United States Department of Agriculture

Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Land Management Plan 

Programmatic Final Environmental Impact 

Statement

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, 

Arizona

Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests MB-R3-01-11 August 2015
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Printed on recycled paper – August 2015

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

Programmatic 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Land Management Plan

Volume I. Chapters 1 through 3

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Cal Joyner, Regional Forester

U.S. Forest Service

333 Broadway Blvd., SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

(505) 842-3292

For Information Contact: Thomas D. Osen, Forest Supervisor

P.O. Box 640

30 S. Chiricahua Drive

Springerville, AZ 85938

(928) 333-4301

(928) 333-6292 (TTY) 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf

Abstract: To comply with the National Forest Management Act and address changes that have 

occurred over the past 27 years, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests propose to revise the 

current land management plan (1987 plan). This programmatic final environmental impact 

statement (FEIS) documents analysis of the impacts of four alternatives developed for 

programmatic management of the 2.1 million acres administered by the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests. 

The FEIS documents the analysis of all alternatives and the associated environmental 

consequences at a programmatic level. The preferred alternative (alternative B) analyzed in this 

FEIS and reflected in the accompanying “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management 

Plan,” would guide all natural resource management activities on the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests. This alternative addresses new information and concerns received since the 1987 plan 

was published, and it meets objectives of Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

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

Summary

The Forest Service proposes to implement a new land management plan for the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests (Apache-Sitgreaves NFs or the forests). The area affected by the 

proposal includes the approximately 2.1 million acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands 

known as the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, located in Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo 

Counties in Arizona. This proposal does not include Apache National Forest lands located in New 

Mexico; those lands are managed according to the Gila National Forest land management plan. 

This action is needed because the National Forest Management Act of 1976 directs that land 

management plans be revised every 10 to 15 years; the current management direction for the 

forests under the 1987 Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan (1987 plan) is 27 years old. It no longer 

addresses changes that have occurred to economic, social, and ecological conditions; new policies 

and priorities; and new information based on monitoring and scientific research. For example, 

invasive species are a current threat to forest health; they currently infest over 30,000 acres of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. At the time the 1987 plan was approved, invasive species were not a 

concern.

Extensive public involvement and collaboration on the revision of the 1987 plan preceded 

publication of this FEIS. Informal discussions with the public regarding needed changes to the 

1987 plan began with a series of public meetings during the summer of 2006. From 2006 to 2014, 

multiple meetings, correspondence, news releases, comment periods, and other tools were utilized 

to gather feedback from the public, forest employees, tribes, Federal and State agencies, and local 

governments. As a culmination of these public involvement efforts, the forests have developed 

this programmatic final environmental impact statement (FEIS) to examine potential alternatives 

for a new land management plan.

This FEIS provides detailed descriptions of each alternative and discloses the potential 

environmental consequences related to implementation. The four alternatives are

• Alternative A is the no action alternative and represents the 1987 plan, as amended. This 

alternative 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.

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

alternative was designed to address the need for change by addressing the demands for 

wildlife habitat, community protection, commodity outputs, and recreation opportunities 

with an emphasis on ecological restoration.

• 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

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

more natural processes and nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities. There is 

an emphasis on ecological restoration across all vegetation types.

The Notice of Availability announcing the release of the proposed plan and draft environmental 

impact statement was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2013, which initiated a 

90-day public comment period. In late February 2013, additional public meetings were held in 
Summary

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

Show Low, Springerville, and Duncan (Clifton). Over 41,000 comment letters were received from 

individuals, organizations, agencies, and one tribe. These 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.

The regional forester for the Southwestern Region will make the final decision on the selected 

alternative for the new land management plan.
Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan v

Contents

Volume I

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... iii

Commonly Used Acronyms........................................................................................................ xv

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change................................................................................... 1

Document Structure................................................................................................................................1

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

Purpose and Need for Change ................................................................................................................3

Proposed Land Management Plan ..........................................................................................................8

Decision Framework...............................................................................................................................8

Scope of the Analysis.............................................................................................................................8

Land Management Plan Decisions .........................................................................................................9

Tribal Consultation ...............................................................................................................................10

Public Involvement...............................................................................................................................10

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action......................................................... 15

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................15

Alternative Development......................................................................................................................15

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study..............................................................16

Alternatives Considered in Detail.........................................................................................................23

Main Differences Among Alternatives.................................................................................................24

Comparison of Alternatives..................................................................................................................35

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences................................... 49

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................49

Programmatic Framework of the Land Management Plan ...................................................................49

Environmental Analyses and Overall Assumptions .............................................................................49

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.......................................................................................50

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Consequences...........................................................................51

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...................................................................51

Adaptive Management..........................................................................................................................51

Climate Change ....................................................................................................................................52

Environmental Consequences of Each Alternative by Resource..........................................................52

Air.........................................................................................................................................................52

Soil........................................................................................................................................................59

Watershed .............................................................................................................................................71

Water Resources...................................................................................................................................78

Riparian ................................................................................................................................................91

Fisheries..............................................................................................................................................100

Vegetation...........................................................................................................................................143

Forest Health ......................................................................................................................................196

Fire......................................................................................................................................................216

Wildlife and Rare Plants.....................................................................................................................232

Invasive Species .................................................................................................................................334

Recreation...........................................................................................................................................339

Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................356

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers....................................................................................361

Inventoried Roadless Areas................................................................................................................369

Wilderness Resources.........................................................................................................................376

Research Natural Areas ......................................................................................................................396

Scenic Resources................................................................................................................................404

Lands and Special Uses......................................................................................................................414

Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................................426
Contents

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

American Indian Rights and Interests.................................................................................................442

Forest Products...................................................................................................................................450

Livestock Grazing...............................................................................................................................477

Minerals and Energy...........................................................................................................................490

Socioeconomic Resources..................................................................................................................496

Other Required Disclosures................................................................................................................520

Volume II

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination..............................................................................521

Preparers and Contributors...................................................................................................521

Consultation and Coordination.............................................................................................523

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the FEIS

 Were Sent...........................................................................................................................526

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................527

References...................................................................................................................................549

Index ............................................................................................................................................579

Appendix A. Public Comments and Responses.......................................................................585

Appendix B. Description of the Analysis Process....................................................................791

Appendix C. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts............................................833

Appendix D. Management Area Descriptions .........................................................................857

Appendix E. Other Supporting Documentation......................................................................861

Appendix F. Collaboration and Public Involvement...............................................................865

Appendix G. Plan Decisions and Species Viability..................................................................877

Volume III

Appendix H. Comments from Tribes, Elected Officials, and Government Agencies ..........897

Appendix I. Crosswalk between Apache-Sitgreaves 1987 Forest Plan (as amended)

and the Revised Forest Plan ...........................................................................................1073

Appendix J. Maps.....................................................................................................................1355

List of Tables

Volume I

Table 1. Management area allocation (acres and percent) for the no action alternative ......... 36

Table 2. Management area allocation (acres and percent) for the action alternatives............. 37

Table 3. Comparison of indicators by alternative ................................................................... 38

Table 4. Other plan objectives................................................................................................. 46

Table 5. Summary of 2018 projected visibility conditionsa

.................................................... 57

Table 6. Current and desired soil conditiona class as a percent of each PNVT; ( ) indicates 

desired condition............................................................................................................. 62

Table 7. Estimated trends in soil condition during the planning period for each PNVT by 

alternative ....................................................................................................................... 65

