Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 527

Glossary

Adjudication – The legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and 

argumentation, including legal reasoning, set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a 

decision which determines water rights and obligations between the parties involved.

Administrative use – Use by the Forest Service.

Age class – Trees or plants that originated within a relatively distinct range of years. Typically the 

range of years is considered to fall within 20 percent of the average natural maturity of a 

particular species (e.g., if 100 years is required to reach maturity, then there would be five 20-year 

age classes).

Allelopathy – The suppression of neighboring plants or the release into the environment by one 

plant of a substance that inhibits the germination or growth of other potential competitor plants of 

the same or another species

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ) – The quantity of timber that may be sold from the area of 

suitable land covered by the land management plan for a time period specified by the plan. This 

allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is usually expressed on an annual basis as the “average annual 

allowable sale quantity.” For timber resource planning purposes, the allowable sale quantity 

applies to each decade over the planning horizon and includes only chargeable volume. 

Consistent with the definition of timber production, do not include firewood or other 

nonindustrial wood in the allowable sale quantity.

Aquatic management zones – An area of vegetation or forest litter located adjacent to stream 

courses and/or riparian areas for the purpose of filtering sediment, providing bank stability, and 

providing shade for fisheries habitat in tree/shrub ecosystems.

Aspen clone – A genetically identical set of aspen trees all connected by the same root system, 

such that they can be vegetatively propagated. A clone may be a distinct aspen stand, or it may be 

a smaller inclusion within a conifer stand, or it may cover an entire mountainside as a large stand 

or patch.

Available forage – That amount of growth of a vigorous and healthy plant that can be utilized as 

feed (regardless of what animal is using it) without impairing the plant’s long-term health and 

productivity or other uses such as riparian filtering. The amount of available forage may be less 

where there is a need to restore health and vigor of forage plants. That amount may also depend 

on time of year and plant physiological stage or other conditions such as drought.

Basal area – The cross-sectional area of the stem or the stems of the plant or all plants in a stand. 

Herbaceous and small woody plants are measured at diameter at root collar (DRC) or near ground 

level; larger woody plants are measured at diameter at breast height (DBH) or other appropriate 

height. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by plants; it is expressed in 

square feet per acre for woody species.

Beneficial use – Beneficial use of water from rivers and streams is allocated by prior 

appropriation, meaning the first user to divert water and put it to a “beneficial use” obtains a 

priority right, and that right is to be satisfied before any other user has access to the water. The 

definition of what constitutes a “beneficial use” has evolved. Although the Arizona Legislature 

added habitat for wildlife and fish as one of the beneficial uses in 1941, it wasn’t until 1976 that 

the court ruled this included a right for instream flow, and the first instream flow permit was not 
Glossary

528 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

issued until 1990. Obtaining a permit for instream flow allows users to leave their allocation of 

water in the river rather than diverting, consuming, or losing it for nonuse.

Best management practices (BMPs) – Methods, measures, or practices selected by an agency to 

meet its nonpoint source control needs. BMPs include but are not limited to structural and 

nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, 

during, and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of 

pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR § 130.2(m)).

Biological diversity – The variety of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ organisms, the ecological 

complexes in which they occur, and the processes and life support services they facilitate.

Biomass – see woody biomass.

Bolt – Short piece of pulpwood, pole, or log.

Candidate species - Plant and animal taxa considered for possible addition to the list of 

endangered and threatened species. These are taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) on file to support issuance of a 

proposal to list, but issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing 

actions.

CCF – hundred cubic feet.

Chargeable volume – All volume included in the growth and yield projections for the selected 

management prescriptions used to arrive at the allowable sale quantity, based on regional 

utilization standards. Consistent with the definition of timber production, planned production of 

firewood is not included in the allowable sale quantity and therefore is non-chargeable.

Class I airshed – An airshed classification where areas require the highest level of protection 

under the Clean Air Act.

Class II airshed – An airshed classification representing National Forest System land that is not 

classified as a Class I airshed. These areas may receive a greater amount of human-caused 

pollution than Class I areas.

Clearcutting regeneration method – The cutting of essentially all trees, producing a fully 

exposed microclimate for the development of a new age class. This includes coppice cutting.

Climate change – Refers to long-term (decades or longer) trends in climate averages such as the 

global warming that has been observed over the past century and long-term changes in variability 

(e.g., frequency, severity, and duration of extreme events).

Climate variability – Refers to shorter term (daily, seasonal, annual, interannual, several years) 

variations in climate, including the fluctuations associated with El Niño (wet) or La Niña (dry) 

events.

Clump – A tight cluster of two to five trees of similar age and size originating from a common 

rooting zone that typically lean away from each other when mature. A clump is relatively isolated 

from other clumps or trees within a group of trees, but a stand-alone clump of trees can function 

as a tree group.
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 529

Critical habitat – When a species is listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), it is protected which includes protection of the habitat it occupies. In addition, 

specific areas may be designated as particularly necessary for the species’ recovery whether the 

species is present or not; these areas are called “critical habitat.” Besides requiring Federal

agencies to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the survival of an endangered or 

threatened species itself, the ESA also requires that their actions not destroy or adversely modify

designated critical habitat. ESA requirements have no implications on non-Federal lands unless 

activities thereon are undertaken with Federal funding or require a Federal permit.

Coarse woody debris – Woody material, including logs, on the ground greater than 3 inches in 

diameter—a component of litter. Large coarse woody debris is often considered to be downed 

logs at least 12 inches in diameter and 8 feet in length.

Common variety minerals – Salable mineral materials/common variety minerals are 

synonymous terms for the same class of minerals that can be sold under a mineral material 

contract, and are common. These minerals are relatively low value per volume, for example, sand, 

gravel, cinders, common building stone, and flagstone. Many of the materials are used for road 

surfacing, boulders, and engineering construction or may be specialty resources such as soil 

amendments or decorative stone, including flagstone. These minerals are typically sold unless 

used internally, by another government agency, or for ceremonial uses. In these cases they may be 

provided free of charge

Communications site – An area of National Forest System land used for telecommunications 

services. A communications site may be limited to a single communications facility, but most 

often encompasses more than one facility. Existing Apache-Sitgreaves NFs communications sites 

are listed in appendix C of the proposed plan.

Communities-at-risk – As identified in the Federal Register, high risk urban communities within 

the wildland-urban interface.

Community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) – Plans for at-risk communities that identify 

and prioritize areas for hazardous fuels treatments. The CWPPs that cover the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs include CWPP for the At-Risk-Communities in Apache County, CWPP for At-RiskCommunities in Greenlee County, and the Sitgreaves CWPP (includes Apache, Coconino, and 

Navajo Counties).

Connectivity – The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to 

move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by 

corridors of appropriate vegetation; the opposite of fragmentation.

Cultural affiliation – A relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced 

historically or prehistorically between a present day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization 

and an identifiable earlier group. (25 USC3001 (2))

Deciview – A measurement of visibility. A low deciview number reflects clearer visibility; while 

a high deciview number reflects increased haziness.

Departure (departed) – The relative difference between existing and desired conditions or 

reference conditions.
Glossary

530 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Desired condition – A description of social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the 

plan area, or portion of the plan area, toward which management of the land and resources should 

be directed.

Developed recreation site – A distinctly defined area where facilities are provided by the Forest 

Service for concentrated public use (e.g., campgrounds, picnic areas, swimming areas).

Diameter – The diameter of a tree species, usually measured by two primary methods:

• Diameter at breast height (DBH) – The diameter of a forest tree species at the bole (or 

trunk) typically measured at 4.5 feet above ground level.

• Diameter at root collar (DRC) – The diameter of a woodland tree species typically 

measured at the root collar (the part of a tree where the main roots join the trunk, usually 

at or near ground level) or at the natural ground line, whichever is higher.

Dispersed recreation – Outdoor recreation in which visitors are spread over relatively large 

areas. Where facilities or developments are provided, they are more for access and protection of 

the environment than for the comfort or convenience of the visitors.

Ecological disturbance – An event or force that brings about mortality to organisms and changes 

in their spatial patterning in the ecosystems they inhabit. Disturbance plays a significant role in 

shaping the structure of individual populations and the character of whole ecosystems.

Ecological restoration – The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been 

degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on establishing the composition, 

structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystem sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future conditions. In the 

Southwestern Region, achievement of desired conditions means that the ecosystem has been 

restored. Restoration treatments are those that move ecosystem components toward desired 

conditions.

Ecoregion – Ecoregion sections and subsections are units in the National Hierarchy of Ecological 

Units ranging in size from 13 million acres (section) down to 10,000 acres (subsection) that 

describe areas of similar environmental and biological features. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs fall 

completely within the White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim ecoregion section.

Ecosystem – A spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous unit of the earth that includes all 

interacting organisms and components of the abiotic (nonliving) environment within its 

boundaries. An ecosystem is commonly described in terms of its (1) composition: major 

vegetation types, rare communities, aquatic systems, and riparian systems; (2) structure: 

successional stages, water quality, wetlands, and floodplains; and (3) function: ecological 

processes such as streamflows and natural disturbance regimes.

Ecosystem diversity – The variety of ecosystems present on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, as 

represented by the 14 potential natural vegetation types and the variety of species (both plant and 

animal), their habitats, and ecological processes that occur in their different physical settings.

Ecosystem services – Benefits obtained from ecosystems, including (1) provisioning services 

such as food, fresh water, fuel, and fiber; (2) regulating services such as climate, water, 

pollination, and disease regulation; (3) supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient 
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 531

cycling; and (4) cultural services such as educational, aesthetic, and cultural values as well as 

recreation and tourism opportunities.

Endemic – A population of native insects, diseases, plants, or animals which perform a functional 

role in the ecosystem when they are present at low levels, or constantly attack just a few hosts 

throughout an area, but can become potentially injurious when they increase or spread to reach 

outbreak (epidemic) levels.

Energy corridor – A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of utility 

right-of-way (e.g., above or belowground electric transmission line, gas pipeline).

Energy development – Infrastructure associated with the provision or transport of energy (e.g., 

biomass power generation, wind turbines, solar panels).

Environmental justice – To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations 

are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in 

the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and 

adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the 

environment.

Escaped prescribed fire – A prescribed fire that has exceeded or is expected to exceed 

prescription parameters or otherwise meets the criteria for conversion to wildfire. Criteria are

specified in the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide

(NWCG, 2008).

Even-aged stands – Stands that are composed of one or two distinct age classes of trees.

Even-aged management – The application of a combination of actions that result in the creation 

of stands in which trees are essentially the same age. Managed even-aged forests are 

characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and therefore, tree size) throughout the 

forest area. Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree cutting methods produce even-aged stands.

Federal reserved water rights (reserved rights) – When Congress designates Federal lands for 

a specific purpose it also reserves sufficient water to serve the purposes of that designation. These 

water rights are known as “Federal reserved water rights” or simply, reserved rights. Reserved 

rights are implied rights, meaning that Congress need not expressly state in a bill that it intends to 

reserve Federal water right. The right exists whether or not Congress explicitly mentions it.

Federally listed species (listed species) – Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant which has been 

determined to be endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act.

Feral horse – A free-roaming domesticated horse. Feral horses are domestic horses, or their 

descendants (branded or unbranded), that strayed, escaped, or were deliberately released onto 

National Forest System lands and continue to survive and reproduce on the forests in the wild. 

Feral horses are animals that do not meet the definition of a wild free-roaming horse (see wild 

horse) and are considered unauthorized livestock (see unauthorized livestock).

Fire intensity − The product of the available heat of combustion per unit of ground and the rate 

of spread of the fire; interpreted as the heat released per unit of time for each unit length of fire 

edge. The primary unit is British thermal unit per second per foot (Btu/sec/ft.) of fire front. See 

also fire severity.
Glossary

532 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Fire management plan − A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire management and 

related activities within the context of approved land management plans. It defines a program to 

manage wildland fires (wildfire and prescribed fire). The plan is supplemented by operational 

plans, including but not limited to, preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire 

burn plans, and prevention plans. Fire management plans assure that wildland fire management 

goals and components are coordinated.

Fire regime – The patterns, frequency, and severity of fire that occur over a long period of time 

across a landscape and its immediate effects on the ecosystem in which it occurs. There are five 

fire regimes which are classified based on frequency (average number of years between fires) and 

severity (amount of replacement of the dominant overstory vegetation) of the fire:

• Fire regime I – 0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common, isolated 

torching can occur) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of dominant overstory 

vegetation replaced)

• Fire regime II – 0- to 35-year frequency and high severity (greater than 75 percent of 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced)

• Fire regime III – 35- to 100+-year frequency and mixed severity

• Fire regime IV – 35- to 100+-year frequency and high severity

• Fire regime V – 200+-year frequency and high severity.

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) – FRCC is a metric that quantifies how departed a system 

is from historical conditions in relation to fire, the role fire historically played in that system, and 

the vegetative structure (Hann and Bunnell, 2001; Hardy et al., 2001; Hann et al., 2004).

Fire severity – Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; also used to describe 

the product of fire intensity and residence time; usually defined by the degree of soil heating or 

mortality of vegetation.

Foliar – Pertaining to foliage (green tree leaves or needles).

Forest highway – A forest road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority 

and open to public travel. (23 USC101). The Forest Highway Program falls under 23 USC202, 

203, and 204.

Forest road or trail – A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the NFS

that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization 

of the NFS and the use and development of its resources (23 USC 101, 36 CFR § 212.1, 36 CFR 

§ 251.51, 36 CFR § 261.2, Forest Service Manual 7705).

Free-flowing – Existing or flowing in natural conditions without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway.

Firewood – Wood that is round, split, or sawn and/or otherwise generally refuse material cut into 

short lengths or chipped for burning.

Fugitive dust – Fine particulate matter from windblown soil and dust which becomes airborne.

Geomorphic – Refers to the process of erosion and sediment transport and deposition.
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 533

Goshawk post-fledging family areas (PFAs) – Areas that surround nest areas. They represent an 

area of concentrated use by the northern goshawk family until the time the young are no longer 

dependent on adults for food. PFAs are approximately 420 acres in size (not including the nest 

area acres).

Gross growth – Ingrowth plus accretion. A measurable increase in wood volume due to the 

addition of new trees per acre added or grown into size classes which count toward total stand 

volume (ingrowth), plus added increases in tree diameter increment and height of trees already 

existing in those same size classes (accretion).

Group – A cluster of two or more trees with interlocking or nearly interlocking crowns at 

maturity surrounded by an opening. Size of tree groups is typically variable depending on 

forested PNVT and site conditions and can range from fractions of an acre (a two-tree group) 

(i.e., ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer) too many acres (i.e., wet mixed conifer, spruce-fir). 

Trees within groups are typically non-uniformly spaced, some of which may be tightly clumped.

Group selection – An uneven-aged management method in which trees are removed and new age 

classes are established in groups, adjacent to other groups of different age classes. Group cut size 

is determined by the reproduction requirements of the species desired, and by the number or total 

acreage of different age classes desired across the stand.

Herbaceous – Grass, grass-like, and/or forb vegetation.

Herbivory – Loss of vegetation due to consumption by another organism.

Highly interactive species – A species that has a disproportionate effect on its ecosystem. The 

virtual or effective absence of a highly interactive species leads to significant changes in some 

feature of its ecosystem. Such changes include structural or compositional modifications, 

alterations in the import or export of nutrients, loss of resilience to disturbance, and decreases in 

native species diversity. The type of interactions these species have with their surrounding 

environment is critical to the persistence of certain ecosystem features through time. Examples of 

strong interactions include mutualisms (e.g., pollinators such as butterflies, spore and seed 

dispersers such as birds), consumers (e.g., large predators such as mountain lions), and ecosystem 

engineers (e.g., prairie dogs, beavers).

Historic range of variability (HRV) – Description of the change over time and space in the 

ecological condition of vegetation types and the ecological processes that shape those types 

(Schussman and Smith, 2006).

Human health and/or environmental effects − As used in USDA Departmental Regulation 

5600-002 includes interrelated social and economic effects.

Hydrologic – Refers to the movement, distribution, and quality of water.

Hydrologic function – The behavioral characteristics of a watershed described in terms of ability 

to sustain favorable conditions of water flow. Favorable conditions of water flow are defined in 

terms of water quality, quantity, and timing.

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) – The United States is divided and subdivided into successively 

smaller hydrologic units which are identified by unique hydrologic unit codes (HUCs). The 
Glossary

534 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is contained within three 3rd level (basin) HUC watersheds: Little 

Colorado, Gila, and Salt Rivers. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs intersect thirteen 4th level (subbasin) 

HUC watersheds, thirty-two 5th level (watershed) HUC watersheds, and two hundred and fifteen

6th level (subwatershed) HUC watersheds. The average size of a 4th level HUC watershed is 

1 million acres, 5th level HUC watersheds are around 165,000 acres, and 6th level HUC 

watersheds are about 21,000 acres.

Hydrophytic vegetation – The sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the 

frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically 

saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.

