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 2

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 2

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

Contents

Appendix A. Response to Comments........................................................................................1

Contents..................................................................................................................................................1

Content Analysis Process .......................................................................................................................2

Concern Statements and Agency Responses ..........................................................................................6

Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process.................................................................75

Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas............................................................................................75

Evaluation of Potential Research Natural Areas...................................................................................83

Evaluation of Eligible Rivers for Wild and Scenic River Designation................................................83

Determination of Suitability for Recreation Opportunities..................................................................84

Determination of Suitability for Livestock Grazing .............................................................................87

Determination of Suitability for Timber Production.............................................................................89

Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability Analysis......................................................................................93

References ..........................................................................................................................................127

Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts...................................................131

Local Government Plans ....................................................................................................................131

State of Arizona ..................................................................................................................................145

Federal Agencies ................................................................................................................................155

Tribes..................................................................................................................................................161

References ..........................................................................................................................................163

Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies...............................167

Appendix E. Crosswalk of direction between the 1987 Plan and the revised Plan...........193

Appendix F. Index of Other Supporting EIS Documentation............................................341

List of Figures

Figure 1. Recommended wilderness for alternatives A and C ...................................................... 79

Figure 2. Recommended wilderness for alternative B .................................................................. 80

Figure 3. Recommended wilderness for alternative D .................................................................. 81

Figure 4. Recommended wilderness for alternative E................................................................... 82

Figure 5. Semi-Desert Grassland................................................................................................... 96

Figure 6. Great Basin Grassland.................................................................................................... 98

Figure 7. Juniper Grassland........................................................................................................... 99

Figure 8. Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub ................................................................................... 100

Figure 9. Piñon-Juniper Woodland.............................................................................................. 101

Figure 10. Interior Chaparral....................................................................................................... 102

Figure 11. Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak.................................................................................. 103

Figure 12. Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak ..................................................................................... 104

Figure 13. Desert Communities................................................................................................... 106

Figure 14. Riparian Gallery Forest.............................................................................................. 107

List of Tables

Table 1. People and organizations who provided comments .......................................................... 3

Table 2. Potential Wilderness Evaluation...................................................................................... 77

Table 3. Upper Verde River Wild and Scenic River eligibility..................................................... 84

Table 4. Recreation Suitability Matrix .......................................................................................... 86
Contents

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan iii

Table 5. Grazing capability ........................................................................................................... 87

Table 6. Grazing suitability ........................................................................................................... 88

Table 7. Acres tentatively suitable for timber production............................................................. 90

Table 8. Acres not appropriate for timber production by alternative ............................................ 90

Table 9. Acres suitable for timber production by alternative ........................................................ 91

Table 10. Annual volume production............................................................................................ 92

Table 11. Allowable sale quantity by alternative .......................................................................... 93

Table 12. Potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) of the Prescott NF.................................... 93

Table 13. PNVT states and class proportions................................................................................ 95

Table 14. Average annual treatment acres for alternative A ....................................................... 110

Table 15. Lower-end average annual treatment acres for alternatives B and E .......................... 110

Table 16. Higher-end average annual treatment acres for alternatives B and E.......................... 110

Table 17. Lower-end average annual treatment acres for alternative C...................................... 110

Table 18. Higher-end average annual treatment acres for alternative C ..................................... 111

Table 19. Lower-end average annual treatment acres for alternative D...................................... 111

Table 20. Higher-end average annual treatment acres for alternative D..................................... 111

Table 21. Number of Prescott NF watersheds by condition class indicator................................ 113

Table 22. Overall watershed and sub-watershed conditions ....................................................... 113

Table 23. Plan components addressing species viability concerns.............................................. 116

Table 24. Projected change in recreation visitation by alternative.............................................. 123

Table 25. Objectives or concerns from local government plans and how the Prescott NF revised 

plan responds............................................................................................................................... 132

Table 26. Yavapai County goals and how the Prescott NF revised plan responds...................... 143

Table 27. Coconino County goals and how the Prescott NF revised plan responds................... 145

Table 28. Selected goals and objectives from AZGFD Wildlife 20/20 Strategic Action Plan (WL 

20/20) and how the Prescott NF revised plan responds............................................................... 148

Table 29. Elements from the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and how the Prescott NF revised 

plan responds............................................................................................................................... 149

Table 30. Selected goals and objectives from Arizona Forest Resource Assessment and how the 

Prescott NF revised plan responds .............................................................................................. 154

Table 31. Comparison of Federal resource management plans................................................... 158

Table 32. Crosswalk of direction found in the 1987 plan and the revised plan........................... 194

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 1

Appendix A. Response to Comments

Contents

Content Analysis Process...................................................................................................2

Concern Statements and Agency Responses....................................................................6

Access...........................................................................................................................................7

Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................8

Alternatives.................................................................................................................................8

Climate ......................................................................................................................................11

Consultation, Coordination, Collaboration, and Outreach..................................................12

Economics..................................................................................................................................16

Editorial.....................................................................................................................................17

Fire Management .....................................................................................................................18

Forest Products.........................................................................................................................20

Grazing......................................................................................................................................22

Inventoried Roadless Areas.....................................................................................................27

Lands, Open Space, and Scenic Values..................................................................................28

Law Enforcement .....................................................................................................................30

Management Areas...................................................................................................................30

Minerals.....................................................................................................................................31

Miscellaneous Comments.........................................................................................................32

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................37

Publications...............................................................................................................................39

Recreation .................................................................................................................................41

Research Natural Areas...........................................................................................................47

Vegetation Management..........................................................................................................48

Watersheds................................................................................................................................52

Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers....................................................................................55

Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................60

References.................................................................................................................................72
Appenidix A. Response to Comments

2 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

This appendix documents the Prescott NF responses to substantive comments that were received 

during the 90-day comment period for the Draft Land and Resources Management Plan (plan or 

forest plan) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A notice of availability was posted in the 

Federal Register on August 31, 2012, by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the 

“Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management 

Plan” (DEIS). This initiated the comment period, which ended on November 28, 2012. The Forest 

Service received correspondence from 116 individuals, organizations, and agencies. These 

comments have been analyzed and responded to using a process called content analysis, described 

below.

Consistent with the direction found at 40 CFR §1503.4 the comment letters received from 

government agencies can be viewed in their entirety in appendix D. The project record contains 

an electronic version of all correspondence received on the DEIS in their entirety. 

Responses1 to each of the substantive comments resulted in one of the following agency actions:

• Modifying the proposed plan and alternatives;

• Developing or analyzing alternatives not given detailed consideration in the DEIS;

• Supplementing, improving, or modifying the analysis that the DEIS documented;

• Making factual corrections; and/or

• Explaining why the comments need no further agency response.

Content Analysis Process

The content analysis process consisted of scanning, coding, and entering all correspondence

received during the comment period into an electronic database for further sorting and analysis. 

This process ensured that every comment was read, analyzed, and considered.

All correspondence items were assigned a unique contact number (see table 1 below). As each 

correspondence was reviewed, comments were identified and numbered sequentially. Similar 

comments were then grouped together and for each group a concern statement was developed. 

The following is an example of a concern statement and a sampling of the comments that were 

grouped together to develop it.

Concern Statement: “The Forest Service should not recommend any Potential Wilderness Areas 

for wilderness designation.”

• Comment: “The concerns I have are the PNF's proposals to create and designate more 

wilderness.”

• Comment: “One of the alternatives (Alternative B) the Forest is recommending creates 

eight new wilderness areas. We are adamantly opposed to any more new wilderness 

areas.”

• Comment: “We are against any efforts of the Prescott National Forest to propose more 

wilderness areas on the National Forest in the new Forest planning process.”

 1 A spreadsheet containing a complete list of public comments received on the DEIS and their corresponding concern statements and 

agency responses is available on the Prescott NF Web site: www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 3

Concern statements are meant to capture the thought, idea, or issue common to all of the 

associated comments. They most often represent the view of many respondents, but may also be 

derived from just one person’s input. Concern statements are intended to aid the planning team in 

characterizing the issues to be analyzed in subsequent stages of the planning process. They also 

provide the framework for preparing responses to public comment. 

Table 1. People and organizations who provided comments

Contact # Contact Name Organization

1 Sanford Cohen Prescott Open Trails Association

2 Douglas Kearney American Tower Corporation

3 jean public

4 jean public

5 Bruce D. McKeeman

6 David Lloyd

7 Matt Holdsworth

8 Brian Kleinman

9 Oliver Daniren

10 Karen Austermiller

11 Chris Dunn

12 Ryan Brown

13 Nigel Reynolds

14 Don Worfolk

15 Lora Lee Nye Upper Verde River Watershed Protection 

Coalition

16 Stephan Block

17 Suzanne Moeller

18 Celia Vander Molen

19 Cathy Schultz

20 unsigned

21 unsigned

22 unsigned

23 unsigned

24 Brian Bishop

25 Tim Carlson

26 Ken Jones

27 Douglas Kearney
Appendix A. Response to Comments

4 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Contact # Contact Name Organization

28 George Sheats

29 Harold R. Sitton

30 Kathleen Martyn Goforth U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

31 Chris Plumb Arizona Trail Riders

32 Sam Southam

33 Matt McNairy

34 George Sheats Yavapai Trails Association

35 Steve Block Mingus Area Preservation Society

36 Clint Brown

37 Don Godard

38 Sarah and Marty Boland

39 Holly and Kyle Shanahan

40 Randy and Marsha East

41 Doug and Dez Noble

42 Bob Utter

43 Melvin Manrose

44 D. Remington Hawes Bureau of Land Management

45 Suzanna McDougal

46 Lorrie Smith

47 Gayle R. Higgs Back Country Horsemen of Arizona

48 Doris Cellarius

49 Gmookher

50 Ian Wickson

51 John Lupo

52 Patrick Kell

53 Tammy DeWitt Yavapai County Development Services

54 John Shumaker

55 Donna Crisfield

56 Andy Groseta Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association

57 Dave Sewell

58 Ann H. May Prescott NF

59 Paul Groseta
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 5

Contact # Contact Name Organization

60 Kurt Refsnider

61 Caroline Soong

62 G. D. Kidd

63 Doug Hiserodt

64 William Broadfoot

65 Mike Munroe

66 John Parsons

67 Richard Yetman

68 Sandra Goodwin

69 Ron J. Andress

70 Rob Hehlen

71 Greg Ooley

72 Gary Mitchell Yavapai Cattle Growers’ Association

73 Russ Taylor

74 Chris Thiel Prescott NF

75 Kurt Wetzstein Prescott NF

76 Gary Janchik

77 Charles and Carol Hicks

78 Bonnie J. McCoy

79 Susie Hehlen

80 Pete Gordon Prescott NF

81 Patricia Sanderson Port U.S. Department of the Interior

82 Bob Rothrock Verde Valley Land Preservation

83 James B “Jim” Buchanan

84 Tom Mackin Arizona Wildlife Federation

85 Thomas Slaback and Gary D. 

Beverly Sierra Club Yavapai Group

86 James M. Webb

87 Jean Focke

88 Brad DeVries

89 Gregg Payne

90 Dwayne Warrick

91 J.D. Greenberg
Appendix A. Response to Comments

6 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Contact # Contact Name Organization

92 Linda L. Jackson Prescott NF

93 Sam Frank Arizona Wilderness Coalition

94 Patrick Kell International Mountain Bicycling Association

95 R.D. Pascoe Access Fund

96 Anna M. Aja

97 Mary Hoadley Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership

98 Andy Groseta Groseta Ranches LLC

99 Toni Kaus

100 Dustin Van Liew Public Lands Council

101 Gail Luedtke

102 Rick Erman The Friends of Anderson Mesa

103 Lars Romig Verde Valley Cyclists Coalition

104 Erik B. Ryberg Western Watersheds Project

105 Eric Nelson

106 Jay Lininger Center for Biological Diversity

107 Paul Katan

108 Tim Flood Friends of Arizona Rivers

109 Henry Dahlberg

110 John N. Pogledich Friends of Arizona Trails

111 Cathy Schultz

112 Bob Rothrock

113 Bob Rothrock Verde Valley Land Preservation

114 Tim Finley Arizona Game and Fish Department

115 Debra Vernam Friends of Arizona Trails

116 Clare G. Ross Friends of Arizona Trails

Concern Statements and Agency Responses

Concern statements and corresponding agency responses displayed in this section are organized 

alphabetically by topic (e.g., Access, Air Quality, Climate, Fire Management, Grazing, 

Recreation, Watersheds, Wilderness, Wildlife). A code is used for each concern statement which 

includes an abbreviation of the topic it relates to and its sequential number. For example, 

“Concern ACC-01” is the code for the first concern statement listed under the topic of “Access.” 

Included at the end of each concern statement, in parentheses, are numbers identifying the 

persons or organizations associated with each concern statement and the corresponding comment. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 7

For example, the code (11.09) identifies contact number 11, Chris Dunn, and comment number 

nine.

Access

Concern ACC-01: The Forest Service should improve access to public lands where private 

owners have blocked historical access (11.09).

Response: In response to public comments and internal deliberation, a new alternative (alternative 

E) was developed and analyzed as the selected alternative for the revised plan. This alternative 

contains a new objective (Objective 30) addressing concerns over the loss of historic access to 

Prescott NF land. It states:

Identify and act on up to 10 opportunities to secure legal access to areas where 

historic access to the national forest has been lost, within the10 years following plan 

approval. 

This objective will be included as part of the revised plan for the Prescott NF. 

Concern ACC-02: The Forest Service should consider and address the social and economic 

impacts of the public access proposed in this plan (1.02; 1.04; 36.02; 36.11; 73.02).

Response: As stated in the response above, a new alternative (Alternative E) was developed as the 

selected alternative for the revised plan. This alternative contains a new objective (Objective 30) 

to respond to concerns over the loss of historic access to Prescott NF land. 

The impacts and consequences of implementing the direction contained in this new public access 

objective were analyzed in the Need for Change 5 section of Chapter 3 of the EIS. Discussion of 

motorized access for big game retrieval is found in the Dispersed Recreation portion of the Need 

for Change 3 section. Other access issues specifically related to the Travel Management Rule (36 

CFR §212.56) and the Prescott NF Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) are outside the scope of the 

decision being made and are not addressed in the EIS.

Concern ACC-03: The Forest Service should clarify if there is any guidance in the revised 

plan on vehicle parking along open roads for day-use on the Prescott NF (114.23).

Response: Guidance found within the revised forest plan is directed toward agency actions and 

decisions. It is not intended to be a source of public uses and prohibitions as found elsewhere in 

existing law, regulation, or Forest Service policy. 

The revised plan does include guidance to the agency consistent with the Travel Management 

Rule (36 CFR §212.56) identifying the Motorized Vehicle Use Map as the instrument for 

identifying which roads, trails and areas are open. Standard-Rec-01 states: 

Only designated roads, motorized trails, and motorized use areas as depicted and 

described on the motor vehicle use map are open to public motorized vehicle use. 

The most current Motor Vehicle Use Map is the legal instrument for identifying which National 

Forest System roads, trails and the areas on National Forest System lands in the Prescott NF that 

are designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR §212.51. Additional motor vehicle use 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

8 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

and prohibitions on National Forest System lands are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations 

at Title 36 Part 212 (Travel Management) and Title 36 Part 261 (Prohibitions).

Air Quality

Concern AQ-01: The Forest Service should provide baseline visibility data and how it can 

this be projected into the future, and justification for why only Sycamore and Pine 

Mountain Wilderness areas are mentioned as Class 1 Federal areas (59.08).

Response: The baseline visibility data associated with the Airsheds section of the revised plan are 

referenced in the EIS, Chapter 3, Smoke and Air Quality section and found in the “Prescott 

National Forest Plan Revision EIS Air Quality Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2011b). The 

Air Quality Specialist Report can be accessed on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site at: 

(www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement). Current and reference visibility conditions, as 

well as projected future trends, are documented through the Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program for all mandatory federal Class 1 areas (see 

www.vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/). The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR Part 51) promulgated 

in 1999 by the EPA, calls for state and federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in 

all Class I areas by establishing emission reduction strategies. The national visibility goal is to 

return each Class I area to natural visibility conditions by 2064. Visibility is expected to improve 

through inter-agency implementation of the Regional Haze Rule and corresponding State 

Implementation Plans. 

It is true that all eight of the existing wilderness areas on the Prescott NF are larger than 5,000 

acres, but when 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, only Sycamore Canyon and Pine 

Mountain wilderness areas were designated at the time. The other six wilderness areas on the 

Prescott NF were designated after 1977. That is why only Sycamore and Pine Mountain 

Wilderness areas are identified as Class 1 Federal areas. 

Alternatives

Concern ALT-01: The Forest Service should adopt Alternative A (23.01; 46.05; 69.01; 

86.02).

Response: Alternative A was not selected as the revised plan. Analysis in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) showed that current forest plan direction (alternative A) was not 

sufficient to meet the Needs for Change established at the start of the plan revision process.

Therefore, it was determined that alternative A was unsuitable to provide future plan direction.

Concern ALT-02: The Forest Service should adopt Alternative B (14.01; 16.01; 21.1; 25.01; 

25.02; 25.03; 47.01; 47.02; 47.03; 47.05; 53.01; 82.02; 112.01).

Response: Alternative B was not selected as the revised Forest Plan. 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. The Prescott NF Leadership Team 

felt that these issues were not sufficiently addressed in any of the existing alternatives. A new 

alternative (alternative E) evolved through modifications to alternative B to become a separate 

alternative and was identified by the Prescott NF Leadership Team as the revised Forest Plan. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 9

Alternative E differs from the other action alternatives with a more modest emphasis on 

recreation and additional guidance for watersheds, forest access, and land acquisitions. Vegetation 

treatments would be the same as those in alternative B, as would the emphasis on pronghorn and 

native fish habitat recovery.

Alternative E also recommends eight of twenty-eight potential wilderness areas for future 

wilderness designation. These areas are Apache Creek A PWA, Castle Creek PWA, Cedar Bench 

A PWA, Cedar Bench B PWA, Juniper Mesa PWA, Pine Mountain B PWA, Sycamore Canyon A 

PWA, and Woodchute PWA. These PWAs were selected by the Prescott NF Leadership Team to 

complement the desired conditions stated in the revised plan and 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. All eight PWAs are contiguous to existing 

designated wilderness and will increase the quantity and diversity of primitive and unconfined 

recreation opportunities on the Prescott NF while maintaining existing access for mountain bikes 

on Mingus Mountain and recognizing the operational needs of livestock-grazing permittees.

Concern ALT-03: The Forest Service should adopt Alternative C (11.01; 11.05; 17.01; 19.01; 

26.01; 29.01; 31.01; 38.05; 40.04; 41.05; 46.02; 46.06; 54.01; 60.10; 87.01; 98.05; 100.05; 

112.02; 114.22).

Response: Alternative C was not selected as the revised Forest Plan. Although analysis in the 

DEIS showed that alternative C was sufficient to meet the Needs for Change, concerns were 

raised by both internal and external commenters during the 90-day open comment period that led 

to the development of a new alternative (alternative E). Alternative E was identified by the 

Prescott NF Leadership Team as the revised Forest Plan as it better addressed the issues of access 

to the forest for public and administrative use and the ability to fund the proposed recreation 

program under projected declining budget scenarios.

Concern ALT-04: The Forest Service should adopt Alternative D (10.01; 18.01; 21.02; 22.01; 

24.01; 27.01; 67.01; 68.01; 77.01)

Response: Alternative D was not selected as the revised Forest Plan. Although analysis in the 

DEIS showed that alternative D was sufficient to meet the Needs for Change, concerns were 

raised by both internal and external commenters during the 90-day open comment period that led 

to the development of a new alternative (alternative E). Alternative E was identified by the 

Prescott NF Leadership Team as the revised Forest Plan as it better addressed the issues of access 

to the forest for public and administrative use and the ability to fund the proposed recreation 

program under projected declining budget scenarios.

Concern ALT-05: The range of alternatives analyzed in the EIS is inadequate as it does not 

address the purpose and need or the issues (104.16).

Response: The EIS documented five different alternatives for revising the 1987 plan that were 

considered in detail and an additional five that were considered but not analyzed. The scope of 

the decision was limited to revisiting those portions of the current Forest Plan that needed 

modification, correction, or creation of direction that was lacking. All four action alternatives 

(alternatives B, C, D, and E) addressed the recommended needs for change, responded to issues 

and concerns raised during the scoping period, and met the legal requirements of NFMA and the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

10 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

While it’s true that there are elements common to all alternatives as disclosed on page 12-14 of 

the EIS; it’s also true that there are measurable differences between the action alternatives in 

regard to the objectives (the set of actions for achieving desired conditions) and the areas 

recommended as future wilderness. These differences include a range of environmental 

consequences. The tables at the end of chapter 2 of the EIS highlight the differences among the 

alternatives by comparing the plan components and how each alternative responds to the 

identified needs for change. 

Concern ALT-06: The Forest Service should consider creating an alternative in the EIS that 

will prohibit new road construction; require road density reduction to less than 2 miles per 

square mile in each fifth field watershed; and prioritize road removal in riparian areas 

associated with aquatic ecosystems. (106.50).

Response: An alternative that would prohibit new road construction and require a reduction in 

road density was considered, but dismissed from analysis because it is duplicative of the action 

alternatives already considered in detail. The current road density (including motorized 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.

Concern ALT-07: The Forest Service should consider and analyze the environmental 

impacts of an alternative that responds to the changing climate due to greenhouse gases. 

(106.26; 106.27).

Response: As noted in the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study section of 

Chapter 2 of the EIS, the alternative suggested was considered, but dismissed from analysis 

because it is duplicative of the action alternatives already considered in detail. All the action 

alternatives are designed to address climate change as all include maintaining and restoring the 

health and resilience of ecosystems so that they may withstand climate change and other 

stressors. This allows the Responsible Official to select any alternative or a combination of 

alternatives and still have it be responsive to climate change. 

Concern ALT-08: The Forest Service should consider and analyze at least one alternative 

that maximizes long term vegetative health through a hands-off approach and a 

conservative strategy toward grazing that minimizes the damage from livestock grazing 

(104.16a).

Response: The alternative suggested was considered, but dismissed from analysis because a 

“hands-off” approach is contrary to the best available science that recommends active restoration 

efforts to maximize long term vegetative health. A “hands-off” approach would be insufficient to 

build the adaptive capacity and resilience needed to respond to expected changes in climate and 

other stressors.

All of the action alternatives are designed to address long term vegetative health as all include 

desired condition statements of how the various vegetation types on the Prescott NF should look 

and function. All of the action alternatives include standards and guidelines that minimize 

potential damage from livestock grazing. Management action is necessary to trend the ecosystems 

on the Prescott NF towards the desired conditions and strengthen ecosystem resilience in the face 

of expected changes in the climate of the Southwest.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 11

Climate

Concern CL-01: The Forest Service should describe how climate change affects the national 

forest lands and resources (30.05; 106.29).

Response: Anticipated climate change effects to national forest lands and resources are described 

throughout the EIS in the following sections of Chapter 3: Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptation 

to Changing Climate Conditions; Ecosystem Responses to Changing Climate; Riparian Areas, 

Seeps, and Springs; Watershed Resilience to Climate Change; Recreation Trends on the Prescott 

NF; Recreation Management Response to Climate Change.

Concern CL-02: The Forest Service should address how the plan will adapt if the predicted 

trends do not come to pass and the climate modeling is wrong (35.11; 59.11).

Response: As noted in Chapter 2 of the revised plan, the desired conditions for ecosystem 

resilience (DC-Ecosystem Resilience-1) assist plant and animal communities with building the 

ability and capacity to adapt while retaining the same basic structure and function. This is in order 

to accommodate expected changes imposed by future climate trends for the Southwest. This 

strengthening of resilience and adaptive capacity is expected to be achieved through actions 

initiated in support of the restoration of vegetation structure, vegetation composition, and 

appropriate fire regimes to ecosystems on the Prescott NF. The guidance and direction in the 

revised plan is not dependent on the future direction of climate trends; strengthened resilience and 

adaptive capacity would benefit ecosystems under all climate modeling scenarios.

Concern CL-03: The Forest Service should assess more than the degree of fire regime 

departure from historical conditions and disclose the implications of climate change on 

wildland fire effects and management options in the future (106.30; 106.45; 106.56).

Response: Within Chapter 3 of the EIS, the Need for Change 1 section summarizes current 

terrestrial ecosystem conditions and the consequences of implementing the revised plan and its 

alternatives. The Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptation to Changing Climate Conditions section 

under the Affected Environment for Vegetation and Fire discloses the implications of climate 

change on wildland fire, ecosystem processes, and management options to improve ecosystem 

resilience.

The ecological implications of expected climate change and supporting science disclosed in the 

EIS includes discussions of several elements including and beyond just fire regime departure:

• More extreme disturbance events, wildfires, intense rain and wind events, etc. 

• Greater vulnerability to invasive species, including insects, plants, fungi, and vertebrates.

• Long term shifts in vegetation patterns.

• Shifts in the geographic range of several tree and shrub species northward and upward in 

elevation.

• Limited overall forest productivity from reduced precipitation.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

12 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Concern CL-04: The Forest Service should establish criteria for the restoration of forest 

vegetation that accounts for the variability of conditions associated with climate change

(106.51).

Response: Criteria for the restoration of forest vegetation that accounts for the variability of 

conditions associated with climate change is included in Chapter 2 of the revised Plan. For each 

potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) there are one to many desired condition statements that 

describe the composition and structure that is desired under warmer and drier conditions. 

Concern CL-05: The Forest Service should develop a pro-active drought policy and put it in 

the new Plan (102.48).

Response: Developing a drought policy for the Prescott NF is outside the scope of the plan 

revision process in part because the Regional Forester does not have the authority to develop such 

policy. That authority resides at the national level with input from the research branch of the 

Forest Service. Despite the absence of any specific “drought policy” the revised plan considered 

the implications of climate change on ecosystem characteristics and processes, and management 

options to improve ecosystem resilience when developing desired conditions and associated 

objectives for vegetation, watersheds and wildlife.

Concern CL-06: The Forest Service should reconsider using the word "all" in the following 

sentence found under desired conditions for Ecosystem Resilience to Climate Change: 

"Ecosystems retain ALL of their components, processes, and functions." (109.03).

Response: The Forest Service considered, but no changes were made to the desired condition

statements for Ecosystem Resilience to Climate Change between the draft and final versions of 

the revised plan. Desired conditions describe how the resources on the Prescott NF should look 

and function, and future management is expected to help the Prescott NF trend toward the desired 

conditions. The planning team felt that the term “all” was important to keep as part of the desired 

condition statement as it provides context for future management under a changing climate. 

Future adaptive management, including assessments and monitoring, will help to identify 

ecosystem vulnerability to climate-driven and nonclimate stressors and to detect signals of 

changing conditions to ecosystem components, processes, and functions that would trigger

readjustments of our management actions.

Consultation, Coordination, Collaboration, and Outreach

CCC & O - General

Concern CCCO-01: The forest plan revision process has benefitted from the use of an open, 

inclusive and collaborative approach (35.02; 97.01).

Response: Agreed. The Prescott NF has strived to use collaborative approaches to engage the 

general public, stakeholders, key State and Federal agencies, and representatives from local 

jurisdictions in the development of the revised plan. The Public Involvement and Collaborative 

Planning section in chapter 1 of the EIS outlines specific efforts the Prescott NF has engaged in 

since the onset of plan revision to inform and involve citizens. Additionally, Appendix C of the 

EIS, Coordination with Other Planning Efforts, outlines management concerns and direction from 

adjacent communities, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, and several State and Federal agencies 

and explains how the Prescott NF revised plan responds to and aligns with their planning efforts.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 13

Concern CCCO-02: The Forest Service should add a guideline stating that agency 

representatives should actively and routinely participate in local community organizations 

for the purpose of representing the interests and protecting the resources of Prescott NF 

managed public lands (85.10).

Response: The Forest Service did not add a guideline directing agency participation in local 

community organizations to the revised plan. It was determined that the intent of this suggestion 

is already addressed in the Management Approaches section within Appendix B of the revised 

plan, where it discusses citizen collaboration and volunteer efforts along with Forest Service 

cooperation with Tribal groups and agencies.

Concern CCCO-03: The Forest Service should consider collaborating with others (such as 

the Central Arizona Grasslands Conservation Strategy) on the efforts to make large scale 

landscape improvements. (114.14).

Response: The Prescott NF is currently involved in many collaborative efforts and large scale 

land management improvements. As described in Appendix B of the revised plan, there are many 

who have suggested that they would like to assist with aspects of national forest management. 

The revised plan provides support for increasing opportunities for volunteers and partners to be 

more active as part of national forest management. As stated in Chapter 1of the revised plan: 

The Prescott NF’s mission is to effectively and efficiently manage National Forest 

System lands and resources to meet the needs and desires of the public, while 

enhancing the environment. We foster a collaborative environment internally and 

externally that values dialogue, community engagement, partnerships, and public 

education to achieve our stewardship responsibilities within and beyond the Prescott 

NF’s boundaries. 

As objectives in the revised plan are implemented, there will be opportunities to make project 

level, large scale, landscape improvements.

Concern CCCO-04: The Forest Service should partner with various local private and/or 

public groups to focus on watershed management and restoration. (15.05; 28.01; 48.03).

Response: As noted in appendix B, the revised plan provides support for the Prescott NF to 

implement the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) process to identify and prioritize landscapes for 

watershed restoration efforts. It involves collaboration between stakeholders, resource specialists, 

scientists, and the public to identify important aspects of the landscapes and determine restoration 

priorities.

Concern CCCO-05: The Forest Service should work closely with partners to accomplish 

objectives related to wildlife described in the Forest Plan. (84.01; 84.02; 84.03; 84.04; 84.04; 

102.35; 111.11).

Response: The Prescott NF mission, as noted in Chapter 1 of the revised plan, is to: 

... effectively and efficiently manage National Forest System lands and resources to 

meet the needs and desires of the public, while enhancing the environment. We foster 

a collaborative environment internally and externally that values dialogue, 

community engagement, partnerships, and public education to achieve our 

stewardship responsibilities within and beyond the Prescott NF’s boundaries. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

14 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The revised plan provides support for the collaborative environment in which the Forest Service 

has been and will continue to work. This collaborative environment facilitates the working 

relationships that the Prescott NF has established with the Arizona Game and Fish Department 

and the Arizona Department of Transportation among others. As identified in the mission 

statement, partnerships are valuable to the attainment of the Prescott NF land steward

responsibilities.

Concern CCCO-06: The Forest Service should continue consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and engage in consultation with the Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officers when appropriate (30.06).

Response: Appendix B of the revised plan outlines the probable activities and management 

approaches the Forest Service will likely use to implement the revised plan. The section titled, 

“Cooperation with Tribal Groups and Agencies” identifies the State Historic Preservation Officer 

and American Indian tribes as points of contact for coordination. In addition, the forest will 

continue to consult with tribes and the SHPO under section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act for all undertakings that have the potential to affect historic properties..

Concern CCCO-07: Verde Valley Land Preservation (VVLP) will welcome opportunities to 

assist the Prescott NF in meeting Objective 29 (113.01).

Response: Objective 29 in the revised plan lays the broad framework for acquiring lands for open 

space values; however, specific activities the Prescott NF may engage in to meet this objective 

would be determined in the future at the project level. Opportunities for public or stakeholder 

involvement in such activities would be identified at that time.

Concern CCCO-08: The Forest Service should make the Prescott NF website more user 

friendly and informative, and offer an opportunity for the public to express their views.

(5.18; 13.01; 111.12).

Response: The Prescott NF recognizes the importance of providing visitor information in a 

manner that is useful and informative. Objective 14 in the revised plan specifies the development 

of two to five additional methods for providing visitor information and education. Improving the 

Prescott NF Web site is specifically mentioned in the Background and Rationale section 

following this objective. It states: 

In order to increase communication and gather feedback, the Prescott NF expects to 

increase and improve effectiveness of visitor contacts through multiple avenues. 

Possible methods could include, but are not limited to, increased interpretation 

opportunities, information kiosks, improved use of Web site opportunities or social 

media, and multiple languages. 

While Objective 14 lays the broad framework for addressing methods of visitor information, 

specific activities the Prescott NF may engage in to meet this objective would be determined in 

the future at the project level. Opportunities for public involvement in such activities would be 

identified at that time.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 15

Concern CCCO-09: The Forest Service should include individuals or groups, by request, in 

all future public outreach on the Prescott NF (103.04).

Response: The Prescott NF used numerous formats for public outreach in the development of the 

revised plan (See the Public Involvement and Collaborative Planning section in Chapter 1 of the 

EIS) and will continue to alert the public as the revised plan and EIS are finalized. The forest 

notifies individuals and organizations of public outreach efforts through a variety of methods. 

Information is also provided to those who request it regarding specific projects and types of 

projects. Information on plans and projects is available on the Prescott NF’s Web site

(www.fs.usda.gov/prescott/).

CCC & O - Bureau of Land Management 

Concern CCCO-10: The Forest Service should consult with the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) concerning the Castle Creek Contiguous PWA (44.06; 44.07).

Response: The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature. It does not include project level 

decisions. Those decisions are made later, only after specific proposals are identified and 

analyzed and there is the opportunity for public involvement. The management of a specific 

potential wilderness area is an example of a project level decision that would not be included in 

the revised plan. 

However, as stated in Appendix B of the revised plan, the Forest Service intends to develop a 

recreation strategy for the Prescott NF using a collaborative approach that would include 

participation by, among others, key State and Federal agencies. This would present an opportunity

to consult with the Bureau of Land Management concerning the Castle Creek Contiguous PWA in 

the context of a landscape scale “all hands, all lands” approach to recreation management.

Concern CCCO-11: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is interested in connecting 

non-motor/non-mechanized trails on the south end of Castle Creek Wilderness (44.05).

Response: The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature. It does not include project level 

decisions. Those decisions are made later, only after specific proposals are identified and 

analyzed and there is the opportunity for public involvement. Establishing connections between 

trails on BLM and Forest Service land is another example of a project level decision that would 

not be included in the revised plan, but could be addressed in a landscape scale “all hands, all 

lands” recreation strategy.

Concern CCCO-12: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is amenable making a level 2 

road connection possible from 1-17 through the BLM Table Mesa Recreation Area to Forest

Road 711. (44.04).

Response: The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature. It does not include project level 

decisions. Those decisions are made later, only after specific proposals are identified and 

analyzed and there is the opportunity for public involvement. The proposed road connection is an 

example of a project level decision that would not be included in the revised plan, but could be 

addressed in a landscape scale “all hands, all lands” recreation strategy.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

16 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

CCC & O - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Concern CCCO-13: The Forest Service should continue to work with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service regarding bald eagle conservation and the management of native aquatic 

species. (81.02; 81.07; 81.08; 81.15; 81.19).

Response: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the agency that oversees direct 

management of animals and fish across the Nation, including administration of the Threatened 

and Endangered Species Act. As stated in Appendix B of the revised plan, the

Prescott NF will cooperate with (USFWS) in order to carry out management 

activities. 

This includes cooperating with the USFWS regarding the Memorandum of Understanding for 

Conservation of the Bald Eagle in Arizona and continuing to work with the USFWS to restore 

habitat for native aquatic species.

Concern CCCO-14: The Forest Service should continue to work with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to identify and meet recovery objectives for Mexican spotted owl on the 

Prescott NF (81.05; 81.06; 81.17; 81.20; 85.38).

Response: The revised plan includes direction (Guide-Wildlife-1) to apply habitat management 

objectives and terrestrial species protection measures from approved recovery plans to activities 

occurring within federally listed species habitat, including the Mexican spotted owl. Additionally, 

under the Management Approaches section of Appendix B of the revised plan, the Forest Service 

identifies the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as one of its primary cooperators for implementing 

management activities affecting animals and fish.

Concern CCCO-15: The Forest Service should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to ensure that plan revision “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of [critical] habitat of such species.” (106.46).

Response: The Forest Service compiled a Biological Assessment (BA) that describes the short 

and long term effects to federally listed species and their habitats from the proposed actions and 

direction contained within the revised plan. This BA is the basis for consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service regarding federally listed species under Section 7(a)(2) of the 

Endangered Species Act, as amended. The information compiled for the BA was used to update 

the EIS between draft and final, including updates on listing status, threats to species and habitat, 

and effects determinations.

Economics

Concern ECON-01: The Forest Service should revise and clarify the economic analysis for 

recreation, grazing and wildlife (102.04; 102.20; 102.21; 102.22; 102.26; 102.27; 102.28;

102.29; 104.01; 114.12).

Response: The 1982 Planning Rule Provisions provide direction for conducting forest plan 

revision efforts and outline the requirements for economic analysis to include:

Direct and indirect benefits and costs, analyzed in sufficient detail to estimate --
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 17

i. the expected real-dollar costs ...

ii. the expected real-dollar value ...

iii. the economic effects of alternatives ...

and

iv. the monetary opportunity costs (changes in present net value) ... 

[from Section 219.12(g)(3)]. 

The results of the analysis were summarized in the Socioeconomic Resources section in chapter 3 

of the EIS. Between draft and final versions of the revised plan, the Prescott NF Leadership 

developed a new alternative (Alternative E) which necessitated a revision of the social and 

economic impact analysis for all program areas, including recreation, grazing and wildlife. The 

full revised analysis, including methodology and economic models, can be found in the “SocioEconomic Resource Report” (Forest Service, 2011g) available on the Prescott NF plan revision 

Web site (www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement).

Concern ECON-02: The Forest Service should consider the economic contribution to the 

local communities from mountain biking (8.03; 79.03; 103.03; 107.05).

Response: When developing the final revised plan (selected), the Prescott NF Leadership Team 

considered a number of factors, including the growing prominence and popularity of mountain 

biking in the Quad-Cities and the Verde Valley and the economic benefits that mountain biking 

brings to these communities. The economic contribution from mountain biking is included with 

other types of recreation in the socioeconomic analysis portion of the Social and Economic 

Values section of the EIS.

Concern ECON-03: The Forest Service should add “Bumble Bee” and “Cleator” 

communities with Crown King as benefitting local economies (44.03).

Response: Based on comments, the Forest Service reviewed the desired conditions for the Crown 

King Management Area and chose not to make any changes between the draft and final versions 

of the revised plan. The third bullet in DC-CK MA-1 is specific to summer recreation use around 

Crown King and is not meant to encompass Cleator or the Bumble Bee area.

Editorial

Concern EDIT-01: The Forest Service should consider adding “ROS,” “SIO,” and other 

acronyms to the glossary (58.01; 85.83).

Response: The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) 

are defined in the Concept Descriptions to Improve Reader Understanding in the Revised Plan 

section of Chapter 1. In addition, the revised plan added a Commonly Used Acronyms list after 

the Table of Contents that includes both of these acronyms.

Concern EDIT-02: The revised plan contains a number of inaccuracies in the chapter 5 

Geographic Area Historic Context sections (85.84; 85.85).

Response: The Geographic Area Historic Context sections in chapter 5 are intended to provide 

additional information on the history of these areas, they do not provide management guidance. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

18 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The suggested changes were submitted without context or citations, therefore, they were not 

incorporated into the final version of the revised plan.

Fire Management

Concern FIRE-01: The greatest threat in the Prescott NF is uncontrolled fire (46.01).

Response: Five priority needs for change topics were recommended to focus the scope of the 

revised plan. One of the five needs for change topics is to “Restore vegetation structure and 

composition and desired characteristics of fire to selected ecosystems, while responding to citizen 

concerns related to smoke emissions.” Rationale for inclusion as a need for change, as noted in 

Chapter 1 of the revised plan, is as follows:

The restoration of desired vegetative characteristics addresses the following: (1) risk 

of severe wildland fire that could damage soils, cause uncharacteristic changes in 

vegetation communities, and impact human health and safety, especially within the 

wildland-urban interface (WUI); (2) changes in ecosystems that could affect diversity 

of plant and animal species, such as spread of invasive plant species or changes in 

vegetation structure; and (3) identification of desired characteristics of fire as a 

disturbance, including frequency, severity, intensity, size, and seasonality, for 

ecosystems that are sustained by fire. Mitigation of smoke that flows into 

communities primarily due to prescribed fires is a connected social concern.

Concern FIRE-02: The Forest Service should review and clarify the Wildland Fire 

Standards and Guidelines (75.08; 75.09; 106.57).

Response: Based on comments and Forest Service review, changes were made to the Wildland 

Fire Standards and Guidelines. A new Wildland Fire Standard (Std-Wildland Fire-3) was added to 

address concerns for protecting cultural and heritage sites during wildland fire activities. This 

new standard replaced a guideline (Guide -Wildland Fire-7) concerning the placement of slash 

piles in sensitive areas. Wildland Fire Guidelines 3 and 4 were re-written to better describe the 

area of protection in the Strategic Fire Management Response map. There were no other changes 

to the Wildland Fire Standards and Guidelines.

Concern FIRE-03: The Forest Service should use prescribed burns to reduce fuels and 

improve forest health (31.03; 83.02; 91.12).

Response: Throughout the EIS prescribed fire and fires managed for resource benefits are 

identified as a means to attain desired conditions for reduced fuels and improved forest health 

identified in the revised plan (Table 1 shows a succinct comparison of acres proposed for burning 

by alternative).

Concern FIRE-04: The Forest Service should pursue a strategic approach to wildland fire 

management to maximize safety and efficiency (106.58; 106.59).

Response: The Prescott NF intends to pursue a strategic approach to wildland fire management to 

maximize safety and efficiency. In Chapter 4 of the revised plan, the following Standard (StdWildland Fire-1) is identified:

During response to wildland fire, risks to firefighters and the public shall be 

mitigated. Protection of human life overrides all other priorities.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 19

Guidelines regarding efficiencies pertaining to wildfire and prescribed fire management are 

included in Chapter 4 of the revised plan as well.

Concern FIRE-05: The Forest Service should clarify the proposal to burn 25,000 to 65,000 

acres over 10 years (102.36).

Response: As stated in the Environmental Consequences for Grassland PNVTs section in Chapter 

3 of the EIS:

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.

The amount of proposed prescribed burning in the Semi-Desert Grassland Potential Natural 

Vegetation Types (PNVT) is needed to attain desired conditions for that vegetation type. 

The range of acres that are proposed for burning would allow for operational flexibility based 

upon fluctuating budget levels. The current forest plan monitoring report (available on the 

Prescott NF Web site at: www.fs.usda.gov/prescott/) shows that this range of numbers is realistic. 

From 1987 until 2012 (over the past 26 years) a total of 252,186 acres of land on the Prescott NF 

were burned or had other vegetation treatments implemented upon them.

Concern FIRE-06: The Forest Service should clarify fire management within desert 

communities (75.06; 104.08).

Response: Fire will not be used as a management tool within desert communities. It is stated in 

Std-Wildland Fire 2 in the revised plan that

Within the PNVT called Desert Communities (see map 1 in appendix A), fire shall not 

be used as a tool for management and all fires will be suppressed. 

Concern FIRE-07: The Forest Service should consider and address the health impacts 

associated with prescribed burning and identify alternatives to burning (3.02; 4.01; 62.01;

62.03; 62.04; 62.05; 62.06; 62.07; 62.08; 63.01; 63.02; 63.03; 63.04; 63.05; 71.01; 71.02;

76.01; 101.01; 101.02).

Response: Within Chapter 3 of the EIS, the Need for Change 1 section summarizes current 

terrestrial ecosystem conditions of the Prescott NF and the consequences of implementing the 

proposed revised plan and its alternatives. The Smoke and Air Quality section discloses the 

effects of restoring vegetation structure, composition, and desired fire frequency using wildland 

fire and mechanical treatments, and the management implications for maintaining air quality, 

including health hazards from smoke.

The revised plan addresses public concerns about health hazards from smoke in several places. 

Chapter 2 includes desired condition statements (DC-Airshed-1) that smoke impacts to 

communities from prescribed fire are minimized through adherence to State regulations for 

smoke emissions; and that citizens are aware of the timing, emission sources, and smoke 

dispersion patterns of prescribed fire, along with information on the role and benefits of fire as a 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

20 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

landscape process. Chapter 2 also identifies that for the Prescott NF, air quality resulting from fire 

is monitored by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Air Quality Division 

for potential human health impacts using data recorders located in local communities (e.g.,

Prescott, Prescott Valley, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde). 

As an alternative to burning, the revised plan includes direction in chapter 4 that mechanical or 

manual treatment of hazardous fuels should be considered where the use of wildland fire (i.e., 

wildfire and prescribed fire) may cause unacceptable resource damage or pose an unacceptable 

risk to life and private property (Guide-Wildland Fire- 5).

Lastly, the monitoring strategy in chapter 6 identifies air quality monitoring elements and 

includes a monitoring question that specifically asks, "Are management activities contributing or 

responding to air quality effects on human health or human enjoyment?"

Concern FIRE-08: The Forest Service should remove the strategic fire management 

response map (Map B) from the revised plan (75.07; 80.02).

Response: Based on comments and Forest Service review, Prescott NF leadership decided to keep 

the map addressing the forest’s strategic fire management response but alter it to reduce the size 

of the “protection zone” to only National Forest System lands immediately surrounding the city 

of Prescott. This map corresponds to two guidelines in the revised plan,

Within the protection zone boundary on map 6 (see appendix A), a management 

objective of protection should be used to manage wildfires to minimize the risk of loss 

or damage to human life (Guide-Wildland Fire-3).

and,

Outside of the protection zone boundary on map 6 (see appendix A), responses to 

wildfire should consider including other objectives beyond a single objective of 

suppression or protection” (Guide-Wildland Fire-4).

The map’s protection zone was reduced to better reflect the area where “protection” would be the 

only objective in wildfire management and to allow greater flexibility of wildfire management in 

other areas.

Forest Products

Concern FOPR-01: The Forest Service should explain the criteria used to determine timber 

suitability (106.13; 106.14).

Response: As part of the forest plan revision process, determination of timber suitability is 

required. This process is described in the 1982 Rule Procedures for Determining Timber 

Suitability 219.14 (a) & (c) and is documented in Chapter 7 of the revised plan and in Appendix 

B of the EIS.

Generally speaking, timber suitability is determined by considering all National Forest System 

Lands and going through a number of steps to remove areas that do not meet criteria for being 

suitable. Some of the conditions that would cause areas to be removed from the suitable timber 

base are: lands that are not forested; lands that are designated as wilderness areas (and would 

therefore not be harvested); and lands that cannot be restocked with trees. All criteria and a table 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 21

summarizing the suitability determination for the revised plan and EIS are described in Appendix 

B of the EIS.

Concern FOPR-02: The Forest Service should harvest timber to benefit forest health

(43.02).

Response: Throughout the EIS timber harvest is identified in the ponderosa pine Potential Natural 

Vegetation Types (PNVTs) as a means to attain desired conditions identified in the revised plan 

(Table 1 shows a succinct comparison of harvest levels by alternative). Timber harvest would be 

done at sustainable levels as identified in the Long Term Sustain Yield Capacity determination 

which is documented in Appendix B of the EIS.

Concern FOPR-03: The Forest Service should consider and disclose the potential 

environmental consequences and climate change implications resulting from any 

anticipated continued commercial harvest of timber (106.43).

Response: The environmental consequences and climate change implications are disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS. Below is an excerpt from the Ecosystem Responses to Changing Climate 

section.

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. Hotter 

and drier environments are expected to increase the occurrence of wildfire as well as 

increase their size and severity. 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.

Commercial timber harvest that is instigated to attain uneven aged forest conditions that are 

desired conditions within the forest plan would help to create resilient ecosystems under changing 

climatic conditions. Additionally, trees that are retained during the implementation of uneven 

aged forest management would continually contribute to carbon stocks in the form of live and 

growing trees. Uneven aged forest conditions are expected to be maintained over time under 

implementation of the revised plan. Trees are planted on the Prescott NF after large scale 

wildfires. Cone and seed collection also occurs on the Forest in anticipation of the need to plant 

trees in the future. Tree planting also contributes to carbon stocks on the Prescott NF. 

Concern FOPR-04: The Forest Service should not harvest trees larger than 16-inch 

diameter at breast height (dbh) (85.34; 85.35; 106.54; 106.55).

Response: As part of the plan revision process, desired conditions for all potential natural 

vegetation types (PNVTs) were designed to provide detail and guidance for the design of future 

projects and over time. Desired conditions describe how the resources on the Prescott NF should 

look and function. They are the focus of the plan and are the basis for developing objectives and 

other plan components. A future project or activity must be consistent with or help trend toward 

desired conditions. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

22 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The desired conditions for Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak (DC-Veg-13) and Ponderosa PineGambel Oak (DC-Veg-17) PNVTs state, in part, that the forests have :

... a mosaic of structural stages ranging from young to old trees. Forest structure is 

variable but generally uneven aged and open in appearance.

In order to attain the desired condition to have uneven aged forest structures, some trees larger 

than 16 inches in diameter at breast height need to be harvested. Studies (Abella et al., 2006;

Triepke, 2011) have shown that conserving trees greater than 16 inches in diameter creates the 

inability to develop or maintain uneven-aged forest structures. Retention of all trees greater than 

16 inches in diameter obstructs establishment of ponderosa pine regeneration which would 

perpetuate even aged forest structures in these PNVTs.

Concern FOPR-05: The Forest Service should allow citizens free access to the dead trees in 

the forest without them having to obtain a permit (76.02).

Response: The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature and does include project level 

decisions. As described in the desired conditions statements for several vegetation types (DCVeg-6, -7, -9,-13, -17, and -23), there are specified amounts of standing dead (snags) and down 

dead (coarse woody debris) trees that are desirable. The amount of coarse woody debris that can 

be removed from an area is an example of a site-specific decision that would not be included in 

the revised plan.

The fuelwood permit system allows the Forest Service to regulate areas where dead trees are 

collected to assure that these desired conditions can be met. Additionally, Forest Service policy 

states that the agency shall recover the fair market value of products other than commercial 

timber when it is practicable to do so (Forest Service Manual 2467.03 Chapter 2460).

Grazing

Concern GRAZ-01: The Forest Service should modify the Range Standards and Guidelines 

to emphasize improving range conditions; restrict livestock from riparian areas, seeps, and 

springs; and add a guideline for incorporating grass reserve banks (46.07; 85.33; 109.08; 

114.19).

Response: Forest Service direction for range management already requires maintaining or 

improving range conditions and it does not need to be restated in the revised plan. Livestock

grazing is restricted from riparian areas, seeps, and springs when their presence is causing 

resource damage. Desired conditions have been developed for vegetation, soil, and watersheds, 

and are expressed in the revised plan (chapter 2). Range allotment management plans are 

developed for all active grazing allotments and provide for meeting or moving towards the 

achievement of desired conditions expressed in the plan. It is a standard in the plan that year-long 

grazing in riparian areas shall be avoided (Std-Range-2). It is a guideline in the plan to limit use 

on woody riparian vegetation by livestock so as to maintain those species and allow for 

regeneration and the maintenance of multiple age classes (Guide-Range-5). Desired conditions 

for riparian gallery forests are provided in the plan and livestock grazing management will 

provide for meeting or moving towards desired conditions. Grass reserve banks are areas kept 

ungrazed for the most part that can serve as a temporary forage refuge when livestock need to be 

moved off of the normal range that they occupy. Some vacant or non-use allotments that occur on 

the Prescott NF have served in that capacity, but that use is not decided at the forest plan level.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 23

Concern GRAZ-02: The Forest Service should explain the criteria used to determine

grazing suitability (85.32; 102.05; 102.08; 102.11; 102.12; 102.16; 102.44; 104.15; 106.08; 

106.09).

Response: As part of the plan revision process, a determination of suitability for livestock grazing 

on the Prescott NF was conducted. The determination, its related definitions, criteria, analysis 

steps and references are summarized in appendix B of the EIS. 

Appendix B explains that the first step was to identify the areas of the Prescott NF that met the 

definition of capability. Capability is the potential of an area of land to produce resources and 

supply goods and services. Three measures were used to determine capability: (1) forage 

productivity, (2) inherently unstable soils, and (3) slopes steeper than 60 percent. Information for 

these measures was obtained from the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott NF (circa. 

2000) and U.S. Geological Survey data using corporate geographic information system (GIS) 

tools. Lands capable of producing forage for grazing animals (1,009,821 acres) was derived by

subtracting from the total Prescott NF land base (1,267,515 acres) any and all acres characterized 

by slopes greater than 60 percent (15,400 acres), soils that are inherently unstable (114,786 

acres), or where forage productivity is less than 100 pounds per acre-year (127,508 acres). 

The second step was to make a determination of livestock grazing suitability. Suitability 

determinations are based on compatibility with desired conditions and objectives in the plan area. 

The Responsible Official does not identify lands within the plan area as suitable for a certain use 

if that use is prohibited by law, regulation or policy; would result in substantial and permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the land or renewable resources; or, if the use is incompatible 

with the desired conditions for the relevant portion of the plan area.

The area capable of producing forage for grazing animals was the starting point for determining 

current range suitability. This area was 1,009,821 acres.

The 1987 plan identified Management Area 7 as unsuitable for livestock grazing; it consisted of 

three recreation areas. 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. These areas totaled 39,688 acres. Desired conditions in the revised Forest Plan 

for these areas include management for their original purpose; thus, they continue to be 

unsuitable for livestock grazing.

The planning team then identified additional areas which were excluded from livestock grazing, 

including those excluded by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) decisions and portions of 

allotments that were excluded from grazing activity after 1987. Since inception of the 1987 plan, 

more than 50 allotments on the Prescott NF have received site-specific environmental review and 

several areas were excluded from grazing in project-level decisions. Large, contiguous areas (at 

least 1,000 acres each) that were excluded in site-specific decisions were deemed to be not 

suitable for livestock grazing for this suitability analysis. These areas totaled 57,055 acres. 

Suitable grazing lands were determined to be 913,078 acres. This value was calculated by taking 

the capable acres (1,009,821) and subtracting the unsuitable areas identified in the 1987 plan 

(39,688) and the sum acres of the recent grazing exclusions (57,055).

The identification of lands suitable for livestock grazing within the revised plan is not a decision 

to authorize livestock grazing. The final decision to authorize livestock grazing would be made at 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

24 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

a project (individual grazing allotment) level. On a site-specific basis, grazing allotments are 

guided by an adaptive management strategy whereby results from long and short term monitoring 

are used to determine yearly stocking rates, pasture rotations, and whether other adjustments are 

needed in order to meet management objectives and desired conditions for rangelands.

Concern GRAZ-03: The Forest Service should provide an analysis of the synergistic effects 

of livestock grazing and climate change (102.18; 106.10; 106.11; 106.25; 106.44).

Response: Potential impacts to ecosystems from livestock grazing and changing climate trends 

were considered during development of the revised plan. These impacts are disclosed in Chapter 

3 of the EIS in the Ecosystem Responses to Changing Climate section and the Social and 

Economic Values – Livestock Grazing section.

As a result of this analysis, several standards and guidelines were developed to lessen the 

potential negative impacts that could result from a combination of inappropriate livestock grazing 

and expected changes in climate. Specifically, the revised plan includes two standards (StdRange-1 & 2) and six guidelines (Guide-Range-1 – 6) for livestock grazing that allow 

management flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, including drought and/or a changing 

climate. On a site-specific basis, grazing allotments are guided by an adaptive management 

strategy whereby results from long and short term monitoring are used to determine yearly 

stocking rates, pasture rotations, and whether other adjustments are needed in order to meet 

management objectives and desired conditions for rangelands.

Concern GRAZ-04: The Forest Service should provide ecosystem specific - scientific proof 

that herbivory by nonnative species is not detrimental to the ecosystems and native wildlife 

species on the Forest (102.07; 102.14; 102.32; 102.34; 102.39; 102.45; 104.07).

Response: Potential impacts of herbivory by nonnative species (i.e., livestock grazing) to 

ecosystems and native wildlife species were considered during development of the revised plan. 

These impacts are disclosed in the Social and Economic Values – Livestock Grazing section in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS.

As a result of this analysis, several standards and guidelines were developed to lessen the 

potential negative impacts on other Forest resources that could result from inappropriate livestock 

grazing. Specifically, the revised plan includes two standards (Std-Range-1 & 2) and six 

guidelines (Guide-Range-1 – 6) for livestock grazing activities across the Forest. This guidance 

allows management flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, including vegetation responses to 

herbivory, drought and wildfire. The revised plan also includes two watershed guidelines (GuideWS-4 & 9) to protect riparian areas and vegetation from inappropriate livestock grazing practices. 

Additionally, there are three wildlife protection guidelines (Guide-WL-2, 3, & 9) that direct the 

use of design features, mitigation measures, and project timing considerations for rangeland 

improvements.

Concern GRAZ-05: The revised plan does not propose to rehabilitate or restore all suitable 

grazing lands that exhibit less than satisfactory conditions (106.12).

Response: The focus of the revised plan is the desired conditions that describe how the resources 

on the Prescott NF should look and function – including those areas deemed suitable for grazing. 

Desired conditions are the basis for developing objectives and other plan components, and future 

projects or activities must be consistent with or help trend toward these desired conditions. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 25

Desired conditions for grazing include DC-Watershed-1:

Watersheds support sustainable levels of forage for browsing and grazing animals, 

timber production, and recreation opportunities with no long term decline in 

watershed conditions.

and DC-Veg-3:

Vegetation on lands deemed suitable for livestock grazing provides sustainable 

amounts of forage for authorized livestock and wildlife species, consistent with 

multiple-use objectives.

Herbivory aids in sustaining or improving native vegetation cover and composition.

Plan level direction that will assist in the rehabilitation and restoration of suitable grazing lands 

include projects to improve or maintain watershed conditions, (Objective 18), projects to counter 

critical threats to riparian system functionality (Objective 19), and maintenance and enhancement 

of seeps and springs (Objective 23). These are in addition to plan direction to restore vegetation 

structure and composition (Objectives 1 through 5). 

Although the revised plan is strategic in nature and does not include project level decisions, it 

does provide guidance for the development of range allotment management plans. These plans 

are developed for all active grazing allotments and provide for meeting or moving towards the 

achievement of desired conditions expressed in the plan. On a site-specific basis, grazing 

allotments are guided by an adaptive management strategy whereby results from long and short 

term monitoring are used to determine yearly stocking rates, pasture rotations, and whether other 

adjustments are needed in order to meet management objectives and desired conditions for 

rangelands.

Concern GRAZ-06: The Forest Service should clarify in the EIS that native species (deer 

and antelope) are browsers not grazers (102.03).

Response: The Forest Service updated the revised plan and EIS to reflect that the native animal 

species on the Prescott National Forest are browsers not grazers.

Concern GRAZ-07: The Forest Service should cease the removal of juniper for the purpose 

of forage production (85.25; 85.75).

Response: Based on comments, the Forest Service reviewed the desired conditions for PiñonJuniper Woodlands but did not make any changes. Desired conditions for all vegetation types 

described in the revised plan were created to assist with the restoration and maintenance of 

healthy ecosystems while providing for the sustainable use of those ecosystems.

Objective 3 in the revised plan identifies treating 20,000 to 90,000 acres in Juniper Grasslands, 

Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and Piñon-Juniper Woodlands Potential Natural Vegetation Types 

(PNVTs) using mechanical treatments, wildland fire, or browsing by domestic livestock. Such 

activities would certainly remove juniper, but the purpose is to improve watershed and rangeland 

conditions, vegetation structure, and wildlife habitat. The proposed treatments have the following 

rationale, as noted in the Background and Rationale section of Objective 3:

Within the Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT, increasing density of juniper trees 

and shrubs leads to increased competition for water, especially if climate predictions 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

26 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

of warmer and drier conditions take place. By removing some trees or shrubs, the 

remaining vegetation would have less competition for water and better survival. In 

some locations, depending on site conditions, herbaceous ground cover may expand.

and 

Within the juniper grasslands, the exclusion of fire has allowed encroachment of 

juniper trees. Reintroducing fire as a disturbance will increase the vigor of grasses 

and will kill some trees and bushes. Mechanical tree removal will decrease density of 

juniper trees in locations where fire is not desired or will not carry. The result will be 

healthier grasslands and enhanced pronghorn habitat including the creation of a 

more open environment, a trend toward fewer trees and shrubs, and maintenance of 

the desired open environment within relevant Arizona Game and Fish Department 

linkages.

Concern GRAZ-08: The Forest Service should ban all grazing on public lands, and/or allow 

permittees to voluntarily retire their grazing allotments permanently (3.08; 4.02; 44.08; 

85.28; 102.49; 109.04; 109.05).

Response: To ban all livestock grazing on public lands is outside the scope of the forest plan 

revision process in part because such a decision would violate the Multiple Use Sustained Yield 

Act (1964). Allowing permittees to permanently retire their allotments is also outside the scope of 

the forest plan revision process and would violate Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 222.2(c)), 

which states that forage producing National Forest System lands will be managed for livestock 

grazing.

Concern GRAZ-09: The Forest Service should restrict livestock grazing near rivers and 

streams and within riparian areas (45.01; 91.10; 102.06; 102.17).

Response: Livestock grazing allotments on the Prescott NF use an adaptive management 

approach to match livestock numbers with forage production. Allotment management plans are 

evaluated through a site-specific NEPA process that includes the identification and analysis of 

specific proposals and the opportunity for public involvement. 

The revised plan contains guidance in the form of range standards and guidelines (Std-Range-1 

and 2, Guide-Range-1 through 6). These standards and guidelines allow livestock grazing in

riparian areas with certain restrictions aimed at minimizing adverse effects on water quality, 

riparian habitat, and watershed function. Examples include Range Standard 2, which restricts the 

timing of grazing in riparian areas, and Guideline Range 1 which directs the placement of salt 

licks at least 1⁄4 mile away from riparian areas. More specific restrictions would be analyzed and 

implemented through the grazing allotment management plan.

Concern GRAZ-10: The Forest Service should implement controlled grazing within 

riparian areas (37.03; 59.06; 59.07; 72.03; 72.05; 90.01).

Response: Livestock grazing allotments on the Prescott NF use an adaptive management 

approach to match livestock numbers with forage production. Allotment management plans are 

evaluated through a site-specific NEPA process that includes the identification and analysis of 

specific proposals and the opportunity for public involvement. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 27

The revised plan contains guidance in the form of range standards and guidelines (Std-Range-1 

and 2, Guide-Range-1 through 6). These standards and guidelines allow livestock grazing in 

riparian areas with certain restrictions aimed at minimizing adverse effects on water quality, 

riparian habitat, and watershed function. Controlled grazing within a specific riparian area would 

be analyzed and implemented through the grazing allotment management plan.

Concern GRAZ-11: The Forest Service should continue to support ranching on the Prescott 

NF (37.04; 37.05; 38.03; 40.06; 46.08; 72.06; 96.02).

Response: The Prescott NF vision statement (found in Chapter 1 of the revised plan) states:

Our vision is to manage the cultural and natural resources of the Prescott NF to 

provide healthy watersheds, outdoor recreation opportunities, open space, scenery, 

and traditional uses that sustain the social and economic structure and stability of 

our communities.

Ranching has been and continues to be a traditional rural lifestyle in Yavapai County. The revised 

plan also includes a desired condition statement (DC-Vegetation-3) acknowledging that:

Livestock grazing contributes to aspects of the social, economic, and cultural 

structure and stability of rural communities.

This desired condition statement is an affirmation that the Forest Service supports ranching on the 

Prescott NF.

Concern GRAZ-12: The Forest Service should revise their restrictions on the use of 

mechanized equipment in grazing allotments located in wilderness (96.05).

Response: It is not within the authority of the USDA Forest Service or the within the purview of 

this decision to update, modify, or amend the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) or the 

congressional guidelines and policies regarding grazing in National Forest Wilderness Areas. 

Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act states:

...the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this Act, 

shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed 

necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.

The Forest Service follows the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Forest Service Manual 

2323.22) which allow for the reasonable use of motorized and mechanized equipment to manage 

the range resource. This includes improvements such as tanks and fences. Reasonable use is 

determined through site-specific analysis of the impacts of using mechanized and motorized 

equipment in wilderness to manage range resources. Once determined, approval from the 

Regional Forester is required before allowing such use.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Concern IRA-01: The Forest Service should consider adding Inventoried Roadless Areas to 

the Special Areas map in the appendix of the revised plan (35.23).

Response: The Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) on the Prescott NF are displayed on a new, 

separate map (Map 7) in the revised plan.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

28 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Lands, Open Space, and Scenic Values

Concern LAND-01: Open space and scenic values are beneficial to all communities, 

including Prescott and the Verde Valley (5.23; 35.03; 35.05; 35.08).

Response: Based on comments, Prescott NF leadership decided to remove language in Objective 

29 that specified the Verde Valley as the primary location for acquiring lands to retain open space 

values. The objective was broadened to be more inclusive and now states:

Act on up to 10 opportunities, as presented and feasible, to acquire lands within and 

around the Prescott NF and to retain open space values during the 10 years 

following plan approval.

This change was made to better recognize the importance of open space to all communities 

surrounding the Prescott NF.

Concern LAND-02: The Forest Service should review and clarify the Lands Standards and 

Guidelines to include scenic values and to include lands identified as desirable for 

acquisition from the plans of city, county, and regional governments (35.18).

Response: Land exchange criteria are established in law or Forest Service policy and are 

referenced in Guide-Lands-2 and Guide-Lands-3 of the revised plan. The Forest Service 

considers a variety of resource values in determining the desirability of lands for acquisition. 

Those values are often different from what local or regional governments might identify as 

desirable as their purposes for acquisition are generally quite different.

Concern LAND-03: The Forest Service should review and clarify the Scenic Values 

Standards and Guidelines (58.05).