Table 8. Average annual mechanical treatment objectives (acres) for each alternative .......... 66

Table 9. Annual wildland fire treatments (acres) and estimated fire severity by alternative .. 67

Table 10. Wildland fire characteristics and effects to soil function by fire severity ............... 67

Table 11. Motorized routes treatment objectives by alternative ............................................. 69
Contents

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

Table 12. Results of the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) for 6th level HUC watershed 

condition by watershed basin (3rd level HUC)................................................................ 73

Table 13. Priority watershed treatment objective, basis, and priority by alternative .............. 76

Table 14. Riparian vegetation and soil condition trends......................................................... 93

Table 15. Riparian stream length and proportional extent by proper functioning condition 

class for 4th and 5th level HUC watersheds (Forest Service, 2008e)............................... 94

Table 16. Native fish species and their GIS miles of occupied, critical, and recovery habitat 

on Apache-Sitgreaves NFS lands.................................................................................. 101

Table 17. Current and historical occurrences of native fish species by 4th and 5th level 

hydrologic unit code (HUC) ......................................................................................... 104

Table 18. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address fish species at the coarse 

and fine filter levels.......................................................................................................117

Table 19. Determination of effects (findings) for ESA species for alternatives A and B...... 129

Table 20. Acres and percent of the species drainage area potentially affected by treatment 

type (mechanical and wildland fire) for each alternative.............................................. 135

Table 21. Percent of species drainage area that is located in management areas where actions, 

including ground-disturbing activities, are most likely to occur .................................. 139

Table 22. The 14 potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

...................................................................................................................................... 145

Table 23. Acres and percent of the forests by PNVT, listed from largest to smallest ........... 146

Table 24. Potential natural vegetation types (PNVT) and current overstory departure (DI) 

percent from desired conditions.................................................................................... 146

Table 25. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the ponderosa pine 

PNVT............................................................................................................................ 162

Table 26. Fifteen-year (planning period) ponderosa pine PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H77 ............................................... 162

Table 27. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (DBH) per 

acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of the 

15-year planning period within the ponderosa pine PNVT .......................................... 164

Table 28. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the wet mixed conifer 

PNVT............................................................................................................................ 164

Table 29. Fifteen-year (planning period) wet mixed conifer PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is M54 .............................................. 165

Table 30. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (DBH) per 

acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of the 

15-year planning period within the wet mixed conifer PNVT...................................... 166

Table 31. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the dry mixed conifer 

PNVT............................................................................................................................ 167

Table 32. Fifteen-year (planning period) dry mixed conifer PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H67 ............................................... 167

Table 33. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (DBH) per 

acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of the 

15-year planning period within the dry mixed conifer PNVT...................................... 169

Table 34. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the spruce-fir PNVT. 169

Table 35. Fifteen-year (planning period) spruce-fir PNVT departure index (DI) by alternative 

treatment objective levels; current DI is M59 ................................................................ 170

Table 36. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (DBH) per 

acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of the 

15-year planning period within the spruce-fir PNVT................................................... 172
Contents

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

Table 37. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the Madrean pine-oak 

PNVT............................................................................................................................ 172

Table 38. Fifteen-year (planning period) Madrean pine-oak PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H61 ............................................... 173

Table 39. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (DBH) per 

acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of the 

15-year planning period within the Madrean pine-oak PNVT ..................................... 175

Table 40. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the piñon-juniper PNVT

...................................................................................................................................... 175

Table 41. Fifteen-year (planning period) piñon-juniper PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is L26 ............................................... 176

Table 42. Acres of large/old trees, number of snags greater than 18 inch diameter (DBH) per 

acre, and tons of the three size classes of coarse woody debris per acre at the end of the 

15-year planning period within the piñon-juniper PNVT............................................. 178

Table 43. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the Great Basin grassland 

PNVT............................................................................................................................ 178

Table 44. Fifteen-year (planning period) Great Basin grassland PNVT departure index (DI) 

by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H66 .......................................... 179

Table 45. Annual treatment objective levels (acres) by alternative in the semi-desert grassland 

PNVT............................................................................................................................ 180

Table 46. Fifteen-year (planning period) semi-desert grassland PNVT departure index (DI) by 

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H79 ............................................... 180

Table 47. Annual treatment objectives (acres) by alternative in the montane/subalpine 

grasslands PNVT .......................................................................................................... 182

Table 48. Average annual treatment objectives (acres) by alternative in the riparian PNVT 183

Table 49. Road treatment objectives (miles) by alternative in the riparian PNVT ............... 184

Table 50. Acres of aspen at the end of the planning period, by treatment objective level and 

alternative; desired condition is 50,000 acres or more of aspen ................................... 185

Table 51. Estimated percent of tree species infected with major diseases by ranger districta

204

Table 52. Percent of forested PNVT by bark beetle risk and alternative at the end of the 

planning period (year 15) compared to existing conditions.......................................... 209

Table 53. Percent of forested PNVTs by number of closed canopy levels and alternative at the 

end of the planning period (year 15) compared to existing conditions..........................211

Table 54. Fire frequency and severity by PNVTa compared to the 2011 Wallow Fire burn 

severities....................................................................................................................... 220

Table 55. Fire regimes by PNVTs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs........................................ 222

Table 56. Existing forestwide FRCC on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs................................... 223

Table 57. Current FRCC by PNVT....................................................................................... 224

Table 58. Comparison of alternatives and how much emphasis is placed on treating the 

hazards associated with the WUI.................................................................................. 226

Table 59. The average annual acreage by treatment type, planned by alternative across all 

PNVTs........................................................................................................................... 226

Table 60. Average acres treated by PNVT per year (percent of PNVT treated per year)...... 227

Table 61. Forestwide FRCC outcome by alternative in acres and percent of the forests after 

15 years of treatment..................................................................................................... 228

Table 62. Comparison of alternatives showing FRCC outcomes by PNVT after 15 years and 

the trend from 15 to 50 years as represented by the arrows.......................................... 228

Table 63. Forest F rankings for forest planning species (FPS) ............................................. 234
Contents

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

Table 64. Viability risk ratings reflecting species’ F rank and likelihood of habitat limitation

...................................................................................................................................... 235

Table 65. Description of relative management effect rating for alternatives........................ 236

Table 66. PNVTs (coarse filter) and habitat elements (fine filter) of importance to species 

viability, showing associated forest planning species................................................... 238

Table 67. Description of fine filter habitat elements and risks.............................................. 241

Table 68. Aspen within forested PNVTs, existing condition in 2012 (post-Wallow Fire).... 243

Table 69. Existing understory/herbaceous condition of the riparian ecological indicator (EI)

...................................................................................................................................... 245

Table 70. Other factors of concern and affected forest planning species (FPS) ................... 246

Table 71. FPS, their status, F ranking, associated PNVTs and habitat elements .................. 247

Table 72. MSO habitat by PNVT and existing condition, noting estimated change in suitable 

habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire ...................................................................... 253

Table 73. MSO critical habitat by PNVT and existing condition, noting estimated change in 

suitable critical habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire............................................. 254

Table 74. Indicator habitat (PNVTs) for MSO showing existing condition and noting 

estimated change in suitable habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire ........................ 261

Table 75. Indicator habitat for northern goshawk showing existing condition and noting 

estimated change in habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire...................................... 262

Table 76. Representative neotropical migratory birds considered, important habitat, and 

threats............................................................................................................................ 264