Individual tree selection – An uneven-aged management method where individual trees of all 

size classes are removed more or less uniformly throughout the stand, to promote growth of 

remaining trees and to provide space for regeneration.

Industrial wood – All commercial roundwood products, except firewood.

Instream flow – Seasonal streamflows needed for maintaining aquatic and riparian ecosystems, 

wildlife, fisheries, and recreation opportunities at an acceptable level. 

Invasive species – Species that are not native to the ecosystem being described and that cause, or 

have the potential to cause, ecological or economic harm. 

Irruption – Sudden or drastic increase of an insect population which rises to epidemic levels for 

a period of time, after which the population returns to endemic levels. Cyclical population 

explosions and crashes are normal for some insect species, while for others this behavior only 

occurs in response to conditions tipped abnormally in their favor.

Leasable minerals – Leasable minerals include coal, oil, gas, oil shale, sodium, phosphate, 

potassium, and geothermal. Leasable minerals also include the hardrock minerals, if they are 

found on lands that have “acquired” status. Leases are obtained through the Bureau of Land 

Management to extract these mineral resources.

Litter – Litter consists of dead, unattached organic material on the soil surface that is effective in

protecting the soil surface from raindrop splash, sheet, and rill erosion and is at least 1⁄2 inch thick. 

Litter is composed of leaves, needles, cones, and woody vegetative debris including twigs, 

branches, and trunks.

Livestock grazing – Foraging by permitted livestock (domestic foraging animals of any kind).

Locatable minerals – In general, the hardrock minerals mined and processed for metals (e.g., 

gold, silver, copper, uranium, some types of nonmetallic minerals such as sandstone). They are 

called “locatable,” meaning subject to mining claim location under the United States mining laws. 

Locatable minerals are limited to lands with “reserved public domain” status.

Long-term sustained-yield capacity (LTSYC) – The highest uniform wood yield from lands 

being managed for timber production that may be sustained, under specified management 

intensity, consistent with multiple-use objectives.

Low-income population – Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in 

geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 535

geographically dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by USDA programs 

or activities. Low-income populations may be identified using data collected, maintained and 

analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty thresholds 

from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty.

Mechanical treatment – For the purposes of this analysis, mechanical treatments include most 

vegetation treatments except fire. They may include mechanized cutting, hand cutting, and other 

silvicultural treatments.

Mechanized travel – Movement using any contrivance over land, water, or air, having moving 

parts, that provides a mechanical advantage to the user and that is powered by a living or 

nonliving power source. This includes, but is not limited to, sailboats, hang gliders, parachutes, 

bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. It does not include wheelchairs when used as 

necessary medical appliances. It does not include skis, snowshoes, rafts, canoes, sleds, travois, or 

similar primitive devices without moving parts.

Mexican spotted owl protected activity center (PAC) – An area established around an occupied 

Mexican spotted owl site to help ensure successful reproduction and species viability. A PAC is 

no less than 600 acres in size and includes the best owl nesting and roosting habitat. Management 

in PACs is focused on forest health and includes retention of key habitat elements such as higher 

levels of basal area and canopy cover to provide the cool understory conditions owls need, and 

the down woody debris and forage (cover, fungi, seeds) needed by their prey. Management may 

involve thinning and/or burning to reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire, often with timing 

restrictions to prevent disturbance to owls during the breeding season (March 1 through August 

31).

Minority – A person who is a member of one or more the following population groups: American 

Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic.

Minority population – Any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in 

geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 

geographically dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by USDA programs 

or activities.

Motorized travel – Movement using machines that use a motor, engine, or other nonliving power 

sources other than a vehicle operated on rails or a wheelchair or mobility device, including one 

that is battery powered, designed solely for the use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, 

and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. 

National Forest System (NFS) – As defined in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-378), the “National Forest System” includes all national 

forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United States, all national forest 

lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means; the national grasslands and 

land use projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 

525, 7 USC 1010-1012); and other lands, waters, or interests therein administered by the Forest 

Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as part of the system.

National Forest System road – A road wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 
Glossary

536 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

resources. A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally documented 

right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority. (36 CFR § 212.1)

National Forest System trail – A trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

resources A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a legally documented rightof-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority. (36 CFR § 212.1)

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System – Created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 

16 USC 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational 

values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations.

Native species – A species which is a part of the original fauna or flora in the area in question.

Natural disturbance regime – The historic patterns (frequency and extent) of fire, insects, wind, 

landslides, floods, and other natural processes in an area.

Natural fire regime – The fire regime that existed prior to human-facilitated interruption of 

frequency, extent, or severity.

Net growth – Gross growth in forest wood volume minus natural (non-cut) mortality volume.

Nonindustrial wood – Includes aspen, junipers, piñons, Chihuahuan pine, oaks, cottonwoods and 

all riparian obligate broadleaved trees, and any industrial species cut from non-suitable

timberlands. Also includes nonindustrial sizes of industrial species. Wood cut as nonindustrial 

may be used as firewood and/or biomass. Sometimes referred to as non-ASQ species.

Nonmotorized travel – Movement not relying on machines that use a motor, engine, or other 

nonliving power source (e.g., walking, canoeing, horseback riding).

Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) – NPS refers to water pollution affecting water quality from 

diffuse sources, such as polluted runoff from agricultural areas draining into lakes, wetlands, 

rivers, and streams. NPS can be contrasted with point source pollution, where discharges occur to 

a body of water at a single location, such as discharges from a chemical factory, or urban runoff 

from a roadway or storm drain. NPS may derive from many different sources with no specific 

solution to rectify the problem, making it difficult to regulate.

Noxious weed – Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage 

to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of 

agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or 

the environment. The term typically describes species of plants that have been determined to be 

undesirable or injurious in some capacity. Federal noxious weeds are regulated by USDA-Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service under the Plant Protection Act of 2000, which superseded the 

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974. When the species are native, they are not considered invasive 

species by the Federal Government.

Offsite vegetation type – Vegetation type where certain tree or plant species would not survive 

or successfully reproduce when natural control processes function normally to control their 

encroachment. Example: exclusion of regular fire intervals permits white fir to encroach where it 
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 537

does not naturally belong in the ponderosa pine forest. Thus, ponderosa pine forest is an offsite 

vegetation type for white-fir.

Old growth – In southwestern forested ecosystems, old growth is different than the traditional 

definition based on northwestern infrequent fire forests. Due to large differences among 

Southwest forested PNVTs and natural disturbances, old growth forests vary extensively in tree 

size, age classes, presence, and abundance of structural elements, stability, and presence of 

understory. Old growth refers to specific habitat components that occur in forests and woodlands 

– old trees, dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and structure diversity. 

These important habitat features may occur in small areas, with only a few components, or over 

larger areas as stands or forests where old growth is concentrated. In the Southwest, old growth is 

considered “transitional,” given that that the location of old growth shifts on the landscape over 

time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality). Some species, notably 

certain plants, require “old forest” communities that may or may not have old growth components 

but have escaped significant disturbance for lengths of time necessary to provide the suitable 

stability and environment. See appendix B in the plan for a more detailed description.

Outstanding Arizona Waters – Surface water designated by Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality as an outstanding State water resource. These are waters with exceptional 

quality where water quality should not be degraded.

Outstandingly remarkable value – A value that a river or river segment possesses that reflects 

its unique, rare, or exemplary qualities. In the Wild and Scenic River Act, river values identified 

include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. 

Examples of other similar values include botanical, hydrological, paleontological, scientific, or 

heritage. A river must have at least one outstandingly remarkable value to be eligible for wild and 

scenic river designation.

Patches – Areas larger than tree groups in which the vegetation composition and structure are 

relatively homogeneous. Patches compose the mid-scale, thus they range in size from 100 to 

1,000 acres. 

Plan Set of Documents – The complete set of documentation supporting the land management 

plan; it may include but is not limited to evaluation reports, documentation of public involvement, 

the plan including applicable maps, applicable plan improvement documents, applicable NEPA 

documents, and the monitoring program for the plan area.

Planning horizon – The overall time period considered in the planning process that spans all 

activities covered in the analysis or plan and all future conditions and effects of proposed actions 

which would influence the planning decisions.

Planned ignition – The intentional initiation of a wildland fire by hand-held, mechanical, or 

aerial device where the distance and timing between ignition lines or points and the sequence of 

igniting them is determined by environmental conditions (e.g., weather, fuel, topography), firing 

technique, and other factors which influence fire behavior and fire effects. See prescribed fire.

Planning period – The life of the plan, generally 10 to 15 years from plan approval. As a general 

rule, this analysis uses 15 years to define the planning period.
Glossary

538 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) – Coarse-scale groupings of noncontiguous land that 

share similar aspect, elevation, vegetation, soil parent material, and natural disturbances such as 

fire or drought cycles. Identification of PNVTs is based on the terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES).

Prescribed fire − A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives 

identified in a written and approved prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements (where 

applicable) have been met prior to ignition. See also planned ignition.

Primitive recreation – Reliance on personal skills and nonmotorized and non-mechanized means 

to travel and camp in an area, rather than reliance on facilities or outside help.

Priority 6th level HUC watershed – The designated watersheds where restoration activities 

concentrate on the explicit goal of improving watershed condition.

Proper functioning condition (PFC) – Proper functioning condition (PFC) is a qualitative 

method for assessing the condition of riparian-wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe 

both (1) the assessment process or tool, and (2) a defined, on the-ground condition of a riparianwetland area. 

• (1) The PFC tool is designed to assess if the physical elements (abiotic and biotic) are in 

working order relative to an area’s capability and potential. When these physical 

elements are in working order, then channel characteristics develop that provide habitat 

for wildlife and other uses. Functionality comes first; then desired conditions are 

achieved. 

• (2) A riparian-wetland area is considered to be in proper functioning condition when 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to

○ dissipate stream energy associated with high water flow, thereby reducing erosion 

and improving water quality; 

○ filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; 

○ improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; 

○ develop root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action; 

○ develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the 

water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl 

breeding, and other uses; and 

○ support greater biological diversity (BLM, 1998).

Proposed species − Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that is proposed in the Federal Register 

to be listed under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act.

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) – A framework for defining the types of outdoor 

recreation opportunities the public might desire, and identifies that portion of the spectrum a 

given national forest area might be able to provide. The ROS map can be found in the “Plan Set 

of Documents.” The broad classes are

• Primitive (P) – Characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment. Interaction 

between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. Essentially free from 

evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is 
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 539

generally not permitted. Very high probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to 

nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and risk.

• Semi-primitive Nonmotorized (SPNM) – Characterized by a predominantly natural or 

natural-appearing environment. Interaction between users is low, but there is often 

evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on site controls 

and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is generally not permitted. 

High probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, 

and risk.

• Semi-primitive Motorized (SPM) – Characterized by a predominantly natural or 

natural-appearing environment. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence 

of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on site controls and 

restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is generally permitted. 

Moderate probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, selfreliance, and risk.

• Roaded Natural (RN) – Characterized by a predominantly natural-appearing 

environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of other humans. Such 

evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users 

may be low to moderate but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are evident but harmonize with the natural 

environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and 

design of facilities. Opportunity to affiliate with other users in developed sites but with 

some chance for privacy.

• Roaded Modified (RM) – Characterized by substantially modified natural environment 

except for campsites. Roads and management activities may be strongly dominant. There 

is moderate evidence of other users on roads. Conventional motorized use is provided for 

in construction standards and design of facilities. Opportunity to get away from others, 

but with easy access.

• Rural (R) – Characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to 

maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and 

the interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of 

facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided 

for special activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites. 

Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available. Opportunity to observe 

and affiliate with other users is important, as is convenience of facilities.

• Urban (U) – Characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the 

background may have natural-appearing elements. Resource modification and utilization 

practices are to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and 

manicured. Sights and sounds of humans onsite are predominant. Large numbers of users 

can be expected, both onsite and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor 

use and parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people 

throughout the site. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is very 

important, as is convenience of facilities.

Reference conditions – Environmental conditions that infer ecological sustainability. Reference 

conditions are often represented by the historic range of variation (i.e., the characteristic range of 

variation, not the total range of variation) for a particular attribute, prior to Euro-American

settlement and under the current climatic period. For some ecosystems, the historic range of 
Glossary

540 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

variation reflects American Indian burning. Reference conditions may not necessarily represent 

desired conditions.

Reference landscape – For inventoried roadless areas, reference landscapes of relatively 

undisturbed areas can serve as a barometer to measure the effects of development on other parts 

of the landscape.

Reforestation – The natural or artificial reestablishment (restocking) of an area with forest tree

cover.

Regulated – The technical (rather than legal or administrative) aspect of controlling forest 

stocking, periodic harvests, growth, and yields to meet management objectives including 

sustained yield. This control can be done either by area, or volume of growing stock, or basal 

area, or stand density index measures. An uneven-aged, regulated forest is one which has a 

balanced progression of three or more age/size classes, such that each younger/smaller class is 

advancing to replace the class above it on approximately the same acreage, until it is mature for 

harvest or other resource objectives. A regulated forest reaches sustained yield when the volume 

cut periodically equals the amount of net volume growth for that same period.

Research natural area – A physical or biological unit in which current natural conditions are 

maintained insofar as possible. These conditions are ordinarily achieved by allowing natural 

physical and biological processes to prevail without human intervention. Research natural areas 

are principally for non-manipulative research, observation, and study. They are designated to 

maintain a wide spectrum of high quality representative areas that represent the major forms of 

variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, and natural situations that have scientific 

interest and importance that, in combination, form a national network of ecological areas for 

research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity.

Resiliency – The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining 

the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the 

capacity to adapt to stress and change.

Restoration – see ecological restoration.

Riparian area – Terrestrial ecosystems characterized by wet soils and plant species that are water 

loving and dependent on the water table or its capillary fringe zone (a zone in the soil just above 

the water table that remains saturated or almost saturated). Riparian areas make up the most 

biologically productive component of forest ecosystems providing unique wildlife habitat in the 

Southwest. Riparian areas also function to transport and filter water, soil and organic material 

from upslope to stream.). Examples of riparian areas on the forests include areas along streams, 

around wetlands, lakes, ponds, springs and seeps, and include wet meadows, fens, bogs and 

floodplains.

Road decommissioning – Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded 

roads to a more natural state (36 CFR § 212.1). It includes a range of activities from ripping and 

seeding to full reclamation by restoring the original topography. Road decommissioning results in 

the removal of a National Forest System road from the forest transportation atlas.

Road maintenance – The upkeep of the entire transportation facility including surface and 

shoulders, parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic control devices as are necessary for 
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 541

its safe and efficient utilization (36 CFR § 212.1). This work includes brushing of roadside 

vegetation, falling danger trees, road blading, cleaning ditches, cleaning culvert inlets and outlets, 

etc.

Road maintenance level – Defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required 

for, a specific road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. (Forest 

Service Handbook 7709.59, 62.32)

• Maintenance level 1 – These are roads that have been placed in storage between 

intermittent uses. The period or storage must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance 

is performed to prevent damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to 

perpetuate the road for future resource management needs. Emphasis is normally given to 

maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur 

at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate” all 

traffic. Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction 

standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are 

open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular/ 

motorized traffic but may be available and suitable for nonmotorized uses.

• Maintenance level 2 – Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. 

Passenger car traffic, user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. Warning 

signs and traffic control devices are not provided with the exception that some signing, 

such as “Warning No Traffic” signs may be posted at intersections. Motorists should 

have no expectations of being alerted to potential hazards while driving these roads. 

Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, 

permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this 

level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (a) discourage or prohibit 

passenger cars or (b) accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles.

• Maintenance level 3 – Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent 

driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered 

priorities. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is applicable. 

Warming signs and traffic control devices are provided to alert motorists of situations 

that may violate expectations. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, 

with single lanes and turnouts. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either 

“encourage” or “accept.” “Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for 

certain classes of vehicles or users.

• Maintenance level 4 – Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort 

and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate 

surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or 

dust abated. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is applicable. The 

most appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.” However, the “prohibit” 

strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

• Maintenance level 5 – Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and 

convenience. These roads are normally double lane, paved facilities. Some may be 

aggregate surfaced and dust abated. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD) is applicable. The appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.”

Road removal – The elimination of unauthorized routes. It includes a range of activities from 

ripping and seeding to full reclamation by restoring the original topography.
Glossary

542 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Roundwood products – Logs, bolts, or other round sections cut from trees, excluding firewood.

Sacred sites – Defined in Executive Order 13007 as “any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated 

location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to be 

an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its 

established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the 

tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of 

the existence of such a site.”

Scenic integrity – The state of naturalness or a measure of the degree to which a landscape is 

visually perceived to be “complete.” The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those 

landscapes that have little or no deviation from the landscape character valued by constituents for 

its aesthetic quality. Scenic integrity is the state of naturalness or, conversely, the state of 

disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Scenic integrity is measured in five levels: 

• Very high (unaltered) – A scenic integrity level that generally provides for ecological 

change only.