Response: Based on comments, the Forest Service reviewed the Scenic Values Standards and 

Guidelines but did not make any changes. It was determined that the link to the glossary 

definition for concern levels did not need to be included as it was already present in the Wildland 

Fire Standards and Guidelines.

Concern LAND-04: The Forest Service should add “wildlife linkage, wildlife movement, 

and migratory corridor” verbiage to the desired conditions for Open Space, Lands, and 

Scenic Values (114.11; 114.15).

Response: No changes were made to the desired conditions for Open Space, Lands, and Scenic 

Values between the draft and final versions of the revised plan. DC-Open Space-1 addresses the 

retention of open space values related to wildlife habitat, and DC-Wildlife-1 states, in part, that 

wildlife in habitats associated with animal movement corridors are free from human harassment.

Concern LAND-05: The Forest Service should consider and identify corridors and other 

areas of connectivity between the forest and its surrounding communities and jurisdictions, 

and incorporate wildlife linkages into open spaces (1.03; 28.02; 114.13).

Response: The desired conditions for recreation state in DC-Rec-2 Trails that“(t)rail routes 

include both point-to-point trails that connect communities and interconnected loops of varying 

lengths”. DC-Wildlife-1 states, in part, that:
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 29

Wildlife in habitats associated with animal movement corridors are free from human 

harassment.

The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature and does not identify specific travel corridors, 

areas of connectivity, or wildlife linkages. However, as noted above, the revised plan does contain 

guidance to consider and identify both wildlife and human movement corridors as part of any 

future proposed project or activity.

Concern LAND-06: The Forest Service should revise the wording on DC-VV-MA-1 to say, 

“The land exchange process is open to the public, and there are opportunities for the public 

to provide input on land exchanges being considered” (35.21).

Response: The existing wording for DC-VV MA-1 states:

The land exchange process is open to the public, and there are opportunities to 

provide feedback regarding the land exchange.

It was determined that the proposed wording was not substantially different and that the existing 

wording is more concise. Therefore, no changes were made to this desired condition between the 

draft and final versions of the revised plan.

Concern LAND-07: The Forest Service should add the east face of Mingus Mountain and 

the land along the Verde River to the land acquisition and exchange opportunities that are 

listed in Guide-VV-MA-3. (35.22).

Response: Between the draft and final versions of the revised plan, Guide-VV-MA-3 was revised 

for specificity. The revised wording states:

Land acquisition and exchange opportunities should emphasize retaining or adding 

to Prescott NF lands in the Verde Valley and on the east side of the Black Hills 

between Cottonwood and Camp Verde.

Concern LAND-08: The Forest Service should add “the East face of Mingus Mountain” or 

“scenic view sheds” to the verbiage in Objective 29 (35.16).

Response: The Prescott NF Leadership Team revised Objective 29 in the final revised plan

(selected) to remove language that emphasized the acquisition of riparian habitat, areas along the 

upper and middle Verde, and in the Verde Valley. Objective 29, as re-written, states:

Act on up to 10 opportunities, as presented and feasible, to acquire lands within and 

around the Prescott NF to retain open space values during the 10 years following 

plan approval.

The new language provides broader direction for land acquisitions in support of meeting desired 

conditions.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

30 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Law Enforcement

Concern LE-01: The Draft Plan does not specifically address the critical issue of 

enforcement of existing regulations within the Prescott NF (85.15).

Response: Laws and regulations, and the enforcement of them, are not forest plan level decisions. 

Enforcement is not a forest plan component but is a requirement of the Agency, regardless of the 

land management plan in effect.

Concern LE-02: The Forest Service should change the current trail “yield policy” to a 

regulation enforceable by law enforcement (5.40).

Response: Changing the current trail “yield policy” would require promulgating regulations. 

Promulgating regulations that affect public activities or prohibitions on National Forest System 

lands are codified at Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and are therefore 

considered actions outside the scope of the decisions to be made in revising the forest plan. This 

is because regulations found at 36 CFR are not forest plan components. Additionally, enforcement 

of Federal regulations is a requirement of the Agency, regardless of the land management plan in 

effect.

Management Areas

Concern MA-01: The Forest Service has effectively addressed some of the key issues in the 

Verde Valley (35.04; 35.06).

Response: The revised plan contains direction for the Verde Valley Management Area in Chapter 

5. The desired conditions and management guidelines for the Verde Valley MA are based on 

community vision statements developed during the plan revision process. Key issues identified in 

this process and addressed in the revised plan include the protection and enhancement of open 

space, the retention of scenic views, and continued access to public land for recreation use.

Concern MA-02: The Forest Service should review and clarify the Management Area 

Standards and Guidelines (5.27; 85.81; 109.09).

Response: Based on comments and Forest Service review, changes were made to the Standards 

and Guidelines for Management Areas in Chapter 5. Individual guidelines (Guide-CK MA-2, 

Guide-UV MA-4, Guide-WVN MA-3, and Guide-VV MA-4) that provide direction for managing 

recommended wilderness areas were replaced by a similar forest-wide guideline (Guide-Wild10). The first Prescott Basin MA guideline (Guide-PB MA-1) was re-written for clarity, and the 

third Verde Valley MA Guideline (Guide-VV MA-3) was modified to provide specificity.

Concern MA-03: The Forest Service should include strong direction, including additional 

objectives, for the Upper Verde Management Area (85.07; 85.09; 85.31; 93.16).

Response: The revised plan contains strong direction for the Upper Verde Management Area in 

Chapter 5, including four desired condition statements and three guidelines. The desired 

conditions are specific to the Upper Verde MA and reflect recreation concerns from the 

community vision statements; the guidelines provide guidance for project and activity 

decisionmaking. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 31

Forest-wide guidelines that provide direction for the Upper Verde MA include Wild and Scenic 

River Standard #2 which applies to approximately 38 miles of the upper Verde River, and GuideWild-10 which applies to the Sycamore Canyon A and Woodchute recommended Potential 

Wilderness Areas. 

Additionally, the Prescott NF Leadership Team added a new objective to the revised plan between 

the draft and final versions. Objective 31, states:

Apply for at least 8 in-stream flow water rights to enable the Prescott NF to provide 

for channel and floodplain maintenance and recharge of riparian aquifers during the 

10 years following plan approval.

This new language provides strong direction and support for the in-stream flow rights application 

has been submitted on the upper Verde River.

Concern MA-04: The Forest Service should revise the definition of the “Upper Verde River 

Management Area” (85.08).

Response: As noted in the introduction to Chapter 5, geographic areas are based on human 

geography and were mapped according to where people from various communities felt strongly 

about conditions and events. The area referenced is properly named the Upper Verde 

Management Area and is a sub-division of the Prescott/Chino/Drake Geographic Area. This 

Management Area has been mistakenly identified by the commenter as the “Upper Verde River 

Management Area”; the Upper Verde Management Area boundaries were not based on the 

watershed boundaries for the upper Verde River.

Concern MA-05: The Forest Service could improve the historical context for the Verde 

Valley in the Management Area direction section (35.19).

Response: The historical context for the Verde Valley is vast and complex. To provide additional 

information on the history of this area could make unduly long what is intended to be a concise 

document to guide the management of the forest.

Concern MA-06: The Forest Service should clarify or delete the verbiage, “(east portion)” 

that is listed in the plan by Grief Hill IRA where it describes the characteristics of the Verde 

Valley (35.20).

Response: The Grief Hill Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) spans two Geographic Areas 

delineated in the revised plan. The eastern side of the Grief Hill IRA lies in the Verde Valley 

Geographic Area; the western side lies in the Agua Fria/Crown King Geographic Area.

Minerals

Concern MIN-01: The Forest Service should modify the Minerals and Minerals Materials 

Standards and Guidelines to protect resources, require adequate bonds, and require 

restoration of one area prior to expanding operations into new areas (85.40; 85.41; 85.42; 

85.43; 85.44; 85.45).

Response: These recommended additions to the minerals standards are current requirements 

already in place as existing law and policy. Therefore they are not repeated as forest plan 

direction.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

32 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Concern MIN-02: The Forest Service should include strong requirements for mining 

restoration bonds in the plan (4.08; 48.06).

Response: The revised plan includes a standard (Std-Locatable Minerals-3) which states:

Approval of mining activities shall include the use of reclamation bonds to protect 

and restore surface resources.

The individual requirements involved to meet the standard will be determined at the project level. 

Concern MIN-03: The Forest Service should clarify the use of suction dredge equipment on 

the forest (85.14).

Response: The revised plan is strategic in nature and does not include project level decisions. The 

specific types of equipment used for mining is a project level decision, and therefore not a forest 

plan level decision. The use of section dredges is not prohibited on the forest in those areas open 

for mineral exploration and development.

Miscellaneous Comments

Misc - General

Concern MISC-01: The 2012 Planning Rule is flawed in multiple respects, possibly to the 

extent that the proposed revised plan is not valid or legal (59.01; 59.02).

Response: Revision of the existing land and resource management plan followed the provisions 

of the 1982 rule as provided for by the transition language in the 2012 rule. While consistent with 

many of the concepts of the 2012 planning rule, the development of the revised plan did not 

follow 2012 planning rule direction. The validity of the 2012 planning rule is an issue for the 

courts to decide, and therefore, is outside the scope of the Prescott NF plan revision process.

Concern MISC-02: The Forest Service should explain why the Travel Management Rule 

and the Forest Service Handbook are not integrated into the revised plan (102.02).

Response: As noted in Chapter 1, the revised plan provides broad guidance and information for 

project and activity decision-making that is consistent with the Forest Service Handbook and 

Forest Service Manual direction. The revised plan is also consistent with, but does not restate, 

existing law or policy such as the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.51). Management 

direction not included in the plan is found in numerous laws, regulations, executive orders, Forest 

Service policies, and additional guidance documents. Some of these other sources of direction are 

listed in chapter 8 of the revised plan.

Concern MISC-03: The Forest Service should advocate at every level of management for 

the protection of ecosystems and habitat (20.02).

Response: As noted in the Prescott NF Mission and Vision section in chapter 1 of the revised 

plan,

The nationwide mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and 

future generations. The overall goal of managing National Forest System lands is to 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 33

sustain the multiple uses of its resources in perpetuity, while maintaining the long 

term productivity of the land.

This statement encompasses a strong commitment to the restoration and preservation of 

ecosystems within National Forest System lands. Many of the desired conditions and their 

supporting objectives in the revised plan were created to address the need for restoration efforts in 

a number of ecosystems and habitats where conditions have departed from a healthy functioning 

state. The desired conditions developed for the Prescott NF are consistent with desired conditions 

used throughout the Southwest Region, reflecting the nationwide commitment to ecosystem 

health, diversity, and productivity. In addition, desired conditions, objectives, and other plan 

components provide direction and guidance at the project level that emphasizes ecosystem and 

habitat restoration and preservation.

Concern MISC-04: The Forest Service should add “mining” and “church camps” to DCVeg 3, as activities that also contribute to the cultural structure and stability of rural 

communities. (109.06).

Response: No changes were made to DC-Veg 3 between the draft and final versions of the revised 

plan. The vegetation desired conditions are not the appropriate location to mention the 

contributions of mining and church camps to rural communities. Although all three activities 

occur under permit on the forest, only livestock grazing is used as a tool to manage vegetation.

Concern MISC-05: The Forest Service should address the upcoming use of aerial vehicles 

such as drones and hovercrafts (111.02).

Response: The Forest Service has no way of predicting the potential future use of Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems on Forest System Lands and therefore is not able to address the potential 

impacts of this practice.

Misc - Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Concern MISC-06: The Environmental Impact Statement for the revised plan is the 

appropriate vehicle for a science-based, landscape-scale assessment of forest restoration 

needs (106.52).

Response: The “Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009b) was compiled to 

identify recent changes in ecological conditions and trends and existing threats and associated 

risks to long term ecological sustainability. This information, combined with the “Prescott 

National Forest Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment” (Forest Service, 2009c) and 

input received through extensive collaboration with various public groups, organizations, 

agencies, officials, and individuals, was used to develop the five priority needs for change topics. 

These topics were used to focus the scope of the revised plan and are summarized in the 

“Analysis of the Management Situation” (Forest Service, 2009a). One of the five needs for 

change topics identified in chapter 1 of the revised plan addresses forest restoration:

Restore vegetation structure and composition and desired characteristics of fire to 

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

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been the tool by which the effects of 

implementing the revised plan are measured. Science-based, landscape-scale effects of vegetation 

restoration were assessed in the EIS under the Need for Change 1 section in Chapter 3.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

34 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Concern MISC-07: The Forest Service should disclose in the Environmental Impact 

Statement the content of its national-scale Strategic Plan (106.37).

Response: As noted in Chapter 1, the revised plan provides broad guidance and information for 

project and activity decision-making on the Prescott NF. The revised plan is consistent with, but

does not restate, existing law, regulation, or policy; this includes the national “USDA Forest 

Service Strategic Plan FY 2007-2012” (Forest Service, 2007). The content of the Strategic Plan 

was not included in the EIS because analysis of agency policy is outside of the scope of this 

decision.

Concern MISC-08: The EIS needs a significantly improved Affected Environment section 

that discloses important ecological, economic, and historic information about the Prescott 

National Forest. As required by 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15, the EIS must describe the environment 

of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration (104.14, 

106.28).

Response: Consistent with by 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15, the Affected Environment section of the EIS 

describes the environment of the area(s) to be affected by the alternatives under consideration 

with descriptions no longer than necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. 

Additional context for the Prescott NF’s ecological, economic, and social resources can be found 

in the “Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009b), “Prescott National Forest 

Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment” (Forest Service, 2009c), and the “Analysis of 

the Management Situation” (Forest Service, 2009a). The needs for change topics and the social 

and economic values found in chapter 1 of the EIS helped to narrow the scope of the plan revision 

efforts and to focus effort and attention on important issues within the decision framework.

Concern MISC-09: The Forest Service must analyze and disclose the impacts of eliminating 

or changing any “management requirements” identified at § 219.27 of the 1982 Planning 

Rule as a result of revising the forest plan. (106.41).

Response: Provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule at § 217.27 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 in one or more action alternatives (alternatives other 

than existing condition) in the EIS. 

The “Documentation of Minimum Management Requirements” report (Forest Service, 2011) was 

completed for the action alternatives in June 2011 and informed the effects analysis for the DEIS

and is available on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site 

(www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement). The report identified for each subpart of § 

217.27: the applicable plan components and the rationale for inclusion as an MMR. Additionally, 

each of the action alternatives was evaluated as meeting or exceeding the MMR for each subpart. 

As required by § 217.27, each of the action alternatives included sufficient plan components to 

meet the management requirements.

In revising the 1987 plan, some plan components were carried forward into the revised plan while 

others were modified or eliminated and new ones were created. This activity of eliminating or 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 35

changing plan components should not be confused with eliminating or changing the 

“management requirements”.

Concern MISC-10: The Forest Service should significantly revise the draft plan and release 

a new Draft Environmental Impact Statement for public comment (104.18).

Response: The Prescott NF followed the requirements outlined in the National Environmental 

Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, and 1982 planning rule regulations to develop the 

draft forest plan and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and make them available for 

review during a 90-day public comment period. Public comments submitted were analyzed by the 

Forest Service and adjustments were made to the draft forest plan based on this input, culminating 

in the creation of an additional alternative (alternative E). Prescott NF leadership selected 

alternative E in moving towards the final forest plan.

Concern MISC-11: The Forest Service should provide a summary of how both the 1987 

plan and the revised plan will move forward to reach the goals presented (102.01).

Response: A descriptive summary of plan objectives and how they differ between the alternatives, 

including alternative A (1987 plan) and alternative E (selected revised plan), can be found in the 

Alternatives Considered in Detail section in chapter 2 of the EIS. A more concise presentation is 

the Forest Plan Alternatives Comparison Chart available on the Prescott NF plan revision Web

site (www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement).

Concern MISC-12: The Forest Service should provide copies of the Forest Plan and 

associated Environmental Impact Statement to those who request them (30.07).

Response: The agency will provide copies to all who request them and in the format requested. 

The revised plan and EIS will also be available on the Prescott NF Web site under Land and 

Resources Management (www.fs.usda.gov/prescott/).

Misc - Standards and Guidelines 

Concern MISC-13: The Forest Service should strengthen the Standards and Guidelines to 

contain specific restrictions and to be mandatory rather than discretionary (104.04; 104.05; 

104.06; 104.09; 104.10; 104.11; 106.04; 106.07; 106.23; 106.42).

Response: Standards and guidelines in the revised plan provide the necessary guidance to help the 

forest achieve objectives and move toward desired conditions without being overly prescriptive. 

The standards and guidelines in the revised plan are not discretionary (see the Decisions Made in 

the Plan section in Chapter 1), and are as binding as were the standards and guidelines in the old 

plan. Standards are defined as direction that the forest must follow unless it approves a plan 

amendment, which would require analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

with public involvement as required by that law and by Forest Service regulation. Guidelines also 

must be followed but may be modified without a plan amendment if the action is consistent with 

the intent of the guideline. Projects that conflict with guidelines must provide a sound rationale 

for the deviation and undergo a NEPA analysis that would require public involvement.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

36 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Concern MISC-14: The Forest Service should revise the plan to establish Standards and 

Guidelines that will assure that the agency meets minimum management requirements

(104.03).

Response: The revised plan complies with the requirements of the 1982 planning rule provisions, 

including the minimum management requirements. The revised plan addresses each of the 

elements in section 219.27 in the “Documentation of Minimum Management Requirements”

(Forest Service, 2011a) available on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site 

(www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement).

Concern MISC-15: The revised plan will repeal virtually all standards and guidelines in the 

existing 1987 plan (106.01).

Response: The revised plan updates the standards and guidelines to better respond to current 

environmental conditions and managed activities on the Prescott NF. As noted in chapter 1 of the 

revised plan

Some components of the 1987 plan, including some of its amendments, are still 

adequate and timely and have been carried forward into the revised plan.

However, 

... some standards and guidelines in the 1987 plan (were not) included in the revised 

plan because they were unnecessarily prescriptive about how to accomplish a 

project, did not support attaining desired conditions or accomplishing objectives, or 

were duplicative.

Chapter 4 further states that 

Standards and guidelines (in the revised plan) provide sideboards and guidance for 

project and activity decision-making to help achieve desired conditions and 

objectives. Standards must be followed and can only change with a plan amendment. 

Guidelines must be followed, but they may be modified somewhat for a specific 

project if the intent of the guideline is followed and the deviation is addressed in a 

decision document with supporting rationale.

Updates to the existing plan do not amount to a repeal of all standards and guidelines, nor does it 

roll back environmental safeguards affecting the management of forest resources.

Concern MISC-16: The revised plan replaces existing standards and guidelines with desired 

conditions and objectives that are not enforceable in project-level decisions (106.02; 106.05; 

106.49).

Response: The revised plan includes all four of these types of plan components, desired 

conditions (or goals), objectives, standards, and guidelines, each of which plays a separate role. 

As noted in the Introduction to chapter 2 of the revised plan, projects and activities must be 

consistent with, or help trend toward, desired conditions. Desired conditions describe how the 

resources on the Prescott NF should look and function, and objectives are measurable, timespecific actions implemented to achieve desired conditions. The standards and guidelines provide 

project-level guidance for the implementation of these actions. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 37

Since all projects must be consistent with all of these plan components, it would be more accurate 

to say that desired conditions and objectives complement, rather than replace, standards and 

guidelines in project-level decisions.

Concern MISC-17: The wildlife guidelines include direction from existing science 

publications. They should be modified to say that management will adhere to the most 

current policy and best available science as it changes (75.05). 

The wildlife guidelines included in the revised plan were developed specifically to address or 

mitigate risk to species viability because their associated habitat conditions are departed from 

reference conditions and/or because of species’ vulnerability to impacts from forest management 

or activities. These guidelines limit management actions and uses within the planning area and 

were based on best available science. A plan amendment adjusting these guidelines may be 

necessary as new information or policy becomes evident.

Monitoring

Concern MON-01: The Forest Service should include the following criteria in its monitoring

strategy: (1) monitoring and evaluation at a level sufficient to inform adaptive 

management; (2) streamlined protocols that simplify and improve efficiency without 

compromising defensibility; (3) results obtained through monitoring should be made 

available to the public (15.04; 85.46; 106.53; 109.01).

Response: Chapter 6 of the revised plan discusses how the monitoring strategy is based upon an 

adaptive management cycle that takes adjustment of management actions based upon monitoring 

and evaluation into account. The first guiding principle of the monitoring strategy described in 

Chapter 6 describes that forest plan monitoring efforts are to be efficient, practical and affordable. 

Based upon the monitoring questions that are described within the table in Chapter 6, plan 

monitoring would be defensible and sufficient in terms of assessing movement toward plan 

desired conditions. Monitoring reports will be compiled and published at least every two years, 

and made available for public review on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site

(www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement).

Concern MON-02: The Forest Service should reveal the extent to which monitoring in the 

current plan has been completed (104.12).

Response: Monitoring of the current forest plan is compiled on an annual basis and is available 

for review on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site

(www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement). The “Analysis of the Management Situation”

(AMS) (Forest Service, 2009a) for this revised plan incorporated monitoring that was completed 

during implementation of the current forest plan. The AMS is part of the plan revision process 

and can also be found on the Prescott NF Web site.

Concern MON-03: The Forest Service should reevaluate the frequency of monitoring for 

resilience to climate change (48.02).

Response: Ecosystem resilience in response to changing environmental conditions is to be 

monitored every two years as described in Chapter 6 of the revised plan. Guiding principles are 

key elements of the Prescott NF’s monitoring strategy and serve as a framework for implementing 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

38 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

an effective monitoring and evaluation program. One of these guiding principles described in 

Chapter 6 is that

Monitoring efforts are efficient, practical and affordable; take into consideration the 

best available science; and do not duplicate the collection of data already underway 

for other purposes.

The monitoring frequency of every two years for measuring resilience to climate change is 

adequate as changes in environmental conditions are typically slow and more frequent monitoring 

may not yield additional data that is of value. As such, annual monitoring of this component 

would not meet the principle of being efficient.

Concern MON-04: The Forest Service should monitor air quality for particulates and 

noxious substances (62.02).

Response: The monitoring strategy for the revised plan includes assessing progress towards 

achieving the desired conditions for Airsheds and Air Quality (DC-Airshed-1). The monitoring 

questions include "Are management activities contributing or responding to air quality effects on 

human health or human enjoyment?" and "Are air quality related values (e.g., visibility) of the 

Sycamore Canyon and Pine Mountain Wilderness areas being maintained?" The performance 

measures include monitoring particulate matter (PM2.5) recorded at smoke sensitive sites; and 

visibility using the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

program.

Concern MON-05: The Forest Service should monitor the Prescott NF rivers and streams 

for contaminates and rates of flow (45.02; 48.04; 85.80; 91.09).

Response: The monitoring strategy (chapter 6) for the revised plan is designed to assess whether 

the application of standards and guidelines is achieving objectives, and whether objectives are 

achieving or moving toward desired conditions. The standards and guidelines related to 

watersheds include references to both contaminants (Std-WS-1) and streamflow (Guide-WS-1); 

the performance measure in Theme 1 associated with these standards and guidelines is the 

changes in watershed condition class for 6th level hydrologic units. 

In addition, monitoring for aquatic species assesses progress towards achieving DC-Aquatic-1, 

which addresses the quantity and timing of water flows and water quality needed to retain or 

enhance aquatic habitats. The monitoring question asks “Are management actions maintaining or 

making progress toward desired habitat conditions for native fish, amphibian, and reptile 

species?” and the performance measures include aquatic habitat quality.

Concern MON-06: The Forest Service should include the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the list of species 

monitored in chapter 6, table 5, of the forest plan (114.20).

Response: The species identified for plan monitoring (chapter 6, table 5) are limited to the

federally listed species, Forest Service regionally sensitive species, and the selected management 

indicator species that occur within the planning area. All 26 species to be monitored for plan 

effectiveness are species included on the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s list of SGCN. The 

monitoring strategy for the revised plan is designed to collect information specific to assessing 

how well the direction in the plan is being implemented; such as whether the application of 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 39

standards and guidelines is achieving objectives, and how well management actions (objectives) 

are achieving or progressing toward desired conditions. The strategy is not intended to monitor a 

statewide list of species.

Publications

Concern PUB-01: The Forest Service should consider the following publications showing 

the negative impacts of improper use of livestock: Belsky, A.J., and D.M. Blumenthal. 1997. 

Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in Upland Forests of the Interior 

West. Conservation Biology 11:315-327. Donahue, Debra. 1999. The Western Range 

Revisited: Removing Livestock from Public Lands to Conserve Native Biodiversity. 

Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 338 pages. Ferguson, Denzel, and Nancy 

Ferguson. 1983. Sacred Cows at the Public Trough. Bend, Oregon: Maverick Publications. 

Finch, D.M., M.J. Ganey, W. Yong, R.T. Kimball, and R. Sallabanks. 1997. Effects and 

Interactions of Fire, Logging and Grazing. Pp. 103-136 in Block, W.M., and D.M. Finch. 

Songbird Ecology in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests: A Literature Review. General 

Technical Report RM-292. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service. Fleischner, Thomas L. 

1994. Ecological Costs of Grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology 

8(3):629-644. Fleischner, T.L., D.E. Brown, A.Y. Cooperrider, W.B. Kessler, and E.L. 

Painter. 1994b. Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter 1(4):2-3. Beshta, Robert L. 

Donahue, Debra L., DellaSala, Dominick A., Rhodes, Jonathan J., Karr, James R., O’Brien, 

Mary H., Fleischner, Thomas, Williams, Cindy D. Adapting to Climate Change in Western 

Public Lands: Addressing the Ecological Effects of Domestic, Wild and Feral Ungulates. 

Journal of Environmental Management. Zwartjes, P., Cartron, J., Stoleson, P., Haussamen, 

W. Crane, T. Assessment of Native Species and Ungulate Grazing in the Southwest: 

Terrestrial Wildlife. US Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

General Technical Report; RMRS – GTR – 142, September 2005. (102.13).

Response: Scientific information on the potential negative impacts of improper livestock grazing 

such as those disclosed in the publications listed were considered during development of plan 

components as well as for estimating the environmental consequences of the alternatives at the 

programmatic level. 

Outcomes of these considerations included the development of an entire chapter in the revised 

plan devoted to desired conditions that describe how the resources on the Prescott NF should look 

and function – including those potentially impacted by livestock. Desired conditions have been 

developed for ecosystem resilience, vegetation, soil, and watershed conditions, terrestrial and 

aquatic wildlife, as well as socially important uses including sustainable recreation, open space, 

forest products and livestock grazing. Desired conditions form the basis for all projects, activities, 

and uses that will occur during the life of the revised plan. These projects will be designed to 

maintain or move towards the desired conditions over the long term. 

Several standards and guidelines were also developed specifically to lessen the negative impacts 

of livestock grazing on other Forest resources that are expected to occur during the life of the 

plan. There are two standards (Std-Range-1 & 2) and six guidelines (Guide-Range-1 – 6) to 

regulate livestock grazing activities across the Forest. This guidance allows management 

flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, including vegetation responses to herbivory, drought 

and wildfire. The revised plan also includes two watershed guidelines (Guide-WS-4 & 9) that 

protect riparian areas and vegetation from livestock damage. Additionally, there are three wildlife 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

40 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

protection guidelines (Guide-WL-2, 3, & 9) that direct the use of design features, mitigation 

measures, and project timing considerations for rangeland improvements..

Concern PUB-02: The Forest Service should consider information from “Suggested 

Reductions in Cattle Grazing Capacity for Different Percentages of Slope” in evaluating 

capacity for livestock (102.09; 102.10).

Response: Methods for determining livestock capacity are set by Forest Service policy and 

included as part of individual allotment management plan development. Therefore, evaluating 

capacity for livestock is not a forest plan-level decision. Slope is one of the factors considered 

during the development of allotment management plans.

Concern PUB-03: The Forest Service should consider the implications of the publication 

“Wood Plenty, Grass Good, Water None. Vegetation Changes in Arizona’s Upper Verde 

River Watershed from 1850-1997” regarding the impacts of woody species and trees on 

vegetation and water quantity, particularly in respect to its assessment of the historic 

abundance of juniper (85.18).

Response: The publication cited provides an interesting literature review of the historic condition 

and density of juniper woodlands as described by visitors and settlers in the 1800s. The agency is 

aware that the juniper in some areas was historically quite dense. The historic density of juniper is 

just one element that the Forest Service considered in developing desired conditions and 

objectives for juniper woodlands. The desired conditions, developed in collaboration with the 

public, also included watershed condition and function, wildlife habitat needs, and human uses.

Concern PUB-04: The Forest Service should consider the implications of the ADEQ report 

regarding water quality in the Verde River and the Sierra Club report “The State of the 

Verde River” in its evaluation of Verde River water quality (85.56).

Response: The Forest Service has considered these documents and included the ADEQ report in 

its analysis. Implementing the revised plan would result in an improvement in water quality for 

the Verde River as projects are undertaken to improve the conditions and function of the 

watersheds associated with the Verde River. One of the desired conditions for watersheds in the 

revised plan is that water quality is sustained at a level that retains the biological, physical, and 

chemical integrity of the aquatic systems (DC-Watershed-1).

Concern PUB-05: The Forest Service should consider the implications of the publication 

“Adapting to Climate Change on Western Public Lands: Addressing the Ecological Effects 

of Domestic, Wild, and Feral Ungulates” regarding combined impacts of grazing by 

ungulates and climate change that are relevant to the proposed Forest Plan and the 

associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (85.30).

Response: The potential impacts of grazing by ungulates and climate change disclosed in the 

publication cited along with other climate and ecosystem science were considered during 

development of the revised plan and for estimating the environmental consequences of the 

revised plan and its alternatives in the EIS. 

These considerations resulted in the development of numerous plan components that direct 

management actions to minimize ungulate impacts to plant and animal communities, soils, and 

water resources. Specifically, chapter 2 of the revised plan describes the desired conditions for 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 41

how the vegetation, soil, watersheds, and wildlife habitats should look and function. Chapter 3 

identifies measurable, time-specific management actions (objectives) to achieve these desired 

conditions. Chapter 4 provides project-level guidance for implementation of these actions 

including eight standards and guidelines to constrain livestock grazing activities across the Forest. 

Chapter 6 includes direction for monitoring the management actions, measures, and decisions that 

the Forest Service is taking to enhance ecosystem resilience or adaptations in response to 

changing environmental conditions.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the revised plan and its alternatives related to 

livestock grazing and climate change were analyzed and disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS in the 

Ecosystem Responses to Changing Climate section and the Social and Economic Values –

Livestock Grazing section.

Concern PUB-06: The Arizona Game and Fish Department strategic plans referenced in the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement are obsolete (114.07; 114.08).

Response: This has been noted and the references have been updated, where appropriate, between 

the draft and final versions of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Recreation

Rec - General

Concern REC-01: Recreation use on the Prescott NF will increase as Arizona’s population 

increases (89.03).

Response: We agree that there is potential for higher demand for recreation resources due to 

population growth in the area. This issue is discussed in further detail in the Recreation Trends on 

the Prescott NF section of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Concern REC-02: The Forest Service should provide more recreational opportunities for a 

wide variety of users (11.04; 88.01).

Response: In the revised plan, the desired condition for recreation (DC-Rec-1) starts out by 

stating:

Recreation on the Prescott NF provides opportunities for current and future 

demographics, as well as those of all abilities, to discover and enjoy the landscape.

To assist in achieving this desired condition, the Prescott NF has included objectives in the 

revised plan to increase developed recreation opportunities (Objective 7), expand dispersed 

camping opportunities (Objective 8), construct and improve trailheads (Objective 11), enhance 

fishing opportunities (Objective 13), improve trails (Objective 17), and restore public access to 

national forest lands (Objective 30).

Concern REC-03: The Forest Service should not commit to constructing 2 to 5 new 

developed recreation areas (58.03; 92.02).

Response: The revised plan adopted the development range for Objective 7 from alternative D, 

one to two new developed recreation areas during the 10 years following plan approval. The 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

42 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Prescott NF Leadership Team selected this more modest level of development in response to 

concerns over the future availability of recreation funding and the desire to shift the recreation 

focus on the Prescott NF toward dispersed opportunities.

Concern REC-04: Unmanaged recreation poses a threat to forest resources (91.16).

Response: Desired conditions describe how the resources on the Prescott NF should look and 

function. They provide the basis for developing the objectives, standards, and guidelines 

identified in the revised plan that will guide recreation management on the forest. The desired 

conditions for recreation (DC-Rec-1) state that recreation facilities will

... concentrate use at key locations so that visitors enjoy the cultural and biophysical 

resources while protecting those resources

and that

Designated dispersed recreation occurs in areas that can accommodate 

concentrations of use, thereby lessening impacts to natural and cultural resources of 

other areas

To assist in achieving these desired conditions, the Prescott NF has included recreation objectives 

in the revised plan to increase developed recreation opportunities (Objective 7), expand dispersed 

camping opportunities (Objective 8), address needed maintenance at developed recreation sites 

(Objective 9), construct and improve trailheads (Objective 11), and improve trails (Objective 17).

Concern REC-05: The Forest Service should clarify how it plans to close current recreation 

areas and direct users to the new locations (111.14).

Response: Determinations on the methods for closure of any recreation areas and/or methods to 

direct users to new locations is not a plan level decision. Such methods will be determined at the 

project level on a case-by-case basis at a future date.

Concern REC-06: The Forest Service should develop local visitor surveys or web-based 

interactive tools to identify recreation experiences, determine user satisfaction, and track 

user conflicts (5.28; 5.29; 5.30; 5.39; 60.12; 88.07; 94.03; 94.04).

Response: The Prescott NF Leadership Team has recognized that better communication with 

visitors and potential visitors is needed in order to achieve the desired conditions stated in the 

revised plan. Objective 14 directs managers to develop new methods for providing visitor 

information and education. One of the methods suggested in the Background and Rationale, the 

improved use of web site opportunities or social media, addresses the suggestion to use webbased interactive tools to identify recreation experiences, determine user satisfaction, and track 

user conflicts.

Concern REC-07: The Forest Service should review and clarify the Recreation Standards 

and Guidelines (5.24; 5.25; 58.04; 75.10; 93.13).

Response: Based on comments and Forest Service review, changes were made to the Recreation 

Standards and Guidelines. Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Standards and Guidelines were 

separated from Recreation and placed in a new Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers section. 

Recreation Guideline 11 was re-written for clarity to read:
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 43

Within developed campgrounds, vegetation removal should promote visitor safety, 

scenic values, and vegetation health.

There were no other changes to the Recreation or Interpretation Standards and Guidelines.

Concern REC-08: The Forest Service should create a Travel Management Plan for bicycles 

and require them to obey traffic laws (5.04; 5.10).

Response: The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature. It does not include project level 

decisions. Those decisions are made later, only after specific proposals are identified and 

analyzed and there is the opportunity for public involvement. A travel management-type plan for 

bicycles is an example of a project level decision that would not be included in the revised plan.

Concern REC-09: The Forest Service should include equestrian use in the Recreation 

Suitability Matrix (116.02).

Response: In response to comments, equestrian use was added to the revised plan as a 

Nonmotorized Dispersed Recreation activity to the Recreation Suitability Matrix in Chapter 7.

Concern REC-10: The Forest Service should include disc golf as a potential future 

recreation activity on the Prescott NF (89.02).

Response: The Forest Service did not add disc golf as a potential future recreation activity on the 

Prescott NF. The revised plan is strategic in nature and consideration of specific recreation 

activities is best addressed at the project level.

Concern REC-11: The Forest Service should mention the recreation use occurring along the 

Prescott NF/BLM boundary west of Bumble Bee / Cleator in the description of this area

(44.02).

Response: No changes were made to the description of the Crown King Management Area 

between the draft and final versions of the revised plan. The area description focuses on the major 

recreation points and is not meant to provide a comprehensive list of opportunities in the area.

Concern REC-12: The Forest Service should add “human waste” as one of the problems 

from visitor use in bullet 1 of the Background and Rationale section on Objective 16 (85.50).

Response: The Forest Service did not add “human waste” as one of the problems from visitor use 

in bullet 1 of the Background and Rationale section on Objective 16. The language chosen was 

intended to provide a couple of examples, not an exhaustive list, of problems that may be 

amplified by visitor use.

Concern REC-13: The Forest Service should be careful about how much credibility they 

give to user conflict experiences, as those accounts may not be true or completely accurate 

(36.10).

Response: User conflict is subjective; in other words, it exists if someone believes that it exists.

The revised plan identifies in the third need for change (chapter 1) that as the population and 

numbers of visitors to the Prescott NF increases, the potential for conflict and between visitors 

needs to be addressed. Conflict is addressed in the desired conditions (DC-Rec-1, DC-Rec-2 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

44 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Trails, and the Management Area DCs), objectives (Background and Rationale for Objectives 10, 

11, and 17), and standards and guidelines (Guide-Rec-10).

Concern REC-14: It should be more directly stated in the desired conditions that “the 

Prescott NF will provide varied recreational opportunities as appropriate to protection of 

resources and safety of users”, and that “the change in demographics should not be the 

driving force to consider types of activities” (5.06; 5.07).

Response: The issue of providing recreation opportunities that are appropriate to the protection of 

resources and the safety of visitors has already been addressed in the desired conditions for 

recreation (DC-Rec-1). It states that recreation facilities will “concentrate use at key locations so 

that visitors enjoy the cultural and biophysical resources while protecting those resources” and 

that “designated dispersed recreation occurs in areas that can accommodate concentrations of use, 

thereby lessening impacts to natural and cultural resources of other areas.” It also states that 

“developed recreation sites are safe, clean, and sanitary,” “vegetation within developed recreation 

areas is diverse, healthy, and free from hazards to public safety”, and “visitors are aware of, and 

comply with, forest regulations”. 

Nowhere in the recreation desired conditions does it state that demographics are the driving force 

to consider types of activities. However, it does state that “recreation on the Prescott NF provides 

opportunities for current and future demographics”, and that “the number, location, and types of 

recreation facilities respond to changes in demand”.

Rec - Camping

Concern REC-15: The Forest Service should develop new campgrounds and designated 

dispersed camping areas of sufficient size to accommodate both vehicular and foot traffic

(111.05; 111.06).

Response: The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature. It does not include project level 

decisions. Those decisions are made later, only after specific proposals are identified and 

analyzed and there is the opportunity for public involvement. The size and design of any new 

camping area is an example of a project level decision that would not be included in the revised 

plan.

Concern REC-16: The Forest Service should increase the amount of dispersed camping on 

the forest (83.04).

Response: As noted in the revised plan under the Background and Rationale for Objective 8, in 

the absence of specific restrictions, a person can camp in any location on the Prescott NF outside 

of a developed recreation site. Objective 8 also directs the creation of up to 4 new designated 

dispersed camping areas, following the model established within the Prescott Basin.

Concern REC-17: The Forest Service should rephrase the Background and Rationale of the 

dispersed camping sites to state, “In absence of specific restrictions, a person can camp in 

any location on the forest outside of a developed recreation site, and within 300 feet of all 

roads designated as open on current Motor Vehicle Use Maps.” (114.16).

Response: The language suggested would be incorrect, as it would limit nonmotorized dispersed 

camping and back-country camping. Only motorized dispersed camping and dispersed car 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 45

camping are restricted to within 300 feet of roads designated as open on the current Motor 

Vehicle Use Map.

Rec - Motorized Use

Concern REC-18: The Forest Service should review and clarify the Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval (MBGR) Standards and Guidelines (4.07; 84.05; 93.09; 114.04; 114.05; 114.06).

Response: In response to comments, the Forest Service reviewed the Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval Standards and Guidelines. The Prescott NF Leadership determined that the MBGR 

policy was appropriate for the Prescott NF and complementary to MBGR policies in adjacent 

National Forests. Therefore, no changes were made between the draft and final versions of the 

revised plan.

Concern REC-19: The Forest Service should consider and address the social, economic, and 

resource impacts of motorized use on the forest (3.04; 9.01; 9.02; 36.09; 43.01; 43.03; 59.09; 

59.10; 78.01; 78.03; 91.15; 108.03).

Response: Forest plan components were developed after reviewing the direction provided in the 

2005 Travel Management Rule and the Prescott National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM) to ensure that the revised plan was consistent and not contrary to existing policy and 

regulations regarding motorized use on the forest. 

The revised plan contains direction stating:

Only designated roads, motorized trails, and motorized use areas as depicted and 

described on the motor vehicle use map are open to public motorized vehicle use 

(Std-Rec-1)

However, it does not include project level or site-specific decisions pertaining to road closures or 

area restrictions. It also provides for the use of motor vehicles for big game retrieval, with the 

stipulations outlined in Std-Rec-2 and Guide-Rec-1. 

The impacts and consequences of this management direction have been analyzed and are 

discussed in the EIS. The Dispersed Recreation section in Chapter 3 addresses the social and 

environmental aspects of motorized use. The economic contributions from motorized use are 

included with other types of recreation for the socioeconomic analysis in the Social and 

Economic Values section.

Rec - Target Shooting

Concern REC-20: The Forest Service should create more than one designated target 

shooting area to replace the current range (66.01; 66.02; 114.17).

Response: The revised plan does not contain any direction to construct a replacement venue for 

recreational shooting; however, it does note in the Background and Rationale for Objective 10 

that the Prescott NF would be open to entering into a partnership for a new facility. Objective 10 

was updated by the Prescott NF Leadership Team in the selected alternative to the revised plan to 

emphasize a shift towards raising awareness of responsible target shooting practices on the 

Prescott NF and to move away from the responsibility associated with being the sole owner and 

operator of a shooting range.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

46 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Concern REC-21: The Forest Service should evaluate the financial, environmental, and 

public safety issues associated with target shooting on the forest and consider prohibiting 

target shooting or restricting it to designated shooting ranges (2.01; 2.02; 2.03; 4.03; 5.13; 

5.15; 5.16; 5.32; 5.34; 5.37; 5.38; 11.10; 58.02; 111.08).

Response: Based on public comments and internal deliberation, the Prescott NF Leadership 

decided that the revised plan will not commit the Prescott NF to any new designated target 

shooting areas. Instead, Objective 10 was modified to shift the focus to raising awareness of 

responsible target shooting practices on the Prescott NF. 

The impacts and consequences of implementing this modified objective were analyzed in the 

Improvements to Recreation Sites portion of the Need for Change 3 section of the EIS. The 

economic contributions from recreational target shooting are included with other types of 

recreation for the socioeconomic analysis in the Social and Economic Values section.

Area closures, such as a prohibition on target shooting, are developed on a site-specific basis 

subject to appropriate NEPA analysis. The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature. It does 

include project level decisions. Those decisions are made later, only after specific proposals are 

identified and analyzed, and there is opportunity for public involvement.

Rec - Trails

Concern REC-22: The Forest Service should evaluate the trail system on the Prescott NF, 

taking into account trail design, user group needs, maintenance needs, and trail safety. 

Multiple use trails should be encouraged where possible, but trails that are unable to 

accommodate the proper conditions for multiuse trails should be designated for single use. 

Once trail designations are made, the Forest Service should work with the various user 

groups to develop safety guidelines for trail use on the Prescott NF (1.05; 5.02; 5.03; 5.05; 

5.08; 5.09; 5.11; 5.12; 5.17; 5.19; 5.20; 5.21; 5.22; 5.42; 11.06; 11.07; 11.08; 13.02; 13.03; 

31.04; 34.01; 34.02; 34.03; 36.04; 36.05; 60.07; 70.03; 70.04; 70.05; 79.04; 79.05; 79.06; 

83.03; 91.14; 94.06; 94.07; 94.09; 110.01; 110.02; 110.03; 110.04; 111.07; 111.09; 111.15; 

115.01; 116.01; 116.03; 116.04; 116.05).

Response: The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature and does not include project level 

decisions. An evaluation of the trail system on the Prescott NF is therefore outside the scope of 

the decision being made.

The revised plan does include language in the Background and Rationale section of Objective 17 

that notes that

... the completion of a comprehensive trail plan could increase recreation 

opportunities for all users by prioritizing improvements to existing trails or adding 

new trails to the system.

However, a comprehensive trail plan would be a separate process that would include the 

identification and analysis of specific proposals and the opportunity for public involvement. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 47

Concern REC-23: The Forest Service should add the use of mountain bikes to the DC-Rec-2 

Trails section of this plan, and/or a clarification that mountain bikes are considered 

nonmotorized recreation (94.05).

Response: The revised plan recognizes mountain biking as a Nonmotorized Dispersed Recreation 

activity in the Recreation Suitability section of Chapter 7. This is a more appropriate plan 

component for the suggestion than the desired conditions, as the language chosen for DC-Rec-2 

Trails was intended to provide an example, not an exhaustive list, of recreation use on trails and 

trailheads.

Concern REC-24: The Forest Service should consider the following language for DC-Rec-2 

Trails to be consistent with that found in the Hassayampa Field Office's BradshawHarquahala RMP. "Easements or rights-of- way across key private and State administered 

lands will be acquired to ensure long term network viability and public access. Easements 

or rights-of-way actions will be undertaken when: route system effectiveness is or would be 

adversely affected by outside actions; opportunity becomes available and the action is 

consistent with recreation settings and goals; recreation and resource disciplines need public 

and/or administrative access to sites; portal access is desired to support resource objectives 

of safety and sustainability." (44.01).

Response: The language suggested for consideration was deemed more appropriate for an 

objective than a desired condition and was used to inform the development of Objective 30 for 

the final revised plan, which states:

Identify and act on up to 10 opportunities to secure legal access to areas where 

historic access to the national forest has been lost during the 10 years following plan 

approval

No changes were made to DC-Rec-2 Trails.

Concern REC-25: The Forest Service should increase the amount of trail signage (94.08; 

111.10).

Response: The revised plan contains an objective (Objective 11) to improve facilities (including 

signage) at 5 to 20 trailheads. In addition, the revised plan also includes an objective (Objective 

12) to increase the sign maintenance to 10 to 20 percent of signage annually.

Concern REC-26: The Forest Service should use mechanized equipment such as compact 

excavators to build trails (70.06).

Response: The revised plan is strategic in nature and does not include project level decisions. The 

specific types of tools used for trail construction is a project level decision, and therefore outside 

the scope of the decision being made.

Research Natural Areas

Concern RNA-01: The Forest Service should designate the upper Verde River as a Research 

Natural Area (85.11).

Response: Research natural areas (RNAs) are areas that are set aside to create a spectrum of high 

quality natural communities that are part of a national network for research, education, and 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

48 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

maintenance of biological diversity. The process to establish RNAs is documented in the Forest 

Service Manual 4063. During plan revision, national forests are to consider the need for, and 

identification of, RNAs. The potential research natural areas on the Prescott NF were evaluated in 

a 3-step process: 

1. Review existing information 

2. Determine the quality of ecologically underrepresented areas

3. Recommend areas as potential RNAs 

The upper Verde River was identified as a potential RNA, but the Forest Supervisor chose not to 

develop interim management direction and recommend the area for RNA establishment. This is 

because segments of the upper Verde River are already classified as an eligible wild and scenic 

river, and the plan contains direction in the form of desired conditions and standards and 

guidelines that protect the outstandingly remarkable value of eligible river segments. It was 

determined that recommendation as an RNA would not provide additional meaningful protection 

for the upper Verde River.

The RNA evaluation process included review of eight types of under-represented terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems on the Prescott NF. Upper Grapevine Creek was identified as an 

underrepresented seeps and springs aquatic ecosystem. The Forest Supervisor chose not to 

forward the recommendation to the Regional Forrester for approval because of interests in 

actively managing the area’s natural resources in collaboration with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department.

Additional information about the RNA evaluation process can be found in the “Prescott National 

Forest Research Natural Area Evaluation Process Summary Report” (Forest Service, 2010). The 

entire report is filed as part of the planning record and can be viewed on the Prescott NF plan 

revision Web site.

Vegetation Management

Concern VEG-01: Achieving long term vegetation restoration objectives is an acceptable 

and commendable use of resources (30.02; 30.03; 31.02).

Response: The Prescott NF concurs that achievement of vegetation restoration objectives is an 

acceptable use of resources. This is evidenced by the emphasis of the need for vegetation 

restoration found throughout both the revised plan and the Environmental Impact Statement EIS.

Concern VEG-02: The Forest Service should add another desired condition and supporting 

objectives for vegetation management that focuses on ecosystem health (85.26).

Response: Many of the desired conditions and their supporting objectives in the revised plan were 

created to address the need to restore vegetation structure and composition and desired 

characteristics of fire to selected ecosystems. This identified need for change and associated 

desired conditions illustrates a focus on ecosystem health by acknowledging that there is a 

deviation between current and desired conditions and a need to address those deviations.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 49

Concern VEG-03: The Forest Service should make grassland habitat restoration a top 

priority by adding desired conditions, standards, and guidelines for all of the historic and 

present grassland habitats on the Prescott NF (102.38; 102.40; 102.43).

Response: Desired conditions for grasslands and all other Potential Natural Vegetation Types 

(PNVTs) described in Chapter 2 of the revised plan represent a restored condition. Managing for 

the attainment of desired conditions will facilitate grassland habitat restoration. Past and future 

management practices, climate change, as well as social and economic considerations all have 

played a role and will continue to play a role in the extent of grasslands or any other vegetation 

type. By managing for the potential natural vegetation as is the intent of the revised plan, 

grasslands will be managed for places where they occur and could occur in the future, rather than 

managing all areas that were historically considered to be grasslands in the past. 

The purpose of the revised plan is to identify long term management direction of resources on the 

Prescott NF. A desired condition for all vegetation types on the Prescott NF is to have diverse 

vegetation structure, species composition, and densities, provide quality habitat for native and 

desirable nonnative plant and animal species throughout their life cycle and at multiple spatial 

scales. Achieving DCs in grasslands has been given emphasis as it is an objective of the revised 

plan as identified in Chapter 3. Prioritization of where work will be completed within the 

direction provided by the plan is dictated by a myriad of variables such as funding, staffing levels, 

tradeoffs among resources, and work that has been accomplished. Projects that are created and 

implemented under the guidance of the revised plan will have more specific directions such as 

how fences in pronghorn habitat will be constructed and the desired ratio or grasses, forbs and 

shrubs in a given area. This level of detail is not appropriate at a forest plan level.

Concern VEG-04: The Forest Service should clarify the rationale for the proposed juniper 

removal (85.19; 85.22; 85.23; 85.24).

Response: Rationale for Desired Conditions in juniper Potential Natural Vegetation Types 

(PNVTs) and the associated Objective pertaining to juniper removal treatments are based upon 

the need to restore and maintain vegetation structure and disturbance regimes. As noted in the 

Background for PNVTs section of Chapter 2 in the revised plan, the restoration of all PNVTs 

would serve to increase ecosystem resilience or adaptive capacity of plant communities to 

accommodate expected changes imposed by future climate trends for the Southwest. 

The need to restore and maintain vegetation structure and disturbance regimes was established in 

the “Analysis of the Management Situation” (Forest Service, 2009a) which summarizes key 

findings from the “Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009b), developed to 

identify current conditions and probable future trends. These documents, and all documents 

associated with the revision of the plan, can be viewed and downloaded from the Prescott NF 

plan revision Web site (www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement).

Concern VEG-05: The Forest Service should clarify the causes of tree and shrub 

encroachment in the juniper Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVTs) (85.20; 85.21).

Response: The cause of tree and shrub encroachment in juniper grasslands is described in the 

Background and Rationale for Objective 3 (in Chapter 3) in the revised plan:

Within the juniper grasslands, the exclusion of fire has allowed encroachment of 

juniper trees. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

50 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Concern VEG-06: The Forest Service should re-evaluate the desired conditions for PiñonJuniper Woodlands (75.01; 90.03).

Response: Based on comments, the Forest Service reviewed the desired conditions for PiñonJuniper Woodlands but did not make any changes. Desired conditions for all vegetation types 

described in the revised plan are science based and were created to assist with the restoration and 

maintenance of healthy ecosystems while providing for the sustainable use of those ecosystems.

Concern VEG-07: The Forest Service should provide more information on how the 

characteristics of mixed conifer forests will be maintained (81.04).

Response: Based on comments and Forest Service review, the revised plan has been modified to 

include more information regarding how the characteristics of mixed conifer forest will be 

maintained. The following language was added to the desired conditions for the Ponderosa PineGambel Oak Potential Natural Vegetation Type (PNVT) in Chapter 2 of the revised plan:

In areas with aspen, Douglas-fir, and white fir present, trees typically occur in 

irregularly shaped groups, trees within groups are variably spaced, and group sizes 

generally range from a few trees up to 1.1 acres. Crowns of trees within the mid-aged 

to old groups are interlocking or nearly interlocking.

and

In areas with aspen, Douglas-fir, and white fir present, tree densities range from 30 

to 100 square feet of basal area per acre and interspaces surrounding tree groups 

range from 50 to 70 percent of the midscale area.

This updated language provides consistency with the desired conditions described for 

surrounding national forests. This direction is based on descriptions provided in the RMRS-GTR310 (Forest Service, 2013).

Concern VEG-08: The Forest Service should ensure that any change to existing standards 

and guidelines must include analysis of impacts to old growth forest and associated species, 

as required by the 1982 planning regulations (106.38).

Response: There are no requirements in the 1982 planning rule for analyzing the impacts of 

changes to standards and guidelines specifically related to old growth. However, the impacts of 

the revised and new management direction were analyzed for each of the vegetation types 

(PNVTs) that occur on the forest. The effects of each alternative on the components of vegetation 

structure were analyzed in the EIS. The analysis in the EIS also covered project level direction in 

the revised plan including objectives, standards, and guidelines.

Within the revised plan, old growth is addressed as a component of vegetation structure described 

within the desired conditions for each PNVT (DC-Veg-6 to DC-Veg-23), which includes size and 

age classes, and specific habitat features (i.e., old trees, dead trees or snags, and downed wood or 

coarse woody debris). This approach was chosen as it is more comprehensive and flexible than 

treating old growth as a distinct vegetation type.

Between draft and final versions of the plan, a guideline (Guide-Veg-7) was added to ensure 

protection of old growth trees over time across all vegetation types. It states:
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 51

Projects in forested and woodland communities that change stand structure should 

generally retain at least historic frequencies of trees by species across broad age and 

diameter classes at the mid-scale. As such, the largest and oldest trees are usually 

retained.

and

Project design should also identify replacement features to assure continuous 

representation of old growth over time. Features that should be retained include: old 

trees, dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and diverse stand 

structure.

As noted, guidelines must be followed but may be modified if the action is consistent with the 

intent of the guideline, there is a documented rationale for the deviation, and the specific action 

has undergone a NEPA analysis with public review.

Concern VEG-09: The Forest Service should analyze old growth forest conditions to 

develop old growth standards and guidelines for the revised plan (106.39; 106.40).

Response: The introduction to Chapter 4 of the revised plan explains that standards and 

guidelines do not include statements that recommend an analysis, inventory, or monitoring. 

However, desired conditions for old growth were developed for several PNVTs at the landscape 

scale in the revised plan and are located throughout Chapter 2. An example from one such desired 

condition (DC-Veg-6) reads as follows:

Old growth occurs throughout the landscape, generally in small areas as individual 

old growth components, or as clumps of old growth. Old growth components include 

old trees, snags, coarse woody debris (downed wood), and structural diversity. The 

location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and 

disturbance (tree growth and mortality).

Concern VEG-10: The Forest Service should clarify what nonnative invasive plant species 

they are referring to in Objective 6 (109.02).

Response: The definition of nonnative invasive plants can be found in the glossary section of the 

revised plan:

Species that are not native to the ecosystem being described and that cause, or have 

the potential to cause, ecological or economic harm.

Individual species are not listed in Objective -6 as it would restrict the management of nonnative

invasive plants that may become threats in the future due to changes in climate or other 

ecosystem conditions.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

52 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Watersheds

Watersheds - General

Concern WATER-01: The Forest Service should place a major emphasis on watershed 

protection and restoration as a goal (15.01; 15.02; 15.03; 48.05; 109.10; 114.09).

Response: One of the focal points of the revised plan is the need to improve watershed conditions 

on the Prescott NF. This was identified as one of the needs for change in management direction, 

and as such, desired conditions, objectives, and standards and guidelines addressing these 

concerns have been developed. The desired conditions describe how the watersheds on the 

Prescott NF should look and function, the objectives provide direction to help meet these desired 

conditions, and the standards and guidelines provide guidance for project and activity 

decisionmaking.

Watershed-related plan components were developed to cover surface flows, riparian areas, soil 

productivity and function, municipal water supplies, and groundwater resources. These include 

six sets of desired conditions (DC-Watershed-1 through 6), seven plan objectives (Objectives 18 

through 23 and Objective 31), and two sets of standards and guidelines (Std-WS-1 through 3, 

Guide-WS-1 through 11, and Guide-Soils-1 through 5). 

Based on public comments and internal review, revisions were made to some of these plan 

components between the draft and final versions of the revised plan to strengthen management 

direction and to clarify guidance.

Concern WATER-02: The Forest Service should revise the wording on Need for Change 2; 

the recommendation is “Consideration to include a properly functional watershed, 

providing stable habitats for both biological diversity and human recreational uses.”

(114.09).

Response: The existing wording for Need for Change 2 in Chapter 1 of the revised plan states:

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

timing of delivery.

It was determined that the existing wording is more direct and better frames the intent of the 

statement. Therefore, no changes were made to this Need for Change between the draft and final 

versions of the revised plan.

Concern WATER-03: The Forest Service should modify the Watershed Standards and 

Guidelines (85.06; 85.29).

Response: Based on comments, the Forest Service reviewed the Watershed Standards and 

Guidelines. It was determined that the Standards and Guidelines are adequate as written and do 

not require any changes between the draft and final versions of the revised plan.

Concern WATER-04: The Forest Service should re-evaluate the statement "soil condition 

rating is at or trending toward satisfactory” (74.02; 85.27; 90.02; 92.01).

Response: The desired condition statements for watershed and soils were reviewed and some 

were modified to be more specific, realistic and achievable. The statement "Soil condition rating 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 53

is at or trending toward satisfactory" was modified to "Soils with a condition rating below 

satisfactory (i.e. impaired or unsatisfactory) do not further decline in function and trend toward a 

satisfactory rating where environmental factors allow” for inclusion in the revised plan.

Concern WATER-05: The Forest Service should modify Objectives 18 and 20 in terms of 

reaching the desired conditions for the Prescott NF watersheds (75.02; 75.03).

Response: Based on public comments and internal review, the Prescott NF Leadership revised 

Objectives 18 and 20 in the selected alternative for the revised plan. The new language for 

Objective 18 changes the extent of the objective and clarifies that the emphasis is on high-priority 

watersheds. As re-written, Objective 18 states:

Within each high priority watershed, implement 5 to 50 essential projects that 

improve or maintain watershed conditions during the 10 years following plan 

approval.

Objective 20 was modified by removing language referencing routine road and trail maintenance, 

as it was decided that the inclusion of routine maintenance would weaken the objective. Objective 

20, as re-written, states:

Repair or relocate 20 to 100 miles of National Forest System roads or trails that 

impact watershed integrity during the 10 years following plan approval.

No other changes were made to Objective 20.

Concern WATER-06: The Forest Service should adopt Objective 23 to benefit the seeps and 

springs on the forest (109.07).

Response: The Prescott NF Leadership Team revised Objective 23 in the selected alternative for 

the revised plan to clarify its focus on seeps and springs. Objective 23, as re-written, states:

Maintain or enhance 25 to 55 discrete sites that are water dependent ecosystems 

containing seeps and springs during the 10 years following plan approval.

No other changes were made to Objective 23.

Concern WATER-07: For watershed, recommend reducing woody species (46.04; 91.11).

Response: As noted in the Need for Change section in Chapter 1 of the EIS, undesirable soil and 

vegetation conditions have reduced the watershed integrity within several sub-basins on the 

Prescott NF. The revised plan contains desired conditions for watersheds that include retaining or 

enhancing soil and vegetation conditions in upland and riparian settings (DC-Watershed-1) and an 

objective to treat 20,000 to 90,000 acres in juniper grasslands, piñon-juniper evergreen shrub, and 

piñon-juniper woodlands PNVTs to improve watershed conditions (Objective 3).

Concern WATER-08: The Forest Service should improve the Granite Basin Lake watershed 

to prevent the flow of silt into the lake (85.49).

Response: Improvements to the watershed containing Granite Basin Lake could be considered 

under Objective-18 as an essential project that improves or maintains watershed conditions. 

Because the revised plan is strategic in nature, it does not include project level decisions. Those 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

54 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

decisions are made later, only after specific proposals are identified and analyzed and there is the 

opportunity for public involvement.

Watersheds - Riparian

Concern WATER-09: The Forest Service should provide clarification as to the current 

conditions of the riparian areas on the Prescott NF (81.21; 102.19).

Response: The Need for Change 2 section of Chapter 3 of the EIS summarizes the current 

watershed conditions on the Prescott NF and the consequences of implementing the revised plan 

or its alternatives. This includes a summary analysis of the conditions of and consequences to the 

riparian areas, seeps, and springs on the forest. The full analysis can be found in the “Prescott 

National Forest Plan Revision EIS Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2011d). Initial findings on the sustainability of and risks to watersheds can be found in the 

“Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009b) prepared for the Prescott NF and 

referenced in the EIS.

Concern WATER-10: The Forest Service should include strong measures, including 

additional standards, for valuing and protecting the soil and riparian resources of the forest, 

in the forest plan (4.05; 85.1a; 85.03; 85.04; 85.05; 90.04; 91.13; 102.46; 102.47; 108.01; 

108.02).

Response: The revised plan contains a strong commitment to protecting and restoring soil 

function and riparian areas on the Prescott NF. Desired conditions, objectives, and standards and 

guidelines addressing these issues have been developed to guide management of soil and riparian 

resources. 

The second set of desired conditions for watersheds (DC-Watershed-2) focuses on riparian areas, 

and the third set of desired conditions focuses on soil productivity and function (DC-Watershed3). To assist in achieving DC-Watershed-2, the Prescott NF has included an objective in the 

revised plan to counter 1 to 3 critical threats to riparian system functionality (Objective 19), and a 

new objective to pursue the acquisition of in-stream flow water rights to protect riparian aquifer 

recharge (Objective 31). 

The standards and guidelines for watersheds and soils provide guidance for project and sitespecific decisionmaking to help achieve the desired conditions and objectives. Two of the three 

watershed standards (Std-WS-1 and 3) are aimed at protecting riparian corridors, along with 

seven of the eleven watershed guidelines (Guide-WS-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10). There are five soils 

guidelines (Guide-Soils-1 to 5), including three new guidelines (Guide-Soils-3 to 5) developed 

between the draft and final versions of the revised plan.

Concern WATER-11: The Forest Service should expand the Riparian Areas, Seeps, and 

Springs Affected Environment section of the EIS (92.03).

Response: Based on public comments and internal deliberation, the Prescott NF Leadership 

developed a new alternative (Alternative E) as the selected alternative for the revised plan. The 

new alternative contains changes to two objective (Objective 19 and Objective 23) discussed in 

the Riparian Areas, Seeps, and Springs section of the EIS. As a result, the Riparian Areas, Seeps, 

and Springs analysis was revised and expanded.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 55

Concern WATER-12: The east side of Prescott NF is being impacted by random use which 

causes disruption to the riparian habitat (111.03).

Response: One of the focal points of the revised plan is the need to improve watershed conditions 

on the Prescott NF. Protecting or improving watersheds would help to maintain or improve

aquatic and riparian species habitat. This is addressed in the desired conditions for watersheds 

(DC-Watershed-2) where it states:

Riparian corridors are intact and are trending toward properly functioning condition 

across the landscape.

To assist in achieving this desired condition, the Prescott NF has included an 

objective in the revised plan to counter 1 to 3 critical threats to riparian system 

functionality (Objective 19).

Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers

WWSR - General

Concern WWSR -01: The Forest Service should review and clarify the Wilderness and 

W&SR Standards and Guidelines (35.17; 93.10; 93.11; 93.12).

Response: Based on comments and Forest Service review, the Wilderness and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Standards and Guidelines were separated from Recreation and placed in a new Wilderness 

and Wild and Scenic Rivers section. Wilderness Standard 1 was modified to emphasize 

wilderness characteristics and now reads:

Wilderness characteristics and values shall take precedence over recreation uses 

where conflicts occur.

A new Wilderness Guideline (Guide-Wild-10) was added to replace separate Management Area 

guidelines for each recommended wilderness areas in Chapter 5. There were no other changes to 

the Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Standards and Guidelines.

Concern WWSR -02: The Forest Service should ensure any new recreation areas do not 

preclude any sections of the upper Verde River from further consideration as a wild and 

scenic river (85.47; 85.48; 93.06).

Response: The Wild and Scenic River Standard #2 ensures that authorized uses do not adversely 

affect either the eligibility or the tentative classification of river segments that are eligible for 

wild/scenic river designation. This would include approximately 38 miles of the upper Verde

River upstream from Clarkdale to the Prescott NF boundary near Paulden.

Concern WWSR -03: The Forest Service should move the Wilderness and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers to the physical or biological categories within the desired conditions and standards 

and guidelines sections and insert references to Management Area direction in pertinent 

sections of the Forest Plan (93.01; 93.02; 93.03; 93.04; 93.14; 93.15).

Response: Between draft and final versions of the revised plan, the Wilderness and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers sections were separated from Recreation, but are still categorized under Social and 

Economic Resources within the desired conditions and standards and guidelines sections rather 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

56 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

than Physical or Biological Resources. A new Wilderness guideline (Guide-Wild-10) was added 

to replace separate Management Area guidelines for each recommended wilderness areas in 

Chapter 5.

