Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 791

Appendix B. Description 

of the Analysis Process

This appendix shares important features of the analysis that compared alternatives and provided 

information for the programmatic final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

In order to understand the ability of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to be managed in different ways 

that address resource issues, a series of analyses were performed. Much of the analysis relied on 

the forests’ Geographic Information System (GIS) database and existing inventories. A number of 

analysis tools and computer models were used to help specialists understand the potential effects

of management actions.

This appendix highlights some of the main analysis processes that were used in the development 

of this FEIS. For each resource area that is described in the FEIS, the related specialist report 

contains methodology and analysis descriptions. These specialist reports are available in the 

“Plan Set of Documents.” Other key documents and evaluations (including, but not limited to, 

wilderness, RNA, and wild and scenic river evaluations) that served as references and laid the 

foundation for FEIS analyses are listed in appendix E and are available in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”

The appendix is organized by the following sections:

• Vegetation Modeling

• Timber Suitability Analysis and Timber Calculations

• Livestock Grazing Suitability Analysis

• Species Viability Analysis

• Socioeconomic Resources Analysis

• Research Needs

Vegetation Modeling

The vegetation analysis modeled the potential vegetation conditions resulting from natural 

disturbances and succession in conjunction with proposed management (mechanical, planting,

and wildland fire treatments) for the alternatives. Analyses were conducted on vegetation using
Appendix B

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

potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs), existing mid-scale vegetation types1, and soil types 

from the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey2

. 

For each PNVT, model projections were used to show the departure from desired conditions for 

each alternative and to estimate trends and future conditions.

Modeling projected trends in state and transitions were derived through the use of the Vegetation 

Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT), Version 6.0.25 (ESSA Technologies, 2006). VDDT 

software is a non-spatial model that allows the user to model vegetation change over time as a 

series of vegetation states that differ in structure, composition, and cover and to specify the 

amount of time it takes to move from one vegetation state to another in the absence of 

disturbance3

. 

Various disturbance agents affecting the movement of vegetation between states (or transitions) 

are incorporated (e.g., mechanical vegetation treatments, surface fires, mixed-severity fires, 

stand-replacing fires, grazing, insect outbreaks, drought events). By varying the types and rates of 

disturbance across the landscape, the effects of different disturbance regimes, such as historic and 

current fire regimes or different management treatments such as wildland fire ignitions, fire 

suppression, grazing practices, and mechanical fuel treatments, on vegetation can be investigated 

(Schussman and Smith, 2006). Input data used in modeling came directly from forest 

management activities and fire data over the last 25 years.

State destinations and transition probabilities for vegetation treatments were derived from Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling, Version 6.31. FVS is a distance-independent; individualtree forest growth model widely used in the United States and is used to compare alternatives. 

State destinations for natural fires and prescribed fire treatments were derived from FVS 

modeling, Version 2.02 and Fire and Fuel Extension (FFE) (Rebain, 2010).

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plot data were used to calibrate the VDDT model to estimate 

relative proportions of even- and uneven-aged conditions on the forests (Weisz et al., 2012).

 1 Mid-scale vegetation types were determined using satellite data and are mapped at the scale of 1:100,000. The midscale vegetation inventory for all Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ vegetation types analyzed in this report was conducted in 

2005 and 2006. As a result of the 2011 Wallow Fire, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ midscale mapping product was 

updated to reflect changed conditions. This product represents a rapid assessment done to help identify changed 

vegetation condition within the perimeter of the Wallow Fire. The assessment utilized mid-scale existing vegetation 

data products for vegetation dominance type, tree size, and overstory canopy cover map units as well as RAVG (Rapid 

Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire) data produced by the Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC) 

representing overstory canopy cover mortality classes. The datasets were combined using a standard rule-set, developed 

by the U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office, to determine where mid-scale map units had changed 

according to fire severity. This outcome is intended as a rapid assessment of changed condition and does not represent 

an update of the official mid-scale map products.