• High (appears unaltered) – Human activities are not visually evident. In high scenic 

integrity areas, activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture found 

in the existing landscape character.

• Moderate (slightly altered) – Landscapes where the valued landscape character 

“appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the 

landscape character being viewed.

• Low (moderately altered) – 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.

• Very Low (heavily altered) – 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.

Seed cut – One step of an even-aged regeneration cutting method in which the healthiest, most 

desirable trees are left, and stand conditions are created for them to become good cone producers. 

The intention is to promote natural tree regeneration where needed.

Seral state – A particular plant and animal community developmental stage which is transitional 

between other stages along the continuum of succession or change. Changes in seral states can 

take place over time or very quickly and movement between states can be in either direction. 

Aspen is an example of a seral state that, without disturbance over time, will eventually be 

replaced by a subsequent seral state dominated by conifers.

Silviculture – The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, 

and quality of forests and woodlands using species silvics to meet the diverse needs and values of 

landowners and society on a sustainable basis. Under this definition, silvicultural treatments 

include all management activities that control the establishment, growth, composition, health, and 

quality of forested lands to achieve stated land management objectives. The use of prescribed fire 

on forested lands qualifies as a silvicultural treatment in the context of this definition.
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 543

Slash – The residue (e.g., branches, bark) left on the ground after a management activity, such as 

logging, or natural ecological disturbance such as a storm or fire.

Snags – Standing dead or partially dead trees (snag topped), often missing many or all limbs 

and/or bark. Snags (generally 12 inches or larger) provide essential wildlife habitat for many 

species and are important for forest ecosystem function.

Soil burn severity – Burn severity indicators are classified and defined as follows (Parsons et al.,

2010): 

• Low soil burn severity – Surface organic layers are not completely consumed and are 

still recognizable. Structural aggregate stability is not changed from its unburned 

condition, and roots are generally unchanged because the heat pulse below the soil 

surface was not great enough to consume or char any underlying organics. The ground 

surface, including any exposed mineral soil, may appear brown or black (lightly charred), 

and the canopy and understory vegetation will likely appear “green.” 

• Moderate soil burn severity – Up to 80 percent of the pre-fire ground cover (litter and 

ground fuels) may be consumed but generally not all of it. Fine roots (~3/32 inch 

diameter) may be scorched but are rarely completely consumed over much of the area. 

The color of the ash on the surface is generally blackened with possible gray patches. 

There may be potential for recruitment of effective ground cover from scorched needles 

or leaves remaining in the canopy that will soon fall to the ground. The prevailing color 

of the site is often “brown” due to canopy needle and other vegetation scorch. Soil 

structure is generally unchanged. 

• High soil burn severity – All or nearly all of the pre-fire ground cover and surface 

organic matter (litter, duff, and fine roots) is generally consumed and charring may be 

visible on larger roots. The prevailing color of the site is often “black” due to extensive 

charring. Bare soil or ash is exposed and susceptible to erosion, and aggregate structure 

may be less stable. White or gray ash (up to several centimeters in depth) indicates that 

considerable ground cover or fuels were consumed. Sometimes very large tree roots (> 3 

inches in diameter) are entirely burned extending from a charred stump hole. Soil is often 

gray, orange, or reddish at the ground surface where large fuels were concentrated and 

consumed.

Soil productivity – The inherent capacity of the soil to support appropriate site-specific 

biological resource management objectives, which includes the growth of specified plants, plant 

communities, or a sequence of plant communities to support multiple land uses.

Special use authorization – A permit, term permit, temporary permit, lease, easement, or other 

written instrument that grants rights or privileges of occupancy and use subject to specified terms 

and conditions on National Forest System land.

Species diversity – The number of different species, both plant and animal, within a region (i.e., 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs). NFMA requires that land management plans provide for diversity of 

plant and animal communities.

Springs and seeps - Springs and seeps are groundwater-dependent ecosystems where 

groundwater discharges at the ground surface, often through complex subsurface flow paths 

(Stevens and Meretsky, 2008).
Glossary

544 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Stand – A contiguous group of trees generally uniform in age class distribution, composition, 

condition, and structure, and growing on a site of generally uniform quality, to be a 

distinguishable unit, such as mixed, pure, even-aged, and uneven-aged stands. A stand is the 

fundamental unit of silviculture reporting and record-keeping.

Structure – Structure includes both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of a vegetation type or 

plant community. The horizontal structure refers to spatial patterns of individual and groups of 

plants and openings, as well as plant size and species composition. The vertical component refers 

to the layers of vegetation between the forest floor and the top of the canopy. Each vegetation 

type has its own structure. For example, forests have greater vertical structure than a grassland or 

woodland based on the height of the dominant species.

Suitable timberlands – Land to be managed for timber production on a regulated basis. Such 

lands are those which have been determined to meet the following criteria: (a) are available for 

timber production (i.e., not withdrawn for wilderness or other official designation by Congress, 

the Secretary of Agriculture, or Chief of the Forest Service); (b) are physically capable of 

producing crops of industrial wood without irreversible resource damage to soils productivity or 

watershed conditions; (c) adequate tree restocking within 5 years of final harvest is reasonably 

assured; (d) adequate information exists about responses to timber management activities; (e) 

timber management is cost efficient over the planning horizon in meeting forest objectives that 

include timber production; (f) timber production is consistent with meeting the management 

requirements and multiple-use objectives specified in the forest plan or plan alternative; and (g) 

other management objectives do not limit timber production activities to the point where it is 

impossible to meet management requirements set forth in 36 CFR § 129.27 (per Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.13, WO Amendment 2409.13-92-1, O Code and Chapter 20).

Sustainability – Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of 

future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability is composed of desirable social, economic, 

and ecological conditions or trends interacting at varying spatial and temporal scales embodying 

the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

Temporary road or trail – A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by 

contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road, or trail and that is 

not included in the transportation atlas. (36 CFR § 212.1).

Terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES) – Also called the terrestrial ecological unit inventory, the 

TES identifies ecological units for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs that are distinct from each other in 

terms of their soil, vegetation, and climate components.

Thinning – An intermediate treatment made to reduce the stand density of trees primarily to 

improve growth, enhance forest health, recover potential mortality, emphasize desired tree 

species, and/or emphasize desired forest structure. It includes crown thinning (thinning from 

above, high thinning), free thinning, low thinning (thinning from below), selection thinning 

(dominant thinning), mechanical thinning (leaves trees in equally spaced rows), and mechanized 

thinning (any spacing arrangement). Mechanized thinning should not be confused with 

mechanical thinning. Mechanized thinning, as used in the plan, includes prescribed cuts made by 

both hand and/or mechanized equipment, as a distinction from prescribed thinning by use of 

wildland fire only. Traditional (cutting) prescribed thinning can be used with both even- and 

uneven-aged management systems. Thinning with prescribed fire can qualify as an intermediate 
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 545

treatment but may not provide enough controlled tree selection to clearly fit in either management 

system.

Timber production – Purposefully growing, tending, harvesting, and regenerating regulated 

crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use. In 

addition, managing land to provide commercial timber products on a regulated basis with 

planned, scheduled entries. It does not include firewood or harvest from unsuitable lands. (Forest 

Service Manual 1900)

Total maximum daily load (TMDL) – A TMDL is a written analysis that determines the 

maximum amount of a pollutant that a surface water can assimilate (the “load”), and still attain 

water quality standards during all conditions. The TMDL allocates the loading capacity of the 

surface water to point sources and nonpoint sources identified in the watershed, accounting for 

natural background levels and seasonal variation, with an allocation set aside as a margin of 

safety.

Traditional cultural properties (TCP) – Defined in National Register Bulletin 38 as properties 

associated “with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that 

community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community.” TCPs can range from structures, mountains, and other landforms to plant gathering 

locations to communities. These areas are considered historic properties that may be eligible to 

the National Register of Historic Places

Travel Management Rule (November 29, 2005, 36 CFR § 212.51) – Requires that each national 

forest designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if 

appropriate, by time of year. Once the system is designated, the rule will prohibit motor vehicle 

use off the designated system.

Tree cutting – The cutting or removal of trees for wood fiber use and other multiple-use 

purposes. Sometimes referred to as “timber harvest” or “thinning.”

Unauthorized livestock – Any cattle, sheep, goat, hog, or equine not defined as a wild freeroaming horse or burro by 36 CFR § 222.20(b)(13), which is not authorized by permit (or Bill for 

Collection) to be upon the land on which the livestock is located and which is not related to use 

authorized by a grazing permit (livestock owned by other than a national forest grazing permit 

holder). Noncommercial pack and saddle stock used by recreationists, travelers, other forest 

visitors for occasional trips, as well as livestock to be trailed over an established driveway when 

there is no overnight stop on Forest Service administered land, do not fall under this definition.

Unauthorized road or trail – A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road 

or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR § 212.1). Sometimes 

referred to as a “user-created” road or trail.

Uncharacteristic wildfire − An increase in wildfire size, severity, and resistance to control 

compared to reference conditions which occurred historically. These fires result as a consequence 

of more continuous canopy cover, ladder fuels, and accumulated live and dead woody material. 

Uncharacteristic wildfires burn with more intensity; cause higher tree mortality; degrade 

watersheds; sterilize soils; and threaten adjacent communities, forest infrastructure, and wildlife 

habitat. See reference conditions.
Glossary

546 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Uneven-aged forests – Forests that comprise three or more distinct age classes of trees, either 

intermixed or in small groups.

Uneven-aged management – The application of combined actions needed to simultaneously 

maintain continuous forest cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, and the orderly 

growth and development of trees through a range of diameter or age classes to provide a sustained 

yield of forest products. Cutting is usually regulated by specifying the number or proportion of 

trees of particular sizes to retain within each area, thereby maintaining a planned distribution of 

size classes. Cutting methods that develop and maintain uneven-aged stands are single-tree 

selection and group selection.

Unplanned ignition – A wildfire, not including planned ignitions.

Use of wildland fire − Management of either wildfire or prescribed fire to meet resource 

objectives specified in land management plans.

Vigor − Relates to the relative robustness of a plant in comparison to other individuals of the 

same species. It is reflected primarily by the size of a plant (i.e., height, weight) and its parts in 

relation to its age and the environment in which it is growing.

Wild and scenic rivers – These rivers are free flowing and have at least one outstandingly 

remarkable value. Eligible and suitable rivers are given a tentative classification of wild, scenic, 

or recreational. These rivers may be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

• Wild – Those rivers or segments of rivers free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and 

waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

• Scenic – Those rivers or segments of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads. 

• Recreational – Those rivers or segments of rivers readily accessible by road or railroad 

that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone 

some impoundment or diversion in the past.

Wildfire – Unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (e.g., fires caused by lightning, unauthorized 

and accidental human-caused fires) and escaped prescribed fires. See also unplanned ignition.

Wild horse (wild free-roaming horse) – All unbranded and unclaimed horses and their progeny 

using National Forest System lands on or after December 15, 1971. This definition does not 

include any horse introduced onto National Forest System lands on or after December 15, 1971, 

by accident, negligence, or willful disregard of private ownership. Animals that stray from other 

lands onto National Forest System lands are not considered wild free-roaming horses and are not 

under Forest Service protection. No known records or documentation exists that the Apache NF 

had any unbranded and unclaimed horses prior to December 15, 1971. See 36 CFR § 220 and 

Forest Service Manual 2260 for more information.

Wildland − An area in which development is essentially nonexistent, except for roads, railroads, 

power lines, and similar transportation facilities. Structures, if any, are widely scattered.
Glossary

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 547

Wildland fire − A general term describing any nonstructural fire that occurs in the vegetation 

and/or natural fuels. The two types of wildland fire are wildfires and prescribed fires. Other terms 

such as “fire-use fires,” “resource benefit fires,” or “suppression fires” are not used in this 

document. 

Wildland-urban interface (WUI) – The WUI includes those areas of resident populations at 

imminent risk from wildfire, and human developments having special significance. These areas 

may include critical communications sites, municipal watersheds, high voltage transmission lines, 

church camps, scout camps, research facilities, and other structures that if destroyed by fire, 

would result in hardship to communities. These areas encompass not only the sites themselves, 

but also the continuous slopes and fuels that lead directly to the sites, regardless of the distance 

involved. (Forest Service Manual 5140.5, Southwestern Region supplement).

Windthrow – Trees susceptible to wind damage (e.g., bole breakage, uprooting, toppling). 

Woody biomass – The trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other 

woody parts, grown in a forest, woodland, or grassland environment, that are the byproducts of 

forest management used to produce bioenergy and the full range of bio-based products.

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 549

References

Abella, S.R.; P.Z. Fulé; and W.W. Covington. (2006). Diameter caps for thinning Southwestern 

ponderosa pine forests: Viewpoints, effects, and tradeoffs. Journal of Forestry, 104: 407-

414.

Aber, J.D.; and J.M. Melillo. (1991). Terrestrial Ecosystems. Sounders College Publishing, 

Philadelphia, PA. 430 pp.

Achtemeier, G.L.; B. Jackson; and J.D. Brenner. (2001). Problem and nuisance smoke. Pp. 41-50. 

In: Hardy, C.C.; R.D. Ottmar; J.L. Peterson; J.E. Core; and P. Seamon (eds./comps.), 

Smoke management guide for prescribed and wildland fire 2001 edition. PMS-420-2, 

NFES 1279. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Boise, ID. 226 pp.

Agee, J.K. (1993). Fire Ecology of the Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC.

493 pp.

Alexander, R.R. (1974). Silviculture of subalpine forests in the central and southern Rocky

Mountains: the status of our knowledge. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-121, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 88 pp. 

Allen, C.D. (1984). Montane grasslands in the landscape of the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. 

Unpublished MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. pp.195.

Allen, C.D. (1998). Where have all the grasslands gone? Quivera Coalition Newsletter

Spring/Summer, Volume 1. The Quivera Coalition, Santa Fe, NM. 20 pp.

Anhold, J. (2011). Potential for Douglas-fir beetle activity in Wallow Fire. Letter to the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests, Supervisor, USFS File Code 3420, Biological Evaluation 

Report by Arizona Zone Leader Forest Health. USDA Forest Service Southwestern

Region Forest Health, Arizona Zone Office, Flagstaff, AZ. 8 pp.

Arcese, P.; and J.N.M. Smith. (1999). Impacts of nest depredation and brood parasitism on the 

productivity of North American passerines. S48.3, pp. 2,953-2,966. In: Adams, N.J.; and 

R.H. Slotow (eds.), Proceedings 22nd International Ornithological Congress, Durban:

Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa. Issued on CD-ROM.

Archer, S.R.; and K.I. Predick. (2008). Climate change and ecosystems of the southwestern 

United States. Rangelands June 2008: 23-28.

Arizona Department of Commerce. (2008). Profile: Yavapai County, Arizona. Accessed 27 

December 2010. [online] URL: 

http://www.Arizonacommerce.com/doclib/commune/yavapai%20county.pdf

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (2002). Morenci Sulphur Dioxide 

Nonattainment Area State Implementation and Maintenance Plan - Final. Phoenix, AZ: 

Air Quality Division.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (2003). Regional haze state 

implementation plan for the State of Arizona. Air Quality Division, Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality. Phoenix, AZ. 132 pp. Available at: 

http://www.Arizonadeq.gov/environ/air/haze/download/2sip.pdf

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (2009). 2006-2008 status of ambient 

surface water quality in Arizona. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) 
References

550 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Listing Report. Water Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (2011). Arizona State implementation 

plan (SIP) to maintain and improve air quality. Air Quality Division, Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (2012). 2010 status of water quality. 

Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. Water Quality 

Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR). (2007). Arizona mining update 

- 2007. Phoenix, AZ. Accessed 27 May 2011. Available at: 

http://www.mines.Arizona.gov.

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). (2009a). Arizona water atlas; Volume 2 

Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Phoenix, AZ. 179 pp. Available at: 

http://www.Arizonawater.gov/Arizonadwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/documents/Vol

ume_2_final_web.pdf

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). (2009b). Arizona water atlas; Volume 3 

Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Phoenix, AZ. 598 pp. Available at: 

http://www.Arizonawater.gov/Arizonadwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/documents/Vol

ume_3_final.pdf

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). (2009c). Arizona water atlas; Volume 5 

Central Highlands Planning Area. Phoenix, AZ. 358 pp. Available at: 

http://www.Arizonawater.gov/ArizonaDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/CentralHighl

ands/documents/Volume_5_Final.pdf

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2000-2010). AZGFD formal riparian monitoring 

and informal Forest Service monitoring from 2000-2010.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2011a). Arizona statewide elk management plan. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 49 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2011b). Deer management goals and season 

prescriptions. Pp 8-11. In: Guidelines for the 2012-2012 and 2013-2014 hunting seasons. 

As amended by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, December 3, 2011. Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 23 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2012). Assessment of Management Indicator 

Species, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests from 2005 to 2011. Prepared under 

agreement for the forests.117 pp.