Table 77. Existing Wildlife Quiet Areas (WQAs) and other similar functioning areas........ 267

Table 78. Expected habitat limitations and management effect outcomes by alternative at 15 

years.............................................................................................................................. 270

Table 79. Movement toward desired conditions at 15 and 50 years by alternative .............. 271

Table 80. Expected viability risk ratinga (VRR) outcomes for each species-habitat relationship 

by alternative at 15 years.............................................................................................. 274

Table 81. Species for which habitat (PNVT) alone is sufficient to provide viability ........... 279

Table 82. Number of species-habitat relationships as an indicator of viability effectiveness by 

habitat element(s) for each alternative (subtotals and totals)........................................ 280

Table 83. Number of species-habitat relationships as an indicator of viability effectiveness by 

FPS group for each alternative...................................................................................... 281

Table 84. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address ESA species at the 

coarse and fine filter levels........................................................................................... 282

Table 85. Determination of effects (findings) for ESA species for alternatives A and B...... 284

Table 86. Modeled acres treated per year in MSO PNVTs (high treatment level)................ 287

Table 87. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address sensitive species at the 

coarse and fine filter levels........................................................................................... 300

Table 88. Viability risk ratings described and converted ...................................................... 302

Table 89. Viability effectiveness for ponderosa pine forest sensitive species....................... 304

Table 90. Viability effectiveness for dry mixed conifer forest sensitive species.................. 305

Table 91. Viability effectiveness for wet mixed conifer forest and spruce-fir forest sensitive 

species........................................................................................................................... 305

Table 92. Viability effectiveness for Madrean pine-oak woodland sensitive species........... 306

Table 93. Viability effectiveness for montane/subalpine grasslands sensitive species......... 307

Table 94. Viability effectiveness for Great Basin grassland sensitive species...................... 309

Table 95. Viability effectiveness for high water quality sensitive species.............................311

Table 96. Viability effectiveness for healthy riparian sensitive species................................ 312

Table 97. Viability effectiveness for large tree sensitive species.......................................... 313
Contents

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

Table 98. Viability effectiveness for dense low-mid canopy with ample ground litter sensitive 

species........................................................................................................................... 315

Table 99. Viability effectiveness for permanent wet meadow-like areas sensitive species .. 316

Table 100. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address highly interactive 

species at the coarse and fine filter levels..................................................................... 317

Table 101. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address other FPS needs at the 

coarse and fine filter levels........................................................................................... 320

Table 102. Other factors of concern and affected forest planning species (FPS) ................. 321

Table 103. Management effect compared by alternative for the MIS indicator habitats...... 323

Table 104. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address migratory birds...... 328

Table 105. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions that address bald and golden eagles

...................................................................................................................................... 329

Table 106. Proposed additional wildlife quiet areas by alternative....................................... 330

Table 107. Number of occurrences and acres of WQA management areas that provide greater 

habitat security by alternative ....................................................................................... 330

Table 108. Habitat connectivity indicator, estimated average distance in miles between 

management areas by alternative for relative comparisons of alternatives................... 332

Table 109. Average annual acres of mechanical and wildland fire treatments by alternative337

Table 110. Percent participation in activities and primary activities of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

recreation visitors (Kocis et al., 2002).......................................................................... 342

Table 111. Types and numbers of developed recreation sites on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

(Forest Service, 2011b)................................................................................................. 344

Table 112. Acres and percent of the forests in each ROS class by alternative...................... 349

Table 113. Average annual treatment objectives (acres) in ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, 

and dry mixed conifer forested PNVTs by alternative.................................................. 351

Table 114. Acres suitable for future consideration of mechanized and nonmotorized travel by 

alternative ..................................................................................................................... 353

Table 115. Acres and percent suitable for future consideration of new motorized areas and 

trails by alternative........................................................................................................ 353

Table 116. Approximate acres and percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs suitable for future 

consideration of new motorized areas, NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, and temporary 

roadsa

............................................................................................................................. 360

Table 117. Eligible wild and scenic rivers by river classification......................................... 363

Table 118. Suitable wild and scenic rivers by river classification ........................................ 365

Table 119. River corridor acres by classification and management area for alternative A... 367

Table 120. River corridor acres by wild and scenic river classification and management area 

for the action alternatives (alternatives B, C, and D).................................................... 368

Table 121. Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs)....................................................................... 371

Table 122. Apache-Sitgreaves NFs wilderness areas............................................................ 377

Table 123. Areas with wilderness potential .......................................................................... 383

Table 124. Acres recommended for wilderness by alternativea ............................................ 389

Table 125. Results of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ RNA evaluation showing ecological types 

needed in the regionwide RNA system and whether specific areas should be 

recommended or withdrawn ......................................................................................... 398

Table 126. Number and amount of designated and recommended RNAs by alternative ..... 403

Table 127. Status of grazing allotments containing recommended RNAs............................ 404

Table 128. Crosswalk between Visual Management System and Scenery Management System

...................................................................................................................................... 409

Table 129. Amount of NFS land (acres and percent of forests) by SIL by alternative ......... 410
Contents

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

Table 130. Average annual acres of vegetation treatments by alternative............................. 413

Table 131. Land ownership within the boundaries of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs............... 416

Table 132. Land ownership adjustments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs since 1987 ........... 416

Table 133. Number and type of special use permits issued on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs as 

of April 2011................................................................................................................. 420

Table 134. Acres suitable for future consideration of new energy corridors or energy 

developments by alternative ......................................................................................... 425

Table 135. Acres and percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs suitable for future consideration of 

new communications sites............................................................................................ 426

Table 136. Archaeological prehistoric site typesa ................................................................. 429

Table 137. Historic-age activities and possible site typesa

.................................................... 430

Table 138. Percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs surveyed for archaeological sites by PNVT

...................................................................................................................................... 432

Table 139. Properties currently listed and properties that are priority for future nomination to 

the National Register of Historic Places....................................................................... 433

Table 140. Activity effects and the number of sites impacted by activity............................. 435

Table 141. Annual wildland fire treatments (acres) and estimated fire severity by alternative

...................................................................................................................................... 438

Table 142. Mechanical treatment objective (acres) and number of sites that could be impacted

...................................................................................................................................... 439

Table 143. Estimated average annual cost for cultural resource compliance in proposed 

mechanical treatment areas by alternative .................................................................... 439

Table 144. Acres and percent by forested PNVT in forested/overgrown or deforested/early 

development condition.................................................................................................. 452

Table 145. Criteria used to determine tentatively suitable timberlands in all alternatives.... 454

Table 146. Annual cutting and wildland fire treatment acres for all PNVTs, suitable and 

nonsuitable timberlands, by alternative ........................................................................ 458

Table 147. Lands suitable and not suitable for timber production by alternative ................. 459

Table 148. ASQ volume from suitable timberlands for the first decade (rounded to nearest 

thousand)....................................................................................................................... 466

Table 149. Estimated annual ASQ volume by decade by alternative (volumes rounded to the 

nearest thousand) .......................................................................................................... 467

Table 150. Estimated ranges of annual wood product volumes potentially available to offer in

decade 1, by alternative from all NFS lands (suitable timberlands and non-suitable).. 470

Table 151. Average years required to treat all forested/overgrown acres with one entry by 

alternative ..................................................................................................................... 472

Table 152. Acres and percent of NFS land suitable for livestock grazing by alternative ..... 480

Table 153. Woody species reduction treatments in both woodland and grassland PNVTs by 

alternative ..................................................................................................................... 487