2 The terrestrial ecosystem survey referenced in this document is specific to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and is a 

classification of ecological types. It maps terrestrial ecological units based on soil types and existing vegetation (Laing 

et al., 1987).

3 State and transition models are simple box and arrow diagrams in which boxes represent observed or theoretical 

ecosystem states and arrows represent the observed or theoretical transitions among these states. These models are 

commonly used to conceptualize either formal mathematical models or the complex behavior of dynamic systems. 

They are essentially a means of mapping system behavior in the absence of adequate predictive models (Westoby et al., 

1989).
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 793

Some of the drawbacks and limitations of VDDT modeling are the following:

• Many of the VDDT inputs used were derived from other modeling outputs (e.g., FVS 

timber harvest treatment state transition destinations and the probability of those 

outcomes).

• Many of the VDDT inputs used were derived from incomplete data sources such as the 

Forest Service Activity Tracking (FACTS4

) database.

• VDDT is a non-spatial model intended mainly for broad scale analysis.

• VDDT projects changes in vegetative conditions in response to succession, disturbances, 

and management treatments; however, the VDDT model divides vegetation conditions 

within each PNVT into a small number of discrete states. It is acknowledged that there is 

more variability within each state and within nature than has been modeled for plan 

revision.

• A small number of states were selected because the VDDT model is driven by the data 

available; the amount of available data was limited.

• VDDT models the distribution of landscape states over time and does not model the more 

detailed physical (soil, temperature, precipitation, aspect, elevation, productivity),

chemical, and biological dynamics of what is happening at each scale of spatial 

resolution.

• VDDT is a long-range, broad scale, strategic model and does not describe what is 

happening at a site-specific level of detail to individual trees, groups of trees, etc.

• VDDT does not model detailed mechanisms of landscape change, but by calibrating the

VDDT models with FVS model outputs (Weisz et al., 2012), VDDT modeling takes 

advantage of some of the detailed mechanisms (mortality, regeneration, background 

dwarf mistletoe presence, natural growth, succession, etc.) that FVS considers.

• VDDT models overstory structure, composition, and cover as defined by mid-scale 

vegetation mapping in great detail, but does not model understory vegetation (e.g., the 

species composition of grasses and forbs).

• VDDT models the probability and timing of events (e.g., fire behavior, management 

activities, insect and disease occurrences) based on empirical observations, but our 

current information on historical behavior and evidence cannot accurately predict future 

behavior due to climate change and other phenomena which may not have occurred 

within the realm of the statistical evidence available.

It is assumed the disturbances (e.g., management activities) selected for the VDDT model 

represent the majority of disturbances the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs experience. There could be 

many variations to these disturbances; however these were not modeled in detail for this analysis.

According to Lauenroth and Laycock (1989) and others, succession may follow multiple 

pathways and reach different end-points depending on the effects of disturbance on the life 

 4 FACTS is a nationally supported application that tracks land based activities through the NEPA, layout, and 

accomplished stages of a project. It supports timber sales in conjunction with TIM Contracts and Permits, tracks and 

monitors NEPA decisions, tracks KV trust fund plans at the timber sale level, and generates national, regional, forest, 

and/or district reports. The GIS features represent the activity unit on which these activities occur and are depicted in 

polygons, lines or points in FACTS. Within each feature class, there exists three “subtypes” to identify the stage an 

activity is in (NEPA, layout, accomplished). The appropriate stage of an activity unit is determined by the status of the 

project.
Appendix B

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

history characteristics of the vegetation; causing predictability to be limited by the importance of 

chance or infrequent events.

The following PNVTs were modeled using VDDT software: ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, 

dry mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forests; Madrean pine-oak and piñon-juniper woodlands; Great 

Basin and semi-desert grasslands. State and transition modeling was not conducted for interior 

chaparral, montane/subalpine grasslands, and the four riparian PNVTs. Separate, regionally 

consistent VDDTs models were not developed for the montane/subalpine and riparian PNVTs.

