Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 15

Chapter 2. Alternatives,

Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes each alternative considered for the revision of the 1987 plan. It also 

presents the alternatives in comparative form, describing the differences between each and 

providing a basis for choice among options for the responsible official. Some of the information 

used to compare alternatives is based on the land management plan decisions (e.g., objectives, 

suitability) and some of the information is based on expected outcomes of implementing each 

alternative (e.g., amount of forest products available). 

Alternative Development

The proposed plan (alternative B) was developed iteratively in a collaborative manner to address 

the need for change. In August 2008, the forests released an initial set of draft desired conditions 

for public and forest employee review and feedback. After incorporating comments and refining 

the desired conditions, the forests released a working draft land management plan for review and 

comment in June 2009. These collaborative efforts between the Forest Service and external 

groups and individuals led to development of the proposed plan (alternative B). Two additional 

alternatives (alternatives C and D) were generated based on issues not addressed by the proposed 

plan. These issues are listed in chapter 1 under the section “Issues that Served as the Basis for

Alternative Development.”

Alternative C was developed to respond to issues by placing more emphasis on treating 

vegetation mechanically to contribute to local and regional economic sustainability and maintain 

or move toward desired conditions. There is no emphasis to retain old growth to the greatest 

extent possible so there are more opportunities to meet forest products desired conditions. There 

is less land allocated to the Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area. This alternative places an 

emphasis on developed and motorized recreation opportunities and recommends less acreage for 

wilderness designation. This alternative identifies more land suitable for timber production and 

would offer more wood products.

Alternative D was developed to respond to issues by placing more emphasis on natural processes

(use of wildland fire) as a restoration tool to maintain or move toward desired conditions. This 

alternative emphasizes the retention of all large and old trees. There is more land allocated to the 

Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area. This alternative places an emphasis on dispersed and 

nonmotorized recreation opportunities and recommends more acreage for wilderness designation. 

This alternative does not identify any lands as suitable for timber production and would offer

fewer wood products.

Drafts of the proposed plan and alternatives were shared with the public and Forest Service 

employees during the spring of 2010. Four public meetings, an informal comment period, and 

meetings with forest employees were held to gather feedback as to whether these alternatives 

addressed concerns and whether the range of alternatives was adequate.

The interdisciplinary team, taking into account this feedback, met with the forest supervisor and 

received direction to refine the initial draft alternatives. This is reflected in the action alternatives 

(alternatives B, C, and D) below.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

All action alternatives considered (1) comments from the public, other agencies, forest 

employees, and tribal governments and (2) scientific information from the “Analysis of the 

Management Situation.” Each alternative had to meet the following criteria set by the forest 

supervisor and the forests’ leadership team:

• Alternatives must follow existing laws, regulations, and policies.

• The forests will be managed for multiple uses as suitable.

• The alternatives must be realistic, implementable, and able to be monitored within 

anticipated future budgets.

The Notice of Availability announcing the release of the proposed plan and DEIS was published 

in the Federal Register (78 FR 11171) on February 15, 2013, which initiated a 90-day public 

comment period. Over 41,000 comment letters were received from individuals, organizations, 

agencies, and one tribe. These comments are summarized and responded to in appendix A. The 

comments did not uncover additional unresolved issues; therefore no new alternatives were 

analyzed in detail. The comments led to minor changes throughout the plan and environmental 

impact statement, all of which were within the scope of the analysis in the draft environmental 

impact statement (see “Summary of Changes” in chapter 1).

Alternatives Considered but

Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives not 

developed in detail (40 CFR § 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the need to 

revise the land management plan provided suggestions for alternative methods to achieve the 

desired conditions. Some of these may have been outside the scope of revision, duplicative of the 

alternatives considered in detail, or determined to cause unnecessary environmental harm. 

Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but they were dismissed from detailed 

consideration for reasons described below. 

June 2009 Working Draft Land Management Plan

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

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

plan. 

Initial Draft Alternatives

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

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

alternatives analyzed in this FEIS.

Alternatives with No Timber

Harvest or Large Increase in Timber Harvest

These alternatives were considered to address public comments regarding whether timber 

harvesting should be allowed on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, and if so, at what level.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 17

In the Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-517), Congress declared that national 

forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, 

and wildlife and fish purposes. The National Forest Management Act of 1974 (P.L. 94-588) 

reiterates this commitment to multiple use. Given this legal direction, it was determined that an 

alternative to eliminate timber harvesting is inconsistent with the mission of the Forest Service. 

Timber harvesting is a necessary management tool to maintain and restore vegetation 

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

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

plans. An alternative that eliminates timber harvest would not contribute to these purposes and,

therefore, is outside the scope of this decision. 

An alternative that called for large increases in timber harvest was also considered but not 

analyzed in detail, because maximizing timber production would not meet the desired condition 

to manage and protect other resources. The action alternatives provide a range of timber harvest 

amounts at levels that account for other uses and resource needs. Large increases in cutting levels 

could have the potential to threaten the viability of some wildlife and/or fish species. 

Alternatives with No Livestock Grazing

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

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

A no grazing alternative would not meet the legal direction of the National Forest Management 

Act or Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act which direct that forests will be managed using multiple 

use, sustained yield principles. Also, it would not allow the attainment of the desired condition for 

livestock grazing to contribute to the social, economic, and cultural diversity and stability of rural 

communities. Therefore, a no grazing alternative is inconsistent with the mission of the Forest 

Service, the land management plan’s desired conditions, and outside the scope of this decision.

Stocking decisions (amount of livestock grazing authorized) for specific grazing allotments are 

beyond the scope of this analysis. Grazing is authorized through term grazing permits (a longterm authorization subject to forestwide standards and guidelines), allotment management plans, 

and annual operating instructions. Changes to these authorizations would be made through 

project-level analyses. 

See the “Livestock Grazing” section in chapter 3 for a discussion of rangeland suitability.

Minimum Management Alternative

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

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

This alternative would not meet the legal direction of the National Forest Management Act or 

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

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

conditions, including to restore forest ecosystems, maintain recreation opportunities, reduce the 

threat of uncharacteristic wildfires to communities, and maintain the availability of forest 

products.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

Wilderness Alternatives

Requests for new wilderness areas were submitted by several groups.

These areas were considered in light of the evaluation of potential wilderness that was completed 

by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for the plan revision process. Portions of these external proposals 

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

consideration because they did not meet the criteria for potential wilderness. 

Wildlife Conservation Area Alternative

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

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

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

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

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

designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Although this alternative was considered, it was not further analyzed because many of its 

components are included in the three action alternatives. Protected activity centers and postfledging family areas are managed in all alternatives to conserve these species. The action 

alternatives include additional wildlife habitat areas (i.e., Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area) 

to help address habitat connectivity across the Mogollon Rim. Other areas (e.g., Natural 

Landscape Management Area, Recommended Wilderness Management Area) identified in the 

action alternatives also limit impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Alternatives to Designate or Remove Wild and Scenic Rivers

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

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

or removal of a wild and scenic river is a congressional action.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs do not have any rivers designated in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System; therefore, there are no rivers that can be removed. However, there are 25 rivers 

eligible or suitable for designation that must be managed to maintain or enhance their 

outstandingly remarkable values. Before a river can be recommended to Congress for designation 

into the system, a suitability study must be conducted. A suitability study for any additional river 

segments is beyond the scope of this plan revision process; it may be undertaken at some time in 

the future under separate analysis, as was done for KP Creek and the Blue River.