Table 154. Number of active mining claims on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 

2009b)........................................................................................................................... 491

Table 155. Minerals that may be found on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Galbraith and 

Brennan, 1970).............................................................................................................. 492

Table 156. Acres that could be withdrawn from mineral entry in the future ........................ 495

Table 157. Apache-Sitgreaves NFs acres by county ............................................................. 497

Table 158. Population change 1990-2000 and 2000-2010.................................................... 498

Table 159. Population density............................................................................................... 499

Table 160. Median age.......................................................................................................... 500

Table 161. Gender distribution.............................................................................................. 501
Contents

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

Table 162. Educational attainment, percent of persons age 25 and older............................. 501

Table 163. Percent participation in activities and primary activities of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs' 

recreation visitorsa

......................................................................................................... 502

Table 164. Per capita income in 2010 U.S. dollars............................................................... 504

Table 165. Median earnings for workers in 2010 U.S. dollars ............................................. 505

Table 166. Contribution of labor and non-labor income to total personal income, 2000 and 

2009 .............................................................................................................................. 506

Table 167. Unemployment rate, 2010 annual, not seasonally adjusted ................................ 507

Table 168. Median value of owner-occupied homes in 2010 U.S. dollars ........................... 507

Table 169. Payments to states and counties from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs......................511

Table 170. Race and ethnicity by counties, states, and Nation ............................................. 512

Table 171. Percent of persons living in poverty.................................................................... 513

Table 172. Employment by program area by alternative ...................................................... 514

Table 173. Labor income by program area by alternative .................................................... 515

Table 174. Annual Apache-Sitgreaves NFs program expenditures by alternative................ 515

Table 175. Annual Apache-Sitgreaves NFs program revenue by alternative........................ 516

Table 176. Present net value (PNV) by alternative and program areaa

................................. 517

List of Figures

Volume I

Figure 1. Map of ranger districts on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs............................................. 2

Figure 2. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative A................................................ 26

Figure 3. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative B................................................ 28

Figure 4. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative C................................................ 30

Figure 5. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for alternative D................................................ 32

Figure 6. Aerial view of Mount Baldy Wilderness ................................................................. 57

Figure 7. Map of 2010 watershed condition rating for 6th level HUC across the forests....... 74

Figure 8. Map of 2012 watershed condition rating for 6th level HUC across the forests....... 75

Figure 9. Map of Outstanding Arizona Waters and impaired streams and lakes .................... 82

Figure 10. Map showing extent of the Coconino-De Chelly Aquifer (C Aquifer).................. 84

Figure 11. Map of fish drainage areas – Sitgreaves NF........................................................ 132

Figure 12. Map of fish drainage areas – Apache NF ............................................................ 133

Figure 13. Location map of ponderosa pine forest ............................................................... 147

Figure 14. Location map of wet mixed conifer forest........................................................... 148

Figure 15. Location map of dry mixed conifer forest........................................................... 149

Figure 16. Location map of spruce-fir forest........................................................................ 149

Figure 17. Location map of Madrean pine-oak woodland.................................................... 150

Figure 18. Location map of piñon-juniper woodland ........................................................... 151

Figure 19. Location map of Great Basin grassland............................................................... 151

Figure 20. Location map of semi-desert grassland ............................................................... 152

Figure 21. Location map of montane/subalpine grassland ................................................... 153

Figure 22. Location map of interior chaparral...................................................................... 154

Figure 23. Location map of wetland/cienega riparian areas................................................. 155

Figure 24. Location map of cottonwood-willow riparian forest........................................... 156

Figure 25. Location map of mixed broadleaf deciduous forest ............................................ 156

Figure 26. Location map of montane willow riparian forest ................................................ 157

Figure 27. Location map of aspen across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs................................. 158
Contents

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

Figure 28. Ponderosa pine PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-

year time period, for the average treatment level ......................................................... 163

Figure 29. Wet mixed conifer PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-

year period, for the average treatment level.................................................................. 166

Figure 30. Dry mixed conifer PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-

year time period, for the average treatment level ......................................................... 168

Figure 31. Spruce-fir PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-year 

time period, for the average treatment level ................................................................. 171

Figure 32. Madrean pine-oak PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-

year time period, for the average treatment level ......................................................... 174

Figure 33. Piñon-juniper PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 50-year 

time period, for the average treatment level ................................................................. 176

Figure 34. Great Basin grassland PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 

50-year time period, for the average treatment level .................................................... 180

Figure 35. Semi-desert grassland PNVT departure index from desired condition trend, over a 

50-year time period, for the average treatment level .................................................... 181

Figure 36. Percent of ponderosa pine PNVT with canopy cover greater than 30 percent over a 

50-year timeframe by alternative.................................................................................. 187

Figure 37. Percent of wet mixed conifer PNVT with canopy cover greater than 30 percent 

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ....................................................................... 187

Figure 38. Percent of dry mixed conifer PNVT with canopy cover greater than 30 percent 

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ....................................................................... 188

Figure 39. Percent of spruce-fir PNVT with canopy cover greater than 30 percent over a 50-

year timeframe by alternative ....................................................................................... 189

Figure 40. Percent of Madrean pine-oak PNVT with canopy cover greater than 30 percent 

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ....................................................................... 190

Figure 41. Percent of piñon-juniper PNVT with canopy cover greater than 30 percent over a 

50-year timeframe by alternative.................................................................................. 191

Figure 42. Percent of Great Basin grassland PNVT with canopy cover greater than 10 percent 

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ....................................................................... 192

Figure 43. Percent of semi-desert grassland PNVT with canopy cover greater than 10 percent 

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative ....................................................................... 193

Figure 44. Map of White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim Ecoregion ........ 195

Figure 45. Map of Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) boundary ............................... 196

Figure 46. Map of bark beetle activity in east-central Arizona by major forest and woodland 

types from 2000-2009 compiled from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys 200

Figure 47. Map of major defoliator activity in east-central Arizona from 2000 to 2009 

compiled from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys..................................... 202

Figure 48. Map of forestwide aspen mortality in east-central Arizona 2008-2009 compiled 

from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys .................................................... 203

Figure 49. Map of communities within vicinity of Federal lands that are at a high risk from 

wildfire and areas currently covered by CWPPs .......................................................... 218

Figure 50. Map of existing fire regime condition classes on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs based 

on PNVT departure....................................................................................................... 223

Figure 51. Maps of wildlife quiet areas (WQAs) and other management areas (MAs) 

providing more secure habitat for each alternative....................................................... 331

Figure 52. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (Forest Service, 1990) ........................... 343

Figure 53. Map of scenic byways and national recreation trails on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

...................................................................................................................................... 347
Contents

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

Figure 54. Acres by ROS class by alternative....................................................................... 349

Figure 55. Map of suitable and eligible wild and scenic rivers on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

...................................................................................................................................... 364

Figure 56. Map of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) – Sitgreaves NF ................................ 372

Figure 57. Map of inventoried roadless areas IRAs – Apache NF........................................ 373

Figure 58. Map of existing wilderness and primitive areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 378

Figure 59. Map of potential wilderness areas – Sitgreaves NF............................................. 386

Figure 60. Map of potential wilderness areas – Apache NF ................................................. 387

Figure 61. Map of research natural area (RNA), botanical area, and recommended RNAs, 

alternative A.................................................................................................................. 400

