end of the checkerboard and improved public access and manageability on this tract.

Between 1980 and 2000, Yavapai County’s population growth outpaced that of Arizona, which 

had the fastest growth rate of any state in the Nation. As a response, in the last 10 years the 

conversion of private parcels from farming and ranching to more rural residential urban land has 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

increased dramatically in the areas around the Prescott NF. This shift has been especially visible 

in the Verde Valley, Williamson Valley, Prescott Valley, and Dewey-Humboldt. These private 

parcels include a number of patented mining claims that have since been subdivided and 

developed as year round and seasonal residences. Some of the homesteaded lands in and around 

the Prescott NF have also been subdivided and converted to housing developments. Those that do 

remain as ranches are generally associated with national forest grazing allotments. 

Open Space 

Preservation of open space is a predominant land use issue, given both the public’s desire to 

maintain the “rural character” of their communities and the need to accommodate rapidly 

growing populations and municipalities. National forest lands that abut private lands, by their 

very nature, fill that niche. As the population of the area increases, private lands in and around the 

forest are increasingly subject to subdivision and development. It is common for the buyer to 

view the adjacent portion of public land as their “little slice of national forest.” This can be 

especially true when private lands surround small portions of public lands and may be 

inaccessible to the public in general. 

Environmental Consequences

The environmental consequences of the alternatives focus on the “Need for Change 5” in chapter 

1. This includes the retention of scenic integrity near communities adjacent to the forest and the 

acquisition of land by the forest to retain open space values and provide riparian benefits.

Alternative A 

In alternative A, management of the scenic resources of the Prescott NF would remain under the 

goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in the 1987 plan (as amended), and this direction fails 

to address current issues regarding open space and threats to the scenic integrity of the forest. 

This could result in degradation of the scenic integrity near communities that are adjacent to the 

forest. In addition, the lack of specific direction to consider open space values during land 

exchanges could negatively affect communities adjacent to the forest. 

All of the visual quality analysis would be under the outdated 1986 Visual Quality Objectives 

(VQO) developed under the old VMS. These are not in line with current levels of visitor use and 

do not reflect the public’s concern for open space and scenery. They do not provide the guidance 

or flexibility needed to respond to current threats to the scenic resource. In particular, the Black 

Mountain Range, the backdrop for the communities in the Verde Valley, currently has a VQO of 

partial retention. This VQO only provides a moderate amount of protection for the scenic 

resource, and the visual quality could be compromised by management activities, resulting in a 

failure to meet the desired conditions for the Verde Valley Management Area. 

The 1987 plan does provide guidance and criteria for the acquisition and exchange of land 

parcels, but the primary focus is on facilitating forest management and meeting public and 

community needs for infrastructure growth. As such, acquisition guidelines include direction for 

the preservation of wetlands and riparian areas, but they do not provide guidance for encouraging 

the retention of open space, either on Prescott NF lands or those in adjacent ownership. 

According to the “Verde Valley Regional Management Plan” (Yavapai County, 2006), “...open 

space is possibly the most prized asset of the Verde Valley Region’s residents,” and the residents 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 181

are concerned with “... preventing the loss of openness, which epitomizes the sense of place in 

the Verde Valley.” These concerns contributed to the development of both forestwide and 

management area level desired conditions promoting the retention of open space. The lack of 

open space guidance in alternative A could result in continuing loss of open space in and near 

communities adjacent to the Prescott NF and a failure to meet desired conditions.

This alternative contains standards and guidelines for visual quality which are no longer needed 

or are not feasible to accomplish. This results in the need to devote additional time and resources 

to project-level analysis because the VQOs do not reflect the current conditions of the scenic 

resource and a plan amendment is often required to update the VQO in the project area.

There would be some protection for the visual quality of designated wilderness areas and 

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) due to the restrictions placed upon development, but there is 

little to protect visual quality from the impacts of utility lines or mining activities outside of these 

areas. There would be no potential wilderness areas (PWAs) recommended for wilderness 

designation; therefore, there would be no additional acreage receiving higher scenic integrity 

protection or that was withdrawn from consideration for conveyance. 

Common to Alternatives B, C, D and E 

The long term positive and short term negative changes in visual quality would be the result of 

prescribed fire and mechanical vegetation treatments. The vegetation treatments needed to meet 

Objectives 1 to 5 in the action alternatives would have initial negative consequence on scenery 

due to the activity, but over time, these landscapes would recover to a more natural state and the 

visual quality would be the same or improved.

Where prescribed burning treatments are applied to grasslands, the area will suffer an initial 

degradation in visual quality due to the presence of char and fire scorch, but within one season 

new growth will appear, and within 3 years the visual quality will recover.

Forest thinning projects open up dense stands and allow more light to reach the forest floor, 

promoting the growth of understory vegetation. An increase in the diversity of vegetation in the 

understory contributes to the visual quality of a landscape. They also allow crowns to spread, 

improving the health and attractiveness of individual trees, and open up the views into and 

through forest stands. Scenic guidelines 2 through 4 specifically address the retention and 

enhancement of SIOs during vegetation treatments. 

Some land uses which have a large visual impact, such as utility corridors and some mining 

activities, would occur under any of the alternatives. However, the action alternatives propose 

high SIOs that would require more mitigation to better blend these uses into the existing 

landscape. These SIOs would also help protect scenic integrity from smaller projects such as road 

building or the expansion of recreation facilities. The action alternatives would also provide more 

protection for the scenic integrity surrounding the Verde Valley and the “Quad Cities.” More of 

the land surrounding these communities would receive a high SIO under these alternatives, and 

the amount in the low and very low categories would be reduced. 

Alternative B 

The adoption of the Scenery Management System (SMS) and resulting scenic integrity objectives 

(SIOs) in alternative B would lead to improved guidance and flexibility for protecting the scenic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

resources of the forest and addressing threats to the scenic integrity. Alternative B would also 

provide specific direction to retain open space values and protect riparian habitat by pursuing land 

acquisition opportunities. The result of this alternative would be increased protection for visual 

quality, especially near communities that are adjacent to the forest, which in turn would provide 

positive benefits by retaining scenic integrity and helping to preserve the sense of openness and 

rural character in these communities. The rural character and sense of openness would be 

furthered by plan guidance to act on opportunities to acquire land, as feasible, to retain open 

space values.

The recommendation of wilderness designation for 43,440 acres of potential wilderness would 

ensure that the highest level of protection of the scenery for those acres of the forest would be 

retained. If the areas become designated wilderness, the SIO would change to “very high.” The 

naturalness of designated wilderness areas is protected through numerous restrictions to activities 

as stated in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577). Recommended wilderness areas, like 

designated wilderness areas, would not be identified for conveyance out of Federal ownership. 

Wilderness designation for Black Canyon PWA, in particular, would benefit the communities of 

the Verde Valley and address their particular concerns by increasing the adjacent visual quality 

and protected open space on the forest. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C adopts the SMS and resulting SIOs used in the other action alternatives. As noted in 

alternative B, this would provide guidance and flexibility for protecting the scenic resources of 

the forest and addressing threats to scenic integrity. Alternative C also contains the same direction 

to retain open space values and protect riparian habitat by pursuing land acquisition opportunities 

as alternatives B and D, but it would not provide the additional protection to open space and 

scenic integrity granted by the recommendations for wilderness designation. With its emphasis on 

vegetation and wildlife habitat restoration, this alternative would provide the most long term 

improvement in visual quality, although it would result in more negative changes in the short 

term.

Alternative D 

Alternative D provides the same guidance and flexibility for protecting visual quality, addressing 

threats to scenic integrity, and pursuing land acquisition opportunities to retain open space values 

and protect riparian habitat as alternatives B and C. Alternative D differs from the other action 

alternatives in that it places an emphasis on developing dispersed recreation opportunities. The 

visual impacts from the increased recreation activities in alternative D are generally localized, not 

landscape scale and would have little consequence on the Verde Valley and “Quad Cities” 

communities. 

Although this alternative recommends the most wilderness for designation, the PWAs 

recommended are not close enough to be seen from the Verde Valley or most of the “Quad 

Cities.” Alternative D would not recommend Black Canyon PWA for wilderness designation, so 

there would be no additional benefit to the communities of the Verde Valley from the protection 

of open space and scenic integrity provided by wilderness. In this respect, alternative D would not 

meet the local desire for stronger protection of open space and visual quality.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 183

Alternative E 

Alternative E also adopts the SMS and resulting SIOs and thus provides the same guidance and 

flexibility for protecting visual quality and addressing threats to scenic integrity as the other 

action alternatives. The direction to pursue land acquisition opportunities is more broadly defined 

in alternative E; it does not contain the language emphasizing lands along the Verde River and in 

the Verde Valley, nor does it specify acquisitions to protect and enhance riparian habitat. 

Similar to alternative D, the PWAs recommended for wilderness designation in alternative E are 

not close enough to be seen from the Verde Valley or most of the “Quad Cities” and do not 

include Black Canyon PWA. As with alternative D, alternative E would not meet the local desire 

in the Verde Valley for stronger protection of open space and visual quality.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of foreseeable activities on lands that are not 

managed by the Prescott NF that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on 

the forest, may intensify, negate, improve, or otherwise affect the open space and scenic values on 

the forest. Viewsheds containing portions of the forest affect the quality of life for many people 

living in the Verde Valley and the “Quad Cities” area. Urbanization of lands adjacent to the forest 

affects the visual quality and recreation setting on the Prescott NF. In some areas, in particular, 

the “Quad Cities” and Verde Valley, development is encroaching on the forest boundary, reducing 

the amount of open space in private ownership and increasing the demand for open space on 

public lands. When limited development is designed to blend into the landscape, the effect is 

minimal; however, if the structures or associated developments are not blended into the landscape 

or are large in scale, they can have a negative impact on the visual quality and perception of open 

space. Increasing development on private land adjacent to the forest also has the effect of 

increasing the value of the remaining open space as it becomes scarcer. 

Lands managed by other government agencies at the county, State, and Federal levels have the 

potential to affect the visual quality of the Prescott NF. Although it can be reasonably expected 

that visual quality management would be consistent between the Prescott NF and adjacent 

national forests, appropriate differences in agency missions and the management of scenic 

resources could result in inconsistencies between the Forest Service and other agencies. This can 

create the potential to negatively alter the appearance of lands adjacent to the forest. Other 

agencies’ management activities that do not result in a natural landscape can affect the experience 

of forest users who are viewing scenery.

Social and Economic Values

The environmental consequences in the following sections focus on the components of the social 

and economic environments that are useful to the decisionmaker and the public. The specific 

social and economic topics addressed include: socioeconomic resources, environmental justice, 

heritage resources, livestock grazing, minerals, forest products, special uses, and transportation 

systems of the Prescott NF.

Socioeconomic Resources

This section summarizes the current socioeconomic conditions on the Prescott NF and the social 

and economic consequences of implementing the revised plan or its alternatives. The full 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

analysis, including methodology and economic models, can be found in the “Socioeconomic 

Resource Report” (Forest Service, 2011a).

Affected Environment

The study area for this analysis is Yavapai County, Arizona, which occupies approximately 8,124 

square miles of land. Prescott NF lands are almost exclusively in Yavapai County (97 percent) 

with a very small portion (3 percent) extending into neighboring Coconino County. Information 

for Coconino County was excluded from the socioeconomic analysis because the county’s 

relatively large size and population would skew the demographic and economic data and mask 

important consequences of the proposed alternatives. 

Table 41 displays land ownership categories for both Yavapai County and the State of Arizona. 

National Forest System lands (Forest Service) account for 15 percent of the land in Arizona. As a 

whole, land ownership within Yavapai County resembles the ownership pattern in the rest of 

Arizona, with the highest proportions falling under Federal management. Forest Service managed 

lands account for the largest percentage of total land ownership in the county (38 percent) while 

private lands total only 25 percent of the county land area. This suggests the potential for 

intensive public interest in Prescott NF management issues. 

Table 41. Land ownership patterns for Yavapai County compared to Arizona

Source: Forest Service, 2009b and Arizona State Senate Issue Brief September 2011

Yavapai County land use ranges from traditional low density uses such as ranching in rural areas 

to higher concentrations of residential, industrial, and commercial uses in and around urban 

centers. Tourism and recreation industries are reliant on public lands (Federal and State) for a 

variety of recreation opportunities involving day use as well as overnight stays. 

The preservation of open space is of particular importance given the desire by some communities 

to both maintain the “rural character” of county lands and to accommodate rapidly growing 

populations. The provision of adequate, affordable infrastructure and sustainable water supplies is 

also a growing concern for planners, residents, and land managers throughout the region (Forest 

Service, 2009b). 

The Forest Service manages five revenue generating goods and services on the Prescott NF: 

outdoor recreation, minerals extraction, livestock grazing, forest products, and special uses. These 

are described in detail below. 

Of these five, the outdoor recreation program produces the largest indirect influence on the local 

economy by providing features that draw tourists to the area. The mild climate of the Prescott NF 

encourages year round recreation activity. Trail and day use are primary activity types and 

include: off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding, horseback riding, hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, 

and wildlife viewing. The developed sites on the Prescott NF encompass campgrounds, picnic 

State Private Indian U.S. Forest 

Service

Other Federal 

Lands

Total Area 

(square 

miles)

Yavapai County 24% 25% <1% 38% 13% 8,124

State of Arizona 13% 17% 27% 15% 28% 113,594
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 185

areas, lake access, equestrian areas, rental cabins, and a recreational shooting range. Prescott 

Basin, the area surrounding the city of Prescott, has the highest concentration of recreation 

activity on the Prescott NF and limits dispersed camping to designated sites. The Prescott NF also 

contains over 800 miles of both motorized and nonmotorized trails, 8 designated wilderness areas 

containing over 100,000 acres, and a portion of the Verde Wild and Scenic River. 

The Prescott NF had an estimated 1,230,500 annual visitors in 2007. Top recreation activities on 

the forest include hiking and walking, viewing natural features, and driving for pleasure (Forest 

Service, 2009d). Most visitors to the forest live in Yavapai County, although Maricopa County 

residents comprise the next largest group, as portions of the Prescott NF are located less than 90 

miles from the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

The Prescott NF has abundant mineral deposits, and mining is a common activity both on and off 

the forest. Existing mining activities on the Prescott NF includes mineral material contracts for 

removal of flagstone, schist, decomposed granite, and limestone and recreational gold placer 

mining. There are 1,800 active placer claims and 1,484 active lode claims with 10 tunnel site 

claims. The Prescott NF does not produce any energy or fuel minerals such as uranium, oil, 

natural gas, or coal. 

About 74 percent of the Prescott NF is used for livestock grazing by permit holders on 62 of 68 

total range allotments. There is no indication that there will be a major increase or decrease in 

grazing on Prescott NF lands over the next 20 years; however, herd size and management 

strategies are expected to fluctuate in response to drought, wildfire, prescribed fire, and other 

factors that change range conditions. Grazing on the Prescott NF contributes to the rural ranching 

lifestyle, culture, and economy and is a tool for achieving management objectives. 

The sustainable mix of forest products that contribute to the social, economic, cultural structure, 

and stability of rural communities are the result of management activities designed to restore and 

maintain healthy forests, mitigate insect and disease damage, reduce hazardous fuels, improve 

wildlife habitat, and create recreation opportunities. The Prescott NF offers a variety of forest 

products including saw timber, small diameter wood, firewood, and Christmas trees. The nearest 

saw and pulp mills that provide a market for these forest products are located outside of Yavapai 

County in Phoenix, Arizona (Maricopa County). 

Special use permits authorize services that support the Forest Service mission and meet the needs 

of the public. These permits are a partnership between the Forest Service and private businesses 

or individuals to provide services and facilities. Special use permits allow for occupancy and use 

of National Forest System lands. The Prescott NF has issued over 400 active special use permits 

for a variety of uses, including recreation residences, organizational camps, research studies, 

rights-of-way, communications towers, power lines, and wildlife water catchments. Permits may 

be short term, such as for recreation events or non-commercial group uses, or longer term such as 

energy corridors or electronic sites. 

Demographic Conditions and Trends 

Demographic conditions and trends describe the social environment of Yavapai County and help 

tell the story of how many people live here (population growth and density), what they are like 

(age, gender, and education), and who they are (race and ethnicity). The topics of race, ethnicity, 

and low income populations are discussed subsequently in “Environmental Justice.” 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Population Growth and Density 

Current population levels influence the use of natural resources, and rates of growth can indicate 

whether there may be the potential for increased pressures on Prescott NF lands and resources. 

Rapid population growth may signal expanding economic opportunities, desirable amenities, or 

both. 

Population density can serve as an indicator of a number of socioeconomic factors of interest 

such as urbanization, availability of open space, socioeconomic diversity, or civic infrastructure 

(Horne and Hayes, 1999). More densely populated areas are generally more urban and diverse 

and offer better access to infrastructure. In contrast, less densely populated areas provide more 

open space, which may offer natural amenity values to residents and visitors. 

As displayed in table 42, Arizona and Yavapai County have experienced rapid population growth 

during the past 2 decades; the population of Yavapai County has almost doubled since 1990 and 

both the county and State grew 25 to 26 percent between 2000 and 2010. The national growth rate 

during the same period was more moderate, at almost 10 percent. 

Even with rapid population growth, the county population density remains quite low relative to 

Arizona and the Nation, suggesting that most of Yavapai County remains quite rural. The largest 

communities in the county are Prescott (43,230), Prescott Valley (38,962), and Chino Valley 

(13,069) (Arizona Department of Commerce, 2008). Much of the county’s population is 

concentrated near Prescott, which suggests that the city provides the commercial and cultural 

center of the county. The economic and social environment and opportunities near Prescott, 

therefore, are likely to be very different than in more rural areas of the county. 

Table 42. Population trends for Yavapai County compared to Arizona and the U.S.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010 

Age and Gender

Age and gender data are relevant to Forest Service management decisions because the average 

age of citizens may affect community values and uses associated with Prescott NF lands. For 

example, older populations are more likely to desire easily accessible recreation opportunities 

(Forest Service, 2011a). 