Changes to the Road and Motorized Trail System

and Elimination of OHV Use

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

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

Some public comments requested that, during the plan revision process, individual roads or trails 

or all unauthorized roads/trails be evaluated and either added to or removed from the 

transportation system. The land management plan provides a framework to guide future changes 

to the transportation system. Potential changes to the forests’ transportation system would be 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 19

evaluated in separate project-level analysis including the implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR § 212). As a result, this alternative was dropped from detailed 

consideration.

Other public comments expressed a need to eliminate the use of OHVs across the forests. OHV 

use has historically been permitted on the forests; it is a contemporary use of the forests and 

provides access to various portions of the forests. Local counties, the State of Arizona, and nearby 

national forests also allow OHV use. Future analyses (e.g., implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule) would consider additional locations for OHV use and evaluate related 

resource impacts. As a result, this alternative was dropped from detailed consideration.

Expanding Existing Energy Corridors

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

establish designated corridors for all existing transmission facilities. In addition, they requested 

expansion of all existing corridors with high voltage and extra high voltage transmission facilities 

to a width of 3 to 5 miles.

Each of the action alternatives establishes an Energy Corridor Management Area that provides 

guidance for existing facilities. The management area boundary follows the existing rights-ofway. In order to increase the width of the corridor, further analysis and a project-level decision 

would be needed. It was determined that this is beyond the scope of this revision process and 

would not be considered in further detail.

Alternatives with No Road or Motorized Trail Construction

and Road Density Requirements

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

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

density. 

An alternative to forbid new road or motorized trail construction was considered to not be 

feasible. For example, new road construction may be required when access to a particular 

resource or private inholding is needed. New motorized trails may be needed to provide 

motorized recreation opportunities, including destinations and loops. The action alternatives, 

including the plan, address the impacts of roads and motorized trails on forest resources. Any new 

road or motorized trail construction would only be authorized following project-level NEPA 

analysis and would be accomplished using best management practices (BMPs) to minimize 

resource impacts while providing for forest access needs. 

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

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

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

implementation of the Travel Management Rule, would determine the designated road system. 

Site-specific travel management planning will use the framework set by the plan (e.g., desired 

conditions, standards, guidelines) and consider potential resource impacts, access needs, public 

input, and alternative views instead of an arbitrary road density target. The action alternatives, 

including the plan, provide for the protection and management of healthy and sustainable soils, 

watersheds, and wildlife connectivity, which are the primary resource concerns associated with 

National Forest System roads and motorized trails.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

Alternatives with No Mining and Drilling

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law (as amended). 

The action alternatives contain desired conditions, guidelines, and suitability determinations for 

minerals and geology related projects and activities, including surface occupancy stipulations. 

Any specific mining or drilling proposals would be evaluated to ensure consistency with the land 

management plan. Specific projects could be modified to include additional site-specific 

mitigation measures to protect forest resources.

Alternative with Maximum Treatments (Mechanical and Wildland Fire)

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

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

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

The action alternatives were developed to be realistic and implementable within anticipated future 

budgets (expected to be similar to current budgets). Alternative C represents the maximum 

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

forests anticipate being able to accomplish within the planning period. An alternative that would 

maximize both treatment types was not considered to be feasible based on anticipated future 

budgets.

Alternative with Different Livestock Grazing Management

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

different strategy for managing livestock grazing than what was analyzed in the DEIS. It would

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

conservative strategy toward grazing including restrictive standards to reduce unsatisfactory lands 

and improve forage and grassland habitat.

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

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

of livestock grazing management did not drive alternative development. 

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

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

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

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

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

analyses.

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

resources conditions in the short and long term. Therefore, the plan provides the framework for 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 21

livestock stocking decisions that would provide for the health of vegetation and retention of water 

and forage for wildlife because those decisions must be consistent with applicable plan direction.

Alternative Based on the Old Growth Protection

and Large Tree Retention Strategy

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

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

stakeholders for implementation in Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI).

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

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

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

land management plan. It reduces the flexibility that project level decisionmakers may need to 

design treatments that promote site specific desired conditions. Concepts from the OGPLTRs 

could be analyzed and incorporated at the project-level, if applicable.

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

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

a standard to retain all old and large trees.

Alternative to Manage Forests as a Refuge for Fish and Wildlife

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

managing for biological diversity and at-risk species to address scientific uncertainty and 

controversy regarding climate change impacts and creates a safe harbor and refuge for fish and 

wildlife, even at the expense of competing multiple use activities, such as livestock grazing, 

timber production, and motorized recreation.

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

habitat over other uses, it would not meet the legal direction of the National Forest Management 

Act or Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, which direct that forests will be managed using multiple 

use, sustained yield principles. Also, in light of changes predicted by current climate models (e.g., 

increased wildfires, greater vulnerability to invasive species, changes in timing of precipitation), 

there is a need to reduce vulnerability by maintaining and restoring resilient native ecosystems 

which would be an outcome in alternatives B, D, C, and A (in order from greatest resilience to 

least). Management practices that sustain healthy plant and animal communities (e.g., thinning for 

age class diversity and structure, reclaiming and restoring native grasslands) promote resilience 

and reduce opportunities for disturbance and damage.

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

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

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

viability of all terrestrial and aquatic species.

Alternative to Compare Viability for the Mexican Spotted Owl

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

include the following: (1) implement standards and guidelines from the 1987 plan, (2) forbid new 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

critical habitat.

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

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

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

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

Methodologies for fuel treatment modeling would be determined by the responsible official on a 

site specific basis. The Northern Arizona University Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis may 

be used if determined applicable. 

Alternative Proposed by Counties 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

considerations into decision making. 

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

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

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

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

chapter 5. 

The plan sets the framework for implementing TMR and the planning process for implementing 

TMR will address the issues of motorized big game retrieval, dispersed camping, firewood 

collection, and dispersed shooting. The plan’s interdisciplinary team considered the OGPLTRS in 

its entirety, but recommended that it not be analyzed in detail. See the “Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Study” section in chapter 2 of the EIS. The “Watershed” section in 

chapter 3 of the EIS was updated based on the recommendation to clarify degrading factors. 

See the response to comment # 161.19 in the “Alternatives” section of appendix A for a complete 

explanation. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 23

Alternatives Considered in Detail

In addition to the no action alternative (alternative A or the 1987 plan) and the proposed plan 

(alternative B), the Forest Service developed two additional action alternatives (alternatives C and 

D) to respond to issues raised by the public. 

Elements Common to All Alternatives

All four alternatives have a number of features in common. In particular, they 

• Comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies (see appendix D of the proposed 

plan which accompanies this document)5

; 

• Contain plan decisions including desired conditions (or goals), objectives, standards, 

guidelines, special areas, suitability, and monitoring; 

• Share the same desired conditions for the resources of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The 

desired conditions are described in detail in the proposed plan;

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

of the productivity of the land; 

• Provide protection for riparian areas; 

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

standards or regulations;

• Provide for and maintain diversity of plant and animal communities consistent with 

overall multiple-use objectives;

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

across the planning area;

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

for threatened and endangered species; 

• Use a common list of management indicator species (MIS) and ecological indicators 

(EIs). The list of 17 MIS used in the 1987 plan was reviewed and modified (see the “Plan 

Set of Documents” for rationale). The following three MIS are used to compare and 

evaluate alternatives: Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, and pronghorn antelope. 