Concern WWSR -04: The Forest Service should add “wilderness character” to the list of 

values under Desired Conditions Open Space-1 (35.13).

Response: Based on comments, the Forest Service reviewed the list of values under DC-Open 

Space-1. Wilderness character was not added to this list as it is incorporated into the Desired 

Conditions for Wilderness in DC-Wild-1.

Concern WWSR -05: The Forest Service should reference DC-Wild and Scenic-1 as one of 

the goals for Objective 24 (93.08).

Response: In response to comments, the Forest Service added a reference to DC-Wild and Scenic1 in Objective 24.

Concern WWSR -06: The Forest Service should not propose new wilderness areas where 

the watersheds are not functioning properly (15.07).

Response: Areas recommended for future wilderness designation under the revised plan will be 

managed to retain their wilderness character (DC-Wild-1) until Congress takes action, if ever, to 

formally designate them. Concurrently, Desired Conditions have been written describing how the 

watersheds on the Prescott NF should look and function, and Objectives 18 through 23 provide 

direction to help meet these desired conditions. These objectives apply forest-wide, and could 

include areas recommended for wilderness designation.

Recommended wilderness areas are not subject to the same management restrictions as formally 

designated wilderness. Where watersheds may not be functioning properly, the Forest Supervisor 

may exercise discretion in determining that proposed site-specific actions are consistent with 

retaining the area’s wilderness character, while meeting other resource management objectives.

Concern WWSR -07: The Forest Service should add a number of new objectives for the

benefit of wilderness (93.07).

Response: Between the draft and final versions of the revised plan, the Forest Service did not add 

any new objectives pertaining to wilderness. When developing alternative E for the revised plan, 

the Prescott NF Leadership Team took a number of factors into consideration, including the need 

to balance competing uses on the forest and work towards desired conditions while operating 

within expected funding levels. Although new objectives were proposed for many resource areas, 

the Prescott NF Leadership Team chose to adopt only two new objectives in the final Plan, and 

these objectives address the issues of instream flow water rights and securing lost historic access 

to the forest. The specific suggestions for new wilderness objectives were not adopted because 

they provided direction more suitable to the Monitoring Strategy found in chapter 6 of the revised 

plan.

Concern WWSR -08: The Forest Service should allow the use of fixed anchors in Granite 

Mountain Wilderness (95.01; 95.02).

Response: The revised plan does allow for the use and maintenance of existing fixed anchors for 

rock climbing in Granite Mountain Wilderness; however, new fixed anchor routes and the use of 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 57

power drills and other electro-mechanical or pneumatic devices for maintaining existing anchors 

is prohibited. This direction is contained in the first Standard for the Williamson Valley South 

Management Area.

Concern WWSR -09: The Forest Service should clarify how it plans to maintain wilderness 

boundaries as ground and aerial uses increase (111.13).

Response: The revised plan contains an objective (Objective 15) to mark the boundaries on 

portions of 2 to 5 designated wilderness areas with a high risk of motorized or mechanized 

trespass. The specific locations and methods employed to meet this objective will be determined 

at the project level, and therefore are outside the scope of the decision being made.

WWSR - Mountain Bikes

Concern WWSR -10: The Forest Service should update the Wilderness Act to allow bicycles

(8.02; 42.02; 42.03).

Response: It is not within the authority of the USDA Forest Service or the scope of this decision 

to update, modify, or amend the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577). Section 4(c) of the

Wilderness Act states:

... there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment 

or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no 

structure or installation within any such area.

“No other form of mechanical transport” has been interpreted by the Forest Service as a 

prohibition of mountain bike use within designated wilderness.

Concern WWSR -11: The Forest Service should discuss the issue of mountain bikes and 

motorized vehicles accessing wilderness areas, throughout both the Plan and the EIS (5.33; 

5.35; 5.43).

Response: The revised plan is intended to provide management direction; it does not analyze 

issues. The discussion of mountain bikes and motorized vehicles accessing wilderness areas is 

contained in the Environmental Consequences for Dispersed Recreation section of Chapter 3 in 

the EIS.

Concern WWSR -12: The Forest Service should not take action that would restrict 

mountain bike use, and consider Special Use Area designations instead of Wilderness (6.02; 

6.03; 7.02; 7.03; 8.01; 12.02; 12.03; 32.02; 32.03; 33.01; 42.01; 49.01; 54.02; 57.04; 60.01; 

60.02; 60.03; 60.05; 60.08; 60.09; 65.01; 70.07; 88.02; 88.03; 88.04; 88.05; 94.10; 105.01; 

107.01; 107.02; 107.03).

Response: Based on public comments and internal discussion, the Forest Service changed the set 

of potential wilderness areas (PWAs) recommended for wilderness designation in the final revised 

plan (alternative E). The wilderness recommendations were selected to balance concerns for 

recreation and administrative access with the public’s desire to expand existing wilderness 

opportunities. All eight recommended PWAs are contiguous to existing designated wilderness, 

with few if any trails that do not cross over into the existing wilderness areas. As mountain bike 

are not allowed in designated wilderness areas, it was thought that the change should minimize 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

58 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

the disruption to existing mountain biking opportunities, compared to the other alternatives that 

contained more wilderness recommendations.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (P.L. 94-588) requires that all areas meeting 

minimum criteria as wilderness (i.e., roadless and undeveloped) be considered for 

recommendation for wilderness designation during plan revision. There are similar requirements 

for the consideration of research natural areas and wild and scenic rivers; however, there are no 

requirements to consider Special Use Areas as it is not a formal classification. There are no 

recommendations to designate any of these three types of areas in the revised plan.

WWSR - Recommended and Potential Wilderness Areas

Concern WWSR -13: The Forest Service should recommend various Potential Wilderness 

Areas for wilderness designation (35.07; 35.10; 82.03; 85.51; 85.72; 85.76; 93.22; 99.01; 

108.04; 109.11; 113.03).

Concern WWSR -14: The Forest Service should not recommend any Potential Wilderness 

Areas for wilderness designation (6.01; 7.01; 11.02; 11.03; 12.01; 32.01; 36.06; 36.07; 38.01; 

39.01; 40.01; 40.03; 40.07; 56.02; 57.02; 114.01; 114.02; 114.21).

Response: As part of the Forest Plan Revision process, the Prescott NF identified and evaluated 

potential wilderness areas (PWAs) according to the procedure outlined in agency guidance (Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 70). Eight of twenty-eight potential wilderness areas were 

recommended for wilderness designation by the Prescott NF Leadership Team. These areas are 

Apache Creek A PWA, Castle Creek PWA, Cedar Bench A PWA, Cedar Bench B PWA, Juniper 

Mesa PWA, Pine Mountain B PWA, Sycamore Canyon A PWA, and Woodchute PWA. These 

PWAs were selected by the Prescott NF Leadership Team to complement the desired conditions 

stated in the revised plan. All eight PWAs are contiguous to existing designated wilderness and 

will increase the quantity and diversity of primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities on 

the Prescott NF. When selecting the recommended areas, the Prescott NF Leadership Team 

considered the opportunity costs associated with wilderness designation, as well as issues raised 

in public comments. These included the desire for additional opportunities for solitude in an 

unconfined setting, calls to preserve existing access for mountain bikes, and the operational needs 

of livestock-grazing permittees. More information can be found in the “Prescott National Forest 

Plan Revision EIS Wilderness Recommendations by Forest Plan Alternative” (Forest Service, 

2014b), which can be accessed on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site 

(www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement).

The Regional Forester will choose whether or not to offer any recommended wilderness areas for 

further review by the Chief of the Forest Service. The Chief may elect to forward a 

recommendation with bill wording to the Secretary of Agriculture, who may elect to transmit the 

proposed bill to Congress. It takes an act of Congress to designate a Wilderness Area, and the 

process of drafting and passing a wilderness bill can take an uncertain amount of time. The most 

recent legislation to create designated wilderness in Arizona was the Arizona Desert Wilderness 

Act of 1990.

Concern WWSR -15: The Forest Service should not recommend Black Canyon Potential 

Wilderness Area for wilderness designation (37.01; 37.02; 37.06; 38.04; 39.02; 40.02; 40.08; 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 59

41.01; 41.02; 41.04; 50.01; 50.02; 50.03; 51.01; 51.02; 52.02; 55.02; 57.03; 60.06; 60.11; 

61.01; 88.06; 94.01; 94.11; 98.01; 98.03; 98.04; 103.01; 103.02; 107.04).

Response: The Prescott NF Leadership Team recommended eight Potential Wilderness Areas for 

wilderness designation; Black Canyon Potential Wilderness Area was not among the PWAs 

recommended. 

The recommended areas are Apache Creek A PWA, Castle Creek PWA, Cedar Bench A PWA, 

Cedar Bench B PWA, Juniper Mesa PWA, Pine Mountain B PWA, Sycamore Canyon A PWA, 

and Woodchute PWA.

Concern WWSR -16: The Forest Service should re-evaluate some of the Potential 

Wilderness Areas (75.11; 85.53; 85.55; 85.57; 85.58; 85.59; 85.60; 85.61; 85.62; 85.63; 85.64; 

85.65; 85.66; 85.67; 85.68; 85.69; 85.70; 85.71; 85.73; 85.74; 85.77; 85.78; 85.79; 93.17; 

93.18; 93.19; 93.20; 93.21).

Response: The 1982 Planning Rule Provisions provide direction for conducting forest plan 

revision efforts and outline the requirement for the potential wilderness evaluation as follows:

...[unroaded] areas within the National Forest System shall be evaluated and 

considered for recommendation as potential wilderness areas during the forest 

planning process... 

(Section 217.17)

The methodology and results of this evaluation were documented in the “Prescott National Forest

Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report” (Forest Service, 2012). Although this report contained 

ratings for the potential wilderness areas, it did not contain any recommendations of areas for 

wilderness designation.

Twenty-eight potential wilderness areas were identified and evaluated according to the process 

stipulated in the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 70, with additional guidance provided 

by the Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office as noted in the Prescott NF 2012 Potential 

Wilderness Evaluation (PWE) report. Although some of the areas identified overlapped with

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, the 

PWA boundaries were separate and distinct. Eight of the twenty-eight PWAs were determined to 

be incapable of supporting wilderness character and were not considered for further evaluation.

The twenty remaining PWAs were assessed for availability and need in the PWE, and all but two 

(Fritsche A and Pine Mountain A PWAs) were included in alternatives evaluated for the EIS. The 

PWAs recommended in each alterative are also listed in the Prescott National Forest Plan 

Revision EIS Wilderness Recommendations by Forest Plan Alternative (Forest Service, 2014b)

which can be accessed on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site 

(www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement).

The ratings for the PWAs were but one of a number of factors considered by the Prescott NF 

Leadership Team when crafting their final recommendations for submission to the Regional 

Forester. Other factors included public comments in support or against particular areas, the need 

for active management in some areas to restore ecosystem functions, and concerns over the 

disruption of existing access for recreation and administrative use.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

60 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Concern WWSR -17: The Forest Service should clarify how the discretion of the Forest 

Supervisor would affect the management of recommended wilderness areas (60.04).

Response: Areas recommended for future wilderness designation under the revised plan will be 

managed to retain their wilderness character (DC-Wild-1) until Congress takes action, if ever, to 

formally designate them. However, recommended wilderness areas are not subject to the same 

management restrictions as formally designated wilderness. The Forest Supervisor may exercise 

discretion in determining that proposed site-specific actions within a given recommended 

wilderness area are consistent with retaining the area’s wilderness character.

Concern WWSR -18: The Forest Service is required to manage and protect all potential 

wilderness areas as if they were designated wilderness until Congress makes a 

determination as to their eligibility for wilderness designation (5.45).

Response: Section 217.17 of the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions requires that unroaded areas 

within the National Forest System be evaluated and considered for recommendation for 

wilderness designation during plan revision. The Prescott NF used the wilderness evaluation 

process outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70; the areas assessed were 

identified as potential wilderness areas (PWAs). Identification as a PWA does not confer any 

special status to an area nor require any additional management restrictions; it simply identifies 

which areas were assessed in the “Prescott National Forest 2012 Potential Wilderness Evaluation 

Report” (Forest Service, 2012).

Areas recommended for wilderness designation by the Regional Forester will be managed to 

maintain their wilderness characteristics until further action is initiated by the Forest Service to 

forward the recommendations to Congress for designation. The list of recommended areas will be 

included in the Record of Decision for the revised plan.

Concern WWSR -19: The Forest Service should develop a maintenance program to ensure 

that recommended wilderness areas are capable of supporting natural low intensity fire 

regimes (15.08).

Response: The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature. It does not include project level 

decisions. Those decisions are made later, only after specific proposals are identified and 

analyzed and there is the opportunity for public involvement. A fire regime maintenance program 

for an individual recommended wilderness area is an example of a project level decision that 

would not be included in the revised plan.

Wildlife

Wildlife - General

Concern WILD-01: The Forest Service should re-evaluate the Management Indicator 

Species selected for the forest plan (3.07; 85.01; 85.03; 91.08; 102.15; 102.30; 102.31; 104.17; 

106.15; 106.16; 106.17; 106.37a).

Response: The 1982 Planning Rule Provisions (Section 219.19) provide direction for the 

selection and use of management indicator species (MIS) in Forest Service land management 

planning. There is no requirement for a minimum number of MIS. The determination to select 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 61

three MIS for the revised plan (pronghorn antelope, northern goshawk and macro-invertebrates), 

was based on positive answers to these questions:

• Does the species reflect major management issues or challenges? – Yes.

• Do the species habitat restoration objectives vary across alternatives? –Yes.

• Are the species relatively common but have high fidelity to specific vegetation types or 

habitat features? –Yes.

• Do the species demonstrate a strong and/or predictable response to management 

activities? –Yes.

• Does a substantial portion of the species life history occurs on Prescott NF administered 

lands? –Yes.

• Can the species be monitored effectively and efficiently and is already monitored? –Yes.

• Are the species monitored by other entities? –Yes.

Additional information about the MIS selection process can be found in the “Prescott National 

Forest Management Indicator Selection Process” (Forest Service, 2011h). The entire report is 

filed as part of the planning record and can be viewed on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement.

Concern WILD-02: The Southwestern Region sensitive species list appears to be 

inconsistent between the Draft Plan and the EIS (85.12; 85.82).

Response: Between the draft and final versions of the revised forest plan and EIS, the 2007 

Southwestern Region sensitive species list was updated. Forest biologists have reviewed the 

updated list to determine if any of the proposed alternatives would cause a trend toward federal 

listing and if any species must receive further consideration in a Biological Evaluation as required 

under the Endangered Species Act. The revised plan and EIS were reviewed and updated to 

correspond with the 2013 version of the Southwestern Region sensitive species list.

Concern WILD-03: The Forest Service should consider effects to the narrow headed garter 

snake and the Northern Mexican garter snake as if they were species identified under the 

Endangered Species Act. A detailed description of the effects to these species should be 

included in the Environmental Consequences of the EIS since they occupy similar habitats

(81.22).

Response: The Forest Service did consider effects to the narrow headed garter snake and the 

Northern Mexican garter snake as if they were species identified under the Endangered Species 

Act. This information is found in the fisheries/aquatic species specialist report (Forest Service, 

2011c) and is included as part of a biological assessment (BA) (Forest Service, 2014a) that 

describes the short and long term effects to federally listed species and their habitats from the 

actions proposed in the revised plan. The information compiled for the fisheries specialist report 

and the BA were used to update the EIS between draft and final, including updates on listing 

status, threats to species and habitat, and effects determinations by alternative. A detailed 

description of the effects to these species is included in the environmental consequences of the 

EIS since they occupy similar habitats.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

62 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Additional species information can be found in the “Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability 

Analysis” (Forest Service, 2011c). The entire report is filed as part of the planning record and can 

be viewed on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site.

Concern WILD-04: The Forest Service should use the most recent common and scientific 

names for the following species: (1) Northern Mexican Garter Snake – Thamnophis Eques 

Megalops. (2) Arizona Toad – Anaxyrus microscaphus (note this species in no longer in the 

genus Bufo). (3) Lowland Leopard Frog – Lithobates yavapaiensis (note this species is no 

longer in the genus Rana). (4) Sonoran Desert Tortoise – Gopherus morafkai. (81.01; 81.25; 

81.26; 81.27).

Response: The Forest Service has updated the revised plan and EIS to reflect the most recent 

common and scientific names for the following species: Northern Mexican Gartersnake 

(Thamnophis eques megalops); Arizona Toad (Anaxyrus microscaphus); Lowland Leopard Frog 

(Lithobates yavapaiensis); and Sonoran Desert Tortoise (Gopherus morafkai).

Concern WILD-05: The Forest Service should modify the Wildlife Standards and 

Guidelines to reference the State Game and Fish Department’s Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need (SGCN) and the State Game and Fish Department’s Central Arizona 

Grassland Strategy for pronghorn (114.08).

Response: The wildlife standards and guidelines include references to the Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive Species list which includes many of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s SGCN. 

At the project level, ongoing coordination with the Arizona Game and Fish Department exists to 

identify site-specific SGCN concerns and opportunities. 

The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Central Arizona Grassland Strategy (CAGS) was not 

listed specifically in the pronghorn guidelines, but it is included generally in the phrase “work 

done by AZGFD and other partners.” This phrase is more inclusive and allows for consideration 

of new efforts over time.

Concern WILD-06: The Forest Service should add another bullet to the Background and 

Rationale section of Objective 28 that would prohibit the construction of water catchments 

in wilderness areas (85.13).

Response: After a review of public comments, the Prescott NF Leadership Team revised 

Objective 28 in the selected alternative for the revised plan to read:

Improve up to 25 existing and 5 new water developments for wildlife during the 10 

years following plan approval.

However, no additional language was added to the background and rationale section of Objective 

28. The suggestion to prohibit the construction of water catchments in wilderness areas is an 

example of a project level decision that would require future site-specific NEPA analysis along 

with the opportunity for public involvement.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 63

Wildlife - Aquatic Species

Concern WILD-07: The Forest Service should provide clarification as to the current 

conditions of aquatic ecosystems and associated species on the Prescott NF (106.31).

Response: The Need for Change 4 section of Chapter 3 of the EIS summarizes the current 

conditions for fisheries, other aquatic and riparian species, and associated habitats on the Prescott 

NF and the consequences of implementing the revised plan or its alternatives. This includes a 

summary analysis of the conditions of and consequences to the riparian and aquatic ecosystems 

and associated species on the forest. The full analysis for aquatic ecosystems and associated 

species can be found in the “Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist 

Report and Viability Analysis” (Forest Service, 2011c).

Concern WILD-08: The Forest Service should adopt an ecosystem approach to 

management of aquatic habitats in this Forest Plan revision similar to what the agency did 

nearly two decades ago in the Pacific Northwest (106.48).

Response: The approach to management of aquatic habitats in this Forest Plan is specific to the 

environmental conditions and habitat conservation needs found within the planning area 

including expected effects from a changing climate and other stressors. 

Early plan revision efforts included ecosystem assessments of how management under the 

existing 1987 plan (as amended), was affecting the sustainability of aquatic and riparian species 

and their habitats within the planning area. In 2009, the results were published as part of the 

“Analysis of the Management Situation” (Forest Service, 2009a). As part of this analysis, the 

Forest Service identified two priority needs for change regarding the management of aquatic 

habitats. With information on existing and desired aquatic ecosystem conditions, plan 

components were developed to address these needs for change. 

Concern WILD-09: The Forest Service should reconsider the effects of not doing any native 

fish restoration work under alternative A (81.28)

Response: Alternative A places a low emphasis on native fish restoration. The Forest Service 

concluded that alternative A has the “least effect” rather than a “negative effect” because this 

alternative maintains native fish species viability within the action area, but with no expected 

changes in native fish habitat quantity or distribution.

Concern WILD-10: The Forest Service should separate the analysis of effects of the 

alternatives for spikedace and loach minnow (81.30).

Response: The Forest Service evaluated the environmental consequences of the alternatives on 

spikedace and loach minnow species separately but disclosed the results in the EIS in a combined 

fashion because the effects were similar. Providing separate write-ups would have resulted in 

unnecessary duplication of content and a larger EIS. 

Concern WILD-11: The Forest Service should include the Gila topminnow in the effects 

analysis (81.23).

Response: The Forest Service updated the EIS to include effects analysis for Gila topminnow 

habitat within the analysis area in consideration of possible future re-introductions of this 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

64 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

endangered fish species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department.

Concern WILD-12: The Forest Service should use the following language to more 

accurately describe the status of the spikedace species in the Verde River, "Spikedace were 

last detected in the Verde River in 1999. Because of this species' small size and low numbers, 

it is difficult to detect; however, we believe that spikedace, while rare, may still persist in the 

uppermost reaches of the Verde River. Spikedace have been trans-located into Fossil Creek, 

a tributary to the Verde River in Gila County, Arizona, in 2007, and were subsequently 

augmented in 2008, 2011, and 2012." (81.24).

Response: The Forest Service has updated sections of the EIS related to the status and/or habitat 

conditions of federally listed species. Based on information compiled for the Biological 

Assessment and recent conversations with biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

section describing the status of spikedace within the action area has been updated and revised to 

read:

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 (ASU, 2002). Currently, the upper Verde River is 

presumed to be occupied by spikedace but they are rare based on extensive surveys 

(AZGFD, 2000a-b, 2001, 2005a-c; Bahm and Robinson, 2009; Robinson and 

Crowder, 2009; Forest Service, 2010a; Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005). The last 

capture of a spikedace was documented during surveys in 1999 (Brouder, 2002). 

Spikedace populations are extirpated from the lower Verde River in the Verde Valley 

(Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007).

Concern WILD-13: The Forest Service should add a statement regarding the improvement 

of watershed characteristics to Need for Change 4 (114.10).

Response: No changes were made the Needs for Change section in Chapter 1 between the draft 

and final versions of the revised plan. Need for Change 4 focuses on the need to provide desired 

habitat for native fish species. Need for Change 2 discusses the need for the improvement of 

watershed characteristics, covering the need to improve water quality for human health and safety 

and to improve and maintain watersheds for aquatic and riparian species habitat.

Wildlife - Habitat

Concern WILD-14: The Forest Service should make a determination in the biological 

assessment of whether their proposed action would be likely to adversely affect critical 

habitat for razorback sucker, southwestern willow flycatcher, spikedace, and loach minnow

(81.29).

Response: The Biological Assessment (BA) describing the short and long term effects to 14 

federally listed, proposed and candidate species and their habitats from the proposed actions and 

direction contained within the revised plan included determinations of “May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect” for the critical habitats of the razorback sucker, southwestern willow 

flycatcher, spikedace, and loach minnow.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 65

Concern WILD-15: The Forest Service should be looking at the ability of the upper Verde 

River riparian forest to support bird life (85.02).

Response: As part of the forest plan revision process, a review of ecosystem conditions and 

species diversity was conducted. The “Ecological Sustainability Report” (ESR) (Forest Service, 

2009b) identifies the diversity of ecosystem and species known to occur within the planning area, 

including riparian forests and bird species. The findings from the ESR were then considered in 

the development of the plan direction and/or components.

Plan direction that supports bird life within riparian forest ecosystems includes: The revised plan 

includes desired conditions for the Verde River (DC-Wild&Scenic-1), riparian gallery forests 

(DC-Veg-23), ecosystem resilience (DC-Ecosystem Resilience-1) and watershed integrity (DCWatershed-2). Additionally, several standards and guidelines in chapter 4 provide project-specific 

guidance for trending toward or achieving these desired conditions.

Wildlife - Mexican spotted owl

Concern WILD-16: The Forest Service should include specific direction for Mexican 

spotted owl management in the revised plan (81.09).

Response: Based on comments and Forest Service review, Prescott NF leadership decided to add 

language in the desired conditions for ponderosa pine-Gambel oak related to vegetation 

composition and structure that better describe Mexican spotted owl habitat (DC-Veg-17, DC-Veg18, and DC-Veg-20). This direction is in addition to the first guideline for terrestrial wildlife 

(Guide-WL-1) which requires adherence to recovery plans for federally listed species, including 

Mexican spotted owls. These plan decisions would be incorporated into future site-specific 

projects or activities that could potentially affect Mexican spotted owl habitat.

Concern WILD-17: The Forest Service should clarify the desired conditions, extent, and 

location of Mexican spotted owl habitat on the Prescott NF (81.03; 81.11; 81.12; 81.13; 

85.39).

Response: Between the draft and final versions of the revised forest plan and EIS, the desired 

conditions, extent, and location of Mexican spotted owl habitat on the Prescott NF were clarified, 

adding specificity to the Desired Conditions for Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak Forest section of 

Chapter 2 of the revised plan and the Affected Environment section for Mexican spotted owls in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS.

Concern WILD-18: The Forest contains more than 112,000 acres of pine-oak habitat. It is 

not clear how the Forest Service arrived at an estimate of only 26,448 acres of suitable 

habitat for Mexican spotted owls as stated on page 69 of the DEIS (106.03).

Response: The 112,000 acres of pine-oak vegetation found on the Prescott National Forest 

includes all stages of vegetation development including areas that are recently burned, are of 

recent regrowth, and/or are composed of mostly small-diameter trees. These areas are not 

considered to be suitable habitat for Mexican spotted owls. The amount of ponderosa 

pine/Gambel oak forest having large-diameter trees with dense canopy cover and snags and 

downed logs is approximately 26,448 acres.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

66 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Concern WILD-19: The Forest Service should clarify the beneficial effect to Mexican 

spotted owl (MSO) from vegetation treatments in the ponderosa pine-Gamble oak 

vegetation type (85.36).

Response: As described in the Environmental Consequences for Federally Listed Species section 

in Need for Change 1 – Chapter 3 of the EIS:

The most important benefit of proposed treatments within the ponderosa pineGambel oak PNVT is the reduction of potential for large, landscape scale, standreplacing wildfires that could destroy of damage MSO habitat.

Fires of this nature are one of the biggest threats to the MSO and its habitat. Large snags, areas 

with relatively large trees and closed canopies (for nesting), and areas with more open tree 

canopies (for foraging) are some of the important habitat features necessary for quality MSO 

habitat. Desired conditions and guidelines would ensure the presence of snags across the 

landscape and an increase in the abundance and distribution of large trees across the ponderosa 

pine-Gambel oak PNVT. A reduction in canopy closure and the resulting increase in understory 

vegetation in some of the ponderosa pine-Gambel oak PNVT would improve foraging habitat for 

MSO in terms of prey species availability. Improving and maintaining these facets of the MSO 

habitat would be expected to have beneficial impacts to the species on the Prescott NF.

Habitat management objectives and species protection measures would be applied to activities 

occurring within MSO habitat. These objectives and measures are issued in the form of recovery 

plans from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and would be followed throughout implementation 

as stated in the wildlife guidelines section of the plan.

Concern WILD-20: The Forest Service should clarify in the EIS the threats to the Mexican 

spotted owl and its habitat (81.14; 81.18).

Response: The Forest Service has updated sections of the EIS related to the status and/or habitat 

conditions of federally listed species. Based on information compiled for the Biological 

Assessment and recent conversations with biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

section describing threats to the Mexican spotted owl resulting from implementation of the 

proposed revised plan has been updated to include urban and rural development, mining 

activities, and forest fuel reduction projects in addition to stand-replacing fire.

Concern WILD-21: The DEIS contains no explanation why the management direction 

under the proposed action alternatives will avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of 

Mexican spotted owl or adversely modifying its critical habitat. (106.06).

Response: The EIS discloses in chapter 3 under the environmental consequences section for the 

Mexican spotted owl that:

Moving the natural habitat for MSO toward the desired condition would be expected 

to improve the habitat for this species across the landscape. 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 canopy closure and increasing 

understory vegetation would improve habitat for MSO prey species across the 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 67

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 to the proposed 

treatments within the ponderosa pine-Gambel oak PNVT is the reduction of potential 

for large, landscape scale, stand-replacing wildfires that could eliminate MSO 

habitat.

For all of the alternatives, in the process of implementing projects/objectives, some 

tree habitat features will be negatively impacted for a short term. However, moving 

toward the desired conditions in all of the alternatives for the ponderosa pineGambel oak PNVT will ultimately 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.

This rationale is the basis for the statement that “ implementation of any alternative may render a 

“May affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for Mexican spotted owl and a “May affect, 

likely to adversely affect” determination for Mexican spotted owl critical habitat.”

Wildlife - Pronghorn

Concern WILD-22: The increased efforts to improve pronghorn habitat and migration 

corridors are critical to pronghorn survival (75.04; 91.04; 91.05).

Response: We agree that there is a need to improve pronghorn habitat and migration corridors on 

the Prescott NF. Desired conditions describe how the resources on the Prescott NF should look 

and function. They provide the basis for developing the objectives, standards, and guidelines 

identified in the revised plan that will guide management on the forest. The desired conditions for 

grasslands (DC-Veg-21) state, in part, that:

Composition, structure, and cover provide habitat for native animals associated with 

grasslands, especially pronghorn antelope ...

and the desired conditions for terrestrial wildlife (DC-Wildlife-1) includes the statement:

Wildlife in habitats associated with animal movement corridors are free from human 

harassment. 

To assist in achieving these desired conditions, the Prescott NF has included terrestrial wildlife 

habitat objectives in the revised plan to modify or remove fence (Objective 25), treat up to 90,000 

acres to improve pronghorn habitat (Objective 26), and focus treatments in 2 or 3 areas to 

facilitate pronghorn migration (Objective 27).

Wildlife guideline 3, stipulating an 18-inch maximum height for cutting juniper in pronghorn 

habitat, allows for pronghorn sight distance in order to make it effective habitat. It is recognized 

that this guideline may increase the per acre costs for juniper thinning projects in pronghorn 

habitat, but this plan component is necessary to reduce risk to pronghorn species viability.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

68 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Concern WILD-23: The Forest Service should create a set of desired future conditions 

(DFCs) that specifically address the needs of antelope and deer (102.41).

Response: Desired conditions describe how the resources on the Prescott NF should look and 

function. They provide the basis for developing the objectives, standards, and guidelines 

identified in the revised plan that will guide management on the forest. The desired conditions for 

grasslands (DC-Veg-21) state, in part, that:

Composition, structure, and cover provide habitat for native animals associated with 

grasslands, especially pronghorn antelope ...

Pronghorn antelope was specifically mentioned because it was chosen as a management indicator 

species (MIS) for the Prescott NF. Pronghorn antelope demonstrates a strong and/or predictable 

response to proposed management activities within the grasslands, 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. 

The needs of deer are not specifically addressed in the revised plan. Deer were not chosen as a 

management indicator species, nor do they have a special status such as Federally-listed or 

regionally sensitive. Therefore, there is no reason to develop desired conditions that specifically 

address their needs. However, deer would benefit from actions implemented to meet the desired 

conditions for the vegetation types where they have suitable habitat.

Concern WILD-24: The Forest Service should provide clarification as to how specific / 

significant management changes in any program would indicate antelope will do anything 

more than continue to decline (102.33; 102.37).

Response: Potential impacts to pronghorn antelope from implementing the proposed revised plan 

and its alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS in the sections titled Terrestrial Species 

Viability and Management Indicator Species. In summary, all of the action alternatives are 

expected to improve the quality of habitat provided on Prescott NF lands as treatment objectives 

are implemented. Population trends are expected to remain static or possibly increase under the 

action alternatives as Prescott NF lands provide future alternate habitat for pronghorn displaced 

from non-Forest Service lands due to development or fragmentation of habitat.

Several plan components are specifically designed to improve pronghorn habitat conditions 

(Objective 25, 26, & 27). Where suitable habitat occurs, Objective 28 would also improve 

pronghorn habitat quality. By following Guideline-Wildlife-3, fence specifications, fawning 

habitat needs, migration corridors, and general habitat improvement would be part of project 

design and implementation on Prescott NF lands addressed.

Concern WILD-25: The Forest Service should clarify the language in Objectives 26 and 27 

to describe careful selection of vegetation to be retained (35.14).

Response: The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature and the EIS does not address projectspecific actions. Actions of that nature are addressed after the revised plan is in place. The 

selection of vegetation that should be retained is an example of a project level action that is not 

appropriate to include in the revised plan.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 69

Wildlife - Raptors

Concern WILD-26: The Forest Service should include the bald eagle in the EIS as a 

highlighted terrestrial species in the species viability table (81.10).

Response: Tables 12 and 34 in the EIS address viability concerns for species associated with 

terrestrial habitats and aquatic and riparian habitats respectively. Both tables highlight the fine 

filter plan components (e.g., standards and guidelines) that are necessary to reduce species 

viability concerns to a level of no or low risk. The bald eagle is listed in table 34 rather than table 

12 because it is associated with features found near aquatic and riparian habitats.

Concern WILD-27: The Forest Service should provide all applicable studies showing that 

the proposed vegetation treatments in Objective 5 will provide beneficial impacts to 

Northern goshawk (85.37).

Response: The references to the published studies showing that the proposed vegetation 

treatments in Objective 5 will provide beneficial impacts to Northern goshawk are found in the 

section titled, “Environmental Consequences for Management Indicator Species” in Chapter 3 of 

the EIS. Full citations are included in the References section of the EIS.

The references include:

• Salafsky et al. (2005) suggesting that prey density is an important limiting factor of 

goshawk productivity. 

• Salafsky, et al. (2007) showed that increased prey density resulted in increased goshawk 

reproduction in ponderosa pine.

• Dewey and Kennedy (2001) reported that significantly heavier nestlings from nests with 

supplemental food had higher survival rates than nestlings in control nests

• Ward and Kennedy (1996) 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.

Concern WILD-28: We question the claim (DEIS page 85) that "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" 

(85.36a).

Response: Computer modeling was used to forecast the response of the PNVTs to human-caused 

and natural disturbances proposed or expected under each of the alternatives. Several shifts in the 

vegetation structure (tree size and density) are expected after 20 years for the Ponderosa Pine 

PNVTs, including stands of medium and large-diameter trees becoming more open from thinning 

treatments and prescribed fire; and a higher proportion of bigger trees resulting from natural 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

70 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

diameter growth. Hence, the conclusion that additional nesting habitat for the goshawk would 

occur from increases in the abundance and distribution of medium to large trees.

Additional information about the vegetation modelling can be found in the “Prescott National 

Forest Vegetation and Fire Ecology Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2012). The entire report is 

filed as part of the planning record and can be viewed on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site.

Concern WILD-29: The Forest Service should re-consider the area closure associated with 

nesting peregrine on Granite Mountain (95.03).

Response: Area closures can be an effective tool to ensure that Southwestern Region sensitive 

species do not trend toward listing as threatened or endangered. Area closures associated with 

nesting peregrine on Granite Mountain are consistent with wildlife guidance (Guide-WL-2) in the 

revised plan. Area closures are developed on a site-specific basis subject to appropriate NEPA 

analysis. The revised plan is, by design, strategic in nature. It does include project level decisions. 

Those decisions are made later, only after specific proposals are identified and analyzed, and 

there is opportunity for public involvement.

Wildlife - Viability

Concern WILD-30: The Forest Service should explain the species viability assessments in 

the Ecological Sustainability Report (ESR) (106.34; 106.35; 106.36).

Response: As a part of the plan revision process, a review of ecosystem conditions and species 

diversity was conducted beginning in 2007. The “Ecological Sustainability Report” (ESR) (Forest 

Service, 2009b) assessed the diversity of ecosystems and species known to occur within the 

Prescott NF and identified existing threats and associated risks to the long term sustainability of 

those ecosystems and species. 

Species found or potentially found on the Prescott NF included the following categories:

• Species listed as proposed, threatened, or endangered under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act. 

• Species listed on the Southwestern Region Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list. 

• Birds of conservation concern as identified by (Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008) and

Arizona Partners in Flight priority species (AZGFD, 1999).

• Species identified as locally rare on the Prescott NF, and 

• Declining species or species of high public interest.

Based on a series of species status reviews, an evaluation was made to determine whether there 

may be risks to each species’ viability because their associated habitat conditions are departed 

from reference conditions and/or because of their vulnerability to impacts from forest 

management or activities. From the initial list of 815 species, most of the common or less 

common (but secure) species, including those unaffected by management, were found to have no 

risk to viability from management. Hence, these species were not brought forward for further 

consideration. Those species identified as having risk to viability (121 species) were then 

considered in the development of plan direction and/or components. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 71

As part of the plan revision process, coarse filter plan components (i.e., desired condition 

statements) were developed that describe the desired outcomes and conditions for vegetation, 

riparian, and aquatic features and other resources within the planning area. These desired 

conditions provide habitat for plants and animals which help to reduce risks to species and 

provide for their viability. Where desired conditions would result in low to moderate risk ratings 

for some species, meeting and maintaining those desired conditions would provide for their 

population viability. This is because low to moderate ratings of risk are assumed to be similar 

enough to normal ecosystem fluctuations and therefore within a species’ ability to adjust, thus 

posing little risk to viability. Where the risk rating would be moderately-high, to high, additional 

fine filter plan components (e.g., standards, guidelines) were developed to address or mitigate 

risk. 

It should be noted that the coarse-fine filter approach is not entirely discrete in that standards and 

guidelines can contribute to viability for some coarse filter species; while the needs of fine filter 

species can also be provided for, in part, by coarse filter desired conditions and potential natural 

vegetation types (PNVTs).

Concern WILD-31: The Forest Service should explain in the EIS how species viability for 

northern goshawk will be ensured (106.18; 106.19; 106.20; 106.21; 106.22; 106.24).

Response: The Background for Terrestrial Species Diversity and Viability section in Need for 

Change 1 – Chapter 3 of the EIS explains the process the Forest Service took to assess viability 

concerns for the northern goshawk. As shown in table 12 of the EIS, the northern goshawk was 

determined to be at some potential viability risk and that:

coarse filter plan components (various desired condition statements) plus fine filter 

plan components (various standards or guidelines) are necessary to reduce viability 

to a level of no or low risk. 

The relevant coarse filter plan components would be those desired habitat conditions associated 

with the northern goshawk. The Affected Environment for Terrestrial Species Diversity and 

Viability section in Need for Change 1 – Chapter 3 of the EIS, explains under the heading 

Ponderosa Pine Forests that:

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 ...

The fully-described desired habitat condition statements for the northern goshawk are found in 

Chapter 2 of the revised plan under these sections: Desired Conditions for Ponderosa PineEvergreen Oak Forest and Desired Conditions for Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak Forest. The fine 

filter plan components applicable to northern goshawks (Guidelines-Wildlife- 2, 5, & 7) are fully 

described in Chapter 4 of the revised plan. 

As explained in the Environmental Analyses section of the Introduction to Chapter 3 of the EIS, 

several assumptions were made for estimating the consequences of alternatives at the 

programmatic plan level, including estimating risks to species viability. These assumptions 

include:

• Plan decisions (i.e., desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, special areas, 

suitability, monitoring) would be followed when planning or implementing future sitespecific projects and activities.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

72 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

• Various resource management activities allowed under each alternative would in fact 

occur to the extent necessary to achieve the stated objectives.

• Implementation of the land management plan would facilitate progress toward the 

attainment of desired conditions for each resource.

Additionally, table 20 of the EIS summarizes the expected trends in northern goshawk 

populations, nesting habitat, and foraging habitat based on the proposed actions of each 

alternative. All of the action alternatives are expected to provide increased amounts of foraging 

and nesting habitat compared to the no action alternative. These increases in desired habitat 

conditions (as a result of implementing the proposed actions – i.e. vegetation treatments within 

the ponderosa pine PNVTs to meet desired conditions stated in Chapter 2 of the revised plan) are 

the basis for concluding that species viability for the northern goshawk will be ensured.

References

Abella, S., Fulé, P., and Covington, W. (2006). Diameter caps for thinning southwestern 

ponderosa pine forests: Viewpoints, effects, and tradeoffs. Journal of Forestry, 104:407-

414.

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.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. (2008). Birds of Conservation 

Concern 2008. Arlington, VA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2007). USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan FY 

2007–2012. Washington, DC: Washington Office.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009a). Analysis of the Management Situation. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009b). Ecological Sustainability Report. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009c). Prescott National Forest Economic and 

Social Sustainability Assessment. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010). Prescott National Forest Research 

Natural Area Evaluation Process Summary Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011a). Documentation of Minimum 

Management Requirements. Prepared by Hess-Samuelson, S., Greenbelt Insights. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011b). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Air Quality Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011c). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 73

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011d). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011e). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Terrestrial Species Viability Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011f). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Vascular Plant Viability Analysis. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011g). Socio-economic Resource Report.

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011h). Prescott National Forest Management 

Indicator Selection Process. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2012). Prescott National Forest Potential 

Wilderness Area Evaluation Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013). Restoring Composition and Structure in 

Southwestern Frequent-Fire Forests: A science-based framework for improving 

ecosystem resiliency. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-310. Fort Collins, CO: 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 76 pp.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014a). Biological Assessment for the Prescott 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014b). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Wilderness Recommendations by Forest Plan Alternative. Prescott, AZ: Prescott 

National Forest.

Triepke, F., Higgins, B., Weisz, R., Youtz, J., and Nicolet, T.. (2011). Diameter caps and forest 

restoration — Evaluation of a 16-inch cut limit on achieving desired conditions. USDA 

Forest Service Forestry Report FR-R3-16-3. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Regional 

Office. 31 pp.

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 75

Appendix B. Description 

of the Analysis Process

Introduction

This appendix summarizes the various analyses used to assess the environmental effects of the 

revised plan and its alternatives as described in the main body of the environmental impact 

statement (EIS). The basic analytical framework and process for revising land management plans 

is prescribed by the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions (Sec. 219.12).

During the plan revision process, a set of alternative scenarios was developed to compare and 

contrast the revised plan and its alternatives in terms of their ability to achieve desired conditions 

(DCs).

Eight general assumptions were common to all analyses:

• Land management plan alternatives provide programmatic frameworks for future sitespecific actions. 

• Land management plan alternatives do not have direct effects. They do not authorize or 

mandate any site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions). 

• Land management plan alternatives may have implications for, or longer term 

environmental consequences from, management on the Prescott NF under these 

programmatic frameworks.

• Law, policy, and regulations will be followed when planning or implementing sitespecific projects and activities of a proposed alternative including implementation of best 

management practices as required by the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

• The plan decisions (i.e., desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, 

management areas, suitability, monitoring) of a proposed alternative will be followed 

when planning or implementing site-specific projects and activities.

• Monitoring will occur to inform future land management decisions.

• Management activities that help ecosystems accommodate changes adaptively will 

improve ecosystem resiliency in the long term.

• The planning timeframe is 10 years; other timeframes may be analyzed to compare 

anticipated trends into the future.

The analysis of effects included the evaluation of potential wilderness and research natural areas; 

the eligibility of rivers for wild and scenic designation; the determination of suitability for 

recreation opportunities, livestock grazing, and timber production; the evaluation of movement 

toward vegetation and watershed desired conditions; the determination of species viability, the 

selection of management indicator species (MIS); the evaluation of movement toward desired 

conditions for recreation, scenery, and open space; and social and economic impacts. These 

analyses are further described in the sections that follow.

Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (P.L. 94-588) requires that all areas meeting 

minimum criteria as wilderness (i.e., roadless and undeveloped) be considered for 

recommendation for wilderness designation during plan revision. Recommended areas are those 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

76 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

which are capable of providing wilderness experiences and character, are available for 

recommendation in comparison to other values that exist in the area, and respond to the need for 

additional wilderness in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The wilderness evaluation followed the process as outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, 

Chapter 70. This process consists of three steps: (1) identification of potential areas, (2) 

evaluation of potential areas, and (3) recommendation of potential areas. 

Identification of Potential Areas

The minimum criteria for potential wilderness areas (PWAs) include:

• The area must be at least 5,000 acres in size or meet at least one of the following 

conditions:

o Can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions.

o Self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively managed as a 

separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

o Adjacent to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration-endorsed wilderness, 

or potential wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless of their size.

• The area must not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized 

roads.

Twenty-nine areas were determined to meet these conditions. One area identified in the inventory, 

Hackberry PW-03-09-017, was not carried forward in the evaluation process on the Prescott 

National Forest because it is adjacent to the Hackberry PW-03-04-026 area on the Coconino 

National Forest and was included in their potential wilderness evaluation. Sycamore Canyon C 

PW-03-09-027 spans the boundary between the Prescott National Forest and Kaibab National 

Forest. The entire parcel was analyzed by the Prescott National Forest in this evaluation.

Evaluation of Potential Areas

The capability of an area as wilderness was identified using a scoring process specific to the 

Prescott NF that covered 15 criteria developed by the Southwestern Region Regional Office. As 

the PWAs were assessed, they were assigned a high, medium, or low rating based on a points 

system for each criterion. The overall capability rating for a PWA was based on the total number 

of points earned. A score of 50 or higher was needed to achieve an overall rating of high. Medium 

scores were between 43 and 49 points. Potential wilderness areas that had a low score, less than 

43 out of 57 possible points, were determined to have insufficient wilderness character.

Eight of the 28 PWAs were not considered for further evaluation because they scored below the 

43 point threshold needed to proceed to the availability and need assessments. All of the PWAs 

that scored more than 43 points were analyzed for both availability and need—there were no 

further eliminations during those stages of the process.

The evaluation of an area’s availability as wilderness included a consideration for the 

opportunity/cost of wilderness recommendation to other resource uses in that area such as timber 

production, grazing, or mineral production. 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 77

The need for the area as wilderness was analyzed on a regional basis. Consideration was given to 

size, setting, location of existing wilderness, and unconfined recreation opportunities provided. 

Preference was given to landforms and ecosystems that are underrepresented in the region.

The potential effects of both wilderness designated and management as non-wilderness were 

documented for each area. Factors examined included the effects to the area’s wilderness 

characteristics and values; the effects to other resources such as recreation, wildlife, and timber; 

and the economic and social effects.

Recommendation of Potential Wilderness Areas

Eight areas were recommended for wilderness designation in the revised plan (alternative E). 

Alternatives A and C did not recommend any potential wilderness areas for designation, 

alternative B recommended 8 potential wilderness areas, and alternative D recommended 16 

potential wilderness areas (table 2 and figures 1 through 4). 

Table 2. Potential Wilderness Evaluation

Potential Wilderness Areas Number

Potential wilderness areas identified 29

Potential wilderness areas evaluated 28

Potential wilderness areas containing basic wilderness characteristics 20

Potential wilderness areas recommended for wilderness designation

Alternatives A and C 0

Alternative B 8

Alternative D 16

Alternative E 8

Alternative B was developed in a collaborative fashion, incorporating input from the public and 

other stakeholders both internal and external. The potential wilderness areas recommended were 

selected to expand the existing wilderness areas and to establish a new wilderness opportunity in 

proximity to the communities of the Verde Valley. 

The focus of alternative D was to increase the quantity and diversity of recreation opportunities 

on the Prescott NF, and the expansion of the wilderness base in alternative D did not come at the 

expense of any existing motorized recreation opportunities. Four potential wilderness areas were 

not recommended in this alternative for the following reasons:

Bald Mountain – Bald Mountain PWA currently contains about one and a half 

miles of motorized trail. Wilderness designation would require that this trail be 

closed to motorized use, thus representing an actual, not potential, loss of a 

motorized recreational opportunity.

Black Canyon – Wilderness designation for the Black Canyon PWA would 

preclude future development of mountain biking opportunities in a prime area 

adjacent to the towns and communities within Verde Valley.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

78 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Fritsche A – Wilderness designation for the Fritsche A PWA would limit future 

development of motorized recreation opportunities in the vicinity of the Paulden 

community. Current use includes off-highway vehicle use on area trails and for 

hunting access.

Pine Mountain A – Wilderness designation for the Pine Mountain A PWA, in 

conjunction with wilderness designation for Pine Mountain C, would result in 

private property being surrounded by wilderness. The existing private property 

and access road occurs within the boundaries for Pine Mountain A; therefore, it 

would be better to designate Pine Mountain C, north of Forest Road 68, and 

maintain Forest Road 68 for access to the area. 

Alternative E was developed by the Prescott NF Leadership Team and incorporated input from 

the public and other stakeholders both internal and external. The potential wilderness areas 

recommended were selected to expand the existing wilderness areas and to minimize impacts to 

grazing permittees and the mountain bike community. 

Documents that provide additional details on the potential wilderness evaluation:

• Prescott National Forest Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report (Forest Service, 

2012)

• Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Wilderness Recommendations by Forest Plan 

Alternative (Forest Service, 2014)

• Forest Service Handbook 1919.12
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 79

Figure 1. Recommended wilderness for alternatives A and C
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

80 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Figure 2. Recommended wilderness for alternative B
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 81

Figure 3. Recommended wilderness for alternative D
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

82 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Figure 4. Recommended wilderness for alternative E
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 83

Evaluation of Potential Research Natural Areas

Research natural areas (RNAs) are areas that are set aside to create a spectrum of high quality 

natural communities that are part of a national network for research, education, and maintenance 

of biological diversity. The process to establish RNAs is documented in the Forest Service 

Manual 4063. During plan revision, national forests are to consider the need for, and 

identification of, RNAs. The potential research natural areas on the Prescott NF were evaluated in 

a 3-step process: (1) review existing information, (2) determine the quality of ecologically 

underrepresented areas, and (3) recommend areas as potential RNAs. These steps are discussed in 

further detail below.

Review existing information – Vegetative information specific to the Prescott 

NF was compared to a list of relatively rare potential natural vegetation types 

(PNVTs) and aquatic habitats in the Southwestern Region. This comparison was 

used to determine whether any areas on the Prescott NF were the same as those 

areas identified as underrepresented RNAs within the Southwestern Region. Six 

PNVTs and two aquatic habitats met the criteria.

Determine the quality of ecologically underrepresented areas – Each PNVT 

or aquatic habitat was analyzed to determine whether they met the eight 

conditions to qualify as a potential RNA. Examples of conditions included: the 

area represents a specific vegetation type or ecosystem, the area contributes to 

the preservation and maintenance of genetic diversity, and the area serves as a 

control for comparing results of manipulative research. One area, the Grapevine 

Botanical Area, met the conditions as a potential RNA.

Recommend areas as potential RNAs – After review and consideration of the 

material facts and relevant issues, the forest supervisor elected not to recommend 

the Grapevine Botanical Area for establishment as an RNA; however, the plan 

components for managing the Grapevine Botanical Area contained in 1987 plan

amendment 10 (1997) were retained for all action alternatives.

Documents that provide additional details on evaluation of RNAs:

• Research Natural Area Process for Forest Plan Revision under the 1982 Planning Rule 

Provisions (Forest Service, 2009a)

• Environmental Assessment for Grapevine Springs Botanical Area Designation (Forest 

Service, 1997)

• Prescott National Forest Research Natural Area Evaluation Process Summary Report 

(Forest Service, 2010a)

Evaluation of Eligible Rivers for 

Wild and Scenic River Designation

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 sought to preserve the outstandingly remarkable values 

of selected rivers by retaining their free-flowing condition for the benefit of future generations. 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 section 81.2 states that the list of rivers eligible for wild, 

scenic, or recreation classification status should be reviewed during plan revision if changes in 

circumstances have occurred. A 3-step process is described in the Forest Service Handbook: (1) 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

84 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

determine eligibility, (2) classify segments, and (3) determine suitability to pursue congressional 

designation. Only the first two steps were completed for plan revision on the Prescott NF.

The upper Verde River was determined eligible for addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

in 1982 as review showed that changes, such as reduction of amount of private land along the 

shorelines, road decommissioning, and declines in threatened and endangered fish populations 

had occurred (Forest Service, 1981).

A recent review (2010) conducted by an interdisciplinary team of specialists determined that 

eligibility of the upper Verde River for wild and scenic river designation was appropriate; 

however, the classification of segments needed to be revised. The interdisciplinary team divided 

the river into four segments using landmarks easily seen in the field.

Using field visits and available information, team members analyzed the following attributes: 

water resource development, shoreline development, accessibility, and water quality. They 

compared present circumstances on the river to the classification requirements from the Forest 

Service Handbook.

Previously, the full extent of the upper Verde River was classified as recreational; however, the 

updated classifications identified the following segments: 5.6 miles classified as wild, 25.4 miles 

classified as scenic, and 6.7 miles classified as recreational (table 3).

Table 3. Upper Verde River Wild and Scenic River eligibility

Classification Miles

1982 Eligibility Classification

Recreational 37.7 miles

2010 Eligibility Classification

Wild 5.6 miles

Scenic 25.4 miles

Recreational 6.7 miles

Documents that provide additional details on eligible wild and scenic rivers:

• Verde River Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Environmental Impact Statement 

(Forest Service, 1981)

• Upper Verde River Eligibility Report Update for the National Wild and Scenic River 

System (Forest Service, 2010b)

• Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 80

Determination of Suitability 

for Recreation Opportunities

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) states that national forest plans shall 

provide for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services through management of 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 85

renewable surface resources to best meet the needs of the American people. Further, Section 6 of 

NFMA calls for identification of the suitability of lands for resource management. 

The 1982 Planning Rule Provisions require the identification of lands suitable for various 

recreation opportunities (Sec. 219.21). Forest recreation specialists identified and listed the 

recreation opportunities (e.g., dispersed camping, motorized recreation) on the Prescott NF, and 

then identified the settings or areas (e.g., developed recreation facilities, wilderness) where these 

opportunities may or may not take place. 

An area or setting is deemed suitable if it is appropriate for the activity, regardless of whether the 

opportunity exists. This does not mean that the activity will occur over the entire area. National 

Forest System lands are generally suitable for a variety of uses, including recreation, unless 

restricted by Presidential, congressional, or administrative constraints. 

A setting is not suitable if it is not appropriate for the activity or the activity is not allowed by law, 

regulation, or policy within the area. Areas that are permitted for other resource use, such as 

communication sites, electric substations, mining operations, or energy development, are not 

suitable for recreation; these settings are also not listed in the suitability matrix.

The results of the suitability analysis are displayed in the recreation suitability matrix (table 4).

Documents that provide additional details on recreation suitability:

• PNF Recreation Suitability Matrix (Forest Service, 2011c)
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

86 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

Table 4. Recreation Suitability Matrix

Activities

Suitable – the area or site is 

appropriate for the activity, 

whether the opportunity is 

available or not.

Not Suitable – the area or site is 

not appropriate for the activity or 

the activity is not allowed by law 

or regulation within the area. 

Developed 

Recreation

– activities that 

are dependent 

upon facilities 

provided by the 

Forest Service. 

Examples include 

developed 

camping, 

picnicking, or 

group gatherings.

Dispersed 

Camping

– camping outside 

of a developed 

campground, 

including 

designated 

dispersed 

camping, 

dispersed car 

camping, and 

back-country 

camping.

Nonmotorized

Dispersed 

Recreation

– activities which are 

not dependent upon 

developed facilities 

or motorized 

equipment, including 

hiking, backpacking, 

hunting, wildlife 

viewing, rock 

climbing, equestrian 

use, or mountain 

biking.

Motorized 

Recreation

– the operation of 

motorized vehicles 

such as all-terrain 

vehicles, offhighway vehicles, 

or motorcycles for 

recreation as 

opposed to 

transportation.

Water Based 

Recreation

– on water and 

water adjacent 

activities such as 

rafting, tubing, 

kayaking, boating, 

swimming, 

wading, and 

fishing. Includes 

both motorized and

nonmotorized use.

Education/ 

Interpretation

– recreation based on 

the pursuit of 

knowledge and 

understanding. Ranges 

from formal displays 

and programs to 

outdoor classrooms, 

interpretive field trips, 

and citizen-scientist 

projects.

Settings

Developed Recreation 

Facilities 

Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Suitable Suitable

Heritage Interpretive Area Suitable Not Suitable Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Suitable

Wilderness1 Not Suitable Suitable Suitable for nonmechanized onlyNot Suitable Suitable Suitable

Wild and Scenic River Suitable2 Suitable Suitable Not Suitable Suitable Suitable

Grapevine Botanical Area Not Suitable Not Suitable Suitable Not Suitable Suitable Suitable

Nonmotorized Forest System 

Trails

Not Suitable Suitable Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Suitable

Motorized Forest System 

Trails

Not Suitable Suitable Suitable where 

allowed

Suitable Not Suitable Suitable

Designated OHV Area Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Suitable Not Suitable Suitable

Administrative Facilities Not Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Not Suitable Suitable

1 Recreation suitability in recommended wilderness is at the discretion of the forest supervisor.

2 Developed recreation activities are suitable in river segment corridors classified as “recreational.”
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 87

Determination of Suitability for Livestock Grazing

Procedures in the 1982 Planning Rule (Section 219.20) require that the capability and suitability 

for producing forage for grazing animals on National Forest System lands be determined during 

forest planning. Capability depends upon conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and 

geology. Suitability considers the effects of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land including relevant social, economic, and ecological factors.

Capability

Capability is the potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, or 

allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices at a given level of 

management intensity. 

Capable grazing lands refer to the sum of all lands classified as having full or potential grazing 

capability for domestic livestock. A large portion of the capability determination is based upon 

factors such as landform, geology, slope, and climate. These have not changed significantly since 

the previous evaluation undertaken for the 1987 plan. Current drought conditions and trends have 

not been shown to be outside of historical norms for the Southwest. 

Terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES) information, circa 2000, is now used during grazing allotment 

analysis. For this analysis, three measures are used to determine capability: (1) forage 

productivity, (2) inherently unstable soils, and (3) slopes steeper than 60 percent. 

Forage productivity is taken from TES map unit classifications across the Prescott NF using 

corporate geographic information system (GIS) data. Inherently unstable soils are described for 

appropriate map units in TES documentation. The inherently unstable classification is displayed 

under landscape features and is an interpretation based on climate, soils, rock features, and terrain 

form. It indicates conditions where annual soil renewability is less than soil loss under natural 

conditions described in “Potential Plant Community” in the TES document. Therefore, retention 

of vegetative cover may not slow erosion or soil creep processes even with management 

intervention, such as seeding. The slope values were determined from U.S. Geological Survey 

information. Due to the different data sources, there is some overlap between the inherently 

unstable soil acreage and the acreage of slopes greater than 60 percent. This overlap was 

determined to be within the margin of error for calculating total acreages.

Lands capable of producing forage for grazing animals totaled 1,009,821 acres (table 5).

Table 5. Grazing capability

Category Acres

Prescott NF lands 1,267,515 acres

Forage productivity less than 100 pounds per acre-year -127,508 acres

Soils that are Inherently unstable -114,786 acres

Slopes steeper than 60 percent -15,400 acres

Generally Capable Lands 1,009,821 acres
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

88 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Suitability 

Suitability is the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined management practices. Land suitable for grazing is that which is 

accessible to livestock or wildlife, can be grazed on a sustained yield basis without damage to 

long term productivity, and is compatible with desired conditions.

The area capable of producing forage for grazing animals was the starting point for determining 

current range suitability. This area was 1,009,821 acres.

The 1987 plan identified Management Area 7 as unsuitable for livestock grazing; it consisted of 

three recreation areas. 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. These areas totaled 39,688. Desired conditions for these areas include 

management for their original purpose; thus, they will continue to be unsuitable for livestock 

grazing.

The planning team identified additional areas which were excluded from livestock grazing, 

including those excluded by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) decisions and portions of 

allotments that were excluded from grazing activity after 1987. Since inception of the 1987 plan, 

50 allotments on the Prescott NF have received site-specific environmental review and several 

areas were excluded from grazing in project-level decisions. Large, contiguous areas (at least 

1,000 acres) that were excluded in site-specific decisions were deemed to be not suitable for 

livestock grazing for this suitability analysis. These areas totaled 57,055 acres. 

Suitable grazing lands were determined to be 913,078 acres (table 6). This figure was calculated 

by taking the capable acres (1,009,821) and subtracting the unsuitable areas identified in the 1987 

plan (39,688) and the sum acres of the recent grazing exclusions (57,055); it was applied to all 

alternatives (A, B, C, D, and E).

Table 6. Grazing suitability

Category Acres

Lands generally capable for livestock grazing 1,009,821 acres

Areas identified as unsuitable in the 1987 plan -39,688 acres

Allotments where a portion of acreage have been excluded 

since the 1987 plan was approved -57,055 acres

Lands suitable for producing forage for grazing animals, 

used in forest plan revision alternatives A, B, C, D, and E 913,078 acres

Documents that provide additional details on determining the capability and suitability of 

livestock grazing:

• Prescott National Forest Determination of Livestock Grazing Capability and Suitability 

Report (Forest Service, 2011d)
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 89

• Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National Forest (Robertson et al., 2000)

Determination of Suitability for Timber Production

The timber production objective is defined as growing, tending, harvesting, and regenerating 

crops of trees on a regulated basis to produce logs or other products for industrial or consumer 

use (1982 Planning Rule Provisions Section 219.16). For the purposes of forest planning, timber 

production does not include firewood or harvests from unsuitable lands. NFMA requires the 

agency to determine the suitability of National Forest System lands for timber production and has 

specific requirements for timber suitability analysis in land management plans. The Agency 

makes a distinction between timber harvest as a resource use (i.e., timber production) and timber 

harvest as a management tool to achieve desired conditions.

These assumptions were used for the timber suitability analysis:

• A minimum 10 percent canopy cover requirement was used to identify areas as being 

forested for the GIS midscale mapping dataset. 

• Piñon-juniper vegetation types were not considered to be forested, regardless of canopy 

cover, per direction from the Southwestern Region Regional Office. 

• Timber production is contrary to desired conditions within areas recommended for 

wilderness designation. Areas recommended for wilderness designation for each 

alternative were excluded from the suitable timber base.

• Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) and areas of steep ground

(helicopter/cable ground) outside of PACs were removed from the suitable timber base. 

• Different economic thresholds were used for the different alternatives to determine where 

it was economically efficient to carry out timber production; alternatives A and C had 

lower economic thresholds than alternatives B, D, and E. Therefore, some tentatively 

suitable areas were removed from the suitable timber base in alternatives B, D, and E, but 

there were no areas removed from the suitable base in alternatives A and C. 

Tentatively Suitable Timber Lands

The general analysis process first identified lands tentatively suitable for timber production. The 

first set of criteria for unsuitable lands included:

• Lands that cannot grow trees.

• Lands where current timber harvest technology would cause permanent damage to the 

natural environment.

• Lands where there is uncertainty that the area can be successfully reforested after harvest.

• Lands that are excluded from harvest by law, by the Secretary of Agriculture, or the 

Chief of the Forest Service.

• Lands where trees are present, but commercial timber harvest is not economically 

possible (e.g., lands with volume growth less than 20 cubic feet per acre, lands with no 

commercial tree species present).

Forest lands that remain after this screening are termed “Lands tentatively suitable for timber 

production,” and this classification does not vary by forest plan alternative. Based on this 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

90 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

suitability analysis, 60,839 acres were identified as tentatively suitable for timber production 

(table 7). This figure serves as the basis for the final timber suitability calculations.

Table 7. Acres tentatively suitable for timber production

otal NFS Lands (Prescott National Forest) 1,255,804 acres

Non-forest land 1,182,829 acres

Lands withdrawn from timber production 12,136 acres

Lands where irreversible resource damage likely 0 acres

Lands where adequate restocking not assured 0 acres

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 60,839 acres

Lands Suitable for Timber Production

The final calculation of lands suitable for timber production involves subtracting the acreage not 

appropriate for timber production from the tentatively suitable acreage. The categories of lands 

not appropriate for timber production include:

• Recommended wilderness areas included in each alternative 

• Areas where plan components limit timber harvest (acreages were identified by 

alternative and reflected lands identified as critical to Mexican spotted owls) 

• Lands that were not considered economically efficient to carry out timber production 

(e.g., areas on steep slopes or with blocked access due to recommended wilderness 

areas).

Table 8. Acres not appropriate for timber production by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Lands where management area prescriptions 

preclude timber production 0 438 0 1,124 25

Lands where management objectives limit timber 

harvest 16,426 16,426 16,426 16,426 16,426

Lands that are not economically cost efficient 0 5,513 0 5,226 5,513

Lands not appropriate for timber production 16,426 22,377 16,426 22,776 21,964

Lands where management area prescriptions preclude timber production would include 

tentatively suitable land within any potential wilderness area recommended for designation. 

On the Prescott NF, lands where management objectives limit timber harvest include areas that 

have been designated for protection of the Mexican spotted owl (MSO). These 16,426 protected 

acres are the same across alternatives.

An economic analysis was completed according to direction from the Southwestern Region 

Regional Office in which the tentatively suitable lands were divided into three broad categories: 

(1) roaded tractor operable ground, (2) non-roaded tractor operable ground, and (3) and 

helicopter/cable ground. Steep areas requiring helicopter logging had already been removed from 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 91

the tentatively suitable base. The remaining acres were evaluated according to the costs and 

revenues of logging. 

Suitable timber lands ranged from 38,063 acres to 44,413 acres across alternatives (table 9).

Table 9. Acres suitable for timber production by alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Lands tentatively suitable for timber 

production 60,839 60,839 60,839 60,839 60,839

Lands not appropriate for timber production 16,426 22,377 16,426 22,776 21,964 

Lands suitable for timber production 44,413 38,462 44,413 38,063 38,875 

Lands not suitable for timber production 1,211,391 1,217,342 1,211,391 1,217,741 1,216,929 

Long term Sustained Yield Capacity

The long term sustained yield capacity (LTSYC) is defined as the highest uniform yield of wood 

that lands being managed for timber production may sustain under specified management 

intensity and consistent with multiple use objectives. Most forest lands are not in a desired 

condition, so planners use mathematical models to estimate sustainable harvest levels. Short term 

harvest levels on lands where timber production is a regular, predictable activity would tend to 

steadily increase or decrease until those lands are at a desired condition and then remain steady 

around that level. 