As shown in table 43, the median age in Yavapai County exceeds the median age in both Arizona 

and the United States by nearly a decade; 44.5 years versus 35 years for Arizona and 36.7 for the 

country as a whole. Yavapai County also has a higher percentage of female residents (51.1 

percent) relative to Arizona (49.9 percent) and the U.S. (50.7 percent). This high median age and 

gender discrepancy in Yavapai County is mostly a reflection of the large retiree population, but it 

may also indicate a large number of single parent households. Retiree populations are 

1990 2000

Percent 

Growth 

1990-2000

2010

Percent 

Growth 

2000-2010

Density 

(people / 

sq. mile)

Yavapai 

County 107,714 167,517 55.5 211,033 26 26.0

Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 27 6,482,505 24.6 56.3

U.S. — 281,421,906 — 308,745,538 9.7 87.4
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 187

systematically different than populations composed primarily of working age adults and families 

with children, and because of differences in life expectancy, they often result in a higher 

concentration of women. 

Table 43. Age and gender patterns for Yavapai County compared to Arizona and the U.S.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008 

Educational Attainment 

Educational attainment, the measure of people with at least a high school diploma or bachelor’s 

degree, is an important indicator of an area’s social and economic opportunities and its ability to 

adapt to change. 

The vast majority of adult residents of Yavapai County are high school graduates (table 44). The 

county has a higher percentage of high school graduates (87.5 percent) than either Arizona (81 

percent) or the U.S. (80.4 percent). However, the difference in educational attainment nearly 

disappears when higher education (bachelor’s or advanced degree) is measured. Yavapai County, 

Arizona, and the U.S. all have a similar percentage of residents with a bachelor’s degree or 

higher: 23 percent, 23.5 percent, and 24.4 percent, respectively. This finding suggests that the 

county is relatively well educated, and an educated population is a signal that an area provides 

economic and cultural opportunities. In contrast, areas with low levels of educational attainment 

have lower levels of human capital, which reduces an area’s ability to capitalize on economic 

change (Florida, 2002).

Table 44. Educational attainment, percent of persons age 25+ for Yavapai County

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008 

Economic Conditions and Trends 

Economic conditions and trends help tell the story of what people in Yavapai County do for a 

living (employment by industry), and how much they make doing it (income). Also described is 

the mix of labor income (salary and wages) versus non-labor income (e.g., retirement investment, 

state support). Payments to counties are reported because they are based on the amount of 

National Forest System lands within the county and are a direct contribution to local 

infrastructure and community services.

Females Percent Total 

Population

Males Percent Total 

Population Median Age

Yavapai County 51.1 48.9 44.5 years

Arizona 49.9 50.1 35.0 years

U.S. 50.7 49.3 36.7 years

High School Graduate Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

Yavapai County 87.5% 23.0%

Arizona 81.0% 23.5%

U.S. 80.4% 24.4%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Employment 

Job variety along with levels of employment and unemployment in an area are important 

indicators of economic health. Economic diversity (e.g., various types of jobs distributed among 

differing industrial sectors) generally promotes stability and offers greater employment 

opportunities. Highly specialized economies are prone to cyclical fluctuations and offer more 

limited job opportunities. Determining the degree of specialization in the economy is important 

for Forest Service decisionmakers, particularly when the dominant industries can be affected by 

changes in policy. This is the case for Yavapai County where government sector employment and 

the local tourism and recreation industries are reliant on local public lands. 

Figure 3 shows the proportion of employment by industry for Yavapai County. The government 

sector supports the largest percentage of jobs in the area (17 percent). Retail trade and health and 

social services each account for 13 percent of local employment. These industries are consistent 

with a substantial government presence due to public land management, a large retiree population 

that consumes health and social services, and amenities that attract tourists who support the retail 

trade sector. 

It is worth noting that mining accounts for only 2 percent of employment in the county—a 

seemingly trivial figure until it is placed in a statewide context. A resident of Yavapai County is 

approximately 4.5 times more likely to be employed in the mining industry compared to residents 

of Arizona as a whole (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2009).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 189

Figure 3. Employment by Industry, Yavapai County 

Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2009 

Unemployment 

Another indicator of economic health is the level of unemployment. The unemployment rate 

provides insight into the correspondence between residents’ skills and employment opportunities. 

The natural rate of unemployment, which is around 5 percent, is the level that allows for 

movement between jobs and industries but does not signal broad economic distress. 

During much of the past decade, Yavapai County had an unemployment rate below the national 

average. However, in 2008, the unemployment rate in the county converged with the 

unemployment rates for both the State and Nation: 5.9 percent for the county and State and 5.8 

percent for the Nation. In 2009, the county unemployment rate (9.5 percent) surpassed the rates 

for the State (9.1 percent) and Nation (9.1 percent) (Forest Service, 2011a). 

Per Capita Income and Earnings per Job 

Income available to local residents directly impacts their ability to purchase goods and services. 

As such, per capita income is a key indicator of the economic well-being of a county and may 

signal greater job opportunities, highly-skilled residents, greater economic resiliency, and welldeveloped infrastructure. Per capita income considers all sources of income, including wage and 

salary payments, transfer payments, investment earnings, dividends, and rents. Earnings per job 

are a subset of per capita income that includes only wage and salary earnings. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

In Yavapai County, little difference exists between per capita income and earnings per job (table 

45). The per capita income in the county is $24,880, slightly below Arizona’s per capita income 

($25,639) and several thousand dollars below per capita income for the U.S. as a whole 

($27,466). 

Per capita income comparisons are incomplete without consideration of local cost of living 

expenses. Of the contributions to cost of living, housing costs are often among the most 

expensive. Although Yavapai County has relatively low per capita income and earnings per job 

relative to the State and the Nation, home values in the county exceed both the State and National 

medians (table 45). This means that Yavapai County residents spend a relatively high percentage 

of their income on housing, leaving less available to spend on leisure activities such as national 

forest visitation and enjoyment. 

Table 45. Per capita income, earnings per job, and median home values

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008 

Non-labor Income 

Non-labor income is money earned from investments (e.g., dividends, interest, and rent) and 

transfer payments (e.g., payments from governments to individuals, age related, including 

Medicare, disability insurance payments, and retirements). Increases in non-labor income may 

indicate increases in leisure time and opportunities for national forest visitation, volunteerism, 

and enjoyment.

Table 46 displays the role of labor and non-labor income in total personal income for 1970 and 

2006. Non-labor income accounts for a higher percentage of total personal income in Yavapai 

County (51 percent) than it does in either the State (32 percent) or the Nation (32 percent). Nonlabor income proportions have increased over time for all geographic areas considered.

Table 46. Contribution of labor and non-labor income to personal income

Source: Headwaters Economics, 2009

High percentages of non-labor income likely indicate higher concentrations of retirees, since 

older populations rely in large part on non-labor income, including rents, dividend, and transfer 

(e.g., Social Security) payments. This non-labor income is not directly tied to employment, so it 

Per Capita Income Median Earnings Per Job Median Home Values

Yavapai County $24,880 $24,125 $247,200

Arizona $25,639 $29,206 $234,600

U.S. $27,466 $29,530 $192,400

1970 2006

Percent Labor 

Income

Percent Nonlabor IncomePercent Labor 

Income

Percent Nonlabor Income

Yavapai County 58 42 49 51

Arizona 74 26 68 32

U.S. 77 23 68 32
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 191

can be more resistant to job loss during economic downturns. However, asset markets can be 

quite volatile, and non-labor income that depends on investment returns may be unstable. 

Payments to Yavapai County 

The Forest Service owns 38 percent of the land in Yavapai County, including the Prescott, 

Coconino, and Tonto National Forests (Arizona Department of Commerce, 2008). The Forest 

Service makes payments to the counties that contain National Forest System lands. These 

payments fall into two categories: Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act 

payments (SRSCS) and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). 

SRSCS payments are intended to improve public schools, maintain infrastructure, improve the 

health of watersheds and ecosystems, protect communities, and strengthen local economies. In 

fiscal year 2009, the Prescott NF paid Yavapai County approximately $1.77 million in SRSCS 

money.

Federal agencies do not pay property taxes; therefore, PILT is distributed to counties to 

compensate for the local services that support activities on Federal lands. These services include 

law enforcement, road maintenance, and fire departments. In fiscal year 2010, Yavapai County 

received approximately $394,000 from the Prescott NF under the PILT program. 

Environmental Consequences

Background 

The section below, “Economic Impact Analysis” describes the economic impact of Prescott NF 

management actions by alternative. These impacts are estimated from the number of jobs and 

labor income generated from the sale of products, permits for various activities, and mineral 

royalties. The program areas generating revenue are recreation, range, minerals, forest products, 

and permitted special uses.

Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN13 Professional Version 3.0, using data from 

2009. Projected use levels for each alternative were determined by Forest Service resource 

specialists. In most instances, the precise change is unknown. Therefore, any changes noted are 

based on the professional expertise of Forest Service resource specialists (1982 Planning Rule 

Provisions, 219.12(g)). 

The second section is the “Financial Efficiency Analysis.” The efficiency analysis estimates the 

present net value (PNV) for each alternative based on a 15-year projection period. PNV is the 

measure of the economic value of an alternative when expenditures (costs) and revenues 

(benefits) from various program areas occur in different time periods. This analysis allows the 

decisionmaker to compare the value of managing these program areas across the alternatives. 

Financial efficiency is required by the 1982 Planning Rule. Estimating PNV is required by 

219.12(g); however, the decisionmaker is not required by 219.12(j) to select the alternative that 

 

13 Data reported by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG) is used to assess the relative size of sectors in a local 

economy. MIG reports annual data for all counties in the United States. IMPLAN employment data is reported by 

economic sectors grouped together according to similarities in the goods and services offered. IMPLAN data used for 

this analysis is for the year 2009. IMPLAN stands for “Impact Analysis for Planning.” 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

maximizes PNV. He or she only needs to identify each alternative’s PNV and compare them to 

the selected alternative. 

Financial efficiency analysis was conducted with QuickSilver14 Version 6. Data on program 

revenues and program expenditures were provided by the Prescott NF budget staff and resource 

specialists (1982 Planning Rule, 219.12(e)). 

The third section summarizes the social and economic consequences by alternative. The social 

consequences are qualitative; the economic consequences are quantitative using the values 

reported in the impact and efficiency analyses. 

Economic Impact Analysis 

Table 47 displays employment estimates from Prescott NF program areas by alternative. The 

recreation program is the largest economic contributor, supporting 283 to 291 jobs. Forest Service 

expenditures (e.g., operations and salaries) is the next largest economic contributor, supporting 

281 government sector jobs. The timber and minerals program areas are expected to contribute 

the fewest jobs (0 to 9). The total number of jobs contributed to the economy by the Prescott NF 

is expected to vary by less than 2 percent between alternatives (656 to 664 jobs).

Table 47. Employment by program area by alternative

Source: IMPLAN, 2009

Table 48 displays labor income estimates from Prescott NF program areas by alternative. The 

program area with the largest income contribution is Forest Service operations/expenditures, 

followed by recreation. The timber resource program area is not expected to contribute any labor 

income. The total labor income generated by Prescott NF management activities is expected to 

vary by less than 2 percent between the alternatives ($24 to $24.2 million). 

 

14 Quick Silver is a Forest Service program for economic analysis of long term, on-the-ground resource management 

projects. It provides a consistent benefit/cost, efficiency analysis framework to determine if one management action 

costs less, or has a better payoff than others. 

Program Area

Jobs 

Contributed

Alt. A

Jobs 

Contributed

Alt. B

Jobs 

Contributed

Alt. C

Jobs 

Contributed 

Alt. D

Jobs 

Contributed 

Alt. E

Recreation 283 291 290 287

Range 42

Minerals 9

Forest Products 0

Payments to 

Counties

41

Forest Service 

Expenditures 281

Total 656 664 663 660
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 193

Table 48. Labor income by program area by alternative 

Source: IMPLAN, 2009

Financial Efficiency Analysis 

Table 49 shows the average annual expenditures for the Prescott NF by program area. These 

figures are based on average expenditures experienced over a 3-year fiscal period (FY08–FY10). 

Estimated changes in expenditures between alternatives were based on the professional judgment 

of Prescott NF staff. Expenditures for all program areas except recreation are expected to remain 

unchanged between alternatives. More recreation expenditures are expected for alternatives B and 

D due to the construction of additional facilities and infrastructure associated with developed and 

dispersed sites and additional special use permit administration compared to alternatives A and C. 

Table 49. Average annual program expenditures, Prescott NF (FY08–FY10)

Program Area Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Recreation $1,483,067 $1,631,374 $1,557,220 $1,631,374

Range $501,056

Minerals $250,349

Forest Products $447,006

Special Uses $434,520

Source: Prescott NF Budget Staff 

Table 50 shows the average annual revenues for the Prescott NF by program area. Where 

available, these figures were based on average revenues experienced over a 3-year fiscal period 

(FY08–FY10). When 3 years of data were unavailable, the most recent year has been used. 

Estimated changes in revenues between alternatives were based on the professional judgment of 

Prescott NF staff. Revenues for all program areas except recreation are expected to remain 

unchanged between alternatives. Alternatives B and D would generate more revenue from fees 

associated with increased use of developed and dispersed recreation sites and recreation special 

uses compared to alternatives A and C. 

Program Area

Labor 

Income 

Contributed 

Alt. A

Labor 

Income 

Contributed 

Alt. B

Labor 

Income 

Contributed 

Alt. C

Labor 

Income 

Contributed 

Alt. D

Labor 

Income 

Contributed 

Alt. E

Recreation $8,461,000 $8,727,000 $8,695,000 $8,580,000

Range $446,000

Minerals $406,000

Forest Products $0

Payments to 

Counties $1,728,000

Forest Service 

Expenditures $12,575,000

Total $23,616,000 $23,882,000 $23,850,000 $23,735,000
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 50. Average annual program revenues, Prescott NF (FY08–FY10) 

Program Area Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Recreation $482,851 $516,071 $507,235 $521,576 $507,235

Range $141,158

Minerals $225,351

Forest Products $93,854

Special Uses $255,850

Source: Prescott NF Budget Staff 

The recreation, range, minerals, forest products, and special uses programs are funded from three 

sources: under the general budget, by externally funded activities such as volunteer and service 

agreements, and through in-kind sharing. The financial efficiency analysis is limited to only the 

revenues received from management activities and the costs of annually funded programs. The 

costs included in this analysis are just a portion of the total operating budget. Present net value 

(PNV) is defined as the discounted sum of benefits minus the discounted sum of costs; however, 

since not all costs are actually accounted for, this analysis should primarily be used to evaluate 

benefits. The values reported in table 51 should only be used to compare the expected differences 

between alternatives and not the actual value of implementation. 

Table 51 displays estimates of PNV by program area and alternative. PNV is the difference 

between program revenues (benefits) and program expenditures (costs) projected over a 15-year 

period, using a 4 percent discount rate. 

Table 51. Present net value (PNV) by alternative 

Program Area Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Recreation -$12,121,005 -$13,515,673 -$12,724,125 -$13,448,962 -$13,622,752

Range -$4,361,383

Minerals -$302,935

Forest Products -$4,279,632

Special Uses -$2,165,192

Total PNV -$23,230,148 -$24,624,817 -$23,833,268 -$24,558,106 -$24,731,896

Source: QuickSilver6, 2011 

Social Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives 

Changes to resource availability and uses of the Prescott NF can affect the quality of life for area 

residents and forest visitors. For the most part, anticipated resource availability is consistent 

across alternatives. As shown in tables 48 and 49 above, livestock grazing, mineral removal, 

timber and forest product collection, and payments to local governments remain the same under 

all alternatives. Those who primarily value these forest uses and activities are unlikely to have 

their quality of life affected by decisions made under any of the alternatives. This leaves 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 195

recreation and recommended wilderness as the sources of potential social consequences between 

the proposed alternatives. 

As explained in the demographic conditions and trends section, the median age of Yavapai 

County residents is nearly a decade higher than Arizona as a whole, which indicates a substantial 

retiree population. The combination of an older population (who have more discretionary time) 

and a high degree of public land ownership within Yavapai County (75 percent), suggests that 

recreation opportunities are an important contributor to local quality of life. Alternatives B, C, D 

and E are expected to increase the quantity and quality of recreation opportunities on the Prescott 

NF. Therefore, in comparison to alternative A, these alternatives are likely to improve the quality 

of life for those who value recreation. Alternative B strikes the best balance between developed 

recreation and dispersed recreation opportunities. Alternative D places an emphasis on dispersed 

recreation, and alternatives C and E increase recreation opportunities but to a lesser extent than 

alternatives B and D. 

Of the approximately 1.28 million annual Prescott NF visits, about 40,000 are estimated to be 

visits to designated wilderness areas (Forest Service, 2009d). Although wilderness visits account 

for a relatively small percentage of total visits (only 3.5 percent), wilderness visitors are likely to 

spend more time on the forest than the average visitor (Forest Service, 2009d). In addition, 

wilderness areas provide opportunities for solitude and wildlife watching that may be difficult in 

more heavily used areas of the forest. In addition to providing unique recreation opportunities, 

wilderness areas can promote forest health and ecosystem services.

Individuals who value resource protection above resource use are likely to derive benefit from the 

recommendation of additional wilderness areas, regardless of intention to recreate in the 

wilderness. Alternatives B, D, and E recommend the designation of additional wilderness acres. 

These alternatives are expected to appeal to people and groups who seek additional wilderness 

recreation opportunities or the protection of forest resources. Alternatives A and C maintain 

current levels of wilderness and, therefore, they would not affect social well-being related to 

wilderness values. 

Economic Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives 

Range 

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing on the Prescott NF would contribute up to 42 jobs and 

$446,000 in labor income to Yavapai County annually. These figures assume that permitted 

stocking levels are fully utilized. 

The benefit to permittees of public forage is approximately $800,000 when compared to market 

price. The average private land grazing fee is $9 per animal unit month (AUM) in Arizona, 

compared to $1.35 per AUM for public land grazing (NASS, 2011). If Prescott NF grazing 

permittees had to replace their public land forage with private land forage, the annual cost of 

livestock grazing would increase by over $940,000. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Minerals 

The extraction of minerals from the Prescott NF would support approximately 9 jobs and 

$406,000 in labor income annually in Yavapai County. Mineral activity is not expected to change 

based on actions taken under any of the alternatives. 

Forest Products

Under all alternatives, it is estimated that the forest products program would not produce a 

measurable contribution to jobs or labor income in Yavapai County (tables 47 and 48). This 

estimate assumes a continuation of existing conditions where commercial forest products 

harvested from the forest are transported and processed at businesses located outside of the 

analysis area in neighboring Maricopa County. Additionally, it was assumed that loggers and 

truck drivers employed by timber sale purchasers also reside outside of the Yavapai County 

analysis area. It is likely that some contribution to the local economy (e.g., retail sales involving 

food and gas) would occur during periods when timber sale contracts are active. 