Figure 62. Map of research natural area (RNA), botanical area, and recommended RNAs, 

alternatives B and C...................................................................................................... 401

Figure 63. Map of research natural area (RNA), botanical area, and recommended RNAs, 

alternative D.................................................................................................................. 402

Figure 64. Map of three major existing landscapes on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs............. 407

Figure 65. Percent of scenic integrity level by alternative.................................................... 410

Figure 66. Map of land ownership – Sitgreaves NF ............................................................. 417

Figure 67. Map of land ownership – Apache NF.................................................................. 418

Figure 68. Map of distribution of known archaeological sites on the forests in 2009 (adapted 

from Donaldson, n.d.)................................................................................................... 431

Figure 69. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF........ 460

Figure 70. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative A – Apache NF............. 461

Figure 71. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF........ 462

Figure 72. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative B – Apache NF ............ 463

Figure 73. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF........ 464

Figure 74. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative C – Apache NF ............ 465

Figure 75. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF ......... 481

Figure 76. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative A – Apache NF.............. 482

Figure 77. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternatives B and C – Sitgreaves NF

...................................................................................................................................... 483

Figure 78. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternatives B and C – Apache NF.. 484

Figure 79. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative D – Sitgreaves NF......... 485

Figure 80. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative D – Apache NF ............. 486

Figure 81. Employment by industry in the study area (MIG, 2009)..................................... 508

Figure 82. Employment by specialization (MIG, 2009)....................................................... 510
Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan xv

Commonly Used Acronyms

ADA – Arizona Department of Agriculture

ADEQ – Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality

ADOT – Arizona Department of 

Transportation

AMS – Analysis of the Management 

Situation

AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish 

Department

ASQ – Allowable Sale Quantity

BAER – Burned Area Emergency Response

BLM – Bureau of Land Management

BMP – Best Management Practice

CCF – 100 cubic feet

CER – Comprehensive Evaluation Report

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CWPP – Community Wildfire Protection 

Plan

CWRF – Cottonwood-Willow Riparian 

Forest

DBH – Diameter at Breast Height

DMCF – Dry Mixed Conifer Forest

DRC – Diameter at Root Collar

EI – Ecological Indicator

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

EO – Executive Order

ESA – Endangered Species Act

FR – Federal Register

FSH – Forest Service Handbook

FSM – Forest Service Manual

GBG – Great Basin Grassland

GIS – Geographical Information System

GTR – General Technical Report

HUC – Hydrologic Unit Code 

IC – Interior Chaparral

IRA – Inventoried Roadless Area

MBDRF – Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest

MIS – Management Indicator Species

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding

MPOW – Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland

MSO – Mexican Spotted Owl

MSG – Montane/Subalpine Grasslands

MVUM – Motor Vehicle Use Map

MWRF – Montane Willow Riparian Forest

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NF – National Forest

NFMA – National Forest Management Act

NFS – National Forest System

NOA – Notice of Availability

NOI – Notice of Intent

NPS – National Park Service

NRCS – Natural Resource Conservation 

Service

NRHP – National Register of Historic 

Places

NRT – National Recreation Trail
Commonly Used Acronyms

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

NVUM – National Visitor Use Monitoring

OHV – Off-highway Vehicle

PAC – Protected Activity Center

PFA – Post-fledging Family Area

PFC – Proper Functioning Condition

PJW – Piñon-Juniper Woodland

PNVT – Potential Natural Vegetation Type

PPF – Ponderosa Pine Forest

RMRS – Rocky Mountain Research Station

RNA – Research Natural Area

ROS – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

SAD – Sudden Aspen Decline

SDG – Semi-Desert Grassland

SFF – Spruce-Fir Forest

TCP – Traditional Cultural Property

TES – Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey

USC – United States Code

USDA – United States Department of 

Agriculture

USFS – United States Forest Service

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service

WCRA – Wetland Cienega Riparian Areas

WMCF – Wet Mixed Conifer Forest

WQA – Wildlife Quiet Area

WUI – Wildland-urban Interface
Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this programmatic final environmental impact statement (FEIS)

in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal

and State laws and regulations. This FEIS discloses the environmental consequences that would 

result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters

plus an appendix (consisting of multiple parts) and index: 

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change: This chapter includes information on the 

purpose and need for changing the 1987 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan (1987 

plan) and the Agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also 

details the scope of analysis, how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed 

action (proposed plan), and how the public responded. 

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more 

detailed description of the Agency’s proposed plan as well as alternative methods for 

achieving the stated purpose. The alternatives were developed based on issues raised by 

the public. Finally, this section includes a summary table of the environmental 

consequences associated with each alternative. 

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

describes the affected environment (current condition) for each resource. It also describes 

the environmental consequences (effects) of implementing each alternative. This analysis 

is organized by resource area. 

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

and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

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

information to support the analyses presented in the environmental impact statement such 

as the public comments and responses and a description of analysis process.

• Index: The index provides page numbers by topic.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of resources, may be found in the 

project record (the “Plan Set of Documents”) located in the supervisor’s office.

Introduction

The 2.1 million acre1 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (Apache-Sitgreaves NFs or the forests)

are managed as a single administrative unit and are located in east-central Arizona. The ApacheSitgreaves NFs are managed by the Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). The forests are currently being managed under the 1987 plan. The ApacheSitgreaves NFs are proposing to revise the 1987 plan. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are situated in 

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties. Ranger district offices are located in Alpine, 

Clifton, Pinetop-Lakeside, Overgaard, and Springerville. The supervisor’s office is located in 

Springerville (figure 1).

 1 In addition, approximately 650,000 acres of the Apache National Forest are located in New Mexico. The Gila 

National Forest administers and manages these lands according to the Gila National Forest land management plan. 

They are not included in this analysis.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

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

Figure 1. Map of ranger districts on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 3

Purpose and Need for Change

The purpose of this FEIS is to evaluate different programmatic strategies (or alternatives) for 

revising the existing land management plan (1987 plan) and disclose the potential environmental 

consequences of these alternatives. The purpose of a land management plan is to provide 

guidance for managing the forests’ resources in a manner that maintains or moves toward desired 

conditions.

The 1987 plan was approved in August 1987 and has been amended 15 times. The intent of the 

1987 plan was to guide forest management for 10 to 15 years. However, after 27 years, it no 

longer addresses changes that have occurred to economic, social, and ecological conditions; new 

policies and priorities; and new information based on monitoring and scientific research.

Using extensive public and employee collaboration and the “Analysis of the Management 

Situation”2 the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs identified several needs for change in the 1987 plan. The

needs for change are summarized below in three revision topics: (1) Maintenance and 

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

Interaction.

There is a need to revise the 1987 plan to (1) guide natural resource management activities on the 

forests for the next 10 to 15 years, (2) address public issues and the need for change as 

summarized in the three revision topics, and (3) meet the legal direction of the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 and the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule3 to revise the 

plan every 10 to 15 years.

Revision Topic 1: Maintenance 

and Improvement of Ecosystem Health

Conditions have changed since the 1987 plan was issued. Vegetation conditions (e.g., vegetative 

structure, composition, function) are divergent from reference conditions. Forest conditions 

indicate a substantial departure from the natural fire regime. There are plant and animal species 

that need further consideration in the plan revision process. There are also emerging issues not 

addressed by the 1987 plan (e.g., invasive plants and animals, climate change). 