The LTSYC for the Prescott NF was calculated using modeling and methodology developed by 

the Southwestern Region Regional Office. The methodology is discussed further in Youtz and 

Vandendriesche (2011). 

LTSYC calculations for ponderosa pine and its subtypes were based upon uneven-aged forest 

management systems. The uneven-aged management strategy assumed the following: 

• A group selection cutting method. 

• A 30-year cutting cycle with six age classes, and where group or patch sizes increase as 

forested conditions become progressively more mesic (or moist). 

The data sources used in calculating LTSYC were Southwestern Region Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) plot data (sorted by PNVT and site index) and a regionally calibrated Forest 

Vegetation Simulator. Based on this data, the annual volumes per acre shown in table 10 would be 

produced within Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak and Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak PNVTs.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

92 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 10. Annual volume production 

PNVT Site Index Volume

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak

High Site Index 17.8 CCF1 acre/year

Low Site Index 15.8 CCF acre/year

Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak

High Site Index 23.7CCF acre/year

Low Site Index 15.5 CCF acre/year

1 The unit of measure is hundred cubic feet (ccf).

The LTSYC is based on productivity of the land deemed suitable for timber production, and since 

the suitable acreage varies by alternative, the LTSYC does also. The equation used to calculate 

the LTSYC is the timber volume produced per acre per year, multiplied by the suitable timber 

production acres. For alternatives A and C, LTSYC is 69,680 CCF per decade. For alternative B, 

LTSYC is 60,343 CCF per decade. For alternative D, LTSYC is 59,706 CCF per decade. For 

alternative E, LTSYC is 60,996 CCF per decade.

Allowable Sale Quantity

The allowable sale quantity (AQS) is equal to or less than the amount of timber that could be 

harvested annually under the LTSYC. For the first decade, it is based on the sale schedule 

established in the forest plan, and it is projected for future periods. The ASQ should be set high 

enough to accommodate a base sale schedule (BSS) that reflects a constant or increasing level of 

planned timber sale offerings to be consistent with the principle of non-declining flow. 

Objective 5 in the revised plan is based on a projected annual average harvest of 800 acres for a 

10-year period. This objective did not vary across the action alternatives (B, C, D, and E); 

therefore, all the action alternatives share the same ASQ. 

Timber volumes that would be produced from activities included in Objective 5 were calculated 

for the 10-year period. The estimate for future volumes was based on past volumes that were 

produced within ponderosa pine-evergreen oak (PPE) and ponderosa pine-Gambel oak (PPO) 

since those are the only two vegetation types where there are acres suitable for timber harvest. 

Although the amount of proposed harvest on suitable lands is the same across the action 

alternatives, the amount of proposed tree thinning and removal on lands that are not suitable for 

timber production (e.g., the piñon-juniper PNVTs) varies considerably among alternatives.

The estimate for ASQ under alternative A is 23,385 CCF, and the estimate for ASQ under 

alternatives B, C, D, and E is 40,447 CCF. Table 11 below shows the breakdown by PNVT and 

product type.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 93

Table 11. Allowable sale quantity by alternative

PNVT

Alternative A Alternatives B, C, D, & E

Pulp ccf Saw ccf Total ccf Pulp ccf Saw ccf Total ccf

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen 

Oak PNVT 3,759 13,033 16,792 4,987 13,569 18,556

Ponderosa Pine-Gambel 

Oak PNVT 1,163 5,430 6,593 5,613 16,278 21,891

Totals 4,922 18,463 23,385 10,600 29,847 40,447

Documents that provide additional details on timber suitability, LTSYC, and ASQ:

• Prescott National Forest Timber Suitability, Long term Sustained Yield Capacity, and 

Allowable Sale Quantity Report (Forest Service, 2011e) 

• PNF 2011 Timber Suitability Calculations.xlsx (Spreadsheet) 

• National Forest Planning and Sustained Yield of the Timber Resource Long term

Sustained-Yield Calculations for Forest Land and Resource Management Planning 

(Youtz and Vandendriesche, 2011)

Terrestrial Ecosystem Sustainability Analysis

The first step in evaluating the sustainability of terrestrial ecosystems of the Prescott NF, was to 

classify the landscape into potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) as shown in table 12. 

PNVTs are coarse-scale groupings of ecosystem types that share similar geography, vegetation, 

and historic ecosystem disturbances such as fire, drought, and grazing by native species. PNVTs 

represent the vegetation type and characteristics that would occur when natural disturbance 

regimes and biological processes prevail on the landscape. It is important not to confuse PNVTs 

with existing vegetation types. 

The PNVT classifications were developed from data available in the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit 

Inventory 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). 

Table 12. Potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) of the Prescott NF

PNVT Name Acres Percent

Semi-Desert Grassland 125,712 10 

Great Basin Grassland 38,389 3 

Juniper Grassland 137,274 11 

 1 www.azconservation.org/downloads/category/southwest_regional/

2 www.landfire.gov
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

94 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

PNVT Name Acres Percent

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 

The status or condition of PNVTs can be evaluated by describing their unique ecosystem 

characteristics, which consist of a series of “states” and “transitions.” States describe the life 

forms, composition, age or size, and relative density of the vegetation at different life stages. 

Transitions are disturbance events that modify the existing vegetation in various ways based on 

their magnitude, frequency, and extent. Transitions also include biological processes such as 

growth, development, and death. A “states and transitions” framework allows for simulating and 

testing vegetation dynamics using computerized models. 

The individual vegetation characteristics that were evaluated included species composition, 

structure (vegetation states) of the dominant life forms (grass, shrub, and tree), and the 

disturbance regimes that define each PNVT. 

This information was used to compare current conditions to descriptions of the historical range of 

variability (HRV). The HRV characterizes the change in condition, over time and space, of the 

major vegetation types found in the Southwest. It also describes the ecological processes that 

shape those types, enabling land managers and the public to understand these drivers of change.

Knowledge of the historical range of variability in these PNVTs allowed us to draw inferences 

about ecological sustainability and to evaluate the link between current vegetation conditions, 

past and present management practices, and climatic variability. 

For example, the presence of a large number of exotic species in grasslands and riparian 

communities is a clear indicator that those communities are outside their HRV and, therefore, a 

potential threat to ecological sustainability of the ecosystem. The encroachment and 

establishment of woody species into grasslands is another indication that these communities may 

be outside their HRV. Ecosystem processes were also evaluated within the framework of the HRV, 

including the disturbance patterns resulting from fire, drought and insects, wind events, and 

flooding. 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 95

PNVT descriptions of the HRV3 were used to represent the reference conditions for analysis, and 

existing mid-scale vegetation mapping4 was used to represent the current conditions. 

Desired Conditions Similarity Index Value

A desired conditions similarity index value was calculated for each PNVT representing the relative

similarity between the current vegetative conditions and the desired vegetative conditions. 

Similarity index values are measured on a scale of 1 to 100 with 100 representing maximum

similarity. The concept parallels the ecological condition class (ECC) values computed for the 

“Prescott National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009b), where

relative departure was also expressed on a scale of 1 to 100. Departure values were based on a 

comparison of reference conditions to current conditions. The similarity index is based on a 

comparison of current conditions to desired conditions. Similarity and departure share an inverse 

relationship. In other words, a PNVT that exhibits a high similarity to desired conditions would 

inversely exhibit a low departure from reference conditions.

Similarity Index Value Calculation

Table 13 below displays the PNVT states (e.g., A, B, C, D) and class proportions (percentages) for 

both current and desired conditions for the Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak PNVT, observed on 

the Prescott NF.

To calculate similarity index values: For each vegetation state, the lesser value (current

proportion versus desired proportion) is recorded and then summed across vegetation states for a 

total as shown in underlined text on the right side of the table. Values of 1 to 33 = low similarity;

34 to 66 = moderate similarity; and 67 to 99 = high similarity to desired proportions/conditions. 

The index value represents the degree of similarity to desired conditions for a given modeled 

timeframe.

Table 13. PNVT states and class proportions

VDDT PNVT State/Class 

Proportions:

Desired Conditions

Results A B C D E F G Index Value & Label

Desired 4 3 24 60 4 5

Current 12 47 1 2 35 3

4 3 1 2 4 3 17 Low

Desired 4 3 24 60 4 5

YR 10 6 34 6 18 30 6

 3 PNVT descriptions of characteristic are from two sources: The Nature Conservancy (Schussman and Smith, 2006a and 2006b) and 

the LANDFIRE Project (LANDFIRE, 2007). A crosswalk was developed to link PNVT descriptions with map units of the “Terrestrial 

Ecological Unit Inventory of the Prescott National Forest” (Robertson et al., 2000). 

4 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.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

96 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

4 3 6 18 4 5 40 Moderate

Desired 4 3 24 60 4 5 

YR20 4 27 6 24 29 10

 4 3 6 24 4 5 46 Moderate

Desired 4 3 24 60 4 5 

YR 40 2 22 6 28 27 15

2 3 6 28 4 5 50 Moderate

Desired 4 3 24 60 4 5 

YR 80 2 21 5 27 28 17

2 3 5 27 4 5 48 Moderate

PNVT States

The figures on the following pages display the current and desired future conditions for each of 

the 10 PNVTs at the landscape scale. Each PNVT is described by a unique set of states and the 

proportional difference between current and desired conditions can be discerned. This 

information provides a set of baseline conditions useful for measuring progress toward desired 

conditions over time.

Semi-Desert Grassland 

Figure 5. Semi-Desert Grassland
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 97

Semi-Desert Grassland PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Herbaceous vegetation regeneration, recently burned, sparsely vegetated; with 

< 10 percent tree or shrub canopy cover; early development. Mid-scale vegetation 

classification codes: RB, SVG.

• State B – Perennial herbaceous vegetation, with < 10 percent tree or shrub canopy cover; 

mid development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: GFB.

• State C – Perennial herbaceous vegetation with shrubs, seedling and sapling size (< 5"

dia.), small size (5–9.9" dia.) trees with open (< 30 percent) canopy cover; late 

development; not part of historic conditions, found on contemporary landscapes only. 

Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: SHO, SSO, SMO.

• State D – Shrubs, seedling and sapling, small, medium size (>20" dia.) trees with closed 

(≥ 30 percent) canopy cover, and large to very large size trees with open canopy cover

with perennial herbaceous vegetation, mid development; not part of historic conditions, 

found on contemporary landscapes only. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: SHC, 

SSC, SMC, VOS.

The Semi-Desert Grassland PNVT exhibits a low similarity (31 percent) to desired conditions.

The desired condition descriptions and proportions were developed by the Prescott NF planning 

team, led by the forest planning ecologist.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

98 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Great Basin Grassland

Figure 6. Great Basin Grassland 

Great Basin Grassland PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Herbaceous vegetation regeneration, recently burned, sparsely vegetated; with 

< 10 percent tree or shrub canopy cover; early development. Mid-scale vegetation 

classification codes: RB, SVG.

• State B – Open perennial herbaceous vegetation, with < 10 percent tree or shrub canopy 

cover; mid development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: GFB.

• State C – Perennial herbaceous vegetation with shrubs, seedling and sapling size (< 5"

dia.), small size (5–9.9" dia.), and medium size (10–19.9" dia.) trees with open (< 30

percent) canopy cover; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: 

SHO, SSO, SMO, MOS.

• State D – Shrubs, seedling and sapling size (< 5" dia.), small size (5–9.9" dia.), and 

medium size (10–19.9" dia.) trees with closed (≥ 30 percent) canopy cover: mid 

development. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: SHC, SSC, SMC, MCS.

The Great Basin Grassland PNVT exhibits a high similarity (83 percent) to desired conditions. 

The desired condition descriptions and proportions were developed by the Prescott NF planning 

team, led by the forest planning ecologist.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 99

Juniper Grassland

Figure 7. Juniper Grassland

Juniper Grassland PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Recently burned, grass, forb, and shrub types with < 10 percent tree canopy 

cover; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: RB, GFB, SHR.

• State B – Seedling and sapling size (< 5" dia.) trees with open (< 30 percent) canopy 

cover; all tree types; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SSO.

• State C – Small size (5–9.9" dia.) trees, with open canopy cover; all tree types; mid 

development. The current and desired proportion of state C is included in state B. Midscale vegetation classification code: SMO.

• State D – Medium and large to very large size (≥ 10" dia.) trees, with open canopy cover; 

all tree types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: MVO.

• State E – Seedling and sapling size trees with closed (≥ 30 percent) canopy cover; all tree 

types; early development. The current and desired proportion of state E is included in 

state B. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SSC.

• State F – Small size trees, with closed canopy cover; all tree types; mid development. 

Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SMC.

• State G – Medium and large to very large size trees, with closed canopy cover; all tree 

types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: MVC

The Juniper Grassland PNVT exhibits a moderate similarity (55 percent) to desired conditions. 

The desired condition descriptions and proportions were provided by the Forest Service 

Southwestern Region Regional Office.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

100 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub

Figure 8. Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub

Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Recently burned, grass, forb, and shrub types with < 10 percent tree canopy 

cover; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: RB, GFB, SHR.

• State B – Seedling and sapling size (< 5" dia.) trees with open (< 30 percent) canopy 

cover; all tree types; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SSO.

• State C – Small size (5–9.9" dia.) trees, with open canopy cover; all tree types; mid 

development. The current and desired proportion of state C is included in state B. Midscale vegetation classification code: SMO.

• State D – Medium and large to very large size (≥ 10" dia.) trees, with open canopy cover; 

all tree types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: MVO.

• State E – Seedling and sapling size trees with closed (≥ 30 percent) canopy cover; all tree 

types; early development. The current and desired proportion of state E is included in 

state B. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SSC.

• State F – Small size trees, with closed canopy cover; all tree types; mid development. 

Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SMC.

• State G – Medium and large to very large size trees, with closed canopy cover; all tree 

types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: MVC.

The Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub PNVT exhibits a low similarity (29 percent) to desired 

conditions. The desired condition descriptions and proportions were provided by the Forest 

Service Southwestern Region Regional Office.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 101

Piñon-Juniper Woodland

Figure 9. Piñon-Juniper Woodland

Piñon-Juniper Woodland PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Recently burned, grass, forb, and shrub types with < 10 percent tree canopy 

cover; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: RB, GFB, SHR.

• State B – Seedling and sapling size (< 5" dia.) trees with open (< 30 percent) canopy 

cover; all tree types; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SSO.

• State C – Small size (5–9.9" dia.) trees, with open canopy cover; all tree types; mid 

development. The current and desired proportion of state C is included in state B. Midscale vegetation classification code: SMO.

• State D – Medium and large to very large size (≥ 10" dia.) trees, with open canopy cover; 

all tree types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: MVO.

• State E – Seedling and sapling size trees with closed (≥ 30 percent) canopy cover; all tree 

types; early development. The current and desired proportion of state E is included in 

state B. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SSC.

• State F – Small size trees, with closed canopy cover; all tree types; mid development. 

Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SMC.

• State G – Medium and large to very large size trees, with closed canopy cover; all tree 

types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: MVC.

The Piñon-Juniper Woodland PNVT exhibits a high similarity (79 percent) to desired conditions. 

The desired condition descriptions and proportions were provided by the Forest Service 

Southwestern Region Regional Office.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

102 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Interior Chaparral

Figure 10. Interior Chaparral

Interior Chaparral PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Herbaceous vegetation regeneration, recently burned, sparsely vegetated; with 

< 10 percent shrub or tree canopy cover; early development. Mid-scale vegetation 

classification codes: RB, SVG, GFB.

• State B – Open perennial herbaceous vegetation, with shrubs, seedling and sapling size (< 

5" dia.) and small size (5–9.9" dia.) trees with open (<30 percent) canopy cover; mid 

development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SHO, SSO, SMO.

• State C – Shrubs, seedling and sapling, small, and medium size (10–19.9" dia.) trees with 

closed (≥ 30 percent) canopy cover with no herbaceous vegetation understory; late 

development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SHC, SSC, SMC, MVC.

The Interior Chaparral PNVT exhibits a high similarity (90 percent) to desired conditions. The 

desired condition descriptions and proportions were developed by the Prescott NF planning team, 

led by the forest planning ecologist.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 103

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak 

Figure 11. Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Recently burned, grass, forb, and shrub types with < 10 percent tree canopy 

cover; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: RB, SVG, GFB.

• State B – Small size (5–9.9" dia.) trees, with closed (≥ 30 percent) cover; all tree types; 

mid development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SMC.

• State C – Small size (5–9.9" dia.) trees, with open canopy cover; all tree types; mid 

development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SMO.

• State D – Medium and large to very large size (≥ 10" dia.) trees, with open canopy cover; 

all tree types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: MVO.

• State E – Medium and large to very large size (≥ 10" dia.) trees, with closed (≥ 30

percent) cover; all tree types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: 

MVC.

• State F – Resprouter dominated seedling and sapling size trees with closed (≥ 30 percent) 

canopy cover; all tree types; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: 

SSA.

The Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak PNVT exhibits a low similarity (24 percent) to desired 

conditions. The desired condition descriptions and proportions were provided by the Forest 

Service Southwestern Region Regional Office.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

104 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak 

Figure 12. Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak

Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Recently burned, grass, forb, and shrub types with < 10 percent tree canopy 

cover; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: GFB, SHR.

• State B – Seedling and sapling size (< 5" dia.) trees with open (< 30 percent) canopy 

cover; all tree types; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SSO.

• State C – Small size (5–9.9" dia.) trees, with open canopy cover; all tree types; mid 

development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SMO.

• State D – Medium size (10–19.9" dia.) trees, single storied, with open canopy cover; all 

tree types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: MOS.

• State E – Large to very large size (≥ 20" dia.) trees, single storied, with open canopy 

cover; all tree types; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: VOS.

• State F – Seedling and sapling size trees with closed (≥ 30 percent) canopy cover; all tree 

types; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SSC.

• State G – Small size trees, with closed canopy cover; all tree types; mid development; not 

part of the historic conditions, found on contemporary landscapes only. Mid-scale 

vegetation classification code: SMC.

• State H – Medium size trees, single storied, with closed canopy cover; all shade tree 

types; late development; not part of historic conditions, found on contemporary 

landscapes only. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: MCS.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 105

• State I – Large to very large size trees, single storied, with closed canopy cover; all tree 

types; late development; not part of historic conditions, found on contemporary 

landscapes only. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: VCS.

• State J – Medium size trees, multistoried, with open canopy cover; all tree types; late 

development. This state does not currently exist on the Prescott NF. Mid-scale vegetation 

classification code: MOM.

• State K – Large to very large size trees, multistoried, with open canopy cover; all tree 

types; late development. This state does not currently exist on the Prescott NF. Mid-scale 

vegetation classification code: VOM.

• State L – Medium size trees, multistoried, with closed canopy cover; all tree types; late 

development; not part of historic conditions, found on contemporary landscapes only. 

This state does not currently exist on the Prescott NF. Mid-scale vegetation classification 

code: MCM.

• State M – Large to very large size trees, multistoried, with closed canopy cover; tree 

types; late development; not part of historic conditions, found on contemporary 

landscapes only. This state does not currently exist on the Prescott NF. Mid-scale 

vegetation classification code: VCM.

• State N – Recently burned, grass, forb, and shrub types with < 10 percent tree canopy 

cover; uncharacteristic early development due to fire; not part of historic conditions, 

found on contemporary landscapes only. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: GFB, 

SHR.

The Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak PNVT exhibits a low similarity (20 percent) to desired 

conditions. The desired condition descriptions and proportions were provided by the Forest 

Service Southwestern Region Regional Office.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

106 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Desert Communities

Figure 13. Desert Communities

Desert Communities PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Herbaceous vegetation, recently burned, sparsely vegetated; with < 10 percent

tree or shrub canopy cover; early development. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: 

RB, SVG, GFB.

• State B – Shrubs, and small woody plants and trees (1–9.9" dia.), with open (< 30

percent) canopy cover; mid development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SHO.

• State C – Shrubs, medium size or larger (>10" dia.) cactus and trees with open (< 30

percent) canopy cover; late development. Mid-scale vegetation classification code: SHC, 

SSO, SMO, SMC, MVO.

The Desert Communities PNVT exhibits a high similarity (86 percent) to desired conditions. The 

desired condition descriptions and proportions were provided by the Forest Service Southwestern 

Region Regional Office.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 107

Riparian Gallery Forest

Figure 14. Riparian Gallery Forest

Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT Vegetation Structural States

• State A – Herbaceous vegetation regeneration, recently burned, sparsely vegetated; 

shrubs, seedling, and sapling size (< 5" dia.) trees; early development. Mid-scale 

vegetation classification codes: RB, SVG, GFB, SHR, SSA.

• State B – Small size (5–9.9" dia.), and medium size (10–19.9" dia.) trees with generally 

closed (>30 percent) canopy cover; mid development. Mid-scale vegetation classification 

code: SMO, SMC, MOS, MCS.

• State C – Large to very large size (>20" dia.) trees with open or closed canopy cover; late 

development. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: VCS, VOS.

• State D – Mesquite dominated shrub mixes; late development closed (>30 percent) 

canopy cover. Mid-scale vegetation classification codes: SHR.

The Riparian Gallery Forest PNVT exhibits a high similarity (75 percent) to desired conditions. 

The desired condition descriptions and proportions were provided by the Forest Service 

Southwestern Region Regional Office.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

108 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

VDDT Modeling

The Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT), Version 6.0.25 (ESSA Technologies, 

2006), a Windows-based computer application, was used to forecast the response of the potential 

natural vegetation types to human caused and natural disturbance events and agents proposed or 

expected under each of the plan alternatives. The software allowed for the non-spatial modeling 

of a series of vegetation states that differ in structure, composition, and canopy cover and to 

specify the amount of time it takes to move from one vegetation state to another in the absence of 

disturbance.

Various disturbance agents affecting the movement of vegetation between states (or transitions) 

are incorporated (e.g., mechanical vegetation treatments, surface fires, mixed-severity fires, 

stand-replacing fires, grazing, insect outbreaks, and drought events). By varying the types and 

rates of disturbance across the landscape, the effects of different disturbance regimes, such as 

historic and current fire regimes, or different management treatments, such as prescribed fire and 

wildfire managed for resource benefits, fire suppression, grazing practices, and mechanical fuel 

treatments, on vegetation can be investigated (Schussman and Smith, 2006a). Input data used in 

modeling came directly from forest management activities and fire data over the last 25 years.

State destinations and transition probabilities for vegetation treatments were derived from Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS), modeling, Version 6.31. FVS is a distance independent; individual 

tree forest growth model widely used in the United States and is used to compare alternatives. 

State destinations for natural fires and fire treatments were derived from FVS modeling, Version 

2.02 and Fire and Fuel Extension (FFE) (Rebain, 2010). Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plot 

data were used to calibrate the VDDT model to estimate relative proportions of even- and 

uneven-aged conditions on the forests (Weisz et al., 2012).

The following PNVTs were modeled using VDDT software: Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak, 

Ponderosa-Pine Evergreen Oak, Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub, and Juniper Grassland. These

PNVT models were developed by the Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office. The VDDT 

models for Interior Chaparral, Semi-Desert Grassland, and Great Basin Grassland PNVTs were 

developed by the Forest Service at the forest level and reviewed at the regional level prior to 

analysis.

Some of the drawbacks and limitations of VDDT modeling are:

• VDDT is a non-spatial, long-range strategic model. It does not describe what is 

happening at a site-specific level of detail and is intended mainly for broad-scale analysis.

• Some of the VDDT inputs used were derived from other modeling outputs, for example 

FVS timber harvest treatment state transition destinations and the probability of those 

outcomes.

• The VDDT model divides vegetation conditions within each PNVT into a small number 

of discrete states, and it is acknowledged that there is more variability within each state 

than has been modeled.

• VDDT models overstory structure, composition, and cover as defined by mid-scale 

vegetation mapping in great detail, but does not model the understory vegetation (for 

example, the species composition of grasses and forbs).
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 109

• VDDT modeled the distribution of landscape states over time, and does not model the 

more detailed physical (e.g. soil temperature, precipitation, aspect, elevation, 

productivity), chemical, and biological dynamics of what is happening at each scale of 

spatial resolution. 

• VDDT models the probability and timing of events (e.g., fire behavior, management 

activities, insect and disease occurrences) based on empirical observations, but cannot 

accurately predict future behavior due to climate change or other phenomena outside of 

the historic range of variability.

It was assumed that the disturbances (e.g., management activities) selected for the VDDT model 

represent the majority of disturbances the Prescott NF experiences. There could be many 

variations to these disturbances; however, these were not modeled in detail for this analysis. 

According to Lauenroth and Laycock (1989) and others, succession may follow multiple 

pathways and reach different end points depending on the effects of disturbance on the life history 

characteristics of the vegetation; causing predictability to be limited by the importance of chance 

or infrequent events.

The results of each PNVT model run were recorded in electronic spreadsheets, and calculations of 

differences between alternatives were performed. PNVT end states were compiled for each 

alternative and comparisons made between alternatives for similarity to desired condition 

descriptions and proportions of open canopy states; results were then supplemented by other extra 

model information for disclosure in the environmental effects analysis.

Vegetation Treatments

Management activities including tree thinning, shrub removal, and prescribed fire were input into 

individual VDDT models to estimate the resulting movement toward or away from desired 

conditions, the proportions of each vegetation state, and the expected fire frequency.

Alternative A was modeled using the average number of acres treated over a 10-year period (table 

14). The action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) were modeled at both the minimum (tables 15, 17, 

and 19) and maximum (tables 16, 18, and 20) proposed treatment levels to determine the potential

range of outcomes. These outcomes were used to calculate the progress toward desired conditions 

under a range of treatment levels. This provided the basis for comparison of the trends established 

by the low and high levels of treatment for each alternative. 

The vegetation treatments modeled for each alternative are summarized in the tables below.

The following codes were used to represent the modeled PNVTs:

• SDG Semi-Desert Grassland

• CPGB Great Basin Grassland

• JUG Juniper Grassland

• PJC Piñon-Juniper Evergreen Shrub

• CHAP Interior Chaparral

• PPE Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak

• PPO Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

110 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The Piñon-Juniper Woodland, Desert Communities, and Riparian Gallery Forest PNVTs were not 

modeled for treatments.

Table 14. Average annual treatment acres for alternative A 

Treatment SDG CPGB JUG PJC CHAP PPE PPO Totals

Rx Thin 

acres 0 0 148 166 159 483 71 1,027

Rx Fire acres 914 6 408 1,568 3,103 1,457 379 7,835

Totals 914 6 556 1,734 3,262 1,940 450 8,862

Table 15. Lower-end average annual treatment acres for alternatives B and E

Treatment SDG CPGB JUG PJC CHAP PPE PPO Totals

Rx Thin Low 

acres 0 0 150 150 200 125 125 750

Rx Fire Low 

acres 2,500 100 500 1,200 3,800 2,000 500 10,600

Totals 2,500 100 650 1,350 4,000 2,125 625 11,350

Table 16. Higher-end average annual treatment acres for alternatives B and E

Treatment SDG CPGB JUG PJC CHAP PPE PPO Totals

Rx Thin 

High acres 0 0 200 2,000 3,500 400 400 6,500

Rx Fire High 

acres 6,500 500 800 6,000 6,500 4,000 1,000 25,300

Totals 6,500 500 1,000 8,000 10,000 4,400 1,400 31,800

Table 17. Lower-end average annual treatment acres for alternative C 

Treatment SDG CPGB JUG PJC CHAP PPE PPO Totals

Rx Thin Low 

acres 0 0 150 150 200 125 125 750

Rx Fire Low 

acres 6,500 500 500 1,200 3,800 2,200 800 15,500

Totals 6,500 500 650 1,350 4,000 2,325 925 16,250
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 111

Table 18. Higher-end average annual treatment acres for alternative C 

Treatment SDG CPGB JUG PJC CHAP PPE PPO Totals

Rx Thin 

High acres 0 0 200 1,000 2,000 400 400 4,000

Rx Fire High 

acres 8,500 1,000 800 2,000 4,000 4,500 2,000 22,800

Totals 8,500 1,000 1,000 3,000 6,000 4,900 2,400 26,800

Table 19. Lower-end average annual treatment acres for alternative D 

Treatment SDG CPGB JUG PJC CHAP PPE PPO Totals

Rx Thin Low 

acres 0 0 150 150 200 125 125 750

Rx Fire Low 

acres 2,500 100 500 1,200 3,800 2,000 500 10,600

Totals 2,500 100 650 1,350 4,000 2,125 625 11,350

Table 20. Higher-end average annual treatment acres for alternative D 

Treatment SDG CPGB JUG PJC CHAP PPE PPO Totals

Rx Thin 

High acres 0 0 200 1,000 2,000 400 400 4,000

Rx Fire High 

acres 6,500 500 800 2,000 4,000 4,000 1,000 18,800

Totals 6,500 500 1,000 3,000 6,000 4,400 1,400 22,800

Other Data Sources and Assumptions

Other data sources used in the vegetation and fire ecology analysis include the summary field 

information compiled for the “Ecological Classification of the Prescott National Forest” (Girard 

et. al., 2008) and corporate data on wildland fire occurrence. 

Assumptions that were part of the analysis include:

• The population and calibration of VDDT using FIA plots and FVS modeling of growth 

and disturbances generally represents the response of PNVTs well enough to compare 

outcomes proposed by the various alternatives in terms of desired conditions and 

treatment objectives.

• A range of treatment activities is proposed for each alternative. The VDDT model was 

used to estimate outcomes at the minimum and maximum levels of treatment for each 

vegetation and fire management objective.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

112 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

• Because some of the treatment objectives target a combination of PNVTs, it was 

necessary to assign treatment levels to individual PNVTs based on testing of VDDT 

model sensitivity, existing and desired conditions, and professional judgment. As an 

example, Objective-3 under alternative B states, “Treat 20,000 to 90,000 acres in juniper 

grasslands, piñon-juniper shrublands, or piñon-juniper woodlands PNVTs using 

mechanical treatments, fire, or domestic livestock ...” The objective does not specifically 

define how much of each activity is to occur for each PNVT. The specific model inputs 

used for each alternative are displayed above.

Documents that provide additional details on the vegetation and fire ecology analysis:

• Mapping existing vegetation at the mid-scale level in the Forest Service Southwestern 

Region. (Mellin et. al., 2008)

• Evaluating the ecological sustainability of a piñon-juniper grassland ecosystem in 

Northern Arizona. (Weisz et. al., 2010)

• Ecological Classification of the Prescott National Forest (Girard et. al., 2008)

• Prescott National Forest Vegetation and Fire Ecology Specialist Report. (Forest Service, 

2011j)

Watershed Analysis

An initial watershed condition assessment for the planning area was performed at the sub-basin

and watershed levels as reported in the “Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 

2009b). The effects analysis for the revised plan and alternatives used the findings from the 

“Ecological Sustainability Report” as well as additional information at the sub-watershed level 

that became available in 2011 from development of the Watershed Condition Classification 

(WCC) system. 

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 on their attributes and assigned a rating which 

falls into one of three classes (table 21):

• 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.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 113

Table 21. Number of Prescott NF watersheds by condition class indicator

Condition 

Class

Aquatic Physical Aquatic 

Biological

Terrestrial 

Physical Terrestrial Biological

1. Water 

Quality

2. Water 

Quantity

3. Aquatic 

Habitat

4. Aquatic 

Biota

5. Riparian 

Vegetation

6. Roads and

Trails

7. Soils

8. Fire Regime

9. Forest 

Cover

10. Rangeland 

Vegetation

11. Invasive 

Species

12. Forest 

Health

Functioning 68 61 29 33 28 0 6 3 39 2 97 97

At Risk 23 23 44 52 52 12 46 91 4 34 0 0

Impaired 6 13 24 12 17 85 45 3 54 61 0 0

The individual indicator scores were grouped into four categories which were then weighted and 

summed to produce an overall condition rating for each sub-watershed. The aquatic physical 

(table 20, indicators 1 to 3) and aquatic biological (table 20, indicators 4 and 5) categories are 

weighted at 30 percent each because of their direct impact to aquatic systems. The terrestrial 

physical category (table 20, indicators 6 and 7) is weighted at 30 percent because roads are 

typically one of the highest sources of impact to watershed condition. The terrestrial biological 

category (table 20, indicators 8 to 12) is weighted at 10 percent because these indicators have 

indirect impact to watershed condition. The overall watershed condition scores were tracked to 

one decimal point, with Class 1 = scores of 1.0 to 1.6, Class 2 = scores from 1.7 to 2.2, and Class 

3 = scores from 2.3 to 3.0.

Eighty-three of the sub-watersheds administered at least in part by the Prescott NF were rated as 

“at risk” condition. At the watershed scale, 21 of the 22 watersheds also received an overall “at 

risk” rating (table 22).

Table 22. Overall watershed and sub-watershed conditions

Condition Class

Number of 

Watersheds

Number of 

Sub-watersheds

1 – Functioning 1 12

2 – At Risk 21 83

3 – Impaired 0 2

The individual and overall watershed condition indicator ratings were developed for the WCC 

system at the sub-watershed level; however, for plan revision analysis, they were also aggregated 

up to the watershed level to facilitate comparison with the prior analysis compiled for the 

“Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009b). 

The ratings for individual condition indicators were used in analyzing the potential effects of the 

revised plan and its alternatives. Seven of the watershed condition indicators were chosen that 

best reflect the consequences of recreation use and management in the watersheds and subwatersheds. They include:
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

114 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

• Riparian/Wetland Vegetation 

• Roads and Trails 

• Soils

• Fire Regime or Wildfire

• Forest Cover

• Rangeland Vegetation

• Water Quality

Documents that provide additional details on the hydrology and soils analysis:

• Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report (Forest 

Service, 2011k)

• Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. FS-978 (Forest Service, 2011m)

• USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Dataset (Forest Service, 

2011n)

• Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the Prescott National Forest: An Evaluation of 

Water Resource Characteristics, and their Contribution in Ecological Diversity and 

Ecological Sustainability (Forest Service, 2008a)

• Ecological Sustainability Report (Forest Service, 2009b)

Species Viability Analysis

In the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions, national forests are required to manage for viable 

populations of native and desired nonnative vertebrate species in the planning area (Sec. 219.19). 

Direction in the Forest Service Manual adds plants and invertebrates to the species to be analyzed 

in the viability process.

Viable populations are considered those that have: (1) at least a minimum number of reproductive 

individuals and (2) habitat that is well distributed so individuals or populations can interact with 

others in the planning area.

The evaluation of effects on species viability of the revised plan and its alternatives is based on 

the effects to the ecological conditions that provide for ecosystem diversity (FSH 1909.12, Chap. 

40, and Sec. 43.21). The overall assumption of ecosystem management is that managing systems 

within the range of conditions that native species have experienced over evolutionary time is 

likely to maintain populations of those species. The evaluation of effects will be assessed as a risk 

to species viability from the revised plan and its alternatives. 

Risk is comprised of two components: the likelihood of a negative outcome and the severity of a 

negative outcome. From an ecological standpoint, a negative outcome is defined as a departure 

from reference conditions. 

The following indicators were considered for each species: 

• How habitat quantity, quality, and distribution is affected by management actions.

• The trends in the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitat.

• The trends in distribution and abundance of the species.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 115

The effects from management actions on the indicators are influenced by numerous measures 

such as the extent of area affected, the severity of impacts, and the duration of impacts. The 

consequences of the impacts are then related to their effect on trends to suitable habitat and 

species populations. The ratings and their descriptions are as follows: 

• Low – Management actions would have low likelihood of changing habitat quantity or 

distribution in the planning area. Management actions could have low to high levels of 

ground or vegetation disturbance within the watersheds. However, due to the small area 

of impacts and with implementation of best management practices (BMPs5

) there would 

be minimal impacts to habitat quality. Trends to suitable habitat and species populations 

would be maintained or improved in the planning area. 

• Moderate – Management actions would have low likelihood of changing habitat quantity 

or distribution in the planning area. Management actions could have low to high levels of 

ground or vegetation disturbance within the watersheds with a larger extent of area 

impacted. There would be impacts to habitat quality even with implementation of BMPs. 

However, impacts would be of short duration and would maintain or improve habitat 

quality in the long term. Trends to suitable habitat and species populations would be 

maintained or improved within the planning area. 

• High – Management actions would have moderate to high likelihood of decreasing 

habitat quantity or distribution in the planning area. Management actions would have 

high extent, severity, and duration of impacts to the ecosystem. There would be adverse 

impacts to habitat quantity, quality, and distribution even with implementation of BMPs. 

The decrease in habitat would reduce species populations within the planning area.

An assessment of species diversity for the Prescott NF was completed as part of the “Prescott 

National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009b). From an initial list of 

815 species, 121 were determined to have a potential viability concern. Species viability 

assessments were prepared according to Forest Service policy (FSM 2670) and documented in 

three specialist reports (Forest Service, 2011f, 2011g, and 2011h).

Viability risks 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.

• Threats from Forest Service management actions expected to occur within the planning 

area6

. The results of these assessments provided a determination of no, low, or some risk 

to viability for each species evaluated.

 5 BMPs are a practice or combination of practices determined to be the most effective, practicable means of preventing 

or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals, and 

are developed to comply with the Clean Water Act.

6 “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).
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

116 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

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 ensure the 

viability of those species.

Of the 121 species indicating a potential viability concern, there were 56 plant species, 11 

mammals, 33 birds, 3 reptiles, 2 amphibians, 12 fish, and 4 invertebrates. Forty-one species were 

found to have no risk to their viability, 48 species were found to have low risk to their viability; 

and 32 were found to have some additional risk to their population viability.

Table 23 provides a summary of the species that were assessed to be at some potential viability 

risk and the corresponding Prescott NF plan components (coarse or fine filter) proposed to ensure 

that viable populations of species can be maintained in the planning area.

Table 23. Plan components addressing 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 ConditionsVegetation-1, 3, 4, 5

Desired ConditionsWatershed-1 and 2

Desired Condition- Lands2

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, broadleaf 

lupine, Cochise sedge

Mammals PNVT Desired Conditions

Desired ConditionsWatershed-1 and 2

Desired ConditionsAquatic-1 and 2

Desired Condition- Lands2

Gunnison’s prairie dog, plains harvest mouse, 

western red bat

Birds 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, 

southwestern willow flycatcher, western 

yellow-billed cuckoo, Abert’s towhee, bald 

eagle, common black-hawk, Bell’s vireo 

Reptiles and 

Amphibians

Arizona toad, lowland leopard frog

Fish Gila chub, Gila trout, roundtail chub, desert 

sucker, longfin dace, Sonora sucker, speckled 

dace

MacroinvertebratesBrown springsnail, Verde Rim springsnail, 

Maricopa tiger beetle
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 117

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 and 2 

Standard-Recreation-1 

Standard-Locatable 

Minerals-2

Guidelines-Plants-1, 2, 3, 

5, 6 

Guideline-Range-4

Guideline-Recreation-5

Guideline-Locatable 

Minerals-6

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-1, 2, 

3, 6

Objectives-25 to 28

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, pocketed 

free-tailed bat, pronghorn antelope

Birds Guideline-Wildlife-1, 2, 4, 

5

American peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted 

owl, red-faced warbler, Cordilleran 

flycatcher, Bendire’s thrasher, northern 

goshawk

Reptiles and 

Amphibians

Guideline-Fish/Aquatics1, 2, 3, 4

Standard-Range-2

Guideline-Watershed - 4, 

8, and 11

Guideline-Wildland Fire-8

Sonoran desert tortoise, northern Mexican 

gartersnake, narrow-headed gartersnake

Fish Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, loach 

minnow, spikedace, Colorado pikeminnow

MacroinvertebratesA caddisfly

Documents that provide additional details on analysis of species viability:

• Viability Procedures for Use in Forest Plan Revision – Draft (Forest Service, 2010c)

• Ecological Sustainability Report (Forest Service, 2009b)

• Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Terrestrial Species Viability Report (Forest 

Service, 2011f)

• Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability 

Analysis (Forest Service, 2011g)

• Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Vascular Plant Viability Analysis (Forest 

Service, 2011h)

Management Indicator Species Selection

The 1982 Planning Rule Provisions (Section 219.19) provide direction for the selection and use 

of management indicator species (MIS) in Forest Service land management planning. Direction 

includes the following:
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

118 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

• “In order to estimate the effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations, 

certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and 

selected as management indicator species and the reasons for their selection will be 

stated. These species shall be selected because their population changes are believed to 

indicate the effects of management activities.” (219.19(1))

• “Planning alternatives shall be stated and evaluated in terms of both amount and quality 

of habitat and of animal population trends of management indicator species.” (219.19(2))

• “Population trends of management indicator species will be monitored and relationships 

to habitat changes determined.” (219.19(6)) 

Selection Criteria

Forest Service biologists and planners followed the process outlined in the “Region 3 

Management Indicator Species Selection Process and Criteria,” working draft (Forest Service, 

2010d) to evaluate and select MIS for the revised plan and alternatives. The following criteria 

were used to guide selection of Prescott NF management indicator species:

• The species reflect major management issues or challenges.

• The species are relatively common but have high fidelity to specific habitat or vegetation 

types. 

• The species demonstrate a strong and/or predictable response to management activities.

• A substantial portion of the species life history occurs on Prescott NF lands.

• The species can be monitored effectively and efficiently and is already monitored by 

large-scale monitoring programs.

• The species are monitored by other entities (e.g., State wildlife agency census data)

• The species represent the following categories where appropriate:

○ Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal 

lists.

○ Species with special habitat requirements that may be influenced substantially by 

planned management programs.

○ Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped.

○ Non-game species of special interest.

○ Other plant or animal species whose population changes are believed to be 

appropriate indicators of the effects of management activities on other species (i.e.,

proxies).

Management indicator species are vertebrate or invertebrate species whose population changes 

indicate the effects of management activities included in plan components. Habitats that reflect 

major management issues or challenges and habitats that could be evaluated using MIS were 

identified.

Information sources such as the “Forest Level Analysis of Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

for the Prescott National Forest,” 2009 update (Forest Service, 2010e) and the “Ecological 

Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2009b) were used to identify species that could provide 

evaluation of management actions in habitats identified previously.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 119

Species were reviewed to determine whether: (1) they were strongly influenced by factors other 

than management activities or did not have well understood narrow habitat associations, and (2) 

their known populations trends were not related to local changes in habitat composition, structure, 

or ecological processes.

Selection of Management Indicator Species

The chosen management indicator species are listed below with narratives describing how criteria 

for selection were met.

Pronghorn Antelope (Antilocapra americana): Game Species

• Species reflect major management issues or challenges?

Yes. Grassland PNVTs on the Prescott NF are highly departed relative to reference and 

desired conditions in terms of species composition, horizontal and vertical structure, and 

fire patterns. Grassland restoration objectives are proposed in varying amounts for all 

alternatives.

• Are relatively common but have high fidelity to specific vegetation types?

Yes. Pronghorn was selected for its close association to grassland habitats. Grassland 

habitats occupy more than 270,000 acres of the area administered by the Prescott NF and 

over 1.6 million acres within the Tonto Transition Ecological Section of central Arizona. 

• Demonstrate a strong and/or predictable response to management activities?

Yes. Increases in pronghorn population numbers and expansion of pronghorn occurrences 

on or near Prescott NF lands are goals shared by both the Forest Service and the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. The agencies work collaboratively to implement habitat 

improvement projects on Prescott NF lands. Best available science is applied to project 

design criteria to facilitate habitat improvements.

• Substantial portion of the species life history occurs on Prescott NF administered lands?

Yes. While pronghorn populations can be influenced by predators and weather, habitat 

loss off the forest is a significant impact to local populations. As areas off the forest 

become unavailable due to habitat loss or fragmentation from urban development, 

suitable habitat on the forest will likely become more critical to maintaining a sustainable 

pronghorn population.

• Can be monitored effectively and efficiently and is already monitored?

Yes. Because pronghorn are a MIS under the 1987 plan, there are strong baseline data to 

assess trends from management activities past, present, and future.

• Are monitored by other entities?

Yes. Pronghorn are currently monitored by the Arizona Game and Fish Department on an 

annual basis for areas on and adjacent to the Prescott NF.

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis): Forest Service Sensitive Species

• Species reflect major management issues or challenges?
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

120 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Yes. Ponderosa pine dominated forests on the Prescott NF are highly departed relative to 

reference and desired conditions in terms of species composition, horizontal and vertical 

structure, and fire patterns. Ponderosa pine restoration objectives are proposed in varying 

amounts for all alternatives.

• Are relatively common but have high fidelity to specific vegetation types? 

Yes. Northern goshawk is a forest dwelling raptor chosen for its close association with 

ponderosa pine habitat (all stages of stand structure). The goshawk’s primary prey 

species, the tassel-eared squirrel, is also closely associated with ponderosa pine 

vegetation. Ponderosa pine habitat occupies about 112,000 acres of the area administered 

by the Prescott NF and almost 500,000 acres within the Tonto Transition Ecological 

Section of central Arizona. 

• Demonstrate a strong and/or predictable response to management activities? 

Yes. Monitoring of proposed restoration activities (e.g. prescribed fire, timber harvest, 

small diameter tree thinning) would reveal the continued suitability of ponderosa pine 

forests to provide a mix of seral stages necessary for nesting and foraging for the northern 

goshawk and associated prey species. 

• Substantial portion of the species life history occurs on Prescott NF administered lands?

Yes. Considering space requirements for northern goshawks, the landscape on the 

Prescott NF would have a limited capacity for goshawk territories. 

• Can be monitored effectively and efficiently and is already monitored? 

Yes. Because northern goshawk are a MIS under the 1987 plan, there are baseline data to 

assess trends from management activities past, present, and future.

• Are monitored by other entities?

Yes. Northern goshawk is currently monitored on an annual basis by Forest Service and 

National Park Service units in central and northern Arizona.

Aquatic macro-invertebrates (various species): Species with special habitat requirements

• Species reflect major management issues or challenges? 

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

Prescott NF. Restoration objectives to provide habitat and watershed characteristics that 

will support native fish species are proposed in varying amounts for all alternatives.

• Are relatively common but have high fidelity to specific habitats? 

Yes. Aquatic macro-invertebrates were selected as an indicator of water quality based on 

their responsiveness to changes in water quality and physical features of stream channels 

essential for quality habitat. Perennial and perennial-interrupted streams occupy only 1

percent of the area administered by the Prescott NF, but they are critical for both aquatic 

and terrestrial species viability throughout central Arizona. 

• Demonstrate a strong and/or predictable response to management activities? 

Yes. A warm-water index of biological integrity (IBI) is used for perennial streams below 

5,000 feet elevation. The IBI uses metrics to assess community and taxa richness. Best 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 121

available science is applied to project design criteria to facilitate warm-water fish habitat 

improvements.

• Substantial portion of the species life history occurs on Prescott NF administered lands? 

Yes. 

• Can be monitored effectively and efficiently and is already monitored? 

Yes. Because macro-invertebrates are a MIS under the 1987 plan, there are baseline data 

to assess trends from management activities past, present, and future.

• Are monitored by other entities? 

Yes. Aquatic macro-invertebrates are currently monitored by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality on a 5-year rotation basis for each of the major basins in Arizona 

following established EPA rapid bioassessment protocols. 

Documents that provide additional details on the selection of MIS

• Region 3 Management Indicator Species Selection Process and Criteria, Working Draft 

(Forest Service, 2010d)

• Forest Level Analysis of Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Prescott National 

Forest, 2009 update (Forest Service, 2010e)

• Ecological Sustainability Report (Forest Service, 2009b)

• Prescott National Forest Management Indicator Species Selection Process (Forest 

Service, 2011i)

Recreation Analysis

The recreation analysis was based on professional judgment and in consultation with the Prescott 

NF plan revision team and recreation program managers. 

The trends for maintenance backlog costs were derived from the deferred maintenance reports in 

the Forest Service Infrastructure corporate database. Although deferred maintenance figures are 

reported directly for developed recreation, the trails deferred maintenance figures are based on a 

nationally implemented sampling methodology.

Results from the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program were used to develop visitor 

profiles and use patterns. The NVUM results were obtained using a methodology that has been 

developed and employed nationally. 

The seven visitor segments are defined in NVUM as follows:

• Non-local day trips: Non-local residents on day trips.

• Non-local OVN-NF: Non-local residents staying overnight on the national forest.

• Non-local OVN: Non-local residents staying overnight off the national forest.

• Local day trips: Local residents on day trips.

• Local OVN-NF: Local residents staying overnight on the national forest.

• Local OVN: Local residents staying overnight off the national forest.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

122 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

• Non-primary visitors: Visitors whose primary purpose is non-recreation. This category is 

not considered when projecting changes in recreation visitation.

The estimated changes in visitation were developed by the Prescott NF plan revision team and 

recreation program managers based on professional judgment and the following assumptions.

All Alternatives

Non-local visitors on day trips are generally assumed to be passing through—they are not from 

here and the Prescott area/Verde Valley is not their destination. It is assumed that they primarily 

visit day use developed sites and their duration of stay is under 2 hours. None of the alternatives 

are focused on increasing short term, day-use opportunities; therefore, it was concluded that visits 

from this segment would not increase due to the actions in any alternative.

Alternative B 

The greatest increase is expected to come from local day users, those people who live in and 

around the Prescott area, within about 100 miles or a 2-hour drive. This would include day users 

from both Flagstaff and the Phoenix area. Day users would benefit the most from improved trails 

and trailheads, enhanced fishing opportunities, and designated dispersed camping. Overnight 

visitors on the forest would benefit from increased camping opportunities, both developed and 

dispersed. Overnight off-forest visitors would mainly benefit from the improved trails and 

trailheads.

Alternative C 

The expected increases in use are the same for all segments except for local day users. Their use 

would not increase as much because trails and trailheads that would receive the improvements 

would most likely be those that received the greatest use. Lesser used trails that received use 

primarily from locals would probably see fewer improvements. Visits by overnight off-forest 

visitors would not be expected to change from alternative B because they would still experience 

improvements at the popular trails and trailheads.

Alternative D 

Local visitors would benefit the most from the greater emphasis on trails and trailheads, including 

the additional miles of trail that would be constructed to create loops and connect communities. 

Fewer new developed camping opportunities would be expected to have the biggest impact on 

non-local, overnight, on-forest visitation due to a smaller increase in capacity than alternatives B 

and C.

Alternative E

The lack of new developed camping opportunities would be expected have the biggest impact on

local and non-local overnight, on-forest visitation compared to alternatives B, C, and D. Lesser 

used trails that receive use primarily from locals would probably undergo fewer improvements 

and repairs similar to Alternative C. 

Table 24 represents the expected changes in visitation due to changes in recreation management 

proposed in the action alternatives. No expected changes in visitation were projected for 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 123

alternative A because it represents the continuation of 1987 plan direction and contains no 

changes in management.

Table 24. Projected change in recreation visitation by alternative

Visitor Segments Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Non-local day 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Non-local OVN-NF 0% + 5% + 5% + 3% + 1%

Non-local OVN 0% + 2% + 2% + 3% + 2%

Local day 0% + 10% + 7% + 12% + 7%

Local OVN-NF 0% + 5% + 5% + 7% + 3%

Local OVN 0% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5%

Expected changes in visitation are expressed as a percent change (e.g., +/- 10 percent) from 

visitation expected under 1987 plan direction. 

Documents that provide additional details on the recreation analysis:

• National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for the Prescott National Forest (Forest Service, 

2009c) 

• Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Recreation Specialist Report (Forest Service, 

2011o) 

• R3 Wilderness Trends in Use (Forest Service, 2009d)

• Prescott National Forest Recreation Niche (Forest Service, 2006)

Scenery and Open Space Analysis

The scenery and open space analysis was based on professional judgment and in consultation 

with the Prescott NF plan revision team, landscape architect, and lands program manager. This 

included development of landscape character descriptions and the identification of concern levels 

for the Scenery Management System. 

The Scenery Management System (SMS), a tool developed and deployed nationally by the USDA 

Forest Service, was used to map, inventory, and assess the current state of the scenic resource on 

the Prescott NF. It provides a systematic approach for determining the relative value and 

importance of scenery on national forest lands. 

The first step in SMS is to describe the valued landscape character. The landscape character 

description includes the valued attributes of the landscape, including the important elements of 

the social environment and environmental regimes, creating a “sense of place.” A description of 

the biological and physical elements is drawn from data available for ecological or planning units. 

This landscape character description provides the frame of reference for defining the scenic 

attractiveness classes. 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

124 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The landscape character description is also used as a reference for the existing scenic integrity. 

Existing scenic integrity (ESI) indicates the degree of intactness and wholeness of the landscape 

character. Conversely, ESI is also a measure of the degree of visible disruption of the landscape 

character. For example, a landscape with very minimal visual disruption is considered to have a 

higher ESI; while landscapes with conflicting scenic attributes are viewed as having a lower ESI. 

ESI is expressed and mapped in terms of very high, high, moderate, low, very low, and 

unacceptably low. There were no areas on the Prescott NF determined to have an unacceptably 

low level of scenic integrity, so the ESI determination contained only the five categories 

described below. 

• Very High – A scenic integrity level that generally provides for ecological change only. 

The landscape character is intact. Examples would include all designated wilderness 

areas.

• High – A scenic integrity level meaning human activities are not visually evident; the 

landscape character appears intact. In high scenic integrity areas, activities may only 

repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture found in the existing landscape 

character. Examples would include the Black Hills area west of the Verde Valley and 

areas southeast of Granite Mountain Wilderness.

• Moderate – A scenic integrity level meaning human activities must remain visually 

subordinate to the attributes of the existing landscape character. Activities may repeat 

form, line, color, or texture common to these landscape characters, but changes in quality 

of size, number, intensity, direction, pattern, and so on, must remain visually subordinate 

to these landscape characters. Examples include areas immediately west and south of 

Prescott along the forest boundary.

• Low – A scenic integrity level meaning human activities begin to dominate the attributes 

of the existing landscape character, but they borrow from naturally established form, line, 

color, or texture so that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within 

the surrounding area. Examples include areas on the eastern end of the Santa Maria 

Mountains along the forest boundary.

• Very Low – A scenic integrity level meaning human activities of vegetative and 

landform alterations may dominate the original, natural landscape character but should 

appear as natural occurrences when viewed at background distances. Examples include 

certain areas disturbed by flagstone quarries northeast of Drake.

The next step of the SMS inventory is the mapping of “scenic classes,” which show the relative 

importance of scenery. Scenic classes are determined from a combination of the uniqueness of 

lands (called scenic attractiveness) and who is viewing those lands (called landscape visibility). 

There are seven scenic classes, with one being the highest and seven being the lowest.

Scenic attractiveness is used to determine the relative scenic value of lands within a particular 

landscape character. The three scenic attractiveness classes are: Class A – distinctive; Class B –

typical; and Class C – indistinctive. The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, rocks, 

cultural features, and water features are considered when determining each of these classes. 

Landscape visibility is composed of two parts: human values as they relate to the relative 

importance to the public of various scenes, and the relative sensitivity of scenes based on distance 

from an observer. Human values that affect perceptions of landscapes are derived from 

constituent analysis. Constituent analysis serves as a guide to perceptions of attractiveness, helps 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 125

identify special places, and helps to define the meaning people give to the landscape. Constituent 

analysis leads to a determination of the relative importance of aesthetics to the public. This 

importance is expressed as a concern level. Sites, travelways, special places, and other areas are 

assigned a concern level value of 1, 2, or 3 to reflect their relative high, medium, or low 

importance.

As part of the landscape visibility analysis, seen areas and distance zones are mapped from these 

concern level areas to determine the relative sensitivity of scenes based on their distance from an 

observer. These distance zones are identified as:

• Foreground – up to 1/2 mile from the observer 

• Middle ground – 1/2 to 4 miles from the observer 

• Background – 4 miles from the observer to the horizon 

Seldom seen areas not seen from travel routes or identified use points are assigned a concern level 

1, 2, or 3, based on concern for a specific area, and they may occur in any distance zone or scenic 

attractiveness class.

A composite scenery base map was produced in ArcMap showing the existing scenic integrity and 

scenic classes. This was then used to develop new scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) for the 

proposed revised forest plan.

The results of the analysis were that just over 8 percent of the forest, primarily the designated 

wilderness areas, received an ESI rating of “very high.” The majority of the remaining forest 

land, 83 percent, is naturally appearing and has an ESI of “high.” Only about 7 percent of the 

forest was considered “moderate”; the “low” and “very low” ratings combined accounted for less 

than 1 percent of the acreage on the forest. 

Documents that provide additional details on the scenery and open space 

analysis:

• Prescott National Forest Plan Revision EIS Scenery and Open Space Specialist Report 

(Forest Service, 2011p)

• Prescott National Forest Scenery Management System Inventory Report (Forest Service, 

2008b)

Socioeconomic Analysis

Section 219.12(h) of the 1982 Planning Rule directs the planning team to “evaluate the significant 

physical, biological, economic, and social effects of each management alternative that is 

considered in detail. The evaluation shall include a comparative analysis of the aggregate effects 

of the management alternatives and shall compare present net value, social and economic 

impacts, outputs of goods and services, and overall protection and enhancement of environmental 

resources.” The economic analysis helps to fulfill these evaluation requirements. 

Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0 (IMpact analysis for 

PLANing, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.) with 2009 data. IMPLAN is an input-output model, 

which estimates the economic impacts of projects, programs, policies, and economic changes on a 

region. IMPLAN analyzes the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. Direct economic 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

126 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

impacts are generated by the activity itself, such as the value of cattle grazed on the forest.

Indirect employment and labor income contributions occur when a sector purchases supplies and 

services from other industries in order to produce their product. Induced contributions are the 

employment and labor income generated as a result of spending new household income generated 

by direct and indirect employment. The employment estimated is defined as any part-time, 

seasonal, or full-time job. In the economic impact tables, direct, indirect, and induced 

contributions are included in the estimated impacts. The IMPLAN database describes the 

economy in 440 sectors using Federal data from 2009. 

Data on use levels under each alternative were collected from the forest’s resource specialists. In 

most instances, the precise change is unknown. Therefore, the changes are based on the 

professional expertise of the forest’s resource specialists (1982 Rule, 219.12(g)). Data on current 

and future forest use levels were entered in The Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet, which is 

an Excel workbook that interfaces with IMPLAN to streamline data entry and generate economic 

impact tables. 

Regional economic impacts of the plan alternatives are estimated based on the assumption of full 

implementation of each alternative. The actual changes in the economy would depend on 

individuals taking advantage of the resource related opportunities that would be supported by 

each alternative. If market conditions or trends in resource use were not conducive to developing 

some opportunities, the economic impact would be different than estimated here.

Financial efficiency analysis was conducted with QuickSilver Version 6. The financial efficiency 

analysis compares the anticipated Forest Service expenditures and revenues, by alternative, over 

the life of the forest plan for each alternative. Data on program expenditures and revenues were 

provided by the Prescott NF resource specialists and budget staff (1982 Rule, 219.12(e)). A 4 

percent discount rate is commonly used for evaluations of long term investments and operations 

in land and resource management by the Forest Service (FSM 1971.21). This discount rate was 

used in the calculation of present net value (PNV). 

PNV is the difference between program revenues (benefits) and program expenditures (costs) 

over a 15-year period, using a 4 percent discount rate. The annual expenditures were summed 

over 15 years using a 4 percent discount rate (so that one dollar today is valued higher than one 

dollar in 10 years). The sum of the discounted annual expenditures represents the present value of 

costs. The same exercise was conducted using the annual program revenues for key resources 

areas. The sum of the discounted annual revenues represents the present value of benefits. The 

difference between the present value of costs and the present value of benefits is present net 

value. The higher the PNV, the more financially efficient the alternative. Inflation can affect PNV; 

however, due to the uncertainty of future inflation, OMB Circular A-94 recommends avoiding 

assumptions about the inflation rate whenever possible. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, 

inflation is left at zero. 

Data on use levels under each alternative were collected from the forest’s resource specialists. In 

most instances, the precise change is unknown. Therefore, the estimated changes were based on 

the professional expertise of the forest’s resource specialists (1982 Rule, 219.12(g)).

Social impacts were estimated using the baseline social conditions presented in the 

“Socioeconomic Resources Affected Environment” section of the EIS and visitor profiles from 

the FY2009 NVUM results for the Prescott NF (Forest Service, 2009c ) to discern the primary 
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 127

values that the forest provides to area residents and visitors. Social effects were based on 

interaction of the identified values with estimated changes to resource availability and uses. 

The socioeconomic impacts analyses included these additional assumptions: 

• Information on the timing of costs and benefits was not available for the economic 

efficiency analysis. Furthermore, the analysis does not provide a full accounting of all 

costs and benefits. The only benefits considered are program revenues (i.e., forest 

receipts). The only costs considered are direct forest expenditures. Therefore, the 

following estimates of net present value are limited to the available data, which was 

sufficient to conduct a thorough economic efficiency analysis. 

• The economic impact of grazing was estimated using authorized levels. However, actual 

use is permitted annually based on various factors, such as current forage conditions. 

Therefore, the estimated economic impact of grazing is likely to overstate the jobs and 

income provided. 

• Changes in use levels were estimated using professional judgment. However, actual 

changes in use are difficult to predict and frequently depend on factors outside the control 

of the Forest Service. 

• Some of the value of forest management is not captured in market transactions. Nonmarket goods and services, such as clean air and scenic vistas, have economic values. 

However, the monetary value of such goods and services is generally unknown. As a 

result, it is difficult to analyze potential tradeoffs between market and non-market values. 

In general, management actions that promote forest health will increase non-market 

values. For the purpose of this analysis, recommended wilderness areas will be used as a 

proxy for non-market values. 

• The framework for the social analysis employs generalities. Area residents and Prescott 

NF visitors have diverse preferences and values that may not be fully captured in the 

description of social consequences. Nevertheless, the general categories are useful for 

assessing social impacts based on particular forest related interests. 

Documents that provide additional details on the socioeconomic analysis:

• Socio-economic Resource Report (Forest Service, 20011q)

• National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for the Prescott National Forest (Forest Service, 

2009c)

References

ESSA Technologies Ltd. (2006). www.essa.com/downloads/vddt/

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. (1997). Environmental Assessment for Grapevine 

Springs Botanical Area Designation. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2006). Prescott National Forest Recreation 

Niche. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

128 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2008a) 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. (2008b). Prescott National Forest Scenery 

Management System Inventory Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009a). Research Natural Area Process for 

Forest Plan Revision under the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions. Albuquerque, NM: 

Southwestern Region Regional Office.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009b). Ecological Sustainability Report. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009c). National Visitor Use Monitoring Results 

for the Prescott National Forest. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009d). R3 Wilderness Trends in Use. 

Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Region Regional Office.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010a). Prescott National Forest Research 

Natural Area Evaluation Process Summary Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010b). Upper Verde River Eligibility Report 

Update for the National Wild and Scenic River System. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010c). Viability Procedures for Use in Forest 

Plan Revision – Draft February 2, 2010. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Region 

Regional Office.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010d). Region 3 Management Indicator 

Species Selection Process and Criteria, modified from R2 – Working Draft Edited by R3-

February 2, 2010. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Region Regional Office.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010e). 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. (2011c). PNF Recreation Suitability Matrix. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011d). Prescott National Forest Determination 

of Livestock Grazing Capability and Suitability Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011e). 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. (2011f). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Terrestrial Species Viability Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 129

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011g). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011h). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Vascular Plant Viability Analysis. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011i). Prescott National Forest Management 

Indicator Species Selection Process. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011j). Prescott National Forest Vegetation and 

Fire Ecology Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011k). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S .Department of Agriculture. (2011m). 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. (2011n). USDA Forest Service Watershed 

Condition Classification Dataset. Accessed November 2011 

www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/interactivemap/USDAFS-WCF-2010.html

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011o). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Recreation Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011p). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Scenery and Open Space Specialist Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011q). Socio-economic Resource Report.

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2012). Prescott National Forest Potential 

Wilderness Area Evaluation Report. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). Prescott National Forest Plan Revision 

EIS Wilderness Recommendations by Forest Plan Alternative. Prescott, AZ: Prescott 

National Forest.

Girard, M.M., Robbie, W.A., and Wahlberg, M. (2008). Ecological Classification of the Prescott 

National Forest. Albuquerque, NM: Forest Service Southwestern Region Regional Office

LANDFIRE. (2007). LANDFIRE National Vegetation Dynamics Models. Accessed April 2008. 

www.landfire.gov/index.php

Lauenroth, W.K., and Laycock, W.A. (1989). Secondary succession and the evaluation of 

rangeland condition. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO. pp. 163

Mellin, T.C., Triepke, F.J., and Joria, P.E. (2008). Mapping existing vegetation at the mid-scale 

level in the Forest Service Southwestern Region. in Proceedings of the Twelfth Biennial 

USDA-Forest Service Remote Sensing Applications Conference (RS-2008), 15-17 April 

2008, Salt Lake City, UT. Washington, DC: Forest Service Remote Sensing Applications 

Center.
Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process

130 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Rebain, Stephanie A. (comp.) (2010) (revised 2012). The fire and fuels extension to the forest 

vegetation simulator: updated model documentation. Internal Report (revised March 20, 

2012). USDA Forest Service. Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO. pp. 

397.

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.

Schussman, H., and Smith, E. (2006). Vegetation models for Southwest Vegetation. Prepared for 

the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, 

AZ. Pp. 11.

Weisz, R, Triepke, J., Vandendriesche, D., Manthei, M., Youtz, J.A., Simon, J., and Robbie, W. 