Arizona State Parks. (2007). 2008 Statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan (SCORP). 

Prepared by the Statewide Planning Unit, Resources Management Section, Arizona State 

Parks, Phoenix, AZ. 254 pp.

Arizona State Parks. (2009). Arizona trails 2010: A statewide motorized and nonmotorized

recreational trails plan. Prepared under the authority of the Arizona State Parks Board,

Arizona State Parks, Phoenix, AZ. 318 pp.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 551

Bailey, D.W.; and O.L. Copeland. (1961). Low flow discharges and plant cover relations on two

mountain watersheds in Utah. International Association of Hydrological Sciences 

Publication 51:267-278.

Baker, F.S. (1925). Aspen in the central Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service Bulletin 

No. 1291. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 46 pp.

Baker, M.B.; L.F. DeBano; and P. F. Folliott. (1999). Changing values of riparian ecosystems. Pp 

43-48. In: Baker, M.B. (comp.), History of watershed research in the central Arizona

highlands. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS–GTR–29. Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 56 pp.

Barnett, T.P.; D.W. Pierce; H.G. Hidalgo; C. Bonfils; B.D. Santer; T. Das, G. Bala; A.W. Wood; T. 

Nozawa; A.A. Mirin; D.R. Cayan; and M.D. Dettinger. (2008). Human-induced changes 

in the hydrology of the western United States. Science 319: 1,080-1,083.

Bartos, D.L. (2001). Landscape dynamics of aspen and conifer forests. Pp. 5-14. In: Shepperd, 

W.D.; D. Binkley; D.L. Bartos; T.J. Stohlgren; and L.G. Eskew. (comps.), Sustaining 

aspen in western landscapes. Symposium proceedings; 13-15 June 2000; Grand Junction, 

CO. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fort Collins, CO. 460 pp.

Bartos, D.L.; and W.F. Mueggler. (1981). Early succession in aspen communities following fire in 

western Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 34: 315-318.

Basso, K. (1983). Western Apache. Pp.462-488. In: Ortiz, A. (ed.), Handbook of North American 

Indians, Volume10, Southwest. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 884 pp.

Basso, K. (1996). Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache. 

University of NM Press. Albuquerque, NM. 171 pp.

Basso, K. (1997). Wisdom sits in places: notes on Western Apache landscape. Chapter 2, pp. 53-

90. In: Feld, S.; and K. Basso (eds.), Senses of Place. School of American Research 

Press, Santa Fe, NM. 308 pp.

Bates, J.D.; R. Miller; and T. Svejcar. (2000). Understory dynamics in cut and uncut western 

juniper woodlands. Journal of Range Management 53(1): 119-126.

Belnap, J.; R. Rosentreter; S. Leonard; J.H. Kaltenecker; J. Williams; and D. Eldridge. (2001). 

Biological soil crusts: ecology and management. USDI Bureau of Land Management and 

U.S. Geological Survey Technical Reference 1730-2. USDI Bureau of Land Management 

Printed Materials Distribution Center, Denver, CO. 118 pp.

Belsky, J.A; and D.M. Blumenthal. (1997). Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and 

soils in upland forests of the interior west. Conservation Biology 11(2): 315-327.

Beschta, R.L.: and W.J. Ripple. (2010). Mexican wolves, elk, and aspen in Arizona: is there a 

trophic cascade? Forest Ecology and Management 260 (2010): 915-922. 

Beschta, R.L.: and W.J. Ripple. (2011). The role of large predators in maintaining riparian plant 

communities and river morphology. Geomorphology 157-158(2012): 88-98.

Beschta, R.L.; D.L. Donahue; D.A. DellaSala; J.J. Rhodes; J.R. Karr; M.H. O’Brien; T.L. 

Fleischer; and C.D. Williams. (2012). Adapting to climate change on western public 

lands: Addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates. 
References

552 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Environmental Management. Received: 27 January 2012 / Accepted: 13 September 2012. 

Springer Science+Business Media, New York, NY. 18 pp.

Binkley, D.; T. Sisk; C. Chambers; J. Springer; and W. Block. (2007). The role of old-growth 

forests in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12(2): 18-34. Available at: 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art18/

Blackburn, W.H.; T.L. Thurow; and C.A. Taylor. (1986). Soil erosion on rangeland, Pp. 31-39. In: 

Smith, E.L.; S.S. Coleman; C.E. Lewis; and G.W. Tanner (comps.), Proceedings of a 

symposium on use of cover, soils and weather data in rangeland monitoring. Society for 

Range Management 39th Annual Meeting, February 12, 1986, Kissimmee, Florida. 

Denver, CO. 46 pp.

Blankenship, J.O. (1991). Air quality related values, sensitive receptors, and levels of acceptable 

change for the Mount Baldy Wilderness: Technical Report, Earth Resource Consultants, 

Tucson, AZ. 33 pp.

Bodner, G.; and K. Simms. (2008). State of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Part 3. 

Condition and trend of riparian target species, vegetation and channel geomorphology. 

Prepared for the USDI Bureau of Land Management by the Nature Conservancy, Tucson, 

AZ. 69 pp.

Breece, C.R., T.E. Kolb; B.G. Dickinson; J.D. McMillin; and K.M. Clancey. (2008). Prescribed 

fire effects on bark beetle activity and tree mortality in southwestern ponderosa pine 

forests. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008): 119-128.

Brewer D. (2008). Fact sheet: Accounting for watershed and other resource values -

considerations in the NEPA analysis. Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona

University, Flagstaff, AZ. 4 pp.

Brown, H.E.; M.B. Baker, Jr.; J.J. Rogers; W.P. Clary; J.L. Kovner; F.R. Larson; C.C. Avery; and 

R.E. Campbell. (1974). Opportunities for increasing water yield and other multiple use 

values on ponderosa pine forest lands. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-129. 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 36 pp.

Brown J.H.; T.J. Valone; and C.G. Curtin. (1997). Reorganization of an arid ecosystem in 

response to recent climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA

94: 9,729–9,733.

Brown, J.K. (1995). Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management. Pp. 171-178. In: 

Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention, September 18-22, 

1994, Anchorage, AK. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD. 543 pp.

Burger, J.A; G. Gray; and D.A. Scott. (2010). Using soil quality indicators for monitoring 

sustainable forest management. Pp. 13-42. In: Page-Dumroese, D.; D. Neary; and C. 

Tritten (teds.), Scientific background for soil monitoring on National Forests and 

Rangelands: workshop proceedings; April 29-30, 2008; Denver, Colorado. USDA Forest 

Service Proceedings RMRS-P-59. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

126 pp.

Burns, R.; and B.H. Honkala (tcoords.). (1990). Silvics of North America, Volume 2, Hardwoods. 

USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC. 877 pp.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 553

Burroughs, E.R. Jr.; and J.G. King. (1989). Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report GTR-INT-264. Intermountain Research Station, 

Ogden, UT. 21 pp.

Chapin, F.S III; E.S. Zavaleta; V.T. Eviner; R.L. Naylor; P.M. Vitousek; H.L. Reynolds; D.U. 

Hooper; S. Lavorel; O.E. Sala; S.E. Hobbie; M.C. Mack; and S. DíArizona. (2000). 

Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405 (11 May 2000): 234-242.

Chong, G.; S. Simonson; T. Stohlgren; and M. Kalkhan. (2001). Biodiversity: aspen stands have 

the lead, but will nonnative species take over? Pp. 261-266. In: Shepperd, W.; D. Binkley; 

D. Bartos; T. Stohlgren; and L. Eskey (comps.), Sustaining aspen in western landscapes. 

Proceedings of a symposium; Proceedings RMRS-P-18. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 460 pp.

Clark, J.S. (1998). Why trees migrate so fast: confronting theory with dispersal biology and the 

paleorecord. The American Naturalist 152(2): 204-224.

Clary, W.P. (1971). Effects of Utah juniper removal on herbage yields from Springerville soils. 

Journal of Range Management 24(5): 373-378.

Clean Line Energy Partners, Centennial West Clean Line. (2011). Web site accessed April 2011. 

Houston, TX. Available at: http://www.cleanlineenergy.com/

Cline, P. (1976). They Came to the Mountains. Northland Press. Flagstaff, AZ. 364 pp.

Colorado State University. (2006). Interagency monitoring of protected visual environments 

(IMPROVE). Available at: 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/Web/Data/DataWizard.aspx

Committee on Rangeland Classification (CRC). (1994). Rangeland health: New Methods to 

Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 

180 pp.

Conklin, D.A.; and M.L. Fairweather. (2010). Dwarf Mistletoes and their management in the 

Southwest. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, R3-FH-10-01. Albuquerque, NM. 23 

pp. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health

Conklin, D.A.; M.L. Fairweather; D.E. Ryerson; B.W. Geils; and D.R. Vogler. (2009). White 

pines, blister rust, and management in the Southwest. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, R3-FH-09-01. Albuquerque, NM. 16 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health

Conklin, D.A.; and B.W. Geils. (2008). Survival and sanitation of dwarf mistletoe-infected

ponderosa pine following prescribed underburning. Western Journal of Applied Forestry

23(4): 216-222.

Cordell, H.K.; C.J. Betz; B.J. Butler; and J.C. Bergstrom. (2008). Trends in forest-based 

recreation: reports for the 2010 Montreal process indicators for the U.S. A Recreation

Research Report in the Internet Research Information (IRIS) Series, September 2008. 8 

pp. Available at: http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec8rpt.pdf

Cordell, H.K.; G.T. Green; and C.J. Betz. (2009). Long-term national trends in outdoor recreation 

activity participation---1980 to now. A Recreation Research Report in the Internet 
References

554 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Research Information (IRIS) Series, May, 2009. 5 pp. Available at

http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IRISRec12rpt.pdf

Cordell, H.K.; C.J. Betz; G.T. Green; S. Mou; V.R. Leeworthy; P.C. Wiley; J.J. Barry; and D. 

Hellerstein. (2004). Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America: A Report to the 

Nation, the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. Venture Publishing, 

Inc., State College, PA. 293 pp.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (1997). Environmental justice: guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office 

of the President, December 10, 1997. Washington, DC. 40 pp.

Courlander, H. (1971). The Fourth World of the Hopis: The Epic Story of the Hopi Indians as 

Preserved in Their Legends and Traditions. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque, NM. 239 pp.

Covington, W.W.; R.L. Everett; R. Steele; L.L. Irwin; T.A. Daer; and A.N.D. Auclair. (1994). 

Historical and anticipated changes in forest ecosystems of the inland West of the United 

States. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2(1/2): 13-63.

Covington, W.W.; P.Z. Fulé; M.M. Moore; S.C. Hart; T.E. Kolb; J.N. Mast; S.S. Sackett; and 

M.R. Wagner. (1997). Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the 

Southwest. Journal of Forestry 95(4): 23-29.

Covington, W.W.; and M.M. Moore. (1994). Southwestern ponderosa pine forest structure: 

changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92(1): 39-47.

Crawford, R. 2011. Ecological integrity assessment: Rocky Mountain aspen forest and woodland. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources, Olympia, WA. 11 pp. Version: 2.23.2011. Available at: 

http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/communities/pdf/eia/rm_aspen.pdf.

Daubenmire, R. (1968). Plant Communities. Harper and Row Publishing Company, New York,

NY. 300 pp.

DeBano, L.F.; P.F. Ffolliott; and M.B. Baker, Jr. (1996). Fire severity effects on water resources. 

Pp. 77-84. In: Ffolliott, P.F.; L.F. DeBano; M.B. Baker, Jr.; G.J. Gottfried; G. Solis-Garza; 

C.B. Edminster; D.G. Neary; L.S. Allen; and R.H. Hamre. (tcoords.). Effects of fire on 

Madrean Province ecosystems: a symposium proceedings. USDA Forest Service General

Technical Report RM-GTR-289. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,

Fort Collins, CO. 277 pp.

DeBano, L.F.; and L.J. Schmidt. (1989). Improving southwestern riparian areas through 

watershed management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-182, Rocky 

Mountain Research and Experimental Station, Fort Collins, CO. 33 pp.

DeByle, N.V.; and R.P. Winokur (eds.). (1985). Aspen: ecology and management in the western 

United States. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-119. Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 283 pp.

DeGomez, T.; C.J. Fettig; J.D. McMillin; J.A. Anhold; and C. Hayes. (2008) Managing slash to 

minimize colonization of residual leave trees by Ips and other bark beetle species 

following thinning in southwestern ponderosa pine. Arizona Cooperative Extension 
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 555

Bulletin Arizona1448. The University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life 

Sciences, Tucson, AZ. 12 pp.

Donaldson, B.R. (n.d.) Heritage sites and where to find them. Manuscript on file Apache 

Sitgreaves National Forest Supervisors Office, Springerville, AZ. 4 pp.

Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI). (2011). Fact Sheet: Post-wildfire fuels and regeneration 

dynamics: what to expect following severe wildfires in ponderosa pine forests, March 

2011. Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 2 pp.

Available at: 

http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/HASH018d/f6ec2cf1.dir/doc.pd

f

Elliot, W.J.; and M. Foltz. (2001). Validation of the FS WEPP Interfaces for Forest Roads and 

Disturbances. ASAE paper number 01-8009, presented at the 2001 ASAE Annual 

International Meeting sponsored by American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 

Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento, California, USA, July 30-August 1, 2001. 

ASAE--2001: An Engineering Odyssey. Technical Session 21: Forest soil erosion and 

water quality. St. Joseph, MO. 16 pp.

Ellis, F.H. (1974). The Hopi: Their History and Use of Lands. Volume 30. Garland Publication, 

Inc., New York, NY. 424 pp.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1990). National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). USEPA Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999). Regional Haze Regulations 40 CFR § 51, Final 

Rule. Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / Rules and 

Regulations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 62 pp. Available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/rhfedreg.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2005). National management measures to control 

nonpoint source pollution from forestry. Nonpoint Source Control Branch Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. 276 pp.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012). EPA list of nonattainment areas. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html

Fairweather, M.L. (2008). Insect and Disease Activity in Hall Ranch WUI, Springerville RD. File 

Code 3420, Project Report by Forest Pathologist, USDA Forest Service Southwestern 

Region Forest Health, Arizona Zone Office, Flagstaff, AZ.

Fairweather, M.L.; J. McMillin; T. Rogers; D. Conklin; and B. Fitzgibbon. (2006). Field guide to 

insects and diseases of Arizona and New Mexico forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, MR-R3-16-3. Albuquerque, NM. 269 pp.

Fergurson, T.J. (1980). Zuni Settlement and Land Use: An Archaeological Perspective. Zuni Tribe

v. United States, Docket No. 161-79L, before the United States Court of Claims. 151 pp.
References

556 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Fergurson, T.J. (1981). Rebuttal Report. Zuni Tribe vs. United States, Docket No. 161-79L, 

before the United States Court of Claims.

Fergurson, T.J. (2007). Zuni traditional history and cultural geography. Chapter 19, pp 377-403. 

In: Gregory, D.A.; and D.R. Wilcox (eds.), Zuni Origins: Toward a New Synthesis of 

Southwestern Archaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 544 pp.

Fergurson, T.J.; and K. Dongske. (1994). Navajo Transmission Project EIS, Hopi Ethnographic 

Overview. Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, Kykotsmovi, AZ.

Feth, J.H.; and J.D. Hem. (1963). Reconnaissance of head water springs in the Gila River 

drainage basin, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1619-H. U.S. 

Gov’t Printing Office, Washington, DC. 61 pp.

Fettig, C.J.; K.D. Klepzig; R.F. Billings; A.S. Munson; T.E. Nebeker; J.F. Negron; and J.T. 

Nowak. (2007). The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and 

control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern 

United States. Forest Ecology and Management 238(2007): 24-53.

Finch, D.M. (ed.). (2004). Assessment of grassland ecosystem conditions in the southwestern 

United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report GTR-RMRS-135, Volume

1. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 168 pp.

Finkral, A.J.; and A.M. Evans. (2008). The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a 

northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 2743-

2750.

Fire Family Plus Software (Version 3.0.1.2). Computer program for weather and fire information 

and analysis. Fire Behavior and Fire Danger Software. Missoula Fire Science Laboratory, 

Missoula, MT. Available at: http://firemodels.org

Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, 

Community And Everyday Life. Basic Books, New York, NY. 416 pp.

Folliott, P.F.; and D.G. Neary. (2003). Impacts of a historical wildfire on hydrologic processes: a 

case study in Arizona. In: Pfeffer, M.J.; D.J. Van Abs; and K.N. Brooks (eds.), 

Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Congress on 

Watershed Management for Water Supply Systems; June 29-July 2, 2003; New York, NY. 

American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, VA. Issued on CD-ROM.

Franklin, J.F.; F. Hall; W. Laudenslayer; C. Maser; J. Nunan; J. Poppino; C.J. Ralph; and T. Spies.

(1986). Interim definitions for old growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer forests in the 

Pacific Northwest and California. Old-Growth Definition Task Group. USDA Forest 

Service Research Note PNW-RN-447. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

8 pp.