Aspen and riparian EIs are also used to compare and evaluate alternatives; 

• Protect cultural resources;

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

and treaty with the U.S., including consultation requirements; 

• Emphasize uneven-aged forest conditions, with allowance for some even-aged 

management, using a variety of vegetation management tools and methods;

• Use mechanical and wildland fire (planned and unplanned) treatments to meet desired 

conditions; 

• During responses to wildland fire, risks to firefighters and the public are mitigated. 

Protection of human life overrides all other priorities; 

 

5 However, alternative C does not comply with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. See 

the Inventoried Roadless Areas section on the following page for more information. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

• Provide sustained multiple uses, products, and services (e.g., wood harvesting, grazing, 

recreation) in an environmentally acceptable manner;

• Protect the outstandingly remarkable values identified for the 23 eligible and 2 suitable 

wild and scenic rivers; 

• Retain existing designated special areas (e.g., wilderness areas, Phelps Cabin Research 

Natural Area); and

• Manage the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential additions as a primitive area 

until a congressional decision on wilderness is made. 

Conformance with the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

The 1982 Planning Rule regulations at 219.12(f)(6) require land management plans to respond to 

and incorporate program objectives from the Renewable Resource Planning Act (RPA). The last 

RPA Program was developed in 1995. In lieu of the RPA Program, the Forest Service Strategic 

Plan 2007 to 2012 provides broad, overarching national guidance for forest planning and national 

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

alternatives in this FEIS address these broad strategic objectives. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Alternatives A, B, and D include management direction for inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) 

identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) that retains the roadless 

character of these areas. In alternative C, these areas would be managed according to 

management area guidance with no direction to retain their roadless character.

During the plan revision process, there were two conflicting legal decisions concerning the status 

of IRAs. Because there was no resolution of the conflicting rulings at the time this analysis was 

initiated, the Forest Service included consideration of no IRAs and no IRA management in 

alternative C in response to public comments that requested full multiple-use of IRA lands. NEPA 

does allow the consideration of alternatives that may not be legal but address public concerns

(40 CFR 1502.14(c)). During the analysis process, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule was 

upheld in federal court and alternative methods of IRA management, such as those considered in

alternative C cannot be selected in the record of decision for the EIS.

Main Differences Among Alternatives

The alternatives differ in how they respond to the issues as identified in chapter 1 under the 

section “Issues that Served as the Basis for Alternative Development.” The alternatives also vary 

in the number of recommended research natural areas (RNAs). No issue drove the change in the 

number of recommended RNAs. The change was based on the theme of the alternative (for 

example, alternative D allocates some lands to recommended wilderness that could have been a 

recommended RNA). 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 25

See appendix J for management area maps of the alternatives.

Alternative A (1987 plan) 

Under the no action alternative, the 1987 plan, as amended, would continue to guide management 

of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Alternative A emphasizes timber management as a primary tool for 

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

wildlife habitat needs. 

Priority for Restoration Treatments

Although not emphasized in the 1987 plan, current management emphasizes treatments around 

communities to reduce threats from wildfire and supply forest products through vegetation 

treatments, including the White Mountain Stewardship Project (a 10-year stewardship contract to 

thin primarily small diameter trees). Vegetation treatments have been implemented to restore 

forest health, reduce the risk of fire to communities, reduce the cost of forest thinning to 

taxpayers, support local economies, and encourage new wood product industries and uses for 

wood fiber. At least 20 percent of each forested and woodland PNVT is managed for, or toward, 

old growth. 

Treatment Methods

Alternative A uses both mechanical and wildland fire treatments for timber management and to 

reduce threats to communities from wildfire. 

On average, approximately 17,000 acres per year would be treated in the forested PNVTs, 

primarily ponderosa pine. Very few grassland areas would be treated, averaging around 500 acres

per year. Approximately 3,500 acres per year of piñon-juniper and Madrean pine-oak woodlands 

would be treated, primarily with fire. No specific treatments are planned to improve ecological 

conditions in riparian areas; they would be treated as opportunities arise. There is no planned 

treatment objective for interior chaparral since this PNVT currently meets desired conditions; 

however, treatments may occur only as opportunities arise. 

Wildlife Quiet Areas 

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

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

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

recreation (improved hunting opportunities). These wildlife quiet areas include Beaver Turkey 

Ridge, Hulsey Bench, Middle Mountain, Open Draw, St. Peters Dome, Upper Coyote, Willow 

Springs-Horse Trap, and Woolhouse. 

Recreation Opportunities

A variety of recreation opportunities are provided, including motorized, nonmotorized, 

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

emphasis. 

Figure 2 displays the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes for alternative A: primitive 

(P), semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM), semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

(RN), roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (U). ROS is a framework for identifying the 

types of outdoor recreation opportunities on the forests that are available to the public. The ROS 

classes are described in the “Glossary.”

Figure 2. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative A

Recommended Wilderness

The 1987 plan does not recommend any additional lands for wilderness. In 1971, the Forest 

Service submitted a recommendation to the President of the United States for the Blue Range 

Wilderness in New Mexico and Arizona. Congress has not acted on the Arizona portion of this 

recommendation. Until Congress acts, the 1971 recommendation remains in place. The Blue 

Range Primitive Area and Additions Management Area is managed to protect wilderness values.

Contribution to Local Communities – Wood Product Availability

Alternative A has 764,872 acres of land managed for timber production on a regulated basis with 

planned, scheduled entries. It is estimated that an average of 205,000 CCF6 of wood products, 

including sawlogs, biomass, and firewood, would be available annually for local and regional 

industry and individual use.

Research Natural Areas

The 1987 plan provides direction for one designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin RNA

(approximately 290 acres). It recommends four new research natural areas totaling 2,569 acres: 

Escudilla, Thomas Creek, Wildcat, and Hayground. To date, these recommended areas have not 

been formally designated. In addition, there are approximately 100 acres managed as a botanical 

area, the Phelps Cabin Botanical Area.

Alternative B – Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative B is the proposed action (proposed plan) and the preferred alternative. This alternative

was developed iteratively in a collaborative manner to address the need for change identified in 

chapter 1. It is designed to address the demands for wildlife habitat, community protection, 

commodity outputs, and recreation opportunities with an emphasis on ecological restoration.

 6 CCF = 100 cubic feet
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 27

Priority for Restoration Treatments

Treatments are focused in priority watersheds and locations identified in community wildfire 

protection plans, including the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area7

. One of the main 

objectives of the proposed plan is to remove or mitigate degrading factors in at least 10 priority 

6th level HUC (hydrologic unit code) watersheds within the next 10 to 15 years. Management 

emphasis is also to reduce the threat to communities from uncharacteristic wildfire.

The proposed plan emphasizes the retention and development of old growth where needed to 

meet desired conditions by including the guideline:

“Where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late seral states 

and species composition on a landscape scale, old growth characteristics should 

be retained or encouraged to the greatest extent possible within the scope of other 

desired conditions (e.g., reduce impacts from insects and disease, reduce the 

threat of uncharacteristic wildfire).”

Treatment Methods

The proposed plan uses a mix of mechanical treatments and the reestablishment of natural 

processes, primarily wildland fire (both planned and unplanned ignitions), to maintain or move 

toward desired conditions of more resilient, healthy ecosystems.