Vegetation Conditions

Thirteen of the 14 potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs vary 

(sometimes substantially) in structure, composition, function, and natural disturbance processes 

 2 The “Analysis of the Management Situation” includes the “Comprehensive Evaluation Report” (Forest Service, 

2008a), “Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2008e), “Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment”

(Forest Service, 2009a), “Resource Evaluations” (Forest Service, 2008b), “CER Supplement to Meet AMS 

Requirements “ (Forest Service, 2010a), and the “Wallow Fire Changed Condition Assessment” (Forest Service, 

2012e). These documents analyzed and evaluated the need to change the 1987 plan and informed the development of 

the three revision topics.

3 The transition provision, 36 CFR § 219.17(b)(3), of the 2012 Planning Rule (77 FR 21162-21276) allows use of the 

provisions of the planning rule, commonly called the 1982 Planning Rule, to amend or revise plans.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

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

from desired conditions4. These include ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, spruce-fir, and wet 

mixed conifer forests; piñon-juniper and Madrean pine-oak woodlands; Great Basin, semi-desert, 

and montane/subalpine grasslands; mixed broadleaf deciduous, montane willow, and cottonwoodwillow riparian forests; and wetland/cienega riparian areas. Interior chaparral is the only PNVT

that is at or close to desired conditions.

Ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forested PNVTs are generally composed of dense groups 

of too many young, small trees prone to stand-replacing crown fires and insect and disease 

infestations. The desired condition is to have more open forests containing a variety of ages and 

sizes of trees. Surface fire would play an active role in maintaining desired conditions.

Spruce-fir and wet mixed conifer forested PNVTs generally have too many young and small 

trees, and have been impacted by insects and disease resulting in standing dead trees. These dead 

trees contribute to higher intensity wildfire. The desired condition is to have a closed canopy 

forest with more mature and large trees where stand-replacing fires occur infrequently. 

The presence of aspen in several PNVTs is declining because of insects, disease, overbrowsing by 

wildlife and livestock, absence of natural fire, and unnaturally dense stands of conifers that shade 

out and inhibit aspen growth. The desired condition is to have a sustainable amount of aspen on 

the forests because aspen stands have scenic values and provide wildlife habitat.

The Madrean pine-oak woodland PNVT has too many young and mid-aged trees grouped closer 

together than the desired condition of medium to large trees with open canopy. The piñon-juniper 

woodland PNVT is fairly close to the desired condition, although some areas have too many big 

trees spaced close together and lack some grass and forb species. Within these woodlands, there 

are also areas with little ground cover contributing to unsatisfactory soil conditions and increased 

erosion and sedimentation.

Riparian areas are a focal point for use by humans, wildlife, and livestock. Over time, these 

stressors have caused changes in the riparian vegetation. The desired condition is to have more 

mature trees and saplings and the variety of species appropriate in these areas. Riparian areas are 

important because water is limited in the region. Although riparian areas cover less than 3 percent 

of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the forests contribute the major portion of these riparian PNVTs 

within the greater ecoregion (which extends beyond the forests’ boundaries).

The three grassland PNVTs have experienced dramatic changes over time, including 

encroachment by trees and shrubs, loss of perennial grass cover, and spread of nonnative species. 

Many areas of the forests that appear to be piñon-juniper woodlands are actually encroached 

grasslands. The desired condition is to have grasslands with less than 10 percent of the area in 

woody species canopy and with the appropriate species composition. Healthy grasslands are 

important habitat for a variety of wildlife species and are essential for maintaining pronghorn 

antelope populations. Healthy grasslands also contribute to the availability of rangelands for 

livestock grazing.

All 14 PNVTs are key components in sustaining terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and providing 

goods and services (e.g., water resources, recreation settings, wood products, rangelands, 

 4 In some vegetation types, desired conditions are the same as reference conditions; see the “Vegetation” section in 

chapter 3 for more information.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 5

medicinal plants). Unhealthy vegetation conditions threaten the viability of plants and animals 

and the forests’ ability to provide a sustained flow of goods and services. They also contribute to 

the occurrence of uncharacteristic wildfire which may, in turn, threaten towns and communities 

adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

There is a need to describe the desired composition, structure, cover, and fire regime of the 14 

PNVTs that would result in resilient, functioning ecosystems. In addition, there is a need to guide 

future vegetation management activities, including wildland fire and mechanical treatments, to 

maintain or move toward desired conditions.

Wildlife and Fish Habitat

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule require habitat be managed to maintain viable 

populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate and plant species in the planning 

area. The Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to conserve and recover endangered 

and threatened species and their habitats. There are currently 18 animal and fish species listed or 

proposed for listing as threatened and endangered. Thirteen of these species have designated or 

proposed critical habitat located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. There is a need to incorporate 

management direction to guide future projects to maintain species diversity and viability across 

the planning area. In addition, there is a need to reevaluate and update the management indicator 

species (MIS).

Soil and Water

All watersheds have some areas with unsatisfactory soil condition and streams with reduced 

water quality. The soil condition rating is unsatisfactory or impaired on more than 30 percent of 

the forests, compared to the reference conditions of less than 5 percent. Water diversions and

impoundments, unnaturally dense forests, grazing, and prolonged drought have altered 

streamflow, water availability, and riparian conditions. There is a continuing need to improve soil 

and riparian conditions, prevent water quality deterioration, and acquire or maintain instream 

flow. Soil and water protection is mandated by law (e.g., National Forest Management Act, Clean 

Water Act) and Forest Service policy.

Invasive Species

Invasive species are a growing threat to native species, ecosystem function, and the quantity of 

forest goods and services. Invasive plants (e.g., mullein, tamarisk, yellow starthistle) currently 

infest at least 30,000 acres across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Invasive animals (e.g., crayfish, 

bullfrogs) prey on and outcompete native species and degrade habitats many native species 

depend on. There is a need to provide direction to control, treat, and eradicate invasive plant and 

animal species.

Revision Topic 2 - Managed Recreation

There are several concerns related to recreation not adequately addressed in the 1987 plan. These 

include more people recreating on the forests and the changing demographics of forest users. 

There are special areas (e.g., scenic byways) not mentioned in the 1987 plan, including the 25 

rivers that are eligible or suitable for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There may be 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

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

NFS lands that could be recommended to Congress for designation into the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. 

Recreation Opportunities

There is an increased demand for the number and type of recreation opportunities on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. 

More people use the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for outdoor recreation than for any other purpose. 

Activities include relaxing and escaping the heat, fishing, hiking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, 

viewing natural features and wildlife, camping, driving for pleasure, picnicking, large group 

gatherings, and hunting. 

State highway improvements provide easier access to the forests from Arizona’s major 

metropolitan areas, increasing the number of visitors and demand for recreation. In addition, the 

demographics of the recreating public are changing. An aging and urban population and increased 

ethnic diversity contribute to a demand for varied recreation opportunities. Forest managers face 

major challenges in maintaining and developing quality recreation opportunities and a safe 

transportation system, while providing for resource protection. 

There is a need to update the spectrum of recreation opportunities to reflect current and projected 

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

that are developed for high use and areas that resemble more natural landscapes. There is also a 

need to identify the suitability of areas for motorized vehicle use and other recreational activities.

Recommended Wilderness

As required by the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, all Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands were 

evaluated for wilderness character. Thirty-eight areas (totaling approximately 700,000 acres) were 

identified as potential wilderness which could be recommended to Congress for designation.

There is a need to recommend areas, if determined appropriate by the responsible official, to 

Congress for wilderness designation and to provide interim management guidance.