Payments to Yavapai County 

Under all alternatives, payments to the county, in the form of SRSCS and PILT, would support 

approximately 41 jobs and $1.72 million in annual labor income in Yavapai County. 

Alternative A 

Recreation 

Almost 1.28 million people visit the Prescott NF annually (Forest Service, 2009d), and 

continuation of current management under alternative A is not expected to affect visit frequency 

or composition. Local day trips and overnight visits account for the highest proportion of 

visitation (65 percent) compared to non-local day and overnight visits (16 percent). These forest 

visitors spend money in the local economy, which supports employment and income in Yavapai 

County. 

Under alternative A, recreation on the Prescott NF would support approximately 283 jobs and 

$8.46 million in labor income annually in Yavapai County.

As stated previously in the “Recreation Use on the Prescott NF” section (see “Need for Change 

3”), the majority of visitors to the forest use the trails. The size of the trail system, combined with 

its popularity has led to a decline in the condition of existing trails. As trail conditions deteriorate, 

they create safety issues for visitors and cause damage to other resources such as localized soil 

compaction and loss of vegetation. 

Financial Efficiency

The present net value of alternative A is -$23,230,148. This is the least negative PNV of the 

alternatives. This means that the cost of implementing alternative A exceeds the anticipated 

revenue of alternative A by the smallest amount, compared to the other alternatives. 

Alternative B 

Recreation 

Recreation visits to the Prescott NF are expected to increase by about 7 percent overall with 

implementation of alternative B, compared to alternative A. The largest increase in visitation is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 197

expected from local residents on day trips, followed by smaller increases in local and non-local 

overnight visitors. 

Under alternative B, recreation on the Prescott NF would support approximately 291 jobs and 

$8.73 million in labor income annually in Yavapai County.

The expected increases in forest visitation under this alternative are likely to result in localized 

soil compaction or loss of vegetation along heavily used trails, OHV routes, and popular 

recreation sites (both developed and designated dispersed). These impacts would be offset by the 

increased emphasis given to trail improvements and developed site maintenance proposed under 

this alternative. 

Financial Efficiency

The present net value of alternative B is -$24,624,817. This is the second most negative PNV of 

the alternatives. This means that the program expenditures (costs) of alternative B exceed the 

anticipated revenues (benefits) more than for alternatives A, C, and D, but less than alternative E.

Alternative C 

Recreation 

Recreation visits to the Prescott NF are expected to increase by about 5 percent overall with the 

implementation of alternative C, compared to alternative A. The pattern of visitation is projected 

to be similar to alternative B but with a smaller increase in local residents on day trips. 

Under alternative C, recreation on the Prescott NF would support approximately 291 jobs and 

$8.73 million in labor income annually in Yavapai County.

The estimated increases in forest visitation under this alternative are expected to have the same 

type of environmental impacts as discussed under alternative B but to a slightly lesser degree. 

Financial Efficiency

The present net value of alternative C is -$23,833,268. This is the second least negative PNV of 

the alternatives. This means that the program expenditures (costs) of alternative C exceed the 

anticipated revenues (benefits) more than for alternative A, but less than alternatives B, D, and E. 

Alternative D 

Recreation 

Recreation visits to the Prescott NF are expected to increase by about eight percent overall with 

implementation of alternative D, compared to alternative A. Of the three action alternatives, 

alternative D projects the largest increase in visitation from local residents on day trips and 

overnight visits but the smallest increase in non-local overnight visitation. 

Because most of the increase in visitation is from local users, alternative D generates less labor 

income and contributes fewer jobs than alternatives B and C, even though it projects the largest 

increase in visitation. Under alternative D, recreation on the Prescott NF would support 

approximately 290 jobs and $8.69 million in labor income annually in Yavapai County.

The estimated increases in forest visitation under this alternative are expected to have the same 

type of environmental impacts as discussed under alternative B but to a slightly greater degree. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Financial Efficiency

The present net value of alternative D is -$24,558,106. This is the third most negative PNV of the 

alternatives. This means that the program expenditures (costs) of alternative D exceed the 

anticipated revenues (benefits) more than for alternatives A and C, but less than alternatives B and 

E.

Alternative E 

Recreation 

Recreation visits to the Prescott NF are expected to increase by about five percent overall with the 

implementation of alternative E, compared to alternative A. The pattern of visitation is projected 

to be similar to alternative B but with a smaller increase in local residents on day trips due to a 

reduced emphasis on developed day-use facilities. 

Under alternative E, recreation on the Prescott NF would support approximately 287 jobs and 

$8.58 million in labor income annually in Yavapai County.

The estimated increases in forest visitation under this alternative are expected to have the same 

type of environmental impacts as discussed under alternative B. 

Financial Efficiency

The present net value of alternative E is -$24,731,896. This is the most negative PNV of the 

alternatives. This means that alternative E is the alternative where the cost of implementation 

exceeds the anticipated revenue by the largest amount, when compared to the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of foreseeable activities on lands that are not 

managed by the Prescott NF that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on 

the forest, may intensify, negate, improve, or otherwise affect labor income and job opportunities 

contributed by the forest. 

Within Yavapai County, the cumulative effects area around the Prescott NF is primarily the lands 

managed by municipalities, the State of Arizona, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 

adjacent national forests. The Prescott NF plays a central role in providing jobs associated with 

outdoor recreation within Yavapai County as it accounts for approximately 23 percent of the 5.2 

million acres, but it is not the sole provider. 

On the Federal level, one of the foreseeable future actions that would have cumulative 

consequences on recreation job opportunities in Yavapai County is direction within the “Bureau 

of Land Management Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management Plan” (RMP) to complete the 

Black Canyon National Recreation Trail to connect with trails on the Prescott NF. This would 

provide visitors with access to the national recreation trail and expand opportunities for long 

distance trail rides. This plan also contains guidance to locate and develop staging and camping 

areas to service the north section of this nonmotorized trail and to locate a motorized route that 

generally parallels the Black Canyon Trail. 

The government of Yavapai County has developed the “Yavapai County Master Trails Plan” that 

would expand trail-based recreation by creating links between the forest trail system and other 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 199

trail systems in the county. Participants in the master trails plan would include the BLM, State of 

Arizona, Prescott and Coconino National Forests, cities of Prescott and Sedona, and town of 

Prescott Valley, all of which have existing trail systems or trail plans. 

Management decisions by other Federal agencies, the State of Arizona, and municipalities may 

result in additional government sector jobs or may provide amenities that attract tourists who 

support private businesses associated with outdoor recreation and tourism.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Office of the President 1994) directs Federal agencies to focus 

attention on the human health and environmental conditions in minority15 and low income 

communities16. The purpose of EO 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects17 on minority and low 

income populations. 

Environmental justice means that, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations 

are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in 

the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and 

adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the 

environment. 

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for Federal 

agency decisionmakers to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse with 

respect to minority and low income populations18 and identify alternatives that will avoid or 

mitigate those impacts.

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy 

environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has interpreted health effects with a 

broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic or 

social impacts on minority communities, low income communities or Indian tribes...when those 

impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment” (Council on 

Environmental Quality, 1997). 

 

15 Minority means a person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; 

Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic (USDA DR 5600-002, 1997). 

16 Low income population means any readily identifiable group of low income persons who live in geographic 

proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons 

who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities. Low income populations may be identified using data 

collected, maintained, and analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty 

thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty (USDA DR 

5600-002, 1997). 

17 Human health and/or environmental effects as used in this Departmental Regulation include interrelated social and 

economic effects (USDA DR 5600-002, 1997). 

18 Minority population/communities means any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in geographic 

proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons 

who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities (USDA DR 5600-002, 1997). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Affected Environment

Table 52 shows that the population of Yavapai County is predominantly white, non-Hispanic 

(82.3 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino origin (13.2 percent), and American Indian (1.7 

percent). Compared to Arizona and the U.S. as a whole, Yavapai County is less racially and 

ethnically diverse. However, this finding does not eliminate the need to consider potential 

disproportionate impacts of Forest Service management actions. Both the Hispanic and American 

Indian populations have a presence in the analysis area. These populations have strong ties to the 

land and its natural resources and associate important values with use of the resources found on 

the Prescott NF. Additionally, the analysis area may have a low overall concentration of minority 

residents, but it may still have areas with a high concentration of minority residents who could be 

adversely affected by management actions. The impact analysis that follows considers the 

potential for management actions to disproportionately negatively affect an environmental justice 

population. 

Table 52. Race and ethnicity for Yavapai County compared to Arizona and the U.S.

Race and Ethnicity Yavapai County Arizona U.S.

Black 1.0% 4.4% 12.9%

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.7% 4.9% 1.0%

Asian 0.9% 2.6% 4.6%

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%

Two or more races 1.6% 1.8% 1.7%

Hispanic or Latino origin 13.2% 30.8% 15.8%

White, non-Hispanic 82.3% 57.3% 65.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008

Table 53 displays the proportion of Yavapai County individuals living below the poverty level for 

the years 2005 to 2009. Poverty rates are highest for American Indians (28.6 percent), 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (22.5 percent), and Hispanics (20.5 percent). Such rates suggest that a 

measurable proportion of the existing population should be considered as a low income group. 

Therefore, decisions regarding future management actions on the Prescott NF should carefully 

assess the effects on low income populations. 

Table 53. Poverty rates for Yavapai County by race and ethnicity

Race and Ethnicity Total Number Number Below 

Poverty Level Percent

Black 1,335 130 9.7

American Indian/Alaska Native 3,702 1,057 28.6

Asian 1,401 199 14.2

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 240 54 22.5

Two or more races 4,630 744 16.1

Hispanic or Latino origin 26,022 5,344 20.5
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 201

Race and Ethnicity Total Number Number Below 

Poverty Level Percent

White, non-Hispanic 186,673 22,487 12.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives 

In cases where management decisions are expected to create jobs and income in the local 

economy, it is unlikely that there would be a disproportionate adverse effect on minority and low 

income populations. Individuals in those populations may benefit from any increase in jobs and 

income in the area. 

Alternatively, future management decisions that may negatively impact local employment and 

income conditions should include consideration of the distribution of effects across population 

demographics, paying careful attention to Hispanic, American Indian, and low income 

populations.

From the economic impact analysis, the total number of jobs contributed to the economy by the 

Prescott NF is expected to range between 656 and 664 jobs (table 47, employment by program 

area by alternative). All of the action alternatives (alternatives B, C, D, and E) would provide 

more jobs than the current management direction (alternative A), but the difference between 

alternatives is not significant.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Under all alternatives, no measurable cumulative consequences can be discerned from the 

proposed management changes.

Heritage Resources

This section summarizes the current heritage resources environment on the Prescott NF and the 

potential consequences to heritage resources when projects are implemented under the revised 

plan and alternatives. Data compilation and analysis of the condition of heritage resources found 

on the Prescott NF, along with estimation of effects by alternative, were provided by Prescott NF 

staff and resource specialists.

A variety of laws, regulations, and policies provide direction for managing heritage resources. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665) lays out the legal 

framework for considering the effects to heritage resources, preserving them, and consulting with 

appropriate tribes on Federal undertakings. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

(P.L. 96-95) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-

601) provide additional direction for managing heritage resources. Additional direction for 

heritage resource management is provided by 36 CFR 60, Forest Service Manual 2360.2, and 

Forest Service Handbook (in prep).

Numerous heritage resources on the forest are considered culturally significant (eligible for or 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places) or sacred by federally recognized American 

Indian tribes. A number of additional laws may pertain to heritage resources in these cases, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-341), the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-141), Executive Order 13007- Indian Sacred Sites, 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments, and the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-234). Corresponding Forest Service direction is 

provided by Forest Service Manual 1563 and Forest Service Handbook 1509.13.

This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not change across alternatives. 

Affected Environment

The Prescott NF occupies a unique area within the State of Arizona with regard to prehistoric and 

historic resources. Because of its central location, topography, and abundance of resources, the 

Prescott NF has been used by several prehistoric cultural groups as far back as 9,000 years ago. 

The area has been home to such groups as the Yavapai and Apache people, and others, including 

the Hualapai and Hopi, have declared an affiliation as well. Because the Prescott NF has been 

used by American Indians for thousands of years, various site types can be found around the 

forest. Some of these include large and complex habitations, small seasonal occupations, rock art, 

and a system of trails. Traditional cultural properties are also known to exist within the Prescott 

NF.

Once gold was discovered in 1863, it did not take long for the area to experience an influx of 

people. The town of Prescott was established and soon became the territorial capital of Arizona. 

Other towns sprang up around the forest as the search for gold widened. Soon afterwards, military 

forts, ranches, homesteads, and a more extensive transportation system, including several 

railroads, were built. In 1898, the Prescott Forest Reserve was established, and a short time later 

the Rio Verde Forest Reserve (1901) was added. In 1908 the Prescott NF was officially 

designated as a national forest. Roads, trails, and recreation sites were added, with a significant 

number of these being built during the 1930s and early 1940s by the Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC). In the following decades, the population continued to grow in the communities 

surrounding the Prescott NF.

The presence of prehistoric and historic sites reflects the human use of the Prescott NF. The forest 

has been intensively surveying lands for heritage properties since the late 1970s. It is estimated 

that about 15 percent of the Prescott NF has been inventoried, resulting in the discovery of 

approximately 3,235 heritage properties. Currently, 36 sites are officially listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Prescott NF archaeologists typically monitor selected archaeological sites before, during, and 

after project implementation. In rare cases, monitoring has shown isolated unintended impacts to 

heritage properties as a result of project implementation. However, project-specific mitigation 

measures have largely been successful in avoiding impacts to heritage resources. Furthermore, 

many impacts to heritage properties identified during monitoring are not associated with agency 

activities, such as off-road vehicular travel, recreational use (e.g., camping), unauthorized digging 

(e.g., vandalism), and older activities that were implemented prior to the National Historic 

Preservation Act.

In recent years, most adverse impacts to heritage resources are caused by off-road vehicular 

travel, high-intensity wildfires, and increased soil erosion. While a large number of 

archaeological sites on the forest are classified as artifact scatters that are not regarded as “fire 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 203

sensitive” under low intensity fire conditions, there are some sites, particularly historic properties 

and prehistoric sites having certain features that are considered to be fire sensitive under any 

situation. Importantly, all archaeological sites are susceptible to adverse impacts from highintensity burning as is well documented after recent wildfires on adjacent national forests (Reid et 

al., 2008; Forest Service, 2012c ). 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A 

Alternative A continues the current management as directed in the 1987 plan and would have no 

measurable direct effects on any heritage resources. This is because planned projects involving 

ground-disturbing activity (e.g., locating recreation sites or trails, range improvements, timber 

and firewood sale areas, and prescribed fire units) include project-specific mitigation measures to 

ensure protection of heritage resources.

Under alternative A, there remains the risk of high-intensity wildfires from overgrown forests and 

long term accumulation of organic fuels which could have an indirect effect on heritage sites. 

Historic sites with wooden, glass, and other similar components (fire sensitive sites) would 

remain at the greatest risk from fire damage. All heritage sites would remain at risk from 

increased soil erosion associated with high-intensity fires. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would have no measurable direct effects on any heritage resources, similar to 

alternative A. Alternative B would place more emphasis on forest restoration activities and the 

reduction of fuels; as a result, there would be a comparatively lower risk of high-intensity fire and 

associated soil erosion near historic sites. 

Alternative B recommends more potential wilderness areas (PWAs) for designation than 

alternative A. If the PWAs were to be designated, the increase in the number and acreage of 

wilderness areas would help protect more known and unknown sites from direct human impacts. 

Sites located within designated wilderness benefit from the restrictions on motorized use; they are 

not impacted by mechanical vegetation treatments and remote sites are not legally accessible by 

OHVs. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would have no measurable direct effects on any heritage resources, similar to 

alternatives A and B. Alternative C would have the highest emphasis on forest restoration 

activities and reduction of fuels, and thus, the comparatively lowest risk of high-intensity fire and 

associated soil erosion near historic sites. Therefore, alternative C would result in the quickest 

restoration to conditions favorable for heritage resources. 

Alternative C does not recommend any PWAs for designation, and thus, there is no potential for 

the additional protection from motorized impacts afforded by designated wilderness.

Alternative D 

Alternative D would have no measurable direct effects on any heritage resources, similar to 

alternatives A, B and C. Alternative D would place the same emphasis on forest restoration 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

activities and reduction of fuels as alternative B, resulting in the same reduction in risk of highintensity fire and associated soil erosion near historic sites. 

Alternative D recommends the most potential wilderness for designation. It provides the most 

potential for protection from impacts due to administrative and recreational use of motorized 

equipment of any of the alternatives. As with alternative B, an increase in wilderness areas would 

help protect more known and unknown sites from direct human impacts. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E would have no measurable direct effects on any heritage resources, similar to 

alternatives A, B, C, and D. Alternative E would place the same emphasis on forest restoration 

activities and reduction of fuels as alternative B, resulting in the same reduction in risk of highintensity fire and associated soil erosion near historic sites. 

Alternative E recommends more potential wilderness areas (PWAs) and acres for designation than 

alternatives A and C, but fewer acres than alternatives B and D. As with alternatives B and D, an 

increase in designated wilderness areas would help protect more known and unknown sites from 

direct human impacts. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The Prescott NF manages for “no effect” or “no adverse effect” to heritage resources for all 

planned management activities. Monitoring data indicate that project activities, such as those 

related to forest restoration work, may result in unplanned or inadvertent adverse impacts to 

heritage resources in rare cases. Such unplanned or inadvertent adverse impacts are addressed and 

mitigated on a case-by-case basis and are more than offset by the benefits of ecological 

restoration. Therefore, no measureable cumulative consequences are expected under any of the 

alternatives. 

Livestock Grazing

This section addresses the issue of providing livestock grazing, and summarizes the current 

rangeland environment on the Prescott NF and the consequences to livestock grazing of 

implementing the revised plan or its alternatives. The full analysis of the land base suitable for 

livestock grazing can be found in the “Prescott National Forest Determination of Livestock 

Grazing Capability and Suitability Report” (Forest Service, 2011q).