Mechanical treatments would generally be followed by pile burning to remove residual fuels. As 

desired conditions are achieved, wildland fire or mechanical treatments may be used at regular 

intervals to maintain conditions. The proposed plan focuses restoration treatments in those 

PNVTs that are most divergent from desired conditions. There is an emphasis to treat forests, 

grasslands, and riparian areas; there is less emphasis on woodlands and chaparral.

The majority of treatments, from 5,000 to 35,000 acres per year, in the forested PNVTs would 

occur in ponderosa pine, although there would be treatments in all forested PNVTs. Additionally, 

up to 25,000 acres per year of grassland PNVTs (primarily Great Basin and semi-desert) would be 

treated to remove encroaching woody species. Approximately 5,000 to 15,000 acres per year of 

woodland PNVTs (primarily Madrean pine-oak using fire) and 200 to 500 acres per year of 

riparian areas would be treated to improve ecological conditions. There are no planned treatment 

objectives for interior chaparral since this PNVT currently meets desired conditions; however, 

treatments may occur as opportunities arise.

Wildlife Quiet Areas

In addition to the eight existing wildlife quiet areas (approximately 45,500 acres), this alternative 

adds two, Bear Springs and Cottonwood Seep, for a total of 50,173 acres. Unlike alternative A, all 

wildlife quiet areas in this alternative are assigned to a management area. Direction for these 

areas is found in the Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area.

 7 The Community-Forest Intermix Management Area makes up a portion of the wildland-urban interface (WUI). WUIs 

were identified in community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) and may be located in several management areas. A 

WUI includes areas around human development at imminent risk from wildfire.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

Recreation Opportunities

A variety and mix of recreation opportunities continue to be provided. New recreation 

developments are limited; the emphasis is on maintaining existing developments.

Figure 3 displays the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes for alternative B: primitive 

(P), semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM), semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural

(RN), roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (U). ROS is a framework for identifying the 

types of outdoor recreation opportunities on the forests that are available to the public. The ROS 

classes are described in the “Glossary.”

Figure 3. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative B

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative B recommends 7,074 acres for wilderness (figure 88 in appendix J). This includes

additions to both Escudilla (6,813 acres) and Bear Wallow (261 acres) Wilderness areas. These 

preliminary administrative recommendations would receive further review, including applicable 

NEPA analyses, and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of 

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

final decisions on wilderness designation. These areas are managed to protect wilderness values.

In this alternative, recommended wilderness is not suitable for mechanized travel (e.g., mountain 

bike use would not be allowed). The Blue Range Primitive Area continues to be managed as a 

primitive area until Congress acts on the 1971 wilderness recommendation.

Contribution to Local Communities – Wood Product Availability

The proposed plan identifies 596,744 acres of land to be managed for timber production on a 

regulated basis with planned, scheduled entries. Most commodities, such as sawlogs, biomass, 

and firewood, would be available as a result of restoration treatments. It is estimated that an

average of 263,000 CCF of wood products would be available annually for local and regional 

industry and individual use as a byproduct of restoration treatments.

Research Natural Areas

The proposed plan carries forward the designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin RNA

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

(approximately 100 acres) to it as a recommended RNA. In addition, this alternative recommends

designating five new research natural areas totaling 7,814 acres: Thomas Creek, Corduroy, Three 

Forks, Lower Campbell Blue, and Sandrock. Thomas Creek is currently managed as a 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 29

recommended RNA under the 1987 plan. This alternative would withdraw existing RNA 

recommendations for Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground.

Alternative C

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

benefits to local communities through management emphasis on commodity outputs and 

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

economic sustainability through ecological restoration.

Priority for Restoration Treatments

Alternative C focuses treatments in the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area, forests

suitable for timber production, woodlands, and those grasslands encroached by woody species. 

There is an emphasis on reducing the threat to communities from uncharacteristic wildfire and on 

tree removal to contribute to commercial uses. 

To provide additional opportunities to meet forest products desired conditions, alternative C 

does not include the following guideline that appears in the proposed plan (alternative B).

“Where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late seral states 

and species composition on a landscape scale, old growth characteristics should 

be retained or encouraged to the greatest extent possible within the scope of other 

desired conditions (e.g., reduce impacts from insects and disease, reduce the 

threat of uncharacteristic wildfire).”

Treatment Methods

Alternative C primarily uses mechanical treatment methods, with less wildland fire than 

alternative B, to maintain or move toward desired conditions of more resilient, healthy 

ecosystems. Mechanical treatments would generally be followed by pile burning to remove 

residual fuels. As desired conditions are achieved, wildland fire or mechanical treatments may be 

used at regular intervals to maintain conditions. Restoration treatments are focused in forests, 

woodlands, and encroached montane/subalpine grasslands where there are commercial uses for 

trees removed. There is less emphasis to treat other grasslands, riparian areas, and chaparral.

The majority of treatments, from 5,500 to 55,000 acres per year, in the forested PNVTs would 

occur in ponderosa pine, although there would be treatments in all forested PNVTs. In addition, 

approximately 2,500 to 10,000 acres per year of woodland PNVTs would be treated using mainly 

mechanical treatments in piñon-juniper and fire in Madrean pine-oak. About 500 acres per year of 

montane/subalpine grasslands PNVT would be treated to remove encroaching woody species. No 

treatment acres are planned in riparian areas; they would be treated as opportunities arise. There 

are no planned treatment objectives for interior chaparral since this PNVT currently meets desired 

conditions; however, treatments may occur as opportunities arise. 

Wildlife Quiet Areas

All eight existing wildlife quiet areas are carried forward in alternative C for a total of 

44,373 acres, although Beaver Turkey Ridge and Willow Springs-Horse Trap would be slightly 

smaller due to the configuration of other management areas. Unlike alternative A, all wildlife 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

quite areas in this alternative are assigned to a management area. Direction for these areas is 

found in the Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area.

Recreation Opportunities

A variety of recreation opportunities continue to be provided with an emphasis on motorized and 

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

meet increasing demand. 

Figure 4 displays the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes for alternative C: primitive 

(P), semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM), semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural

(RN), roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (U). ROS is a framework for identifying the 

types of outdoor recreation opportunities on the forests that are available to the public. The ROS 

classes are described in the “Glossary.”

Figure 4. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative C

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative C recommends additions to Escudilla Wilderness totaling 6,982 acres (figure 90 in 

appendix J). This area is slightly larger than the alternative B addition to Escudilla Wilderness. 

These preliminary administrative recommendations would receive further review, including 

applicable NEPA analyses, and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, 

Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Congress has reserved the 

authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation. These areas are managed to protect 

wilderness values. In this alternative, recommended wilderness is not suitable for mechanized 

travel (e.g., mountain bike use would not be allowed). The Blue Range Primitive Area continues

to be managed as a primitive area until Congress acts on the 1971 wilderness recommendation.

Contribution to Local Communities – Wood Product Availability

Alternative C identifies 604,746 acres of land to be managed for timber production on a regulated 

basis with planned, scheduled entries. Commodities such as sawlogs, biomass, and firewood 

would be available as a result of restoration treatments. It is estimated that an average of 416,000

CCF of wood products would be available annually for local and regional industry and individual 

use as a byproduct of restoration treatments.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 31

Research Natural Areas

Alternative C carries forward the designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin RNA

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

(approximately 100 acres) to it as a recommended RNA. In addition, this alternative recommends

designating five new research natural areas: Thomas Creek, Corduroy, Three Forks, Lower 

Campbell Blue, and Sandrock totaling 7,814 acres. Thomas Creek is currently managed as a 

recommended RNA under the 1987 plan. This alternative would withdraw existing RNA 

recommendations for Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground.