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are 25 rivers with a combined 378 river miles eligible or suitable for inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The 1987 plan provides direction for only three of these 

rivers. Although current Agency policy (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Interim Management 

of Eligible or Suitable Rivers) provides guidance to protect the outstandingly remarkable values 

of these rivers, there is a need to provide direction for all 25 eligible or suitable wild and scenic 

rivers.

Recommended Research Natural Areas

Research natural areas (RNAs) are maintained in natural conditions insofar as possible to provide 

for research, observation, and study. There is a need across the Southwestern Region to designate 

RNAs which represent specific vegetative types (e.g., semi-desert grassland, montane willow and 

cottonwood-willow riparian forests, wetland/cienega riparian areas, aspen) and aquatic habitats. 

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have the opportunity to contribute to these needs by recommending 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 7

five eligible areas for RNA designation: Thomas Creek, Corduroy, Three Forks, Lower Campbell 

Blue, and Sandrock. 

Other Special Areas

There are other existing special areas not recognized in the 1987 plan such as the Heber Wild 

Horse Territory, scenic byways, and national recreation trails. There is a need to provide 

management direction for these special areas.

Revision Topic 3 – Community-Forest Interaction

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are literally the backyard for many residents in the White Mountains

region of Arizona. Many communities adjoin the forests, while others are completely surrounded. 

Because of this close proximity, many communities and private landowners may be affected by 

forest management decisions. These entities, in turn, may affect forest management.

There are several social concerns that have prompted a need to change the 1987 plan. 

Communities are at risk from uncharacteristic wildfire. There are increasing demands for goods, 

services, and forest access from growing populations and urban development that borders the 

forests. Many communities are surrounded by the forests and can be affected by adjustment to the 

forests’ land ownership. Commodity use and forest product outputs have shown declines from the 

past. However, these forest outputs and associated uses contribute to sustaining the lifestyles and 

traditions of local communities. Energy resource demands also continue to grow. 

Contribution to Local Communities

Although local communities have shifted from commodity-based economies to service-based 

economies, there are still local benefits associated with wood harvesting, grazing, and gathering 

of forest products. 

There is a need to continue to provide a sustainable supply of forest and rangeland resources that 

is consistent with achieving desired conditions and supporting local communities. There is also a 

requirement (per the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule) to determine the suitability of lands 

for timber production and the allowable sale quantity of timber.

Threat to Communities from Wildfire

Many nearby communities and portions of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are at increased risk from 

wildfires because vegetation conditions are divergent from desired conditions, including fuel 

loads at uncharacteristically high levels. The events surrounding the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire

and the 2011 Wallow Fire, the two largest fires in Arizona history, served as a catalyst for 

increased public concern. Following the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, communities developed 

community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs), which identify and prioritize treatment areas to 

reduce the wildfire hazard to communities. The 1987 plan does not recognize this increased threat 

from wildfire nor does it prioritize treatments to address the threat. There is a need to provide 

direction to address communities at risk from uncharacteristic wildfire, including describing the 

appropriate vegetation desired conditions and fire regime and treatment of the wildland-urban 

interface.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

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

Urban Interface Demands

Many communities are completely surrounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and are limited in 

the ability to expand. In the past decade, there has been a major increase in development on land 

adjoining and/or surrounded by the forests. Demands related to this growth include access to the 

forests, utility corridors, roads, special use permits, and recreation opportunities. There is a need 

to provide updated guidance for addressing urban interface demands and land ownership 

adjustments.

New Energy Development

There are three existing high power energy corridors located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Two 

corridors traverse the west side of the forests, one containing a 500 kV transmission line and one 

containing 345 kV transmission lines. One 345 kV transmission line runs through a portion of the 

Clifton Ranger District in the southeastern portion of the forests. There may be a need for 

additional energy corridors or developments (e.g., electric transmission lines, pipelines, wind 

turbines) because of the expected increased demand for electricity to serve the growing 

populations of Arizona and the Southwest. There is a need to provide guidance for the existing 

energy corridors and criteria for establishing new energy corridors or developments which was 

not provided in the 1987 plan. 

Proposed Land Management Plan

The Forest Service proposes to revise the 1987 plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The proposal 

updates the desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, special areas, suitability, and 

monitoring requirements that will guide management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for the next 

10 to 15 years. It also changes the description and allocation of the management areas to achieve 

forestwide desired conditions and to provide opportunities for a range of activities. The proposal 

addresses the need to change the 1987 plan related to the three revision topics listed above.

In response to the need for change, the regional forester of the Southwestern Region (the 

responsible official for this decision) and the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have developed the 

“Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan” (plan). The plan accompanies this 

document.

Decision Framework 

The regional forester for the Southwestern Region will make the final decision on the selected 

alternative for the revised land management plan. The regional forester will review the proposed 

plan, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences, then decide which plan 

alternative best achieves the desired conditions, multiple-use concept, diverse needs of people, 

and sustainable management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs as well as conforming to the direction

of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act 

(MUSYA).

Scope of the Analysis

The programmatic analysis in this FEIS is limited to the potential environmental consequences 

associated with the need for change and on issues derived through public comment received 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 9

throughout development of the proposed plan and its alternatives. Many topics are beyond the 

scope of the plan revision process and will not be considered in the FEIS. Projects implementing 

the land management plan will be analyzed in subsequent site-specific environmental documents. 

Project-level impacts are not disclosed in this document. For example, the designation of specific 

routes, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel will not be considered during the plan 

revision process but would be addressed in separate environmental analyses. Some topics (e.g., 

hunting regulations), although important, are beyond the authority or control of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and will not be considered. In addition, some topics, such as wild and scenic river 

suitability determinations, will not be undertaken at this time but would be addressed in the future

in separate analyses.

Because the proposed plan and other alternatives involve potential environmental consequences 

that could occur over a broad geographic region and time horizon, the depth and detail of the 

impact analysis is fairly general, focusing on major impacts in a qualitative manner.

Land Management Plan Decisions

The Forest Service makes two types of management decisions for National Forest System (NFS) 

lands: programmatic (or broad) and project-level.

Programmatic decisions are made in the land management plan, and they are expressed as goals 

(identified as desired conditions), objectives, standards, guidelines, special areas, suitability, and 

monitoring. The land management plan provides a broad framework that guides project-level

decisions but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any site-specific activities. Instead, the land 

management plan establishes limitations on what actions may be authorized and what conditions 

must be met during project-level decisionmaking. 

Project-level decisions are made for site-specific activities such as constructing a new trail or 

conducting a prescribed burn. Project-level decisions must comply with NEPA procedures and be 

consistent with the land management plan. 

Data collection, analysis, and public involvement are important to making management decisions; 

these steps guide development of the land management plan and the design of projects that 

implement the plan and culminate in the approval of project-level decisions. Monitoring and 

evaluation are also important to help inform future management decisions.

The primary decisions made in the land management plan include the following:

• Establishment of desired conditions and objectives that reflect the multiple-use concept 

central to the mission of the Forest Service;

• Establishment of standards and guidelines to apply to future activities;

• Identification of areas suitable or not suitable for various uses;

• Wilderness recommendations and other recommendations for special area designation;

and

• Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation strategy.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

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

Tribal Consultation

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

for traditional, cultural, or spiritual activities. The following tribes and chapter were consulted: 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of 

Zuni, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe, and the Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation.