Franklin, J.F.; D.A. Perry; T.D. Schowalter; M.E. Harmon; A. McKee; and T.A. Spies. (1989). 

Importance of ecological diversity in maintaining long-term site productivity. Chapter 6,

pp. 82-87. In: Perry, D.A.; R. Meurisse; B. Thomas; R. Miller; J. Boyle; J. Means; C.R. 

Perry; and R.F. Powers (eds.), Maintaining the Long-term Productivity of Pacific 

Northwest Forest Ecosystems. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 256 pp.

Freethey, G.W.; and T.W. Anderson. (1986). Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial 

basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USDI U.S.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 557

Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas Series No. 664; 3 Plates in 

publication; scale 1:500,000.

Friedel, M.H. (1991). Range condition assessment and the concept of thresholds: a viewpoint. 

Journal of Range Management 44(5): 422-426.

Friederici, P.G. (2003). Fuels treatments and forest restoration: an analysis of benefits. Working 

Paper 4 in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Series. Ecological 

Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 8 pp.

Furniss, R.L.; and V.M. Carolin. (1977). Western Forest Insects. USDA Forest Service 

Miscellaneous Publication No. 1339. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

654 pp.

Galbraith, F.W.; and D.J. Brennan. (1970). Minerals of Arizona. The Arizona Bureau of Mines 

Bulletin 181. The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 117 pp.

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC). (1996). Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission recommendations for improving western vistas. Report of the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, June 10, 1996. 109 pp. Available at: 

http://www.wrapair.org/WRAP/reports/GCVTCFinal.PDF

Gelbard, J.; and S. Harrison. (2003). Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: 

interactions with soil, aspect and grazing. Ecological Applications 13(2): 404-415.

Goguen, C.B.; and N.E. Mathews. (2001). Brown-headed cowbird behavior and movements in 

relation to livestock grazing. Ecological Applications 11(5): 1,533-1,544.

GoldPrice. 2011. Web site accessed May 4, 2011. Available at: http://www.goldprice.org/

Gori, D.F.; and C.A.F. Enquist. (2003). An assessment of the spatial extent and condition of 

grasslands in central and southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico and northern 

Mexico. The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 37 pp.

Gori, D.; and J. Bate. (2007). Historical range of variation and state and transition modeling of 

historical and current landscape conditions for pinyon-juniper of the Southwestern U.S. 

Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. The Nature Conservancy, 

Tucson, AZ. 141 pp.

Grahame, J.D.; and T.D. Sisk (eds.). (2002). Canyons, cultures, and environmental change: an 

introduction to the land-use history of the Colorado Plateau. [11/05/03]. Available at: 

http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/

Grant, G.E.; S.E. Lewis; F.J. Swanson; J.H. Cissel; and J.J. McDonnell. (2008). Effects of forest 

practices and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for western Oregon 

and Washington. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 84 pp.

Hagle, S.K. (2004). Management guide for root disease. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health

Protection and State Forestry Organizations Publication No. 11.0, February 2004. 4 pp.

Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5187544.pdf
References

558 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Hanavan, R.; and M. Boehning. (2010). Defoliator risk indicators/measures. Professional written 

correspondence (two emails) between Forest Entomologist of USDA Forest Service 

Forest Health, Arizona Zone Office and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Forest Silviculturist, 

regarding analysis of defoliator pest risks. 2 pp.

Hann, W.J.; and D.L. Bunnell. (2001) Fire and land management planning and implementation 

across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10(4): 389-403.

Hann, W.J.; A. Shlisky; D. Havlina; K. Schon; S. Barrett; T. DeMeo; K. Pohl; J. Menakis; D. 

Hamilton; J. Jones; M. Levesque; and C. Frame. (2004). Interagency fire regime 

condition class (FRCC) guidebook. Last update June 2008: Version 1.3.0. 127 pp. 

Available at:

http://www.frames.gov/documents/frcc/documents/FRCC+Guidebook_2008.10.30.pdf

Hardy, C.C.; K.M. Schmidt; J.M. Menakis; and N.R. Samson. (2001). Spatial data for national 

fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10(4): 353-

372.

Harris, L.D. (1984). The Fragmented Forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 

211 pp.

Hart, R.J.; J.J. Ward, D.J. Bills; and M.E. Flynn. (2002). Generalized hydrogeology and groundwater budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River basin and parts of the Verde and 

Salt River basins, Arizona and New Mexico. USDI U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02-4026, February 2002. Prepared in cooperation with 

the National Park Service, Tucson, AZ. 54 pp.

Haufler, J.B. (1999). Strategies for conserving terrestrial biological diversity. Chapter 2. Pp. 17-

34. In: Baydack, R.K.; H. Campa III; and J.B. Haufler (eds.), Practical Approaches to the 

Conservation of Biological Diversity. Island Press, Covelo, CA. 327 pp.

Hilpert, Bruce E. (1996). The Indé (Western Apaches). Pp. 61-90. In: Sheridan, T.E.; and N.J. 

Parezo (eds.), Paths of Life: American Indians of the Southwest and Northern Mexico. 

The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 298 pp.

Holthausen, R.S. (2002). White paper on managing for population viability. Draft; July 2002. 

Prepared for the USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 37 pp.

Horman, C.S.; and V.J. Anderson. (2003). Understory species response to Utah juniper litter. 

Journal of Range Management 56(1): 68-71. 

Horne, A.; and R. Haynes. (1999). Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency in the 

interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR453. (Quigley, T.M. (ed.), Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: 

scientific assessment). Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 41 pp.

Huang, C.H.; A. Finkral; C. Sorensen; and T. Kolb. (2013). Toward full economic valuation of 

forest fuels-reduction treatments. Journal of Environmental Management 130 (2013): 

221-231.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 559

Hurteau, M.; and M. North. (2009). Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and 

emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009; 7(8): 409-414.

Hurteau, M.D.; M.T. Stoddard; and P.Z. Fulé. (2010). Fact Sheet: Carbon costs of mitigating high 

severity wildfires. Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI), Northern Arizona University. 

Flagstaff, AZ.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate change 2007: the physical 

science basis. In: Solomon S.; D. Qin; M. Manning; Z. Chen; M. Marquis; K.B. Avery; 

M. Tignor; and H.L. Miller (eds.), Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 996 pp.

Jameson, D.A. (1967). The relationship of tree overstory and herbaceous understory vegetation. 

Journal of Range Management 20(4): 247-249.

Johansen, J.R.; J. Ashley; and W.R. Rayburn. (1993). The effects of rangefire on soil algal crusts 

in semiarid shrub-steppe of the Lower Columbia Basin and their subsequent recovery. 

Great Basin Naturalist 53(1): 73-88.

Johnston, R. (1997). Introduction to microbiotic crusts. Soil Quality Institute and Grazing Lands 

Technology Institute, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 

16 pp.

Jones, J.R. (1974). Silviculture of southwestern mixed conifers and aspen: The status of our 

knowledge. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-122. Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 44 pp.

Jones, J.R.; and N.V. DeByle. (1985a). Fire. Pp. 77-81. In: DeByle, N.V.; and R.P. Winokur 

(eds.), Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-119. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort

Collins, CO. 283 pp.

Jones, J.R.; and N.V. DeByle. (1985b). Other physical factors. Pp. 83-86. In: DeByle, N.V.; and 

R.P. Winokur (eds.), Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-119. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 283 pp.

Jones, J.R.; N.V. DeByle; and D.M. Bowers. (1985). Insects and other invertebrates. Pp.107-114. 

In: DeByle, N.V.; and R.P. Winokur (eds.), Aspen: ecology and management in the 

western United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-119. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 283 pp.

Jones, J.R.; and G.A. Schier. (1985). Growth. Pp. 19-24. In: DeByle, N.V.; and R.P. Winokur

(eds.), Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report GTR RMRS-119. Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fort Collins, CO. 283 pp.

Joyce, L.; J. Aber; S. McNulty; V. Dale; A. Hansen; L. Irland; R. Neilson; and K. Skog. (2001). 

Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the forests of the United 

States. Chapter 17, pp. 489-522. In: National Assessment Synthesis Team (eds.), Climate 

ChangeImpacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability 
References

560 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

and Change. A Report for the US Global Change Research Program. Cambridge 

University Press, New York, NY. 542 pp.

Joyce, L.; R. Haynes; R. White; and R.J. Barbour (tcoords.). (2006). Bringing climate change into 

natural resource management: proceedings of a workshop. USDA Forest Service General

Technical Report PNW-GTR-706. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

150 pp.

Karl, T.R.; J.M. Melillo; and T.C. Peterson (eds.). (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the

United States: A State of Knowledge Report from the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 192 pp. Available at:

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

Kay, C.E. (1997). Is aspen doomed? Journal of Forestry 95(5): 4-11.

Kaye, J.P.; and S.C. Hart. (1998). Ecological restoration alters nitrogen transformations in a 

ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Ecological Applications 8(4): 1052-1060. 

Kenaley, S.C.; R.L. Mathiasen; and E.J. Harner. (2008). Mortality associated with a bark beetle 

outbreak in dwarf mistletoe-infested ponderosa pine stands in Arizona. Western Journal 

of Applied Forestry 23(2): 113-120.

Khera, S.; and P.S. Mariella. (1983). Yavapai. Pp. 38-54. In: Ortiz, A. (ed.), Handbook of North 

American Indians, Volume10, Southwest. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

884 pp.

Knight, R.W. (1993). Managing stocking rates to prevent adverse environmental impacts. Pp. 97-

107. In: Cox, J.R.; and J.F. Cadenhead (eds.), Managing livestock stocking rates on

rangeland: Project Range Care; Proceedings of a symposium. Texas Agricultural 

Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 153 pp.

Knutson, L.K.; and V.L. Naef. (1997). Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority 

Habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 181 pp.

Kocis, S.M.; D.B.K. English; S.J. Zarnoch; R. Arnold; and L.Warren (2002). National visitor use 

monitoring results: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. National Visitor Use Monitoring

Project, Final Publication, August 2002. Report prepared for USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 22 pp.

Laing, L.; N. Ambos; T. Subirge; C. McDonald; C. Nelson; and W. Robbie (1987). Terrestrial 

ecosystem survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 453 pp.

LANDFIRE. (2011). LANDFIRE Project. USDA Forest Service, USDI U.S. Geological Survey, 

the Nature Conservancy, and USDI National Park Service. Available at: 

http://www.landfire.gov/index.php

Latta, M.J.; C.J. Beardmore; and T.E. Corman. (1999). Arizona Partners in Flight bird 

conservation plan. Version 1.0, June 1999. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program 

Technical Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 331 pp.

Laughlin, D.C.; J.D. Bakker; and P.Z. Fulé. (2005). Understory plant community structure in 

lower montane and subalpine forests, Grand Canyon National Park, USA. Journal of 

Biogeography 32: 2083-2102.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 561

Laughlin, D.C.; and J.B. Grace. (2006). A multivariate model of plant species richness in forested 

systems: old-growth montane forests with a long history of fire. Oikos 114: 60-70.

Laughlin, D.C.; M.M. Moore; J.D. Bakker; C.A. Casey; J.D. Springer; P.Z. Fulé; and W.W. 

Covington. (2006). Assessing targets for the restoration of herbaceous vegetation in 

ponderosa pine forests. Restoration Ecology 14(4): 548-560.

Lenart, M. (2007). Global warming in the Southwest: projections, observations, and impacts. 

CLIMAS Climate Assessment for the Southwest. The University of Arizona, Institute for 

the Study of Planet Earth, Tucson, AZ. 88 pp. Available at: 

http://www.u.Arizona.edu/~mlenart/gwsw.php

Lieffers, V.J.; S.M. Landhäusser; and E.H. Hogg. (2001). Is the wide distribution of aspen a result 

of its stress tolerance? Pp. 311-324. In: Shepperd, W.D.; D. Binkley; D.L. Bartos; T.J.

Stohlgren; and L.G. Eskew (comps.), Sustaining aspen in western landscapes. 

Symposium proceedings; 13-15 June 2000; Grand Junction, Colorado. USDA Forest 

Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

460 pp.

Linz, G.M.; H.J. Homan; S.M. Gaukler; L.B. Penry; and W.J. Bleier. (2007). European starlings: 

a review of an invasive species with far-reaching impacts. Pp. 378–386. In: Witmer, 

G.W.; W.C. Pitt; K.A. Fagerstone; and C.A. Clark (eds.) Managing vertebrate invasion 

species. Proceedings of an international symposium, August 7-9, 2007, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services’ 

National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. 481 pp. Available at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/symposia/invasive_symposium/nwrc_

TOC_index.shtml

Little, E.L. (1976). Southwestern trees: a guide to the native species of New Mexico and Arizona. 

USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 9. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. 109 pp.

Litzchert, S.E.; and L.H. MacDonald. (2009). Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery 

pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Forest Ecology and Management

259(2009): 143-150.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2004a). Community wildfire protection plan for at-risk 

communities of the Apache National Forest in Apache County. August 10, 2004. Prepared 

by Logan Simpson Design, Inc., Tempe, AZ. 71 pp.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2004b). Community wildfire protection plan for at-risk 

communities of the Sitgreaves National Forest in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo 

Counties. May 2004. Prepared by Logan Simpson Design, Inc., Tempe, AZ. 68 pp.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2005). Greenlee County community wildfire protection plan for atrisk communities of the Apache National Forest in Greenlee County. September 2005. 

Prepared by Logan Simpson Design, Inc., Tempe, AZ. 113 pp.

Lynch, A.M. (2004). Fate and characteristics of Picea damaged by Elatobium abietinum (Walker) 

(Homoptera: Aphididae) in the White Mountains of Arizona. Western North American 

Naturalist 64(1): 7-17.
References

562 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Lynch, A.M.; J.A. Anhold; J.D. McMillin; S.M. Dudley; R.A. Fitzgibbon; and M.L. Fairweather. 

(2010). Forest insect and disease activity on the Apache-Sitgreaves NF, and Fort Apache 

Indian Reservation, 1918-2009: Report for the Apache-Sitgreaves NF/Regional Analysis 

Team. February 2010. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Tucson, 

Arizona, and USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region Forest Health, Arizona Zone 

Office, Flagstaff, AZ. 40 pp.

MacDonald, L.H.; and D.B.R. Coe, (2008). Road sediment production and delivery: processes 

and management. Pp. 385-388. In: Sassa, K.; H. Fukuoka; and O. Nagai (eds.), 

Proceedings of the First World Landslide Forum, 18-21 November 2008, Parallel Session 

Volume. United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan. Global Promotion Committee of the 

International Programme on Landslides (IPL). 708 pp.

Marcot, B.G. (2002). An ecological functional basis for managing decaying wood for wildlife. 

Pp. 895-910. In: Laudenslayer, Jr., W.F.; P.J. Shea; B.E. Valentine; C.P. Weatherspoon; 

and T.E. Lisle (tcoords.), Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management 

of dead wood in western forests, November 2-4, 1999, Reno, Nevada. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. Pacific Southwest Research Station,

Albany, CA. 949 pp.

Marshall, R.; M. List; and C. Enquist. (2006). Ecoregion-based conservation assessments of the 

Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico: a geodatabase for six ecoregions, 

including the Apache Highlands, Arizona-New Mexico Mountains, Colorado Plateau, 

Mojave Desert, Sonoran Desert, and Southern Rocky Mountains. Prepared by The Nature 

Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 37 pp. Available at:

http://Arizonaconservation.org/downloads/ecoregion_based_conservation_assessments_o

f_the_southwestern_united_st

Martin, K.; K. Aitken; and K. Wiebe. (2004). Nest sites and nest webs for cavity nesting 

communities in Interior British Columbia, Canada: nest characteristics and niche 

partitioning. The Condor 106: 5-19.

Martin, T.E.; and J.L. Maron. (2012). Climate impacts on bird and plan communities from altered 

animal-plant interactions. Nature Climate Change 2 (March 2012): 195-200.

McGinty, A.; T.L. Thurow; and C.A. Taylor, Jr. (1995). Improving rainfall effectiveness on 

rangelands. Texas Agricultural Extension Service Publication E-155. Texas A&M 

University System, College Station, TX. 6 pp.

McMillin, J.D. (2009). Mountain pine beetle activity in Chitty Fire Salvage Sale and Bear 

Wallow Wilderness. USFS File Code 3420, Letter to District Ranger, Alpine RD, ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Biological Evaluation Report by Arizona Zone Office Entomologist. 

USFS Southwestern Region Forest Health, Arizona Zone Office, Flagstaff, AZ. 4 pp.

McMillin, J.D.; and M. Boehning. (2010). Bark beetle risk measures/indicators. Professional 

written correspondence (two emails) between Forest Entomologist of USDA Forest 

Service Forest Health Protection, Arizona Zone Office and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Forest 

Silviculturist, regarding analysis of bark beetle pest risks. 2 pp.