Alternative D

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

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

on ecological restoration in all PNVTs.

Priority for Restoration Treatments

Treatments are focused in priority watersheds. One of the primary objectives of alternative D is to 

remove or mitigate degrading factors in at least 10 priority 6th level HUC watersheds within the 

next 10 to 15 years.

This alternative emphasizes the retention of old growth and large trees. It includes the following 

standard for forested and woodland PNVTs in all management areas, except the CommunityForest Intermix Management Area:

“Retain all large and old trees regardless of size or condition.”

In the forested PNVTs, large trees are generally 16 inches in diameter or larger. In the woodland 

PNVTs, large trees are considered to be generally 20 inches in diameter or larger. Trees are 

considered to be old if they predate Euro-American settlement (middle to late 1800s).

Treatment Methods

Alternative D emphasizes natural processes, primarily wildland fire (planned and unplanned 

ignitions), with limited mechanical treatments to maintain or move toward the desired conditions 

of more resilient, healthy ecosystems. Where mechanical treatments are used, they generally 

would be followed by pile burning to remove residual fuels. As desired conditions are achieved, 

wildland fire would be the primary tool used at regular intervals to maintain conditions.

Restoration treatments are distributed among all PNVTs in riparian areas, forests, grasslands, and 

woodlands. 

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

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

treatments, from 7,500 to 50,000 acres per year, in the forested PNVTs would occur in ponderosa 

pine, although there would be emphasis to treat all forested PNVTs. Additionally, up to 

24,000 acres per year of grassland PNVTs would be treated to remove encroaching woody 

species in all grassland types. Approximately 5,000 to 30,000 acres per year of woodland PNVTs 

(primarily Madrean pine-oak using fire) and 300 to 600 acres per year of riparian areas would be 

treated to improve ecological conditions. There are no planned treatment objectives for interior 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

chaparral since this PNVT currently meets desired conditions; however, treatments may occur as 

opportunities arise.

Wildlife Quiet Areas

Alternative D includes seven of the eight existing wildlife quiet areas (minus Hulsey Bench) plus 

five more, Bear Springs, Cottonwood Seep, Carr Lake, Palomino, and Hidden Lake, for a total of 

58,379 acres. Unlike alternative A, all wildlife quite areas in this alternative are assigned to a 

management area. Direction for these areas is found in the Wildlife Quiet Area Management 

Area.

Recreation Opportunities

A variety of recreation opportunities continue to be provided, with an emphasis on dispersed and 

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

facilities; however, recreation development that provides for dispersed recreation (e.g., trailheads, 

wildlife viewing areas, trails) may occur.

Figure 5 displays the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes for alternative D: primitive 

(P), semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM), semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural 

(RN), roaded modified (RM), rural (R), and urban (U). ROS is a framework for identifying the 

types of outdoor recreation opportunities on the forests that are available to the public. The ROS 

classes are described in the “Glossary.”

Figure 5. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative D

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative D recommends a total of 688,170 acres for wilderness (figures 91 and 92 in appendix 

J) on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This includes 23 new stand-alone areas; 10 additions to 

Escudilla, Bear Wallow, and Mount Baldy Wilderness areas; and 2 additions to the Blue Range 

Primitive Area (484,714 acres)8

. It also recommends almost all of the Blue Range Primitive Area 

and presidential additions (196,868 acres) for wilderness. 

The alternative D recommendation includes three areas (Leonard Canyon, Centerfire, and West 

Blue/San Francisco) that extend onto other national forests. Small portions of these areas overlap

the Coconino (2,981 acres) and Gila (3,607 acres) NFs; these 6,588 acres are included in the 

above total. These areas are recommended under the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ plan because most 

 8 Acreages were misprinted in DEIS and are correct here. All analyis in chapter 3 was done with these corrected 

acreages.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 33

of the recommended acres are administered by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the forests led the 

wilderness evaluation process. For more details, see the “Wilderness Resources” section in 

chapter 3.

These preliminary administrative recommendations would receive further review, including 

applicable NEPA analyses, and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, 

Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Congress has reserved the 

authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation. These areas are managed to protect 

wilderness values. In this alternative, recommended wilderness is suitable for mechanized travel 

(e.g., mountain bike use would be allowed). The Blue Range Primitive Area continues to be 

managed as a primitive area until Congress acts on the 1971 wilderness recommendation or this 

new recommendation.

Contribution to Local Communities – Wood Product Availability

Alternative D contains no land managed for timber production on a regulated basis. However, it is 

estimated that an average of 118,000 CCF of wood products including sawlogs, biomass, and 

firewood would be available annually for local and regional industrial and individual needs as a 

byproduct of restoration treatments.

Research Natural Areas

Alternative D carries forward the designated research natural area, Phelps Cabin RNA

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

(approximately 100 acres) to it as a recommended RNA. In addition, this alternative recommends

designating two new research natural areas: Corduroy and Three Forks totaling 5,957 acres. This 

alternative would withdraw existing RNA recommendations for Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, 

Hayground, and Thomas Creek.

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives

The three action alternatives (alternatives B, C, and D) have the following 13 areas of similarity: 

1. Management Areas

A management area is used to allocate land for a unique emphasis. All action alternatives use 

the same basic set of 12 management areas (alternative A uses a set of 17 management areas). 

The alternatives differ in the total acreages and locations of the management areas. 

Descriptions of the management areas considered in the action alternatives can be found in 

appendix D. Appendix D also includes descriptions of the management areas found in 

alternative A (1987 plan). Maps of the management areas can be found in appendix J.

2. Suitability

The criteria for the suitability of various uses (e.g., livestock grazing, timber production) are 

the same in all action alternatives. However, when the criteria are applied to the different 

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

alternative has more land in the Natural Landscape Management Area, there could be less 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

land suitable for timber production). The suitability criteria can be found in chapter 4 of the 

proposed plan.

3. Standards and Guidelines

The action alternatives share the same standards and guidelines (i.e., constraints on projectlevel decisions). Where they do not, the differences are highlighted in the above alternative 

descriptions. The standards and guidelines can be found in chapters 2 and 3 of the proposed 

plan.

4. Monitoring Strategy

All action alternatives include the same monitoring strategy as identified in chapter 5 of the 

proposed plan.

5. Wildlife and Fish

The action alternatives provide fish and wildlife habitat to help maintain species’ populations 

of existing native and desirable nonnative species. They further contribute to species’ needs 

by providing wildlife quiet areas and other management areas with limited disturbance (e.g., 

designated and recommended wilderness, natural landscape, designated and recommended 

research natural area). The amount (acres) of these areas varies by alternative.

6. Invasive Species

Each action alternative provides direction to control, treat, or eradicate invasive plant and 

animal species. 

7. Other Special Areas

The action alternatives provide management direction for those existing special areas not 

mentioned in the 1987 plan (e.g., Heber Wild Horse Territory, scenic byways, national 

recreation trails). They also include direction for the 25 eligible or suitable wild and scenic 

rivers.

8. Motorized Cross-Country Travel

The action alternatives limit motorized travel to a system of NFS roads and NFS trails9. They 

do not allow motorized cross-country travel, except where allowed by a written authorization 

(e.g., permit, right-of-way) issued under Federal law or regulation or in designated motorized 

areas. The action alternatives do not designate motorized areas nor do they make changes to 

the current system of NFS roads or NFS trails. Any new designated motorized cross-country 

areas or changes to roads or trails would be evaluated in a separate NEPA decision. 