Tribes were initially informed about plan revision in October 2006, through a letter explaining the 

revision process and extending an open invitation to meet with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. A 

consultation letter was sent to the tribes in June 2009 asking for input on the working draft land 

management plan. In December 2009, the tribes were sent a letter that provided the revision 

status and upcoming publication of the notice of intent (NOI) and invited their comments and 

concerns. In May 2012, tribes were sent working drafts of the proposed land management plan 

and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for their review prior to releasing the 

documents to the public. In early February 2013, tribes were invited to review the published 

proposed plan and the DEIS. In addition to consultation, the tribes have been included in all

public outreach efforts throughout the plan revision process.

Four tribes provided written responses: White Mountain Apache Tribe, Navajo Nation, Tonto 

Apache Tribe, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. Consultation meetings were held with the San 

Carlos Apache Tribe (August and November 2006), White Mountain Apache Tribe (August 2006, 

March 2007, and April 2010), Navajo Nation (August 2006, September 2008, and December 

2009), Hopi Tribe (August 2006 and November 2009), and Pueblo of Zuni (August 2006, 

September 2008, and July 2011).

Concerns identified by the tribes are discussed in the “American Indian Rights and Interests”

section in chapter 3. Concerns include tribal access to the forests and protection of sacred and 

archaeological sites as traditional cultural properties (TCPs), water sources, and plants for 

subsistence and medicine. These concerns are addressed in the proposed plan.

Public Involvement

Extensive public involvement and collaboration on the revision of the 1987 plan preceded 

publication of this FEIS. The plan revision effort has been on the forests’ “Schedule of Proposed 

Actions” (SOPA) quarterly since 2008. Informal discussions with the public regarding needed 

changes to the 1987 plan began with a series of public meetings during the summer of 2006. 

From 2006 to 2014, multiple meetings, correspondence, news releases, comment periods, and 

other tools were utilized to gather feedback from the public, forest employees, Federal and State

agencies, and local governments. Detailed information about the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs public 

involvement process can be found in appendix F and the public participation plan (Forest Service, 

2014d) in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The notice of intent (NOI) to revise the 1987 plan and prepare an environmental impact statement 

was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 68776-68779) on December 12, 2009. The NOI 

requested input on the need for change and proposed action, specifically if any substantive issues 

or concerns were missing. In March and April 2010, four public meetings and an informal 

comment period were held to gather feedback on the initial set of draft alternatives.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 11

Prior to the release of the DEIS in February 2013, the forests had received over 4,000 comments 

since initial scoping in 2006. Some comments were eliminated from detailed study because they 

were (1) outside the scope of the proposed action, (2) already decided by law, regulation, or a 

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

supported by scientific or factual evidence. Other comments fell into the following categories:

forest health and restoration, treatment methods, wildlife needs, recreation opportunities, 

wilderness resources, wild and scenic rivers, threats to communities from wildfire, contributions 

to local communities including availability of forest products and rangelands, land exchanges, 

and new energy corridors. 

Comments received early in the public involvement process were used along with science-based 

evaluations (e.g., “Analysis of the Management Situation”) to draft the initial proposed plan. 

Comments received later in the process were used to modify the proposed plan, where 

appropriate. In situations where a modification of the proposed plan could not adequately address 

a comment, consideration was given as to whether the comment represented an unresolved 

conflict or issue that would require development of an alternative to the proposed plan.

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 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” section below).

Summary of Changes from the Proposed Plan and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Changes made in the plan and FEIS were driven by specific comments from the public, 

employees, other government agencies, and tribes on the proposed plan and draft environmental 

impact statement (DEIS). Changes made to the plan include the following:

• Added a wildland fire management section to better describe management intent;

• Changed the recreation suitability for recommended wilderness; removed the suitability 

of mechanized use within recommended wilderness in alternatives B and C to provide 

consistent management direction with the adjoining wilderness;

• Removed direction to establish forage reserves; the direction was deemed not necessary;

• Modified vegetation herbaceous cover and composition desired conditions, standards, 

and guidelines to better clarify the intent and updated grass height desired conditions 

based on plant taxonomic descriptions;

• Changed livestock grazing suitability; removed the Black River Conservation Area from 

the table because the area is covered by the category “Current National Forest System 

land not in a grazing allotment”;

• Added to “Background” and “Management Approaches” sections to recognize other 

direction or management emphasis (e.g., feral horses, cave management, drought policy);

• Moved “Other Sources of Information” sections to Appendix D. Relevant Laws,

Regulations, Policies, and Other Sources of Information;
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

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

• Clarified language throughout the plan, added an acronym list, and expanded the 

glossary;

• Updated tables and figures based on updates to information between the draft and final 

documents; and

• Made other relatively minor changes, including factual corrections.

Changes made to the FEIS include the following:

• Considered eight additional alternatives not analyzed in detail; these are disclosed in the 

“Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study” section in chapter 2;

• Updated effects determinations for threatened and endangered species to reflect the final 

biological assessment (Forest Service, 2014cc);

• Added appendix A which includes responses to public comments on the proposed plan 

and DEIS;

• Added appendix H which contains comment letters from government and tribal entities;

• Clarified language throughout the FEIS, added an acronym list, and expanded the 

glossary;

• Updated tables and figures based on updates to information between the draft and final 

documents; and

• Made other relatively minor changes, including factual corrections.

Issues that Served as the Basis for Alternative Development

The following items represent issues that resulted from unresolved conflicts during the iterative 

development of the proposed plan. These issues led to development of alternatives C and D (see 

chapter 2 for more information on alternative development).

• Strategy for Restoring Vegetation: Overall, during scoping, public comments 

supported the need to move toward desired conditions that are more healthy and resilient 

to anticipated future changes. However, opinions differed on what a “healthy” forest is, 

and the means to achieve it. For example, some people disagreed with the proposed plan 

vegetation treatment strategy and wanted to retain all old and large trees for wildlife 

habitat, while others felt it is important to remove more of these trees to contribute to the 

local wood industry. Also, some wanted the Forest Service to use more logging and 

thinning than what is identified in the proposed plan, while others desired an approach 

relying on natural processes such as wildland fire.

• Amount of Wildlife Quiet Areas: Habitat security and connectivity is important for 

maintaining species viability. The proposed plan identifies a management area (Wildlife 

Quiet Area Management Area) to provide for specific species needs. Some comments 

indicated a need for more or less areas with reduced disturbances to wildlife. 

• Type and Amount of Recreation Opportunities: Public opinions are divided on the 

appropriate mix of different types of recreation settings and opportunities that should be 

provided. The proposed plan attempts to provide a balance of recreation opportunities. 

Some people wanted additional developed recreation facilities, while others wanted no 

new development and felt the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs should only maintain and improve 

existing recreation facilities. There were also conflicts over the amount of land that 

should be managed for motorized versus nonmotorized activities.
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Change

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 13

• Amount of Wilderness: There was a wide variety of opinions as to whether the ApacheSitgreaves NFs need more wilderness. The proposed plan recommends additions to two 

existing wilderness areas. There were some people who desired no additional wilderness,

while others wanted more. In addition, some people wanted the Blue Range Primitive 

Area designated as wilderness, and others wanted to remove the primitive area 

designation.

• Availability of Wood Products: There are varying opinions about how much 

commodity-type activities should occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The proposed 

plan would make a variety of wood products (e.g., logs, biomass, firewood) available for 

personal and industrial use. Some people wanted the forests to make more wood products 

available, and other people wanted a substantial decrease in the amount of trees removed

from the forests.