Grazing, as discussed here, refers to domestic livestock on National Forest System lands under a 

grazing permit. The desired conditions for grazing are: (1) vegetation provides sustainable 

amounts of forage authorized livestock and wildlife species; (2) herbivory aids in sustaining or 

improving native vegetation cover and composition; and (3) livestock grazing contributes to 

aspects of the social, economic, and cultural structure and stability of rural communities (Desired 

Condition-Vegetation-3). 

Affected Environment

In 2011, 49 permittees were issued permits to graze cattle on the Prescott NF, covering 62 of the 

68 allotments across the forest; 4 allotments are closed to grazing and 2 allotments are vacant 

without an active grazing permit. The active grazing is permitted on 5 seasonal allotments 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 205

encompassing spring or summer use periods, 14 fall and/or winter seasonal, and 43 yearlong 

allotments. Fall and/or winter seasonal allotments may contain riparian areas with streamside 

vegetation that is grazed during the dormant season. Permitted grazing areas generally are 

contiguous with privately-owned ranchland, and ranch owners or managers depend on the 

Prescott NF for grazing to provide ranch income (Forest Service, 2009c).

Federal livestock grazing permits and use levels are expressed in in terms of animal units per area 

or total animal unit months (AUMs). An animal unit (AU) is defined as a mature (1,000-pound) 

cow or the equivalent. If one AU grazes on an area of rangeland for six months, that tenure is 

equal to six AUs for one month or six AUMs. In general, the number of animal units, multiplied 

by the number of months they are on the range equals the number of AUMs used (Ruyle and 

Ogden, 1993). In 2010, there were 135,767 AUMs permitted for cattle and 1,237 AUMs permitted 

for horses. Of those, use by cattle totaled 90,928 AUMs (67 percent of permitted stocking level) 

and use by horses totaled 876 AUMs (71 percent). No animal units were authorized for sheep or 

goats. In 2013, due to recurrent drought and below average forage production in some areas, 

stocking levels remained at about 68 percent of the 134,412 AUMs authorized for cattle. 

Since the inception of the 1987 plan, 50 of the 68 allotments on the Prescott NF have received 

site-specific environmental review. These allotments were evaluated on the ecological conditions 

and usage trends for forage areas as part of the NEPA process associated with permit renewal. 

Forage production has been properly matched with permitted livestock numbers, and adaptive 

management strategies have been used to maintain and improve the rangeland resource. 

The 1987 plan identified three recreation areas as unsuitable for livestock grazing. In addition, the 

Prescott Municipal watershed (Goldwater Lake) was excluded from grazing based on a 1924 

agreement. Lane Mountain watershed was also excluded, beginning in 1975. Desired conditions 

for these recreation areas and watersheds include management for their original purpose; thus, 

they continue to be unsuitable for livestock grazing. Several large, contiguous areas (at least 

1,000 acres) were also excluded from grazing in project-level NEPA decisions. The results of 

recent grazing suitability analysis show that there are 913,078 acres of suitable grazing lands on 

the Prescott NF (Forest Service, 2011q).

A major increase or decrease in grazing on the grasslands over the next 20 years is not foreseen; 

however, livestock use and strategies are expected to continue to fluctuate in response to drought, 

wildfire, prescribed fire, and other factors that influence range conditions.

Environmental Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives 

All alternatives would provide for continued availability of forage for domestic livestock and 

opportunities for ranching lifestyles consistent with the other desired conditions. Permitted 

grazing would likely remain consistent across alternatives for a 10-year timeframe, but authorized 

grazing could vary year-to-year based on which alternative is chosen. The more acreage treated, 

especially in grassland and chaparral vegetation types, the greater both the short term impact on 

available forage and yearly livestock authorization and the long term increase in available forage.

Fluctuations in yearly authorized livestock could be influenced by the amount of acreage treated 

each year with prescribed fire, thinning, or other mechanical vegetation manipulation. The 

magnitude of the yearly effect to available forage and range infrastructure, as described below, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

depends on the amount of coordination that occurs between resource managers and range 

management personnel. For example, treatments could be scheduled to coincide with planned 

grazing rotations to minimize impacts on any single allotment in any given year.

Prescribed fire consumes vegetation that could serve as forage for livestock, and the amount of 

forage lost depends upon the vegetation type that is being burned. Grassland fires tend to 

consume vegetation completely and uniformly; while fires in chaparral are more often intermixed 

mosaics of burned and unburned vegetation. If vegetation is consumed by fire, then it is not 

available to livestock. This is a short term effect that will take 1 to 2 growing seasons to recover, 

given adequate precipitation. Under drought conditions, recovery could take 3 to 5 years. 

Other vegetation treatments, such as mechanical crushing or brush mastication, would have short 

term effects on the available forage that are similar to fire treatments. These would include 1 to 2 

growing seasons to recover under normal conditions or 3 to 5 years during a drought. Juniper 

thinning treatments would not affect available forage significantly since livestock do not consume 

juniper, although mechanical treatments can damage some forage grasses through crushing. 

In the long term, vegetation treatments will increase the amount of available forage by opening up 

canopy conditions and allowing for increased growth of grasses and forbs.

Less available forage to graze will likely mean fewer cattle authorized for that year in the 

treatment area, unless alternate areas such as vacant or non-use allotments are made available. 

However, this short term impact is countered by the long term benefit of increased forage 

production in treated areas after recovery. Livestock grazing under all alternatives would be 

managed with adaptive management to match livestock numbers with annual forage production. 

Fall and/or winter seasonal allotments may permit grazing in riparian areas; however, there are 

concerns about the impacts of yearlong grazing in these areas. These impacts include the loss of 

vegetative ground cover and riparian vegetation, soil compaction, accelerated erosion, 

sedimentation, and decreased water quality. As noted in the discussion on recreation and 

management impact to watershed, these factors can degrade the quality of the aquatic and riparian 

habitats. Livestock can also have a negative impact on regeneration in ponderosa pine types, 

primarily through the trampling of seedlings (Kingery and Graham, 1991). This is of particular 

importance in recently treated areas.

Under warmer and drier climate conditions, the suitable rangeland found on the Prescott NF 

would be susceptible to decreases in plant productivity from water limitations and increased heat 

and changes in the timing, intensity, and frequency of rain events. Rangeland grasses make use of 

moisture in the upper soil layers, and an increase in intense precipitation events may lead to 

increased runoff and decreased effective water infiltration (McAuliffe, 2003). This could decrease 

the vigor of native grasses, leading to an increase in nonnative invasive plant species populations 

and a decrease in available forage. As noted above, adaptive management would be used to match 

livestock numbers with forage production.

It is important to note that long term sustainability of the available forage is dependent upon the 

implementation of vegetation treatments that seek to restore ecosystem health and increase 

resilience and adaptability to changes in climate. Forage benefits from efforts to reduce woody 

plant encroachment and to reestablish proper fire regimes in fire-adapted systems such as 

chaparral. If left untreated, woody vegetation will increase in density and cover at the expense of 

the herbaceous vegetation that is preferred livestock forage. Although this scenario would likely 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 207

take more than 10 years to occur, permitted livestock numbers would be affected negatively in the 

long term if vegetation is left untreated. 

Common to all Action Alternatives 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E contain direction (Standard-Range-1 and 2, Guideline-Range-1 to 6) 

aimed at minimizing the impacts from livestock grazing on other program areas. These include 

the impacts that can accompany grazing in riparian areas, the trampling of seedlings, grasses and 

forbs in treatment areas, entrapment of wildlife in range improvements, and the impediments to 

wildlife movement caused by fences. The range standards and guidelines proposed in the action 

alternatives would address these issues and provide guidance for site-specific decisions. The 

result would be fewer negative impacts from livestock grazing on native terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife and habitats and more successful vegetation restoration efforts.

Alternative A 

Alternative A would have the least impact on yearly available forage for livestock of any of the 

alternatives because it would not increase the number of acres burned in the grassland and 

chaparral vegetation types. However, because it would not increase the number of acres treated, it 

would also provide the least long term increase in available forage.

Impacts from yearlong livestock grazing in riparian areas and wetlands would most likely be 

addressed at the site-specific level, as the current direction regarding this issue (Forest Service, 

1987, p. 32) is vague compared to the direction in the action alternatives (Standard-Range-2, 

Guideline-Range-5). This could result in a delay in mitigation action and a continued 

accumulation of impacts while site-specific analysis was performed.

In alternative A, there are no potential wilderness areas (PWAs) recommended for wilderness 

designation. The result would be that there would be no restrictions on grazing activities that are 

incompatible with the maintenance of wilderness character in these areas and a much lower 

probability that any of these areas would become designated wilderness. 

Alternatives B, D, and E 

The vegetation treatments for grasslands in alternatives B, D, and E (Objectives 1 and 2) would 

have a greater impact on yearly available forage for livestock and a greater long term increase in 

available forage than alternative A but less than alternative C. The acreages of treatment in the 

piñon-juniper vegetation and chaparral (Objectives 3 and 4), and thus, the long term increase in 

available forage, would be comparable or greater than alternatives A and C.

The recommendation of new and expanded wilderness areas in alternatives B, D, and E would not 

impose any new restrictions on grazing. However, if any of these areas were to become 

designated wilderness, there would be additional restrictions and conditions associated with the 

permit, per Forest Service policy (FSM 2323.22) regarding grazing in national forest wilderness 

areas. 

Range infrastructure such as fences, corrals, and stock tanks in designated wilderness cannot be 

maintained with motorized equipment unless approved by the regional forester. The process to 

approve mechanized use is documented in a prepared minimum requirements decision guide 

(MRDG) that compares the feasibility of alternatives for completing the work by mechanized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

means versus by non-mechanized means. An analysis using the NEPA process is required to 

disclose effects to resources from mechanical disturbance. Delayed maintenance on necessary 

range improvement may mean that fewer livestock can be authorized on the allotment until the 

work is completed. New range infrastructure in designated wilderness must also meet the intent 

of maintaining wilderness values and should be primarily for the purpose of resource protection 

and the more effective management of these resources rather than to accommodate increased 

numbers of livestock.

If an area is chosen to be designated as wilderness, further study of the particular area may show 

that recreational-livestock conflicts are a substantial concern. As a result, livestock grazing may 

be eliminated in some areas to address these user conflicts. A previous example is in the Granite 

Mountain Wilderness area where a portion of the Burnt Ranch allotment was closed due to 

conflicting uses between livestock and recreation.

Vegetation treatments, such as prescribed burns, that improve forage availability are more 

difficult to implement in wilderness areas, and mechanical treatments are prohibited. In 

designated wilderness areas that contain juniper woodland communities, it is unlikely that natural 

fire will serve to reduce the juniper overstory unless there is extreme fire behavior. These dense 

juniper woodlands have reduced herbaceous understory and a lack of available forage for both 

livestock and wildlife habitat. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would have the highest impact on yearly available forage for livestock and the 

greatest long term increase in available forage because it provides direction for the greatest 

increase in acres of grassland treated (Objectives 1 and 2). In addition, it directs treatment for at 

least as much acreage in the piñon-juniper vegetation and chaparral as alternatives B, D, and E 

(Objectives 3 and 4). 

Alternative C contains the same range standards and guidelines (Standard-Range-1 and 2, 

Guideline-Range-1 to 6) as alternatives B, D, and E, and thus, would also result in fewer negative 

impacts from livestock grazing on native terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and habitats and more 

successful vegetation restoration efforts.

As with alternative A, there are no potential wilderness areas (PWAs) recommended for 

wilderness designation in alternative C. The result would be that there would be no restrictions on 

grazing activities that are incompatible with maintenance of the wilderness character in these 

areas, and a much lower probability that any of these areas would become designated wilderness. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of foreseeable activities on lands not managed 

by the Prescott NF that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on the forest, 

may intensify, negate, improve, or otherwise affect livestock grazing opportunities on the forest. 

The cumulative effects area off the Prescott NF is primarily private, State of Arizona, Bureau of 

Land Management, and adjacent national forests. Livestock grazing occurs in the majority of 

these areas. Private lands within communities are not typically grazed by livestock except for by 

horses. Private lands outside of communities typically provide forage for smaller livestock 

operations but can support larger livestock operators when the private land is in larger blocks. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 209

These larger private blocks of lands are typically used for late spring and summer grazing for 

forest permitted livestock. State lands are also typically used for late spring and summer grazing 

of the forest permitted livestock. The BLM has both year round grazing and seasonal grazing. 

Forest permitted livestock occasionally use these lands during late spring and summer. Vegetative 

treatments, primarily burning and thinning of trees, would occur on these other lands. These types 

of treatments would increase forage for livestock and improve rangeland conditions in these 

areas. There are no indications that livestock use within these areas is going to change much over 

the next 10 years.

Minerals

This section addresses the concerns of extracting mineral resources and summarizes the current 

minerals environment on the Prescott NF and the consequences to mineral resources of 

implementing the revised plan or its alternatives. 

Data compilation and analysis of the mineral resources found on the Prescott NF along with 

estimation of effects by alternative were provided by Prescott NF staff and resource specialists.

Affected Environment

The Prescott NF has abundant minerals deposits and mining is common both on and off the 

forest. Existing mining activities on the Prescott NF includes five mineral material contracts for 

removal of flagstone, one contract for schist removal, one contract for removal of decomposed 

granite, one limestone operation with an approved commercial plan of operations, and 

recreational gold placer mining. 

Gold mining is limited to small-scale placer and/or lode mining. Placer operations involve 

methods such as excavation and panning from alluvial deposits and are most common on the 

forest in the Bradshaw Mountains. Most placer mining is recreational use or small commercial 

operators; the Gold Basin Project is the only commercial mine with an approved plan of 

operations. Lode operations, also known as hard rock mining, consist of mining a vein bearing 

gold or a rock in-place valuable mineral deposit. There are 1,800 active placer claims and 1,484 

active lode claims with 10 tunnel site claims. Claims can be up to 20 acres per placer claim with a 

maximum of 160 contiguous acres with 8 or more people (an association). Lode claims are 

limited to a maximum size of 1,500 feet in length along the vein or lode and width of 600 feet. 

Mining claims are not filed on the forest, but rather with the Bureau of Land Management. It 

should be noted that the vast majority of mining claims do not have any on-the-ground operations 

associated with them; many of them are for speculative purposes.

Copper is the most abundant metallic mineral on the Prescott NF, and there is an active plan of 

operation for exploratory drilling of copper on the Verde Ranger District. High demand growth is 

expected for copper in the United States, and this is likely to increase the interest of mining on the 

Prescott NF (appendix C, Forest Service, 2009c). It is anticipated that most major mineral 

exploration and development will occur in the Bradshaw Mountains (Bureau of Mines, 1995). 

Geologic surveys and studies suggest that the highest concentrations of metallic minerals exist in 

the western parts of the forest. Areas with exploration potential for large tonnage deposits of 

copper and gold are near Copper Basin, Groom Creek, Big Bug Creek, Crooks Canyon, Crown 

King, and Goodwin.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Demand for copper will continue to be highly dependent on market price. As prices increase, 

private industry will invest more in research and development making new areas open for 

exploration. The supply and demand for copper on national forests is influenced by market forces 

and available technology. The level of demand stimulates investment in new technology, which in 

turn increases available supply by locating new deposits and bringing some deposits previous 

considered unextractable into development.

The Prescott NF does not produce any energy or fuel minerals such as uranium, oil, natural gas, 

or coal. There is no method for predicting future demand, but current conditions and trends 

indicate that development interests should remain low due to the unlikelihood of suitable deposits 

on the forest. 

There is substantial production of construction related materials on the forest. Table 54 reports 

sale contracts for cinders, crushed stone, dimension stone, and landscape rock for 2007 thru 2009. 

Demand tends to be highly influenced by local conditions and has varied considerably in recent 

years, so mining activity for these minerals has been sporadic. The total value of minerals sold in 

2009 was $217,648, which is down from $329,261 in 2008. Overall this is a small level of 

demand relative to the rest of Arizona. It is likely that demand will continue to fluctuate in the 

future because it is highly speculative and dependent on private and commercial construction 

activities in the local area. The recent downturn in the economy has slowed demand growth for 

construction materials, but as markets recover, demand should rebound and the Prescott NF 

minerals program will need to adapt to these changes. Demand may be predicted by monitoring 

future construction activities and investments in public infrastructure in the local area. These 

activities are usually followed by an increase in population, which would consequently contribute 

to an increase in demand for construction related materials.

Table 54. Construction related material sale contracts

Commodity

2007 Sale 

Contracts 

(short 

tons)

2007 

Value

2008 Sale 

Contracts 

(short 

tons)

2008 

Value

2009 Sale 

Contracts 

(short 

tons)

2009 

Value

Cinders 67 $60 67 $60 — —

Crushed Stone — — 1,481 $4,111 — —

Dimension Stone 2,028 $12,168 54,149 $324,894 36,255 $217,528

Landscape Rock 64 $388 32 $196 20 $120

Totals 2,159 $12,616 55,729 $329,261 36,275 $217,648

Source: Forest Service, 2009f

Environmental Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives 

Most of the direction that affects minerals activities comes from the Forest Service Manual and 

Handbook. These laws, regulations, and policies governing minerals can be found in the Forest 

Service Manual, FSM 2800 (Mining Claims FSM 2810, Mineral Leases FSM 2820, Mineral 

Materials FSM 2850) and Forest Service Handbook, FSH 2809.15 and under Title 36 CFR part 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 211

228, subpart A. This guidance is independent from forest plan direction and does not change 

across alternatives. 

Mining interests are most abundant for gold and copper, and exploration for both commodities is 

highly influenced by market conditions. Productive copper mines could be located on various 

parts of the forest, and future development proposals are possible. It is likely that demand for both 

copper and gold will increase in the future. 

Extraction of construction related materials (e.g., cinders, crushed stone, dimension stone, and 

landscape rock) has occurred to a varying degree in recent years. Demand for construction 

materials is influenced by local industrial activities and economic conditions. As current markets 

rebound, Prescott NF managers may face an increase in the demand for these types of minerals. 

Overall, the forest’s capacity is expected to allow for sustainable mining operations, and 

additional proposals are likely to appear during the next 10 to 15 years.

The effects of new mining operations would be addressed on a site-specific basis and mitigated 

individually following the Forest Service policy regarding the approval of mining plans of 

operation.