Alternative A does allow motorized cross-country travel10.

 9 As identified in the I-WEB database (2012c), there are approximately 2,900 miles of roads and trails open for public 

or administrative use.

10 Since alternative A allows motorized cross-country travel, if the responsible official selects alternative A, upon 

completion of the separate travel management planning process, the plan would be amended to limit motorized travel to 

designated roads, trails, and areas.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 35

The proposed plan provides the framework to guide future changes to the transportation 

system. Once the final decision on the proposed plan has been made, potential changes to the 

forests’ transportation system will be evaluated under the plan’s framework and through 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR § 212)

11. Upon completion of travel 

management planning, the associated motor vehicle use map (MVUM) will be printed. The 

MVUM will display the roads, trails, and areas that are designated for motorized vehicle use. 

Use inconsistent with those designations and inconsistent with this plan would be prohibited.

9. Threat to Communities from Wildfire

The action alternatives include the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area (1/2 mile 

buffer around communities at risk) to denote where fuels reduction treatments and 

maintenance are emphasized. 

10.Landscape Scale Disturbance Events

The action alternatives include direction to be used following landscape scale (greater than 

10,000 acres) disturbance events. These alternatives include standards and guidelines to 

protect existing resources and facilitate recovery of soil and vegetation components and 

improve ecosystem health.

11.Livestock Grazing

The action alternatives provide similar guidance for managing livestock grazing. The 

management focus is to “balance livestock grazing with available forage” on suitable grazing 

lands. The criteria for the suitability of livestock grazing are the same in all action 

alternatives. The amount of land suitable for livestock grazing would vary slightly among the 

action alternatives based on the number of recommended RNAs.

12.Urban Interface Demands

The action alternatives provide similar guidance (e.g., standards, guidelines) for addressing 

urban interface demands and land ownership adjustments.

13.New Energy Development

The action alternatives provide similar guidance (e.g., standards, guidelines, suitability 

criteria) for the existing energy corridors and for establishing new energy corridors or 

developments. The acres of land suitable for consideration of new energy developments vary 

among the action alternatives.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a comparison of alternatives. The information focuses on activities and 

environmental consequences where differences among alternatives can be distinguished 

 11 The Travel Management Rule was created to help address unmanaged motorized vehicle use. It requires each 

national forest to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicles where OHVs and other motor 

vehicles can be used. Once the system is designated, the rule will prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

quantitatively or qualitatively. It includes a comparison of management area allocations, 

indicators12, and other information.

It should be noted that acreages and mileages listed in the FEIS are approximate. They were 

calculated using the most current data available in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ Geographic 

Information System (GIS). As the GIS database is updated, these measurements may change.

Comparison of Management Areas

Tables 1 and 2 identify the acreage and percentage of each management area that make up each 

alternative. Descriptions of the management areas can be found in appendix D. Note that 

alternative A (1987 plan) uses a different set of management areas than the action alternatives; a 

crosswalk comparison can be found in appendix D.

Table 1. Management area allocation (acres and percent) for the no action alternative

Management Areaa Acresb

Forest Land 865,473 (43%)

Woodland 766,495 (38%)

Grasslands 52,409 (3%)

Riparian 42,645 (2%)

Water 4,071 (<1%)

Escudilla Demonstration Area 4,898 (<1%)

Sandrock 26,596 (1%)

Research Natural Area 2,549 (<1%)

Developed Recreation Sites (<1%)c

Black River 6,804 (<1%)

Chevelon Canyon 10,643 (1%)

West Fork Black River 9,066 (<1%)

East and West Forks Little Colorado River 1,927 (<1%)

Blue Range Primitive Area 199,505 (10%)

Bear Wallow Wilderness 11,234 (1%)

Escudilla Wilderness 4,195 (<1%)d

Mount Baldy Wilderness 6,842 (<1%)

Total acres 2,015,352

a

See appendix D for descriptions of management areas. 

b

Acres are derived from the most current data available in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs GIS database; they may differ 

from the amount stated in the 1987 plan due to mapping techniques and changes in land ownerships.

c Developed recreation sites management area was not discretely mapped.

d Escudilla Wilderness does not reflect acreage of Escudilla Mountain RNA

.

 12 Indicators are quantitative or qualitative measures used to describe differences between alternatives.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 37

Table 2. Management area allocation (acres and percent) for the action alternatives

Management Areaa Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

General Forest 1,224,071 (61%) 1,599,357 (79%) 1,068,718 (53%)

Community-Forest Intermix 60,564 (3%) 60,564 (3%) 58,610 (3%)b

High Use Developed Recreation Area 16,549 (1%) 16,549 (1%) 16,549 (1%)

Energy Corridor 2,547 (<1%) 2,547 (<1%) 2,550 (<1%)c

Wild Horse Territoryd 18,761 (1%) 18,761 (1%) 18,761 (1%)

Wildlife Quiet Area 50,173 (2%) 44,373 (2%) 59,379 (3%)

Natural Landscape 404,802 (20%) 35,408 (2%) 77,119 (4%)

Recommended Research Natural Area 7,814 (<1%) 7,814 (<1%) 5,957 (<1%)

Research Natural Area 261 (<1%) 261 (<1%) 261 (<1%)

Primitive Areae 199,502 (10%) 199,502 (10%) 199,502 (10%)f

Recommended Wilderness 7,074 (<1%) 6,982 (<1%) 484,712 (24%)

Wilderness 23,234 (1%) 23,234 (1%) 23,234 (1%)

Total acres 2,015,352 2,015,352 2,015,352

a See appendix D for descriptions of management areas.

b A portion of the land allocated to the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area in other alternatives is 

recommended for wilderness in alternative D. 

c The Energy Corridor Management Area acreage for alternative D is slightly greater than alternatives B and C because 

three small isolated parcels containing a road could not be included in the adjacent Recommended Wilderness 

Management Area.

d The Wild Horse Territory, as designated by Congress, is approximately 19,700 acres; the difference in management 

area acres is due to the overlapping Community-Forest Intermix Management Area.

e In 1971, the Forest Service submitted a recommendation to the President of the United States for the Blue Range 

Wilderness in New Mexico and Arizona. The President forwarded the recommendation to Congress, who eventually 

acted on a portion of the recommendation. In 1980, Congress designated, and the President signed into law, the Blue 

Range Wilderness in New Mexico. The Arizona portion of the presidential recommendation (166,591 acres) included 

20,031 acres outside and along the west primitive area boundary. The Forest Service and presidential recommendations 

for the Blue Range Wilderness in Arizona have not been acted upon.

f

The majority of this area, except the road corridor, is also recommended for wilderness.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

Comparison by Indicators

This section compares indicators of the need for change and issues for the four alternatives. Unless otherwise noted, the timeframe is the 

planning period and the outcomes are based on the average level of treatments identified in each alternative’s objectives. Table values are 

approximations.

Table 3. Comparison of indicators by alternative

Indicator Alt. Aa Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Type, priority, and amount of 

restoration treatments

Primary methods of restoration treatments A mix of mechanical and 

wildland fire

A mix of mechanical and 

wildland fire

Primarily mechanical, 

some wildland fire

Primarily wildland fire, 

some mechanical

Priorityb (emphasis) for restoration 

treatments

-Treat areas around 

communities to reduce the 

threat from 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

-Provide wood products 

for the White Mountain 

Stewardship Project.