(2010). Evaluating the ecological sustainability of a piñon-juniper grassland ecosystem in 

Northern Arizona. in Jain, T.B., Graham, R.T., and Sanquist, J. tech eds. Integrated 

management of carbon sequestration and biomass utilization opportunities in a changing 

climate: Proceedings of the 2009 National Silviculture Workshop; 2009 June 15-18; 

Boise, ID. Proceedings RMRS-P-61. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

Weisz, R, Vandendriesche, D., and Moeur, M. February 2012. White Paper O - Overview of How 

We Created VDDT Models with FVS - Calibrating Natural and Anthropogenic Events in 

State and Transition Models with FVS: A case study for ponderosa pine forest 

ecosystems. (One of 16 papers in the regional white paper series titled “The R3 FVS 

Process for Evaluating the Effects of Vegetation Management Activities in the Forest 

Plan Revision Process”). USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Regional Office, 

Albuquerque, NM. Interoffice publication.

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 Region Regional 

Office.
FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 131

Appendix C. Coordination 

with Other Planning Efforts

Introduction

Provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule state that the responsible line officer shall review the 

planning and land use policies of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 

American Indian tribes. This review should include consideration of objectives as expressed in 

their plans and policies, an assessment of interrelated impacts of these plans, a determination of 

how each forest plan deals with the impacts, and where conflicts arise, consideration of 

alternatives for resolution of conflicts.

In addition, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has called for an “all lands approach” to 

management. This involves landowners, governments, and agencies working together across 

boundaries to determine common goals for the landscapes they share.

This document is written in response to the direction in 1982 Planning Rule Provisions as well as 

to help determine and display strategies for accomplishing national forest management using an 

all lands approach. It summarizes objectives and policies of various levels of government and 

tribal groups related to Prescott National Forest (Prescott NF) resource management, displays 

how the Prescott NF revised plan is expected to respond to these objectives and policies, and 

makes a determination of whether there are conflicts that need to be addressed in alternative 

comparison in the environmental impact statement (EIS). The document is organized as follows:

• Objectives/concerns of local government plans (including towns, cities, and regional 

plans)

• Objectives/concerns of county governments as expressed in their plans and policies

• Objectives/concerns of State agencies

• Objectives/concerns of other Federal agencies

• Objectives/concerns of tribal governments

Local Government Plans

Table 25 summarizes natural resource related objectives or concerns of local governments, such 

as towns, cities, or regions; provides questions related to those concerns that the Prescott NF 

revised plan needs to answer; responds to the questions based on the revised plan; and displays 

whether a conflict exists and needs to be considered in an alternative in the EIS. Community and 

town general plans that exist within or near the Prescott NF were included. The Verde Valley 

Regional Plan was also included.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

132 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 25. Objectives or concerns from local government plans and how the Prescott NF revised plan responds

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

Ash Fork USDA Forest Service Action Plan II, 2004

There were concerns about littering 

and trash dumping on national 

forests. Forest Service kiosks, 

maps, and information are desired 

at the Ash Fork Visitor Center.

How can the Prescott NF work with Ash 

Fork to help avoid dumping and 

improve clean-up efforts?

Can Prescott NF information be 

provided to people or tourists in Ash 

Fork?

Appendix B, Proposed and Probable Management Practices, 

includes exploration of partnership opportunities to collect 

and dispose of dumped material.

Recreation desired conditions include strategically locating 

facilities to respond to changing demographics and demand. 

Obj-14 calls for developing additional methods for providing 

visitor information.

NO

Paulden Community Plan, 2007

Paulden vision statement 

emphasizes retaining a sense of 

openness for the area.

Goal 1 lists prevention of breaking 

up rural areas as key to sustaining a 

rural character.

Goal 6 includes providing for wise 

use of scarce water resources.

Trails within Paulden are 

recommended and there would 

likely be a desire to connect with 

national forest trails at 

public/private boundaries.

How can the Prescott NF assist in 

providing open space and rural character 

to the Paulden area?

How can the Prescott NF assist in 

providing for wise use of water 

resources?

How can the Prescott NF coordinate 

with trail recommendations within 

Paulden?

Needs for change for the revision of the Prescott NF 1987 

plan include: (1) enhancing the scenic value of Prescott NF 

provided open space; (2) maintaining or improving watershed 

integrity to provide desired water quality, quantity, and 

timing of delivery; and (3) providing diverse recreational 

experiences that reflect desires of local communities.

Desired condition descriptions were developed for open 

space, watershed, and recreation. Obj-11 and Obj-17 call for

improving trails and trailheads. Obj-18 and Obj-20 call for 

improvement of watershed conditions and trails/roads that 

may be impacting watershed condition. Obj-29 calls for 

acquiring lands, as feasible and available, to retain open 

space values across the Prescott NF.

NO

Alternative D 

does include 

an objective 

that calls for 

construction 

of new trails.

Town of Chino Valley General Plan, 2003

Policy RObj-4.3 expresses desires 

to link the town’s recreation 

resources to other recreation 

resources surrounding the 

community.

Goal EP-4 promotes contiguous 

open areas for wildlife habitat and 

How can the Prescott NF provide links 

to Chino Valley’s recreation resources?

How can the Prescott NF cooperate with 

Chino Valley in providing open areas 

for wildlife habitats?

The Prescott NF does not share a boundary with the town of 

Chino Valley. However, desired condition statement, 

objective, and guideline (DC-Rec-1, Obj-14, and Guide-Rec3) direct the Prescott NF to look for new ways to share 

information related to recreational opportunities on the 

national forest.

Obj-27 calls for treatment of areas to enhance pronghorn 

NO

Alternative C 

provides for 

increased 

amounts of 

habitat and 

migration 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Plannign Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 133

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

protection of sensitive natural 

terrain.

migration as well as treatment of habitat to improve 

pronghorn habitat quality. 

habitat 

improvement 

for pronghorn.

Prescott Basin Community Protection and Economic Development Plan, 2004

The goal of the plan is to convince 

home and property owners within 

the wildland-urban interface of the 

necessity and responsibility to 

adopt defensible space and other 

techniques to develop a defensible 

boundary around the urban 

interface.

In addition, the plan calls for 

increased commercial use of 

material removed during fuel 

reduction activities.

How can the Prescott NF cooperate in 

both commercial and non-commercial 

fuel reduction activities?

Needs for change for the revised plan include restoring 

vegetation arrangements, plant species, and fire to selected 

ecosystems.

Desired conditions at the mid-scale level for vegetation types 

surrounding the Prescott Basin include descriptions of 

younger, widely spaced vegetation within the wildland-urban 

interface. DC-Veg-2 also calls for sustainable amounts of 

products to be produced.

Objective ranges allow for increased mechanical or 

prescribed fire treatments in ponderosa pine, grasslands, 

piñon-juniper, and chaparral.

NO

Objectives in 

alternative C 

provide for 

increased 

treatment in 

ponderosa 

pine and 

grasslands, 

with less 

treatment in 

chaparral and 

piñon juniper 

types.

Yavapai Communities Wildfire Protection Plan, 2004

This plan was developed as an

ongoing collaborative process to 

reduce the risk of wildfire within 

combustible vegetation that 

surrounds communities within the 

planning area boundaries, 

including: Prescott, Cherry, Spring 

Valley, Crown King, Yarnell, Skull 

Valley, and others.

How can the Prescott NF collaborate 

with communities, fire suppression 

organizations, and the Prescott Area 

Wildland-Urban Interface Commission 

in decreasing fuels and reducing risks of 

catastrophic wildfire?

Management approaches indicate that the Prescott NF will 

continue to be a part of volunteer efforts to manage natural 

resources; this would include the Prescott Area WildlandUrban Interface Commission.

Desired conditions were developed for vegetation types that 

departed from estimated historical ranges, and objectives 

calling for more frequent disturbance as prescribed fire or 

mechanical fuel removal are included. Desired conditions at 

the mid-scale level for vegetation types found within 

wildland-urban interface include descriptions for more 

widely spaced vegetation and a shorter interval between 

disturbances.

NO
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

134 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

Prescott General Plan, 2003

Strategies and goals that relate to 

the Prescott NF include: (a) expand 

cooperative programs including 

trail connectivity and maintenance 

standards; (b) confer with Prescott 

NF and others to protect 

viewsheds, wildlife habitat, cultural 

resources, and riparian areas; and 

to integrate systems involving open 

space and recreation; (c) cooperate 

with others in preventing aquifer 

contamination; (d) link public and 

private open space and trail 

systems; and (e) retain current 

government functions.

How can the Prescott NF cooperate with 

the city of Prescott in protecting 

viewsheds, wildlife habitat, cultural 

resources, riparian areas, and aquifers?

How can the Prescott NF provide 

connectivity in trail systems and open 

space areas?

Will the Prescott NF continue its current 

functions?

Desired conditions for scenery (DC-Scenic-1, DC-Open 

Space-1), wildlife habitat (DC-Wildlife-1, DC-Aquatic 1 and 

2), cultural resources (DC-Heritage-1), and watershed health 

(DC-Watershed-1 to 6) have been included.

Objectives set priority for achievement of projects to retain 

and improve watershed health. Terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife habitat and scenic value are also included.

Standards and guidelines that provide guidance for carrying 

out projects have been developed to maintain and improve 

scenic values (Guides-Scenic-1 to 9, Guide-Wildland Fire-6), 

wildlife habitat (Guides-Fish/Aquatics-1 to 4, Guides-WL-1 

to 10, Guide-Trans-6), cultural resources (Guides Heritage-1 

and 2), and watershed health (Stds-WS-1 to 3, Guides-WS-1 

to 11, Guide-Trans-6, Guide-Rec-6, and Guide-Wildland 

Fire-8).

NO

Prescott Valley General Plan 2020, Adopted in 2002

Prescott Valley goals or policies 

that may interact with the Prescott 

NF include the following: 

EPW-A6—Promote environmental 

awareness and resource 

conservation.

EPW-A9—Provide contiguous 

open areas for wildlife habitat and 

protection of sensitive natural

terrain.

EPW-A9.1—Support preservation 

of contiguous open space for 

migration of native wildlife.

EPW-A9.3—Actively participate 

with appropriate Federal, State, and 

county agencies that are trying to 

How does the Prescott NF revised plan

blend with Prescott Valley’s desire to 

promote environmental awareness? 

How does the Prescott NF revised plan

address contiguous open areas for 

wildlife habitat and endangered or 

threatened wildlife?

How can the Prescott NF coordinate 

with Prescott Valley to preserve 

archaeological, paleontological, and 

historic resources?

A desired condition statement, objective, and guideline (DCRec-1, Obj-14, and Guide-Rec-3) guides the Prescott NF to 

look for new ways to share information related to recreational 

opportunities on the national forest.

Desired conditions are described for desired wildlife habitat 

(DC-Wildlife-1, DC-Aquatic 1 and 2). Objectives set priority 

for achievement of projects to retain and improve terrestrial 

and aquatic wildlife habitat. Obj-1, Obj-3, Obj-25, Obj-26, 

and Obj-27 provide for improving migration and other habitat 

for pronghorn on the national forest. 

Guide-WL-1 to 10 provide guidance for protecting wildlife 

habitat.

Guide-WL-1 and Guide-Fish/Aquatics-1 provide direction 

for threatened and endangered species. 

DC-Heritage-1 includes guidance to provide opportunities for 

interpretation, research, stewardship, and enjoyment of our 

NO

Alternative C 

provides for 

increased 

amounts of 

habitat and 

migration 

corridor 

improvement 

for pronghorn. 

It also 

provides for 

increased 

acreage of 

prescribed 

burning in 

semi-desert 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Plannign Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 135

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

preserve or aid endangered 

wildlife. 

EPW-A10.2—Coordinate with 

appropriate agencies to protect and 

preserve the town’s archaeological, 

paleontological, and historic 

resources. 

cultural past. 

Appendix B, Proposed and Probable Management Practices, 

includes reference to volunteer assistance in managing 

resources. Heritage resources are a part of this. 

grasslands to 

restore 

ecosystem 

character and 

improve 

habitat. 

Town of Dewey-Humboldt 2009 General Plan

Dewey-Humboldt goals/objectives 

include the following:

Open space/Trails Goal 1—

Coordinate with neighboring 

jurisdictions and agencies to 

achieve regional open space goals.

Open space/Trails Goal 2—Protect 

scenic vistas, wildlife corridors and 

habitats, major washes, and 

riverbeds. This includes limiting 

development potential on sensitive 

lands such as locations where 

threatened, endangered, or 

desirable indigenous species may 

be found. 

Open space/Trails Goal 3—

Encourage accessibility to outdoor 

enjoyment by residents and 

visitors.

Environmental Planning Goal 1—

Highlight community sustainability 

by preserving the quality of air, 

water, and scenic resources. 

Environmental Planning Goal 3—

Extend positive environmental 

influences beyond the town’s 

How might the Prescott NF help to 

achieve regional open space goals?

What is the Prescott NF including in the 

revised plan related to scenic vistas and 

view protection cooperation? 

How might the Prescott NF plan relate 

to wildlife corridors and habitats, or 

locations where threatened or 

endangered species may be found?

Does the Prescott NF revised plan

include components that will assist in 

encouraging accessibility to outdoor 

enjoyment?

How might the Prescott NF revised plan

help preserve air and water quality and 

scenic resources?

In what way will watercourse 

characteristics be monitored?

Open space was a major need for change in developing the 

revised plan. DC-Open Space-1 states that there is a desire to 

retain open space values such as naturally appearing 

landscapes, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunity, and 

riparian/wetland character. Obj-29 calls for obtaining lands 

where feasible and available to retain open space values.

Desired conditions for scenery (DC-Scenic-1, DC-Open 

Space-1) have been included. Standards and guidelines that 

provide guidance for carrying out projects have been 

developed to maintain and improve scenic values (GuidesScenic-1 to 9, Guide-Wildland Fire-6). Guide-Lands-2 calls 

for consideration of visual characteristics when responding to 

land exchange proposals.

Desired conditions for wildlife habitat (DC-Wildlife-1, DCAquatic 1) include statements such as, “habitats are free of 

negative impacts from nonnative or feral species.” Objectives 

set priority for achievement of projects to retain and improve 

terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat. Vegetation types that 

are departed from historic conditions include treatment 

objectives to assist in the trend toward desired conditions. 

Obj-1, Obj-2, Obj-3, Obj-25, Obj-26 and Obj-27 provide for 

improving migration and other habitat for pronghorn on the 

national forest.

Recreation desired conditions (DC-Rec-1 and 2) include 

statements such as: the number and location of recreation 

facilities respond to changing demographics and demand, and 

trail routes include both point-to-point trails that connect 

NO

Alternative C 

includes a 

higher amount 

of habitat and 

migration 

corridor 

improvement 

for pronghorn.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

136 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

boundaries, including soliciting 

view protection cooperation from 

the county and land management 

agencies.

Water Resources Goal 4—Protect 

and sustain the Agua Fria River’s 

viability. Monitor water quality and 

maintain riparian habitat along the 

river and other watercourses.

communities and interconnected loops of varying lengths. 

DC-Lands-1 includes desires for rights-of-way for which 

legal access is obtained. 

Objectives call for improving the condition of trails and 

trailheads (Obj-11 and Obj-17).

Desired conditions for watershed health (DC-Watershed-1 to 

6) and airshed protection (DC-Airshed-1) have been 

included. Objectives (Obj-18, Obj-19, Obj-23) call for 

improving high priority watersheds and at risk riparian areas. 

Others focus on actions to decrease sedimentation (Obj-20 to 

Obj-22). Guidelines to protect watershed health (Guides-WS1 to 11, Stds-WS-1 to 3, Guide-Trans-6, Guide-Rec-6, GuideWildland Fire-8) are also included. 

Monitoring questions include: Are management actions: (1) 

maintaining or making progress toward desired habitat 

conditions for native fish, amphibian, and reptile species?; (2) 

being implemented to improve watershed conditions?; and 

(3) reducing negative impacts to watershed conditions?

Town of Dewey-Humboldt Open Space and Trails Plan, June 2010

The town is interested in 

continuing its participation in the 

sustainable recreation strategy 

efforts especially related to 

coordination on trails and 

connection to regional trail 

systems.

The proposed Mingus View Trail 

Park, Chaparral Trail Park, 

Henderson Regional Trail 

Connector, and Prescott Dells 

Ranch Road/Rocky Hill Road 

Regional Connector, would require 

cooperation with the Prescott NF 

for trail connections to trails 9419, 

While trail construction projects will be 

addressed at the site-specific level, does 

the Prescott NF revised plan allow for 

cooperation and coordination with the 

town of Dewey-Humboldt?

Is there any guidance related to trail 

construction or connections?

Appendix B, Proposed and Probable Management Practices, 

recognize that: (1) citizens would like to be actively involved 

in national forest management and (2) volunteer assistance in 

trail improvement or trail construction would be part of the 

intent of the Prescott NF.

The ongoing recreation strategy effort that is occuring 

parallel to plan revision will continue. In chapter 5 of the 

revised plan, there are desired condition statements for 

geographic areas that are based on zones identified for the 

recreation strategy effort. Geographic areas are subdivided 

into management areas.

Dewey-Humboldt is adjacent to the Williamson Valley South 

Management Area; management area desired conditions 

include a mixture of opportunities to affiliate with other 

groups with opportunities to be isolated from people. Obj-11 

NO

The revised 

plan does not 

include 

objectives for 

constructing 

new trails. 

Therefore,

alternative D 

was developed 

to provide 

more 

emphasis on 

dispersed 

recreation and 

calls for 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Plannign Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 137

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

9419A, 9405, and 43. 

The town may be interested in 

partnership opportunities for trail 

connectors. 

and Obj-17 call for improvement in trailheads and trails 

throughout the Prescott NF.

Guide-Rec-6 calls for use of management tools such as 

information availability on the Internet, physical structures, 

or others to ensure resource damage due to recreation 

activities is prevented. 

Guide-Rec-10 calls for tools such as self-closing gates or 

gates around cattle guards for horseback riders to minimize 

conflicts between recreation use and livestock grazing.

increased 

trailhead 

improvement 

and 10 to 20 

miles of new 

trail 

construction.

Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Study, 2007

The study provides alternatives and 

a proposal for a regional 

transportation system for the 

planning area with Yavapai 

County. The system has little direct 

impact on the Prescott NF except 

indirectly due to the possible 

increased numbers of visitors to the 

area. The proposed regional system 

(figure 5) indicates that an Eastern 

Corridor Study may be done 

sometime in the future for a 

controlled access facility that could 

overlap with the Prescott NF.

If the Eastern Corridor Study is done, 

will it impact the eligibility of the upper 

Verde River for wild and scenic 

designation? 

Could the same study interact with an 

identified potential wilderness area?

DC-Wild and Scenic-1 includes desires for the outstandingly 

remarkable values (i.e., archaeological, scenic, fishery, 

wildlife, recreational, and botanical) and recommended 

classifications to remain intact in the portion of the Verde 

River that is eligible for wild and scenic designation until 

further study is conducted or there is a designation by 

Congress. 

Std-W&S-2 states that authorized uses shall not be allowed to 

adversely affect either eligibility or tentative classification of 

eligible segments. Current classification of possible affected 

segments is scenic (segment 1) and wild (Segment 2). 

DC-Wilderness-1 includes desires for wilderness 

characteristics of each recommended wilderness to remain 

intact until further action is initiated by the Forest Service to 

forward recommended wilderness areas to Congress for 

designation. Characteristics include: scenic beauty, natural 

conditions, solitude, and identified special features. No 

recommended wilderness is expected to be affected in the 

revised plan; however, alternative D includes the Muldoon 

area as recommended wilderness which could be impacted.

NO, not at this 

time. 

When the 

future Eastern 

Corridor 

Study begins, 

information 

sharing 

between 

Prescott NF 

and CYMPO 

will be needed 

to prevent 

possible 

conflicts.

Camp Verde General Plan, 2004

Goals/objectives that could relate 

to the Prescott NF include: (1) 

preserve and enhance the historic 

How would the Prescott NF help 

enhance the historic character and 

cultural practices that reflect the history 

DC-Heritage-1 includes guidance to provide opportunities for 

interpretation, research, stewardship, and enjoyment of our 

NO
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

138 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

character of Camp Verde; (2) 

develop cooperative programs to 

document and preserve cultural 

practices that reflect the history of 

Camp Verde; (3) encourage use of 

energy efficient designs and 

alternative building materials; (4) 

coordinate with agencies to enforce 

illegal dumping laws; (5) maintain 

high level of air and water quality; 

(6) work with the USFS to ensure 

land crucial to preserve important 

viewsheds, sensitive historic areas, 

and wildlife corridors are identified 

and protected; and (7) protect 

existing wildland character of 

national forest lands.

of Camp Verde?

Does plan guidance call for use of 

energy efficient and alternative building 

materials?

How does the Prescott NF expect to 

coordinate the enforcement of illegal 

dumping laws?

What plan guidance assists with 

maintaining water and air quality?

What plan guidance will help to 

preserve viewsheds, historic areas, and 

wildlife corridors?

How does maintaining wildland 

character blend with plan guidance?

cultural past. 

DC-Rec-1 expresses desire to retain characteristics of trails or 

facilities that qualify them for national designations (e.g., the 

General Crook Trail).

DC-Transportation and Facilities-1 includes a statement 

indicating that facilities are energy efficient and incorporate 

emerging technologies. 

Appendix B, Proposed and Probable Management Practices, 

suggests that collaborative methods are well suited to dealing 

with trash dumping. Ongoing law enforcement coordination 

is part of normal implementation activity. 

Desired conditions for watershed health (DC-Watershed-1 to 

6) and airshed protection (DC-Airshed-1) have been 

included. Obj-18, Obj-19, and Obj-23 call for improving high 

priority watersheds and at risk riparian areas. Other 

objectives focus on actions to decrease sedimentation (Obj20 to Obj-22). Standards and guidelines to protect watershed 

health (Stds-WS-1 to 3, Guides-WS-1 to 12, Guide-Trans-6, 

Guide-Rec-6, and Guide-Wildland Fire-8) are also included.

Desired conditions for scenery (DC-Scenic-1, DC-Open 

Space-1) have been included. Standards and guidelines that 

provide guidance for carrying out projects have been 

developed to maintain and improve scenic values (GuidesScenic-1 to 9, Guide-Wildland Fire-6). Guide-Lands-2 calls 

for consideration of visual characteristics when responding to 

land exchange proposals.

Guide-Heritage-1 and 2 include direction for protection of 

cultural sites.

Desired conditions for wildlife habitat (DC-Wildlife-1, DCAquatic 1 and 2) include statements such as, “habitats are 

free of negative impacts from nonnative or feral species.” 

Objectives set priority for achievement of projects to retain 

and improve terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat. 

Vegetation types that are departed from historic conditions 

include treatment objectives to assist in the trend toward 

desired conditions. Obj-1, Obj-2, Obj-3, Obj-25, Obj-26, and 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Plannign Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 139

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

Obj-27 provide for improving migration and other habitat for 

pronghorn on the national forest.

Guide-Lands-3 suggests that lands that have lost their 

wildland character may be candidates for offer in exchange. 

Obj-29 calls for acquiring lands as feasible and available to 

improve open space character. Guideline MA-VV-3 calls for 

retaining or adding to Prescott NF lands in the Verde Valley 

and on the east side of the Black Hills between Cottonwood 

and Camp Verde.

Clarkdale General Plan Program 2002

About 1,850 acres of Prescott NF 

land was annexed to the city in 

2001. It is zoned as national forest 

land, and there is a desire to retain 

it in a wild character, although 

trash dumping and unauthorized 

trails are a problem.

Objectives that could relate to the 

Prescott NF are 4-A.b, 6-A.a, 6-

A.b, and 6-A.c. They include: (1) 

protecting natural areas such as 

flood plains, the Verde Corridor, 

steep slopes, and scenic view areas; 

(2) maintaining high standards of 

air quality; (3) ensuring high water 

quality; and (4) supporting 

preservation of natural resources in 

Clarkdale.

How might the Prescott NF enhance the 

wildland character of lands within city 

limits?

What plan components relate to 

protection of natural areas, scenic views, 

air quality, and water quality, 

Appendix B, Proposed and Probable Management Practices, 

suggests that collaborative methods are well suited to dealing 

with trash dumping and other social challenges. Continuing 

work on the recreation strategy effort that is taking place 

parallel to plan revision may be a good platform for the 

determining methods for resolution of the problem. 

Desired conditions for watershed health (DC-watershed-1 to 

6) and airshed protection (DC-Airshed-1) have been 

included. Obj-18, Obj-19, and Obj-23 call for improving high 

priority watersheds and at risk riparian areas. Other 

objectives focus on actions to decrease sedimentation (Obj20 to Obj-22). Guidelines to protect watershed health 

(Guides-WS-1 to 12, Stds-WS-1 to 3, Guide-Trans-6, GuideRec-6, Guide-Wildland Fire-8) are also included. 

Desired conditions for scenery (DC-Scenic-1, DC-Open 

Space-1) have been included. Standards and guidelines that 

provide guidance for carrying out projects have been 

developed to maintain and improve scenic values (GuidesScenic-1 to 9, Guide-Wildland Fire-6). Guide-Lands-2 calls 

for consideration of visual characteristics when responding to 

land exchange proposals. Guide-Lands-3 suggests that lands 

that have lost their wildland character may be candidates for 

offer in exchange. Obj-29 calls for acquiring lands as feasible 

and available to improve open space character. 

NO
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

140 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

Cottonwood General Plan 2003 - 2013

A major focus of the Cottonwood 

Plan is to maintain open space for 

recreation and visual appearance, 

and for creating separation between 

Verde Valley communities. 

Areas of interest include Planning 

Area 12, Verde River floodway, a 

linkage between the Mingus 

Mountains and the Verde River 

along Black Canyon, and an area 

near Hayfield draw. Retaining 

wildland character is important in 

these areas.

Air and water quality is important 

as well as protection of soils, 

mountain views, and wildlife 

habitat.

Specific statements include Open 

Space 1.2.G-H, 2.2.B, EP-1.2, 1.3, 

1.5, and 1.6, and WR 1.2, and 1.3. 

What plan components relate to 

retaining scenic values, mountain views, 

and open land—especially in Planning 

Area 12?

What plan components support 

protection and enhancement of air, 

water, soil, and wildlife habitat? 

Open space is one of the five areas identified in the revised 

plan as priority needs for change. 

DC-Open-Space-1 indicates desires to retain naturally 

appearing landscapes, wildlife habitat, recreational 

opportunity, and riparian/wetland character. DC-Lands-2 

includes statements identifying need to retain visual 

character, habitat, and free-flowing water within the Verde 

River. DC-Scenic-1 includes a desire to retain native 

vegetation and a high degree of scenic integrity. 

Obj-29 states that up to 10 opportunities to acquire lands as 

presented and as feasible will be acted upon within and 

around the Prescott NF.

Verde Valley Management Area desired conditions describe 

lands within the Prescott NF as enhancing open space, scenic, 

watershed, and other natural resource values; they are 

generally retained in national forest ownership or are 

obtained through land adjustment. Verde Valley Management 

Area guideline MA-VV-3 includes guidance to retain or 

obtain lands in the Verde Valley between Cottonwood and 

Camp Verde, which includes parts of Cottonwood Planning 

Area 12, for open space, wildlife habitat, or to improve 

watershed integrity. MA-VV-5 provides guidance to 

emphasize scenic integrity within the Grief Hill Inventoried 

Roadless Area. 

Desired conditions for scenery (DC-Scenic-1, DC-Open 

Space-1) have been included. Standards and guidelines that 

provide guidance for carrying out projects have been 

developed to maintain and improve scenic values (GuidesScenic-1 to 9, Guide-Wildland Fire-6). Guide-Lands-2 calls 

for consideration of visual characteristics when responding to 

land exchange proposals.

Desired conditions for watershed health and soils (DCwatershed-1 to 6) and airshed protection (DC-Airshed-1) are 

important. Obj-18, Obj-19, and Obj-23 call for improving 

NO
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Plannign Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 141

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

high priority watersheds and at risk riparian areas. Other 

objectives focus on actions to decrease sedimentation (Obj20 to Obj-22). Guidelines to protect watershed health 

(Guides-WS-1 to 12, Stds-WS-1 to 3, Guide-Trans-6, GuideRec-6, Guide-Wildland Fire-8) are also included. Soils 

guidelines (Guide-Soils-1 to 5) call for minimizing short and 

long term impacts of soils and water resources. 

Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan, 2006

Protect backdrops of foothills and 

mountains to protect rural 

character.

Prevent “wall to wall” land use—

retain gaps between communities 

while retaining 

transportation/transit linkages.

A clearly defined, connected trail 

system including multipurpose 

paths and on-road facilities, is 

desired. 

Plan for an interconnected 

greenway.

The area should not be used as a 

source of parcels for land 

exchanges elsewhere in national 

forests within the State.

What plan components relate to 

retaining scenic values, mountain views, 

and open land?

What plan components relate to trail 

system development?

How do plan components assist with 

developing interconnected greenways?

What are criteria for land adjustment?

Open space is one of the five areas identified in the revised 

plan as priority needs for change. 

DC-Open-Space-1 indicates desires to retain naturally 

appearing landscapes, wildlife habitat, recreational 

opportunity, and riparian/wetland character. DC-Lands-2 

includes statements identifying need to retain visual 

character, habitat, and free-flowing water within the Verde 

River. DC-Scenic-1 indicates a desire to retain native 

vegetation and a high degree of scenic integrity. 

Obj-29 states that up to 10 opportunities to acquire lands as 

presented and as feasible will be acted upon within and 

around the Prescott NF. 

Verde Valley Management Area desired conditions describe 

lands within the Prescott NF that enhance open space, scenic, 

watershed, and other natural resource values. These areas are 

retained in national forest ownership or are obtained through 

land adjustment. Verde Valley Management Area guidelines 

include guidance to retain or obtain lands within the Verde 

Valley between Cottonwood and Camp Verde, including 

parts of Cottonwood Planning Area 12, for open space, 

wildlife habitat, or to improve watershed integrity. MA-VV-5 

provides guidance to emphasize scenic integrity within the 

Grief Hill Inventoried Roadless Area.

While the Prescott NF is facilitating an ongoing recreation 

strategy and prioritization process, the revised plan includes 

desired conditions (DC-Rec-2) that describe the character of 

trails on the national forest. This includes a variety of 

YES

Alternative D 

includes an 

objective to 

construct new 

trails, in 

addition to 

improving 

condition of 

existing trails. 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

142 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Objectives or Concerns Questions the Revised plan

Needs to Answer Revised Plan Response Need for Alternative?

settings, point-to-point connectors, loop trails, and meeting 

needs of a growing population. Obj-11 and Obj-17 call for 

improving and constructing trailheads and improving existing 

trail conditions. 

Obj-29, as described above, is expected to lead to land 

acquisition in desired open space areas and could enhance 

greenways.

Land adjustment criteria is found in Guide-Lands-2 and 3. 

They include consideration of wildlife habitat, wetlands, and 

community vision statements as exchange proposals are 

considered. Lands that have lost their wildland character are 

included as having potential for exchange. 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 143

County Governments

The majority of the Prescott NF is located within Yavapai County; approximately 2 percent of the 

1.25 million acres of the Prescott NF is located within Coconino County. Approximately 38 

percent of the 5.2 million acres in Yavapai County consists of national forest land ownership that 

is shared between the Prescott, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto NFs. The Prescott NF revised plan

included five focus areas during revision: (1) restore the structure, composition, and function of at 

risk ecosystems such as grasslands, ponderosa pine, and juniper grasslands; (2) maintain and 

improve watershed integrity; (3) provide sustainable, diverse recreation experiences; (4) provide 

desired habitat for native fish; and (5) enhance scenic value of open space.

Yavapai County

Table 26 displays goals from the 2003 Yavapai County General Plan and the 2012 Draft 

Comprehensive Plan related to the Prescott NF and a summary of how the Prescott NF revised 

plan addresses or blends with those goals. No conflicts between the Yavapai County Plan goals 

and the components of the revised plan have been discovered.

Table 26. Yavapai County goals and how the Prescott NF revised plan responds

Yavapai County Goals Related to the 

Prescott NF as Expressed in their 

Plans and Policies

How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

Sustain the County’s Rural Character Public lands such as the Prescott NF offer rural and 

primitive experiences. Guide-Rec-2, DCTransportation/Facilities-1 and individual management area 

desired conditions help to sustain rural character.

Maintain a Variety of Land Uses and the 

County’s Attractive Image

Maintain open space between communities, 

including coordinating with land agencies 

sale/exchange proposals to recognize existing 

zoning and recreational opportunities.

Identify sites of scenic interest; practice visual 

conservation.

Increase public access to water resources.

Land use and open space desired conditions, objectives, and 

guidelines have been developed to enhance open space 

especially near and between communities where feasible: 

DC-Open Space-1, DC-Lands-1, DC-Wilderness-1; Obj-29; 

Guides-Lands-2 to7, Guides-Scenic 1 to 9, and Guide-VVMA-3.

Recreation access to the upper Verde River is expected: 

Obj-8, Guide-UV-MA-1.

Coordinate Transportation Planning with 

Agencies and Stakeholders

Coordinate new road construction with other 

transporation and land use agencies to mitigate 

negative impacts to wildlife and wildife 

movement corridors.

A safe, sustainable, and economc transportation system 

(roads and trails) that balances desire for public access with 

potential for ecological impacts is desired across the forest: 

DC-Trans/Facilites-1. Guides-Trans-3 and 5 state that roads

and trails should be designed to not impede terrestrial and 

aquatic wildlife species movement and habitat connectivity; 

and that wildlife friendly design for cattle guards should be 

used for new installations. 

The Prescott NF expects to coordinate with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department in development of wildlife 

linkages within the Prescott NF. 

Preserve the Verde River and the County’s 

Major Waterways

Indentify water supplies for a growing county. 

Watershed desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines 

that improve watershed, wetland, and riparian health are 

included: DC-WS-1 to 6, Obj-18 to 23, Obj-31, and 

Guides-WS-1 to 11.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

144 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Yavapai County Goals Related to the 

Prescott NF as Expressed in their 

Plans and Policies

How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

Promote conservation and reuse of water for 

residential, agricultural, and industrial uses. 

Encourage the protection of riparian areas, 

watercourses, and associated flood plains. 

Desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines for aquatic 

related wildlife provide guidance for the Verde River and 

other waterways: DC-Aquatic-1, Obj-24, and GuidesFish/Aquatics 1 to 4. 

Enhance Parks and Recreational Opportunities

Strive to reserve desirable public lands for 

recreation, open space, protection of wildlife 

habitats, and buffering residential areas. 

Encourage connectivity of existing trails between 

communities and in new developments.

Recreation desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines 

provide guidance for recreation actions: DC-Rec-1 and 2, 

DC-Wild and Scenic-1, DC-Wilderness-1; Obj-8 to Obj-17; 

Guide-Rec-1 to 12, Guide-Wild-1 to 10 and Std-W&S-1 to 

2.

Preserve Open Space Character

Protect scenic views and mountain vistas; adapt 

sensitively to natural areas; protect wildlife 

habitats.

Retain agricultural uses, encouraging continued 

use of ranches, farms, and vineyards.

Encourage property owners to maintain and 

protect historic access to public lands through 

their property.

Within the county, Prescott NF lands provide scenic views; 

wildlife habitats; recreational opportunities; and natural, 

undeveloped spaces. Permitting processes allow for grazing 

on Federal lands. 

Desired conditions are described for open space, 

landownership adjustment, and scenic values: DC-Open 

Space-1 and 2; DC-Lands-1; and DC-Scenic-1. Pronghorn 

antelope habitat objectives and guidelines are provided: 

Obj-25, Obj-27, and Obj-28. Guides-WL-3 and 8 address 

protection of animal movement corridors.

Guide-Lands-1 provides direction for right-of-way 

authorizations and public access to forest land. 

Identify Polices/Practices for Greater Use of 

Renewable Energy

Identify areas that could be conducive to large 

scale renewable energy production.

Encourage the creation of criteria in order to 

minimize potential issues/impacts from large-scale 

facilites (e.g. noise, visual aesthetics, preservation 

of wildlife movement corridors).

Direction for management of new energy sources includes 

an emphasis on locating power lines and pipelines within 

existing energy corridors when compatible: DC-Lands-1. 

Additional guidance is included in Guide-Lands-5 

addressing visual impacts, bat and avian collisons, and 

other wildlife habitat concerns.

Desired conditions for new Forest Service facilites 

emphasize energy efficiency and incorporating emerging 

technologies: DC-Trans/Facilities-1.

Encourage Balance between Natural and Built 

Environments

Coordinate with land management agencies to 

create standards to protect wildland-urban 

interface areas.

Desired conditions for vegetation and fuels are provided for 

wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas to reduce wildfire 

behavior and hazards to life and property: DC-Veg-8, 10, 

12, 15, and 19. 

Guide-Wildland Fire-5 and 9 provide direction for reducing 

fuels within wildland-urban interface areas. 

Coconino County

Land under management by the Forest Service makes up 28 percent of Coconino County with 

most within the Coconino and Kaibab NFs. The Prescott NF contributes only 2,500 acres to 

Coconino County. Table 27 compares goals from the 2003 Coconino County Comprehensive Plan 

to summaries of how the Prescott NF revised plan addresses or blends with those goals. No 

conflicts between the Coconino County Plan goals and Prescott NF revised plan components have 

been discovered.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 145

Table 27. Coconino County goals and how the Prescott NF revised plan responds

Coconino County Goals Related to the 

Prescott NF as Expressed in their Plans 

and Policies

How the Prescott NF Revised Plan

Responds

Improve forest health and promote the restoration 

of forest ecosystems.

Residents of neighborhoods in wildland-urban interface 

areas are encouraged to participate in forest planning, 

management, and restoration efforts.

Desired conditions and objectives, describe ecosystem 

characteristics for plant species, vegetation 

arrangements, and fire frequency. Separate desired 

conditions for wildland-urban interface areas allow for 

fuel reduction activities: DC-Veg-1 to 22 and Obj-1 to 6. 

Manage recreational uses in a manner that 

minimizes impacts to communities and the 

environment.

The county supports private land managers, 

management agencies, and citizen groups in their 

efforts to coordinate planning and maintenance of 

recreational opportunities that minimize adverse 

impacts to natural systems and residential areas.

The county supports and will assist other agencies with 

the planning and development of designated OHV 

routes and educational information that addresses the 

needs and impacts of OHV uses.

Plan components stress providing diverse recreational 

opportunities that reflect desires of local communities, 

avoid overcrowding and user conflicts, and minimize 

resource damage: DC-Rec-1 and 2, DC-Wild and 

Scenic-1, DC-Wilderness-1.

Standards and guidelines related to motorized travel on 

the Prescott NF indicate that the motor vehicle use map 

is the basis for OHV or other motorized vehicle routes: 

Std-Rec-1 and 2, Guide Rec-1.

Guidelines indicate that educational information will be 

developed and shared: Guide-Rec-3 and Guide-Interp-1. 

Concentrate development in designated growth 

areas while preserving open space and landscapes.

The county supports Federal acquisition through 

exchange or purchase of private inholdings surrounded 

by national forest or BLM lands that are important 

habitat areas, that contain environmentally sensitive 

lands, or that would reduce fragmentation.

Desired conditions describe desires for open space and 

guidelines provide criteria for land exchange or 

acquisition: DC-Open Space-1, DC-Lands-2, and GuideLands-2 and 3. 

State of Arizona

Goals or concerns of eight State of Arizona agencies or departments are discussed here and 

compared to components of the Prescott NF revised plan. A summary is provided of the mission 

or goals of each State organization and how the revised plan or its alternatives respond to those 

goals.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

The mission of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is to protect and enhance 

public health, welfare, and the environment in Arizona. ADEQ serves as the State’s 

environmental regulatory agency in the areas of air and water quality and waste programs. Forest 

management activities strive to be in compliance with the applicable Arizona Revised Statutes, 

particularly Title 49 which outlines specifics such as water quality standards and total maximum 

daily loads.

Maintaining or improving watershed integrity is one of five focus areas for plan revision. It 

includes providing desired water quality in rivers, streams, seeps, and springs on the Prescott NF. 

Desired conditions, objectives, and standards and guidelines provide direction for improving or 

maintaining water quality, especially those related to sedimentation: DC-WS-1 to 6, Obj-18 to 23, 

Guides-WS-1 to 12, Stds-WS-1 to 3, Guide-Trans-6, Guide-Rec-6, and Guide-Wildland Fire-8. 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

146 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Maintaining air quality is also addressed in the revised plan. DC-Airshed-1 describes conditions 

to which the Prescott NF aspires. 

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)

The mission of the Arizona Department of Water Resources is to secure long term dependable 

water supplies for Arizona. ADWR administers and enforces the State’s groundwater code and 

surface water rights laws. Title 45 of the Arizona Revised Statutes contains the provisions related 

to water and groundwater resources.

The focus area of maintaining or improving watershed integrity also includes providing desired 

water quantity and timing of delivery. The main influence that the Prescott NF can have on water 

yield is retention or restoration of desired overstory vegetation, vegetative ground cover, and 

disturbance regimes to provide for historic levels of water infiltration and runoff. Desired 

conditions for vegetation species, vegetation structural characteristics, and fire frequency are 

included in the proposed revised: DC-Veg-1 to 22. Desired conditions for ecosystem resilience to 

climate change are also included: DC-Ecosystem Resilience-1.

Arizona Department of Agriculture

The Arizona Department of Agriculture is the State’s regulatory agency for agriculture, including 

animals, plants, and environmental services. Title 3 of the Arizona Revised Statutes contains the 

provisions related to agricultural topics such as dangerous plant pests and diseases, pesticides, 

brands and marks, and seizure of livestock. Their mission is to regulate and support Arizona 

agriculture in a manner that encourages farming, ranching, and agribusiness, while protecting 

consumers and natural resources.

The revised plan includes desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines to continue treatment of 

nonnative invasive plant species: DC-Veg-1, Obj-6, and Guides-Plants 2 to 4.

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)

The Arizona Department of Transportation is responsible for planning, building, and operating a 

State highway system and maintaining bridges. 

Improvement and Construction

Other than Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) road projects 

referenced in community and regional plans above, road improvement and construction plans are 

not expected to impact the Prescott NF.

Long Range Planning

ADOT is in the midst of updating their long range plan, the “State Long-Range Transportation 

Plan.” As of January 2011, the goals and objectives of this plan were final. The full plan is 

scheduled for completion by June 2011. Select goals and objectives that relate to the Prescott NF 

are as follows:
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 147

• Improve Mobility and Accessibility – Implement critical and cost-effective investments 

in infrastructure to expand access to transportation and optimize mobility and reliability 

in the transportation of passengers and freight.

• Link Transportation and Land Use – Protect the capacity of the State transportation

system by developing policies and partnerships that strengthen the coordination of land 

use and transportation planning and implementation. Objectives focus on coordinating 

with public agency land use planning.

• Support Economic Development – Develop and operate a State transportation system 

that provides predictable freight and people movement throughout the State to support a 

competitive and thriving economy for Arizona.

• Promote Natural, Cultural, and Environmental Resources – Protect and restore the 

natural, cultural, and environmental resources of Arizona while improving and 

maintaining the transportation system. Objectives include: (1) implement transportation 

solutions that improve mobility, enhance communities, and protect and restore the 

environment; (2) implement an ecological connectivity approach to transportation 

planning and system development; and (3) collaborate with government agencies and 

other stakeholders to identify and consider natural habitats, the human environment, and 

protected natural or cultural resources when planning new or improved transportation 

services.

• Strengthen Partnerships – Develop and nurture partnerships that support coordination 

and integration of ADOT’s planning and investment in State transportation infrastructure 

with public and private organizations and agencies responsible for land use, conservation, 

environmental planning, and freight infrastructure.

The main impacts to Prescott NF management due to long-range transportation planning are: (1)

the continued increase in visitors to the area to enjoy recreation opportunities and (2) the potential 

for new corridors to block pronghorn and other wildlife movement or migration habitat. Appendix 

B, Proposed and Probable Management Practices, of the revised plan indicates the intent of the 

Prescott NF to coordinate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to identify key wildlife 

linkages so that mitigations (e.g., overpasses or underpasses) can be placed at strategic locations 

to allow for wildlife movement. Improving recreation opportunities and avoiding resource 

damage is addressed in desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines: DC-Rec-1 and 2, DCWilderness-1, DC-Wild and Scenic-1, Obj-7 to Obj-17, Std-Rec-1 and 2, Guides-Rec-1 to 12, 

Std-Wild-1 to 3, Guide Wild-1 to 10, Std-W&S-1 to 2, and Guide-Interp-1.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD)

The State’s Wildlife 20/20 Strategic Plan (WL 20/20) was approved in 2012 and replaces the now 

defunct Wildlife 2012 Plan. This strategic plan describes the guiding principles and defines the 

Department’s diverse roles and functions for managing Arizona’s fish, wildlife, and wildlife 

habitats. The Wildlife 20/20 Plan contains policy elements which may provide information for or 

have an impact on Prescott NF management. Table 28 displays selected goals and objectives from 

the Wildlife 20/20 Plan and how the Prescott NF revised plan or its alternatives respond. 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

148 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 28. Selected goals and objectives from AZGFD Wildlife 20/20 Strategic Action Plan 

(WL 20/20) and how the Prescott NF revised plan responds

Goals and Objectives Related to the 

Prescott NF as Expressed in AZGFD 

Wildlife 20/20 Strategic Action Plan

How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

Wildlife Resource Management:

Conserve, preserve, enhance, and restore wildlife 

populations and their habitats.

Conserve, preserve, enhance, and restore 

Arizona’s wildlife habitat and resources while 

balancing resource needs with recreational uses.

Maintain or improve the quality and connectivity 

of habitats to support a diversity of wildlife 

species. 

Minimize the negative impacts of invasive 

species on wildlife and their habitats. 

Improve the status of wildlife, with particular 

emphasis on those species listed as species of 

greatest conservation need.

Develop watershed-based approaches for 

fisheries management.

Manage game populations to meet objectives 

established within hunt guidelines. 

Manage rare species to maintain biological 

diversity and reduce federal regulatory burden.

Preparation for development of the revised plan included 

development of the “Prescott NF Ecological Sustainability 

Report.” This document considered ecosystems and species 

habitats that needed improvement. A list of wildlife species 

was developed, including consideration of the species of

greatest conservation need (at the time, the Prescott NF 

identified this list as “Species of Concern and Species of 

Interest”). Threats to these species were identified and 

response to those threats are found in vegetation desired 

conditions and objectives, standards, and guidelines that were 

developed to address ecosystems or specific wildlife habitat 

needs: DC-Veg-1 to 22, DC-Aquatic-1-2, Obj-1 to 5, Obj-26-

28, Std-WL-1, Guides-WL-1 to 7, and Guides-Fish/Aquatics-1 

to 3.

The Prescott NF expects to coordinate with AZGFD in 

development of wildlife linkages with the Prescott NF. GuideTrans-3 states that roads and trails should be designed to not 

impede terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species movement and 

habitat connectivity.

Guide-Lands-2 lists lands that contain important habitat such 

as that needed to maintain migration patterns or important 

linkages as a criterion for consideration of proposals for land 

acquisition.

Desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines provide 

guidance for dealing with nonnative invasive species: DC-Veg1, Obj-6, Std-Plants-1 and 2, and Guide-Fish/Aquatics-3.

Wildlife Recreation:

Increase the opportunity for the public to enjoy 

Arizona’s wildlife resources while maintaining 

and improving wildlife resources. 

Increase opportunities for use and enjoyment of 

wildlife and sport fish.

Increase participation in wildlife oriented 

recreational activities.

Provide access to public and other lands that are 

blocked by private lands.

Ensure seamless integration of of sport and 

native fish programs.

Standards and guidelines related to motorized travel on the 

Prescott NF indicate that the motor vehicle use map is the basis 

for OHV or other motorized vehicle routes: Std-Rec-1 and 2, 

Guide Rec-1.

Guidelines indicate that educational information will be 

developed and shared: Guide-Rec-3, Guide-Interp-1. 

DC-Lands-1 states that rights-of-way for legal access are 

present commensurate with need. Guide-Lands-1 states that 

easements should help provide adequate access to the Prescott 

NF.

Obj-13 provides for maintaining recreational fishing 

opportunities in lakes/pond sites. Obj-30 pursues legal access 

to areas where historic access to the national forest has been 

lost.

Off-highway Vehicle, Watercraft, and 

Shooting Sports Recreation Goals:

Increase the opportunity for the public to enjoy 

shooting sports. Encourage participation in 

education and information programs supporting 

safe and responsible use of off-highway vehicles 

and watercraft, while maintaining or improving 

wildlife resources and habitats.

Increase management of off-highway vehicles 

Obj-14 calls for identifying new methods for providing visitor 

information. Obj-10 calls for additional strategies to raise 

awareness of responsible target shooting practices. 

While the motor vehicle use map is the controlling document 

for motorized travel, the revised plan provides guidance for 

motorized game retrieval: Std-Rec-1, Guide-Rec-1.

Accurate and adequate frequency of signage is emphasized in 

DC-Rec-2, Obj-12, and Guide-Rec-9.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 149

Goals and Objectives Related to the 

Prescott NF as Expressed in AZGFD 

Wildlife 20/20 Strategic Action Plan

How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

and efforts to minimize their impacts on wildlife 

and wildlife habitat.

Partnerships: 

Maintain and develop effective partnerships that 

enable the AZGFD and its partners to reach 

mutual goals.

Enhance the AZGFD’s ability to manage wildlife 

resources.

Provide recreational shooting opportunities 

through partnerships.

Obj-24 and Obj-13 call for partnering with AZGFD to better 

provide recreational fish opportunities and to protect and 

enhance habitat for native fish species. 

The Background and Rationale for Obj-10 references the 

Prescott NFs openess to establishing a partnership to develop a 

designated target shooting area. Obj-28 indicates that the 

Prescott NF would like to cooperate with AZGFD in 

improving water developments for wildlife.

Appendix B, Proposed and Probable Management Practices, 

indicates a desire to continue cooperation with AZGFD and 

others to carry out management activities. In particular, 

development of wildlife linkages within the Prescott NF for 

pronghorn migration was referenced. 

In 2012, the Arizona Game and Fish Department updated its strategic wildlife action plan known 

as the 2005-2015 “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)” with a revised 

version known as the 2012-2022 “Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP).” The SWAP is 

similar to the original strategic plan but with improvements. The SWAP updates the Species of 

Greatest Concern (SGCN) list, species distribution models, and stressors and actions. It also 

acknowledges the impacts of climate change on Arizona’s wildlife and habitats and lays out a 

framework of ongoing climate change initiatives. The SWAP includes eight essential action 

elements that provide the next 10-year vision for the achievement of wildlife conservation and 

management in Arizona. These elements were reviewed for potential impact to Prescott NF 

management. Table 29 displays selected elements from the SWAP and how the revised plan or its 

alternatives respond. 

Table 29. Elements from the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and how the Prescott NF 

revised plan responds

Goals and Objectives from the State 

Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) 2012-2022 

Species of Greatest Conservation Need:

The AZGFD prioritized a list of species for 

conservation actions aimed at improving 

conditions for those species through intervention 

at the population or habitat level. Over 530 species 

were identified as being vulnerable or the species 

with the greatest conservation needs.

How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

Preparation for development of the revised plan included 

development of the “Prescott NF Ecological Sustainability 

Report.” This document considered ecosystems and species 

habitats that needed improvement. A list of wildlife species 

was developed, including consideration of the species of 

greatest conservation need (at the time, the Prescott NF 

referenced them as “Species of Concern and Species of 

Interest”). Threats to these species were identified and 

response to those threats included vegetation desired 

conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines that were 

developed to address ecosystems or specific wildlife habitat 

needs: DC-Veg 1 to 22, DC-Aquatic-1 to 2, Obj-1 to 5, Obj26-28, Std-WL-1, Guides-WL-1 to 7, and GuidesFish/Aquatics-1 to 3.

Habitats of Greatest Conservation Need:

The AZGFD identified wildilfe habitat types at 

Potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) were defined for 

the Prescott NF. Desired condition statements were developed 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

150 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Goals and Objectives from the State 

Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) 2012-2022 How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

the landscape scale based on Brown and Lowe 

(1974) vegetation communities and then further 

refined those habitats based on the SWReGAP 

vegetation classification. A statewide habitat 

analysis that answers the question of where to 

focus in each habitat was completed and is 

available as a web-based interface called HabiMap 

Arizona.

that describe how the PNVTs should look and function (DCVeg-1 through 23). Those that are highly departed from 

historic conditions have high priority for treatment in the next 

10 years in order to trend toward desired conditions. Those

treatments are displayed in: Obj-1 to Obj-5.

Stressors/Threats to Arizona’s Wildlife and 

Wildlife Habitats:

The AZGFD identified 53 stressors that have

impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat in Arizona. 

The stressors were categorized into levels of high, 

medium or minor importance. Of high importance 

and common to the Prescott NF are: altered 

surface hydrology, climate change, disease, 

drought, grazing by ungulates, groundwater 

depletion, invasive plant species, motorized 

recreation off-road, rural and urban development, 

sediment/ ash flow, shrub and woodland 

invasions, and unatural fire regimes. 

Population increases are addressed in recreation response to 

increased number of visitors as well as open space concerns: 

DC-Rec-1 and 2, DC-Wild and Scenic-1, DC-Wilderness-1, 

DC-Transportation and Facilities-1, DC-Open Space-1, and 

DC-Lands-2. 

Changes to water storage are addressed in need for change 

calling for maintaining or improving watershed integrity: DCWatershed-1 to 6.

Invasive, nonnative species were addressed as part of 

vegetation changes: DC-Veg-1 and DC-Aquatic-1.

Climate change was addressed in desired conditions for 

ecosystem resilience to climate change (DC-Ecosystem 

Resilience-1) and potential changes are included in 

background statements for potential natural vegetation type 

desired conditions. 

Conservation Actions for Arizona’s CWCS:

Conserve Wildlife Habitat

Promote the restoration and protection of aquifers, 

springs, streams, rivers, lakes, and riparian 

systems. Support regulations ensuring minimum 

in-stream flow and water rights for wildlife 

resources.

Maintain and reestablish habitat and habitat 

connectivity.

Promote habitat connectivity by removing or 

modifying barriers, protecting corridors and 

riparian areas, and using wildlife friendly roadway 

crossing structures.

Promote maintenance and restoration of habitat 

connectivity. 

Develop standards for modification of existing 

structures and corridors to reduce impacts to 

wildlife.

Wildlife Management

Promote implementation of recovery plans, habitat 

conservation plans, and other cooperative 

agreements for sustaining wildlife resources. 

Manage so as to sustain or enhance sport fish and 

native fish populations.

Maintain and construct new wildlife water 

developments. Encourage conversion of livestock 

waters so they are also continuously usable by 

DC-WS-1: “Adequate quantity and timing of water flows are 

maintained in streams, groundwater dependent ecosystems, 

and wetlands to retain or enhance ecological functions.” DCWS-2: “Riparian corridors are intact and functioning across 

the landscape. Links between aquatic and upland components 

are maintained.” DC-WS-6: “Wetlands, seeps, springs, wet 

meadows, and associated wetlands or riparian systems 

support stable herbaceous and woody vegetative 

communities.” DC-Aquatic-1: “Riparian vegetative 

communities within aquatic systems are intact and 

functioning.”

Obj-25: “Modify or remove at least 3 to 5 miles of fence to 

prevent impacting pronghorn antelope movement” 

(alternative C calls for 10 to 15 miles of fence removal). 

Guide-Lands-2: includes lands that contain important wildlife 

habitat as a criterion for land acquisition. Guide-Range-2: 

“Consider the following for structural improvements: 

implement design features that incorporate wildlife needs and 

reduce barriers to movement and entrapment hazard; consider 

wildlife needs in fence placement and design to reduce 

barriers and hazards to movement and minimize entrapment; 

remove fencing when it is no longer needed.” Guide-Lands-2: 

“ In coordination with general factors to consider in 36 CFR 

254.3(1), proposals for acquisition should meet one or more 

of the following criteria: 

Lands that contain important wildlife habitat, including that 

needed for species viability, such as habitat needed to 

maintain migration patterns or important habitat linkages.”

DC-WL-1: “Locations of sensitive flora and fauna species are 

known and secure. Habitats that support these populations are 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 151

Goals and Objectives from the State 

Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) 2012-2022 How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

wildlife.

Collaborate with partners to evaluate sampling 

techniques, reduce duplication of effort, and 

develop pathogen decontamination protocols to 

limit impacts to wildlife.

Reduce/eliminate the effects of feral animal 

populations in sensitive habitats or near wildlife 

populations of concern.

Public education and law enforcement to benefit 

wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Support prevention and suppression of accidental 

or arson-caused wildfire through information and 

education and enforcement of appropriate 

regulations.

Representing Wildlife 

Values in Multiple-use Planning

Promote restoration of natural fire regimes for 

improving grassland and forest health.

Promote adoption of sustainable forage 

management standards and guidelines for 

livestock and wildlife.

Promote conservation of sensitive areas and 

habitats for wildlife.

Encourage development and implementation 

guidelines for mining and landfill operations that 

consider the needs of wildlife resources.

Encourage land management agencies to manage 

road and trail networks to ensure sustainable 

wildlife resources.

Promote programs for eliminating or limiting the 

spread of invasive plants and animals, and the 

recovery or reintroduction of native populations.

Limit the spread of invasive plants and promote 

the restoration of native vegetation in disturbed 

areas.

enhanced to facilitate protection of sensitive flora and fauna 

species.” Guide-WL-1: “Habitat management objectives and 

terrestrial species protection measures from approved 

recovery plans should be applied to activities occurring within 

federally listed species habitat.” DC-Aquatic-1: “Streams, 

springs, and wetlands that have potential to support native 

fish and/or other aquatic species provide quality and quantity 

of aquatic habitat within the natural range of variability.” Obj24: “Restore native fish species to 2 to 3 stream reaches.” 

Obj-13: “Work with partners to maintain and enhance 

recreational fish opportunities.” Obj-28: “Improve up to 25 

existing and 5 new water developments for wildlife” 

(alternative C includes 5 to 15 water developments). StdRange-1: “Water troughs shall incorporate escape devices to 

prevent animal entrapments.” Guide-WL-9:” Water 

developments or open impoundments, such as those for 

wildlife, livestock, or mining operations, should incorporate 

design features to prevent animal entrapments or assist in 

escape.” Guide-WL-10:” All open top vertical pipes with an 

inside diameter greater than one inch should incorporate 

design features to prevent animal entrapments. Examples 

could include pipe for used for fences, survey markers, 

building plumbing vents, or sign posts.” Guide-Fish/Aquatics3: “To prevent the spread of invasive species and fungal 

disease within aquatic habitats, clean equipment, watercraft, 

and gear of plant, animal, and mud material before use on the 

Prescott NF.”

DC-Wildlife-1. “Terrestrial habitats are free of or minimally 

impacted by nonnative or feral species.”

DC-Rec-1: “A wide variety of recreational experiences and 

benefits exist across the Prescott NF landscape to discover 

and enjoy. Visitors are aware of and comply with forest 

regulations.” Guide-Interp-1: “Use of opportunities to provide 

interpretation and education related to the natural work and 

Prescott NF resources including forest health activities such a 

fuels management, benefits of wildland fire management, 

short term restrictions related to wildlife reproduction, 

ecological importance of riparian systems.”

DC-Veg-6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 21, and 22 include desired fire 

regimes that trend toward natural regimes for grasslands, 

ponderosa pine, piñon and juniper, and desert communities.

Guides-Range-1 to 4 include mitigations for grazing 

activities. 

Obj-24, 26, and 27 deal with habitats for native fish species 

and pronghorn migration habitat. 

Guide-Locatable Minerals-1: “Minimize disturbance to 

riparian vegetation.” Guide-Minerals Materials-1: “Adverse 

effects of aquatic and other riparian dependent resources from 

mineral material operations should be avoided.” Guide-WL-5 

includes mitigations for bats associated with caves or adits.

Guide-Trans-3: “Roads and trails should be designed to not 

impede terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species movement and 

habitat connectivity.” Guide-Trans-5: “To avoid unintended 

entrapment, wildlife friendly design for cattle guards should 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

152 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Goals and Objectives from the State 

Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) 2012-2022 How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

be incorporated for new and replacement installations.”

DC-Veg-1: “Native plant communities dominate the 

landscape, while invasive species are non-existent or in low 

abundance. Establishment of invasive plant species new to the 

Prescott NF is prevented.” DC-Aquatic-1: “Aquatic habitats 

are free of or minimally impacted by nonnative plant and 

animal species.”

Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD)

The practice of allocating public lands for various beneficiaries in Arizona dates back to the 

founding of the territory in 1863. The current system of managing these lands, referred to as State 

Trust lands, was established with the Arizona State Land Department in 1915. Since its inception, 

the AZSLD has been granted authority over all trust lands as well as the natural products they 

provide. This authority over trust land is central to the AZSLD’s primary mission of maximizing 

revenues for its beneficiaries, a role that distinguishes it from other agencies charged with 

management of public lands (e.g., national parks, national forests, state parks). As of 2008, the 

AZSLD managed over 9 million acres in land holdings for 14 beneficiaries, the most prominent

of which is the K-12 public school system. Most of the State lands can be used for livestock 

grazing purposes only. Public use of the lands is regulated by permit. 

The AZSLD may dispose of (i.e., exchange) or lease the lands for natural resource use or 

commercial development purposes. The AZSLD prepares a 5-year plan that represents potential 

areas of concern to initiate land sales and long term leases. As of February 2011, this plan was not 

available. 

Lands under management of the Arizona State Land Department are not public lands and, as 

such, require a permit to recreate on them. Therefore, the main interaction between the Prescott 

NF and the AZSLD may be to participate in land exchange or acquisition, or to gain easements or 

rights-of-way for legal access. Guide-Lands-1 addresses easements and Guide-Lands-2 and 

Guide-Lands-3 address criteria for land exchange or acquisition.

Arizona State Parks (ASP)

The mission of the Arizona State Parks is to manage and conserve Arizona’s natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources for the benefit of the people, both in our parks and through our partners 

(Arizona State Parks, 2010). Arizona State Parks manage several parks across Arizona. Three of 

these parks are near the Prescott NF: Fort Verde State Park, Dead Horse State Park, and Jerome 

State Historic Park. Arizona State Parks have seen a continual increase in visitation over the 

years, with over 1,000,000 visitors in 1985 to over 2,000,000 visitors in 2010 (Arizona State 

Parks, 2010). The State and National financial crisis impacted the management of State parks. In 

Fiscal Year 2010, the ASP reduced the number of employees and closed 13 of its 28 parks 

(Arizona State Parks, 2010).

The 2008 “Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan” (SCORP) identifies the 

State’s outdoor recreation priorities. Several action items have the potential to influence NFS 

lands:
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 153

• Look holistically across geographic boundaries, disciplines, governments, private 

interests, and generations and examine all benefits and costs, not just fiscal costs. (In 

reference to growth).

• Expand options such as private landowner incentive programs and recreational liability 

laws, which would allow public access across private and State and Federal leased lands.

• Provide for OHV use on public lands but manage it properly, to reduce conflicts with 

other recreation users and minimize the activity’s impacts on natural and cultural 

resources, as is done for other recreational activities. Implement standards for 

constructing sustainable OHV routes; involve user groups in planning, building, and 

maintaining satisfactory routes and facilities; and enact and enforce consistent OHV laws 

and regulations.

• State and Federal agencies should implement coordinated interagency planning efforts for 

new recreational areas and trail systems to ensure an equitable regional distribution of 

desired recreational opportunities and access to natural environments.

The SCORP also identifies the major impacts and trends related to outdoor recreation in Arizona. 

Arizona offers a wide variety of outdoor recreation opportunities with 6 national forests, 21 

national park sites, 8 national wildlife refuges, 8 Bureau of Land Management field offices, 21 

American Indian tribes, 30 State parks, 23 State wildlife areas, and hundreds of county and city 

parks and recreation areas. These public lands provide opportunities for activities such as 

picnicking, developed and primitive camping, wilderness backpacking, hiking, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, cross-country skiing, wildlife watching, hunting, fishing, boating, water skiing, 

rock climbing, four-wheel driving, motorized trail biking, all-terrain vehicle riding, and 

snowmobiling, among others (Arizona State Parks, 2007).

The “Arizona Trails 2010: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Recreation Trails” plan provides 

information and recommendations to guide Arizona State Parks and other agencies in their 

management of trails. The priority recommendations for motorized trails are: protect access to 

trails/acquire land for public access; maintain and renovate existing trails and routes; mitigate and 

restore damage to areas surrounding trails, routes, and areas; and establish and designate 

motorized trails, routes, and areas. The priority recommendations for nonmotorized trails are: 

maintain existing trails; keep trails in good condition; and protect access to trails/acquire land for 

public access (Arizona State Parks, 2009).

While the revised plan includes direction for the Prescott NF, past history shows that the Prescott 

NF expects to coordinate among other jurisdictions in trail location and management and 

motorized transportation planning. In particular, Obj-29, which calls for acting on 10 

opportunities to acquire lands, as available and feasible, for open space values, could be partially

fulfilled by coordinating with other agencies in expanding the Verde River Greenway. Current 

coordination activities between communities, agencies and jurisdictions are ongoing. The 

recreation strategy effort provides a forum for recreation providers and citizens to discuss types of 

recreation needed and to help determine how providers and interested individuals might best meet 

demands and provide desired benefits. 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

154 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Arizona State Forestry Division

The mission of the Arizona State Forestry Division is to manage and reduce wildfire risk to 

Arizona’s people, communities, and wildland areas, and provide forest resource stewardship 

through strategic implementation of forest health policies and cooperative forestry assistance 

programs. The Arizona State Forestry Division provides for the prevention and suppression of 

wildland fire on 22 million acres of State Trust land and private property located outside 

incorporated communities.