The effects of these new and ongoing mining operations can include negative impacts to other 

resource areas. As noted in the “Water Quality” section in “Need for Change 2,” remediation is 

required to mitigate the impacts to water quality from mining operations in the Black Canyon 

Creek and Upper Hassayampa River watersheds. In addition to the leaching of pollutants from 

shafts, adits, and tailings, the surface disturbance caused by mining operations and related access 

infrastructure can contribute to a loss of vegetation and increase in soil compaction and erosion 

that leads to reduced water quality due to turbidity. 

The reduction in water quality through pollutants and turbidity degrades the existing and potential 

habitat for both riparian and aquatic dependent species, as noted in the “Aquatic and Riparian 

Species Viability” section in “Need for Change 4.” Terrestrial species may also be affected 

through the direct loss of habitat or through displacement caused by increased noise and activity 

at the operations site.

Alternatives A and C 

Alternatives A and C do not contain any recommendations for wilderness designation; therefore, 

there would be no restrictions on locatable, leasable, or saleable minerals imposed by the need to 

preserve wilderness character in these alternatives. The result would be that these alternatives 

have the greatest potential for negative impacts to other resources and the greatest potential to 

expand the development of minerals resources.

Alternatives B, D, and E 

The wilderness area recommendations in alternatives B, D, and E have no effect on the 

establishment of new mining claims for locatable minerals such as gold, silver, copper, or 

tungsten within the area until they are established as designated wilderness by Congress. Claims 

for locatable minerals are processed through the Bureau of Land Management, and until 

recommended wilderness areas are designated and the lands are withdrawn, they are still open to 

mineral entry. If established, they would be closed to new claims, but any valid existing claim 

would not be affected. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

For leasable (e.g., coal, oil shale, oil and gas, phosphate, potash, sodium, and geothermal 

resources) and salable minerals (including sand, stone, gravel, and clay), lands that are identified 

as recommended wilderness would become closed to new mineral leases and new mineral 

materials development at the discretion of the forest supervisor. 

Existing salable materials pits within the recommend wilderness areas may be closed upon 

recommendation, or they may be closed as they become depleted or are no longer needed. The 

continued operation of existing salable materials sites and the establishment of new sites in 

recommended wilderness would be at the discretion of the forest supervisor. The forest 

supervisor’s decision would be dependent on the site-specific impacts of the proposed 

development upon the wilderness character of the recommended area. These alternatives would 

effectively reduce the number of acres available for leases and mineral materials development by 

about 43,000 acres in alternative B, about 116,000 acres in alternative D, and about 23,000 acres 

in alternative E. The result would be that these alternatives have less potential for negative 

impacts to other resources and less potential to expand the development of minerals resources. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Population growth and development are expected to increase demand for minerals and mineral 

materials. Materials are in demand for construction, landscaping, and road projects, and it is 

expected that there will be increased pressure to develop these resources in the future. One 

example is the portion of the forest north of Drake; it is a major flagstone production area for 

northern Arizona. The proposed alternatives for the forest plan would have little to no effect on 

these quarries or mineral materials production for this area of the forest.

The Prescott NF is adjacent to both the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. These national forests are 

guided by the same laws, regulations, and policies as the Prescott NF and both have potential 

wilderness areas that may be recommended for wilderness designation. Areas recommended for 

designation may be closed to new mineral leases and new mineral materials pits to preserve the 

wilderness character of the area, and if they become designated wilderness, the existing materials 

pits within the boundaries may be closed as they become depleted or are no longer needed.

As the communities in and around the forest continue to expand, more emphasis could be placed 

on clean air and water, which would increase the pressure on mining industries to use production 

methods that produce fewer environmental impacts. If the price of locatable minerals, such as 

copper and gold, continues to climb, it could be expected that more new mines will be proposed 

on the Prescott NF and adjacent Federal lands that contain suitable ore-bearing deposits.

Forest Products 

This section addresses the subject of providing forest products and summarizes the current 

environment on the Prescott NF in terms of estimated available forest product quantities by 

alternative and the resources associated with harvest of those forest products. Forest products 

discussed in this section include those that would be harvested on both suitable and unsuitable 

lands, as determined in the timber suitability analysis. This analysis, along with the long term 

sustained yield capacity and the allowable sale quantity can be found in the “Prescott National 

Forest Timber Suitability, Long term Sustained Yield Capacity, and Allowable Sale Quantity 

Report” (Forest Service, 2011r).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 213

The desired conditions for forest products are: (1) a sustainable mix of forest products are offered 

for sale in response to local and regional needs and these products contribute to the social, 

economic, and cultural structure and stability of rural communities; (2) harvest activities on lands 

deemed suitable for timber production provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities 

and other resources to meet overall multiple-use objectives; and (3) forest products are removed 

from unsuitable lands to benefit forest health, mitigate insect and disease damage, reduce 

hazardous fuels, improve wildlife habitat, create recreation opportunities, or to perform research 

or administrative studies. (Desired Condition-Vegetation-2).

Affected Environment

Forest products sold on the Prescott NF include both sawtimber and firewood. Since 

approximately the mid-1990s, demand for sawtimber on the Prescott NF has shifted from a 

commodity driven need to an ecological need. In other words, the harvest of sawtimber on the 

Prescott NF has been the result and a byproduct of thinning forested areas with the primary 

objective of improving forest health, resiliency to disturbance, and wildlife habitat or to reduce 

hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not to produce sawtimber. The demand for wood 

products other than sawtimber has been driven by local and regional need for firewood. Under 

management of the 1987 plan, over a 10-year span sawtimber sales averaged 2,340 hundred cubic 

feet (ccf) annually and firewood sales averaged 2,040 ccf of firewood annually. 

Juniper Grassland and Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVTs are the two vegetation types on 

which firewood is currently harvested and are generally characterized by moderate to low 

similarity to desired ecological conditions in terms of vegetation structure. As noted in the 

“Vegetation and Fire” section in “Need for Change 1,” fire exclusion over the past century has 

created increases in canopy cover and tree density and a related decrease in growth and 

germination of grasses and shrubs in the understory. On erosive soil types within these 

communities, shrub, tree, and herbaceous ground cover help to lessen raindrop intensity and soil 

movement. 

Sawtimber is harvested from both the Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak and Ponderosa PineGambel Oak PNVTs. These vegetation types can be described as having a low similarity to 

desired ecological conditions. The current fire regime is one of low frequency and high-intensity 

as opposed to the desired regime in which fire would occur at high frequency with low intensity. 

Results of this change in the fire regime are: there are too many young and mid-aged trees and too 

few mature trees which create high canopy cover and stands that have a single overstory canopy 

layer; both fine and coarse fuels have accumulated on the forest floor; and there has been a 

decrease in the growth and germination of grasses and forbs in the understory. Healthy pine 

forests provide important habitat for a variety of wildlife species and are essential to maintaining 

bird populations such as the northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl. A considerable amount 

of these two PNVTs include areas that are deemed wildland-urban interface.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

214 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Environmental Consequences 

Table 55. Projected 10-year harvest volume by product type and alternative 

Product Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Sawtimber 23,385 ccf 40,447 ccf 40,447 ccf 40,447 ccf 40,447 ccf

Firewood 20,397 ccf 152,215 ccf 81,246 ccf 81,246 ccf 152,215 ccf

Totals 43,782 ccf 192,662 ccf 121,693 ccf 121,693 ccf 192,662 ccf

Table 56. Projected 10-year harvest acres by PNVT and alternative 

PNVT Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Ponderosa Pine 

PNVTs 5,540 acres 8,000 acres 8,000 acres 8,000 acres 8,000 acres

Piñon-Juniper 

PNVTs 3,140 acres 22,000 acres 12,000 acres 12,000 acres 22,000 acres

Totals 8,680 acres 30,000 acres 20,000 acres 20,000 acres 30,000 acres

Alternative A 

Based on historic averages, alternative A would provide approximately 23,385 ccf of sawtimber 

and 20,397 ccf of firewood per decade (table 55). Sawtimber harvest would occur across 5,540 

acres of the ponderosa pine PNVTs and firewood would be harvested on 3,140 acres of the piñonjuniper PNVTs (table 56). This would result in the lowest volume of both sawtimber and 

firewood production among any of the alternatives. 

However, alternative A would also create the fewest short term impacts on scenic quality and 

have the least potential for possible delays or denial of access due to temporary road, trail, and 

area closures due to harvest activities. The negative impacts to soil, such as compaction and 

erosion, and the potential for introduction of nonnative plants would be minimized due to the 

limited harvest levels. 

In the long term, alternative A achieves the smallest increase in perennial grass cover and open 

state conditions, leaving a greater threat of uncharacteristic and damaging crown fire occurrence 

within and between PNVTs. The lack of improvements to vegetation structure and composition 

would leave soil and watershed conditions mostly unaddressed and would provide the lowest 

quality and quantity of wildlife habitat compared to the action alternatives. Resistance to insect 

epidemics in the ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper PNVTs would continue to decline over time.

Alternatives B and E 

Alternatives B and E would produce approximately 40,447 ccf of sawtimber and 152,215 ccf of 

firewood per decade (table 55) on 8,000 acres of ponderosa pine PNVTs and 22,000 acres of 

piñon-juniper PNVTs, respectively (table 56). This would result in a volume of sawtimber higher 

than alternative A and equal to the volume in alternatives C and D and the highest volume of 

firewood production among any of the alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 215

Compared to the other alternatives, alternatives B and E would have the most short term impacts 

on scenic quality and potential for possible delays or denial of access due to temporary road, trail, 

and area closures due to harvest activities. These alternatives would also have the greatest short 

term impact to soils in terms of compaction and erosion and the greatest potential for the 

introduction of nonnative plants due to the highest proposed firewood harvest levels among the 

alternatives. 

In the long term, alternatives B and E achieve the greatest increase in perennial grass cover and 

open state conditions in the piñon-juniper PNVTs, resulting in a reduced threat of uncharacteristic 

and damaging crown fire occurrence within and between PNVTs. Vegetation treatments in piñonjuniper PNVTs can reduce tree and shrub density and canopy cover to levels that allow for the 

establishment and growth of perennial grasses and forbs. As grass and forb communities establish 

in the understory, soils would move toward a satisfactory condition. As organic matter and ground 

cover increase, the three primary soil functions of stability, hydrology, and nutrient cycling would 

recover in these treated areas. As discussed in the effects analysis for the “Water Quality” section 

(see “Need for Change 2”), conditions in impaired watersheds that have a high percentage of 

piñon-juniper PNVTs could improve as a result of implementing alternatives B or E. The 

increased quality and quantity of palatable forage would improve the most amount of wildlife 

habitat when compared to the other alternatives. Additionally, alternatives B and E would create a 

greater area of piñon-juniper PNVTs that are resistant to insect epidemics.

Alternatives C and D 

Alternatives C and D would produce approximately 40,447 ccf of sawtimber and 81,246 ccf of 

firewood per decade (table 55) on 8,000 acres of ponderosa pine PNVTs and 12,000 acres of 

piñon-juniper PNVTs, respectively (table 56). This would result in a higher volume of both 

sawtimber and firewood than alternative A and an equal volume of sawtimber but less firewood 

than alternatives B or E.

Alternatives C and D would have fewer short term impacts on scenic quality and potential for 

possible delays or denial of access due to temporary road, trail, and area closures due to harvest 

activities than alternatives B or E but more than alternative A. Alternatives C and D would also 

have a short term impact to soils in terms of compaction and erosion and a potential for the 

introduction of nonnative plants between what is expected to occur as a result of implementing 

alternatives A, B, or E . 

In the long term, alternatives C and D would achieve a little less than half the amount (46 

percent) of changed condition in piñon-juniper PNVTs than what would be expected under 

alternatives B or E. Some of the expected changed conditions include: reduced threat of 

uncharacteristic and damaging crown fire occurrence within and between PNVTs; vegetation 

treatments in piñon-juniper PNVTs would reduce tree and shrub density and canopy cover to 

levels that allow for the establishment and growth of perennial grasses and forbs; soils would 

move toward a satisfactory condition; as organic matter and ground cover increase, the three 

primary soil functions of stability, hydrology, and nutrient cycling would recover in treated areas; 

an increased quality and quantity of palatable forage would improve wildlife habitat; and piñonjuniper PNVTs would be resistant to insect epidemics. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

216 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The Prescott NF is adjacent to both the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. These national forests are 

guided by the same laws, regulations, and policies as the Prescott NF and both have potential 

wilderness areas that may be recommended for wilderness designation. Areas recommended for 

designation may be closed to firewood or sawtimber harvest to preserve the wilderness character 

of the area. 

If the price of natural gas increases, there could be an increased demand on firewood as a 

residential heat source. As communities in and around the forest continue to expand, more 

emphasis could be placed on clean air and water, which could increase the emphasis on 

improving watershed conditions with vegetative treatments such as sawtimber and firewood 

harvest. 

Two national forests adjacent to the Prescott NF are proposing to carry out landscape scale 

restoration of ponderosa pine forests in northern Arizona. Restoration activities include the 

thinning of trees, prescribed fire treatments, and watershed and road restoration within 988,764 

acres of the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. Proposed treatments include more than 

205,000 acres of prescribed fire treatments and more than 388,000 acres of thinning and 

watershed restoration treatments (Forest Service, 2011k). Thinning activities are estimated to 

occur over a 10-year period with an average of 30,000 acres being thinned each year. This 

increased level of thinning and the resulting removal of forest products from adjacent national 

forests could create new wood products markets and new opportunities for utilization of wood 

from the Prescott NF.

Special Uses 

This section addresses the concerns of managing special uses and summarizes the current special 

uses environment on the Prescott NF and the consequences to special uses of implementing the 

revised plan or its alternatives. 

Data compilation and analysis of the special uses managed on the Prescott NF along with 

estimation of effects by alternative were provided by Prescott NF staff and resource specialists.

Affected Environment

Special use permits authorize services that support the Forest Service mission and meet the needs 

of the public. These permits are a partnership between the Forest Service and private businesses 

or individuals to provide services and facilities. Special uses authorize occupancy and use of 

Forest Service lands for appropriate, safe activities that meet demonstrated public needs when 

consistent with the desired conditions for the specific area. The Prescott NF has issued over 400 

active special use permits for a variety of uses, including recreation residences, organizational 

camps, research studies, rights-of-way, communications towers, power lines, and wildlife water 

catchments.

Special use permits allow for occupancy and use of National Forest System lands. Permits may be 

short term, such as for recreation events or non-commercial group uses, or longer term, such as 

energy corridors or electronic sites. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 217

The Prescott NF has issued an average of 15 recreation event permits per year for the last 10 

years and currently has 17 active outfitter/guide permits. The recreation event permits are short 

term, generally spanning a period of 3 to 5 days to cover setup, takedown, and the event itself. 

Categories of events include non-commercial events such as club gatherings or weddings and 

commercial ventures like festivals and races. Permits for this latter category require a fee, noncommercial permits do not.

The emphasis on providing for energy needs is expected to increase in the next decade, focusing 

on energy development and transmission corridors. As the demand for alternative power sources 

continues to grow, many companies will likely look to Federal lands as possible locations for 

wind and solar farms. The “West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement” reviewed and evaluated the need to establish transmission corridors to connect these 

new energy sources to the existing power grid. As noted in appendix C, the West-wide Corridor 

segment 61-207 crosses the Prescott NF from south to north from about 0.75 mile northeast of 

Dewey, to the northern forest boundary just west of County Road 173.

The consolidation of ownership of Federal, State, and private lands within the proclaimed forest 

boundary could affect the demand for special use authorizations. There are no alternative energy 

developments under a permit or lease on the Prescott NF; however, in the spring of 2011, the 

Forest Service received a proposal to site 68 wind turbines within the proclaimed boundary of the 

northwestern part of the forest. The proposal includes turbines located solely on private land, with 

underground connectivity along 32 miles of established NFS roads to connect to the existing 

Western Area Power Authority (WAPA) transmission line. No data on power generation was 

provided. It is likely that WAPA will be the lead agency for the EIS.

The effects of major development projects such as for utilities and transportation systems would 

be addressed on a site-specific basis and mitigated individually following the Forest Service 

policy regarding special uses. Mitigations are typically accomplished by consolidation of new 

developments along existing routes and corridors or by construction techniques that disturb less 

land and improve reclamation success. 

Environmental Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives 

Most of the direction that affects special uses comes from the Forest Service Manual and 

Handbook. The existing laws, regulations, and policies governing special uses on the forest can 

be found in the Forest Service Manual, FSM 2700 (Special Uses FSM 2720, Rights-of-Ways 

FSM 2730, Federal Power Act Projects FSM 2770) and Forest Service Handbook, FSH 2709.11, 

FSH 2709.12 and FSH 2709.14 and under Title 36 CFR part 251, subparts A and B, which are 

independent from direction in the forest plan. Special uses would be managed to be consistent 

with the plan components for other resource areas (e.g., recreation, heritage, wildlife).

Changes in forest plan direction would have little direct effect on special use permits as most of 

the changes would occur at the project, or permit issuance, level. Prior to authorization being 

granted for any special use, it would be assessed using an interdisciplinary approach with input 

from other resource programs in order to address potential resource conflicts with the proposed 

project or service. Impacts from the implementation of actions associated with a special use 

permit would be determined through site-specific NEPA analyses. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

218 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The effects of issuing special use permits would be common to all of the alternatives. These 

effects include the opportunity costs associated with the issuance of permits, the concentrated 

environmental impacts that can result from the permitted activity, and the benefits provided by 

the permitted activity. 

When an area is removed from the resource base for temporary or permanent use under a special 

use permit, there is a loss of the opportunity to use the area for something else. This is commonly 

known as an opportunity cost. Opportunity costs can range from the loss of access for the general 

public, as would be the case with communications sites, to the loss of lands suitable for timber 

production or livestock grazing in energy corridors and rights-of-way, or temporary displacement 

from a recreation area or facility during a recreation event.

Special use permits can cause both short and long term environmental impacts by concentrating 

use into a short period of time and a particular area, such as during a recreation event or guided 

activity. The short term effects from this type of use can include the disruption of the social 

setting by bringing larger groups into areas than are typically present, and the displacement of 

non-participating visitors from the areas or facility. These are broad statements of possible effects 

that would have to be determined for individual permits through a project-level analysis.