Various spreadsheets for calculating the relative differences between alternatives for similarity to 

desired and reference conditions, interspersion of states, acres of aspen, and understory 

production as a function of overstory tree density were used for processing the output results.

• Assumption: The population and calibration of VDDT using FIA plots and FVS 

modeling of growth and disturbances generally represents the response of forested 

PNVTs well enough to compare the potential responses of alternatives in a relative way.

Goals or desired conditions used to evaluate contributions to sustainability come from the desired 

conditions in the proposed plan. These desired conditions are a combination of the following: 

• Forest Service Southwestern Region consistent desired conditions, which were developed 

using an interdisciplinary process and various scientific references. 

• Apache-Sitgreaves NFs specific desired conditions that supplement the Region 3 

consistent desired conditions. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs also developed desired 

conditions for PNVTs not addressed in the regionally-consistent process.

Additional information about the analysis process can be found in the “Vegetation,” “Forest 

Products,” and “Fire Specialist” reports in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Vegetation Treatments

The following tables provide the variables that were input into individual VDDT models to 

determine the resulting movement toward or away from desired condition and vegetation state

makeup. The input variables represent potential management activities by alternative including 

the acres treated mechanically, by planting, or by wildland fire. Table 179 provides a summary by 

PNVT and alternative. Table 180 displays more detail, including the treatment types, for the 

modeled PNVTs.

References

ESSA Technologies Ltd. (2006). Available at: http://www.essa.com/downloads/vddt/index.htm

Laing, L.; Ambos, N.; Subirge, T.; McDonald, C.; Nelson, C.; and Robbie, W. (1987). Terrestrial 

ecosystem survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 453 pp. 

Lauenroth, W.K.; and W.A. Laycock. (1989). Secondary succession and the evaluation of 

rangeland condition. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO. 163 pp.

Rebain, Stephanie A. (comp.). (2010) (revised 2012). The fire and fuels extension to the forest 

vegetation simulator: updated model documentation. Internal Report (revised March 20, 
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 795

2012). USDA Forest Service. Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO. 397

pp.

Schussman, H. and Smith, E. (2006). Vegetation models for Southwest Vegetation. Prepared for 

the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, 

AZ. 11 pp.

Weisz, R; D. Vandendriesche; and M. Moeur. (February 2012). White Paper O - Overview of 

How We Created VDDT Models with FVS - Calibrating Natural and Anthropogenic 

Events in State and Transition Models with FVS: A case study for ponderosa pine forest 

ecosystems. (One of 16 papers in the regional white paper series titled “The R3 FVS 

Process for Evaluating the Effects of Vegetation Management Activities in the Forest 

Plan Revision Process”). USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Regional Office.

Albuquerque, NM. Interoffice publication.

Westoby, M.; Walker, B.; and Noy-Meir, I. (1989). Opportunistic management for rangelands not 

at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42: 266–274
796

Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 179. Summary of modeled annual treatment objectives (acres) by PNVT and alternative for the high, average, and low levels

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low

Ponderosa Pine Forest (602,206 

acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 7,119 NA 11,025 6,289 1,552 24,255 13,341 2,426 9,450 5,434 1,417

Acres treated by Planting NA 450 NA 1,200 875 550 1,400 1,100 800 400 263 125

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA 3,150 NA 11,025 6,300 1,575 10,187 5,614 1,040 22,050 12,679 3,308

Total Acres Treated NA 10,719 NA 23,250 13,464 3,677 35,842 20,055 4,266 31,900 18,376 4,850

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest (147,885 

acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 1,808 NA 2,772 1,584 396 6,160 3,388 616 2,400 1,380 360

Acres treated by Planting NA 100 NA 450 338 225 500 383 265 200 150 100

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA 800 NA 2,910 1,663 416 2,772 1,525 277 5,880 3,381 881