-Old growth 

characteristics are 

retained and/or 

encouraged.

-Treat priority 6th level 

HUC watersheds.

-Treat areas identified in 

community wildfire 

protection plans 

(CWPPs), including the 

Community-Forest 

Intermix Management 

Area to reduce the threat 

from uncharacteristic 

wildfire.

-Wood products are 

available as a result of 

restoration treatments.

-Old growth 

characteristics are 

retained and encouraged.

-Treat the CommunityForest Intermix 

Management Area to 

reduce the threat from 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

-Treat lands suitable for 

timber production plus 

other forests, woodlands, 

and grasslands that can 

supply wood products.

-Does not contain 

guidance to retain and 

encourage old growth 

characteristics.

-Treat priority 6th level 

HUC watersheds.

- Treat the Community 

Forest Intermix 

Management Area to 

reduce the threat from 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

-Wood products are 

available as a result of 

restoration treatments.

-All large and old trees 

are retained, except in the 

Community-Forest 

Intermix Management 

Area.

Number of priority 6th level HUC 

watersheds where condition class is 

improved by removing or mitigating 

degrading factors

Opportunityc 10 per planning period
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 39

Indicator Alt. A

a Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Amount of treatments to enhance or 

restore priority 6th level HUC watersheds

Opportunity 350 acres per year 350 acres per year 350 acres per year

Amount of treatments in forests 

(ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, wet 

mixed conifer, and spruce-fir)

17,000 acres per year 

primarily in ponderosa 

pine

5,000 to 35,000 acres per 

year primarily in 

ponderosa pine

5,500 to 55,000 acres per 

year primarily in 

ponderosa pine

7,500 to 50,000 acres per 

year primarily in 

ponderosa pine

Amount of treatments in woodlands 

(Madrean pine-oak and piñon-juniper)

3,500 acres per year in 

both types primarily using

wildland fire

5,000 to 15,000 acres per 

year primarily in Madrean 

pine-oak using wildland 

fire

2,500 to 10,000 acres per 

year primarily mechanical 

in piñon-juniper and 

wildland fire in Madrean 

pine-oak

5,000 to 30,000 acres per 

year primarily in Madrean 

pine-oak using wildland 

fire

Amount of treatments in grasslands (semi-

desert, Great Basin, and 

montane/subalpine)

500 acres per year Up to 25,000 acres per 

year primarily in Great 

Basin and semi-desert

500 acres per year in 

montane/subalpine

Other grasslands as 

opportunities arise

Up to 24,000 acres per 

year throughout all 

grassland types

Amount of treatments in interior chaparral Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity

Amount of treatments in riparian areas to 

move toward desired composition, 

structure, and function 

Opportunity 200 to 500 acres per year Opportunity 300 to 600 acres per year

Minimum amount of NFS roads or trails 

that negatively impact streams or riparian 

areas to be relocated, repaired, improved, 

or decommissioned

Opportunity 4 miles per planning 

period

Opportunity 4 miles per planning 

period

Average amount of unauthorized roads or 

trails that negatively impact streams or 

riparian areas to be removed

Opportunity 2 miles per year 3 miles per year 3 miles per year

Amount of wet meadows or cienegas 

restored

Opportunity 5 to 25 per planning 

period

Opportunity 5 to 25 per planning

period

Amount of stream and riparian habitat 

treatments to restore structure, 

composition, and function of physical 

habitat for native fisheries and riparian-

dependent species

Less than 10 miles per 

year

5 to 15 miles per year Opportunity 5 to 15 miles per year
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

Indicator Alt. A

a Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Average amount of riparian habitat treated 

to reduce animal damage to native willows 

and other riparian species

Opportunity 5 miles per year 5 miles per year 5 miles per year

Minimum number of projects to provide 

for aquatic and riparian-associated species 

and migratory species

Opportunity5 per planning period Opportunity5 per planning period

Amount of treatments to contain, control, 

or eradicate terrestrial invasive species

500 acres per year 500 to 3,500 acres per 

year

500 to 3,500 acres per 

year

500 to 3,500 acres per 

year

Minimum amount of treatments to contain, 

control, or eradicate aquatic invasive 

species

Opportunity 2 miles per year 2 miles per year 2 miles per year

Minimum number of unneeded structures 

removed to improve wildlife connectivity

Opportunity5 per year 5 per year 5 per year

Average number of dispersed campsites 

rehabilitated, stabilized, revegetated, or 

relocated 

Opportunity5 per year 5 per year 5 per year

Departure rating from desired 

conditions by PNVT, based on the 

average treatment objectives 

(see the “Vegetation” 

section in chapter 3)

Ponderosa pine forest High High Moderate High

Dry mixed conifer forest Moderate Moderate Moderate High

Wet mixed conifer forest Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Spruce-fir forest High High High High

Piñon-juniper woodland Low No Departure No Departure No Departure

Madrean pine-oak woodland Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Great Basin grassland High No High No

Semi-desert grassland Severe High Severe High
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 41

Indicator Alt. A

a Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Benefit to maintenance and 

reproduction of aspen 

(see the “Vegetation” 

section in chapter 3)

Amount of aspen on the landscape (desired 

condition is at least 50,000 acres)

71,100 acres 68,200 acres 65,800 acres 65,500 acres

Trend of riparian conditions and 

function toward proper functioning 

condition 

(see the “Riparian” 

section in chapter 3)

Trend of riparian condition and function Away Toward Away Toward

Percent of grasslands where 

encroachment of woody canopy is 

reduced to less than 10 percent

(see the “Vegetation” 

section in chapter 3)

Amount of Great Basin and semi-desert 

grasslands where woody species 

encroachment is reduced

1% 46%1% 42%

Probability of nuisance smoke 

impacts to communities 

(see the “Fire” section in 

chapter 3)

Probability of short-term smoke impacts

from wildland fire (planned and unplanned 

ignitions)

Least High Moderate Highest

Probability of long-term smoke impacts

from uncharacteristic wildfires

Highest Moderate High Least

Number and acres of wildlife quiet 

areas 

(see the “Wildlife and 

Rare Plants” section in 

chapter 3)

Number of wildlife quiet areas 8 areas 10 areas 8 areas 12 areas

Amount of wildlife quiet areas 45,500 acres 50,200 acres 44,400 acres 59,400 acres
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

Indicator Alt. A

a Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Acres and percent of the Apache-

Sitgreaves NFs by Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

classification

(see the “Recreation” 

section in chapter 3)

Primitive (P) 228,954 acres 

(11%)

295,934 acres 

(15%)

232,233 acres 

(12%)

620,879 acres 

(31%)

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (SPNM) 452,486 acres 

(22%)

487,747 acres 

(24%)

422,932 acres 

(21%)

279,050 acres 

(14%)

Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM) 614,520 acres 

(31%)

575,572 acres

(29%)

662,116 acres 

(33%)

527,725 acres 

(26%)

Roaded Natural (RN) 686,435 acres 

(34%)

603,887 acres 

(30%)

645,056 acres 

(32%)

539,491 acres 

(27%)

Roaded Modified (RM) 0 acres 

(0%)

9,682 acres 

(<1%)

9,682 acres 

(<1%)

7,149 acres 

(<1%)

Rural (R) 32,853 acres 

(2%)

42,530 acres 

(2%)

43,333 acres 

(2%)

41,058 acres 

(2%)