In addition to the short and long term environmental impacts, special use permits also provide 

benefits in the form of supporting the Forest Service mission and helping to meet the needs of the 

public. Energy corridors and communication sites can contribute to the public good improving or 

expanding critical infrastructure elements. Recreation events and outfitter and guide services can 

increase the number and diversity of recreation opportunities available to Prescott NF visitors.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Under all alternatives, no measurable cumulative consequences can be discerned from the 

proposed management changes.

Transportation System

This section addresses the concerns of managing the transportation system and summarizes the 

current roads and trails environment on the Prescott NF and the consequences to the Prescott NF 

transportation system of implementing the revised plan or its alternatives. 

Data compilation and analysis of the transportation system on the Prescott NF along with 

estimation of effects by alternative were provided by Prescott NF staff and resource specialists.

Affected Environment

The transportation system on the Prescott NF consists of roads and trails that provide access to 

both public lands and private inholdings. Virtually every activity that takes place on the Prescott 

NF uses the transportation system, including: outdoor recreation, wildfire management, livestock 

and wildlife management, natural resource development, private inholding access, and electronic 

communication sites and utility corridor maintenance, as well as management and monitoring of 

National Forest System (NFS) lands.

Motorized travel on the forest has evolved over time. Historically, the road system was 

constructed for commodity access, primarily administration, grazing, mining, and timber. Some 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 219

roads were used to access points of interest or areas used for specific activities, such as hunting 

and camping. While the transportation system continues to provide access for administration of 

the forest, the majority of use today is for public recreation and vegetation management activities. 

However, there are some areas of the forest where system roads pass through private sections of 

property. For some of these roads, the Forest Service has formal easements or rights-of-way 

recorded. However, the majority of these roads have only “prescriptive access rights” involving 

commonly known, accepted, and continued road use, and there is no formal legal documentation 

establishing access across the private property to the public lands beyond. In some cases, the 

property owners have eliminated public access to national forest lands by installing gates and 

locks at the property boundaries.

The motorized transportation system for the Prescott NF is composed of 29.5 miles of roads 

managed and maintained for passenger cars (maintenance level 3 through 5), about 1,300 miles of 

roads managed and maintained for high-clearance vehicles (maintenance level 2), 28 miles of 

roads closed to all motorized vehicles (maintenance level 1), and 408 miles of trails open to 

motorized vehicles less than 50 inches wide. The miles of road open to motorized use include 

roads where access may be restricted on a seasonal basis. Any road, regardless of maintenance 

level, may be closed during extreme weather conditions for public safety or to minimize resource 

damage. The current road density (including motorized trails) of the Prescott National Forest is 

less than 0.97 miles per square mile. Road density is even less if designated wilderness areas are 

included in the calculations.

The Prescott NF also contains almost 140,000 unroaded acres in 11 inventoried roadless areas 

identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Their undeveloped nature is retained by 

restricting the occurrence of road construction within existing boundaries, although they do allow 

for motorized travel on designated trails. 

The Travel Management Rule (November 9, 2005, 36 CFR 212.51) requires that each national 

forest designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if 

appropriate, by time of year. The rule addresses any future proliferation of unauthorized routes by 

prohibiting cross-country motorized travel, except in designated areas and for designated uses. 

Cross-country motorized travel is restricted to two designated areas on the Prescott NF, Alto Pit 

(41 acres) and Hayfield Draw (80 acres), and for motorized big game retrieval. The Travel 

Management Rule is consistent with forest plan direction established in 1989 through forest plan 

amendment 4.

The motor vehicle use map (MVUM) is produced by the Prescott NF to display the roads and 

trails that have been designated for motorized use. Roads used only for administrative purposes 

and unauthorized or user-created roads are not included on the MVUM. The designation of 

specific routes, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel is not within the scope of the plan 

revision process.

Environmental Consequences 

Common to All Alternatives 

Under the direction of all of the alternatives, the NFS roads and trails would be managed to 

provide a safe and efficient transportation system for travel and the administration of NFS lands. 

Unneeded roads (both NFS roads and unauthorized roads) would be removed from the system, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

220 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

and roads slated for decommissioning would be restored to a more natural state. Travel would 

become more centralized on the remaining system roads, and natural and cultural resources would 

be less adversely affected by motor vehicle use.

Motorized access on NFS roads and trails is subject to the Prescott NF travel management 

decisions and is considered separate from forest plan revision. The lack of legal access to NFS 

lands has been identified as a management concern, and all alternatives would direct that rightsof-way should be obtained to address this concern. This increased access would facilitate 

management and improve the ability to provide goods and services in a variety of resource areas. 

The MVUM would continue to be the management approach used to clarify which routes are 

open to the public but would not vary between the alternatives.

Alternative A 

Under alternative A, management of the transportation system would continue under the direction 

set forth in the 1987 plan. This guidance is reactive in nature, as opposed to the proactive 

management direction found in the action alternatives. Current direction is focused on access 

restrictions to reduce potential vehicle impacts rather than mitigation and restoration of existing 

disturbance. An example of this is the restriction on cross-country motorized travel that predates 

the Travel Management Rule. 

The impacts include soil erosion and compaction, loss of vegetation, and physical disruption of 

cultural sites. As noted previously, erosion from poorly located roads and trails with improper 

stream and drainage crossings is adding to the sediment load and impacting watershed integrity. It 

can be reasonably assumed that in the absence of a change in management direction, these 

impacts will continue to accumulate into the future.

This alternative does not contain any plan-level direction to secure legal access across private 

property in areas where historic access to the national forest has been lost. It could be reasonably 

expected that alternative A would maintain the status quo of limited public access to some areas 

of the Prescott NF. 

Alternative A does not recommend any areas for wilderness designation. A recommendation for 

wilderness designation imposes restrictions on any activity that could affect the wilderness 

character of the area; this could include the creation of new or temporary roads in these areas that 

do not contain any NFS system roads or the designation of new motorized trails. 

Alternatives B and D 

Alternatives B and D contain specific plan level guidance for watershed protection that would 

help to mitigate and restore the effects on water quality from the existing transportation system. 

The result would be that these alternatives would improve water quality at a faster rate than 

alternative A. Alternatives B and D do not contain direction to secure legal access along National 

Forest System roads where historic access to the national forest has been lost. In this respect, they 

are the same as alternative A. 

As noted in the watershed section, roads, and to a lesser extent, trails, are the most significant 

source of increased sediments into stream channels on the Prescott NF. Hard surface roads create 

linear features with impermeable surfaces that have low roughness, and many roads and trails on 

the Prescott NF are located in proximity to surface water and concentrate runoff into these 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 221

drainages, increasing sediment transport and reducing infiltration rates. These concerns are 

addressed in Objective 20, which directs the maintenance, repair, or relocation of 20 to 100 miles 

of roads or trails, and in Objective 22, which provides direction to improve 15 to 25 stream or 

drainage crossings associated with roads or trails. These objectives would have the dual benefit of 

improving watershed conditions and the state of repair of the NFS transportation system. 

Both alternatives B and D recommend additional acreage for wilderness designation. A 

recommendation for wilderness designation imposes restrictions on any activity that could affect 

the wilderness character of the area; this could include the creation of new or temporary roads in 

these areas that do not contain any NFS system roads. Further discussion of the consequences of 

wilderness recommendation can be found in the “Recommended Wilderness” section in “Need 

for Change 3.”

Alternative C 

Alternative C does not differ from alternatives B or D with respect to the watershed objectives 

and associated relevant guidelines or securing legal public access. Therefore, it could be expected 

to provide the same benefits to watershed and NFS transportation system conditions. 

Alternative C does differ from the other action alternatives in that, like alternative A, it does not 

recommend any areas for wilderness designation. Thus, as with alternative A, there would be no 

restrictions on any activity, such as the creation of new roads or motorized trails that could affect 

wilderness character.

Alternative E 

Alternative E is similar to alternatives B, C, and D with respect to the watershed objectives and 

relevant guidelines, with a stronger emphasis on road and trail repair and relocation versus 

maintenance. Therefore, it could be expected to provide similar benefits to watershed and NFS 

transportation system conditions at a faster rate. 

Alternative E differs from the other action alternatives in its approach to securing legal public 

access and road and trail maintenance. Objective 30 directs that the forest identify and act upon 

up to 10 opportunities to secure legal access to secure legal access along National Forest System 

roads that cross private land. This objective was added in response to public comments about 

actual and anticipated loss of access to some areas on the Prescott NF. 

Objective 20 in alternative E focuses on repair and relocation of roads or trails impacting water 

quality and does not count routine maintenance towards meeting the 20 to 100 miles. This could 

improve water quality at a faster rate by directing resources towards efforts with potentially 

greater benefits. Objective 22 is the same as the other action alternatives; it provides direction to 

improve 15 to 25 stream or drainage crossings associated with roads or trails. 

As with alternatives B and D, alternative E recommends additional acreage for wilderness 

designation and would impose the same restrictions on any activity that could affect the 

wilderness character of the area. Further discussion of the consequences of wilderness 

recommendation can be found in the “Recommended Wilderness” section in “Need for Change 

3.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

222 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Under all alternatives, no measurable cumulative consequences can be discerned from the 

proposed management changes.

Unavoidable Adverse Consequences

The revised plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does 

not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Therefore, decisions made in the land 

management plan do not cause, or have the potential to result in, actual irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources (see next section). Application of the land management 

plan standards and guidelines during future project and activity decisionmaking would provide 

resource protection measures and limit the extent and duration of any adverse environmental 

impacts. For a detailed discussion of types of consequences expected from future activities, see 

specific topic areas in this chapter.

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line right-of-way or road.

The revised plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does 

not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management plan does 

not authorize or mandate any site-specific project or activity (including ground-disturbing 

actions), none of the alternatives cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 

Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of “the relationship 

between short term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long 

term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable 

means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster 

and promote the general welfare, create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can 

exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present 

and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). Short term uses are those that generally 

occur for a finite time period. Long term productivity refers to the ability of the land to produce a 

continuous supply of a resource.

The change in the programmatic management of the Prescott NF under any action alternative 

would not jeopardize the short term or long term productivity of the lands and resources of the 

forest. Discussion of short and long term effects is included in the analysis of the environmental 

consequence for each need for change.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 223

Other Required Disclosures

The regulations for implementing the NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent 

possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and 

integrated with ...other environmental review laws and executive orders.” As a proposed Federal 

project, the revised plan decisions are subject to compliance with other Federal and State laws. 

Determinations and decisions made in the revised plan have been evaluated in the context of 

relevant laws and executive orders. Throughout the development of the revised plan, there has 

been collaboration with various State and Federal agencies. The following actions have been 

taken to document and ensure compliance with laws that require consultation and/or concurrence 

with other Federal agencies.

 Endangered Species Act, Section 7: Consultation with the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding federally listed threatened, endangered, and 

proposed species, and designated and proposed critical habitat is in progress. 

 National Historic Preservation Act: Consultation with the Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Officer is mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA). The Southwestern Region also subscribes to a programmatic agreement 

with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office for ways in which consultation can be 

conducted. The various appendices of the programmatic agreement are particularly 

directed to Southwestern Region projects and issues. 

 Government-to-government consultation was completed with American Indian tribes 

who have aboriginal territory within the lands now part of the Prescott NF, as required by 

the National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Orders 13007 and 13175; and the 2003 

First Amended Programmatic Agreement cited above. 

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 225

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors 

The following individuals and Forest Service staff groups contributed to development of this 

environmental impact statement.

Responsible Official

Cal Joyner, Regional Forester for the Southwestern Region.

Official Responsible for Preparing the EIS

Teresa Chase, Forest Supervisor for the Prescott National Forest

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Name Title Education and Experience

Marc Baker Consultant  Ph.D. Systematics and Evolution, Arizona State 

University

 37 years experience, primarily contract work, with 

several land management agencies, including the 

Forest Service

Christopher J. 

Brown

Natural Resource 

Planner

 B.S. Forest Resource Management, Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University 

 12 years experience with the Forest Service

Noel Fletcher Wildlife Biologist  B.S. Wildlife Management, University of Idaho

 30 years experience with the Forest Service

Sally HessSamuelsonConsultant  B.S. Forestry, University of Minnesota

 28 years experience with the Forest Service

Delilah 

Jaworski

Social Scientist  M.S. Environment and Development, London School 

of Economics

 3 years experience with the Forest Service and 2 years 

experience with the Bureau of Land Management

Ann May Forest Landscape 

Architect

 M.L.A. (Masters of Landscape Architecture), 

University of Michigan

 21 years experience with the Forest Service

Jim McKie Archaeologist  M.A. Anthropology, University of Idaho

 32 years experience with the Forest Service

Adriane Ragan Writer/Editor  M.A. English, Northern Arizona University

 9 years experience with the Forest Service
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

226 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Name Title Education and Experience

Mary 

Rasmussen

Forest Planner  M.S. Forest Ecology, Oregon State University

 17 years experience with the Forest Service and 11 

years experience with the National Park Service

Jules Riley Hydrologist  B.S. Hydrology, Colorado State University

 24 years experience with the Forest Service

Dan Salcido Engineer  B.S. Civil Engineering, University of California, 

Berkeley

 32 years experience with the Forest Service

Albert Sillas Fisheries 

Biologist

 B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Science, New Mexico State 

University

 22 years experience with the Forest Service and 7 years 

experience with the Fish and Wildlife Service

Kenneth

Simeral

Lands and 

Minerals Program 

Lead

 B.S. Natural Resource Management, Humboldt State 

University

 23 years experience with the Forest Service, 5 years 

experience with NRCS (SCS), and 3 years experience 

with National Park Service.

Christine Thiel Range Program 

Lead

 M.S. Environmental Resources in Agriculture, Arizona 

State University

 16 years experience with the Forest Service

Jodi Wetzstein Planning Forester  B.S. Forestry, Northern Arizona University; certified 

silviculturist

 11 years experience with the Bureau of Land 

Management and 5 years experience with the Forest 

Service

Other Forest Service Contributors

Review and input in the development of the final plan and EIS were received from the staffs of 

the Bradshaw, Chino Valley, and Verde Ranger Districts; the Prescott NF Supervisor’s Office; and 

the Southwestern Region Regional Office.

Consultation and Coordination

The Forest Service consulted the following tribes; Federal, State, and local agencies; groups; and 

individuals during development of this environmental impact statement.

Tribes

The following six tribes were consulted: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi Nation, Hualapai 

Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In 

addition, the following tribes were notified of Prescott NF plan revision efforts at the time the 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 227

notice of intent to revise the plan was published in the Federal Register: Ak’Chin Indian 

Community, Cocopah Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Gila 

River Indian Community, Havasupai Tribe, Pasua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, Quechen Tribe of the 

Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, San Carlos Apache Tribe, and Zuni Tribe.

Federal, State, County, and Local Agencies and Organizations

Numerous Federal, State, county, and local agencies and organizations have been consulted in 

development of the revised plan and this EIS. Complete mailing lists for the scoping periods are 

available in the planning record. Some of the agencies consulted include: 

Federal

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 Coconino National Forest 

 Kaibab National Forest 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

 Rocky Mountain Research Station 

 Southwestern Regional Office 

 Tonto National Forest 

U.S. Department of Defense

Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of Energy 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Customs and Border Protection 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

 Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Small Business Administration 

State

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Arizona Department of Mines and 

Minerals 

Arizona Department of State Lands 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Arizona Department of Water Resources 

Arizona Farm Agency 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Arizona Geological Survey 

Arizona Office of Tourism 

Arizona State Parks 

 Arizona OHV Ambassador Program 

Arizona State University 

Northern Arizona Council of 

Governments 

Northern Arizona University 

Office of the Governor 

University of Arizona 

Coconino County Cooperative 

Extension 

Yavapai County Cooperative 

Extension 

County

Coconino County 

 Planning and Zoning 

Yavapai County 

Board of Supervisors 

Planning and Design Review 

 Public Works 

Regional Trails Planning 

Sheriff’s Office

Trails Committee 

Water Advisory Committee 

Local Municipalities

City of Flagstaff 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

228 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

City of Prescott 

City of Prescott Valley 

City of Sedona 

Phoenix City Council 

Town of Ash Fork 

Town of Camp Verde 

Town of Chino Valley 

Town of Clarkdale 

Town of Cottonwood 

Town of Dewey-Humboldt 

Town of Jerome 

Unincorporated Communities

Arcosanti 

Bagdad 

Black Canyon City 

Breezy Pines 

Cherry 

Cordes Lakes 

Crown King 

Mayer 

Paulden 

Skull Valley 

Spring Valley 

Walker 

Wilhoit 

Others

Numerous groups and individuals participated in the process through written comments and by 

attending public meetings. Groups consulted include:

APS 

Arizona Hispanic Chamber of 

Commerce, Prescott Valley 

Arizona Wilderness Coalition 

Back Country Horsemen of Central 

Arizona 

Black Canyon Fire District 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Chino Valley Area Chamber of 

Commerce 

Community Forest Stewardship Forum 

Community Forest Trust 

Highland Center for Natural History 

Highland Pines Homeowners 

Association 

Horsethief Basin Homeowners 

Association 

Mingus Area Preservation Society 

Open Space Alliance 

Prescott Area Wildland Urban Interface 

Commission 

Prescott Open Trails Association 

Prescott Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter 

The Nature Conservancy, Verde River 

Program 

Upper Verde Wild and Scenic River 

Steering Group 

Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership 

Verde Front 

Verde Valley Cyclists Coalition 

Verde Valley Regional Economic 

Development Organization 

Verde Valley Regional Planner’s Group

Yavapai County Cattle Growers 

Association 

Yavapai Trails Association 

Yavapai Weed Management Association
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

FEIS for the Prescott NF Revised Land Management Plan 229

List of Agencies, Organizations and 

Persons to Whom Copies of the EIS Were Sent

Notice of the availability of this EIS was mailed to the public, forest employees, Federal and State 

agencies, and tribal and local governments. 

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 231

Glossary

Best management practices (BMPs) – Methods, measures, or practices selected by an agency to 

meet its non-point source control needs. BMPs include, but are not limited to, structural and nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, 

during, and after pollution producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of 

pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2(m)).

Class 1 airsheds – Also called Class 1 Federal areas. A classification where areas require the 

highest level of protection under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA defines mandatory Class I 

Federal areas as certain national parks (over 6,000 acres), wilderness areas (over 5,000 acres), 

national memorial parks (over 5,000 acres), and international parks that were in existence as of 

August 1977.

Connectivity – The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to 

move across the landscape; the opposite of fragmentation. Patches of similar habitats are either 

close together or linked by corridors of appropriate vegetation. 