The 2010 “Arizona Forest Resource Assessment,” gathering input from partner agencies and 

stakeholders, evaluated the forested landscapes of Arizona and based on present and future forest 

conditions, trends, and threats, identified priority landscapes and strategies for addressing forest 

resource issues and opportunities. 

Table 30 displays selected goals and objectives from the “Arizona Forest Resource Assessment” 

and corresponding components of the revised plan. 

Table 30. Selected goals and objectives from Arizona Forest Resource Assessment and 

how the Prescott NF revised plan responds

Collaborative Goals Expressed in 

Arizona Forest Resource Assessment, 

2010

How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

People and Forests:

• People and communities receive maximum 

benefits from forests and trees.

• Minimum negative impacts to trees and forests. 

Occur.

The plan identifies desired conditions for the sustainable 

use and enjoyment of ecosystems: DC-Veg-1 to 3; DCRec-1 and 2; and DC-Open Space-1. 

Ecosystem Health:

• Resilient and diverse forest ecosystem structures, 

processes, and functions.

• Progress toward landscape scale outcomes, 

restoration of unhealthy ecosystems, and 

enhanced sustainability with negative impacts.

The plan identifies specific desired conditions and 

treatment objectives for all vegetation types that address 

ecosystem structure, processes, and functions under a 

changing climate: DC-Veg-6 to 23, Objectives-1 to 6.

Water and Air:

• Improved water quality and quantity from 

forested watersheds.

• Improved health and resiliency of forested 

aquatic systems (riparian areas, springs, and wet 

meadows).

• Increased public understanding of the 

importance of forests to Arizona’a water quality.

• Improved air quality.

The plan identifies specific desired conditions and 

treatment objectives to assist with the restoration and 

maintenance of watershed integrity including water quality, 

quantity, and timing of flows: DC-Watershed-1 to 6; 

Objectives-18 to 23, and Objective-31.

The plan identifies the conditions desired to assist with 

keeping smoke and dust emissions below National 

standards, protecting airshed visibility, and promoting 

public support for wildland fire management programs: 

DC-Airshed-1. 

Fire:

• Wildland ecosystems with appropriate fire 

regimes maintain health and resiliency of natural 

vegetation.

The plan identifies specific desired conditions and 

treatment objectives for all vegetation types and wildlandurban interface areas: DC-Veg-6 to 23, Objectives-1 to 6.

Wildland fire standards and guidelines provide guidance 

for trending toward or achieving ecosystem desired 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 155

Collaborative Goals Expressed in 

Arizona Forest Resource Assessment, 

2010

How the Prescott NF Revised Plan Responds

• “Fire Adapted Communities” that provide shared 

stakeholder responsibility for healthy landscapes 

and wildfire prepared communities.

• Enhanced wildland fire management capacity in 

Arizona.

• An Arizona public and government leadership 

that is well informed about wildland fire 

management, science, and prevention issues.

conditions with an emphasis on the protection of life and 

property: Std-Wildland Fire-1 and 2; Guides-Wildland 

Fire-1 to 10.

Economics:

• Realized long term economic potential of 

sustainable forest products and bioenergy.

• Protection of areas with economic development 

potential related to ecosystem services.

• Community recognition of the economic 

importance of protecting healthy natural systems.

The plan identifies desired conditions and guidelines for all 

vegetation types that include restoration and maintenance 

of healthy ecosystems while providing for the sustainable 

use of those ecosystems. Sustainable uses, including 

livestock grazing, firewood cutting, and timber harvest that 

contribute to the social, economic, and cultural structure 

and stability of communities: DC-Veg-1 to 3. 

Climate Change:

• Increased resilience of ecosystems to climate 

change.

• Reduced rate of future climate change through 

maximized carbon sequestration. 

• Broad public and community understanding of 

climate change science. 

The plan identifies a set of desired conditions to assist with 

building ecosystem resilience and adaptive capacity for 

plant and animal communities to accommodate trends of a 

changing climate: DC-Ecosystem Resilience-1. 

Federal Agencies

Federal agencies influencing or bordering on the Prescott NF include the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); the Westwide Corridor 

programmatic decision; the Upper Agua Fria National Monument and the Bradshaw-Harquahala 

Resource Planning Area (both managed by the Bureau of Land Management); and the Coconino, 

Kaibab, and Tonto NFs. In this section the FHWA, FWS, and the Westwide Corridor will be 

addressed separately; however, the areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the 

Forest Service will be introduced separately, but interactions addressed together.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

The role of the Federal Highway Administration is to ensure that America’s roads and highways 

are safe and technologically up-to-date. Although most highways are owned by State, local, and 

tribal governments, FHWA provides financial and technical support. The Federal Lands 

Highways funding provides dollars for roads and highways within federally owned lands, such as 

national forests. 

The Central Federal Lands Highway division, of which Arizona is a part, is in the process of 

developing its long-range transportation plan. The planning effort has identified two major trends: 

(1) Arizona population is increasing primarily in urban areas and (2) forest visitation and 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

156 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

recreation is increasing as a result of population increase. Within Arizona, 12 percent of the paved 

forest highway network is rated as poor or failed, while 7 percent of the unpaved network is rated 

as poor or failed, and 3 percent of the bridges are in poor condition.

Within or near the Prescott NF, the need for an Eastern Corridor Study for a possible controlled 

access facility was identified by the Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(CYMPO). A CYMPO regional transportation plan (2006) showed the possible corridor 

stretching from Interstate-17 north of Highway 69, across Highway 169, crossing the edge of the 

Prescott NF until it reached Highway 89 north of Chino Valley.

There are citizen and national forest concerns about the possible crossing of the national wild and 

scenic eligible upper Verde River (see CYMPO Regional Transportation Study, 2006 in Table 1 

above). Prescott NF revised plan includes DC-Wild and Scenic-1 and Std-W&S-2 that apply to 

conditions on the upper Verde River. In addition, alternative D includes the Muldoon Potential 

Wilderness Area as recommended wilderness. There could be conflicts between the possible route 

and maintenance of wilderness character if that alternative were selected.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s main role is to administer the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). Section 7 (1)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to aid in conservation of listed 

species and section 7 (1)(2) requires that agencies, through consultation with the FWS, ensure 

that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

adversely modify designated critical habitat. As projects and activities are planned, forest 

managers consult with the FWS.

The FWS issues national polices to promote the conservation and recovery of listed species, 

including species recovery plans. The FWS is in the process of developing a strategic plan to 

react to climate change. The Prescott NF revised plan includes Guide-WL-1 and GuideFish/Aquatics-1 that call for incorporation of requirements included in current recovery plans for 

federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant and wildlife species as 

management activities are carried out.

In 2005, a regionwide amendment to all forest plans and FWS biological opinions was completed. 

In May 2010, the Forest Service within the Southwestern Region (Arizona and New Mexico) reinitiated consultation on the regionwide amendment. A tiered consultation from the FWS 

consisting of a biological opinion and conference opinion was completed in March of 2012

related to forest plans originally completed in the 1980s.

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

FWS and prepared a biological assessment in February 2014 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, FWS issued a biological opinion of the assessment in July 2014.

On November 24, 2014 the Prescott NF submitted a letter to the FWS requesting conversion of 

the conference opinion to a BO for the yellow-billed cuckoo based on its federal listing changing 

from proposed to threatened. On December 22, 2014 the Prescott NF received a letter from the 

FWS granting the request to convert the conference opinion to a BO for the yellow-billed cuckoo. 

FWS also recommended that the Prescott NF wait until the northern Mexican and narrow-headed 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 157

gartersnakes and yellow-billed cuckoo respective proposed critical habitats are finally designated 

before concluding consultation on the habitats under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Department of Energy and Bureau 

of Land Management: Westwide Corridor

In November of 2008, a programmatic decision was reached to establish corridors for the 

preferred location of future oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and 

distribution facilities on Federal lands in the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. This was required by 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in order to improve coordination among agencies and expedite 

applications to construct or modify such facilities. In Arizona, 650 miles of corridor were 

identified with 81 percent incorporating existing utility and transportation rights-of-way. Within 

the Prescott NF, multimodal 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 (Vol. III Department of Energy EIS, 2008).

There are two areas where the Prescott NF revised plan interacts with the Westwide Corridor 

programmatic decision. The first relates to location of power lines and pipelines. Desired 

Condition DC-Lands-1 states that power lines and pipelines are located and co-located with 

existing corridors when compatible. Guide-Lands-5 includes the following guidance: “New 

energy proposals should be located within existing corridors, including the Westwide Corridor, 

unless valid concerns about the reliability and integrity of the State’s electrical grid indicate 

otherwise.” The second interaction relates to the “Upper Verde River Eligibility Report Update 

for the National Wild and Scenic River System” (2011). The existing Arizona Public Service 

power line and the Westwide Corridor make up the boundary between two river segments: (a) 

segment 2 is classified as wild, including an essentially primitive area that is inaccessible except 

by trail and (b) segment 3 is classified as scenic, including areas where some structures may be 

seen, the river is accessible by roads, and roads may occasionally bridge the river. By acting as a 

boundary between segments, more flexibility is provided for potential future applications for 

construction or modification.

Bureau of Land Management: Agua Fria National 

Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management Plan

On January 11, 2000, Presidential Proclamation 7263 created the Agua Fria National Monument 

to ensure protection of an extraordinary array of scientific and historic resources. The Agua Fria 

National Monument (AFNM) is located in southeastern Yavapai County, Arizona, and contains 

70,900 acres of BLM-administered lands and 1,444 acres of private land. The decisions in the 

approved resource management plan (RMP) only apply to the BLM-administered lands within the 

AFNM. The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area encompasses lands north and west of Phoenix 

and south and west of the Prescott NF in west-central Arizona. The area includes remote and 

undeveloped zones of desert and mountain ranges, as well as urban interface zones near Buckeye, 

Phoenix, Prescott, Wickenburg, and other communities. These lands sustain a wide range of 

activities and resources. 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

158 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Coconino National Forest

The approximately 2 million-acre Coconino National Forest (Coconino NF) is located in northcentral Arizona at the southern end of the Colorado Plateau. It is located east of the Prescott NF, 

and the Verde River and Sycamore Creek provide the boundary between the two national forests.

The Coconino NF is also revising its land management plan and working drafts of this plan 2011-

2014 were used as a comparison with the Prescott NF revised plan. The needs for change in the 

Coconino NF revised plan focus on recreation, community and forest interaction, and 

maintenance and improvement of ecosystem health.

Kaibab National Forest

The Kaibab National Forest (Kaibab NF) is broken into three geographically separate ranger 

districts. They are found both north and south of Grand Canyon National Park and near Williams, 

AZ. The most southern district is the Williams Ranger District which shares a boundary with the 

Prescott NF north of Drake and Perkinsville. Vegetation types in the area primarily include piñonjuniper woodlands. The 2014 “Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab NF” was

used to determine interactions between guidance found in the Prescott NF revised plan and the 

Kaibab NF revised plan.

Tonto National Forest

The Tonto National Forest (Tonto NF) covers approximately 3 million acres of land. It stretches 

from Mesa to Strawberry and from Cave Creek to Globe. The Cave Creek Ranger District shares 

a border with the Prescott NF. The Cave Creek Ranger District includes a portion of Pine 

Mountain Wilderness, a portion of Mazatzal Wilderness, portions of the Wild and Scenic Verde 

River, and Horseshoe and Bartlett Recreation Areas. The balance of the district is under general 

multiple-use management. This area is approximately half Sonoran desert and half chaparral 

vegetation type. The 1986 “Tonto National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” and its 

more recent amendments were used to determine interactions between management on the Tonto 

NF and the Prescott NF revised plan.

Comparison of Federal Resource Management Plans

After review of plans, questions were developed related to need for coordination between land 

management agencies. Each question is answered in table 31 and interactions of the various plans 

are identified. No conflicts were identified that may require additional alternatives.

Table 31. Comparison of Federal resource management plans

Questions to 

Determine 

Landscape 

Interactions

Interactions Between the Prescott NF Revised plan and 

Neighboring Land Management Agencies

How is direction 

coordinated for the 

designated wild and 

scenic segments of the 

Verde River?

The Coconino, Prescott, and Tonto NFs coordinated on preparation of the Verde 

Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. Each of these national forests referenced 

this coordinated plan in standards and guidelines within their current or proposed 

land management plans. 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 159

Questions to 

Determine 

Landscape 

Interactions

Interactions Between the Prescott NF Revised plan and 

Neighboring Land Management Agencies

What other rivers are 

considered eligible for 

national wild and scenic 

designation and how do 

they interact?

The upper Verde River is eligible for national wild and scenic river designation, and 

classifications were developed by the Prescott NF in coordination with the Coconino 

NF which borders a portion of the upper Verde River on the east. Guidance for river 

management resides in the Prescott NF plan. The Coconino NF determined a wild 

classification for Sycamore Creek that flows into the upper Verde River.

Three segments of the Agua Fria River, determined by the BLM as suitable for 

designation to the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System, are to be maintained in 

free-flowing conditions and managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable 

scenic, fish, wildlife, and cultural resource values. While the Agua Fria River does 

not flow through the Prescott NF, upstream tributaries like Ash Creek and Lynx 

Creek ultimately flow into the Agua Fria. Eight stream segments have been 

determined by the BLM to be eligible for consideration as to their suitability as 

additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Ash Creek (1.1 miles) and 

Little Ash Creek (2.7 miles) are among those.

Is wilderness character 

affected by guidance 

found in Federal agency 

plans?

The Prescott NF revised plan includes eight recommended wilderness areas. 

Sycamore Canyon A recommended wilderness area is adjacent to the designated 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness that overlaps the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NFs. 

Desired conditions for recommended wilderness do not conflict between the two 

forests. The Kaibab NF includes a group size restriction of 12 people and a pack 

animal maximum of 15 animals per group in standards and guidelines for both 

designated and recommended wilderness; the Prescott NF includes restrictions of 15 

people and a pack animal maximum of 10 animals per group in standards and 

guidelines.

The Prescott NF recommended wilderness area called Castle Creek Contiguous (east 

of Castle Creek Wilderness) is adjacent to BLM lands. These BLM lands are 

allocated to retain wilderness characteristics in the BLM Black Canyon Management 

Unit of the Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management Planning Area. The Castle 

Creek Contiguous area along with Castle Creek Wilderness and BLM wilderness 

character lands increase the value of wilderness characteristics of areas across both 

jurisdictions.

The Agua Fria National Monument identifies an area allocated to retaining 

wilderness characteristics along and east of the Agua Fria River in the southern 

portion of the monument. Three corridors identified as passage recreation 

management area zones provide access to the area. Passage recreation management 

area zones are areas where visitor use is not directed but is accommodated and 

focuses on designated motorized travel. The Prescott NF is not expected to have any 

impact on this area.

Are opportunities for 

recreational trails and 

recreational settings 

affected by other plans?

Recreation opportunity settings are similar between the southern portion of the 

Crown King Management Area, within the Prescott NF, and that shown in map 14 

for the Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area. 

Both the Kaibab and Prescott NFs classify lands along their shared boundary as 

semiprimitive nonmotorized or semiprimitive motorized in the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). That is, dirt roads are relatively far apart with area 

between roads that is accessible by foot; there is a low likelihood of seeing other 

people. 

The boundary area between the Prescott and the Tonto NFs is primarily made up of 

designated wilderness; the area on both forests not designated as wilderness provides 

settings classified as semiprimitive nonmotorized and semiprimitive motorized. 

The Verde River provides most of the boundary between the Coconino and Prescott 

NFs. By having a natural boundary, visitors can more easily differentiate between 

management styles. Settings within the Verde Valley vary from urban environments 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

160 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Questions to 

Determine 

Landscape 

Interactions

Interactions Between the Prescott NF Revised plan and 

Neighboring Land Management Agencies

within towns and cities to semiprimitive nonmotorized settings near Black Canyon 

where the likelihood of interacting with other people is rare. Motorized use on all the 

national forests is allowed on designated trails, roads, and areas as indicated by each 

forest’s motor vehicle use map. 

How well is scenery 

management coordinated 

across Federal land 

management agencies?

Within the Verde Valley, both the Coconino and Prescott NFs desired condition 

descriptions call for maintaining the scenic backdrop that provides value to Verde 

Valley communities. 

How well is motorized 

big game retrieval 

coordinated across 

AZGFD game 

management units?

The Prescott NF revised plan uses language consistent with the Williams Ranger 

District Travel Management Decision to guide the use of motorized game retrieval 

forestwide. The Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NFs all share part of AZGFD Game 

Unit 8. The Coconino NF deferred to the Kaibab NF guidelines for motorized game 

retrieval within AZGFD Game Unit 8.

Is management of 

nonnative invasive plant 

species coordinated 

across Federal land 

management agencies?

The Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NFs identify the desire for domination of the

landscape with native plant communities while invasive species are non-existent or in 

low abundance. These forests also reference appendix B of the “Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds” (2005) 

related to direction for treatment of nonnative invasive plant species.

The current Tonto NF plan includes few references to nonnative invasive species.

The Agua Fria National Monument and Harquehala Resource Management Plans

include desired conditions describing maintenance of diverse viable populations of 

native plants while the impact of invasive species on native ecosystems is reduced 

from current levels. They also include management actions such as emphasizing use 

of native species for restoring or rehabilitating disturbed areas and carrying out 

control efforts in cooperation and collaboration with weed management associations 

or other organizations.

Are vegetation desired 

conditions and 

management direction 

coordinated across 

boundaries?

Grassland vegetation guidance of the Agua Fria National Monument is similar to that 

found in the Semi-Desert Grasslands Potential Natural Vegetation Type (PNVT) for 

the southeastern portion of the Prescott NF. In other parts of BLM managed lands, 

upland vegetation is managed to consist of a mix of native perennial grass and 

ground cover adequate to improve wildlife habitat and a long term stable population 

of columnar cacti and paniculate agave where ecological potential exists. 

The Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NFs used the Forest Service Southwestern 

Region process for identification of PNVTs and participated in identifying 

coordinated desired conditions for each PNVT found on the national forests. The 

Tonto NF, Cave Creek Ranger District, manages vegetation with a primary emphasis 

on wildlife habitat improvement, livestock forage production, and dispersed 

recreation.

How well are areas 

identified for managed 

wildland fire coordinated 

among Federal land 

management agencies?

In the two BLM resource management plans, areas identified as appropriate for 

managed wildland fire are found in the eastern part of the Upper Agua Fria National 

Monument adjacent to similarly appropriate areas on the Prescott NF. Areas 

appropriate for managed wildland fire south of Crown King include a 1 to 2-milewide corridor next to the boundary between the Prescott NF and Castle Hot Springs 

Management Unit. 

The Kaibab NF plan indicates that the whole forest may sustain managed wildland 

fire. The Prescott NF indicates that managed wildlife fire can be appropriate in the 

area next to the Kaibab NF boundary and on a case-by-case basis in the Prescott NF 

portion of the Verde Valley next to the Coconino NF. 

The Coconino NF desired conditions indicate that wildfires can be managed across 

most of the landscape for resource benefits. The Prescott NF, Tonto NF, and BLM 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 161

Questions to 

Determine 

Landscape 

Interactions

Interactions Between the Prescott NF Revised plan and 

Neighboring Land Management Agencies

Resource Management Plans call for protecting the Sonoran desert from fire.

How well are habitat 

improvements to provide 

migration habitat for 

pronghorn coordinated? 

Pronghorn movement corridors are generally mapped for the Agua Fria National 

Monument. They are located adjacent to the Prescott NF within areas identified as 

Semi-Desert Grassland. Prescott NF Obj-27 calls for treatment within pronghorn 

migration habitat that is found near the monument. Obj-1 calls for burning within 

desert grasslands to trend toward historic disturbance intervals and to improve 

grassland value for wildlife. Coconino NF desired conditions call for free movement 

of wildlife across the forest and across forest boundaries to access adjoining habitat. 

Kaibab NF desired conditions call for habitat interconnectedness to allow for 

movement of wide ranging species, and habitat configuration allows for movement 

of wildlife populations to promote genetic flow. 

Tribes

Six tribal groups within Arizona have connections with the Prescott NF: the Fort McDowell 

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

Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe.

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation lands occupy a rectangular shaped piece of land measuring 4

miles east to west and 10 miles north to south. Located in northeastern Maricopa County, the 

reservation is bisected by the southerly flowing Verde River. Economic enterprises operated by 

the nation include: Fort McDowell Casino, Fort McDowell Tribal Farm, Fort McDowell Yavapai 

Materials, Fort McDowell Adventures, Radisson Resort and Conference Center at Fort 

McDowell, and the We-Ke-Pa Golf Club (NAU, 2011).

Hopi Tribe

The Hopi Tribe’s main land base is located in the northeastern section of Arizona with a total area 

of approximately 1.6 million acres. The area consists of low lying deserts, gullies, buttes, and 

mesas, rising as high as 7,200 feet. Most of the reservation is open land and is used for 

community, religious, farming, business, and livestock purposes. The scarcity of water is a 

limiting factor in future economic or agricultural development. The Hopi manage a 200-acre 

industrial park site in Winslow (NAU, 2011).

Hualapai Tribe

The Hualapai Reservation encompasses about 1 million acres along 108 miles of the Grand 

Canyon. The Hualapai Department of Natural Resources operates a wildlife, fisheries, and parks 

program; prepared a Watershed Management Plan (2006); prepared a Fire Management Plan 

(2002); and has a Forest Management Plan (1990 to 2000) that is now being revised. The overall 

goal of the Haulapai Department of Natural Resources is to produce long term, sustainable, 

balanced, multiple use of natural resources under the direction of the Hualapai Tribal Council. 
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

162 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

The fire management plan includes goals to: (1) protect human safety and property while 

managing timber and range resources sustainably; (2) maintain adequate air and water quality; 

and (3) reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire. The 2006 Watershed Management Plan includes 

identification of non-point source pollution sources and associated mitigation actions to improve 

water quality in the Colorado River and within the Truxton Wash and the Upper Gila watersheds.

The tribe is actively managing endangered native fish by operation of an endangered fish rearing 

facility. Elk have been transported to the area and a big game hunting program is active.

(Hualapai Department of Natural Resources, 2011).

Grand Canyon West on the Hualapai Reservation is at the west rim of the Grand Canyon. The 

enterprise offers tour packages that include views from the “Skywalk” (i.e., a glass viewing area 

that enables visitors to walk beyond the rim of the Grand Canyon), helicopter and boat tours, and 

other excursions on the reservation.

Tonto-Apache Tribe

The Tonto-Apache Tribe is located in northwestern Gila County approximately 95 miles northeast 

of Phoenix. Consisting of 85 acres, the reservation is south of and adjacent to the community of 

Payson. The amount of tribal land ownership will increase upon acquiring an additional 240 acres 

of land from the Forest Service. The tribe’s economic enterprises include Mazatzal Casino, 

Paysonglo Lodge, Marble Slab Creamery, and the Tonto-Apache Tribal Market and Smoke Shop 

(NAU, 2011).

Yavapai-Apache Nation

The Yavapai-Apache Reservation is located in the Verde River valley in central Yavapai County.

The 636-acre reservation is made up of five separate parcels of land. Topographic features of the 

Middle Verde Reservation include intermittent streams, terraces adjacent to the river, and rich 

flood plain soil deposits. The nation operates the Cliff Castle Casino, the Lodge at Cliff Castle, 

and the Conference Center at Cliff Castle near Montezuma Castle National Monument. YavapaiApache Nation Native Visions offers scenic van tours, horseback riding, and a gift shop. Other 

businesses include Yavapai-Apache Construction, a sand and rock business, and farming/ranching

(NAU, 2011).

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe is located adjacent to the city of Prescott in central Yavapai 

County. The reservation is topographically diverse, ranging from the relatively flat Granite Creek 

area to mountainous terrain north of the residential area and west of U.S. Highway 89. Today the 

tribal economy is tied to the economy of the Prescott community which focuses on tourism and 

retail sales and services. The tribe owns and operates the Sundog Industrial Park, Frontier Village 

Shopping Center, Bucky’s Casino, and the Prescott Resort and Conference Center (NAU, 2011).

Interaction Between the Prescott 

National Forest Revised plan and Tribes

With the exception of the Hualapai Department of Natural Resources plans, natural resource 

plans for those groups who have a connection with the Prescott NF were not available. However, 

Prescott NF plan guidance could interact with economic and social needs of some of the tribes.
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 163

The groups most affected could be those located near the Prescott NF or those most economically 

and culturally tied to the area. Portions of plan guidance that interact with these groups include 

the following:

• Desired conditions and objectives for recreation, transportation, and facilities provide a 

description of future recreation opportunities. This information, such as descriptions of 

desired trail conditions, will affect the quality of recreation that visitors experience and 

indirectly may increase the number of visitors to business ventures provided by the tribes 

or nations. 

• Desired conditions and objectives developed to help trend toward desired conditions 

related to open space and scenic values could provide the same type of benefit to tribal 

groups. 

• Desired conditions for heritage (DC-Heritage-1 and 2) express the Prescott NF’s intent to 

preserve and protect historic and prehistoric sites including American Indian sacred 

places and traditional cultural properties, places, and areas. In addition, they state that use 

of forest products by affiliated American Indian nations, tribes, and communities is 

expected to be available for traditional practices.

• One of the outstandingly remarkable values of the portion of the upper Verde River that 

is eligible for national wild and scenic designation is its cultural resource values. This 

river will be retained in free-flowing condition and its outstandingly remarkable values, 

including cultural resource values, will be protected. 

References

Arizona Department of Agriculture. (2010). Annual Report FY2009-2010. Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2011). About Us. Phoenix, AZ.

www.azdeq.gov/function/about/index.html

Arizona Department of Transportation. (2010). 2010 Statewide Planning Framework. 9.0 Final 

Role Out of the Statewide Framework. Phoenix, AZ.

www.bqaz.gov/StatewideTransportationPlanningFramework.asp

Arizona Department of Transportation. (2010). Arizona State Transportation Improvement 

Program (STIP) Fiscal Years 2010-2013. Phoenix, AZ.

www.azdot.gov/MPD/Priority_Programming/index.asp

Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2011). Mission and Goals. Phoenix, Arizona.

www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/PublicInformationOfficer/MissionAndGoals.htm

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2006). Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy: 2005-2015. Phoenix, AZ.

www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/cwcs/downloads/CWCS_Final_May2006.pdf

Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2007). Wildlife 2012 Strategic Plan. Phoenix, Arizona.

www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/documents/Wildlife2012forWeb.pdf

Arizona State Forestry Division. (2010). Statewide Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy. 

Phoenix, AZ. 

www.azsf.az.gov/userfiles/file/Arizona%20Forest%20Resource%20Assessment-2010.pdf
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

164 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Arizona State Land Department. (2011). Real Estate Division. Phoenix, AZ.

www.land.state.az.us/programs/realestate/futureDisp.htm

Arizona State Land Department. (2011). State Land Department Historical Overview. Phoenix, 

AZ. www.land.state.az.us/history.htm

Arizona State Parks. (2007). Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

(SCORP). Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona State Parks. (2009). Arizona Trails 2010: A Statewide Motorized and Nonmotorized

Recreational Trails Plan. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona State Parks. (2010). Arizona State Parks FY09/10 Annual Report July 1, 2009 – June 30, 

2010. Phoenix, AZ.

Ash Fork Development Association and the Community of Ash Fork. (2004). Ash Fork Action 

Plan II. Ash Fork, AZ. August 2004.

Bureau of Land Management. (2010). Agua Fria National Monument Resource Management 

Plan. Phoenix, AZ. www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/planning/afria-bradshaw-final.html

Bureau of Land Management. (2010). Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management Plan. 

Phoenix, AZ. www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/planning/afria-bradshaw-final.html

City of Cottonwood. (2003). Cottonwood General Plan 2003 – 2013. Cottonwood, AZ.

www.ci.cottonwood.az.us/genplan.php

City of Prescott Valley and citizen volunteers. (2002). Prescott Valley General Plan 2020. Prescott 

Valley, AZ. www.pvaz.net/index.aspx?page=137

City of Prescott. (2003). Prescott General Plan. Prescott, AZ.

www.cityofprescott.net/_d/general_plan_051804.pdf

Coconino County Community Development Department. (2003). Coconino County 

Comprehensive Plan. Flagstaff, AZ. www.coconino.az.gov/comdev.aspx?id=142

Community Sciences Corporation In Association with Dava & Associates; Lima & Associates. 

(2006). The Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan. Yavapai County, AZ.

www.co.yavapai.az.us/Content.aspx?id=34544

Department of Energy and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. (2008).

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on 

Federal Land in the 11 Western States. Final Volume I: Summary and Main Text and 

Final Volume III: Map Atlas Map E8. Washington, DC.

Federal Highway Administration. (2011). Who We Are. U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration. www.fhwa.dot.gov/whoweare/whoweare.htm

Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). Consultations – Overview. Department of the Interior.

www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/consultations-overview.html

Forest Service. (1985). Tonto National Forest Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region.

www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tonto/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_018762
Appendix C. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 165

Forest Service. (2010). Kaibab National Forest Proposed Land Management Plan. Williams, AZ: 

Kaibab National Forest.

www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5154723.pdf

Forest Service. (2011). Coconino National Forest Draft Land Management Plan. Flagstaff, AZ: 

Coconino National Forest. www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/plan-revision.shtml

Forest Service. (2011). Upper Verde River Eligibility Report Update for the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

www.fs.fed.us/r3/prescott/planrevision/docs-conc-proc/conc-proc-wsr.pdf

Hualapai Department of Natural Resources. (2002). 2002 Fire Management Plan. Peach Springs, 

AZ: Hualapai Tribe. 

Hualapai Department of Natural Resources. (2006). 2006 Watershed Management Plan. Peach 

Springs, AZ: Hualapai Tribe. 

Hualapai Department of Natural Resources. (2011). Organization and Mission. Peach Springs, 

AZ: Hualapai Tribe. 

Interagency Fire and Emergency Management Group of the Prescott Area Wildland/Urban 

Interface Commission. (2004). Yavapai Communities Wildfire Protection Plan. Prescott, 

AZ. www.pawuic.org/

Lima and Associates. (2007). Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional

Transportation Study. Prescott, AZ.

www.cympo.com/pdf/2030/01242011_FINAL_REPORT_SAFETEALU_AMENDMENT_2007.pdf

Northern Arizona University, Center for American Indian Economic Development. (2011). 

Flagstaff, AZ. www.cba.nau.edu/caied/tribepages/Tribes.asp

Paulden Area Community Association and the Residents of the Paulden Area. (2007). Paulden

Community Plan. Paulden, AZ. 

Prescott Area Wildland-urban Interface Commission. (2004). Prescott Basin Community 

Protection and Economic Development Plan. Prescott, AZ.

Town Council of Chino Valley. (2003). Town of Chino Valley General Plan. Chino Valley, AZ.

www.chinoaz.net/dev_services/generalplan.shtml

Town of Camp Verde. (2004). Camp Verde General Plan. Camp Verde, AZ.

www.campverde.az.gov/government/town-clerk/documents/

Town of Clarkdale. (2002). General Plan Program 2002. Clarkdale, AZ.

www.clarkdale.az.us/2002GeneralPlan/generalplan.pdf

Town of Dewey-Humboldt. (2009). Town of Dewey-Humboldt 2009 General Plan. DeweyHumboldt, AZ. 

Town of Dewey-Humboldt. (2010). Town of Dewey-Humboldt Open Space and Trails Plan. 

Dewey Humboldt, AZ.

Yavapai County. (2003). Yavapai County General Plan. Prescott, AZ.

Yavapai County. (2012). Yavapai County’s 2012 Comprehensive Draft Plan.

167 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by 

Government Agencies

This section reproduces in their entirety, the correspondence submitted by government agencies 

during the formal comment period (September 2012 to November 2012) for the draft revised plan 

and DEIS. This section only contains those comment letters that were submitted. Specific 

comments received were analyzed and addressed in the responses to comments in appendix A.

The government agencies providing comment include:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

• U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

• State of Arizona, Game and Fish Department

• Yavapai County Development Services
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

168 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 169
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

170 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 171
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

172 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 173
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

174 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 175
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

176 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 177
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

178 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 179
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

180 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 181
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

182 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 183
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

184 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 185
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

186 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 187
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

188 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 189
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

190 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix D. Comment Letters Submitted by Government Agencies

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 191

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 193

Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between 

the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

The intent of this crosswalk is to provide greater transparency on how existing plan direction 

(e.g., standards and guidelines) was incorporated into the revised plan. The revised plan is 

strategic in nature, as such; some components of the 1987 Plan as amended are still adequate and 

timely and have been carried forward into the revised plan. However, other components have 

been modified or removed, for reasons including: 

• they describe a purely administrative or procedural function; 

• they duplicate direction that can be found in existing law, regulation, or Forest Service 

policy; 

• they are based on outdated policies, science, or information; 

• they include out-of-date terminology. 

In addition, some standards and guidelines in the 1987 Plan will not be included in the revised 

Plan because they: 

• were unnecessarily prescriptive about how to accomplish a project; 

• did not support attaining desired conditions or accomplishing objectives;

• were duplicative. 

It should be noted that existing laws, regulations, and Forest Service policy must be followed 

even if it is not duplicated in Forest Plan direction.

To reference plan decisions more easily, a numbering scheme is used in the plan and this 

crosswalk. It consists of three parts: (1) type of plan decision (e.g., a desired condition, objective, 

guideline); (2) resource area (e.g., vegetation, recreation, heritage); and (3) number.

Abbreviations are used to shorten these labels. The following examples illustrate this scheme: 

“DC-Veg-1” relates to the first listed desired condition for vegetation; “Obj-7” relates to the 

seventh objective listed; and “Guide-AF MA-1” relates to the first listed guideline for the Agua 

Fria Management Area. Forestwide Desired Conditions (DCs) are found in chapter 2 of the 

revised Plan. Forestwide Objectives (Objs) are found in chapter 3. Forestwide Standards and 

Guidelines (Stds & Guides) are found in chapter 4. Management Area Direction 

(DCs/Objectives/S&Gs) are found in chapter 5.

In the crosswalk, the 1987 Plan Page # refers to the 2004 republish version of the 1987 Plan 

which includes Amendments 1 through 12. Direction from Amendments 13 through 16 has also 

been included in the crosswalk. Replacement pages have been indicated by a "-1" suffix on the 

page number.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

194 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 32. Crosswalk of direction found in the 1987 plan and the revised plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

General

The forest is managed with a primary 

emphasis on healthy, robust environments 

with productive soils, clean air and water, 

and diverse populations of flora and fauna. 

Public information, education and 

interpretation of forest resources, 

ecosystems and management are provided. 

11 Yes

Forest Plan Chapter 

1: Prescott National 

Forest Mission and 

Vision

Range

Provide forage to grazing and browsing 

animals to the extent benefits are relatively 

commensurate with costs without 

impairing land productivity, in accordance 

with management area objectives. 

12 Yes DC-Veg-3

Range

Cooperate with other agencies and private 

range landowners to reduce impacts of 

livestock grazing. 

12 No

Cooperation with range permittees 

and other agencies is a standard 

practice in range management. This 

direction is not appropriate for the 

forest plan.

Range

Identify and manage areas that contain 

threatened and endangered species of 

plants. 

12 Yes DC-Veg-4 

DC-Veg-5

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

Information, environmental education and 

interpretive services are available 

forestwide to communicate the Forest 

Service role and mission, forest themes, 

management actions and ecosystem 

concepts, and to enhance forest user 

understanding and enjoyment.

12 Yes Guide-Interp-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 195

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

Forest information, education and 

interpretation present resources and 

management information within a holistic, 

ecosystem context. Landscape ecology is 

stressed, with specific interpretive 

messages focusing on the interdependency 

of land, peoples, systems and processes. 

12 Yes Guide-Interp-1

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

The forest provides for full integration of 

interpretive services with other Forest 

Service resources, disciplines, facilities, 

programs and personal services. 

12 Yes Guide-Interp-1

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

Public contact staff supports forest law 

enforcement officials through internal and 

external communication to reduce 

infractions and improve public 

understanding and support of public land 

stewardship responsibilities. 

12 Yes Guide-Interp-1

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

Volunteers and partnerships are used to 

provide increased public contact. 12 Yes

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 

Recreation

Recreation users enjoy a full spectrum of 

experiences and benefits in appropriately 

managed facilities and other forest 

settings. 

12 Yes DC-Rec-1

Recreation

Heritage resources represent an 

opportunity for research, education, 

understanding and enjoyment that 

enhances their stewardship and protection. 

12 Yes DC-Heritage-1

Recreation

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) is the framework for recreation 

planning. 

12 Yes Guide-Rec-2
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

196 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Recreation

All recreation sites are managed at a 

capacity of use level that ensures that the 

natural resources will be maintained at a 

desirable condition over the expected life 

of the project and/or activity. 

12 Yes Guide-Rec-6

Visual Resources

The visual landscape appears natural 

within the context of indigenous 

vegetation and landforms or modified 

within the goals of the current Forest 

Service Scenic (Visual) Management 

System. 

12 Yes DC-Scenic-1

Visual Resources

Special concerns for preservation of visual 

resources are a priority in primary 

recreation areas and in areas of high visual 

concern. 

12 Yes

Guide-Scenic-1 

Guide-Scenic-4 

Guide-Scenic-8 

Visual Resources

Visual quality is managed to reflect 

existing and future uses of the landscape 

unit. 

12 Yes Guide-Scenic-2

Wilderness

Natural agents of ecological change will be 

allowed to operate freely in wilderness. All 

other uses allowed in wilderness will be 

managed to preserve the wilderness 

character and value. 

13 Yes DC-Wild-1 

Std-Wild-2

Wilderness Allow lightning-caused wildfire to play a 

more natural role. 13 Yes Std-Wild-2

Timber Provide for nondeclining sustained yield of 

timber. 13 Yes

Timber Suitability, 

Long-Term Sustained 

Yield Capacity, and 

Allowable Sale 

Quantity Report
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 197

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Timber

Establish improved balance in age class 

distribution through silvicultural 

prescribed stand management. Focus on 

reducing constraining components of stand 

strata. Protect existing old growth stands. 

13 Yes DC-Veg-1 

Std-FP-1 to 4

Timber Improve stand productivity through 

management. 13 Yes DC-Veg-1

Timber Provide green and dead firewood and other 

forest products on a sustained yield basis. 13 Yes DC-Veg-2

Timber

Timber harvest will be used as a tool to 

accomplish multiple resource objectives 

when it is identified as the optimum 

method through site-specific 

environmental analysis. 

13 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy regarding the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Wildlife and Fish 

Habitat

Manage for a diverse, well distributed 

pattern of habitats for wildlife populations 

and fish species in cooperation with states 

and other agencies. 

13 Yes

DC-Ecosystem 

Resilience-1 

DC-Wildlife-1 

DC-Aquatic-1 

Wildlife and Fish 

Habitat

Cooperate with the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department to meet or exceed 

management goals and objectives in the 

Arizona Cold Water Fisheries Strategic 

Plan. 

13 No

The plan referred to is obsolete. The 

2015 Prescott NF Forest Plan aligns 

with the AZGFD Wildlife 20/20 

Strategic Action Plan (WL 20/20) 

and the 2012-2022 State Wildlife 

Action Plan (SWAP). This is 

detailed in Tables 4 and 5 of 

Appendix C of the FEIS.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

198 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Wildlife and Fish 

Habitat

Maintain and/or improve habitat for 

threatened or endangered species and work 

toward the eventual recovery and delisting 

of species through recovery plan 

implementation. 

13 Yes

DC-Ecosystem 

Resilience-1 

DC-Wildlife-2 

DC-Aquatic-3 

Obj-24 

Guide-WL-1 

Guide-Fish/Aquatics1 

Wildlife and Fish 

Habitat

Integrate wildlife habitat management 

activities into all resource practices 

through intensive coordination. 

13 No

This specific direction was not 

carried over. The intent was unclear 

as coordination with wildlife 

management agencies is a standard 

practice. This is site-specific 

direction.

Wildlife and Fish 

Habitat

Support the goals and objectives of the 

Arizona Wildlife and Fisheries 

Comprehensive Plan, as approved by the 

Southwestern Regional Forester and 

Director of the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. 

13 No

The plan referred to is obsolete. The 

2015 Prescott NF Forest Plan aligns 

with the AZGFD Wildlife 20/20 

Strategic Action Plan (WL 20/20) 

and the 2012-2022 State Wildlife 

Action Plan (SWAP). This is 

detailed in Tables 4 and 5 of 

Appendix C of the FEIS.

Minerals

Administer the mineral laws and 

regulations to minimize surface resource 

impacts while supporting sound energy 

and minerals exploration and development. 

13 Yes DC-Minerals-1

Minerals Pursue reclamation of past and present 

mined lands. 13 Yes

DC-Minerals-1 

Std-Locatable 

Minerals-3 

Std-Minerals 

Materials-1

Soil and Water Protect and improve the soil resource. 13 Yes DC-Watershed-3 

Guide-Soils-1 to 5
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 199

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Soil and Water

Provide for long-term quality waterflow 

needs through improved management 

technology. 

13 No

This direction is obsolete and was 

not carried over. The current focus is 

on ecological function as described 

in DC-Watershed-1.

Soil and Water

Avoid adverse impacts to the public, 

Government facilities and all uses in flood 

plains and wetlands. 

14 Yes

DC-Watershed-2 

Std-WS-1 to 3 

Guide-WS-4

Soil and Water Restore all lands to satisfactory watershed 

condition. 14 Yes DC-Watershed-1

Riparian Give riparian-dependent resources 

preference over other resources. 14 Yes DC-Veg-23 Guide-WS-3

Riparian Improve all riparian areas and maintain in 

satisfactory condition. 14 Yes DC-Veg-23 Obj-19

Air Quality

Minimize air pollution from land 

management activities through application 

and timing of improved management 

practices. 

14 Yes DC-Airshed-1

Fire Management

The fire interval, behavior and effects 

associated with the historic fire regime are 

returned to the landscape where feasible.

14 Yes DC-Veg-1

Fire Management

When and where appropriate, ecosystem 

objectives are met through the use of 

prescribed fire and wildland fires used for 

resource benefits.

14 Yes

Guide-Wildland Fire2 

Guide-Wildland Fire4 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

200 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Law Enforcement

Improve the forest’s law enforcement 

program by taking an aggressive posture 

that emphasizes good public education, 

better employee training, more employee 

field presence, increased line manager 

accountability, and increased public 

assistance. 

14 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Law Enforcement. Due to structural 

changes in the Forest Service 

organization, this direction is no 

longer applicable. Law Enforcement 

is now separate from Forest Service 

land and resource management. 

Lands and Special 

Uses

Conduct landownership adjustment, rightof-way acquisition, landline location and 

special uses programs to promote efficient 

management. 

14 Yes

DC-Lands-1 

Obj-29 

Guide-Lands-1 to 3

Facilities Maintain a transportation system to 

support resource goals. 14 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Facilities

Construct, maintain and regulate use of 

Forest Service facilities to protect natural 

resources, correct safety hazards, reduce 

disinvestments, and support management 

activities. 

14 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Facilities

Ensure adequate information exists at all 

facilities to provide visitor orientation, 

information and interpretation. 

14 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about providing 

information.

Facilities

Incorporate interpretive site plans in the 

planning and development of capital 

investment projects. 

14 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about providing 

information.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 201

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Land Management 

Planning

Ensure interdisciplinary input and 

coordination for implementing, monitoring 

and updating the Forest Plan. 

14 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy under provisions of the 1982 

planning rule that provide guidance 

for updating forest plans. This does 

not need to be repeated in the actual 

forest plan.

Human Resources

Manage human resource programs to 

provide employment and economic 

development opportunities while meeting 

natural resource goals. 

15 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Human Resource Management. Due 

to structural changes in the Forest 

Service organization, this direction 

is no longer applicable. Human 

resource programs are centrally 

managed through the Albuquerque 

Service Center.

Vegetation 

Management

Utilize NEPA procedures to establish 

project objectives, locations and methods. 

Documentation of decisions will include 

the rationale for these items. 

15 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy regarding the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Vegetation 

Management

Vegetation management projects are 

subjected to environmental analysis 

according to NEPA regulations. This is 

analysis specific and contains 

documentation for the: (1) project 

objectives; (2) site selection process; and 

(3) treatment method selection rationale. 

15 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy regarding the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Vegetation 

Management

Examine the feasibility of prescribing fire 

under naturally occurring conditions. 15 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies. 

This is a project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

202 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Vegetation 

Management

Prevent any new noxious or invasive weed 

species from becoming established, 

contain or control the spread of known 

weed species, and eradicate species that 

are the most invasive and pose the greatest 

threat to biological diversity and watershed 

condition.

15 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

Obj-6 

Guide-Veg-2 

Guide-Veg-3

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

The Forest EE/IS (Environmental 

Education and Interpretive Services) Plan 

provides design and production standards 

for all interpretive media. These standards 

will be reviewed and updated as needed, 

based on project monitoring results. 

17 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to provide 

environmental education and 

interpretive services.

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

All plans for interpretive related facilities, 

programs and recreational development 

will follow standards set forth in the Forest 

EE/IS Plan.

17 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

All interpretive funding requests will be 

accompanied by a completed interpretive 

plan for the site or program requested, 

identifying themes, objectives and 

audience. 

17 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

The official forest visitor map will provide 

written visitor information regarding 

access policy for roads, trails and crosscountry travel. 

17 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.

Environmental 

Education / 

Interpretive Services

Training for both forest employees and 

volunteers in interpretation and public 

contact will be given a high priority. 

17 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive. Priorities for employee 

training varies based on job 

description.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 203

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Developed 

Recreation

Maintain and operate developed sites at the 

standard service level. 18 No

This specific direction was not 

carried over. The intent was unclear 

as there is no definition for "standard 

service level". The current focus for 

developed recreation is described in 

DC-Rec-1.

Developed 

Recreation

Maintain all facilities in a safe and 

operable condition. 18 Yes DC-Rec-1

Developed 

Recreation

No new recreation residence sites will be 

established. 18 Yes Std-Lands-1

Developed 

Recreation

Incorporate fuels and vegetative 

management planning into project and 

landscape planning for developed 

recreation areas. Include a description of a 

desired future condition that will provide 

for public safety and for maintenance and 

enhancement of vegetation health and 

visual quality. 

18 No

This direction is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision and duplicates 

Forest Service policy about how to 

accomplish projects within 

developed recreation areas.

Developed 

Recreation

No improvements will be constructed 

within inventoried potential recreation 

sites that will detract from the future value 

of those sites for recreation development. 

18 No

This specific direction was not 

carried over. The intent was unclear 

as there is no inventory of potential 

recreation sites.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

204 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Developed 

Recreation

In developed recreation sites and in areas 

within a quarter mile, utilize prescribed 

fire when recreation and visual resource 

objectives can be met. Burning 

prescriptions will limit predicted flame 

height to 3 feet or less to ensure tree 

crowns are protected from scorch. Along 

the primary access routes to developed 

recreation sites and within an area 132 feet 

from centerline, utilize prescribed fire 

when recreation and visual resource 

objectives can be met. Burning 

prescriptions will limit predicted flame 

height to 3 feet or less to ensure tree 

crowns are protected from scorch. 

Interpretive information will be available 

at these sites and at the district office while 

effects of burning are evident. 

18 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects within 

developed recreation areas. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 205

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Developed 

Recreation

In foreground areas adjacent to developed 

recreation areas, all primary travel routes, 

and secondary travel routes where at least 

one-quarter of the users have a major 

concern for the scenic qualities, the 

following will apply:

1. Log landings will be located outside 

these areas.

2. The skidding of logs will be done on dry 

or frozen ground using equipment or 

methods that keep soil disturbance to a 

minimum.

3. Cut tree and other vegetation as near 

ground level as possible and direct the 

cutface away from the area being viewed, 

without sacrificing safety.

4. Require 100 percent slash treatment in 

developed recreation areas and within 66 

feet of roads.

5. Complete slash treatment within 1 year 

following closure of the cutting unit or 

other slash-creating activity.

18 Yes

Guide-Soils-5 

Guide-Scenic-4 

Guide-Scenic-6 

Guide-Scenic-8 

Developed 

Recreation

The edges of clearcuts and juniper type 

conversions will be irregular and feathered 

through the use of shelterwood and 

selection cutting methods. 

18 Yes Guide-Scenic-2

Developed 

Recreation

Chaparral conversions will have irregular 

edges and will include randomly selected 

clumps on ridgetops and high points. 

18 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Dispersed Recreation

An annual operation and maintenance plan 

will be prepared for heavily used dispersed 

recreation areas. 

18 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

206 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Dispersed Recreation Manage dispersed recreation areas at the 

standard service level. 18 No

This specific direction was not 

carried over. The intent was unclear 

as there is no definition for "standard 

service level". The current focus for 

dispersed recreation is described in 

DC-Rec-1.

Dispersed Recreation

Through printed material, advise backcountry users that all water must be treated 

if intended for human consumption, and 

that water sources are not dependable. 

19 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about providing 

information.

Dispersed Recreation

Maintain dispersed recreation facilities 

(fencing, gates, signs, etc.) in a safe and 

operable condition. 

19 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Dispersed Recreation

Replace or remove improvements where 

they no longer serve the intended purpose 

and/or when they present a public health or 

safety hazard. 

19 Yes DC-Rec-1

Dispersed Recreation The access policy for the forest is 

described below: 19 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.

Dispersed Recreation

The one-half inch scale forest visitor map 

is adopted as the official access policy map 

for the forest. 

19 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 207

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Dispersed Recreation

Motor vehicles are allowed only on forest 

roads indicated on the forest visitor map 

and signed on the ground. Where 

discrepancies occur, on-the-ground signing 

will prevail. 

19 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.

Dispersed Recreation

Trail access is restricted to nonmotorized 

use except where indicated on the forest 

visitor map and signed on the ground. 

Where discrepancies occur, on the ground 

signing will prevail. 

19 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.

Dispersed Recreation

Cross-country travel by any vehicle is 

prohibited, with the following exceptions:

• Special areas designated for crosscountry travel

• Persons with a valid permit to perform:

-Big game retrieval (direct ingress/egress 

with animal down)

-Firewood retrieval (direct ingress/egress 

with valid permit) outside of the Prescott 

Basin Area

-Approved resource management 

activities (employees/permittees)

• Any Federal, State or local officer, or 

member of an organized rescue or 

firefighting force in the performance of an 

official duty

• Vehicle ingress and egress to a campsite 

within 300 feet of a road (however, no 

ingress or egress to a campsite is permitted 

by motor vehicles from trails), outside of 

the Prescott Basin Area

19 Yes

Std-Rec-1 

Std-Rec-2 

Guide-Rec-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

208 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Dispersed Recreation

Within the Prescott Basin area (see 

Appendix K), vehicular cross-country 

travel is restricted to 50 feet from a Forest 

Development Road for firewood retrieval 

and day use recreation. 

19 Yes

Std-Rec-1 

Std-Rec-2 

Guide-Rec-1

Dispersed Recreation Vehicles are prohibited within all 

wilderness areas. 19 No

This is prohibited under the 

Wilderness Act and as such 

duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Dispersed Recreation

Horse use is allowed on roads and trails 

and for cross-country travel. Horse travel 

use within developed recreation areas is 

prohibited except in the Groom Creek 

Horsecamp Campground. 

19 Yes

DC-Rec-1 

DC-Rec-2 Trails 

DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Guide-Rec-6

Dispersed Recreation

Access restrictions for roads, trails or 

cross-country travel may be yearlong or 

temporary to reduce erosion potential, 

protect roads, protect cultural sites, and to 

provide opportunities for recreation in a 

setting without vehicular disturbance. 

20 Yes

Std-Rec-1 

Std-Rec-2 

Guide-Rec-6 

Guide-Trans-4

Dispersed Recreation

Annually review and update the access 

policy for the forest. Access policy 

changes for specific roads, trails or crosscountry travel require NEPA compliance 

with full public participation during this 

process. The official access policy map 

shall be updated to reflect any changes in 

access policy for specific roads, trails or 

cross-country travel. Monitor use of roads, 

trails and cross-country travel to determine 

the effectiveness of the forest access 

policy. Actively seek public participation 

in the access monitoring process. 

20 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 209

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Dispersed Recreation

The following criteria are used to evaluate 

the need for future access restrictions:

1. High erosion hazard areas likely to be or 

being damaged by off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use

2. Slopes exceeding 40 percent where high 

probability for damage exists

3. Meadows likely to be or being damaged

4. Areas where the Visual Quality 

Objectives of Preservation, Retention or 

Partial Retention are jeopardized

5. Areas where user conflicts must be 

resolved to ensure public safety

6. Where habitat for threatened, 

endangered or sensitive species is 

jeopardized

7. Areas important to wildlife reproduction 

(e.g., fawning or nesting areas) where 

disturbance is causing or is likely to cause 

significant stress and reduction of 

reproductive success

8. Riparian areas that are jeopardized or 

damaged

20 Yes

Guide-WS-3

Guide-WS-10 

Guide-Soils-3 

Guide-Soils-4 

Guide-WL-1 

Guide-WL-3 

Guide-Fish/Aquatics1 

Std-Rec-1 

Std-Rec-2 

Guide-Rec-7 

Guide-Rec-10 

Guide-Trans-1 

Guide-Trans-3 

Guide-Trans-4 

Guide-Trans-6 

Guide-Scenic-1 

Guide-Scenic-2 

Dispersed Recreation

Law enforcement, in support of the access 

policy, focuses on minimizing resource 

damage and user conflicts. Regulatory 

signing is appropriate to inform the public 

and assist law enforcement activity. 

20 Yes

DC-Rec-1 

DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Dispersed Recreation

Implement access restrictions to prevent 

unauthorized reopening of closed or 

obliterated roads. 

20 Yes

Std-Rec-1 

Std-Rec-2 

Guide-Rec-5 

Dispersed Recreation

Implement appropriate measures to ensure 

that significant long-term resource damage 

does not occur. 

20 Yes DC-Rec-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

210 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Dispersed Recreation

Manage the General Crook Trail and 

associated historic sites and side trails for 

potential Congressional designation as a 

National Historic Trail. 

20 Yes DC-Rec-1

Dispersed Recreation

Incorporate fuels and vegetation 

management planning into project and 

landscape planning for high-use, dispersed 

recreation areas. Include a description of a 

desired future condition that will provide 

for public safety and for maintenance and 

enhancement of vegetation health and 

visual quality. Also include planning for 

high-use roads and trails to provide for 

public safety, vegetation health and 

enhancement of vistas and viewpoints. 

20 Yes

DC-Rec-1 

Guide-Wildland Fire9 

Guide-Rec-4 

Guide-Rec-11

Heritage Resources

The heritage resources program on the 

Prescott National Forest will consist of the 

following activities: Inventory, protection, 

study/evaluation, interpretation and 

preservation. In support of the above 

activities, the forest will comply with the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

Executive Order 11593, the 

Archaeological Resourced Protection Act, 

the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act, and the 

Programmatic Agreement regarding 

cultural resources protection and 

responsibilities executed by the New 

Mexico, Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma 

State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPO), the advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. 

21 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Heritage Resources

Where the programmatic agreement does 

not specify standards, those in the Forest 

Service Manual and Handbook will apply. 

21 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) and Forest Service 

Manual (FSM).
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 211

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Heritage Resources

During the conduct of undertakings, the 

preferred management option for heritage 

resources listed on, nominated to, eligible 

for, or potentially eligible for the National 

Register is avoidance and preservation in 

place, leading to a “no effect” finding. 

Exceptions may occur in specific cases 

where consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) indicates that 

data recovery or other treatment to 

minimize or mitigate effects is acceptable 

and appropriate. 

21 Yes Guide-Her-1 

Guide-Her-2
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

212 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Heritage Resources

When resource management conflicts 

occur, the values of preservation of 

heritage resources will be weighed against 

the values of the proposed land use. In 

assessing the priority for preservation of 

heritage resources, give consideration to 

the following:

1. Listing on or eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places.

2. Adequacy of present methods of 

investigation and data recovery to realize 

the current research potential of the 

cultural resources.

3. Likelihood that the heritage resources 

will have greater importance for 

addressing future research questions than 

current ones.

4. Presence of heritage values other than 

research potential (e.g., association with 

significant historical persons or events, 

traditional cultural or religious values, or 

unique interpretive values), where those 

values are fully realized only when the 

heritage resources exist undisturbed in 

their original context(s).

5. Likelihood of disturbing historic or 

prehistoric burials.

6. Significance based primarily on 

architectural character and integrity of the 

setting.

7. Importance of preservation in place 

relative to the objectives of the State 

Historic Preservation Plan.

8. Site densities that make data recovery 

economically infeasible, or require 

unattainable operating conditions.

21 Yes DC-Heritage-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 213

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Heritage Resources

Where preservation in place is important 

under these conditions, give serious 

consideration to such options as project 

redesign, relocation or cancellation. The 

procedure specified in 36 CFR 800 and the 

programmatic agreement will be followed 

in reaching a management decision. 

21 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Heritage Resources

Assure that the heritage resource 

management program contributes to a 

better understanding of the nature and 

importance of forest cultural resources and 

aids in development of a better framework 

for management. Work toward completion 

of studies needed to provide this 

understanding and management framework 

by using study evaluation units, which can 

provide a focus and context for heritage 

resource work. Study evaluation units will 

be used to help prioritize and tie together 

inventory, evaluation, National Register 

nominations, stabilization and interpretive 

efforts. 

21 Yes

DC-Heritage-1 

DC-Heritage-2 

Guide-Interp-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

214 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Heritage Resources

A prioritized list of study evaluation units 

is included in the Implementation 

Schedule for Heritage Resources 

Management, which will be maintained 

separately from the Forest Plan. This 

schedule specifically includes the 

following:

1. A priority listing for heritage resource 

studies by evaluation unit

2. A priority listing of areas to inventory 

for the purpose of expanding the existing 

knowledge base

3. A priority listing of properties for 

nomination to the National Register of 

Historic Places

4. An inspection schedule of specific 

heritage sites

5. A priority listing of stabilization 

projects

6. A priority listing of sites needing 

maintenance plans

7. A priority listing of heritage resource 

interpretive projects

22 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

The implementation schedule will be 

updated as necessary, based upon new 

information and findings, and will provide 

the basis for current and long-term 

program planning. 

22 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

Update the forest’s Heritage Resources 

Overview and Planning Assessment in FY 

1995 to incorporate new information and 

findings.

22 No This direction is obsolete as it is no 

longer applicable.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 215

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Heritage Resources

Plan and conduct forest undertakings in 

compliance with the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800 and the programmatic 

agreement. The area of an undertaking’s 

potential environmental impact will be 

inventoried for heritage resources. The 

inventory strategy will be determined by 

the programmatic agreement, Forest 

Service Handbook, and consultation with 

the Arizona SHPO. American Indian 

groups will be consulted as appropriate. 

22 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Heritage Resources

When NEPA scoping or other information 

suggests the likelihood that heritage 

resources having religious or traditional 

cultural values for living communities of 

American Indian tribes may be present, 

these communities or tribes will be 

consulted concerning the location and 

importance of those resources and 

alternatives for protecting them. 

22 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Heritage Resources

Heritage resources management will be 

coordinated to the extent feasible with the 

State Cultural Resource Plan and planning 

activities of the State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and with other State and Federal 

agencies. This will include periodic 

meetings, data sharing, coordination on 

National Register nominations, 

interpretation, site protection, and 

participation in the State heritage resources 

planning process. 

22 Yes

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

216 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Heritage Resources

In addition to inventories for proposed 

undertakings, conduct inventories to 

expand existing knowledge about the 

nature, location and management needs of 

forest heritage resources. Areas rated as 

highest priority for survey will be those 

that are: (1) important components of 

Study Evaluation Units; (2) expected to 

have high site densities; (3) important to 

understanding the historic or prehistoric 

occupation of the forest; and/or (4) known 

or thought to be threatened by looting, 

impacts of visitor use or other forces. 

22 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.

Heritage Resources

A prioritized list of inventory areas is 

included in the Implementation Schedule 

for Heritage Resource Management. 

22 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

In consultation with the SHPO, evaluate 

heritage resources for eligibility for the 

National Register. Sites not yet evaluated 

will be considered potentially eligible and 

will be managed as if eligible until 

evaluated. 

23 Yes DC-Heritage-1 

Guide-Her-2

Heritage Resources

A prioritized list of National Register 

nominations is included in the 

Implementation Schedule for Heritage 

Resources Management. 

23 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

An inspection schedule is also included in 

the Implementation Schedule for Heritage 

Resources Management. 

23 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 217

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Heritage Resources

Heritage resources known to have 

sustained damage that threatens loss of 

scientific data, architectural integrity, 

interpretive potential, or other values will 

be stabilized as part of an ongoing 

stabilization program. The forest will 

maintain a list of heritage resources 

needing stabilization work, consisting of 5 

sites that are the highest priority for 

stabilization, 35 sites (if identifiable) that 

have sustained severe damage, and up to 

60 additional sites that have sustained less 

severe damage. 

23 Yes DC-Heritage-1 

Guide-Her-1

Heritage Resources

Stabilization may include architectural 

stabilization, backfilling, drainage and 

erosion control measures, data recovery, 

fencing, and other actions needed to halt or 

slow deterioration. 

23 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

Priorities for stabilization are included in 

the Implementation Schedule for Heritage 

Resources Management. 

23 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

Implement other site protection measures 

as necessary, including signing, 

administrative closure, road closure, 

withdrawal from mineral entry, patrolling 

and law enforcement activities. Parties 

known to have damaged heritage resources 

willfully or through negligence will be 

held legally and financially liable for the 

costs of stabilization and repair. 

23 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

218 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Heritage Resources

Inspect heritage resources identified for 

avoidance in undertakings to ensure that 

boundaries are properly marked and 

protection measures are implemented. 

Follow the standards in the Forest Service 

Manual. 

23 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service Manual 

(FSM).

Heritage Resources

In each forest contract, permit or lease that 

has the potential to affect heritage 

resources, include a clause specifying site 

protection responsibilities and liability for 

damage. If damage to a heritage resource 

is found, follow the procedures in the 

Forest Service Manual and Handbook. 

23 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) and Forest Service 

Manual (FSM).

Heritage Resources

Develop and implement maintenance plans 

as needed to help ensure preservation of 

structures listed in or eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

23 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

Priorities for development of maintenance 

plans are shown in the Implementation 

Schedule for Heritage Resources 

Management. 

23 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

Expand opportunities for forest visitors to 

learn about the past. Use an integrated 

approach aimed at providing a variety of 

interpretive opportunities and experience 

levels. Emphasize respect for the past and 

site protection while facilitating visitor 

access to and enjoyment of selected 

heritage resources. This will include 

opportunities for appreciation, education 

and participation. 

23 Yes Guide-Interp-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 219

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Heritage Resources

The following goals will guide 

interpretation of heritage resources on the 

Prescott National Forest:

• Strengthen heritage resources protection 

through increased public awareness and 

understanding.

• Serve people by providing opportunities 

for diverse audiences to discover and enjoy 

heritage resources on national forest lands.

• Contribute to an appreciation of the 

Nation’s cultural heritage and its relevance 

to present day life and peoples.

• Enhance recreational experiences for 

forest visitors through quality interpretive 

programs and materials.

24 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

A prioritized list of heritage resources 

interpretive projects is included in the 

Implementation Schedule for Heritage 

Resources Management. 

24 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Heritage Resources

Heritage resource work for permits 

involving ground disturbance will be 

provided by the applicant. 

24 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Visual Quality

Visual quality levels as inventoried and 

mapped serve as the visual quality 

objectives (VQOs) for the forest. 

24 Yes Guide-Scenic-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

220 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Visual Quality

Analyze each project in the field to 

determine if the elements and levels that 

comprise the existing VQOs are accurate 

and reflect current conditions and uses. 

Raise VQOs to the next higher scenic level 

if appropriate, and determine if this new 

VQO level reflects increased or anticipated 

public use and/or future management 

intentions for the area. Changes to 

inventoried VQOs require project-level 

NEPA analysis and a decision by the forest 

supervisor. The changes will be mapped 

and tracked for trend assessment during 

the first decade of Forest Plan 

implementation. 

24 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on outdated methodology. 

Current direction for scenic 

resources is provided by the Scenery 

Management System (SMS) using 

scenic integrity objectives (SIOs), 

not visual quality objectives 

(VQOs).

Visual Quality

In ponderosa pine foregrounds, manage for 

diversity varying from openings to 

multistoried stands, with some overmature 

yellow-barked ponderosa pine trees in 

open, park-like stands. Group selection 

within the front 200 feet of the foreground 

should not exceed 1 acre and the shapes 

should be designed to achieve the 

characteristics of natural openings. 

24 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Visual Quality

In retention and partial retention VQO 

middle ground and background distance 

zones, create or maintain a diversified 

texture of the forested landscape in relation 

to the existing landscape character type. 

All improvements, permanent structures, 

vegetation manipulation, grounddisturbing activities and/or construction 

will be compatible with the visual quality 

objective for the area. 

24 Yes Guide-Scenic-2
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 221

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Visual Quality

By the end of the second decade (1996-

2005), develop viewshed corridor 

implementation plans for all high-use 

areas, water bodies, primary travel routes 

and all secondary routes where threequarters of the users have major concern 

for scenic qualities. 

25 No This direction is obsolete as it is no 

longer applicable.

Visual Quality

Conduct vegetation management planning 

for visual quality to enhance and assist in 

long-term survival of aspen stands and 

other interesting vegetation features. 

Implementation would occur after analysis 

of applicable environmental factors is 

performed. 