McMillin, J.D.; and R. Fitzgibbon. (2008). Insect activity in the Chitty Fire Salvage Sale. USFS 

File Code 3420, Letter to District Ranger, Alpine RD, Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Biological 
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 563

Evaluation Report by Arizona Zone Office Entomologists. USFS Southwestern Region 

Forest Health, Arizona Zone Office, Flagstaff, AZ. 5 pp.

Megahan, W.F. (1974). Erosion over time on severely disturbed granitic soils: a model. USDA 

Forest Service Research Paper INT-156. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Ogden, UT. 14 pp.

Millar, C.I.; N.L. Stephenson; and S.L. Stephens. (2007). Climate change and forests of the 

future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8): 2145-2151.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG, Inc.). (2009). Economic impact analysis. IMPLAN 

Professional Version 3.0. Hudson, WI.

Moore, M.M.; and D.A. Deiter. (1992). Stand density index as a predictor of forage production in 

northern Arizona pine forests. Journal of Range Management 45(3): 267-271.

Mueggler, W. (1985). Vegetation associations. Pp. 45-55. In: DeByle, N.V.; and R.P. Winokur

(eds.), Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report GTR RMRS-119. Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fort Collins, CO. 283 pp.

National Riparian Service Team (NRST). (2000). Blue River watershed trip report ApacheSitgreaves National Forests October 31-November 2, 2000. Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, Springerville, AZ.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). (2008). Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning 

and Implementation Procedures Guide. Boise, ID: 50 pp. Available at: 

http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/RxFire/rxfireguide.pdf

NAU and SWCA Environmental Consultants. (1996). Final Report: Animas-LA Plata 

ethnographic study, Volume 1, A traditional cultural properties survey. Prepared by 

Northern Arizona University and SWCA Environmental Consultants and submitted to 

USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, UT.

Neary, D.G.; K.C. Ryan; and L.F. DeBano (eds.). (2005). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of 

fire on soils and water. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-

volume 4. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 250 pp.

Nilsson, M.C.; and D.A. Wardle. (2005). Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: 

Evidence from the northern Swedish boreal f forest. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 3(8): 421-428.

North, M.P.; and M.D. Hurteau. (2011). High severity wildfire effects on carbon stock and 

emissions in fuels treated and untreated forest. Forest Ecology and Management (2011), 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.12.039. 6 pp.

North, M,; M. Hurteau; and J. Innes. (2009). Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on 

mixed-conifer carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications 19(6): 1385-1396.

O’Brien, R.A. (2002). Arizona’s forest resources, 1999. USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin 

RMRS-RB-2. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 116 pp.

O’Gara, B.W; and J.D. Yoakum. (2004). Pronghorn ecology and management. University Press 

of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 903 pp.
References

564 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Page-Dumroese, D.S.; M. Jurgensen; and T. Thomas. (2010). Maintaining soil productivity during 

forest or biomass-to-energy thinning harvests in the western United States. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry 25(1): 5-10.

Parker, T.J.; K.M. Clancy; and R.L. Mathiasen. (2006). Interactions among fire, insects, and 

pathogens in coniferous forests of the interior western United States and Canada. 

Agricultural and Forest Entomology 8: 167-189.

Parks, C.G.; Radosevich, S.R.; Endress, B.A.; Naylor, B.J.; Anzinger, D.; Rew, L.J.; Maxwell, 

B.D.; and Dwire, K.A. (2005). Natural and land-use history of the Northwest mountain 

ecoregions (USA) in relation to patterns of plant invasions. Perspectives in Plant 

Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 7: 137-158.

Parsons, A.; P.R. Robichaud; S.A. Lewis; C. Napper; and J.T. Clark. (2010). Field guide for 

mapping post-fire soil burn severity. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-243. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 49 pp.

Perry, R. (1991). Western Apache Heritage: People of the Mountain Corridor. University of 

Texas Press, Austin, TX. 298 pp.

Peters, E.F.; and S.C. Bunting. (1994). Fire conditions pre-and post-occurrence of annual grasses 

on the Snake River Plain. Pp. 31-36. In: Monsen, S.B.; and S.G. Kitchen (eds.),

Proceedings-ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-21; Boise, ID.

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. Intermountain Research 

Station, Ogden, UT. 416 pp.

Petit, L. (n.d.). Brown-headed cowbirds: from buffalo birds to modern scourge. Smithsonian 

Migratory Bird Center Fact Sheet No. 3. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 2 pp. 

Available at:

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/migratorybirds/fact_sheets/default.cfm?fxsht=3 (Page Last 

Modified: 3/29/2012).

Plog, F. (1981a). Cultural resources overview: Little Colorado area, Arizona. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State 

Office. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 199 pp.

Plog, F. (1981b). Managing archaeology: a background document for cultural resource 

management on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Arizona. USDA Forest Service 

Cultural Resources Management Report No. 1. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region, Albuquerque, NM. 66 pp.

Potyandy, J.; T.W. Geier; P. Luehring; M. Hudy; B. Roper; R. Dunlap; T. Doane; G. Kujawa; P.T. 

Anderson; J. Hall-Rivera; J. Keys; M. Ielmini; A. Acheson; R. Thompson; B. Davis; S. 

Friedman; K.D. Rosa; and T. Brown. (2010). Watershed condition framework: a

framework for assessing and tracking changes to watershed conditions. USDA Forest 

Service FS-977. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 24 pp.

QuickSilver Version 6. (2010). Quick-Silver: an economic analysis tool. Accessed 2 February 

2011. Available at: 

http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/PAG/Economics_Center/software/QuickSilver/index.shtml
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 565

Reed, J.E.; W.B. Ballard; P.S. Gipson; B.T. Kelly; P.R. Krausman; M.C. Wallace; and D.B. 

Wester. (2006). Diets of free-ranging Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4): 1127-1133.

Renard, K.G.; G.A. Foster; G.A. Weesies; D.K. McCool; and D.C. Yoder (coords.). (1997). 

Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to the conservation planning with the revised 

universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). USDAAgricultural Research Service Agriculture 

Handbook No.703. Springfield, VA. 404 pp.

Riblett, C.H.; Hinck, J.H.; Scofield, W.L.; Warner, W.R.; Rencher, G.B.; Patterson, E.R.; Sizer, 

J.H.; Winn, F.; Rogers, B.S.; Wylder, T.E.; Adams, J.A.; and W.M. Baker. (1915). Range 

reconnaissance field survey of the Apache National Forest, 1913-1915, (unpublished 

data). USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Springerville, Arizona. 

224 pp.

Rich, L.R; and J.R. Thompson. (1974). Watershed management in Arizona’s mixed conifer 

forests: The status of our knowledge. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-130. 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 15 pp. 

Robinson, A.T.; N.V. Paretti: and G.E. Cordy. (2006). Ecological Assessment of Arizona’s 

Streams and Rivers, 2000-2004. Research Branch, Arizona Game and Fish Department;

and Arizona Water Science Center, USDI U.S. Geological Survey. Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Research Branch, Phoenix, AZ. 52 pp.

Robson, S.G.; and E.R. Banta. (1995). Groundwater atlas of the United States; Arizona, Colorado, 

New Mexico, Utah. HA730-C, USDI U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_c/index.html

Roccaforte, J.P.; P.Z. Fulé; W.W. Chancellor; and D.C. Laughlin. (2012). Woody debris and tree 

regeneration dynamics following severe wildfires in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42(3): 593-604.

Rogers, P. (2003). Forest resources of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 13 pp.

Rogers, P.C. (comp/ed.). (2008). Summary and abstracts from Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) 

Meeting; Fort Collins, Colorado, February 12-13, 2008. USDA Forest Service. Fort 

Collins, CO. 18 pp.

Rogers, P.C. (2009). Letter, dated August 25, 2009, to Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Forest 

Supervisor, regarding Aspen decline condition in Northern Arizona, by Director of 

Western Aspen Alliance and professor at UT State University Wildland Resources 

Department, Logan UT.

Rogers, P.C. (2011). Letter, dated October 24, 2011, to USFS Southwestern Regional Forester 

summarizing post-Wallow Fire aspen conditions and regeneration monitoring field visit 

(under USFS Region 3 Forest Health Cooperative Agreement No. 11-PA-11031600-080), 

by Director of Western Aspen Alliance and professor at UT State University Wildland 

Resources Department, Logan UT. Available at: http://www.western-aspen-alliance.org/

Rolf, J.A. (2001). Aspen fencing in northern Arizona: a 15-year perspective. Pp. 193-196. In: 

Shepperd W.D.; D. Binkley; D.L. Bartos; T.J. Stohlgren; and L.G. Eskew (comps.), 

Sustaining aspen in western landscapes: symposium proceedings; 13-15 June 2000; 
References

566 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Grand Junction, Colorado. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 460 pp.

Romme, W.H.; M.L. Floyd; and D.D. Hanna. (2009). Historical range of variability and current 

landscape condition analysis: South Central Highlands section, southwestern Colorado 

and northwestern New Mexico. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute at Colorado State 

University and USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO. 186 pp.

Romme, W.H.; M.L. Floyd-Hanna; D.D. Hanna; and E. Bartlett. (2001). Aspen’s ecological role 

in the west. Pp. 243-260. In: Shepperd, W.D.; D. Binkley; D.L. Bartos; T.J. Stohlgren; 

and L.G. Eskew (comps.), Sustaining aspen in western landscapes. Symposium 

proceedings; 13-15 June 2000; Grand Junction, Colorado. USDA Forest Service 

Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 460 pp.

Rothstein, S.I. (1994). The cowbird’s invasion of the far west: history, causes, and consequences 

experienced by host species. Pp. 301-315. In: Jehle, J.; and N. Johnson (eds.), A Century 

of Avifaunal Change in Western North America: Proceedings of an International 

Symposium at the Centennial Meeting of the Cooper Ornithological Society; Sacramento, 

California, April 17, 1993. Issue 15 of Studies in Avian Biology. Allen Press, Lawrence, 

KS. 348 pp.

Ryan, M.; S. Archer; R. Birdsey; C. Dahm; L. Heath; J. Hicke; D. Hollinger; T. Huxman; G. 

Okin; R. Oren; J. Randerson; and W. Schlesinger. (2008). Land resources. Chapter 3, pp.

75-121. In: P. Backlund; A. Janetos; D. Schimel; J. Hatfield; K. Boote; P. Fay; L. Hahn; 

C. Izaurralde; B.A. Kimball; T. Mader; J. Morgan; D. Ort; W. Polley; A. Thomson; D. 

Wolfe; M.G. Ryan; S.R. Archer; R. Birdsey; C. Dahm; L. Heath; J. Hicke; D. Hollinger; 

T. Huxman; G. Okin; R. Oren; J. Randerson; W. Schlesinger; D. Lettenmaier; D. Major; 

L. Poff; S. Running; L. Hansen; D. Inouye; B.P. Kelly; L. Meyerson; B. Peterson; and R. 

Shaw (comps.), The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water 

resources, and biodiversity. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and 

the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC. 362 pp.

Ryan, M.G.; M.E. Harmon; R.A. Birdsey; C.P. Giardina; L.S. Heath; R.A. Houghton; R.B. 

Jackson; D.C. McKinley; J.F. Morrison; B.C. Murray; D.E. Pataki; and K.E. Skog. 

(2010). A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for U.S. forests. Issues in 

Ecology, Report Number 13, Spring 2010. The Ecological Society of America. 

Washington, D.C.

Savage, M.; and J.N. Mast. (2005). How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after 

crown fires? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35(4): 967-977.

Schmidt, K.M.; J.P. Menakis; C.C. Hardy; W. J. Hann; and D.L. Bunnell, (2002). Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-87. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, CO. 41 pp.

Schussman, H.; and E. Smith. (2006). Historical range of variation for potential natural vegetation 

types of the Southwest. Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region by the 

Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 22 pp.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 567

Seesholtz, D.; D. Wickwar; and J. Russell. 2004. Social economic profile technical guide. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report WO-74. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington, DC. 74 pp.

Senior, L. (2003). Personnel Communication. In preparation: An Ethnographic Resources 

Inventory of the Rodeo-Chediski Burn Area. Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts, 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache and Navajo Counties, Arizona. SWCA 

Cultural Resources Report No.03-164, SWCA Inc., Environmental Consultants, Tucson, 

AZ.

Senior, L. (2005). Rim Country Ethnicity: An Ethnographic Resources Inventory of the RodeoChediski Burn Area. Prepared for USDA Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, SWCA 

Cultural Resources Report, SWCA Inc., Environmental Consultants, Tucson, AZ.

Shepperd, W.D.; and M.L. Fairweather. (1994). Impact of Large Ungulates in Restoration of 

Aspen Communities in a Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem. Pp. 344-347. In: 

Covington W.S.; and L.F. DeBano (tcoords.), Sustainable ecological systems: 

implementing and ecological approach to land management; July 12-15, 1993, Flagstaff, 

Arizona. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-247. Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 363 pp.

Silva Ecosystem Consultants (1992). Old growth literature review. Silva Forest Foundation. 

Slocan Park, British Columbia, Canada V0G 2E0. 60 pp. Available at: 

http://www.silvafor.org/assets/silva/PDF/Literature/OldGrowthEcology.pdf.

Simard, S.W.; J.L. Heineman; W.J. Mather; D.L. Sachs; and A. Vyse (2001). Effects of 

operational brushing on conifers and plant communities in the southern interior of British 

Columbia: results from PROBE 1991-2000 protocol for operational brushing evaluations. 

Ministry of Forests Research Program, Land Management Handbook No. 48. Victoria, 

British Columbia, Canada. 398 pp. Available at: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/lmh/lmh48.htm

Sitko, S.; and S. Hurteau, (2010). Evaluating the impacts of forest treatments: the first five years 

of the White Mountain Stewardship Project. Prepared for the Forest Service by the 

Nature Conservancy. Phoenix, AZ. 110 pp.

Smith, E. 2006a. Historical range of variation and state and transition modeling of historical and 

current landscape conditions for mixed conifer of the southwestern U.S. Chapter 6 -

Mixed conifer forest. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by 

The Nature Conservancy, Arizona Chapter. Tucson, AZ. 31 pp.

Smith, E. 2006b. Historical range of variation and state and transition modeling of historical and 

current landscape conditions for spruce-fir of the southwestern U.S. Chapter 8 - Sprucefir forest. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature 

Conservancy, Arizona Chapter. Tucson, AZ. 37 pp.

Smith, J.B.; R. Richel; and B. Miller. (2001). The potential consequences of climate variability 

and change: The western United States, Chapter 9. Pp. 219-245 In: National Assessment 

Synthesis Team (eds.), Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. A Report for the US Global Change 

Research Program. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. 542 pp.
References

568 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

Soulé, M.E., Estes, J.A., Berger, J. and C. Martinez Del Rio. (2003). Ecological effectiveness: 

conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology 17(5): 1238-1250.

Sprigg, W.A.; T. Hinkley; R.C. Bales; J. Bernal; D.Brookshire; S.P. Brown; J. Chermak; P. Dayal; 

J.Enote; D.C. Goodrich; H.P. Hanson; L. Huenneke; W. Karsell; J. Matusak; L. Mearns; 

R. Merideth; K. Miller; D.R. Minke; S.A. Morain; W. Orr; K.T. Redmond; and J.J.Young. 

(2000). Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change: Southwest. A Report of the Southwest Regional Assessment 

Group. The University of Arizona. The Institute for the Study of Planet Earth. US Global 

Change Research Program, Tucson, AZ. 60 pp.

Stacey, P.B. (1995). Diversity of rangeland bird populations. Natural Resources and 

Environmental Issues: Volume 4, Article 5. 5 pp. Available at: 

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol4/iss1/5

State of New Mexico. (2005). Potential effects of climate change on New Mexico. Agency 

Technical Work Group, State of NM, December 30, 2005. Santa Fe, NM. 47 pp.

Stevens, L.E. Meretsky, V.J. (2008). Springs ecosystem ecology and conservation, In, Stevens, 

L.E.; Meretsky, V.J. eds. Aridland springs in North America: ecology and conservation, 

Tucson, AA: University of Arizona Press. pp 3-10.

Stevens, V. (1997). The ecological role of coarse woody debris: an overview of the ecological 

importance of CWD in B.C. forests. Working Paper 30, Research Branch, Ministry of 

Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 pp.

Stritar, M.L.; J.A. Schweitzer; S.C. Hart; and J.K. Bailey. (2010). Introduced ungulate herbivore 

alters soil processes after fire. Biological Invasions 12(2010): 313-324.

Stynes, D. J.; and E.M. White. (2005). Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM 

Four Year Report. Joint Venture Agreement between the USDA Forest Service, Inventory 

and Monitoring Institute and Michigan State University. Joint Venture Agreement # 01-

JV-11130149-203. Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI. 44 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/NVUM4YrSpending.pdf

Swank, W.; L. DeBano; and D. Nelson. (1989). Effects of timber management practices on soil 

and water. Pp 79-106 In: Burns, R.M. (ed.), The scientific basis for silvicultural and 

management decisions in the National Forest System. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report WO-55. Washington, DC. 180 pp. 