Total Acres Treated NA 2,708 NA 6,132 3,585 1,037 9,432 5,296 1,158 8,480 4,911 1,341

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest (177,995

acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 2,147 NA 3,325 1,900 475 7,315 4,023 731 2,851 1,640 428

Acres treated by Planting NA 325 NA 500 375 250 700 575 450 0 0 0

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA 950 NA 3,325 1,900 475 3,135 1,725 314 6,650 3,824 998

Total Acres Treated NA 3,422 NA 7,150 4,175 1,200 11,150 6,323 1,495 9,501 5,464 1,426
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 797

Alt.A Alt.B Alt.C Alt. D

High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low

Spruce-Fir Forest (17,667 acres on 

NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 108 NA 95 55 14 208 112 16 36 216

Acres treated by Planting NA5 NA 50 35 20 1085000

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA 100 NA 606 347 87 892 493 93 964 555 145

Total Acres Treated NA 213 NA 751 437 121 1,110 613 114 1,000 576 151

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 

(397,927 acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA0 NA000000000

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA 1,063 NA 11,143 7,429 3,714 5,000 3,125 1,250 22,335 13,029 3,722

Total Acres Treated NA 1,063 NA 11,143 7,429 3,714 5,000 3,125 1,250 22,335 13,029 3,722

Piñon-Juniper Woodland (222,166 

acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 500 NA 2,341 1,561 780 4,213 2,633 1,053 4,042 2,358 673

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA 713 NA 1,412 941 470 600 375 150 3,443 2,009 575

Total Acres Treated NA1,213 NA 3,753 2,5021,250 4,813 3,008 1,203 7,485 4,3671,248

Great Basin Grassland (185,523 

acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA 500 NA 10,269 7,702 5,135000 6,161 4,621 3,081

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA 41 NA 10,000 7,500 5,000000 14,000 10,500 7,000

Total Acres Treated NA 541 NA 20,269 15,202 10,135000 20,161 15,121 10,081
798

Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Alt.A Alt.B Alt.C Alt. D

High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low

Semi-Desert Grassland (106,952 

acres on NFS Land)

Acres treated Mechanically NA0 NA000000000

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA 27 NA 3,000 2,500 2,000000 3,000 2,500 2,000

Total Acres Treated NA 27 NA 3,000 2,500 2,000000 3,000 2,500 2,000

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 

(51,559 acres on NFS Land) - Not 

Modeled in VDDT

Acres treated Mechanically NA0 NA 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA0 NA000000000

Total Acres Treated NA0 NA 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Riparian Forests and Areas (48,241 

acres on NFS Land) - Not Modeled 

in VDDT

Acres treated Mechanically NA0 NA000000000

Acres treated by Wildland Fire NA0 NA 350 350 350000 450 450 450

Total Acres Treated NA0 NA 350 350 350000 450 450 450
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 799

Table 180. Acres by treatment type used to model the low and high annual treatment objectives

PNVT Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Ponderosa Pine Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA (basal area) 1,240 396 2,814 683 6,826 11 77

C Thin from below to target BA 2,090 287 2,042 243 2,426 0 0

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 1,999 0 0 0 0 1,348 8,987

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 1,370 677 4,807 1,071 10,706 50 331

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA 420 192 1,362 429 4,297 8 55

G Clearcut with legacy trees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H Clearcut-Coppice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I Plant Seedlings 450 550 1,200 800 1,400 125 400

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 2,836 551 3,858 364 3,565 1,158 7,718

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 316 866 6,064 571 5,602 1,820 12,128

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions 0 157 1,102 104 1,020 330 2,205

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dry Mixed Conifer Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA 221 19 110 20 192 0 0

C Thin from below to target BA 372 9 70 14 140 0 0

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 355 0 0 0 0 0 1,193

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 244 227 1,585 380 3,961 0 0

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA 74 23 175 60 660 0 0
800

Appendix B

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT Alternative A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD

G Clearcut with legacy trees0000000

H Clearcut-Coppice0000000

I Plant Seedlings 100 225 450 265 500 100 200

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 720 99 693 66 660 210 1,400

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 80 277 1,940 185 1,848 588 3,920

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0 40 277 26 264 83 560

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA 542 118 832 142 1,207 360 1,207

Wet Mixed Conifer Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA 150 14 94 26 25400

C Thin from below to target BA 258 13 94 64 63500

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 60000000 1,973

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 450 286 2,000 346 3,4230 80

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA 203 20 21 21100

G Clearcut with legacy trees 34 13 93 86 84600

H Clearcut-Coppice 34 13 93 86 84600

I Plant Seedlings 325 250 500 450 70000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 855 159 1,107 105 1,044 332 2,214

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 96 317 2,218 208 2,091 665 4,436

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions 951000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA 601 133 931 102 1,100 428 798
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 801

PNVT Alternative A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD

Spruce-Fir Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA3031700

C Thin from below to target BA 17020700

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 1800005 31

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 27 10 70 11 13700

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees 10131 1300

H Clearcut-Coppice 17131 1300

I Plant Seedlings5 20 505 1000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 90 28 201 31 297 48 321

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 10 58 404 62 596 97 643

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA 162 142 3115

Piñon-Juniper Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA 18000 96 38300

C Thin from below to target BA0000000

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA 1500000 647 3,884

E GroupSelect with matrix thin 40 780 2,341 957 3,830 26 158

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees 130000000
802

Appendix B

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT Alternative A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD

H Clearcut-Coppice0000000

I Plant Seedlings0000000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 81000000

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions9 470 1,412 150 600 575 3,443

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA0000000

Madrean Pine-Oak Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA0000000

C Thin from below to target BA0000000

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA0000000

E GroupSelect with matrix thin0000000

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees0000000

H Clearcut-Coppice0000000

I Plant Seedlings0000000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions 797000000

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 266 3,714 11,143 1,250 5,000 3,722 22,335

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA0000000
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 803

PNVT Alternative A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD

Great Basin Grassland Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA0000000

C Thin from below to target BA0000000

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA0000000

E GroupSelect with matrix thin0000000

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees 250 5,135 10,26900 3,081 6,161

H Clearcut-Coppice 250000000

I Plant Seedlings0000000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions0000000

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 41 5,000 10,00000 7,000 14,000

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0000000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA0000000

Semi-Desert Grassland Average Low High Low High Low High

B Free thin all sizes to target BA0000000

C Thin from below to target BA0000000

D Thin under 16-inch diameter to BA0000000

E GroupSelect with matrix thin0000000

F Shelterwood seed cut to target BA0000000

G Clearcut with legacy trees0000000
804

Appendix B

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT Alternative A AlternativeB AlternativeC AlternativeD

H Clearcut-Coppice0000000

I Plant Seedlings0000000

J RX FIRE ONLY low conditions0000000

K RX FIRE ONLY moderate conditions 27 1,333 2,00000 1,333 2,000

L RX FIRE ONLY high conditions0 667 1,00000 667 1,000

M Thin under 9-inch diameter to BA0000000
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 805

Timber Suitability Analysis

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule require lands which are not suited for timber 

production to be identified. Timber production is the purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and 

regeneration of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for 

industrial or consumer use. The term timber production does not include production of firewood.

An analysis was completed to determine the acres suitable and not suitable for timber production 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This analysis was completed in three main steps to determine (1) 

the lands tentatively suitable for timber production; (2) the cost efficiency of meeting forest 

objectives, including timber production; and (3) the lands suitable for timber production by 

alternative. The analysis process and results are summarized and displayed below.