Deferred maintenance – Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when 

it was scheduled and which, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period. When allowed 

to accumulate without limits or consideration of useful life, deferred maintenance leads to 

deterioration of performance, increased costs to repair, and decrease in asset value. Deferred 

maintenance needs may be categorized as critical or non-critical at any point in time. Continued 

deferral of non-critical maintenance will normally result in an increase in critical deferred 

maintenance. 

Ecosystem services – Benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. Some of the ecosystem 

services the Prescott NF provides include: clean water and air, productive soil, riparian and 

aquatic resources, diverse wildlife habitats, timber, forage, scenery, recreation, and educational 

and cultural values.

Extirpate – to expunge or to remove completely.

Federally listed species – Threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act, as amended. Candidate and proposed species are species which are being considered for 

Federal listing. 

Fire regime – The patterns, frequency, and severity of fire that occur over a long period of time 

across a landscape and its immediate effects on the ecosystem in which it occurs. There are five 

fire regimes which are classified based on frequency (average number of years between fires) and 

severity (amount of replacement of the dominant overstory vegetation) of the fire. These five 

regimes are: 

 Fire regime I – 0 to 35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common, isolated 

torching can occur) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of dominant overstory 

vegetation replaced) 

 Fire regime II – 0 to 35 year frequency and high severity (greater than 75 percent of 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced) 

 Fire regime III – 35 to 100+ year frequency and mixed severity 

 Fire regime IV – 35 to 100+ year frequency and high severity 

 Fire regime V – 200+ year frequency and high severity. 
Glossary

232 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Goshawk post-fledgling family areas (PFAs) – The areas that surround northern goshawk nest 

areas. They represent an area of concentrated use by the northern goshawk family until the time 

the young are no longer dependent on adults for food. PFAs are approximately 420 acres in size 

(not including the nest area acres).

Human geographic mapping – Human geographic mapping defines map boundaries by natural 

elements and human interactions. It is based upon the notion that political boundaries do not 

naturally coincide with social, ecological, or other boundaries, and instead, it outlines the 

boundaries of these areas that naturally define human interactions in a region. Human geographic 

maps can be far more intuitive, natural, and descriptive of a community and its inhabitants than a 

political map.

Intermittent (or seasonal) stream – a stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it 

receives water from springs or from surface sources such as melting snow in mountainous areas.

Invasive species – Species that are not native to the ecosystem being described and that cause, or 

have the potential to cause, ecological or economic harm.

Maintenance level – Maintenance levels define the level of service and maintenance 

requirements for a road. Maintenance levels 1 to 5 are described below:

 Level 1 – These roads have been placed in storage between intermittent uses. They are 

not shown on motor vehicle use maps and are closed to vehicular traffic but may be 

available for nonmotorized uses. 

 Level 2 – These roads are for use by high-clearance vehicles; passenger car use is 

discouraged or prohibited. 

 Level 3 – These roads are open and maintained for passenger car use. Roads in this 

maintenance level are typically low speed with single lanes and turnouts. 

 Level 4 – These roads provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at 

moderate travel speeds. Roads in this maintenance level are typically double lane and 

aggregate surfaced. 

 Level 5 – These roads provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Roads in 

this maintenance level are typically double lane and paved. 

Mineral material – Common variety minerals such as rock or gravel.

National Forest System (NFS) – As defined in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378), the “National Forest System” includes all national forest 

lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United States, all national forest lands 

acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means; the national grasslands and land 

use projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act; and other lands, 

waters, or interests therein administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration 

through the Forest Service as part of the system.

Old growth – “Old growth” refers to specific habitat components that occur in forests and 

woodlands—old trees, dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and structure 

diversity. These important habitat features may occur in small areas, with only a few components, 

or over larger areas as stands or forests where old growth is concentrated. Old growth is not 

equated to any particular successional stage, though late seral states are more likely to contain old 
Glossary

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 233

growth features. In the Southwest, old growth is considered “transitional,” given that the location 

of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree 

growth and mortality) (Forest Service, 2012b). Some species, notably certain plants, require “old 

forest” communities that may or may not have old growth components but have escaped 

significant disturbance for lengths of time necessary to provide the suitable stability and 

environment. In Southwestern forested ecosystems, old growth is different than the traditional 

definition based on Northwestern infrequent fire forests. Due to large differences among 

Southwestern vegetation types and natural disturbances, old growth forests vary extensively in 

tree size, age classes, presence, and abundance of structural elements, stability, and presence of 

understory.

Perennial stream – a stream that flows continuously.

Perennial intermittent stream – a stream with alternating segments of perennial flow and dry 

stretches.

Potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) – Coarse-scale groupings of land that share similar 

aspect, elevation, vegetation, soil parent material, and natural disturbances such as fire or drought 

cycles. Identification of PNVTs is based on data from the terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES).

Recommended wilderness – A potential wilderness area within the National Forest System 

which has been recommended for official designation by the regional forester to the Chief of the 

Forest Service. The Chief may elect to forward the recommendation with wording for a 

congressional bill to the Secretary of Agriculture, who may then elect to transmit the proposed 

bill to Congress. It takes an act of Congress to designate a wilderness area. 

Southwestern Region sensitive species – Those plant and animal species identified by the 

Southwestern Region’s regional forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced 

by: (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or (b) 

significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce the 

existing distribution of a species (FSM 2670.5 Definitions).

Traditional cultural property – Defined in the National Register Bulletin as a location, building, 

structure, community, and individual objects that are considered eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register as a historic property because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs 

of a living community that are: (1) rooted in that community’s history and (2) important in 

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community.

Wildland fire – Wildland fire is any non-structural fire that occurs in vegetation or natural fuels. 

It includes both wildfires and prescribed fires. Wildfires are fires with unplanned ignitions 

including lightning or unauthorized and accidental human-caused actions. Prescribed fires are 

intentionally ignited by the Forest Service under an approved plan to meet specific objectives.

Wildland-urban interface (WUI) – Wildland-urban interface includes those areas of resident 

populations at imminent risk from wildfire and human developments having special significance. 

These areas may include: critical communications sites, municipal watersheds, high voltage 

transmission lines, church camps, scout camps, research facilities, and other structures that, if 

destroyed by fire, would result in hardship to communities. These areas encompass not only the 

sites themselves, but also the continuous slopes and fuels that lead directly to the sites, regardless 

of the distance involved.

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 235

References

Achtemeier, G.L., Jackson, B., and Brenner, J.D. (2001). Problem and Nuisance Smoke. Smoke 

Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, 

NFES 1279. Boise, ID.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. P.L. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469, as amended.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. P.L. 96-95, 93 Stat. 721, as amended.

Arizona Department of Commerce. (2008). Profile: Yavapai County, AZ. Accessed December 

2010, www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/yavapai%20county.pdf.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2000). Status of Surface Water Quality in 

Arizona – Clean Water Act 305(b) Report 2000. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2002). Status of Surface Water Quality in 

Arizona – Clean Water Act 305(b) Report 2002. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2003). Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

for the State of Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 

www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/haze/download/2sip.pdf.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2004a). Revision State Implementation Plan for 

Regional Haze. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2004b). Status of Water Quality in Arizona –

2004. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. July 2005. 

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2009). 2006/2008 Status of ambient surface 

water quality in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (1995a). Native fishes of Sycamore and Ash Creek 

drainages, Prescott National Forest, Arizona. Non-game and Endangered Wildlife 

Program Technical Report 83. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (1995b). Bat survey of the Prescott National Forest 

(Yavapai County, Arizona). Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 63. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (1996). Status review of Gila chub, Gila intermedia, in the 

United States and Mexico. Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 91. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (1997). Region III Fisheries Activities on the Prescott 

National Forest, Annual Report for 1997. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish 

Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (1999). Arizona Partners in Flight bird conservation plan. 

Version 1.0. Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. 

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.
References

236 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2000a). Upper Verde River fish survey summary, Granite 

Creek confluence to Verde Ranch, July 2000. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish 

Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2000b). Upper Verde River fish survey summary, Verde 

Ranch to Bear Siding, September 2000. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish 

Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2001). Upper Verde River fish survey summary, 

Perkinsville to Sycamore Creek, June 2001. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish 

Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2002a). Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) status survey of the 

lower Colorado River basin. Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 186. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2002b). American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus 

anatum). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management 

System. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2003a). Region III Fisheries Survey of the Upper Verde 

River Wildlife Area-Granite Creek and Campbell Place Parcels-May 15-16, 2003. 

Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2003b). Arizona bat conservation strategic plan. Non-game 

and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 213. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game 

and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2003c). Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii). 

Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. 

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2003d). Plant abstract for Hedeoma diffusum. Phoenix, 

AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2003e). Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). 

Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. 

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2003f). Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii pallescens). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2005a). Verde River Trip Report – Granite Creek to Verde 

Ranch, June 22–24, 2005. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2005b). Verde River Trip Report – Verde Ranch to 

Perkinsville, July 12–14, 2005. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2005c). Verde River Trip Report – Perkinsville to Sycamore 

Creek, August 16–18, 2005. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2005d). Plant abstract for Lupinus latifolius var. 

leucanthus. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.
References

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 237

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2007a). Verde River Trip Report – Granite Creek to Verde 

Ranch, June 26–28, 2007. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2007b). Verde River Trip Report – Verde Ranch to 

Perkinsville, July 10–12, 2007. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2007c). Verde River Trip Report – Perkinsville to Sycamore 

Creek, August 14–16, 2007. Kingman, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2008a). Southwestern willow flycatcher final survey and 

monitoring report. Research Technical Guidance Bulletin 10. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona 

Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2008b). Spikedace survey of the upper Verde River Granite 

Creek and Perkinsville areas, June 25–July 3, 2008. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and 

Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2009a). Narrow-headed Gartersnake (Thamnophis 

rufipunctatus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2009b). Arizona statewide pronghorn management plan.

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2010a). Bald eagle (Halaieetus leucocephalus). 

Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. 

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2010b). Species distribution maps. Heritage data 

management system. Accessed online at: 

www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml.

Arizona Senate Research Staff. (2011). Arizona State Senate Issue Brief: Arizona State Trust 

Land. September 27, 2011. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona State University. (2002). Lower Colorado Basin fish database. Produced for the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tempe, AZ.

Bahm, J. and Robinson, A. (2009). Spikedace survey of the upper Verde River Granite Creek and 

Perkinsville areas, June 25 – July 3, 2008. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Research Branch.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962. P.L. 87-884, 76 Stat. 1246.

Blasch, K.W., Hoffmann, J.P., Graser, L.F., Bryson, J.R., and Flint, A.R. (2006). Hydrogeology of 

the Upper and Middle Verde River watersheds, central Arizona. Scientific Investigations 

Report 2005–5198. Reston, VA: Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bonar, S., Leslie, L., and Velez, C. (2004). Influence of species, size class, environment, and 

season on introduced fish predation on native fishes in the Verde River system, Arizona.

Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Fisheries Research Report 01-04.

Brouder, M. (2002). July 25, 2002 e-mail from Mark Brouder, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

Marianne Meding, Arizona Game and Fish Department regarding Verde River survey 

information.
References

238 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Brown, D.E. Editor. (1994). Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern 

Mexico. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2010). Updated Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Sensitive Species List for Arizona.

Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of the Interior. (1995). Mineral Appraisal of Priority Areas on 

the Western Part of the Prescott National Forest, Arizona. Mineral Land Assessment 

(MLA 15-95). Denver, CO: Intermountain Field Operations Center

Busch, D.E. and Smith, S.D. (1993). Effects of fire on water salinity relations of riparian woody 

taxa. Oecologia. 94: 186-194.

Clean Water Act of 1972. P.L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, as amended.

Corman, T.E. and Wise-Gervais, C. (eds.). (2005). Arizona breeding bird atlas. Albuquerque, 

NM: University of New Mexico Press

Cordell, H.K., Green, G.T., and Bentz, C.J. (2002). Recreation and the Environment as Cultural 

Dimensions in Contemporary American Society. Leisure Sciences. 24(1); 13–41.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (1997). Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Covington, W.W. (2003). The evolutionary and historical context. Pages 26–47 in: Friederici, P. 

Editor. Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 

Dewey, S.R., and Kennedy, P.L. (2001). Effects of supplemental food on parental-care strategies 

and juvenile survival of Northern Goshawks. The Auk. 118:352-365.

Emmons, I., Nowak, E., and Liszewski, M. (2011). Prescott National Forest riparian 

herpetofauna surveys 2010, final report. Report submitted to Prescott National Forest by 

Colorado Plateau Research Station. Flagstaff, AZ.

Emmons, I. and E. Nowak. 2013. Northern Mexican gartersnake surveys 2012: interim report. 

Colorado Plateau Research Station, Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, Arizona. 20 

pp.

Endangered Species Act of 1973. P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, as amended.

Federal Clean Air Act of 1955. P.L. 84-159, 69 Stat. 322, as amended.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (1985). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; determination of experimental population status for certain 

introduced populations of Colorado squawfish and woundfin. Federal Register 50:30188-

30195.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (1995). Recovery plan for the 

Mexican spotted owl, Vol. 1. Albuquerque, NM: Southwest Regional Office.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (1999a). Gila topminnow, Peociliopsis 

occidentalis occidentalis, Revised Draft Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, NM: Southwest 

Regional Office.
References

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 239

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (1999b). Proposed rule to remove the 

bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife; 

Proposed rule. Federal Register 64 (128): 36454-36464.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2002a). Razorback sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the 

Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Denver, CO: Mountain-Prairie Region.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2002b). Southwestern willow 

flycatcher recovery plan. Albuquerque, NM: Southwest Regional Office.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2003). Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus 

gilae) Recovery Plan (Third Revision). Albuquerque, NM: Southwest Regional Office.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior. (2004). Final designation of critical 

habitat for the Mexican spotted owl; Final Rule. Federal Register, 69(168), 53182-53298.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2005). Spikedace surveys, Verde 

River, Yavapai County, Arizona, October – November 2005. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2007). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants: Designation of critical habitat for the spikedace (Meda fulgida) and 

the loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis); Final Rule. Federal Register, 72(54), 13356-13422. 

March 21, 2007.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2008a). Birds of Conservation 

Concern 2008. Arlington, VA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2008b). Reinitiated Biological 

Opinion on Transportation and Delivery of Central Arizona Project Water to the Gila 

River Basin in Arizona and New Mexico and its Potential to Introduce and Spread Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. Albuquerque, NM: Southwest Regional Office.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2008c). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants: 12-Month finding on a petition to list the northern Mexican 

gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops) as threatened or endangered with critical 

habitat; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 73(228), 71788-71826. November 25, 2008.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2009a). Environmental Assessment 

for Renovation of Stillman Lake to remove nonnative fishes and repatriate native fishes.

Flagstaff, AZ: Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2009b). Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month finding on a Petition to list a Distinct Population Segment 

of the Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) in the Lower Colorado River Basin; Proposed rule. 

Federal Register 74 (128): 32352-32387.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2010). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants: 12-month finding on a petition to list the Sonoran population of the 

desert tortoise as endangered or threatened; Proposed rule. Federal Register 75 (23): 

78094-78146.
References

240 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2011). Biological assessment for reinitiation of consultation on the continued implementation of the Land and Resource 

Management Plans for the eleven National Forests and National Grasslands of the 

Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM: Southwest Region.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2012). Final Recovery Plan for the 

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. Albuquerque, NM: 

Southwest Region. 413 pp.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2013a). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; threatened status for the northern Mexican gartersnake and narrowheaded gartersnake; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 78(132), 41500-41547. July 10, 

2013.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2013b). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the northern Mexican gartersnake 

and narrow-headed gartersnake; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 78(132), 41550-41608. 

July 10, 2013.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2013c). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants proposed threatened status for the western distinct population segment 

of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 

78(192), 61622-61666. October 3, 2013.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2014). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; threatened status for the northern Mexican gartersnake and narrowheaded gartersnake; Final Rule. Federal Register, 79(130), 38678-38746. July 8, 2014.

Flint, O.S., Jr. (1968). Bredin-Archbold-Smithsonian Biological Survey of Dominica, 9. The 

Trichoptera (Caddisflies) of the Lesser Antilles. Proceedings of the United States 

National Museum, 125; 1–86.

Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. P.L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923, as amended.

Forest Rangeland and Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. P.L. 93-378, 88 Stat. 476, as 

amended.

Forest Reserve Act of 1891. 16 U.S.C. 471, as amended.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1981). Verde River Wild and Scenic River Study 

Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1987). Prescott National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1992). Management Recommendations for the 

Northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -217. Fort 

Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1997). Environmental Assessment for Grapevine 

Springs Botanical Area Designation. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.
References

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 241

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2005). Monitoring for Sustainability. Fort 

Collins, CO: Inventory and Monitoring Institute

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2006). Prescott National Forest Recreation 

Niche. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2007a). USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan FY 

2007–2012. Washington, DC: Washington Office.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2007b). Bringing climate change into natural 

resource management: proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-706. Portland, OR: 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2007c). Draft Prescott National Forest midscale vegetation inventory data. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2008a) Review of vegetation management and 

water yield with local application to the Ashley National Forest. Vernal, UT: Ashley 

National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2008b) Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the 

Prescott National Forest: An Evaluation of Water Resource Characteristics, and their 

Contribution in Ecological Diversity and Ecological Sustainability. Prescott, AZ: Prescott 

National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009a). Ecological Sustainability Report. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009b). Prescott National Forest Economic and 

Social Sustainability Assessment. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009c). Analysis of the Management Situation. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009d). National Visitor Use Monitoring Results 

for the Prescott National Forest. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009e). R3 Wilderness Trends in Use. 

Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Regional Office.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009f). “Forest Summary by Commodity.” 

Prescott National Forest, accessed via I-web November 10, 2009. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010a). Southwestern Region Climate Change 

Trends and Forest Planning. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Regional Office

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010b). Forest Level Analysis of Management 

Indicator Species (MIS) for the Prescott National Forest, 2009 update. Prescott, AZ: 

Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010c). Upper Verde River Eligibility Report 

Update for the National Wild and Scenic River System. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.
References

242 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010d). Prescott National Forest Research 

Natural Area Evaluation Process Summary Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010e). Unpublished dataset of seven fish 

monitoring sites on the upper Verde River, 1994 to 2010. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011a). Socio-economic Resource Report.