Swetnam, T.W.; and C.H. Baisan. (1996). Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern 

United States since AD 1700. Pp. 11-32. In: Allen, C.D. (ted.), Fire effects in 

southwestern forests: proceedings of the Second La Mesa Fire Symposium, March 29-31, 

1994, Los Alamos, NM. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-286. 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 216 pp.

Swetnam, T.W.; and J.L. Betancourt. (1990). Fire-southern oscillation relations in the 

southwestern United States. Science 249: 1,017-1,020.

Swetnam, T.W.; and J.L. Betancourt. (1997). Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response to 

decadal climatic variability in the American Southwest. Journal of Climate 11: 3,128-

3,147.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 569

Tellman, B.R.; and M.W. Yarde. (1997). Arizona’s changing rivers: how people have affected the 

rivers. Water Resources Research Center, College of Agriculture, the University of 

Arizona. Tucson, AZ. 198 pp.

Thill, R.E.; P.F. Ffolliott; and D.R. Patton. (1983). Deer and elk forage production in Arizona

mixed conifer forests. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-248. Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 13 pp.

Thomas, J.W.; and D.E. Toweill (eds.). (1982). Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. 

Stockpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 698 pp.

Triepke, F.J.; B.J. Higgins; R.N. Weisz; J.A. Youtz; and T. Nicolet. (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. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, 

NM. 32 pp.

Troendle, C.A.; and W.K. Olsen. (1994). Potential Effects of Vegetation Harvest and Watershed 

Management on Streamflow Dynamics and Sediment Transport. Pp.34-41 In: Covington 

W.S.; and L.F. DeBano (tcoords.), Sustainable ecological systems: implementing and 

ecological approach to land management; July 12-15, 1993, Flagstaff, Arizona. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-247. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 363 pp. 

Troendle, C.A.; M.S. Wilcox; G.S. Bevenger; and L.S. Porth. (2001). The Coon Creek water yield 

augmentation project: implementation of timber harvesting technology to increase 

streamflow. Forest Ecology and Management 143(1-3): 179-187.

Trunkle, P.; and P. Fay. (1991). Transportation of spotted knapweed seeds by vehicles. Montana 

Weed Control Association, Twin Bridges, MT. 1 pp.

Tyser, R.; and C. Key. (1988). Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an ecological 

assessment. Northwest Science 62(4): 151-160.

Tyser, R.; and C. Worley. (1992). Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in 

Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology 6(2): 253-262. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2011). Local Area Personal Income. Accessed 21 April 2011. 

Available at: http://www.bea.gov

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Local Area Unemployment. Accessed 21 April 2011. 

Available at: http://www.bls.gov/lau

U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). American FactFinder. Accessed 14 December 2010. Available at: 

http://www.factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (1995). Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. 

Available at: http://www.census.gov/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). American FactFinder. Accessed 14 December 2010. Available at: 

http://www.factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). American Community Survey, 2005-2009. Accessed 21 April 2011. 

Available at: http://www.census.gov/acs
References

570 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American FactFinder2. Accessed 28 March 2012. Available at: 

http://www.factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI). (2000). 

Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment: A Report to the 

President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000, September 8, 2000. 35 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2011). National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). 

QuickStats 1.0. Accessed 22 March 2011. Available at: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats_1.0/index.asp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior 

(USDOI), Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park 

Service. (2012). Minimum Requirements Decision Guide. Available at: 

http://www.wilderness.net/MRA

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (1998). Riparian area 

management: a user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting 

science for lotic areas, Prichard, D.; J. Anderson; C. Correll; J. Fogg; K. Gebhardt; R. 

Krapf; S. Leonard; B. Mitchell; and J. Staats (wkgroup.), USDI Bureau of Land 

Management Technical Reference 1737-15. Denver, CO. 134 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2003). Riparian area 

management: a user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting 

science for lentic areas, Prichard, D.; F. Berg; W. Hagenbuck; R. Krapf; R. Leinard; S. 

Leonard; M. Manning; C. Noble; and J. Staats (wkgroup.), USDI Bureau of Land 

Management Technical Reference 1737-16. Denver, CO. 118 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2011). Mining claims and 

sites on Federal Lands, Rohling, K. (ed.), USDI Bureau of Land Management P-048. 

Denver, CO. 32 pp. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RES

OURCE_PROTECTION_/energy.Par.28664.File.dat/MiningClaims.pdf

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). (1995). Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Colorado River Storage Project, Coconino 

County Arizona. Salt Lake City, UT. 156 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1995). Recovery Plan for the 

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), Volume 1. Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1998). Razorback Sucker 

(Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Plan. Denver, CO. 76 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2003). Biological Opinion: 

Blue and San Francisco Rivers Grazing Consultation. AESO/SE: 2-21-01-F-21, 12-21-

01-F-300, 2-21-01-F-302, 2-21-01-F-303, 2-21-01-F-306, 2-21-01-F-307, 2-21-95-F-441, 

2-21-95-F-442, 2-21-95-F-443, 2-21-95-F-446, 2-21-95-F-447, 2-21-01-F-105. January 

31, 2003. Phoenix, AZ. 213 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2008). Birds of conservation 

concern 2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. 85 pp. Available 

at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds 
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 571

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2011). Mexican wolf web site 

accessed September, 2012. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2012a). Biological and 

conference opinion for the continued implementation of the land and resource 

management plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs of the Southwestern region USDA 

Forest Service. Consultation 2012-F-0001. Phoenix, AZ. 589 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2012b). Final Recovery 

Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. 

Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2010). Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). Accessed 20 

December 2010. Available at: http://www.doi.gov/pilt

U.S. Forest Service. (1974). National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, The 

Visual Management System. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 462. 

Washington, DC. 47 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (1982). Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Users Guide. USDA Forest 

Service, Washington, DC. 40 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (1990). ROS Primer and Field Guide. USDA Forest Service, Washington, 

DC. 10 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (1991). General ecosystem survey. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region. Albuquerque, NM. 188 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (1995). Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery management. USDA 

Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 701. Washington, DC. 104 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2000). Roadless Rule Final EIS, Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation

Final EIS. Washington, DC. Available at: http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/

U.S. Forest Service. (2001). National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUM). Accessed 21 

March 2011. Available at: 

http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/products/NVUM_Results/index.shtml

U.S. Forest Service. (2002). Little Colorado Landscape Assessment. U.S. CEEM. ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2003). First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic 

Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation 

Officer and Arizona Historic Preservation Officer and Texas and Oklahoma and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the United States Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service Region 3. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 

Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Forest Service. (2005). Highway Right-Of-Way Mitigation for All Threatened, Endangered 

and Sensitive Species That Occur on The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests for 

ADOT’s Management of Noxious Weeds And Hazardous Vegetation on Public Roads on 

National Forest Systems Lands In Arizona. Compiled by: M.R. White, Ph.D. ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ.
References

572 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

U.S. Forest Service. (2006). National Visitor Use Monitoring Report (NVUM), Round 1 Output 

Forest-Level Visitation and Confidence Intervals. 4 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/revised_vis_est.pdf

U.S. Forest Service. (2007a). Recreation facility analysis: 5-year program of work and 

programmatic results of implementation. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ. 35 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2007b). R3 Potential Wilderness Inventory Process. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. 8 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2007c). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests geographic information system 

data, range condition feature class. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2007d). Best Management Practices Annual Monitoring Reports. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008a). Comprehensive Evaluation Report: Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, Arizona. 40 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008b). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Resource Evaluations. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ. 

U.S. Forest Service. (2008c). Apache-Sitgreaves NFs streamside management zone guidance. 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008d). Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact: 

Environmental Assessment for the A-SNFs Integrated Forest-Wide Noxious or Invasive 

Weed Management Program. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 

Springerville, AZ. 194 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008e). Ecological Sustainability Report. Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ. 139 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008f). Watershed and hydrologic recovery through soil stabilization and 

vegetation regeneration. Prepared by M.R. White, Ph.D., forest ecologist. USDA Forest 

Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Springerville, AZ. 14 pp.

U. S. Forest Service. (2008g). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests geographic information system 

data, range condition feature class. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2008h). Best Management Practices Annual Monitoring Reports. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2009a). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Economic and Social 

Sustainability Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville,

AZ. 114 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2009b). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Mineral Resource Report. 

Updated 2013.USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 573

U.S. Forest Service. (2009c). Research Natural Area Process for Forest Plan Revision under the 

1982 Planning Rule Provisions. Southwestern Region RNA Work Group. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010a). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests CER Supplement to meet AMS 

Requirements. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ. 10 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010b). Climate Change Resource Center. Accessed October 2012.

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/

U.S. Forest Service. (2010c). Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Public Motorized Travel 

Management Plan Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, MB-R3-01-4. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ. 223 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010d). Final Environmental Assessment for the Blue River and KP Creek 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability, MB-R3-01-3. USDA Forest Service, ApacheSitgreaves National Forests Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ. 203 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010e). Historic riparian condition photographs. Compiled by J. Ward and 

L. WhiteTrifaro. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010f). INFRA - Special Use Database (SUDS) Mineral Materials database. 

Forest Summary by Commodity, report MMGS017L. Accessed 10/20/2010.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010g). Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act 

Payments. Accessed December 20, 2010. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts

U.S. Forest Service. (2010h). Southwestern Region climate change trends and forest planning: A 

guide for addressing climate change in forest plan revisions for southwestern national 

forests and national grasslands. Southwestern Region Climate Change and Forest 

Planning Work Group, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM.

46 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010i). The Four Forest Restoration Initiative: A Collaborative Effort to 

Restore Forest Ecosystems on Four National Forests. USDA Forest Service Brochure 

MB-R3-04-13. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM.

U.S. Forest Service. (2010j). Unpublished soil disturbance and soil condition data. USDA Forest 

Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2011a). Biological assessment for re-initiation of consultation on the 

continued implementation of the land and resource management plans for the eleven 

national forests and grasslands of the Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. 348 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2011b). GIS Core Data View for Developed Recreation Sites Report. Pulled 

on March 16, 2011 from the Infra Database. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2011c). Land Area Report. Table 4 - Areas by State. 53 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR2011/LAR_Table_04.pdf

U.S. Forest Service. (2011d). Wallow Fire Emergency Consultation for BAER Activities on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests. BAER Consultation Team. October 2011. 
References

574 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

#22410-2011-IE-0276. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2011e). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Other Lands and Land Use 

Plans. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012a). Addendum to the 2009 Eligibility Report for the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012b). Iterative Update to Species Considered and Identification of Forest 

Planning Species Report. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012c). I-Web Database – Infra Roads. 

U.S. Forest Service. (2012d). Report on the Selection of Management Indicator Species and 

Ecological Indicators USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012e). Wallow Fire Changed Condition Assessment. USDA Forest Service 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2012f). Groundwater-Dependent 

Ecosystems: Level II Inventory Field Guide. Gen. Tech. Report WO-86b. Washington, 

DC. 32 pp

U.S. Forest Service. (2013). Region 3 rangeland analysis and management training guide, revised 

chapter 2 - rangeland inventory (pp. 2-1 through 2-12A-G). Multiple revisions throughout 

the original 1997 document. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, 

NM. 224 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014a). Air Quality Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014b). American Indian Rights and Interests Specialist Report Forest Plan 

Revision FEIS. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern 

Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014c). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan 

Socioeconomic Resource Report. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014d). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Public Participation Plan. 

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014e). Cultural Resources Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. 

USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014f). Fire Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA Forest 

Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 575

U.S. Forest Service. (2014g). Fisheries Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014h). Forest Health Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014i). Forest Products Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014j). Infrastructure Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014k). Invasives Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ. 18 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014l). Lands Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA Forest 

Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014m). Minerals and Energy Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. 

USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014n). Range Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA Forest 

Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014o). Recreation Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014p). Research Natural Area Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. 

USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ. 43 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014q). Riparian Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014r). Scenic Resources Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. 

USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014s). Soils Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA Forest 

Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014t). Vegetation Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision Final

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National

Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ. 441 pp.
References

576 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

U.S. Forest Service. (2014u). Water Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA Forest 

Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014v). Watershed Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA 

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, 

AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014w). Wild and Scenic Rivers Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision 

FEIS. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014x). Wilderness Resources and Inventoried Roadless Areas Specialist 

Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014y). Wildlife Specialist Report - Migratory Birds, Eagles, and Important 

Bird Areas. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern 

Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014z). Wildlife Specialist Report - Biological Assessment [i.e., the ESA 

species]. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern 

Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014aa). Wildlife Specialist Report - Biological Evaluation [i.e., the 

sensitive species]. USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014bb). Wildlife Specialist Report - Viability. USDA Forest Service 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014cc). Final Biological Assessment for the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Land Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, Southwestern Region. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2006). Mineral commodity summaries. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Gov’t Printing Office, Washington, DC. 200 pp. 

Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2006/mcs2006.pdf

Utah Forest Restoration Working Group - Ecology Committee (UFRWG) (O’Brien, M.; P. 

Rogers; K. Mueller; R. MacWhorter; A. Rowley; B. Hopkin; B. Christensen; and P. 

Dremann). (2010). Guidelines for aspen restoration on the National Forests in Utah, 

Western Aspen Alliance, UT State University, Logan, UT. 48 pp.

Vander Lee, B., Smith, R., and Bate, J. (2006). Methods, Chapter 2, pp. 2-1 - 2-29. In: Vander 

Lee, B.; and R. Smith (eds.), Ecological and biological diversity of National Forests in 

Region 3. Southwest Forest Assessment Project. The Nature Conservancy. Tucson, AZ.

148 pp.

Vannette, W.M.; and A. Feary. (1981). Navajo Sacred Places and Resource Use in and near the 

Coconino, Kaibab, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Confidential manuscript on 

file, Supervisors Office, Apache Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. 

Springerville, AZ.
References

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 577

Veblen, T. (2000). Disturbance patterns in southern Rocky Mountain forests. Pp. 31-54. In: 

Knight, R.L.; F.W. Smith; S.W. Buskirk; W.H. Romme; and W.L. Baker (eds.), Forest 

fragmentation in the southern Rocky Mountains. Colorado University Press. Boulder, 

CO. 474 pp.

Weisz, R; D. Vandendriesche; and M. Moeur. (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.

Wemple, B.C.; F.J. Swanson; and J.A. Jones. (2001). Forest roads and geomorphic process 

interactions, Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 26: 191-

204.

Westerling, A.L.; H.G. Hildalgo; and T.W. Swetnam. (2006). Warming and earlier spring increase 

western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313 (18August2006): 940-943.

Whisenant, S.G. (1990). Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and 

management implications. Pp. 4-10. In: McArthur, E.D.; E.M. Romney; S.D. Smith; and 

P.T. Tueller (eds.), Proceedings-symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and 

other aspects of shrub biology and management. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report INT-276. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 351 pp.

White, M.R. (2002). Characterization of, and changes in the subalpine and montane grasslands, 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of 

Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 206 pp.

White, M.R. (2008). Field guide to noxious and invasive weeds known to occur or are occurring 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 

MR-R3-01-2. Albuquerque, NM. 233 pp.

White, M.R. (2011). Field guide to invasive plants of the national forests and grasslands in 

Arizona and New Mexico. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, MR-R3-16-6. 

Albuquerque, NM. 144 pp.

Woodward, H.D.; and S.H. Stoleson. (2002). Brown-headed cowbird attacks southwestern willow 

flycatcher nestlings. The Southwestern Naturalist 47(4): 626-628.

Youngblood, A.; J.B. Grace; and J.D. McIver. (2009). Delayed conifer mortality after fuel 

reduction treatments: interactive effects of fuel, fire intensity, and bark beetles. 

Ecological Applications 19(2): 321-337

Youtz, J.A.; and D. Vandendriesche. (2012). White paper: National Forest Planning and Sustained 

Yield of the Timber Resource Long-Term Sustained-Yield Calculations for Forest Land 

and Resource Management Planning. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 

Albuquerque, NM, and Washington Office Forest Management Service Center. 32 pp.

Zuni Cultural Advisory Team. (2011). Personal communication to Melissa R Schroeder at Sacred 

Sites Listening Session Meeting February 22, 2011. Pueblo of Zuni, NM.