25 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.

Visual Quality

Complete visual absorption capability and 

existing visual condition mapping for the 

forest by the end of the first decade (1986-

1995). 

25 No This direction is obsolete as it is no 

longer applicable.

Visual Quality

By the end of the first decade (1986-1995), 

inventory and list in priority order all areas 

not meeting VQOs that need rehabilitation. 

25 No This direction is obsolete as it is no 

longer applicable.

Visual Quality

Manage developed recreation site 

perimeters (within 330 feet) for the visual 

quality objective of retention. 

25 Yes Guide-Scenic-2

Visual Quality

Design and construct improvements and 

permanent structures in foreground areas 

with natural-appearing materials. 

Improvements, permanent structures, 

vegetation manipulation and grounddisturbing activities will be compatible 

with the natural landscape. 

25 Yes Guide-Scenic-2

Visual Quality

Place timber markings on the side opposite 

the viewer along all roads and travel ways 

where practical. 

25 Yes Guide-Scenic-7
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

222 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Visual Quality

In mixed conifer foregrounds, maintain a 

variety of species, age classes and size 

classes through the use of various 

silvicultural prescriptions and stand 

marking guides. 

25 Yes Guide-Scenic-2

Visual Quality Dispose of all activity slash in the first 200 

feet of Sensitivity Level 1 foregrounds. 25 Yes

Guide-Scenic-2 

Guide-Scenic-4 

Guide-Scenic-8

Visual Quality

In pinyon/juniper foregrounds, retain or 

create diversity in pinyon/juniper stands by 

emphasizing open stands of mature trees 

(12 inches DBH or more) with a variety of 

other size classes. A minimum of 40 

percent of the existing canopy should be 

retained. Openings and cutting practices 

should be compatible with visual quality 

and other objectives identified in the 

project environmental analysis. 

25 Yes DC- Veg-7 

DC- Veg-9

Visual Quality

Retain a mix of noncommercial species 

(oak, locust, etc.) in foreground areas, 

whenever these species are present. 

25 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Recreation 

Administration

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) as inventoried will be adopted as 

the forest objectives. 

25 Yes Guide-Rec-2
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 223

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Recreation 

Administration

These ROS objectives shall be changed if, 

as a result of an environmental analysis 

and subsequent forest supervisor decision, 

a different ROS class would better achieve 

the management objectives and goals for 

an area. These changes will be mapped and 

tracked for trend assessment during the 

first decade of Forest Plan implementation 

(1986-1995). 

26 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Recreation 

Administration

Changes in ROS inventory acreage shall 

conform to the following guidelines during 

any given time period (10 years):

• Primitive (P) – No change

• Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (SPNM) –

No change in wilderness, + or – 10 

percent on all other management areas.

• Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM) –

Change of + or – 10 percent

• Roaded Natural Appearing (RNA) –

Change of + 15 percent or – 10 percent.

• Rural (R) – Change of + or – 5 percent.

• Urban Class – No change.

26 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Recreation 

Administration

A forest recreation opportunity guide 

(ROG) will be prepared during the first 

decade (1986-1995). 

26 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Recreation 

Administration

Prohibit all camping for a period in excess 

of 14 days within a 30 consecutive day 

period within the national forest. 

26 Yes Guide-Rec-12
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

224 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Recreation 

Administration

The following criteria will form the 

primary basis for determining if a land 

exchange proposal involving recreation 

residence tracts is in the public interest:

1. The proposed recreation residence site is 

not located in an environmentally sensitive 

and/or high public use area.

2. There is no likelihood that the area will 

be needed for a higher public use in the 

future.

3. Considering the length of history of 

occupation and interest of development of 

the site, there are no significant public 

resource values remaining that should be 

kept for overall public enjoyment.

4. Based on the relative number of 

residences, the relative level of 

development and condition of the 

improvements, etc., there is no likelihood 

that the site might be “recovered” and 

restored to near natural state through 

attrition over time at little or nominal cost 

to the Forest Service.

26 No Std-Lands-1, New recreational 

residences shall not be established.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 225

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Recreation 

Administration

5. Conveyance of the site into private 

ownership will not increase the need for 

law enforcement, solid waste disposal 

services, and/or other services already 

involving both Forest Service and local 

government agencies.

6. Assuming that the land will be subject 

to State, county and local government 

zoning and other requirements for 

occupation and development of private 

lands, the local government does not 

object to exchange of the site into private 

ownership.

7. Conveyance of the site into private 

ownership will not cause unacceptable 

environmental effects that would not be 

controlled by local zoning and other 

requirements governing occupation and 

development of private land, such as 

pollution to surface and ground water 

resources on the national forest.

8. Conveyance of the site into private 

ownership will not require a change of 

management of the surrounding National 

Forest System land.

9. Conveyance of the site will not create 

any right-of-way or road management 

problems for the Forest Service, or 

otherwise effectively block access to 

remaining National Forest System land, 

that cannot be solved by reservation of 

right-of-way to the U.S.

10. Conveyance of the site will not 

obligate the Forest Service to additional 

management/development costs.

11. Conveyance of the site into private 

ownership will simplify and improve 

efficiency of national forest administration.

27 No Std-Lands-1, New recreational 

residences shall not be established.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

226 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Wildlife

All water developments will consider 

small game and nongame needs and escape 

devices. 

27 Yes Guide-WL-9 

Std-Range-1 

Wildlife All fencing will be to wildlife standards 

and consider local species needs. 27 Yes Guide-WL-3 Guide-Range-2 

Wildlife

Whenever conflicts between wildlife 

species exist, when designing structural 

and nonstructural improvements, give 

priority to threatened and endangered 

species, sensitive species, emphasis 

species and comprehensive plan goals, in 

that order. 

27 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy about how to prioritize 

wildlife species.

Wildlife

Maintenance of existing wildlife structures 

will be prioritized in the following manner: 

threatened and endangered species, 

sensitive species, emphasis species and 

comprehensive plan goals. 

27 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy about how to prioritize 

wildlife species.

Wildlife Structural maintenance will conform to the 

appropriate Forest Service Handbook. 27 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH).

Monitoring

Baseline data will be collected for the first 

2 years of Forest Plan implementation and 

will be used to refine the current habitat 

capability model. 

27 No

This direction was not carried over 

as it is specific to the 1987 Forest 

Plan.

Monitoring

Wildlife project objectives will specify 

what species and habitat requirements are 

being met. 

27 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy regarding the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 227

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Monitoring

Environmental analyses where wildlife 

benefits are a primary project objective 

will specify:

1. The excepted effects on indicator 

species and emphasis species

2. The expected effects on wildlife 

diversity

3. The expected effects on populations of 

nonemphasis species

27 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy regarding the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Monitoring

During the Forest Plan review and revision 

process, establish indicator species/plant 

associations with full public involvement. 

28 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy under provisions of the 1982 

planning rule that provide guidance 

for updating forest plans. This does 

not need to be repeated in the actual 

forest plan.

Monitoring

Encourage non-Forest Service expert 

involvement in development and 

implementation of wildlife monitoring 

plans. 

28 Yes

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 

Wildlife

All revegetation projects will have sitespecific development of seeding mixtures. 

Native, introduced, naturalized and hybrid 

species will be considered on their merits 

to meet site objectives. Where feasible, 

preference will be given to native species. 

28 Yes Guide-Veg-4

Wildlife Predator control will conform to applicable 

State and Federal laws. 28 No

This is outside of the scope of the 

revised Forest Plan. Predator control 

is not within the authority of the 

Forest Service.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

228 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Wildlife

Habitat management for Federally listed 

species will take precedence over unlisted 

species. Habitat management for 

endangered species will take precedence 

over threatened species. Habitat 

management for sensitive species will take 

precedence over nonsensitive species.

28 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Wildlife Habitat components and capabilities will 

be updated every 10 years. 28 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is obsolete as it is 

based on outdated methodology.

Wildlife All forest projects will be reviewed for 

threatened and endangered species. 28 No

This is required under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

as such duplicates direction that can 

be found in existing law, regulation, 

or Forest Service policy.

Wildlife Continue to survey for threatened and 

endangered species. 28 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Wildlife

Formal and informal consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be 

implemented whenever the need is 

identified. 

28 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Wildlife All approved recovery plans will be 

implemented. 28 Yes

Guide-WL-1 

Guide-Fish/Aquatics1

Wildlife

Prescott National Forest will continue 

cooperative efforts in the development of 

State strategies and comprehensive plans. 

28 Yes

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 

Wildlife

Prescott National Forest will continue 

cooperative efforts and coordination on 

proposed projects with appropriate 

agencies. 

28 Yes

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 229

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Wildlife

The following areas are designated 

essential habitat for spike dace (Meda 

fulgida): 1103Y050, 1104Y026, 

1103Y075, 1J04Y000, 1G03Y075, 

1H03Y050, 1H03Y000 (less the Hell 

Canyon portion). 

28 No

This direction was not carried over 

as it is specific to the 1987 Forest 

Plan and these areas can change. The 

current direction is described in 

Guide-WL-1.

Wildlife

The following capability area is designated 

essential habitat for bald eagle (Halliaetus 

leucocephalus): 5L07Y025.

28 No

This direction was not carried over 

as it is specific to the 1987 Forest 

Plan and these areas can change. The 

current direction is described in 

Guide-WL-2.

Wildlife

No harvest activity will take place within 

150 feet of any undifferentiated raptor 

nest.

• Mexican Spotted Owl – Refer to 

Appendix F for standards and guidelines.

• Northern Goshawk – Refer to Appendix 

G for standards and guidelines.

• Cooper’s Hawk – 15 acres of 

unharvested area around nests.

• Sharp-shinned hawk and osprey – 10 

acres of unharvested area around active 

nests.

• Bald eagle – a 300-foot unharvested 

buffer zone around winter roost.

28 Yes

Guide-WL-1 

Guide-WL-2 

Guide-WL-5 

Guide-WL-7

Wildlife

Roosts and active nest sites will be 

protected by prohibiting any road 

development within close proximity (100 

feet) of any unharvested or buffer zone. 

29 Yes

Guide-WL-1 

Guide-WL-2 

Guide-WL-4 

Guide-WL-5 

Guide-WL-7

Wildlife

Cooperate with Arizona Game and Fish 

Department to develop implementation 

plans for the Arizona Cold Water Fisheries 

Strategic Plan. 

29 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

230 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Wildlife

Exceed goals of the Arizona 

Comprehensive Wildlife Plan and Arizona 

Strategic Plan within management area 

emphasis and prescriptions and as 

additional funding or other opportunities 

present themselves. 

29 No

The plans referred to are obsolete. 

The 2015 Prescott NF Forest Plan 

aligns with the AZGFD Wildlife 

20/20 Strategic Action Plan (WL 

20/20) and the 2012-2022 State 

Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). This 

is detailed in Tables 4 and 5 of 

Appendix C of the FEIS.

Wildlife

Support the goals and objectives of the 

Arizona Wildlife and Fisheries 

Comprehensive Plan as approved by the 

Southwestern Regional Forester and the 

Director of the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. 

29 No

The plans referred to are obsolete. 

The 2015 Prescott NF Forest Plan 

aligns with the AZGFD Wildlife 

20/20 Strategic Action Plan (WL 

20/20) and the 2012-2022 State 

Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). This 

is detailed in Tables 4 and 5 of 

Appendix C of the FEIS.

Wildlife

Interdisciplinary planning, coordination 

and design will be conducted on all 

proposed forest projects. 

29 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision and duplicates 

existing Forest Service policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 231

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Wildlife

Nonstructural habitat improvement in 

ponderosa pine 

(MAs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 only):

• Clearcuts will not exceed 40 acres except 

as provided in the Southwestern Regional 

Guide.

• A maximum of 35 percent of an area 

shall be in natural or created openings as 

defined in the Southwestern Regional 

Guide.

• Natural or created openings will no 

longer be considered openings when the 

crown cover exceeds 35 percent and the 

stocking level is greater than 150 trees per 

acre. Created opening will not be closer 

than 330 feet and will be spatially located 

to enhance wildlife.

29 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged forest structure, not 

an uneven-aged structure as 

described in DC-Veg 13 to 20. The 

desired conditions were developed 

in conjunction with the 

Southwestern Regional Office based 

on updated scientific information.

Old Growth

Refer to Appendix H for standards and 

guidelines and for structural attributes of 

old growth. 

29 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-4 

DC-Veg-6 

DC-Veg-7 

DC-Veg-9 

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Veg-20 

Old Growth

Openings will not exceed 40 acres and will 

be irregularly shaped, utilizing topographic 

characteristics to enhance the edge effect 

and wildlife security requirements. 

29 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service Manual 

(FSM) as well as the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976.

Old Growth Openings will be designed so that hiding 

cover is available within 600 feet. 29 No This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on outdated methodology.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

232 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Old Growth

Openings will not exceed 40 percent of the 

habitat type within any management area. 

These openings will be dispersed so that 

they are no closer than 660 feet apart. 

29 No This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on outdated methodology.

Old Growth

The following table defines structural 

stages of pinyon/juniper woodlands. 

(Table 9. P/J diameter classes)

29 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged forest structure, not 

an uneven-aged structure as 

described in DC-Veg 6 to 10. The 

desired conditions were developed 

in conjunction with the 

Southwestern Regional Office based 

on updated scientific information.

Old Growth

A minimum of 75 snags per 100 acres will 

be retained, as well as with appropriate 

replacements. 

30 Yes

DC-Veg-6 

DC-Veg-7 

DC-Veg-9 

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

Old Growth

Screening cover will be left along all 

wildlife waters, travel ways and forest 

access roads. 

30 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is a project-level 

decision.

Old Growth

Monarch alligator junipers will be marked 

as wildlife trees and preserved as roosts 

and snag replacements. 

30 Yes

DC-Veg-6 

DC-Veg-7 

DC-Veg-9 

Guide-Veg-7 

Old Growth

Areas of poor watershed condition will be 

considered high priority for firewood 

harvest. Close, revegetate and drain access 

routes used for firewood harvests. Limit 

access to periods when soil conditions are 

such that permanent soil damage will not 

result.

30 Yes

Obj-18 

Obj-21 

Guide-WS-11 

Guide-Soils-5
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 233

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Riparian Areas 

(MAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 

only)

Management projects within riparian areas 

will be in accordance with legal 

requirements regarding flood plains, 

wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, cultural 

and other resources and will be in 

accordance with standards and guidelines 

identified in the Southwestern Regional 

Guide. 

30 Yes

DC-Watershed-1 

DC-Watershed-2 

DC-Watershed-6 

Std-WS-1 

Std-WS-3 

Std-W&S-1 

Std-W&S-2

Guide-WS-3 

Guide-WS-5 

Guide-WS-6 

Guide-WS-7 

Riparian Areas 

(MAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 

only)

Projects impacting riparian areas will be 

designed to protect the productivity and 

diversity of riparian-dependent resources. 

Emphasize protection of soil, water, 

vegetation, wildlife and fish resources. 

30 Yes

DC-Watershed-1 

DC-Watershed-2 

DC-Watershed-6 

Std-WS-1 

Std-WS-3 

Guide-WS-3 

Guide-WS-5 

Guide-WS-6 

Guide-WS-7 

Riparian Areas 

(MAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 

only)

Riparian-dependent resources will have 

preference over other resources. Other 

resource uses and activities may occur to 

the extent that they support the objective 

of riparian enhancement. 

30 No

This direction was not carried over 

as it has the potential to conflict with 

the management of other resources 

such as habitat for federally listed 

species. This is a project-level 

decision.

Riparian Areas 

(MAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 

only)

No discretionary vegetation manipulation 

will occur within 200 feet of identified 

riparian capability area boundaries except 

where the objective is to enhance 

downstream productivity. 

30 Yes

DC-Watershed-1 

Guide-WS-3 

Guide-WS-4 

Guide-WS-5 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

234 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Riparian Areas 

(MAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 

only)

Riparian projects will be developed on a 

site-specific basis and in accordance with 

the Southwestern Regional Guidelines and 

Riparian Handbook. 

30 No

This does not reflect current 

direction from the Southwestern 

Regional Office. The Southwestern 

Regional Guide was withdrawn and 

its standards no longer exist.

Riparian Areas 

(MAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 

only)

Meet the following riparian standards in 

the Southwestern Regional Guide for 80 

percent of riparian areas by the year 2030:

• Maintain at least 80 percent of the 

potential overstory crown closure of 

obligate riparian species.

30 No

This does not reflect current 

direction from the Southwestern 

Regional Office. The Southwestern 

Regional Guide was withdrawn and 

its standards no longer exist.

Riparian Areas 

(MAs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 

only)

• Manage resources to create or maintain at 

least three age classes of woody riparian 

species with at least 10 percent of the 

woody plant cover in sprouts, seedlings 

and saplings where site potential exists.

• Maintain at least 80 percent of the 

potential stream shading along perennial 

cold-water streams.

• Maintain adequate emergent vegetation 

to ensure compliance with the goals of the 

strategic plan.

• Maintain 80 percent of spawning gravel 

surface free of occlusive inorganic 

sediment.

• Maintain at least 80 percent of 

streambank linear distance in stable 

condition.

• Retain snags in riparian areas that are not 

a safety hazard.

31 No

This does not reflect current 

direction from the Southwestern 

Regional Office. The Southwestern 

Regional Guide was withdrawn and 

its standards no longer exist.

Nonstructural 

Wildlife Habitat 

Improvements

Determine the need to rehabilitate riparian 

areas through seeding and planting woody 

species in areas that are in poor condition. 

31 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 235

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Nonstructural 

Wildlife Habitat 

Improvements

Rehabilitate areas in poor condition where 

natural processes are ineffective within the 

planning horizon (1986-2035). 

31 Yes Obj-18 

Obj-19

Nonstructural 

Wildlife Habitat 

Improvements

Cooperate with Arizona Game and Fish 

Department on population control of 

aquatic plants and undesirable fish species. 

Permit fish stocking to meet State fisheries 

management goals. 

31 Yes

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 

Structural Wildlife 

Habitat 

Improvements

Construct adequate exclosures to protect 

key riparian areas from livestock grazing 

where rest rotation or time control grazing 

fails to provide adequate protection to the 

riparian areas. 

31 Yes

Guide-WS-4 

Guide-WS-10 

Std-Range-2 

Guide-Range-5 

Structural Wildlife 

Habitat 

Improvements

Maintain riparian communities by 

providing water for wildlife and livestock 

away from sensitive areas.

31 Yes Guide-WS-9

Structural Wildlife 

Habitat 

Improvements

Establish representative administrative 

exclosures the first decade to determine 

riparian vegetation potential on 

representative streams. 

31 No This direction is obsolete as it is no 

longer applicable.

General

The following cover standards and 

guidelines will apply in areas where 

threatened and endangered habitat 

requirements do not conflict. Habitat 

requirements for threatened and 

endangered species will take precedence 

over cover requirements for other species: 

31 Yes Guide-WL-1

General

Design watershed improvement structures 

where possible to provide water for 

wildlife. 

31 Yes Guide-Range-2
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

236 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Grassland and Desert 

Shrub 

(MAs 2, 3 and 5 

only)

A minimum of 10 percent of the shrub 

crown closure will be maintained for 

wildlife cover on all project areas. 

31 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Grassland and Desert 

Shrub 

(MAs 2, 3 and 5 

only)

Cover will be retained around wildlife 

waters, travel ways and forest access 

roads. 

31 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Chaparral 

(MAs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 

only)

Chaparral treatment shall not exceed 1,500 

acres on any single project, where 

consistent with natural fire control lines. 

32 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Chaparral 

(MAs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 

only)

A minimum of 30 percent of any project 

area will be retained to meet wildlife cover 

requirements (30-year-old trees with 70 

percent crown density). 

32 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Chaparral 

(MAs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 

only)

No burning out of islands is authorized 

except where identified hazards exist, for 

firebreak purposes or to enhance wildlife 

diversity.

32 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Chaparral 

(MAs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 

only)

Treatment areas will be revegetated in 

grasses to prevent excessive soil loss and 

provide additional wildlife forage. 

32 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 237

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Chaparral 

(MAs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 

only)

Project areas will be designed to maximize 

habitat edge. 32 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Chaparral 

(MAs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 

only)

Wildlife security cover will be retained 

around wildlife waters, travel ways and 

forest access roads. 

32 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Range 

Administration

Manage livestock grazing to achieve soil 

and water protection objectives. Make use 

of cost effective range improvements and 

management techniques. 

32 No

This direction is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision and duplicates 

existing Forest Service policy.

Range 

Administration

Manage to bring all grazing allotments to 

satisfactory management by the end of the 

first decade (1986-1995). Satisfactory 

management occurs on allotments where 

management actions are proceeding 

according to a schedule (allotment 

management plan), which leads to fair or 

better range condition with an upward 

trend. Acres of satisfactory management 

are the total full capacity acres for a 

complete allotment within a management 

area being operated satisfactorily. Acres of 

unsatisfactory managed range are the total 

full capacity acres for complete allotments 

within a management area being operated 

unsatisfactorily. 

32 No

This direction is outdated, 

unnecessarily prescriptive, and 

duplicative of existing Forest 

Service policy. This is a projectlevel decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

238 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Range 

Administration

First priority for range program efforts will 

be given to bringing problem allotments to 

satisfactory management and stocking. 

32 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Range 

Administration

Document the rational for a management 

decision on problem allotments with an 

environmental assessment unless other 

types of documentation are deemed 

appropriate as a result of the scoping 

process and public involvement. 

32 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy regarding the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Range 

Administration

Control livestock grazing through 

management and/or fencing to allow for 

and favor adequate establishment of 

riparian vegetation and elimination of 

overuse. 

32 Yes

Std-Range-2 

Guide-Range-1 

Guide-Range-5 

Range 

Administration

Negotiated agreements with permittees 

will be the primary method of achieving 

needed permit adjustments. Range 

inventories (including contracting) will be 

used as necessary for data to document 

needed adjustments, especially when 

negotiated agreements cannot be reached. 

32 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Range 

Administration

When negotiations fail to produce a 

consensus on livestock numbers and 

management methods, grazing numbers 

will be adjusted to existing capacity. 

32 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision. Livestock 

numbers are not based on consensus 

but on resource conditions.

Range 

Administration

No adjustments will be undertaken that 

allow for prolonged maintenance of 

unsatisfactory watershed conditions or 

degradation of wildlife habitat. 

33 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 239

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Range 

Administration

Adjust livestock numbers using the most 

expedient and defensible means available 

to accurately assess range capacity. 

33 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision and duplicates 

existing Forest Service policy.

Range 

Administration

Increased stocking will be permitted only 

as demonstrated capacity is created and 

management capability is proven. Any 

increased number must allow for 

protecting or enhancing long-term 

productivity of the land under the multipleuse concept. See FSH 2209.21 for further 

guidelines. 

33 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH).

Range 

Administration

Refer to Appendix I for additional 

standards and guidelines. 33 Yes

DC-Veg-3 

Std-Range-1 to 3 

Guide-Range-1 to 6 

Chapter 7: Range 

Suitability 

Range 

Administration

Update range analysis and development of 

management plans to R-3 Range 

Allotment Analysis Handbook Standards 

on 69 allotments. Updating intervals are 

dependent on management intensity 

identified within each management area. 

Table 10 shows the guidelines that will be 

used after capacity and permitted use are 

equal: 

33 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.

Range 

Administration

Conduct production/utilization studies at 

an interval commensurate with the 

assigned grazing intensity level to facilitate 

capacity determination, monitoring and 

control. Proper use will be monitored in or 

adjacent to riparian areas. 

33 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

240 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Range 

Administration

Conduct annual allotment inspections to 

regional standards as set forth in FSH 

2209.21. 

33 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH).

Range 

Administration

Management of acres prescribed may be 

managed to a higher intensity where the 

permittee elects to incur additional 

expenses and where provisions for the 

appropriate level of monitoring can be 

made.

33 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Time Controlled 

Grazing

Utilize Region 3 Supplement 123 to FSM 

2231.61 or its replacement to guide the 

establishment of time controlled grazing.

33 No

This direction is obsolete as there 

has been a shift to adaptive 

management for grazing allotments.

Time Controlled 

Grazing

Livestock will be utilized to achieve soil 

and water protection objectives when:

1. The ability of livestock to achieve these 

objectives has been substantiated by 

verifiable monitoring and/or independent 

research;

2. Use of livestock is the most costeffective means of achieving these 

objectives; and

3. Use of livestock will not lead to 

unacceptable levels of conflict with other 

resources or management area direction.

34 No

This direction is obsolete as there 

has been a shift to adaptive 

management for grazing allotments.

Time Controlled 

Grazing

Time controlled grazing proposals will be 

analyzed with a full range of alternative 

methods for meeting resource and 

management area objectives and/or dealing 

with resource conflict issues. Alternatives 

will consider conventional systems and the 

existing methods with correct stocking. 

34 No

This direction is obsolete as there 

has been a shift to adaptive 

management for grazing allotments.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 241

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Time Controlled 

Grazing

Assemble and utilize available information 

from research and monitoring to develop 

the projections for time controlled grazing 

proposals. 

34 No

This direction is obsolete as there 

has been a shift to adaptive 

management for grazing allotments.

Time Controlled 

Grazing

Design monitoring to assess 

accomplishment of management area and 

time controlled grazing proposal 

objectives. Make monitoring results 

available to the public. 

34 No

This direction is obsolete as there 

has been a shift to adaptive 

management for grazing allotments.

Cooperative Range 

Management

Forest officers will advise prospective 

permittees of condition and trend of 

grazing allotments referencing the best 

available information. Any proposed 

stocking or management changes will be 

identified to prospective permittees. 

34 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Cooperative Range 

Management

Cooperation with other agencies is 

encouraged to promote more rapid 

improvement in management and range 

condition. 

34 No

Cooperation with other agencies is a 

standard practice in range 

management. This direction is not 

appropriate for the forest plan.

Range Improvement

Utilize FSM 2241.11 to develop priorities 

for use of Range Betterment Funds. Focus 

on problem allotments, without precluding 

opportunities to prevent problems or 

improve productivity on other allotments. 

A full range of alternatives will be 

evaluated through the NEPA process. 

34 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service Manual 

(FSM).

Range Improvement

Construct and replace structural range 

improvements as needed to manage at 

prescribed levels on a 50-year cycle. If a 

more cost-effective alternative to 

replacement is available, it may be 

implemented. Priority for expenditure of 

funds for new structural range 

improvements will be determined by range 

analysis and the allotment management 

plan system. 

34 No

This direction is obsolete as range 

management is no longer based on a 

50-year cycle.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

242 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Range Improvement

Ensure permittee maintenance of existing 

structural improvements on an annual 

basis to ensure full life of projects. 

34 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Range Improvement

Permittee investment will be encouraged 

by giving priority to projects that contain 

at least equal value contributions by the 

grazing permittee. 

34 No

This direction is obsolete as there 

has been a subsequent change in 

Forest Service policy.

Range Improvement

Allow additional investment in 

nonstructural range improvements 

contingent upon receipt of funding above 

the level programmed. Sources for this 

additional funding would include increased 

Range Betterment Fund availability, extra 

appropriations, or contributions from 

permittees above the projected level. 

34 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Range Improvement

Control insect or disease outbreaks when 

they become epidemic by mechanical, 

biological or chemical methods. Method 

utilized will be determined through the 

NEPA process and cost analysis. 

35 No

This direction is obsolete and was 

not carried over. Current direction 

allows for control before populations 

reach epidemic proportions.

Range Riparian 

Protection

Eliminate yearlong grazing in riparian 

areas. 35 Yes Std-Range-2 

Range Riparian 

Protection

Implement grazing systems and/or 

methods that will advance the ecological 

objectives for riparian dependent 

resources, and require sufficient recovery 

rest to meet the physiological needs of the 

plants and plant associations.

35 Yes

Guide-WS-9 

Guide-Range-5 

Guide-Range-6 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 243

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Range Riparian 

Protection

Riparian areas within a watershed will be 

managed at an intensity commensurate 

with that typical of the rest of the 

watershed.

35 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Range Riparian 

Protection

Complete an inventory and survey of 

riparian areas within the first 2 years. 35 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.

Range Riparian 

Protection

Proper allowable use within riparian areas 

will not exceed 20 percent on woody 

species.

35 Yes Guide-Range-5

Range Riparian 

Protection

Salting within a quarter mile of riparian 

areas for the purpose of livestock is 

prohibited. This includes the use of salt to 

gather livestock.

35 Yes Guide-Range-1

Resource Protection 

and Mitigation

Meet threatened and endangered species 

requirements in all range or grazing 

activities.

35 No

This is required under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

as such duplicates direction that can 

be found in existing law, regulation, 

or Forest Service policy.

Resource Protection 

and Mitigation

Livestock will be excluded from Granite 

Basin Lake, Lynx Lake and Horsethief 

Lake.

35 Yes

Forest Plan Chapter 

7: 

Range Suitability

Resource Protection 

and Mitigation

Encourage nonuse for resource protection 

purposes when adverse range conditions 

are prevalent.

35 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Resource Protection 

and Mitigation

Unauthorized livestock on National Forest 

System lands may be impounded and 

disposed of by forest officers. Enforce 

grazing regulations found in 36 CFR and 

Title 18 USC dealing with livestock 

management. 

35 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

244 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Resource Protection 

and Mitigation

Allow appropriate predator control 

measures where livestock losses are 

documented and exceed the cost of control. 

35 No

This is outside of the scope of the 

revised Forest Plan. Predator control 

is not within the authority of the 

Forest Service.

Range Forage 

Improvement

Permittee investment will be encouraged 

by giving priority to projects that contain 

at least equal value contributions by the 

grazing permittee. 

35 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Timber All timber sales will be planned utilizing 

integrated resource management (IRM). 36 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is also 

obsolete as it is based on outdated 

methodology.

Timber

Inventory timber lands every 10 years. 

Maintain a continuous 10-year timber 

harvest schedule. Review the classification 

of unsuitable timber every 10 years. 

36 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Timber

Continue to complete compartment 

examinations to regional standards to 

provide data for detailed stand 

prescriptions and to monitor Forest Plan 

results. 

36 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Timber

Priorities of stands for timber management 

treatment will be based on silvicultural 

examinations, stand diagnosis and 

environmental analyses for project areas. 

36 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 245

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Timber

Protect regeneration areas from browsing 

and trampling damage by livestock until 

stands are established, using such means as 

fencing, adjustments in season of use, 

reducing cattle numbers and other methods 

that protect seedlings. 

36 Yes Guide-Range-3 

Guide-Range-6

Timber

Monitor reforestation sites 1, 3 and 5 years 

after planting to ensure adequate stocking. 

Planting will be preceded by site 

preparation. Planting may be by machine, 

auger, hand tools or a combination of 

these. 

36 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Timber

Use natural regeneration on all timber 

harvest areas where possible. If natural 

regeneration is unsuccessful, artificial 

regeneration will be used. 

36 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Timber

Evaluate for reforestation potential lands 

classified as suitable but which are 

currently unstocked or understocked. 

Artificially reforest these lands if 

environmentally and economically 

feasible. 

36 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Timber

After fire or harvest, assure regeneration 

by natural or artificial means to meet 

regional standards. 

36 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Timber

Site preparation can be accomplished by 

chemical, mechanical or prescribed fire 

methods as best suits the site to be treated. 

Site preparation method will be 

determined through the NEPA process and 

cost analysis. 

36 No

This direction is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

246 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Timber

The forest will be managed primarily using 

uneven-aged silvicultural systems. The 

need for using other management systems 

will be evaluated during the Integrated 

Resource Management (IRM) process. 

36 No

Although the revised plan provides 

direction for uneven-aged 

silvicultural systems, the Integrated 

Resource Management (IRM) 

process is obsolete.

Timber

Uneven-aged management will be used in 

specific cases where landscape and 

resource objectives are not efficiently met 

with even-aged management. These cases 

would include development of old growth 

characteristics, visual quality needs and/or 

wildlife habitat requirements. Other 

departures from even-aged management 

must be silviculturally prescribed to meet 

management area objectives and will be 

subject to comparison with even-aged 

treatments as well as alternative forms of 

uneven-aged treatments. 

36 No

This direction is obsolete and was 

not carried over as it does not reflect 

current direction to attain desired 

conditions. This focuses 

management towards an even-aged 

forest structure, not an uneven-aged 

structure.

Timber

Complete sale planning, design and layout. 

Appraise, advertise open bids, and make 

sale awards on sales scheduled for 1986-

1995. 

36 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision and is obsolete 

as it is no longer applicable.

Timber

Minimum harvest volumes will normally 

be 500 board feet or 2 cords per acre. This 

may be modified, depending on the needs 

of other resources and management area 

direction. 

36 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision and is obsolete 

as it is no longer applicable.

Timber

The minimum re-entry period will be 20 

years. The maximum re-entry period will 

be 40 years. 

37 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 247

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Timber Minimum sawtimber size will be 9 inches 

DBH. 37 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Timber Rotation of regenerated stands will be 90 

to 240 years for ponderosa pine. 37 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Timber

Use intermediate cuts in immature stands 

to maintain growing stock levels (GSL) of 

40 to 90square feet per acre unless other 

stocking is prescribed in detailed stand 

prescriptions to meet management 

objectives.

37 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Timber

Use sanitation and salvage cutting 

practices on unsuitable timber when this 

does not conflict with wildlife objectives.

37 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Timber Limit tractor/crawler logging equipment to 

slopes less than 40 percent. 37 Yes Guide-Soils-3 

Guide-Soils-4 

Timber

Openings created through harvest of 

timber or firewood will not exceed 40 

acres in size.

37 Yes Std-FP-2

Timber

Stands on tentatively suitable acres that are 

mixed conifer (based upon silvicultural 

examination and habitat typing data) will 

not normally be harvested unless project 

NEPA documentation indicates otherwise.

37 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Timber

Plan, design and construct or reconstruct a 

road system that optimizes safety, 

economical access and resource protection.

37 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

248 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Timber

On all commercial timber sales of 

ponderosa pine, require removal of all 

unutilized portions of the main bole larger 

than 4 inches diameter inside bark to 

reduce the possibility of ips beetle 

infestation. 

37 Yes Guide-FP-2

Timber

The following silvicultural prescriptions 

for shelterwood cuts will apply:

• Seed cut to approximately 30 GSL.

• Prepare site during seed cut at age 90 to 

240 years.

• Remove all overstory that will not blend 

in with the 0- to 40-year-age classes.

• Zero to three commercial (intermediate) 

cuts to maintain growth, thermal cover and 

hiding cover.

37 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Timber

Forest products such as Christmas trees, 

posts, poles and vigas will be available 

from suitable and unsuitable lands if 

removal does not conflict with other 

resource objectives. 

37 Yes DC-Veg-2

Timber

Salvage harvesting operations will be 

prescribed as needed to meet conditions 

imposed by wildfires, insect and disease 

infestations, blowdown or other 

catastrophes, and will not be subject to a 

40-acre size limitation. 

37 Yes Std-FP-2

Timber

Administer commercial timber sales, 

firewood sales, permits for forest products 

and miscellaneous forest product sales. 

This activity includes accountability, 

financial management, field inspections, 

and contract interpretation and 

enforcement. 

37 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 249

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Timber

Close all local roads not essential for 

management needs upon completion of 

sale and firewood activities. 

37 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Timber Environmental analysis for 

timber/firewood sales will: 37 *** COMBINE THIS WITH BELOW 

!!!

Timber

1. Establish harvest objectives;

2. Establish access alternatives which 

disclose soil loss and stability figures for 

each;

3. Establish why non-timber values are 

needed;

4. Demonstrate why timber harvest is the 

best means of meeting the objectives; and

5. Explore other means of meeting 

objectives.

38 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Timber

Provide for public information on the 

availability of firewood and the limits of 

its supply. 

38 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to provide 

information. This is a project-level 

decision.

Timber

Complement enforcement of county leash 

laws through public education and use of 

permit requirements for firewood harvest. 

38 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to provide 

information. This is a project-level 

decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

250 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Timber

Firewood harvest planning will include 

provisions for road closure. Funding will 

be collected or programmed as required to 

effect closures of temporary roads. 

38 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Timber

The forest will continue the present 

firewood season as established (yearlong, 

subject to weather conditions). 

38 No

This direction was not carried 

forward due to resource conflicts 

with year-round wood permits.

Timber

Firewood harvest from areas requiring 

structural measures to control erosion will 

focus on long-term stability of the soil and 

not the production of wood fiber or range 

forage. 

38 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Timber Maintain cone collection programs to meet 

artificial reforestation needs by seed zone. 38 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Timber

Continue selection of superior tree and 

seed areas as needed for testing of genetic 

improvement. 

38 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Timber

Detect and monitor insect and disease 

activities. Control if necessary to protect 

resources or uses. The method of control 

utilized will be determined through the 

NEPA process and cost analysis. 

38 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-4 

Obj-6 

Std-Veg-2 

Guide-Veg-2 

Guide-Veg-3 

Guide-Rec-4 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 251

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Soil, Water, and Air

Conduct a terrestrial ecosystem inventory 

to standards of the R-3 Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Survey Procedure at Level III 

by the end of the first decade (1986-1995) 

with the assistance of the Arizona Zone 

Crew. Inventory 500,000 to 600,000 acres 

per decade to obtain or update information, 

and to characterize soil and water 

resources for land and resource 

management planning. 

38 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies. 

This duplicates existing Forest 

Service policy.

Soil, Water, and Air

Complete watershed condition inventory 

and analysis for NFS watersheds in 

priority order. 

38 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Soil, Water, and Air

Develop plans for soil and water resources 

that will stabilize soil and control 

streamflows. By 1996, prepare plans for 

each of the 13 watersheds and 

subwatersheds on the forest, in priority 

order. 

38 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.

Soil, Water, and Air

Prepare risk analyses, utilizing 

assumptions as appropriate for watershed 

plans where insufficient scientific data 

exists. 

38 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.

Soil, Water, and Air

Continue special soil and water resource 

studies at Battle Flat to monitor the effects 

of water yield improvement work. 

38 No This direction is obsolete as the 

project has been completed.

Soil, Water, and Air

Plan and conduct moisture and temperature 

regime and other studies to upgrade soil 

classification data and improve soil 

interpretation. 

38 No This direction is obsolete as the 

project has been completed.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

252 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Soil, Water, and Air

Implement water yield improvement plans 

by treating 13,255 acres of chaparral per 

decade between 1986 and 2035. Treat 

chaparral in accordance with the following 

guidelines:

• No more than 70 percent of any 

contiguous stand will be treated at one 

time.

• Cleared spaces between untreated blocks 

will not exceed a quarter mile across.

• Treatments will be less than 20 percent of 

a fifth-code watershed within a decade.

39 No This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on outdated methodology.

Soil, Water, and Air

Implement watershed condition 

improvement plans to stabilize soils and 

improve streamflow characteristics. 

Conform treatments to the following 

guidelines:

• Measures will be implemented on 

portions of the watersheds that are in 

unsatisfactory condition.

• Causes of unsatisfactory conditions will 

be corrected.

• Grazing use will be balanced with respect 

to range capacity prior to and after the 

implementation of watershed 

improvements.

• Firewood harvest from areas requiring 

structural measures to control erosion will

focus upon long-term stability of the soil 

and not the production of wood fiber or 

range forage.

39 Yes

Obj-18 

Guide-WS-1 

Guide-Soils-1 

Std-Range-2 

Guide-Range-5 

Guide-Range-6 

Soil, Water, and Air

Administer all prepared watershed plans in 

coordination with Federal, State and local 

governments.

39 Yes

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 253

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Soil, Water, and Air Obtain water rights for developments that 

provide water for forest uses. 39 No

This specific direction was not 

carried over. The intent was unclear 

as there is no definition for 

"developments that provide water 

for forest uses".

Soil, Water, and Air

Prepare resource inventory reports to 

summarize inventories and facilitate 

preparation of watershed management 

plans. 

39 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies. 

This direction is also obsolete as it is 

based on outdated methodology.

Soil, Water, and Air

Maintain forest water rights by: (1) 

updating inventories of water use rights 

and requirements; (2) participating in 

adjudications; and (3) managing acquired 

rights for protection of the beneficial uses 

that are stated in the right. 

39 Yes Obj-31

Soil, Water, and Air

Minimize impacts to soil and water 

resources in all ground-disturbing 

activities. Where disturbance cannot be 

avoided, provide stabilization and 

revegetation as part of the project. 

39 Yes Guide-Soils-1 

Guide-Soils-5 

Soil, Water, and Air

Documentation of environmental analyses 

for ground-disturbing activities will 

include discussion of expected effects on 

water quality, describe specific mitigation 

measures that will be taken, and describe 

water quality monitoring that will be 

conducted as part of the projects. 

39 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy regarding the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

254 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Soil, Water, and Air

Select treatment methods for plant control 

or revegetation projects according to the 

following criteria:

1. Mechanical methods may be used:

 • On slopes less than 40 percent;

 • On soils with moderate or high 

revegetation potential; and

 • When they will not adversely affect 

stream channels.

39 Yes

Guide-WS-4 

Guide-WS-8 

Guide-Soils-3 

Soil, Water, and Air

2. Chemical treatments may be applied:

 • On soils with moderate or high 

revegetation potential;

 • On areas that would benefit from 

selective control of plant species;

 • On areas where the chemicals will not 

violate State water quality law; and

 • On areas outside legislative municipal 

watershed and human habitation.

40 Yes Std-Veg-2 

Guide-Veg-2 

Soil, Water, and Air

3. Fire treatment may be used:

 • Where the fire will not pose a threat to 

human safety or surrounding property;

 • Preferably on slopes less than 40 

percent;

 • On soils with moderate or high 

revegetation potential or leaving 40 

percent vegetative cover on low 

revegetation potential sites;

 • On areas with suitable fuel types; and

 • On areas where the proper vegetative 

response can be expected.

40 Yes

Guide-WS-4 

Guide-Soils-1 

Guide-Soils-4 

Guide-Wildland Fire1 

Guide-Wildland Fire2 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 255

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Soil, Water, and Air

4. Biological controls may be used:

 • On areas with suitable host types, and

 • On areas that would benefit from 

selective control of plant species.

40 Yes Std-Veg-2 

Guide-Veg-2 

Soil, Water, and Air

5. Hand treatment should be used on areas 

where the other methods:

 • Would disturb fragile soils on steep 

slopes; or

 • Would cause other unacceptable 

impacts; or

 • Would pose threats to human health or 

safety; or

 • Would be too costly.

40 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

256 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Soil, Water, and Air

Through the use of best management 

practices, the adverse effect of planned 

activities will be mitigated and site 

productivity maintained. These practices 

are determined (after problem assessment, 

examination of alternatives and 

appropriate review by local or State 

agencies and public participation) to be the 

most effective practicable means of 

preventing or reducing the amount of 

pollutants generated by nonpoint sources 

to levels compatible with water quality 

goals. Use these practices for activities 

affecting the forest and grassland resource, 

including the following:

1. Installation of water control structures 

and/or interseed on unsatisfactory 

condition ranges where revegetation 

potential is moderately high to high on 

slopes less than 40 percent.

2. Designation of stream courses within 

timber sales to protect watershed values. 

This protection will include controls on 

skidding within riparian areas and along or 

across designated stream courses.

3. Rehabilitation to minimize loss of site 

productivity following activities or 

wildfire.

40 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision and partially 

duplicates existing Forest Service 

policy.

Soil, Water, and Air

Maintain watershed structures when 

discounted benefits of watershed 

protection exceed discounted costs of 

maintenance. 

40 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Soil, Water, and Air Maintain all watershed improvements in a 

safe and operable condition. 40 Yes DC-Transportation and Facilities-1 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 257

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Soil, Water, and Air

Maintain high quality visual conditions. 

The form, line, texture and color of 

characteristic landscapes will be clearly 

distinguishable when viewed as middle 

ground. Cultural resources and ecosystems 

will remain unmodified by air pollutants. 

Determine baseline information and the 

background condition of the above air 

quality related values and specify limits of 

acceptable change that will affirmatively 

protect these values in Class I areas. 

40 Yes DC-Airshed-1

Soil, Water, and Air

Perform prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) permit application 

reviews to determine the potential effect 

increased emissions from major stationary 

sources will have on air quality related 

values (AQRV) of National Forest Class I 

areas. Impacts of air pollution generating 

activities will be predicted using current 

modeling techniques. 

41 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies. 

This direction is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects.

Soil, Water, and Air

Assist and coordinate with the State in 

developing and applying air quality and 

smoke management standards. 

41 Yes DC-Airshed-1

Minerals

Undertake mineral examinations and 

contest actions on claims where occupancy 

and/or development is not in keeping with 

the mining laws. 

41 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Minerals

Locate borrow areas and quarries where 

they will serve long-term needs. Unless 

project level analysis indicates an alternate 

use, borrow pits will be returned to 

characteristic landscape form and 

vegetative cover at the end of the project, 

and quarries will be returned to 

characteristic form and cover as much as 

possible. 

41 Yes Guide-Minerals 

Materials-2
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

258 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Minerals

Inventory and designate sources for 

common variety minerals such as sand and 

gravel for private, city, county, State and 

other Federal use. Sources will be 

designated through the NEPA process and 

will consider the economics of choice. 

41 Yes Guide-Minerals 

Materials-3 

Minerals

Provide common variety mineral materials 

for local, county, State and forest roads on 

the forest or that provide access to the 

forest. Material will be made available for 

other roads only upon adequate 

documentation that other sources are not 

available and visual quality impacts are of 

an acceptable level. 

41 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Minerals

Require special stipulations for oil and gas 

leases only where needed for special 

resource protection. 

41 No

This direction is not applicable and 

was not carried over. There is no 

potential for oil or gas production on 

the Prescott NF.

Minerals

Recommend oil and gas leasing without 

surface occupancy for all developed 

recreation sites and electronic sites. 

41 No

This direction is not applicable and 

was not carried over. There is no 

potential for oil or gas production on 

the Prescott NF.

Minerals

Require a reclamation bond adequate to 

cover the reclamation cost in all plans of 

operation approved under the 36 CFR 228 

regulations.

41 Yes Std-Locatable 

Minerals-3

Minerals

Cooperate with the State to inventory and 

mitigate hazardous abandoned mine 

workings. 

41 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 259

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Minerals

Mineral material will be made available 

for personal and commercial use when it 

has been determined through an 

environmental analysis that it will not be 

in substantial conflict with other resources 

or activities. 

41 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction.

Minerals

Revegetation plans will be prepared for all 

new mineral material sources. Existing pits 

that have not been utilized as a source for 

mineral materials for 2 years will require a 

revegetation plan before approval will be 

granted to new permittees. Visual impact 

assessments will accompany all new 

mineral material pit proposals.

41 Yes Std-Minerals 

Materials-1

Human and 

Community 

Development

Continue to maintain the forest human 

resource program as dictated by budget 

and economics.

42 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Human Resource Management. Due 

to structural changes in the Forest 

Service organization, this direction 

is no longer applicable. Human 

resource programs are centrally 

managed through the Albuquerque 

Service Center.

Human and 

Community 

Development

Maintain and expand opportunities for 

enrollees (volunteers and other human 

resource program participants). 

42 Yes

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

260 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Lands

Authorizations for special uses may be 

issued to qualified applicants when the 

proposed use: (a) fulfills a demonstrated 

special need without unduly infringing on 

the use by the general public; (b) is in 

accordance with an approved 

implementation plan (where called for) and 

will not cause adverse impacts on the 

national forest and its resources which 

cannot be fully mitigated; (c) does not 

serve a function that can be provided by 

private enterprise off national forest lands; 

and (d) is complimentary to Forest Service 

and management area objectives, programs 

and purposes. 

42 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Lands

Respond to applications for new permits, 

amendments, documents and leases within 

30 days of receipt. Administer all existing 

permits. 

42 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Lands Review special use permit fees as per FSM 

2715.25. 42 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service Manual 

(FSM).

Lands

Utility corridors may be authorized after 

an environmental analysis is conducted 

(first) on unclassified areas and (second) 

on avoidance areas. A corridor plan will be 

prepared during the second decade to 

consider future needs. 

42 Yes Guide-Lands-1

Lands

Requests for utility corridors will be 

coordinated to locate needed facilities 

within existing corridors where feasible. 

Design and construction practices will 

meet the standards defined in “National 

Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, 

Chapter 2,” USDA Handbook 478. 

42 Yes Guide-Lands-5
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 261

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Lands

Require Rural Electrification 

Administration (REA) specifications for 

raptor protection on permitted power lines 

during construction and reconstruction. 

42 Yes Guide-Lands-5

Lands

Require burial of new utility lines in all 

foreground areas of retention or partial 

retention VQO areas along State and 

Federal highways, unless an environmental 

analysis indicates that it would be 

unfeasible. 

42 Yes Guide-Lands-5

Lands

Requests for authorization to construct or 

reconstruct any structure or facility must 

be accompanied by three sets of 

professionally prepared plans or three sets 

of plans which reflect professional 

standards. 

42 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Lands New construction and reconstruction must 

meet or exceed all applicable codes. 42 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Lands

Efforts will be made to consolidate new 

electronic site proposals on currently 

approved sites. Recommendations to the 

Regional Forester on undesignated 

electronic site classifications will be made 

after a comprehensive environmental 

analysis indicates such occupancy will not 

compromise other national forest 

management objectives. 

42 Yes Guide-Lands-4 

Guide-Lands-5
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

262 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Lands

Continue to maintain the following 

electronic sites for public, private and 

other agency use: Hickey Mountain, 

Mingus Mountain, South Mingus 

Mountain, Towers Mountain, Horsethief, 

Sierra Prieta, Tonto Mountain, Alto 

Divide, Mount Francis, Wolverton 

Mountain, Spruce Mountain, Mount Davis, 

Mount Elliott, Mount Union, Mount Tritle, 

Squaw Peak, Hyde Mountain, Wildflower 

and Onion Mountain. 

42 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction.

Lands

Use will be limited to these sites except in 

cases where national defense and/or public 

safety may be adversely affected.

43 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction.

Lands

Electronic sites will be managed to the 

following standards: 

 

 1. Maximize joint use of existing 

buildings.

 2. Lot plans as presently established will 

be eliminated. Sites will be allocated on a 

total required facility basis.

 3. Maintenance of individual site roads 

and trails will be carried out jointly 

through cooperative maintenance 

payments proportionate to the amount of 

use or will be maintained by the users.

 4. Clearing of vegetation will be limited 

to that which poses a hazard to facilities 

and operational efficiency.

 5. Commercial broadcasting and constant 

carriers will be allowed where compatible.

These sites must be physically separated 

from land mobile and microwave sites. 

Any potential electromagnetic interference 

must be resolved before construction can 

proceed. Microwave corridors will be 

protected.

 6. VHF transmitters will be permitted if 

43 Yes Guide-Lands-4
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 263

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

frequencies are compatible with those of 

previous users. (Authorize only specified 

frequencies and not wide-range bands on 

2700-10 Technical Data Sheets.)

 7. All new and replacement towers must 

be self supporting.

 8. New towers and tower additions will 

not be authorized if they adversely affect 

the fire tower uts line of sight.

 9. All utility lines will be placed 

underground.

10. Any prospective permittee desiring a 

site shall furnish detailed plans of 

buildings and antenna support structures to 

the district ranger for approval. All towers 

will meet Electronic Industries Association 

standard RS-222-C (structural standards 

for steel antenna towers). These plans will 

show the relationship of the proposed 

building and antenna to other facilities in 

the area, along with manufacturer’s 

specifications for pment to be used.

11. All sites will conform to VQOs and 

forest color standards. All structures will 

be colored to blend with the background. 

Lands

Additionally, the following guidelines will 

be applied to electronic site permits:

 • Encourage formation of user 

improvement associations and administer 

sites in cooperation with associations.

 • Incorporate site operation technical 

standards in permits developed by user 

groups after being reviewed and 

recommended by the forest supervisor.

• Implement cooperatively-developed 

site management standards for each site to 

provide for frequency and power 

separation.

43 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

264 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Lands

Grant permits or easements for road and 

utility access to interior private land only if 

other practical routes are unavailable on 

private land and impact on the forest is 

acceptable as a result. 

44 Yes Guide-Lands-1

Lands

Roads needed for private land access, 

special uses or mineral activities will be 

built and maintained by the permittee on 

permanent locations, to the minimum 

standards for the intended use, and will be 

closed, drained and revegetated after use. 

44 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Lands

On lands identified for exchange, prohibit 

encumbrances and investment, which will 

reduce future disposal opportunities. 

44 Yes Guide-Lands-3

Lands

Allow only one access road for subdivision 

access unless natural features dictate 

otherwise and where there is no suitable 

private land alternative or where additional 

access is needed for public safety. 

44 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Lands

Pursue mineral withdrawals on potential 

and existing electronic sites. Electronic site 

withdrawals will be completed by the end 

of 2005. 

44 Yes Std-Locatable 

Minerals-1

Lands Maintain land status records by updating 

as changes occur. 44 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 265

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Lands

Locate and post land survey monuments 

and property lines according to the 

following priority:

1. Resource management projects

2. Encroachments and title claims

3. Potential trespass prevention

4. Other areas

44 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Lands Complete the entire forest by the end of 

2035. 44 No This direction is outdated and was not carried over.

Lands

Survey and post an average of 28 miles of 

national forest land lines per year in 

conformance with national standards 

during the first time period. Priorities are 

as follows:

1. Where proposed projects are adjacent to 

private land

2. Areas of known and potential trespass

3. Backlog

44 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Lands

Locate and post all land lines needed for 

outputs at least 2 years in advance of 

resource output production years. 

44 No This direction is outdated and was 

not carried over.

Lands

Surface-disturbing resource projects will 

require a search for and protection of land 

monuments.

44 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Lands

Request BLM resurveys where section 

corners have not been brasscapped. The 

highest priority is in complex land patterns 

where development is taking place. 

44 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Lands

Update the land line location atlas as 

additional corners are found and the 

boundary is posted. 

44 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

266 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Lands Continue to take action on unauthorized 

occupancy.

44 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Lands

Review land classification and determine 

the need for land adjustment to meet 

management objectives of providing for 

community expansion and logical 

boundary adjustment. 

44 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Lands

Respond to land exchange proposals as 

presented. Seek to acquire all private 

holdings meeting one or more of the 

following criteria:

1. Lands within designated wilderness

2. Lands that contain vital threatened and 

endangered species habitat or vital wildlife 

habitat (i.e. eagle nesting sites)

3. Lands needed for developed and 

dispersed recreation

4. Wetlands, riparian areas and other 

water-oriented lands

5. Lands that contain unique, natural or 

cultural values

6. Lands that will improve public land 

management, meet specific administrative 

needs, or benefit other national forest 

programs

7. Lands that provide needed access, 

protect public lands from fire or trespass, 

or prevent damage to forest land resources

8. Lands that need rehabilitation or 

stabilization to restore their productivity

9. Lands that are needed to consolidate 

public land ownership or meet research 

needs

10. Lands that are needed to meet 

programs prescribed or endorsed by acts or 

reports of Congress or the Department of 

Agriculture

45 Yes Guide-Lands-2
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 267

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

11. Inholdings that contain needed rightsof-way and will contribute to the forest 

resource management base.

Lands

Lands offered by the United States in land 

exchange are tentatively classified as basein-exchange. Because local and physical 

conditions may change during the life of 

this Forest Plan, those lands classified in 

this plan and any others that may be 

considered will generally meet one or 

more of the following criteria and those in 

the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) regulations:

1. Lands needed to meet the needs of 

expanding communities

2. Isolated tracts or scattered parcels that 

cannot be efficiently managed

3. Provide for consolidation of public 

lands

4. Improve management, benefit specific 

resources, or increase management 

efficiency

5. Meet overriding public needs

45 Yes Guide-Lands-3
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

268 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Lands

The acquisition programs will be achieved 

through purchase, exchange and donation 

authorities. The purchase program centers 

around the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act (L&WCFA) that designates 

lands within the following categories that 

are eligible for acquisition utilizing 

L&WCFA funds:

1. Congressionally designated areas

2. Wilderness

3. Threatened and endangered species 

habitat

4. Recreation acquisition composites and 

inholdings

45 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act (L&WCFA) 

and Forest Service policy.

Lands

The basic goals of the composite program 

are to provide for lands needed for:

1. Construction of public recreation 

facilities,

45 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act (L&WCFA) 

and Forest Service policy.

Lands

2. Dispersed recreation and open space,

3. Protection of public recreation 

resources, and

4. Prevention of private usurpation of 

public resources and facilities on nearby 

public land.

46 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act (L&WCFA) 

and Forest Service policy.

Lands

Essentially all of the lands identified for 

acquisition with L&WCFA funds are also 

eligible for acquisition by exchange or 

donations, and will be acquired by these

authorities when the opportunity arises and 

when appropriate. 

46 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act (L&WCFA) 

and Forest Service policy.

Lands

The donation authorities are applicable for 

any of the lands that meet the acquisition 

criteria. 

46 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act (L&WCFA) 

and Forest Service policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 269

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Lands

Acquire rights-of-way as needed to meet 

resource outputs or resolve legal status 

deficiencies. Priority for rights-of-way 

acquisition are as follows:

1. Administration of national forest lands

2. Public access to national forest lands

3. Timber harvest

46 Yes

DC-Lands-1 

Obj-30 

Guide-Lands-1 

Lands

Review the forest base map annually and 

update on an 8-year interval to maintain 

accuracy. 

46 No This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on outdated methodology.

Land Management 

Planning

Develop and maintain a forest plan and 

forest database in compliance with NFMA 

and NEPA. 

46 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Facilities

Provide for forest-wide transportation 

planning, preconstruction engineering and 

construction engineering on arterial roads, 

collector roads, local roads, bridges and 

major culverts. 

46 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Facilities

Review and update the Prescott National 

Forest Road Management Plan annually to 

ensure that the transportation system meets 

the needs and management intent of the 

respective management areas. 

46 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Facilities

Roads needed to provide sole access to 

private land, special uses or mineral 

activities will be built on permanent 

locations and maintained by the permittee 

to minimum standards for the intended use 

and will be closed, drained and revegetated 

after use. 

46 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

270 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Facilities

Local terminal roads will be constructed 

with a 12-foot width unless environmental 

and economic analyses show a difference 

is justified. 

46 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Facilities Design roads so that straight alignment 

does not exceed one-half mile. 47 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Facilities

Emphasize relocating roads out of canyon 

bottoms during construction and 

reconstruction activities. 

47 Yes Guide-Trans-1 

Guide-Trans-6 

Facilities

Construct or reconstruct arterial roads, 

collector roads, local roads, bridges and 

major culverts to ensure user safety and to 

a level commensurate with the use and 

need. 

47 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Facilities

Prohibit road construction on unstable 

soils and slopes greater than 40 percent if 

it cannot be done in a manner that 

maintains or enhances water quality 

(sediment or chemical) and quantity 

objectives. 

47 Yes

Guide-Soils-4 

Guide-Trans-1 

Guide-Trans-6 

Facilities

Maintain arterial, collector and local roads, 

bridges and major culverts to ensure user 

safety and to a level commensurate with 

existing road standards. 

47 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 271

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Facilities Require user maintenance on roads that 

serve non-forest facilities and property. 47 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Facilities

Solidify jurisdictional responsibility for 

roads by issuing USDA easements to the 

State and counties. Cooperate with the 

counties to determine roads for which they 

should obtain ROWs. Acquire ROWs for 

forest roads. Continue cooperative 

agreements with local, State and Federal 

agencies. 

48 Yes Obj-30 

Guide-Lands-1 

Facilities

Clearing of vegetation along rights-of-way 

and around facilities and special use sites 

will be limited to that which poses a 

hazard to the facility and operational 

efficiency. Methods will include 

mechanical, hand and herbicide methods, 

using selection criteria in F03. 

48 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Facilities

Maintain a transportation system inventory 

for all forest roads. Operate and maintain 

the road system according to prescribed 

maintenance levels. Public safety, resource 

protection and seasonal use will be 

emphasized, with user comfort being a 

secondary consideration. 

48 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Facilities

Accommodate user traffic by a designated 

system of roads and trails. A signing 

system will be designed with positive 

emphasis and informational signs at 

termini. 

48 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

272 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Facilities All roads and trails shown on the “official 

access policy” map overlay will be signed. 48 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.

Facilities

The Federal signing direction contained in 

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices will be used. 

48 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service Manual 

(FSM).

Facilities

The regional signing policy will be used, 

with special attention given to compliance 

with the “Guide for Traffic Control 

Devices on Forest Development Roads.” 

48 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in Forest Service 

Southwestern Region guidance.

Facilities

Forest informational and directional signs 

and route markers will conform to FSH 

7109.31 and FSH 7109.11 (Signs 

Handbook). 

48 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH).

Facilities

Particular attention will be given to the 

regional policy of vertical signing for 

roads not suitable for passenger cars and 

horizontal signing for roads suitable for 

passenger cars. 

48 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in Forest Service 

Southwestern Region guidance.

Facilities

Only the minimum number of signs should 

be used to guide, regulate and warn the 

user. 

48 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Facilities The sign policy for trails will be positive, 

indicating permitted activities. 48 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Facilities Required forest signing will be completed 

by the end of Fiscal Year 1991. 48 Yes Obj-12 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 273

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Facilities

Close, obliterate or restore those roads and 

travel ways identified for such action 

through the integrated resource 

management process with full public 

involvement. Closure will be effected by 

physical barriers and/or signing. See Table 

13 for the schedule of road closures. 

48 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Facilities

The inventory of roads to be closed is 

maintained on an overlay of the official 

access policy map. 

49 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.

Facilities

Federal regulations and closures will be 

minimized to those considered absolutely 

necessary to meet management 

requirements. Once designated and 

approved, the regulations will be enforced. 

49 No

This direction has been superseded 

by the Prescott National Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

developed under national guidance 

found in the Travel Management 

Rule.

Facilities

The following road control options are 

used on the Prescott National Forest:

Roads where use is discouraged – There 

are roads where maintenance level 3 

cannot or will not be attained due to low 

standards. Also, there may be instances 

where single-lane roads can accommodate 

commercial haul to the extent mixed traffic 

(recreation and general forest) would 

increase traffic hazards, but not to the 

extent the hazard would be unacceptable.

Roads with user restrictions without 

formal order Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) – This is used in temporary 

situations where public use restrictions are 

needed for high safety hazards where 

closure devices are ineffective, such as for 

49 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

274 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

road construction, logging operations or 

road damage. Road closed wording can be 

used only in an advisory way (for example, 

“Road Closed For Logging Operations”).

CFR closure – Used where consequences 

to the public user, road investments or 

forest resources are significant. Closure 

will be by barricade, gate or physical 

structure. The closure procedure is 

described in 36 CFR 261.

Roads put to bed – Used where 

management prescribes inactivation of the 

road for short-term or intermittent use, or 

when the road is no longer needed and is 

maintained in an inactive state until the 

roadbed is obliterated naturally or by 

mechanical measures. Barriers will consist 

of native materials to block or obscure the 

road entrance.

Road obliteration – The objective of 

obliteration is to return the road to natural 

resource production. R-3 Supplement 22, 

FSM 7705.13 specifies the actions 

necessary to obliterate a road. These 

include removal of drainage devices, 

reshaping to provide natural drainage, 

revegetating the road and blocking to 

restrict traffic. 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 275

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Facilities

As of August 1989, Chino Valley district 

had 362 roads to be closed, totaling 363 

miles. Bradshaw District had 354 roads 

totaling 248 miles, and Verde district had 

82 roads totaling 53 miles. The forest 

totals are 798 roads to be closed, totaling 

664 miles. These roads will be closed on 

an opportunity basis. This means that 

when equipment is in the area for other 

projects and the road is scheduled for 

machine obliteration, an effort will be 

made to include the road obliteration. 

Some projects are on a road scheduled for 

obliteration or closure. In these cases, the 

road closure will be part of the project 

plan. Approximately 174 miles of roads 

are scheduled for closure in 1986-1995. 

50 No This direction is obsolete as it is no 

longer applicable.

Facilities

Maintain a transportation system inventory 

for all forest trails. Operate and maintain 

the trail system according to prescribed 

maintenance levels. 

50 Yes

DC-Rec-2 Trails 

DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Facilities

Provide for preconstruction and 

construction engineering for the forest trail 

system. 

50 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Facilities

Construct and reconstruct trails to develop 

a desirable system for the protection, 

management and enjoyment of the Prescott 

National Forest. 

50 Yes DC-Rec-2 Trails

Facilities

Determine FA&O facilities needed by 

evaluating each forest unit’s space needs 

based upon the organization’s workforce 

needs. 

50 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

276 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Facilities

Provide appropriate access for people with 

all types of disabilities when constructing 

or reconstructing facilities. 

50 No

This is required under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) and as such duplicates 

direction that can be found in 

existing law, regulation, or Forest 

Service policy.

Facilities

Incorporate interpretive site plans into the 

planning and development of recreation 

capital investment projects. The site 

narrative for each project will include the 

interpretive themes and objectives for each 

site (specific vista points, trails, trailheads, 

parking areas, etc.) at which interpretation 

is planned. 

50 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.

Facilities

Provide for establishing facilities 

necessary for the administration of national 

forest lands. Construct/reconstruct FA&O 

facilities to support management and 

administration activities. Major projects 

occurring in the first decade (1986-1995) 

are the Bradshaw district office and the air 

tanker base. 

50 No This direction is obsolete as the 

project has been completed.

Facilities

Maintain potable water systems in a safe 

condition in accordance with Arizona State 

regulations. 

50 No

This is required by the State of 

Arizona and as such duplicates 

direction that can be found in 

existing law, regulation, or Forest 

Service policy.