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011b). Prescott National Forest Vegetation and 

Fire Ecology Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011c). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Air Quality Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011d). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Vascular Plant Viability Analysis. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011e). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011f). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011g). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Recreation Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011i). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Fisheries Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011j). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Scenery and Open Space Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011k). Proposed Action for Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative: Coconino and Kaibab National Forests, Coconino County, 

Arizona. Flagstaff, AZ: Coconino National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011m). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Terrestrial Species Viability Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011n). Prescott National Forest Collaboration 

Report for Forest Plan Revision. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011o). Watershed Condition Classification 

Technical Guide. FS-978. Washington, DC: Stream Systems Technology Center.

www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011p). USDA Forest Service Watershed 

Condition Classification Dataset. Accessed November, 2011 

www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/interactivemap/USDAFS-WCF-2010.html.
References

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 243

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011q). Prescott National Forest Determination 

of Livestock Grazing Capability and Suitability Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011r). Prescott National Forest Timber 

Suitability, Long term Sustained Yield Capacity, and Allowable Sale Quantity Report. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011s). Prescott National Forest Draft 

Migratory Bird Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011t). Documentation of Minimum 

Management Requirements. Prepared by Hess-Samuelson, S., Greenbelt Insights. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2012a). Prescott National Forest Potential 

Wilderness Area Evaluation Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2012b). Old growth definition paper. 

Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Regional Office.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2012c). Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of 

Fire on Cultural Resources and Archeology. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-

volume 3. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station. 224 pp.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013). Updated Regional Forester's Sensitive 

Species List. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Regional Office.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015). Prescott National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Fulé, P.Z. (2008). Does it Make Sense to Restore Wildland Fire in Changing Climate? Restoration 

Ecology, 16; 526-531.

Garner, B.D. and Bills, D.J. (2012). Spatial and seasonal variability of base flow in the Verde 

Valley, central Arizona, 2007 and 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2012–5192, 33 pp. 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. P.L. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285, as amended.

Hann, W.J., Shlisky, A., Havlina, D., Schon, K., Barrett, S.W., DeMeo, T.E., Pohl, K., Menakis, 

J.P., Hamilton, D., Jones, J., Levesque, M., and Frame, C.K.. (2008). Interagency fire 

regime condition class guidebook. Version 1.3 Interagency fire regime condition class.

Headwaters Economics. (2009). Economic Profile System. Accessed 7 December 2010. 

www.headwaterseconomics.org/eps

Hendrickson, D.A. (1993). Evaluation of the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and 

Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) reintroduction programs in central Arizona 

based on surveys of fish populations in the Salt and Verde rivers from 1986 to 1990.

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Heritage Data Management System. (2011). Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona Natural 

Heritage Program.
References

244 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Hodgson, W.C. (1999). Agavaceae, agave family, part one. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada 

Academy of Science 32(1):1-21.

Hodgson, W.C. (2001). Novelties in American Agave (Agavaceae). Novon 11(4): 410-416.

Hoffmeister, D.F. (1986). Mammals of Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: University of Arizona Press and 

Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Holycross, A.T., Burger, W.P., Nigro, E.J., and Brennan, T.C. (2006). Surveys for Thamnophis 

eques and Thamnophis rufipunctatus in the Gila River Watershed of Arizona and New 

Mexico. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Horne, A. and Hayes, R. (1999). Developing measures of socio-economic resiliency in the 

Interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PNW-GTR453. April 1999.

Hughes, M.K., and Diaz, H.F. (1994). Was there a “Medieval Warm Period” and, if so, where and 

when? Climate Change 26:109–142.

Hurteau, M.D., and Brooks, M.L. (2011). Short- and long term effects of fire on carbon in US dry 

temperate forest systems. Bioscience, 61(2); 139-146.

Hyatt, M.W. (2004). Assessment of Colorado Pikeminnow and Razorback Sucker Reintroduction 

Program in the Gila River Basin. Final Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 2, Albuquerque. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Jahrke, E. and D.A. Clark. (1999). Razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow 

reintroduction and monitoring in the Salt and Verde rivers. Non-game and 

Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 147. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and 

Fish Department.

IUCN. (2011). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. www.iucnredlist.org. 

Downloaded on September 8, 2011. 

Kerpez, T.A., and Smith, N.S. (1987). Saltcedar control for wildlife habitat improvement in the 

southwestern United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Publication 169.

Kingery, J.L., and Graham, R.T. (1991). The Effect of Cattle Grazing on Ponderosa Pine 

Regeneration. The Forestry Chronicle 67(3): 245-248

LANDFIRE. (2007). LANDFIRE National Vegetation Dynamics Models. Accessed April 2008. 

www.landfire.gov/index.php

McAuliffe, J.R. (2003). The interface between precipitation and vegetation. Pages 9–27 in 

Weltzin, J.F. and McPherson, G.R., editors. Changing Precipitation Regimes and 

Terrestrial Ecosystems. Tucson, AZ. The University of Arizona Press.

McLaughlin, S.P., and Bowers, J.E. (1982). Effects of fire on a Sonoran Desert community. 

Ecology 63:246-248.

McPherson, G.R. (1995). The role of fire in the desert grasslands. Pages130–151 in: McClaran, 

M.P. and Van Devender, T.R., editors. The Desert Grassland. Tucson, AZ. The University 

of Arizona Press.
References

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 245

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. 710, as amended.

Millar, C.I., Stephenson, N.L., and Stephens, S.L. (2007). Climate change and forests of the 

future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8); 2145–2151.

Minckley, W.L. (1993). A Review of Fishes of the Coconino National Forest Region, Arizona. 

Flagstaff, AZ: Department of Zoology, Arizona State University final report to Coconino 

National Forest.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). (2009). IMPLAN Professional version 3.0.

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215, as amended.

Muñoz-Quesada, F. J., and Holzenthal, R. W. (2008). Revision of the Nearctic species of the 

caddisfly genus Wormaldia McLachlan (Trichoptera: Philopotamidae). Zootaxa. 1838; 1-

75.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011). 

QuickStats 1.0. Accessed March, 2011. 

www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats_1.0/index.asp

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. P.L. 101-601, 104 Stat. 3048, 

as amended.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. P.L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, as amended.

National Forest Management Act of 1976. P.L. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949, as amended.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. P.L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915, as amended.

NatureServe. (2010). NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life (Web application). 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Accessed online at: 

www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Neary, D.G., Buschmann, S., and Folliott, P.F. (2010). Function of riparian vegetation in retaining 

sediment in watersheds. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 

40; 31-44.

Northern Arizona Land Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005. P.L. 109-110, 

119 Stat. 2351

O’Gara, B.W. (1978). Antilocapra americana. Mammalian Species 90: 1-7.

Ohmart, R.D., Deason, W.O., and Burke, C. (1977). A riparian case history: the Colorado River. 

in Johnson, R.R., and Jones, D.A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and 

management of riparian habitat: a symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. General 

Technical Report, RM-43 Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experimental Station.

Reid, C., Nicholas, C., Woodard, E. (2008). Warm Fire Site Stabilization 2008. KNF Report 

2008-07-16A. Manuscript on file, Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. P.L. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488, as amended.
References

246 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Robertson, G. Boness, P., Gallegos, J., Hurja, J., Leathy, S., Miller, G., Robbie, W., Scalzone, K., 

Stein, R., and Steinke, R. (2000). Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National 

Forest. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM.

Robinson, A. and Crowder, C. (2009). Spikedace survey of the upper Verde River June 2009. 

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch.

Rosen, P.C., and Schwalbe, C.R. (1988). Status of the Mexican and narrow-headed garter snakes 

(Thamnophis eques megalops and Thamnophis rufipunctatus rufipunctatus) in Arizona.

Unpublished. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

Ruyle, G., and Ogden, P. (1993). What is an A.U.M.? in Russell, G., Ruyle, G., and Rice, R., eds. 

Arizona Rancher’s Guide. Arizona Cooperative Extension, University of Arizona. 

Tucson, AZ.

Ryan, M.G., Archer, S.R., Birdsey, R.A., Dahm, C.N., Heath, L.S., Hicke, J.A., Hollinger, D.Y., 

Huxman, T.E., Okin, G.S., Oren, R., Randerson, J.T., Schlesinger, W.H. (2008). Land 

Resources. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water 

Resources, and Biodiversity. Washington, DC: U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research.

Salafsky, S.R., Reynolds, R.T., and Noon, B.R. (2005). Patterns of temporal variation in goshawk 

reproduction and prey resources. Journal of Raptor Research. 39:237–246.

Salafsky, S.R., Reynolds, R.T., Noon, B.R., and Wiens, J. A. (2007). Reproductive responses of 

Northern Goshawks to variable prey populations. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

71(7):2274–2283.

Schafer, S.L., Bartlein, P.J., and Thompson, R.S. (2001). Potential changes in the distribution of 

western North America tree and shrub taxa under future climate scenarios. Ecosystems

4:200–215.

Schussman, H. and Smith, E. (2006a). Historical Range of Variation for Potential Natural 

Vegetation Types of the Southwest. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region by The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 22 pp. 

Schussman,H. and Smith, E. (2006b). Vegetation Models for Southwest Vegetation. Prepared for 

the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, 

AZ. 11 pp.

Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, G., Huang, H.P., Harnik, N., Leetmaa, 

A., Lau, N.C., Li, C., Velez, J., and Naik, N. (2007). Model Projections of an Imminent 

Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America. Science 316:1181-

1184.

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. P.L. 106-343, 114 Stat. 

1607, as amended.

Southwestern Bald Eagle Management Committee (SWBEMC). (2010). Accessed online at 

www.swbemc.org.

Sprigg, W.A., Hinkley, T., Bales, R.C., Bernal, J., Brookshire, D., Brown, S.P., Chermak, J., 

Dayal, P., Enote, J., Goodrich, D.C., Hanson, H.P., Huenneke, L., Karsell, W., Matusak, 
References

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 247

J., Mearns, L., Merideth, R., Miller, K., Minke, D.R., Morain, S.A., Orr, W., Redmond, 

K.T., and Young, J.R. (2000). Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change: Southwest. A Report of the Southwest 

Regional Assessment Group. Page 66 in U. o. A. The Institute for the Study of Planet 

Earth, editor. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Tucson, AZ.

Stevens, L.E., and Ledbetter, J.D. (2011). Rare Species of Prescott National Forest: 

Invertebrates; Final Report. Flagstaff, AZ: Museum of Northern Arizona

Swetnam, T.W., and Betancourt, J.L. (1998). Mesoscale Disturbance and Ecological Response to 

Decadal Variability in the American Southwest. Journal of Climate 11:3128-3147.

Swetnam, T.W., Allen, C.D., and Betancourt, J.L. (1999). Applied Historical Ecology: Using the 

Past to Manage for the Future. Ecological Applications 9:1189-1206.

Turner, D.S., and List, M.D. (2007). Habitat mapping and conservation analysis to identify 

critical streams for Arizona's native fish. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

Ecosystems. 17(7); 737-748.

Turner, R.M. (1974). Quantitative and historical evidence of vegetation changes along the Upper 

Gila River, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 655-H. Reston, VA: 

Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). American FactFinder. Accessed 14 December 2010. 

www.factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). American FactFinder. Accessed 14 December 2010. 

www.factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). American Community Survey, 2006-2008. Accessed 14 December 

2010. www.census.gov/acs.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State and County QuickFacts. Accessed 28 January 2012. 

www.quickfacts.census.gov/.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Department of the Interior. (1995). Federal Wildland 

Fire Management: Policy and Program Review: Final Report. Washington, DC: USDA 

and USDI.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Regional Haze Rule. 40 CFR 51.300-309. 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/fr_notices/rhfedreg.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a). Air Quality Trends by Pollutant. 

www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/where.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009b). Air Emission Sources – Particulate Matter. 

www.epa.gov/air/emissions/index.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Air Quality Index Charts for Yavapai County. 

www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html

Ward, J.M., and Kennedy, P.L. (1996). Effects of supplemental food on size and survival of 

juvenile Northern Goshawks. The Auk. 113:200-208.
References

248 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Westerling, A.L., Hildalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R., and Swetnam, T.W. (2006). Warming and Earlier 

Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science 313:940-943.

Western Bat Working Group. (2005). Species accounts. Accessed online at: 

www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html 

Wiens, J.D., Noon, B.R., and Reynolds, R.T. (2006). Post-fledgling survival of Northern 

goshawks: the importance of prey abundance, weather, and dispersal. Ecological 

Applications. 16:406-418.

Wildeman, G., and Brock, J.H. (2000). Grazing in the southwest: history of land use and grazing 

since 1540. Pages 1–25 in Jemison, R. and Raish, C., editors. Livestock Management in 

the American Southwest: Ecology, Society, and Economics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 

Elsevier Science B.V.

Wilderness Act of 1964. P.L. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890.

Wirt, L., DeWitt, E., and Langenheim, V.E. (2005). Geologic framework of aquifer units and 

ground-water flowpaths, Verde River headwaters, north-central Arizona. Open-File 

Report 2004-1411. Reston, VA: Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Yavapai County. (2006). Verde Valley Regional Management Plan. Cottonwood, AZ: Yavapai 

County, State of Arizona.

Youtz, J.A., and Vandendriesche, D. (2011). National Forest Planning and Sustained Yield of the 

Timber Resource Long term Sustained-Yield Calculations for Forest Land and Resource 

Management Planning. Albuquerque, NM: Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office, 

Department of Agriculture.

Zimmerman, G.T. (2003). Fuels and fire behavior. Pages 126–143 in: Friederici, P. Editor. 

Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 
FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 249

Index

airshed, 78 

allowable sale quantity, 21, 26, 28, 31, 35, 219 

American Indian, 14, 54, 67, 206–9, 229 

aquatic macro-invertebrates, 91, 161, 181, 182 

aquatic species habitat, 6, 26, 141–84

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ), 19, 22, 72, 120, 161 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), 25, 28, 

92, 95, 116 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1, 10, 71, 78, 

140, 183, 204, 215, 218 

Clean Air Act, 72, 73, 237 

climate change, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 

30, 32, 33, 46, 55, 70, 123, 129, 139 

developed recreation, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33, 114, 125–

41, 126, 199, 201 

dispersed recreation, 10, 24, 29, 67, 111, 114, 117, 

125–41, 130, 182, 188, 199, 201 

ecosystem restoration, 10, 36, 46, 71, 76, 118, 124, 

137

Endangered Species Act, 80, 145, 146, 154, 183, 229, 

237

federally listed species, 14, 80, 113, 145, 146, 161–78, 

229

fire regime, 4, 51, 52, 54, 60, 66, 67, 76, 111, 213, 

220, 237 

firewood, 54 

forest products, 191, 200, 202, 219–22

fuelwood, 51, 191, 219–22

heritage resources, 207–10

ignitions 

planned ignitions, iv, 22, 37, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 

63, 68, 69, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 91, 96, 99, 103, 

110, 113, 115, 138, 176, 178, 187, 191, 211, 

212, 214, 222 

unplanned ignitions, 37, 56, 57, 58, 64, 67, 239 

invasive species, 5, 54, 55, 57, 58, 67, 70, 71, 82, 102, 

111, 123, 124, 125, 149, 151, 154, 159, 212 

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), 17, 187 

land exchanges, 6, 25, 185, 186 

livestock grazing, 17, 21, 23, 25, 28, 31, 34, 36, 51, 

57, 60, 103, 109, 115, 118, 121, 122, 150, 151, 157, 

160, 191, 200, 201, 210–15, 224

long term sustained yield calculations, 21, 26, 28, 31, 

35, 219 

management indicator species (MIS), 14, 64, 67, 91, 

161

mechanical treatments, 110, 122, 212, 214 

Mexican spotted owl (MSO), 53, 72, 81, 101, 220 

mineral resources, 21, 25, 28, 31, 34, 191, 200, 202, 

215–19, 238 

mining, 21, 25, 28, 31, 34, 120, 121, 158, 159, 181, 

184, 185, 187, 191, 194, 198, 202, 215–19, 238 

motorized travel, 22, 26, 29, 32, 35, 36, 225–28

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, 36 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

72–78

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1, 35, 97, 

109, 211, 214, 224, 229 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 3, 36, 91 

National Forest System (NFS) roads and trails, 225–28

native fish, 6, 13, 20, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 104, 

141–56, 154, 161–78

non-motorized travel, 36, 121, 125, 127, 135, 140, 

191, 204 

Northern goshawk, 53, 64, 72, 83, 85, 91, 92, 99, 101, 

161, 220, 238 

old growth, 85, 92, 238 

open space, 186–89

potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs), 4, 46–72, 

83, 85, 91, 107, 219–22, 239 

potential wilderness areas, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 111, 

112, 113, 129, 136–39, 187, 188, 209, 210, 213, 

214, 218, 222 

prescribed fire. See ignitions: planned ignitions 

pronghorn antelope, 13, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 50, 57, 58, 

91, 92, 96, 98–101, 99 

regionally sensitive species, 157–61, 179–81, 183, 239 

riparian areas, 19, 20, 23, 25, 67, 68, 116–19, 122, 

154, 182, 186, 211, 212, 213 

scenery management, 25, 184–89

scenic integrity, 21, 25, 28, 31, 34, 184–89

seeps and springs, 19, 23, 103, 117, 119, 123 

socio-economic impacts, 6, 21, 25, 28, 31, 34, 41, 

102–207 

soil condition, 61, 102, 106, 107–9, 109–16, 109–16

special areas, 8, 17 

species viability and diversity, 13, 19, 22, 26, 27, 29, 

32, 41, 46, 78–102, 141–84

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES), 47, 239 

terrestrial species habitat, 78–102, 217 

thinning, 18, 22, 26, 29, 55, 62, 63, 71, 72, 76, 77, 

115, 187, 212, 215, 219, 222 

threatened and endangered species. See federally listed 

species 

timber harvest, 17, 53, 82, 91, 99, 101, 103, 137, 220, 

222

Travel Management Rule (TMR), 226 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 80, 89, 145 

Watershed Condition Framework, 103, 122 

watershed integrity, 4, 19, 23, 27, 29, 32, 102–16, 131, 

135, 138, 163, 165, 167, 168, 170, 172, 175, 176, 

178, 180, 182, 226 

wild and scenic rivers, 8, 17, 144, 148, 154, 191 

wildfires. See ignitions: unplanned ignitions 

wildland urban interface (WUI), 17, 22, 52, 53, 62, 77, 

219, 220, 239