Urban (U) 104 acres 

(<1%)

0 acres 

(0%)

0 acres 

(0%)

0 acres 

(0%)

Acres and percent of the Apache-

Sitgreaves NFs designated 

wilderness, primitive area, and 

recommended for wilderness 

(see the “Wilderness

Resources” section in 

chapter 3)

Amount of designated wilderness 23,234 acres

d

(1%)

23,234 acres

d

(1%)

23,234 acres

d

(1%)

23,234 acres

d

(1%)

Amount of primitive area

e 199,505 acres

(10%)

199,502 acres

(10%)

199,502 acres

(10%)

199,502 acres

(10%)

Amount of recommended wilderness 0 acres

(0%)

7,074 acres

(0.4%)

6,982 acres

(0.3%)

484,712 acres

f

(24%)
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 43

Indicator Alt. A

a Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Additional areas recommended for 

wilderness

g

0 acres

(0%)

0 acres

(0%)

0 acres

(0%)

196,868 acres

h

(10%)

Number and acres of designated and 

recommended research natural areas 

(RNAs)

(see the “Research 

Natural Area section in 

chapter 3)

Number of designated RNAs1111

Number of recommended RNAs4663

Amount of designated and recommended 

RNAs (percent of NFS land)

2,549 acres 

(<1%)

8,075 acres 

(<1%)

8,075 acres 

(<1%)

6,218 acres 

(<1%)

Acres and percent of the Apache-

Sitgreaves NFs by Scenic Integrity 

Level (SIL)

(see the “Scenic 

Resources” section in 

chapter 3)

Very high scenic integrity (unaltered) 210,769 acres 

(11%)

305,047 acres 

(15%)

303,723 acres 

(15%)

748,716 acres 

(37%)

High scenic integrity (appears unaltered) 490,464 acres 

(25%)

786,776 acres 

(39%)

676,394 acres 

(34%)

444,302 acres 

(22%)

Moderate scenic integrity (slightly altered) 835,979 acres 

(42%)

920,648 acres 

(46%)

1,032,351 acres 

(51%)

819,449 acres 

(41%)

Low scenic integrity (moderately altered) 405,470 acres 

(20%)

394 acres 

(<1%)

394 acres 

(<1%)

393 acres 

(<1%)

Very low scenic integrity (heavily altered) 35,008 acres 

(2%)

2,490 acres 

(<1%)

2,490 acres 

(<1%)

2,492 acres 

(<1%)

Economic contributions of forest 

management 

(see the “Socioeconomic 

Resources” section in 

chapter 3)

Average labor income generated $117,600,000 $118,400,00 $129,300,000 $112,400,000

Average number of jobs contributed 3,768 3,793 4,120 3,610

Average present net value-$26,800,000-$26,400,000-$17,000,000-$28,200,000
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

Indicator Alt. Aa Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Acres and percent of ApacheSitgreaves NFs that are suitable for 

timber production

(see the “Forest 

Products” section in 

chapter 3)

Amount of land suitable for timber 

production on a regulated basis

764,900 acres

(38.0%)

596,700 acres

(29.6%)

604,700 acres

(30.0%)

0 acres

(0%)

Annual average amount of 

sawtimber, pulp, and poles (5 inch or 

greater diameter)

(see the “Forest 

Products” section in 

chapter 3)

Average amount of sawtimber, pulp, and 

poles (5 inch or greater diameter)

80,000 CCF 84,000 CCF 171,000 CCF 27,000 CCF

Annual average amount of firewood 

available

(see the “Forest 

Products” section in 

chapter 3)

Average amount of firewood available 26,000 CCF 75,000 CCF 35,000 CCF 46,000 CCF

Annual average amount (tons) of 

biomass available

(see the “Forest 

Products” section in 

chapter 3)

Average amount of biomass available 348,000 tons 364,000 tons 733,000 tons 156,000 tons

Acres and percent of ApacheSitgreaves NFs suitable for new 

energy corridors or development

(see the “Lands and 

Special Uses” section in 

chapter 3)

Amount of land suitable for new energy 

corridors or development

NA

(NA)

889,700 acres

(44%)

1,007,500 acres

(50%)

784,400 acres

(39%)

a Alternative A, the no action alternative, has a different set of management areas than the action alternatives; a crosswalk, found in appendix D, was used so the alternatives 

could be compared.

b The priority or emphasis of where treatments would occur varies by alternative.

c Opportunity indicates that there would be no set objective for this alternative; treatments and accomplishments would occur as opportunities arise and conditions, funding, 

and staffing allow.

d Alternative A acres include the Escudilla Wilderness Management Area and a part of the Research Natural Area Management Area (Escudilla Mountain RNA) that is within 

the designated wilderness.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 45

e Acres in the primitive area differ between alterantive A and the action alternatives due to improved mapping techniques (i.e., mapping from the 1987 plan map compared to 

mapping with aerial photography as reference).

f

Alternative D also recommends 2,981 acres on the Coconino NF and 3,607 acres on the Gila NF.

g There is a 1971 presidential wilderness recommendation of the Blue Range Primitive Area and additions that Congress has not acted upon. The Blue Range Primitive Area 

must be managed as a primitive area until Congress acts on the 1971 wilderness recommendation.

h Alternative D would recommend the majority of the Primitive Area Management Area, except the road corridor, for wilderness designation.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

Comparison of Other Plan Objectives

This section compares other plan objectives for the four alternatives. 

Table 4. Other plan objectives

Indicator Alt. Aa Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Minimum number of new wildlife 

viewing opportunities created

Opportunity 10 per planning period

Provision of accessible and wildliferesistant trash facilities in all developed 

sites where trash is collected

Opportunity Within planning period

Percent of developed recreation deferred 

maintenance backlog reduced

Opportunity 10% per planning period

Percent of NFS roads maintained 20% of passenger

high-clearance

vehicle roads 

vehicle roads

and 10% of 

per year

Percent of NFS motorized trails 

maintained

20% per year

Percent of NFS nonmotorized trails 

maintained

20% per year

Removal of the National Recreation Trail 

designation from the Escudilla trail to 

conform with agency policy

Initiate process within 5 years of plan approval

Average number of projects accomplished 

to enhance scenic resources

Opportunity 5 per year

Average number of miles of NFS 

boundary surveyed and posted

Opportunity 2 to 5 miles 

per year

Average number of miles of NFS property 

boundary posted and corner monuments 

placed

Opportunity 2 to 5 miles 

per year

Average number of existing trespass cases 

resolved

Opportunity 3 per year

Schedule for inspecting National Register 

sites and priority cultural resources

Opportunity Every 2 years or

Region Heritage

according to

SW Program

Minimum number of eligible cultural 

resources nominated to the National 

Register of Historic Places

Opportunity At least 5 per planning period

Number of Passport in Time (PIT) or 

other education projects that provide 

opportunities for the public to learn about 

the past and cultural resources

Opportunity 1 per year

Minimum amount of non-project cultural 

inventory completed

Opportunity 100 acres per planning period
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 47

Indicator Alt. Aa Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Minimum number of MOUs renewed or 

established with culturally affiliated tribes

Opportunity 5 per planning period

Average number of Christmas tree permits 

provided

5,000 per year

Minimum number of instream flow water 

rights applications prepared

Opportunity One per year

a Alternative A, the no action alternative, has a different set of management areas than the action alternatives; a 

crosswalk, found in appendix D, was used so that the alternatives could be compared.