Facilities Maintain facilities to ensure health and 

safety of the public and employees. 50 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 

Facilities Maintain administrative facilities in a safe 

condition to minimize disinvestment. 50 Yes DC-Transportation 

and Facilities-1 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 277

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Facilities

Perform dam construction, inventory, 

inspection and O&M planning as per FSM 

7500 and FSH 7509.11 (includes 

recreation, special use and resource 

improvement dams). 

50 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) and Forest Service 

Manual (FSM).

Facilities Provide utility systems (water and sewer) 

to support facilities. 50 No

This does not reflect the revised 

Forest Plan direction. The Prescott 

NF is reducing the number and 

extent of water and sewer systems to 

lower annual utility and maintenance 

costs.

Facilities Priority will be given to high-risk areas 

concerning health and safety. 50 No

This specific direction was not 

carried over. The intent was unclear 

as there is no definition for "highrisk areas". Desired conditions in the 

revised plan describe a safe, clean, 

and sanitary environment for all 

facilities.

Facilities

Operate and maintain the intraforest 

electronic communication system so that it 

is compatible with the intraregional 

system. This system includes microwave, 

radio, telephone, etc. 

50 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.

Wildland Fire

Firefighter and public safety shall be the 

first priority in all Fire Management 

activities.

51 Yes Std-Wildland Fire-1

Wildland Fire

All human-caused fires shall be suppressed 

using appropriate management response 

strategies.

51 Yes Guide-Wildland Fire1

Wildland Fire

Wildland fire appropriate management 

responses shall minimize costs of 

suppression, resource impacts, and risks to 

life and property.

51 Yes Guide-Wildland Fire1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

278 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Wildland Fire

Fire prevention messages should 

emphasize the difference between 

unwanted human caused fires, lightningcaused fires managed for resource benefits, 

and prescribed fires.

51 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Wildland Fire

Prevention and preparedness activities 

should be designed and implemented 

following a comprehensive analysis of fire 

occurrence, resistance to control, values at 

risk and other factors.

51 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Wildland Fire

The appropriate management response for 

each wildland fire will vary across the 

Forest and should include the full spectrum 

of options from aggressive initial attack to 

managing fires to accomplish resource 

objectives.

51-1 Yes Guide-Wildland Fire1

Wildland Fire

For all management areas, lightningcaused fire should be managed to restore 

fire's natural role in maintaining a healthy, 

diverse and resilient ecosystem resistant to 

natural disturbances within the areas 

specified in Appendix L. Wildland fire use 

should follow direction specific to the 

Forest’s Fire Management Plan that 

establishes parameters for risk, fire 

intensity, size, duration, and seasonality.

51-1 Yes

Guide-Wildland Fire2 

Guide-Wildland Fire4 

Wildland Fire

Standards and guidelines for management 

of the Mexican spotted owl and the 

northern goshawk are found in Appendixes 

F and G.

51-1 Yes

DC-Veg-14 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Veg-18 

Guide-WL-1 

Guide-WL-2 

Guide-WL-5 

Guide-WL-7 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 279

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Prescribed Fire / 

Fuels Treatment

Consider landscape-scale application of 

prescribed fire in all appropriate 

management areas.

51-1 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Prescribed Fire / 

Fuels Treatment

Consider mechanical fuels treatments 

where wildland fire use or prescribed fire 

may cause unacceptable damage to other 

resources or pose an unacceptable risk to 

private property.

51-1 Yes Guide-Wildland Fire5

Prescribed Fire / 

Fuels Treatment

Hazard fuels reduction activities within 

wildland urban interface areas should have 

priority when there are differing resource 

objectives.

51-1 Yes Guide-Wildland Fire8

Prescribed Fire / 

Fuels Treatment

Where opportunities exist, cooperative 

fuels treatment ventures with private, state, 

and other federal land management 

agencies should be implemented.

51-1 No

Cooperation with other agencies is a 

standard practice in fire 

management.

Law Enforcement

Provide an increased, visible presence of 

forest officers to facilitate law 

enforcement, deter violations, provide 

information to the public, and monitor 

resource conditions. Consideration should 

be given to weekend and off-hour patrols 

as identified by citizen complaints, 

employee monitoring, etc. 

51-1 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Law Enforcement. Due to structural 

changes in the Forest Service 

organization, this direction is no 

longer applicable. Law Enforcement 

is now separate from Forest Service 

land and resource management. 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

280 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Law Enforcement

Establish a volunteer forest watch program 

(similar to Neighborhood Crime Watch, 

Adopt-A-Trail, etc.) to improve 

monitoring of law enforcement violations 

and resource conditions. Volunteers should 

meet regularly and be provided with 

adequate training to understand the 

enforceable regulations regarding resource 

damage. Volunteer agreements should 

include wording that stipulates their 

agreement to testify in court and includes 

an appropriate reimbursement agreement 

for their expenses when testifying. 

51-1 Yes

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 

Law Enforcement

Enhance law enforcement effectiveness by 

providing training for forest employees to 

enforce laws and educate the public on 

forest use regulations. Ensure that all 

supervisor’s office, district permanent and 

temporary field-going field employees and 

other public contact employees get an 

annual review of law enforcement 

regulations and responsibilities. 

51-1 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to provide 

information. This is a project-level 

decision.

Law Enforcement

Give high priority to public education 

programs and actions to prevent resource 

damage and intense user conflicts. Law 

enforcement actions (patrols, violation 

issuance, etc.) will be given the highest 

priority where irreversible damage to 

resources or intense user conflicts may 

result. 

52 Yes

DC-Rec-1 

DC-Rec-2 Trails 

Guide-Rec-6 

Guide-Interp-1 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 281

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Law Enforcement

Develop a systematic means of responding 

to public complaints dealing with law 

enforcement matters. Utilize the standard 

Forest Service “Incident Report” and/or 

other effective means to ensure accurate 

recording of complaints and an effective 

Forest Service response. All violations and 

incidents will be tracked using the existing 

Law Enforcement Management Reporting 

System (LEMARS). Annual reports will 

be developed and maintained for public 

information and for reprioritizing future 

law enforcement efforts (patrol times, 

places, days, etc.). 

52 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Law Enforcement. Due to structural 

changes in the Forest Service 

organization, this direction is no 

longer applicable. Law Enforcement 

is now separate from Forest Service 

land and resource management. 

Law Enforcement

The forest supervisor’s office will conduct 

a minimum of two law enforcement 

activity reviews per year. Adjustments to 

the law enforcement program will be 

determined as part of the review action 

plan developed from review findings. 

52 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Law Enforcement. Due to structural 

changes in the Forest Service 

organization, this direction is no 

longer applicable. Law Enforcement 

is now separate from Forest Service 

land and resource management. 

Law Enforcement

Develop and distribute public education 

materials with emphasis on topics 

concerning off-highway vehicle 

use/regulations, law enforcement 

procedures/violation reporting, and 

firewood permits/regulations. 

52 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Law Enforcement. Due to structural 

changes in the Forest Service 

organization, this direction is no 

longer applicable. Law Enforcement 

is now separate from Forest Service 

land and resource management. 

Law Enforcement

Prioritize law enforcement efforts with 

respect to times and places where 

violations are likely to occur, and focus 

efforts on priority situations. 

52 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Law Enforcement. Due to structural 

changes in the Forest Service 

organization, this direction is no 

longer applicable. Law Enforcement 

is now separate from Forest Service 

land and resource management. 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

282 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Law Enforcement

Cooperate and coordinate with other law 

enforcement agencies to provide protection 

for forest resources and users. Increase 

interagency communication to enhance 

joint and individual law enforcement 

responsibilities. 

52 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Law Enforcement. Due to structural 

changes in the Forest Service 

organization, this direction is no 

longer applicable. Law Enforcement 

is now separate from Forest Service 

land and resource management. 

Law Enforcement

Initiate search and rescue operations as a 

supportive service under the jurisdiction of 

the County Sheriff whenever the need 

arises. 

52 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program direction for 

Law Enforcement. Due to structural 

changes in the Forest Service 

organization, this direction is no 

longer applicable. Law Enforcement 

is now separate from Forest Service 

land and resource management. 

Insect and Disease 

Management

Detect and monitor insect and disease 

activities. Control if necessary to protect 

resources or uses. The method of control to 

be utilized will be determined through the 

NEPA process and cost analysis. 

52 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-4 

Obj-6 

Guide-Veg-2 

Insect and Disease 

Management

Incorporate measures to control invasive 

species into project planning, 

implementation, and monitoring.

52 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-4 

Obj-6 

Guide-Veg-2 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 283

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Insect and Disease 

Management

Use the Appendix B “Design Features, 

Best Management Practices, Required 

Protection Measures and Mitigation 

Measures” in the “Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment 

of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the 

Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National 

Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mohave, 

and Yavapai Counties, Arizona” (2004) for 

specific mitigation measures. Deviance 

from Appendix B does not trigger the need 

for a forest plan amendment, however. 

Required Protection Measures from 

Section 7 consultation (Endangered 

Species Act) must be followed. If, as a 

result of environmental analysis, Best 

Management Practices or Mitigation 

Measures are modified, document the 

reason(s) in a NEPA decision.

52 Yes Std-Veg-2 

Guide-Veg-2 

MA1

Manage the following to Level C: High 

Chaparral – 103 acres; Management 

Intensity Accessible P/J – 4,039 acres; 

inaccessible P/J – 3,423 acres

53 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA1

Manage the following to Level B: Suitable 

Pine – 811 acres; Unsuitable P/J – 33,841 

acres.

53 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA1

Manage the following to Level 4: 

Unsuitable Pine – 493 acres.

Lands classified as full capacity rangelands 

total 43,710 acres, of which 10,951 acres 

are in unsatisfactory condition in 1986.

53 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

284 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA1

Unsatisfactory condition rangelands will 

be treated through implementation of 

approved allotment management plans. 

Treatment will include:

1. Structural or non structural range 

improvements necessary to implement or 

maintain prescribed intensity levels.

2. Adjusting stocking levels as necessary 

to maintain the management emphasis. 

53 Yes

DC-Veg-3 

Std-Range-1 to 3 

Guide-Range-1 to 6 

Chapter 7: Range 

Suitability 

MA1 Timber will be harvested only on slopes 

less than 40 percent. 54 Yes Guide-Soils-3 

MA1 Designate new base-in-exchange land as 

depicted on the land ownership map. 54 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA2

Manage the following to Management 

Intensity Level B: Suitable Pine – 707 

acres; Low Chaparral – 1,030 acres; 

Unsuitable P/J – 143,390 acres. 

55 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA2

Manage the following to Level C: High 

Chaparral – 37,736 acres; Suitable P/J –

69,539 acres; Juniper – 112,341 acres. 

56 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA2 Manage the following to Level 4: 

Unsuitable Pine – 229 acres 56 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 285

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA2

Manage the following to Level E: Desert 

Shrub/ Grasslands – 10,008 acres. Lands 

classified as full capacity rangelands total 

380,406 acres, of which 117,857 acres are 

in unsatisfactory condition (in 1986). 

56 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA2

Unsatisfactory condition rangelands will 

be treated through implementation of 

approved allotment management plans. 

Treatment will include:

1. Structural or non structural range 

improvements necessary to implement or 

maintain prescribed intensity levels.

2. Adjusting stocking levels as necessary 

to maintain the management emphasis. 

56 Yes

DC-Veg-3 

Std-Range-1 to 3 

Guide-Range-1 to 6 

Chapter 7: Range 

Suitability 

MA2

Nonstructural range improvement will be 

accomplished as a priority for limited 

nonstructural funds. A total of 7,547 acres 

are needed in decade one. 

56 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA2 Timber will be harvested only on slopes 

less than 40 percent. 56 Yes Guide-Soils-3 

MA2

New water diversions from the Verde 

River between Section 5, Township 17 

North, Range 1 West, and Section 32, 

Township 17 North, Range 3 East, Gila 

and Salt River Base and Meridian, will 

only be allowed when authorized by 

Federal law.

56 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

286 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA2

Right-of-way and Special Use Permits for 

new utilities within the viewshed of the 

Verde River mainstem from Section 5, 

Township 17 North, Range 1 West to 

Section 32, Township 17 North, Range 3 

East, Gila and Salt River Base Meridian 

will be discouraged. Where no reasonable 

alternative exists, additional or new 

facilities will be restricted to existing rightof-ways. Where new right-of-ways are 

indicated, scenic, recreational, fish and 

wildlife values must be evaluated in the 

selection process.

56 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA3

Grapevine Creek shall be designated and 

managed as a botanical area for its 

exemplary scientific values. Management 

standards and guidelines, as well as the 

area’s boundary, are shown in Appendix J

58 Yes DC-Special Areas-1 

Std-CK MA-1 

MA3

Manage the following to Management 

Intensity Level B: Suitable Pine – 2,028 

acres; Low Chaparral – 6,481 acres; 

Unsuitable P/J - 10,594 acres; and 

Riparian – 3,001 acres.

58 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA3

Manage the following to Level C: High 

Chaparral – 57,886 acres; Suitable P/J –

3,453 acres; and Juniper – 21,740 acres.

58 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA3 Manage the following to Level 4: 

Unsuitable Pine – 2,085 acres. 59 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 287

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA3

Manage the following to Level E: High 

Chaparral – 85,906 acres; Low Chaparral –

2,809 acres; Desert Shrub/Grassland – 588 

acres. Lands classified as full capacity 

rangelands total 196,861 acres, of which 

137,126 acres are in unsatisfactory 

condition (in 1986).

59 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA3

Unsatisfactory condition rangelands will 

be treated through implementation of 

approved allotment management plans. 

Treatment will include:

1. Structural or non structural range 

improvements necessary to implement or 

maintain prescribed intensity levels.

2. Adjusting stocking levels as necessary 

to maintain the management emphasis. 

59 Yes

DC-Veg-3 

Std-Range-1 to 3 

Guide-Range-1 to 6 

Chapter 7: Range 

Suitability 

MA3

Nonstructural range improvement will be 

accomplished as a priority for limited 

nonstructural funds. A total of 2,222 acres 

are needed in decade one. 

59 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA3 Timber will be harvested only on slopes 

less than 40 percent. 59 Yes Guide-Soils-3 

MA3 Continue operation and maintenance of the 

Battle Flat pilot application project. 59 No This direction is obsolete as the project has been completed.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

288 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA4

The existing recreation residence permits 

within the designated Horsethief Basin, 

Miller Creek, Hickey Mountain and 

Mingus Mountain Recreation Residence 

Areas will continue in effect through the 

existing permit term unless revoked, 

terminated or relinquished. An Analysis of 

Recreation Resident Use Continuance will 

be carried out 10 years prior to permit 

termination to evaluate if continuance may 

be justifiable. 

62 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.

MA4

Manage the following to Management 

Intensity Level B: Suitable Pine – 3,2059 

acres; Low Chaparral – 833 acres; Suitable 

P/J – 10,880 acres.

62 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA4

Manage the following to Level C: High 

Chaparral – 57,886 acres; Suitable P/J –

3,453 acres; and Juniper – 21,740 acres.

62 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA4 Manage the following to Level 4: 

Unsuitable Pine – 2,085 acres. 62 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 289

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA4

Manage the following to Level E: High 

Chaparral – 85,906 acres; Low Chaparral –

2,809 acres; Desert Shrub / Grasslands –

588 acres.

Lands classified as full capacity rangelands 

total 196,861 acres, of which 137,126 

acres are in unsatisfactory condition (in 

1986).

62 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA4

Unsatisfactory condition rangelands will 

be treated through implementation of 

approved allotment management plans. 

Treatment will include:

1. Structural or non structural range 

improvements necessary to implement or 

maintain prescribed intensity levels.

2. Adjusting stocking levels as necessary 

to maintain the management emphasis. 

62 Yes

DC-Veg-3 

Std-Range-1 to 3 

Guide-Range-1 to 6 

Chapter 7: Range 

Suitability 

MA4

Nonstructural range improvement will be 

accomplished as a priority for limited 

nonstructural funds. A total of 2,222 acres 

are needed in 1986-1995. 

62 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA4

For the first 5 decades (1986-2035), 400 

acres of artificial reforestation (planting) 

will be done each decade in order to 

achieve the desired stocking level in areas 

which are currently understocked. This 

will be in addition to any planting that is 

done in areas following regeneration 

harvests.

62 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA4 Ensure that fences around the Prescott 

Municipal Watershed are maintained. 62 Yes DC-Watershed-5
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

290 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA4

Use of the Wildflower Electronic Site will 

be limited to national defense and/or 

public safety agencies.

62 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction.

MA5

Cooperate with the Arizona State Natural 

Area Advisory Council in the study of 

Little Ash Creek as a State Natural Area.

64 No This direction is obsolete as it is no 

longer applicable.

MA5

Close 121 acres of Little Ash Creek to 

OHV use to facilitate study of this site as 

part of the State Natural Area System.

64 No This direction is obsolete as it is no 

longer applicable.

MA5

Manage the following to Management 

Intensity Level B: High Chaparral – 89 

acres; Unsuitable P/J – 8,660 acres; and 

Riparian 5,203 acres

64 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA5

Manage the following to Level C: High 

Chaparral – 13,508 acres; Suitable P/J –

2,817 acres; Juniper – 79,901 acres

64 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA5 Manage the following to Level 4: 

Unsuitable – 94 acres 64 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 291

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA5

Manage the following to Level E: Low 

Chaparral – 17,497 acres; and Desert 

Shrub/Grassland – 66,027 acres.

Riparian lands will be managed at a level 

commensurate with the remainder of the 

contributing watershed.

Lands classified as full capacity rangelands 

total 193,796 acres, of which 97,396 acres 

are in unsatisfactory condition (in 1986).

64 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA5

Unsatisfactory condition rangelands will 

be treated through implementation of 

approved allotment management plans. 

Treatment will include:

1. Structural or non structural range 

improvements necessary to implement or 

maintain prescribed intensity levels.

2. Adjusting stocking levels as necessary 

to maintain the management emphasis. 

65 Yes

DC-Veg-3 

Std-Range-1 to 3 

Guide-Range-1 to 6 

Chapter 7: Range 

Suitability 

MA5

Nonstructural range improvement will be 

accomplished as a priority for limited 

nonstructural funds.1,653 acres are needed 

in decade one. 

65 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA6

The Gap Creek drainage, because of its 

exemplary riparian character, will be 

evaluated for potential as a Research 

Natural Area. This evaluation will work 

within the constraints of wilderness 

regulations and legal requirements 

imposed by the presence of Gila trout 

habitat.

68 No This direction is obsolete as it is no 

longer applicable.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

292 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA6

Where the wilderness resource or its 

values are jeopardized in spite of 

management strategies, restrict or exclude 

recreation use.

68 Yes Std-Wild-1

MA6

Prepare and publish brochures for each 

wilderness in the first decade to be 

reviewed annually and updated as needed.

68 No This direction is outdated and was 

not carried over.

MA6 Manage all wildernesses at the standard 

service level. 68 No

This specific direction was not 

carried over. The intent was unclear 

as there is no definition for "standard 

service level". The current focus for 

dispersed recreation is described in 

DC-Wild-1.

MA6

Visitor use impacts will be monitored and 

managed. Identify impact parameters, 

measurement procedures, evaluation and 

rating criteria by the end of the first decade 

(1986-1995) for each wilderness.

68 Yes Chapter 6

MA6

The forest will continue to provide 

interpretation regarding wilderness ethics, 

values and opportunities to the public in 

the form of written, verbal and personal 

contact.

68 Yes Guide-Interp-1

MA6

Provide no-trace, low impact camping, trip 

planning and visitor use information on the 

written portion of wilderness maps.

68 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to provide 

information. This is a project-level 

decision.

MA6

Where agency or applicant objectives can 

be met outside of designated wilderness, 

permits will not be issued in wilderness.

68 Yes Guide-Wild-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 293

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA6

All, except Granite Mountain (See 

Appendix E) - Maximum group size will 

be limited to 25 persons.

68 Yes Guide-Wild-2 

Guide-Wild-3 

MA6

Maintain wilderness boundaries posting in 

those areas where intrusion is likely to 

occur.

68 Yes Obj-15 

Guide-Wild-4 

MA6

Areas degraded as a result of man’s 

activities that cannot be rehabilitated 

naturally will be seeded with native plant 

species to establish satisfactory ground 

cover to protect wilderness resource 

values.

68 Yes Guide-Wild-5

MA6

Through printed material, advise 

wilderness users that all water must be 

treated if intended for human consumption, 

and that water sources are not reliable.

68 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to provide 

information. This is a project-level 

decision.

MA6 Require the use of certified weed-free 

feeds for livestock in wilderness. 69 No

This direction was not carried over 

as it is currently under review at the 

regional level.

MA6 Habitat components and capabilities will 

be updated every 10 years. 69 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA6 No potable water systems will be 

developed. 69 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

294 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA6

Update the transportation system inventory 

and implementation plans at 5-year 

intervals.

69 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature and does not direct the 

development of other plans, 

inventories, or feasibility studies.

MA6

Provide facilities at trailheads consistent 

with the level of use associated with the 

wilderness to which that trailhead provides 

access, and that protects resources at the 

trailhead site.

69 Yes Guide-Wild-6

MA6

The trail system will only be expanded 

into areas currently without trails after 

determination that it is necessary to meet 

wilderness management needs.

69 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA6

Helispots approved as part of the 

transportation plan will be maintained to 

provide for safe emergency helicopter use.

69 Yes Guide-Wild-8

MA6

Wildland fires and prescribed fires will be 

implemented to meet specific wilderness 

objectives.

69 Yes Std-Wild-3

MA6

Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics 

should be used to suppress wildland fires 

within Wilderness.

69 Yes Guide-Wild-7

MA6

The use of helicopters, power saws, small 

motorized pumps and the aerial delivery of 

personnel, retardants and supplies should 

be authorized by the incident 

commander(s) or as otherwise stipulated 

within an Wildland Fire Situation Analysis 

or "Delegation of Authority" signed by the 

line officer with jurisdiction.

69 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing Forest Service 

policy.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 295

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

MA6

New water diversions from the Verde

River between Section 5, Township 17 

North, Range 1 West, and Section 32, 

Township17 North, Range 3 East, Gila and 

Salt River Base and Meridian, will only be 

allowed when authorized by Federal law

69 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA6

Right-of-way and special use permits for 

new utilities within the viewshed of the 

Verde River mainstem from Section 5, 

Township 17 North, Range 1 West to 

Section 32, Township 17 North, Range 3 

East, Gila and Salt River Base Meridian 

will be discouraged. Where no reasonable 

alternative exists, additional or new 

facilities will be restricted to existing rightof-ways. Where new right-of-ways are 

indicated, scenic, recreational, fish and 

wildlife values must be evaluated in the 

selection process.

69 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

MA7 No capacity will be assigned to this area. 70 Yes

Forest Plan Chapter 

7: 

Range Suitability

MA9

The Verde Wild and Scenic River 

Comprehensive River Management Plan 

(CRMP) provides detailed direction for the 

entire Verde Wild and Scenic River. 

Standards and Guidelines from the CRMP 

applicable to the Scenic portion of the 

Verde River are hereby incorporated into 

this Forest Plan.

72-1 Yes Std-W&S-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

296 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class I

Human impacts are minimal and generally 

not apparent to most visitors. Human 

impacts on vegetation would typically 

recover on an annual basis. 

133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class I

The visitor has an outstanding opportunity 

for isolation and solitude. 133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class I

The visitor has an outstanding opportunity 

to travel across country utilizing a 

maximum degree of outdoor skills in an 

environment that offers a very high 

potential for challenge, self-reliance and 

risk.

133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class I

Interparty contacts are very few or none. 133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 297

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class I

Minimal direct onsite management of 

visitors. 133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class I

Formal regulations, orders and/or permits 

are considered only when less restrictive 

regulations or programs have consistently 

failed to achieve desired goals and 

objectives. 

133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class I

Area has no system trails. 133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class I

No facilities of any kind are provided or 

permitted. 133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

298 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class II

Human impacts are low, apparent to only a 

few visitors. Most human impacts on 

vegetation would typically recover on an 

annual basis.

133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class II

The visitor has a high opportunity for 

exploring and experiencing isolation. 133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class II

The visitor has a good opportunity for 

experiencing independence through the 

application of primitive recreation skills in 

an environment that offers a high potential 

for challenge and risk. 

133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class II

Interparty contacts are few. 133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 299

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class II

Direct onsite management of visitors will 

involve minimum visitor contact. 133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class II

Formal rules and regulations may be 

necessary to achieve desired goals and 

objectives.

133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class II

Signs provide only the minimum 

information necessary to protect the 

wilderness resource.

133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class II

Areas are mostly trailless; system trails 

may be constructed for resource protection 

and minimal user safety; trails are 

maintained and managed to accommodate 

light and infrequent travel. 

133 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

300 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class II

Facilities are provided only in a few 

extreme cases for resource protection; 

natural materials dominate; nonnative 

materials may be used in a few cases. 

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class III

Human impacts are moderate and apparent 

to a moderate number of visitors. 134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class III

Human impacts to vegetation in some 

areas often persist from year to year. 134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class III

The visitor has a moderate opportunity for 

experiencing independence through the 

application of primitive recreation skills in 

an environment that normally offers a 

moderate opportunity for challenge and 

risk.

 

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 301

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class III

Contact with other visitors is moderately 

frequent. 134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class III

Onsite management of visitors involves 

routine visitor contact. 134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class III

Formal rules and regulations may be 

necessary to achieve desired goals and 

objectives.

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class III

A minimum number of signs are used to 

protect the wilderness resource and for 

administration.

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

302 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class III

System trails are frequent and may be 

constructed and maintained to 

accommodate moderate use for the 

majority of the use season.

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class III

A moderate number of facilities may be 

provided for the protection of the 

wilderness resource and the safety of the 

user. Natural materials dominate; 

nonnative materials may be used but are 

not evident to the average user. 

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class IV

Human impacts are generally high in areas 

along major entry points; impacts are 

readily apparent to most visitors.

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class IV

Human impacts to vegetation persist from 

year to year and there may be moderate 

loss of vegetation and soil at some sites.

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 303

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class IV

The visitor has the opportunity for a high 

degree of interaction with the natural 

environment, often with low to moderate 

challenge and risk. 

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class IV

Contact with other users is relatively high 

much of the time. 134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class IV

There is frequent opportunity for visitor 

contact with management personnel. 134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class IV

Formal rules and regulations may be 

necessary to achieve desired goals and 

objectives.

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

304 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class IV

Signs are placed to aid in distributing and 

dispersing use. 134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class IV

System trails may be constructed; trails are 

maintained and managed to accommodate 

high traffic for the majority of the use 

season. 

134 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness 

Opportunity Class IV

Facilities and improvements may be 

provided for resource protection and user 

safety. Facilities emphasize the use of 

natural materials; nonnative materials are 

acceptable but harmonize with the natural 

environment. 

135 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This direction is 

unnecessarily prescriptive. 

Wilderness Opportunity Class 

descriptions are better addressed at 

the project-level in a Granite 

Mountain Wilderness Management 

Plan.

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness

Require all dogs to be on a leash. 135 Yes Guide-WVS MA-1

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness

Prohibit camping within 200 feet either 

side of Trail 261. 135 Yes Guide-WVS MA-1

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness

Prohibit campfires. 135 Yes Guide-WVS MA-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 305

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness

Prohibit new fixed anchor routes. Existing 

fixed anchors may be maintained. Prohibit 

the use of power drills and other electromechanical or pneumatic devices for 

maintaining fixed anchors. 

135 Yes Std-WVS MA-1

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness

The maximum size of a hiking party that 

may travel together or camp at one 

location is 15 persons. 

135 Yes Guide-Wild-2

Appendix E. 

Wilderness —

Granite Mountain 

Wilderness

The maximum size of an equestrian party 

that may travel together or camp at one 

location is 10 animals (including riding 

and pack animals). 

135 Yes Guide-Wild-3

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Standards

Provide three levels of habitat 

management: protected, restricted and 

other forest and woodland types to achieve 

a diversity of habitat conditions across the 

landscape.

Protected areas include delineated 

protected activity centers; mixed conifer 

and pine/oak forests with slopes greater 

than 40 percent where timber harvest has 

not occurred in the last 20 years; and 

reserved lands, which include wilderness, 

research natural areas, wild and scenic 

rivers, and congressionally recognized 

wilderness study areas.

Restricted areas include all mixed-conifer, 

pine/oak and riparian forests outside of 

protected areas.

Other forest and woodland types include 

all ponderosa pine, spruce/fir, woodland 

and aspen forests outside protected and 

restricted areas.

137 Yes DC-Wildlife-2 

Guide-WL-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

306 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican

Spotted Owl 

Standards

Survey all potential spotted owl areas 

including protected, restricted and other 

forest and woodland types within an 

analysis area plus the area one-half mile 

beyond the perimeter of the proposed 

treatment area. 

137 Yes Guide-WL-1

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Standards

Establish a protected activity center at all 

Mexican spotted owl sites located during 

surveys and all management territories 

established since 1989. 

137 Yes Guide-WL-1

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Standards

Allow no timber harvest except for 

firewood and fire risk abatement in 

established protected activity centers. For 

protected activity centers destroyed by fire, 

windstorm or other natural disaster, 

salvage timber harvest or declassification 

may be allowed after evaluation on a casebycase basis in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

137 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl (MSO). A 

new recovery plan was put into 

place in 2012 that supersedes 

previous direction and is 

incorporated by reference through 

Guide-WL-1.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Standards

Allow no timber harvest except for fire 

risk abatement in mixed conifer and 

pine/oak forests on slopes greater than 40 

percent where timber harvest has not 

occurred in the last 20 years. 

137 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Standards

Limit human activity in protected activity 

centers during the breeding season. 137 Yes Guide-WL-1
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 307

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Standards

In protected and restricted areas, when 

activities conducted in conformance with 

these standards and guidelines may 

adversely affect other threatened, 

endangered or sensitive species or may 

conflict with other established recovery 

plans or conservation agreements, consult 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

resolve the conflict. 

137 No

This is required under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

as such duplicates direction that can 

be found in existing law, regulation, 

or Forest Service policy.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Standards

Monitor changes in owl populations and 

habitat needed for delisting. 138 Yes Guide-WL-1

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines

Conduct surveys following Region 3 

survey protocol. 138 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines

Breeding season is March 1 to August 31. 138 Yes Guide-WL-1

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

Delineate an area of not less than 600 acres 

around the activity center using boundaries 

of known habitat polygons and/or 

topographic features. Written justification 

for boundary delineation should be 

provided. 

138 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 261

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

The protected activity center boundary 

should enclose the best possible owl 

habitat configured in as compact a unit as 

possible, with the nest or activity center 

located near the center. 

138 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 260
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

308 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

The activity center is defined as the nest 

site. In the absence of a known nest, the 

activity center should be defined as a roost 

grove commonly used during breeding. In 

the absence of a known nest or roost, the 

activity center should be defined as the 

best nest/roost habitat. 

138 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 260

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

Protected activity center boundaries should 

not overlap. 138 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 261

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

Submit protected activity center maps and 

descriptions to the recovery unit working 

group for comment as soon as possible 

after completion of surveys. 

138 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 259

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

Road or trail building in protected activity 

centers should be avoided but may be 

permitted on a case-by-case basis for 

pressing management reasons. 

138 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 261

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

Generally allow continuation of the level 

of recreation activities that was occurring 

prior to listing. 

138 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1. See 

MSO recovery plan pg 294
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 309

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

Require bird guides to apply for and obtain 

a special use permit. A condition of the 

permit shall be that they obtain a 

subpermit under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service master endangered species permit. 

The permit should stipulate the sites, dates, 

number of visits and maximum group size 

permissible. 

138 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 293

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

Harvest firewood when it can be done in 

such a way that effects on the owl are 

minimized. Manage within the following 

limitations to minimize effects on the owl:

 

 • Retain key forest species such as oak.

 • Retain key habitat components such as 

snags and large downed logs.

 • Harvest conifers less than 9 inches in 

diameter only within those protected 

activity centers treated to abate fire risk as 

describedbelow.

138 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk: 138 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 262

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

• Select for treatment 10 percent of the 

protected activity centers where nest sites 

are known in each recovery unit having 

high fire risk conditions. Also select 

another 10 percent of the protected activity 

centers where nest sites are known as a 

paired sample to serve as control areas. 

139 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 262
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

310 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

• Designate a 100-acre “no treatment” area 

around the known nest site of each selected 

protected activity center. Habitat in the “no 

treatment” area should be as similar as 

possible in structure and composition as 

that found in the activity center. 

139 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 260 -

261

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

• Use combinations of thinning trees less 

than 9 inches in diameter, mechanical fuel 

treatment and prescribed fire to abate fire 

risk in the remainder of the selected 

protected activity center outside the 100-

acre “no treatment” area. 

139 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

• Retain woody debris larger than 12 

inches in diameter, snags, clumps of 

broad-leafed woody vegetation and 

hardwood trees larger than 10 inches in 

diameter at the root collar. 

139 Yes DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

See MSO recovery plan pg 276 -

277

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

• Select and treat additional protected 

activity centers in 10 percent increments if 

monitoring of the initial sample shows 

there were no negative impacts or there 

were negative impacts that can be 

mitigated by modifying treatment 

methods. 

139 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1. See 

MSO recovery plan pg 262

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

• Use light prescribed burns in nonselected 

protected activity centers on a case-by-case 

basis. Burning should avoid a 100-acre “no 

treatment” area around the activity center. 

Large woody debris, snags and clumps of 

broad-leafed woody vegetation should be 

retained and hardwood trees larger than 10 

inches diameter at the root collar. 

139 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1. See 

MSO recovery plan pg 261, 263
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 311

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Protected Activity 

Centers

• Pre- and post-treatment monitoring 

should be conducted in all protected 

activity centers treated for fire risk 

abatement (see monitoring guidelines). 

139 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1. See 

MSO recovery plan pg 262

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines - Steep 

Slopes

No seasonal restrictions apply 139 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines - Steep 

Slopes

Treat fuel accumulations to abate fire risk:

 

 • Use combinations of thinning trees less 

than 9 inches in diameter, mechanical fuel 

removal and prescribed fire.

 • Retain woody debris larger than 12 

inches in diameter, snags, clumps of 

broad-leafed woody vegetation and 

hardwood trees larger than 10 inches in 

diameter at the root collar.

 • Pre- and post-treatment monitoring 

should occur within all steep slopes treated 

for fire risk abatement (see monitoring 

guidelines).

139 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Guidelines -

Reserved Lands

Allow prescribed fire where appropriate. 139 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

312 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

Manage to ensure a sustained level of owl 

nest/roost habitat well distributed across 

the landscape. Create replacement owl 

nest/roost habitat where appropriate while 

providing a diversity of stand conditions 

across the landscape to ensure habitat for a 

diversity of prey species.

140 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 266

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

The following table displays the minimum 

percentage of restricted area that should be 

managed to have nest/roost characteristics. 

The minimum mixed conifer restricted 

area includes 10 percent at 170 basal area 

and an additional amount of area at 150 

basal area. The additional area of 150 basal 

area is +10 percent in BR-E and +15 

percent in all other recovery units. The 

variables are for stand averages and are 

minimum threshold values and must be 

met simultaneously. In project design, no 

stands simultaneously meeting or 

exceeding the minimum threshold values 

should be reduced below the threshold 

values unless a districtwide or larger 

landscape analysis of restricted areas 

shows that there is a surplus of restricted 

area acres simultaneously meeting the 

threshold values. Management should be 

designed to create minimum threshold 

conditions on project areas where there is a 

deficit of stands simultaneously meeting 

minimum threshold conditions unless the 

districtwide or larger landscape analysis 

shows there is a surplus.

140 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1. See 

MSO recovery plan pg 278

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

Attempt to mimic natural disturbance 

patterns by incorporating natural variation, 

such as irregular tree spacing and various 

patch sizes, into management 

prescriptions.

140 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 276 -

277
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 313

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

Maintain all species of native trees in the 

landscape including early seral species. 140 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 276 -277

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

Allow natural canopy gap processes to 

occur, thus producing horizontal variation 

in stand structure.

140 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 276 -

277

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

Emphasize uneven-aged management 

systems. However, both even-aged and 

uneven-aged systems may be used where 

appropriate to provide variation in existing 

stand structure and species diversity. 

Existing stand conditions will determine 

which system is appropriate.

140 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

Extend rotation ages for even-aged stands 

to greater than 200 years. Silvicultural 

prescriptions should explicitly state when 

vegetative manipulation will cease until 

rotation age is reached.

140 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

Save all trees greater than 24 inches DBH 141 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

314 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

In pine/oak forests, retain existing large 

oaks and promote growth of additional 

large oaks. Encourage prescribed and 

prescribed natural fire to reduce hazardous 

fuel accumulation. Thinning from below 

may be desirable or necessary before 

burning to reduce ladder fuels and the risk 

of crown fire.

141 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Mixed Conifer and 

Pine/Oak Forests

Retain substantive amounts of key habitat 

components:

 

• Snags 18 inches in diameter and larger

• Down logs over 12 inches midpoint 

diameter

• Hardwoods for retention, recruitment and 

replacement of large hardwoods 

141 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1. See 

MSO recovery plan pg 276 -277

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Restricted Areas -

Riparian Areas

Emphasize maintenance and restoration of 

healthy riparian ecosystems through 

conformance with Forest Plan riparian 

standards and guidelines. Management 

strategies should move degraded riparian 

vegetation toward good condition as soon 

as possible. Damage to riparian vegetation, 

streambanks and channels should be 

prevented.

141 Yes

DC-Watershed-2 

DC-Wildlife-2 

Guide-WS-3 

Guide-WS-10

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Domestic Livestock 

Grazing

Implement Forest Plan forage utilization 

standards and guidelines to maintain owl 

prey availability, maintain potential for 

beneficial fire while inhibiting potential 

destructive fire, maintain and restore 

riparian ecosystems, and promote 

development of owl habitat. Strive to 

attain good to excellent range conditions.

141 Yes Guide-WL-1

Guide-Range-6

See MSO recovery plan pg 261, 271, 

289 - 291
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 315

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Old Growth

Except where otherwise noted, implement 

forest plan old growth standards and 

guidelines to maintain and promote 

development of owl habitat.

141 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-2 

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Wildlife-2 

Guide-Veg-7 

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Other Forest and 

Woodland Types

Apply ecosystem approaches to manage 

for landscape diversity mimicking natural 

disturbance patterns, incorporating natural 

variation in stand conditions and retaining 

special features such as snags and large 

trees, utilizing appropriate fires and 

retention of existing old growth in 

accordance with Forest Plan old growth 

standards and guidelines.

141 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-4 

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Wildlife-2 

Guide-FP-1 

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Basin and Range –

West

Emphasize restoration of lowland riparian 

habitats. 141 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 272 -273

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Basin and Range –

West

Management activities necessary to 

implement the Mt. Graham red squirrel 

recovery plan which may conflict with 

standards and guidelines for Mexican 

spotted owl will take precedence and will 

be exempt from the conflicting Mexican 

spotted owl standards and guidelines.

142 No

This direction was not carried over 

because the Mt. Graham red squirrel 

is not present on the Prescott NF.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Basin and Range –

East

Emphasize restoration of lowland riparian 

habitats. 142 No

This direction was not carried over 

because the Prescott NF is not 

located in the Basin and Range East 

Ecological Management Unit of the 

MSO recovery plan.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

316 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Basin and Range –

East

Management activities necessary to 

implement the Sacramento Mountain 

thistle recovery plan which may conflict 

with standards and guidelines for Mexican 

spotted owl will take precedence and will 

be exempt from the conflicting Mexican 

spotted owl standards and guidelines.

142 No

This direction was not carried over 

because the Prescott NF is not 

located in the Basin and Range East 

Ecological Management Unit of the 

MSO recovery plan.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Monitoring 

Guidelines

Monitoring and evaluation should be 

collaboratively planned and coordinated 

with involvement from each national 

forest, USFWS Ecological Services Field 

Office, USFWS Regional Office, USDA 

Forest Service Regional Office, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, recovery team 

and recovery unit working groups.

142 Yes

Forest Plan Chapter 

6: Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Monitoring 

Guidelines

Population monitoring should be a 

collaborative effort with participation of all 

appropriate resource agencies.

142 Yes

Forest Plan Chapter 

6: Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Monitoring 

Guidelines

Habitat monitoring of gross habitat 

changes should be a collaborative effort of 

all appropriate resource agencies.

142 Yes

Forest Plan Chapter 

6: Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

Forest Plan Appendix 

B: 

Management 

Approaches 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 317

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Monitoring 

Guidelines

Habitat monitoring of treatment effects 

(pre- and post-treatment) should be done 

by the agency conducting the treatment.

142 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 282 -

283

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Monitoring 

Guidelines

Prepare an annual monitoring and 

evaluation report covering all levels of 

monitoring done in the previous year. The 

annual report should be forwarded to the 

Regional Forester with copies provided to 

the recovery unit working groups, USFWS 

Ecological Services field offices and the 

USFWS Regional Office.

142 No

This duplicates a requirement that 

can be found in the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service Biological Opinion 

of the revised plan. This does not 

need to be repeated in the actual 

forest plan.

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Monitoring 

Guidelines

Track gross changes in acres of owl habitat 

resulting from natural and humancaused 

disturbances. Acreage changes in 

vegetation composition, structure and 

density should be tracked, evaluated and 

reported. Remote sensing techniques 

should provide an adequate level of 

accuracy.

142 Yes

Forest Plan Chapter 

6: Monitoring and 

Evaluation

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Monitoring 

Guidelines

In protected and restricted areas where 

silvicultural or fire abatement treatments 

are planned, monitor treated stands preand post-treatment to determine changes 

and trajectories in fuel levels; snag basal 

areas; live tree basal areas; volume of 

down logs over 12 inches in diameter; and 

basal area of hardwood trees over 10 

inches in diameter at the root crown.

142 Yes Guide-WL-1 See MSO recovery plan pg 282 -

283
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

318 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Monitoring 

Guidelines

Assist the recovery team and recovery unit 

working groups to establish sampling units 

consisting of 19 to 39 square mile 

quadrants randomly allocated to habitat 

strata. Quadrants should be defined based 

on ecological boundaries such as ridge 

lines and watersheds. Quadrant boundaries 

should not traverse owl territories. Twenty 

percent of the quadrants will be replaced 

each year at random.

143 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1. See 

MSO recovery plan appendix E

Appendix F. Mexican 

Spotted Owl 

Monitoring 

Guidelines

Using the sample quadrants, monitor the 

number of territorial individuals and pairs 

per quadrant; reproduction; apparent 

survival; recruitment; and age structure. 

Track population density both per quadrant 

and habitat stratum.

143 No

This direction is obsolete as it is 

based on the 1995 recovery plan for 

the Mexican spotted owl. A new 

recovery plan was put into place in 

2012 that supersedes previous 

direction and is incorporated by 

reference through Guide-WL-1. See 

MSO recovery plan appendix E

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Standards

Survey the management analysis area prior 

to habitat-modifying activities including 

one-half mile beyond the boundary.

145 Yes Guide-WL-2

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Standards

Establish and delineate on a map a postfledgling family area that includes six 

nesting areas per pair of nesting goshawks 

for known nest sites, old nest sites, areas 

where historical data indicates goshawks 

have nested there in the past, and where 

goshawks have been repeatedly sighted 

over a 2-year or greater time period but no 

nest sites have been located.

145 Yes Guide-WL-7
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 319

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Standards

Manage for uneven-age stand conditions 

for live trees and retain live reserve trees, 

snags, downed logs and woody debris 

levels throughout woodland, ponderosa 

pine, mixed conifer and spruce fir forest 

cover types. Manage for old age trees such 

that as much old forest structure as 

possible is sustained over time across the 

landscape.

145 Yes

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-14 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Veg-18 

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Standards

Sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities 

(overstory and understory), age classes, 

and species composition across the 

landscape.

145 Yes

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-14 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Veg-18 

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Standards

Provide foods and cover for goshawk prey. 145 Yes

DC-Ecosystem 

Resilience-1 

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Wildlife-1 

Guide-WL-2 

Guide-WL-5 

Guide-WL-7 

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Standards

Limit human activity in nesting areas 

during the breeding season. 145 Yes Guide-WL-7 

Guide-WL-5 

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Standards

Manage the ground surface layer to 

maintain satisfactory soil conditions (i.e., 

to minimize soil compaction) and to 

maintain hydrologic and nutrient cycles.

145 Yes DC-Watershed-1 

DC-Watershed-3 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

320 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Standards

When activities conducted in conformance 

with these standards and guidelines may 

adversely affect other threatened, 

endangered or sensitive species or may 

conflict with other established recovery 

plans or conservation agreements, consult 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

resolve the conflict.

145 No

This is required under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

as such duplicates direction that can 

be found in existing law, regulation, 

or Forest Service policy.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Standards

Within the ranges of the Kaibab 

pincushion cactus, Pediocactus paradinei, 

and the Arizona leatherflower, Clematis 

hirsutissima arizonica, management 

activities needed for the conservation of 

these two species that may conflict with 

northern goshawk standards and guidelines 

will be exempt from the conflicting 

northern goshawk standards and guidelines 

until conservation strategies or recovery 

plans (if listed) are developed for the two 

species.

146 No

This direction was not carried over 

because these species do not occur 

on the Prescott NF.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 321

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

Emphasize maintenance and restoration of 

healthy riparian ecosystems through 

conformance with Forest Plan riparian 

standards and guidelines. Management 

strategies should restore degraded riparian 

areas to good condition as soon as 

possible. Damage to riparian vegetation, 

streambanks and channels should be 

prevented.

146 Yes

DC-Ecosystem 

Resilience-1 

DC-Watershed-1 

DC-Watershed-2 

DC-Watershed-6 

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-23 

DC-Aquatic-1 

DC-Aquatic-3 

Obj-22 

Obj-23 

Obj-31 

Std-WS-1 

Std-WS-3 

Guide-WS-3 

Guide-WS-5 

Guide-WS-6 

Guide-WS-7 

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

Refer to USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-217 entitled 

“Management Recommendations for the 

Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern 

United States” for scientific information 

on goshawk ecology and management that 

provides the basis for the management 

guidelines. Supplemental information on 

goshawk ecology and management may be 

found in “The Northern Goshawk: 

Ecology and Management” published by 

the Cooper Ornithological Society as 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 16. In 

woodland forest cover types, use empirical 

data to determine desired habitat 

conditions.

146 Yes

DC-Veg-7 

DC-Veg-8 

DC-Veg-9 

DC-Veg-10 

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-14 

DC-Veg-15 

DC-Veg-16 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Veg-18 

DC-Veg-19

DC-Veg-20 

Guide-WL-7 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

322 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

Use the R3 survey protocol to get 

complete coverage of the management 

analysis area (Kennedy and Stahlecker 

1993, as modified by Joy, Reynolds and 

Leslie 1994). Management analysis areas 

should be entire ecosystem management 

areas if possible.

146 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

Complete at least 1 year of survey, but 2 

years of survey should be done to verify 

questionable sightings, unconfirmed nest 

sites, etc. If nesting goshawks are found 

during the first year of inventory, a second 

year of inventory is not needed in that 

territory.

146 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

For areas where complete inventories 

cannot be done, use aerial photographs to 

locate vegetative structural stages (VSS) 4-

6 within the project area and inventory just 

those sites for goshawk nest areas using 

R3 inventory protocol. All uninventoried 

areas (VSS 1-3) will be managed to 

postfledgling family area (PFA) 

specifications while in that stage. If, while 

using this inventory option, evidence 

suggests goshawks are present (such as 

finding plucking perches or molted 

goshawk feathers), conduct a complete 

inventory as outlined above.

146 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

If forests have goshawks commonly 

nesting in stands classified as VSS 1-3, use 

the complete inventory methods for those 

areas. There may be situations where an 

area is classified as a VSS 3, based on the 

predominant VSS class, but in actuality a 

combination of VSS 4 and 5 predominate 

the area. For those situations, use the 

complete inventory methods.

146 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 323

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

Post-fledgling family areas (PFA) will be 

approximately 600 acres in size. Postfledgling family areas will include the nest 

sites and consist of the habitat most likely 

to be used by the fledglings during their 

early development.

147 Yes Guide-WL-7

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

Establish a minimum of three nest areas 

and three replacement nest areas per postfledgling family area. The nest areas and 

replacement nest areas should be 

approximately 30 acres in size. A 

minimum total of 180 acres of nest areas 

should be identified within each postfledgling family area.

147 Yes Guide-WL-7

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

Nest site selection will be based first on 

using active nest sites followed by the 

most recently used historical nest areas. 

When possible, all historical nest areas 

should be maintained.

147 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

Manage for nest replacement sites to attain 

sufficient quality and size to replace the 

three suitable nest sites.

147 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

324 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Guidelines

Distribution of habitat structures (tree size 

and age classes, tree groups of different 

densities, snags, dead and down woody 

material, etc.) should be evaluated at the 

ecosystem management area level, at the 

mid-scale such as drainage, and at the 

small scale of site. Where VSS 6 is deficit 

within the ecosystem management area, all 

VSS 6 will be maintained regardless of 

location. However, over time the intent is 

to sustain a relatively even distribution 

(again based on site quality) of VSS 6 

across the ecosystem management area.

147 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

The distribution of vegetation structural 

stages for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer 

and spruce/fir forests is 10 percent 

grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 10 percent 

seedling sapling (VSS 2), 20 percent 

young forest (VSS 3), 20 percent mid-aged 

forest (VSS 4), 20 percent mature forest 

(VSS 5), 20 percent old forest (VSS 6). 

NOTE: The specified percentages are a 

guide and actual percentages are expected 

to vary + or - up to 3 percent.

147 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

The distribution of VSS, tree density and 

tree age are a product of site quality in the 

ecosystem management area. Use site 

quality to guide in the distribution of VSS, 

tree density and tree ages. Use site quality 

to identify and manage dispersal PFA and 

nest habitat at 2 to 2.5 mile spacing across 

the landscape.

147 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 325

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Snags are 18" or larger DBH and 30 feet or 

larger in height, downed logs are 12" in 

diameter and at least 8 feet long, woody 

debris is 3" or larger on the forest floor and 

canopy cover is measured with vertical 

crown projection on average across the 

landscape.

147 Yes DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

The order of preferred treatment for woody 

debris is: (1) prescribed burning; (2) 

lopping and scattering; (3) hand piling or 

machine grapple piling; and (4) dozer 

piling.

147 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Canopy cover guidelines apply only to 

mid-aged to old forest structural stages 

(VSS 4, VSS 5 and VSS 6) and not to 

grass/forb/shrub to young forest structural 

stages (VSS 1, VSS 2 and VSS 3).

148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) 

should average one-third 60 percent and 

two-thirds 40 percent, mature forest (VSS 

5) should average 60+ percent, and old 

forest (VSS 6) should average 60+ percent.

148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

326 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Maximum opening size is 1 acre with a 

maximum width of 125 feet. 148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Provide two groups of reserve trees per 

acre with six trees per group when opening 

size exceeds 0.5.

148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed logs and

10-15 tons of woody debris per acre. 148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 327

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) 

should average one-third 60+ percent and 

two-thirds 40+ percent, mature forest (VSS 

5) should average 50+ percent, and old 

forest (VSS 6) should average 60+ percent.

148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Maximum opening size is up to 4 acres 

with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. 148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Retain one group of reserve trees per acre 

of 3 to 5 trees per group for openings 

greater than 1 acre in size.

148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

328 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed logs, and 

10-15 tons of woody debris per acre. 148 No

This does not reflect current

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) 

should average 40+ percent, mature forest 

(VSS 5) should average 40+ percent, and 

old forest (VSS 6) should average 40+ 

percent.

148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Opening size is up to 4 acres with a 

maximum width of up to 200 feet. 148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 329

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

One group of reserve trees, 3 to 5 trees per 

group, will be left if the opening is greater 

than an acre in size.

148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Leave at least 2 snags per acre, 3 downed 

logs per acre, and 5-7 tons of woody debris 

per acre.

148 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Manage for uneven-age conditions to 

sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities 

(overstory and understory), age classes, 

and species composition well distributed 

across the landscape.

148 Yes DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Provide for reserve trees, snags and down 

woody debris. 148 Yes DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

330 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Provide for a healthy sustainable forest 

environment for the post-fledgling family 

needs of goshawks. The principle 

difference between “within the postfledgling family area” and “outside the 

post-fledgling family area” is the higher 

canopy cover within the post-fledgling 

family area and smaller opening size 

within the post-fledgling family area. 

Vegetative structural stage distribution and 

structural conditions are the same within 

and outside the post-fledgling family

area.

149 Yes DC-Veg-14 

DC-Veg-18 

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) 

should average 60+ percent and for mature 

(VSS 5) and old forest (VSS 6) should 

average 70+ percent.

149 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Canopy cover for mid-aged (VSS 4) to old 

forest (VSS 6) should average 60+ percent. 149 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 331

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) 

should average one-third 60+ percent and 

two-thirds 50+ percent. Mature (VSS5) 

and old forest (VSS 6) should average 50+ 

percent.

149 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Maintain existing canopy cover levels. 149 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Provide unique nesting habitat conditions 

for goshawks. Important features include 

trees of mature to old age with high 

canopy cover.

149 Yes

Guide-WL-2 

Guide-WL-5 

Guide-WL-7 

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

The structure of the vegetation within nest 

areas is associated with the forest type, tree 

age, size and density and the 

developmental history of the stand. Table 

5 of RM-217 presents attributes required 

for goshawks on locations with “low” and 

“high” site productivity.

149 Yes Guide-WL-2
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

332 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Preferred treatments to maintain the 

desired structure are to thin from below 

with nonuniform spacing and use of hand 

tools and fire to reduce fuel loads. Lopping 

and scattering of thinning debris is 

preferred if prescribed fire cannot be used. 

Piling of debris should be limited. When 

necessary, hand piling should be used to 

minimize compaction within piles and to 

minimize displacement and destruction of 

the forest floor and the herbaceous layer. 

Do not grapple or dozer pile debris. 

Manage road densities at the lowest level 

possible to minimize disturbance in the 

nest area. Use small, permanent skid trails 

in lieu of roads for timber harvesting.

149 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

The nesting area contains only mature to 

old forest (VSS 5 and 6) having a canopy 

cover (measured vertically) between 50-70 

percent with mid-aged VSS 6 trees 200-

300 years old. Nonuniform spacing of 

trees and clumpiness is desirable.

150 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Maintain existing canopy cover levels. 150 No

This does not reflect current 

direction to attain desired 

conditions. This directs management 

for an even-aged approach, not an 

uneven-aged approach as described 

in DC-Veg 13 to 20. These desired 

conditions were put into place based 

on updated science, taking into 

account goshawk needs in 

southwestren forests.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Limit human activities in or near nest sites 

and post-fledgling family areas during the 

breeding season so that goshawk 

reproductive success is not affected by 

human activities.

150 Yes Guide-WL-7
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 333

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

The breeding season extends from March 1 

through September 30. 150 Yes Guide-WL-7

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Low-intensity ground fires are allowed at 

any time in all forested cover types, but 

high-intensity crown fires are not 

acceptable in the post-fledgling family area 

or nest areas. Avoid burning the entire 

home range of a goshawk pair in a single 

year. For fires planned in the occupied nest 

area, a fire management plan should be 

prepared. The fire management plan 

should minimize the risk of goshawk 

abandonment while low intensity ground 

fire burns in the nesting area. Prescribed 

fire within nesting areas should be planned 

to move with prevailing winds away from 

the nest tree to minimize smoke and risk of 

crown fire developing and driving the 

adults off or consuming the nest tree.

150 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Manage road densities at the lowest level 

possible. Where timber harvesting has

been prescribed to achieve desired forest 

condition, use small skid trails in lieu of 

roads.

150 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Piling of debris should be limited. When 

necessary, hand or grapple piling should 

be used to minimize soil compaction 

within piles and to minimize forest floor 

and herbaceous layer displacement and 

destruction.

150 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

334 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix G. 

Northern Goshawk 

Vegetation 

Management

Limit dozer use for piling or scattering of 

logging debris so that the forest floor and 

herbaceous layer is not displaced or 

destroyed.

150 Yes

Guide-Soils-1 

Guide-Soils-2 

Guide-Soils-3 

Guide-Soils-4 

Guide-Soils-5 

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Standards

Until the Forest Plan is revised, allocate no 

less than 20 percent of each forested 

ecosystem management area to old growth 

as depicted in the following table.

151 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-4 

DC-Veg-6 

DC-Veg-7 

DC-Veg-9 

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Veg-20 

Guide-Veg-7

As written, the previous direction 

does not attain desired conditions. It 

directs management for an evenaged approach, not an uneven-aged 

approach.

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Standards

Allocations will consist of landscape 

percentages meeting old growth conditions 

and not specific acres.

151 No

This does not support attaining 

desired conditions described in the 

revised plan. Within the desired 

condition descriptions, "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.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 335

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Standards

In the long term, manage old growth in 

patterns that provide for a flow of 

functions and interactions at multiple 

scales across the landscape through time.

151 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-4 

DC-Veg-6 

DC-Veg-7 

DC-Veg-9 

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Veg-20 

Guide-Veg-7

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Guidelines

All analyses should be at multiple scales—

one scale above and one scale below the 

ecosystem management areas.

151 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Guidelines

The amount of old growth that can be 

provided and maintained will be evaluated 

at the ecosystem management area level 

and be based on forest type, site capability 

and disturbance regimes.

151 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-4 

DC-Veg-6 

DC-Veg-7 

DC-Veg-9 

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Veg-20 

Guide-Veg-7

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Guidelines

Strive to create or sustain as much old 

growth compositional, structural and 

functional flow as possible over time at 

multiple area scales.

151 No

The emphasis of the revised plan is 

to maintain or trend towards the 

desired conditions, not to maximize 

one particular aspect of the 

landscape.

 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

336 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Guidelines

Seek to develop or retain old growth 

function on at least 20 percent of the 

naturally forested area by forest type in 

any landscape.

151 No

This does not support attaining 

desired conditions described in the 

revised plan. The desired conditions 

for vegetation do not specify a 

desired percentage of Old Growth in 

the landscape. 

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Guidelines

Use information about pre-European 

settlement conditions at the appropriate 

scales when considering the importance of 

various factors.

151 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Guidelines

Consider the effects of spatial arrangement 

on old growth function, from groups to 

landscapes, including de facto allocations 

to old growth such as goshawk nest sites, 

Mexican spotted owl protected activity 

centers, sites protected for species 

behavior associated with old growth, 

wilderness, research natural areas, and 

other forest structures managed for old 

growth function.

151 Yes

DC-Veg-1 

DC-Veg-4 

DC-Veg-6 

DC-Veg-7 

DC-Veg-9 

DC-Veg-13 

DC-Veg-17 

DC-Veg-20 

Guide-Veg-7

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Guidelines

In allocating old growth and making 

decisions about old growth management, 

use appropriate information about the 

relative risks to sustaining old growth 

function at the appropriate scales, due to 

natural and human-caused events.

151 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Guidelines

Use quantitative models at the appropriate 

scales when considering the importance of 

various factors. These models may 

include, but are not limited to, Forest 

Vegetation Simulator, BEHAVE and 

FARSITE.

152 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision and should use 

current modeling and analysis 

methods.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 337

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix H. Old 

Growth Guidelines

Forested sites should meet or exceed the 

structural attributes to be considered old 

growth in the five primary forest cover 

types in the Southwest as depicted in the 

following table.

152 No

This does not reflect the current 

characterization of Old Growth as 

described by the desired conditions 

in the revised plan. The desired 

conditions were developed in 

conjunction with the Southwestern 

Regional Office based on updated 

scientific information.

Appendix I. Grazing 

Management 

Standards and 

Guideline

Forage use by grazing ungulates will be 

maintained at or above a condition that 

assures recovery and continued existence 

of threatened and endangered species.

155 No

This duplicates direction that can be 

found in existing law, regulation, or 

Forest Service policy.

Appendix I. Grazing 

Management 

Standards and 

Guideline

Identify key ungulate forage monitoring 

areas. These key areas will normally be 

one-quarter to 1 mile from water, located 

on productive soils on level to intermediate 

slopes, and be readily accessible for 

grazing. Size of the key forage monitoring 

areas could be 20 to 500 acres. In some 

situations such as high mountain meadows 

with perennial streams, key areas may be 

closer than one-quarter mile from water 

and less than 20 acres. Within key forage 

monitoring areas, select appropriate key 

species to monitor average allowable use.

155 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix I. Grazing 

Management 

Standards and 

Guideline

In consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, develop site-specific 

forage use levels. In the event that sitespecific information is not available, 

average key species forage utilization in 

key forage monitoring areas by domestic 

livestock and wildlife should not exceed 

levels in the following table of this 

appendix during the forage growing 

season.

155 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. Consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is only initiated if federallylisted species are present. This is a 

project-level decision. 
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

338 FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix I. Grazing 

Management 

Standards and 

Guideline

The following table is based on 

composition and climatic conditions 

typical of sites below the Mogollon Rim. 

On sites with higher precipitation and 

vegetation similar to sites above the 

Mogollon Rim, allowable use for ranges in 

poor to excellent condition under 

deferment or rest strategies may be 

increased by 5 percent. The guidelines 

established in the following table are 

applicable only during the growing season 

for the identified key species within key 

areas. Allowable use for key forage species 

during the dormant season is not covered 

in this table. These guidelines are to be 

applied in the absence of more specific 

guidelines currently established through 

site-specific NEPA analysis for individual 

allotments.

155 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix I. Grazing 

Management 

Standards and 

Guideline

Guidelines for allowable use for specific 

allotment(s) management or for grazing 

strategies not covered in the following 

table will vary on a site-specific basis 

when determined through the integrated 

resource management (IRM) process.

155 No

The revised plan is strategic in 

nature. This is program-level 

direction and is unnecessarily 

prescriptive about how to 

accomplish projects. This is a 

project-level decision.

Appendix I. Grazing 

Management 

Standards and 

Guideline

Allowable use guidelines may be adjusted 

through the land management planning 

revision or amendment process. Guidelines 

established through this process to meet 

specific ecosystem objectives will also 

employ the key species and key area 

concept and will be monitored in this 

manner.

155 No

This direction was not carried over 

as it is specific to the 1987 Forest 

Plan. In the 2015 Plan, guidelines 

may be modified somewhat for a 

specific project if the intent of the 

guideline is followed and the 

deviation is addressed in a decision 

document with supporting rationale. 

When deviation from a guideline 

does not meet the original intent, 

however, a plan amendment is 

required.
Appendix E. Crosswalk of Direction between the 1987 Plan and the Revised Plan

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 339

1987 Plan Topic 1987 Plan

Direction

1987 Plan 

Page #

CarryOver2015 Plan 

Direction Rationale

Appendix J. 

Grapevine Botanical 

Area

No permitted livestock shall graze the 

Upper Grapevine Unit associated with the 

botanical area.

157 Yes Std-CK MA-1

Appendix J. 

Grapevine Botanical 

Area

No permitted livestock shall graze the 

Bootlegger Unit associated with the 

botanical area.

157 Yes Std-CK MA-1

Appendix J. 

Grapevine Botanical 

Area

No permitted livestock shall trail or drive 

through the botanical area. 157 Yes Std-CK MA-1

Appendix J. 

Grapevine Botanical 

Area

Permitted livestock shall be allowed to 

trail through the Bootlegger-Grapevine 

Unit on established roads to Road 87A to 

the Coyote Springs Trail to the Mesa Unit 

with no drifting allowed.

157 Yes Std-CK MA-1

Appendix J. 

Grapevine Botanical 

Area

No motorized use of Trails 4, 304 and 

9432 shall occur. 157 Yes Std-CK MA-1

Appendix J. 

Grapevine Botanical 

Area

No mountain bike use of Trails 4, 304, and 

9432 shall occur. 157 Yes Std-CK MA-1

Appendix J. 

Grapevine Botanical 

Area

Day use only shall occur within the 

botanical area. 157 Yes Std-CK MA-1

Appendix J. 

Grapevine Botanical 

Area

Fire should be managed through 

management-ignited prescribed burns and 

prescribed natural fires within the 

botanical area.

157 Yes Guide-Wildland Fire2

FEIS for the Prescott NF Land and Resource Management Plan 341

Appendix F. Index of Other 

Supporting EIS Documentation

The following is a list of documents which significantly contributed to development of the EIS

and/or are evaluations which were required by the 1982 Planning Rule provisions. These 

documents are available on the Prescott NF plan revision Web site8

.

• Air Quality Specialist Report

• Analysis of the Management Situation 

• Collaboration Report for Plan Revision

• Determination of Livestock Grazing Capability and Sustainability Report

• Documentation of Minimum Management Requirements

• Ecological Sustainability Report 

• Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment

• Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive 

Weeds on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests

• Fire/Vegetation Specialist Report

• Fisheries Specialist Report and Viability Analysis

• Forest Level Analysis of Management Indicator Species for the Prescott National Forest, 

2009 Update

• Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report

• Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report

• Recreation Specialist Report

• Recreation Suitability Matrix

• Research Natural Area Evaluation Process Summary Report

• Scenery and Open Space Specialist Report

• Socio-Economic Resource Report

• Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning

• Terrestrial Species Viability Report

• Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist Report

• Timber Suitability, Long term Sustained Yield Capacity, and Allowable Sale Quantity 

Report

• Upper Verde River Eligibility Report Update for the National Wild and Scenic River 

System

• Vascular Plant Viability Analysis

• Vegetation and Fire Ecology Specialist Report

 8 www.fs.usda.gov/land/prescott/landmanagement