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 579

Index

adaptive management, 51

ADEQ comment letter, 940

affected environment, 49, 54, 60, 72, 80, 92, 

101, 145, 197, 217, 237, 334, 339, 356, 

361, 369, 376, 395, 404, 414, 426, 442, 

450, 477, 489, 496

air resources

air quality, 54, 71, 224, 229, 549, 1099, 

1102

air pollution, 54–59

airshed, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 225, 1217

concerns and responses, 612–16

Alternatives

alternative A, iii, 25, 34, 66, 184, 448, 

457, 514, 515, 601, 741, 810, 815, 822

alternative B, iii, 26, 28, 66, 514, 601, 

741, 811, 815

alternative C, iii, 15, 20, 29, 30, 66, 210, 

514, 601, 710, 741, 812, 815

alternative D, iii, 15, 31, 32, 33, 66, 67, 

226, 514, 601, 741

common elements, 33–35

comparison of, 35–45

concerns and responses, 601–8

details, 23

development, 12, 15

differences, 24–33

eliminated from detailed study, 16

environmental consequences, 49, 52, 56, 

59, 64, 71, 76, 78, 84, 90, 96, 100, 116, 

128, 142, 161, 194, 207, 215, 225, 231, 

268, 335, 338, 347, 354, 357, 359, 364, 

368, 373, 375, 387, 391, 394, 398, 403, 

409, 413, 422, 425, 434, 440, 446, 448, 

457, 474, 478, 488, 493, 494, 512, 518

in detail, 23

American Indian, 23, 432, 441, 511, 517, 

729, 835, 838, 1208, 1221, 1229

analysis process

description of, 791–94

socioeconomic resources, 828–30

species viability, 823–28

Apache County comment letter, 899–940

aquatic habitat, 141, 309, 310, 630, 1077–

1111, 1112–29, 1115, 1165, 1186, 1229, 

1259, 1323, 1332, 1351

concerns and responses, 630–36

Arizona State agencies

Arizona Department of Agriculture, 841

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ), 54, 79, 224

Arizona Department of Transportation 

(ADOT), 355, 360, 698, 841

Arizona Department of Water Resources 

(ADWR), 841

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AZGFD), 107, 233, 629, 636, 757

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AZGFD), 842

Arizona State Forestry Division (ASFD), 

843

Arizona State Land Department 

(AZSLD), 844

Arizona State Parks, 844

aspen, 23, 158–59, 184, 201, 206, 212, 243, 

273, 376, 455, 542, 769, 784, 830, 1136, 

1170, 1232, 1263, 1265, 1267, 1288, 

1290, 1307, 1322, 1345

concerns and responses, 650–52

AZGFD comment letter, 942–54

AZSLD comment letter, 955

bald eagle, 233, 265–66, 327

bark beetles, 199, 208

Bear Wallow Wilderness, 341, 364, 378, 

379, 389, 715, 720, 724, 859, 1217, 1223, 

1247

Blue Range Primitive Area, 13, 24, 26, 28, 

30, 32, 33, 341, 356, 357, 364, 375, 376, 

380, 387, 407, 718, 723, 724, 858, 1168, 

1219, 1243, 1247

caves, 320, 892, 1208

climate change (also called climate 

variability), 52, 59, 70, 78, 88, 89, 99, 

193, 231, 332, 338, 473, 488, 1302, 1304

coarse woody debris, 159, 171, 177, 305, 

529, 611, 614, 1143, 1170, 1262, 1274, 

1316, 1319, 1341

comment letters, 897–1072

conservation education, 754

consultation

and coordination, 521–26

concerns and responses, 611–12

tribal, 10, 875

crosswalk

air, soil, water, and riparian, 1077–1111

aquatics and fish, 1112–29
580 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

engineering, 1130–33

fire and fuels, 1134

goshawk, 1135–66

lands and minerals, 1168–69

Mexican spotted owl, 1170–1206

Plan, 1073–1354

range, 1228–36

recreation, 1237–57

cultural resources, 392, 425–49, 729, 1208, 

1229

sacred site, 368, 433, 441, 442, 445, 1208, 

1221, 1229, 1239, 1339

traditional cultural property (TCP), 375, 

432, 435, 440, 441, 445, 446, 545, 

1208, 1221

disturbance events, landscape scale, 752–54

dry mixed conifer, 167, 188, 881

Eagar, Town of, comment letter, 1059–64

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization 

comment letter, 956–84

ecosystem health, 3, 21, 589, 619, 628, 737, 

754, 1077, 1112, 1121, 1235, 1285, 1323, 

1329, 1345

elk, 753, 840

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 5, 128, 232, 

251, 255, 281, 335, 379, 519, 529, 531, 

538, 676, 850

endangered species. See federally listed 

species, 23, 667, 1200, 1235, 1338

energy corridor, 19, 37, 373, 412, 421, 423, 

757, 1168

energy development, 8, 35

environmental consequences

cumulative, 59, 71, 90, 100, 142, 231, 

354, 359, 368, 375, 394, 403, 413, 440, 

448, 474, 488, 518

of alternatives, 64, 76, 78, 84, 96, 116, 

161, 207, 373, 387, 391, 398, 409, 422, 

434, 457, 478, 493, 494, 512

overall, 128

EPA comment letter, 984–85

Escudilla Wilderness, 30, 44, 347, 364, 378, 

379, 389, 720, 723, 724, 859, 1217, 1224, 

1247

Federal agencies

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 403, 

413, 846

Federal Highway Administration (FHA), 

345, 840, 846, 847

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 112, 

129, 233, 263, 284, 337, 519, 528, 633, 

667, 846, 850, 1194, 1200, 1338

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), 673

federally listed species, 287, 289, 292, 296, 

754, 1199, 1229, 1285, 1329, 1332

fire, 216–32

fire management, 659, 664, 665, 1134, 1172, 

1180, 1280

community wildfire protection plan 

(CWPP), 7, 17, 27, 217, 218, 456, 476, 

529, 659, 732, 837

fire behavior, 223

fire regime, 221

unplanned ignition (also called wildfire), 

226

wildland

concerns and responses, 659–67

fisheries, 100–143

concerns and responses, 630–36

crosswalk, 1332–51

forest health, 196–216, 333, 557, 562, 563

even-aged management, 23, 456, 735, 

1182, 1293, 1294, 1296, 1304

old growth, 1265, 1273

restoration, 25, 27, 29, 31, 50, 66, 76, 85, 

88, 96, 131, 141, 196, 217, 306, 308, 

314, 317, 354, 359, 440, 441, 456, 475, 

540, 557, 608, 731, 734, 850, 1160, 

1173, 1189, 1203, 1288, 1290, 1293, 

1313, 1317, 1345, 1349, 1350

uneven-aged management, 450, 475, 669, 

735

forest planning species (FPS), 318–22

forest product, 449–76, 473, 730–36, 730, 

731, 733, 1208, 1296, 1300, 1310

biomass, 455, 469, 613

Christmas tree, 450, 456, 1208, 1260, 

1300

fuelwood, 1258

timber, 16, 85, 452, 473, 495, 545, 767, 

818–19, 1172, 1258, 1291, 1292, 1294, 

1296, 1300, 1307, 1325, 1327

Fort Apache Indian Reservation. See White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, 216, 355, 376, 

377, 379, 838, 839, 1217

Gila County comment letter, 985–1013

golden eagle, 233, 327

grasslands, 62, 65, 182, 191, 219, 306, 658, 

858, 883, 1152, 1156, 1229, 1232, 1260, 
Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 581

1280, 1284, 1288, 1313, 1317, 1339, 

1341, 1349, 1350

Great Basin, 62, 65, 151, 178, 307, 325

montane/subalpine, 153, 182, 882

semi-desert, 62, 65, 152, 180, 181, 192, 

883

grazing. See livestock grazing, 17, 58, 70, 

87, 89, 98, 514, 515, 559, 680, 746, 751, 

830

Greenlee County comment letters, 1014–30

Heber Wild Horse Territory, 692–93

highly interactive species, 315–18

infrastructure, 355–60, 435

insects and diseases, 197–216

interior chaparral, 4, 62, 65, 154, 183, 1267

invasive species, 5, 34, 333–38, 624, 689

concerns and responses, 689–92

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), 24, 356, 

368–75, 709–10

Land Management Plan

decisions, 9

programmatic framework, 49

proposed, 8, 587

lands, 413–18, 440, 715, 727, 774, 821, 

1208

ownership, 422

laws, Federal

Endangered Species Act, 5, 128, 251, 281, 

283, 335, 519, 529, 531, 667

National Environmental Policy Act, 1, 

773, 838

National Forest Management Act, iii, 453, 

591, 773, 866, 1296

livestock grazing, 17, 20, 35, 140, 310, 337, 

403, 436, 476–89, 478, 634, 678, 736–48, 

737, 739, 743, 744, 1204, 1208, 1212, 

1229, 1232, 1280, 1310, 1317, 1321, 

1338, 1339, 1348

suitability, 479, 758–64, 820–23

Madrean pine-oak, 62, 65, 150, 172, 189, 

305, 1143, 1156, 1170, 1189, 1203, 1341

Management Areas, 33, 36, 364, 365, 412, 

696, 756–58, 857–59

Community-Forest Intermix, 27, 29, 31, 

35, 225, 696, 756, 857, 1280, 1296, 

1302, 1304, 1314

Energy Corridor, 19, 373, 412, 421, 757, 

857, 858, 1168

General Forest, 141, 373, 659, 696, 717, 

723, 857, 1211, 1327

High Use Developed Recreation Area, 

350, 857, 1326

Natural Landscape, 33, 326, 373, 375, 

388, 696, 710, 722, 723, 724, 758, 857, 

858, 1208, 1307, 1347

Primitive Area, 30, 32, 33, 356, 696, 722, 

723, 857, 858, 1148, 1219, 1229

Recommended Research Natural Area, 6, 

37, 373, 857, 858, 1130, 1221, 1229, 

1255, 1327

Recommended Wilderness, 6, 26, 28, 30, 

32, 373, 388, 389, 393, 412, 696, 719, 

723, 857, 858, 1130, 1148, 1247

Research Natural Area, 26, 28, 31, 33, 44, 

395, 725, 831, 857, 858, 859, 1130, 

1229, 1255–56, 1326

Wild Horse Territory, 7, 34, 478, 488, 692, 

693, 769, 857, 858

Wilderness, 13, 18, 53, 54, 225, 375, 376, 

696, 711, 723, 857, 858, 1148, 1178, 

1217, 1229

Wildlife Quiet Area, 12, 15, 25, 27, 29, 

30, 32, 267, 328, 696, 723, 757–58, 

757, 831, 857, 858, 1130, 1154, 1156, 

1178, 1280, 1284, 1337, 1339, 1350

management indicator species, 322–28

Mexican spotted owl

concerns and responses, 674–76

crosswalk, 1170–1206

habitat, 286–88

mining, 489–94, 508, 748–49

Mogollon Rim, 195, 224, 256, 265, 332, 

345, 347, 380, 404, 405, 406, 495, 730, 

835, 848, 850, 1219, 1223, 1226, 1280, 

1284

Monitoring, 9, 34, 50, 51, 56, 260, 261, 339, 

560, 568, 625, 687, 735, 745, 746, 768–

73, 769, 772, 773, 783, 830, 1121, 1178, 

1205, 1262, 1265, 1267, 1284, 1302

motor vehicle use map (MVUM), 35, 339

motorized cross-country travel, 352

motorized opportunities, 34, 313, 694, 697, 

1119, 1130, 1137, 1160, 1199, 1239–46, 

1307, 1339

concerns and responses, 696–704

Mount Baldy Wilderness, 32, 53, 54, 55, 57, 

90, 201, 225, 364, 376, 378, 379, 716, 

858, 1217, 1247

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

1, 603, 687, 773, 838
582 Programmatic FEIS for the Proposed Land Management Plan

National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 

iii, 453, 591, 592, 649, 669, 683, 685, 

688, 773, 866, 1296

National Forest System, iii, 335, 414, 528, 

535, 543, 568, 589, 592, 722, 763, 774, 

1212

National Recreation Trails, 346

Navajo County comment letter, 1031–59

nonmotorized opportunities, 1245

off-highway vehicles (OHVs), 18, 344, 357

concerns and responses, 696–704

old growth, 606, 1265, 1273

Phelps Cabin Botanical Area, 26, 28, 31, 33, 

321, 396, 491, 726, 727, 1255

Phelps Cabin Research Natural Area, 24, 

491, 727

piñon-juniper, 151, 175, 190

Plan

crosswalk, 1073–1354

crosswalk between revised and 1987, 

1073–1354

decisions, 9, 282, 877

ponderosa pine, 62, 65, 147, 162, 303, 323, 

1135, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1203, 1285, 

1329, 1341

potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs), 

145

preferred alternative, 26

public comments and responses, 585

public involvement, 10, 730, 865

Purpose and Need for Change, 1, 3

range, 1228–36

rare plants, 232, 237, 268, 303, 305, 306, 

307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 

600, 672, 676, 679, 681, 682, 683, 686, 

748, 1135, 1137, 1152, 1154, 1170, 1172, 

1229, 1232, 1277, 1280, 1284, 1307, 

1322, 1332

concerns and responses, 667–89

recreation

concerns and responses, 693–96

crosswalk, 1237–57

recreational opportunities, 6, 25, 28, 693, 

1237–57

developed recreation, 343, 350, 364, 391, 

857, 858, 1118, 1327

dispersed recreation, 310, 313, 343, 350, 

698, 1118, 1125, 1199, 1200, 1237, 

1337, 1351

research natural area (RNA), 26, 28, 31, 33, 

44, 395–403, 725–26, 831, 1130, 1178, 

1229, 1255–56, 1288, 1326

riparian, 4, 62, 65, 91–100, 94, 141, 154, 

183, 240, 244, 273, 309, 310, 312, 313, 

314, 406, 478, 487, 540, 560, 625, 629, 

741, 785, 858, 1077–1111, 1130, 1132, 

1161, 1165, 1180, 1212, 1228, 1259, 

1267, 1284, 1288, 1316, 1323, 1341

concerns and responses, 623–30

roads and trails, 420

Rodeo-Chediski Fire, 7, 63, 221, 224, 405, 

835

sacred sites, 375, 446

scale, 35, 216, 221, 317, 342, 519, 566, 618, 

643, 655, 752, 1148, 1152, 1154, 1170, 

1211, 1229, 1232, 1233, 1259, 1314

scenic byway, 345, 405, 842

scenic resources, 403–13, 727, 1232

sensitive species, 114, 130, 260, 299–315, 

306, 307, 374

socioeconomic resources, 393, 495–519, 

749–51

soil resources, 59–71

concerns and responses, 613–16

special areas, 34

special uses, 58, 89, 99, 140, 413, 418–22, 

727, 1174, 1221, 1257

species viability, 877–95

spruce-fir, 4, 149, 169, 188, 567, 881, 1135, 

1153, 1154

Standards and Guidelines, 34

suitability, 33, 364, 423

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES), 60, 

609, 613, 792, 806, 1319

timber production

calculations, 813–17

suitability, 764–68, 805–13

timber production. See forest product, 452, 

805, 808

Travel Management Rule (TMR), 19, 22, 

35, 339, 344, 354, 545, 588, 606, 678, 

694, 696–704, 1161

USFWS comment letter, 1064–71

vegetation, 3, 12, 65, 143–96, 162, 185, 309, 

312, 345, 392, 406, 411, 437, 477, 486, 

569, 637, 644, 653, 679, 789, 792, 1095, 

1142, 1161, 1173, 1189, 1208, 1212, 

1233, 1237, 1304, 1339, 1341, 1349

concerns and responses, 637–59

crosswalk, 1258–1330
Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 583

departure index (DI), 144

modeling, 791–94

treatments, 794–804

Wallow Fire, 7, 60, 62, 64, 81, 92, 159, 201, 

206, 214, 219, 221, 241, 244, 254, 257, 

258, 261, 361, 404, 406, 407, 609, 614, 

616, 637, 678, 714, 724, 725, 754, 755, 

807, 866, 874, 1152

water resources, 78–91, 309, 310, 617, 619, 

625, 1077–1111, 1112–29, 1161, 1186, 

1212, 1228, 1259, 1307, 1322

concerns and responses, 619–23

water rights, 83, 88, 91

water uses, 728, 1077–1111, 1113, 1112–

29, 1339

watershed, 71–78, 72, 131, 141, 616, 1259, 

1323

concerns and responses, 616–19

wet mixed conifer, 62, 65, 148, 164, 305, 

323, 1135, 1153, 1203, 1346

White Mountain Apache Tribe, 10, 355, 432, 

839, 840, 875

Fort Apache Indian Reservation, 216, 355, 

376, 377, 379, 838, 839, 1217

White Mountains, 7, 195, 308, 404, 414, 

730, 731, 756, 1280

Wild and Scenic River System, 360, 536, 

859, 1251

wild and scenic rivers, 6, 360–68, 704–9, 

1251–55

eligible rivers, 361–63

river corridors, 364

suitable rivers, 364

wilderness, 13, 18, 53, 54, 225, 375–94, 

376, 696, 711, 723, 858, 1178, 1217, 

1229, 1247–50

concerns and responses, 711–25

wildland-urban interface (WUI), 217, 219, 

547, 641, 1174, 1263, 1279

wildlife, 232–333, 268

bald eagle, 233, 265–66, 312, 327

concerns and responses, 667–89

connectivity, 267, 331, 529, 679

crosswalk, 1332–51

elk, 684

fish, 5, 34, 116, 130, 194, 550, 565, 682, 

741

golden eagle, 233, 265–66, 327

habitat, 5

management, 1119, 1323

Mexican gray wolf, 258

Mexican spotted owl, 22, 23, 201, 252, 

253, 260, 286, 323, 674, 675, 1154, 

1170–1206, 1314

northern goshawk, 323–25, 1135–66, 

1153, 1154, 1346

pronghorn antelope, 325–26

Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe comment 

letter, 1072