The forests followed guidance set forth by the Southwestern Region guidance (Forest Service,

2009), National Forest Management Act, and provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule for 

determining suitability. Further descriptions of the analysis process can be found in the “Forest 

Products” section of this FEIS and the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014) 

in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Step 1: Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production

Tentatively suitable acres were based on the following criteria (table 181). Starting with the entire 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, GIS data was used to overlay and subtract the features listed below. The 

analysis resulted in 808,368 acres that were carried forward into the next step of the suitability 

process. Alternative A resulted in a slightly different tentatively suitable acreage (807,289 acres) 

because more lands were in the research natural area category (1,882 acres).
Appendix B

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

Table 181. Criteria and acres used to identify lands as tentatively suitable for timber 

production

Tentatively Suitable Lands Acres Total 

Acres

Total Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 2,110,196

Non-NFS Land 94,844

Total NFS Lands 2,015,352

Non-forest Lands

Areas not defined as forest land (>10% at maturity) 4,250

Quarry, urban/agriculture, water

Grasslands 344,033

Great Basin, montane/subalpine, semi-desert

Woodlands 617,094

Madrean pine-oak, piñon-Juniper

Interior chaparral 55,981

Wetland/cienega riparian areas 17,900

Lands withdrawn from timber production

Designated Wilderness 20,628

Bear Wallow, Escudilla, Mount Baldy

Blue Range Primitive Area 43,258

Research Natural Area 219

Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river segments classified as wild 23,085

Irreversible resource damage likely

Unsuited/unstable soils (sensitive and unstable) 23,952

Inadequate restocking

Low reforestation potential based on soil properties 56,584

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 808,368

The above table reflects the same step 1 common to all action alternatives.

Acres of “unsuited/unstable soils” and “low reforestation potential” were derived from the 

“Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey” (Laing et al., 1987). They were not 

modified after the 2011 Wallow Fire, because the forest soil scientist believes it is too early (in 

2012) to determine accurate estimates of soil productivity losses due to fire consumption of the 

organic layers and/or subsequent erosion of topsoil. The fire area soils, watersheds, and ground 

cover have not yet stabilized post-burn. This is a site-specific determination that is made at the 
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 807

project-level and based on soils monitoring over time. Any estimates made of possible site 

conversion from forested PNVTs to grass/rock/shrubland in the “Forest Products Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2014) for this analysis are purely estimates based on a search of relevant 

literature, which also require onsite monitoring for validation. 

Adjustments to the suitable timberland acreage within the Wallow Fire and other high severity

fires may be appropriate in the next 10 years during the scheduled review and update of the forest 

suitability classification process. 

Step 2: Cost Efficiency Analysis

Alternative D was not analyzed for timber harvest economic efficiency because of the alternative 

theme and its incompatibility with regulated timber production.

The tentatively suitable land for Alternatives A, B, and C was categorized into four strata using 

GIS:

1. Roaded tractor operable (slopes under 40 percent with an existing road system in place);

2. Unroaded tractor operable (slopes under 40 percent but with no roads existing, thus 

requiring new construction);

3. Cable/helicopter operable (steep slopes over 40 percent with roads close enough to serve 

for cable yarding and/or short-turn helicopter yarding);

4. Too isolated or too small to log (areas of otherwise operable ground, but in isolated 

locations such that logging is impractical).

Stratum 4 was removed from further considerations because logging would be impractical. 

Alternative A (1987 plan) did not account for these same strata. 

Acres of spruce-fir forest were not analyzed in this step because they are located inside lands 

withdrawn for timber production, are on sensitive/unstable soils, and/or are included in strata 4 

above.

Economic efficiency spreadsheets developed by the U.S. Forest Service Washington Office were 

used to generate the cost efficiency outputs. All economic efficiency analysis spreadsheets are on 

file in the Plan Set of Documents. The operability costs associated with ponderosa pine, dry 

mixed conifer, and wet mixed conifer including market revenue values and associated costs, of 

strata 1 through 3 were input to determine present net values and benefit:cost ratios. Table 182

displays the financial results.
Appendix B

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

Table 182. Net revenue, present net value, and benefit:cost ratio for ponderosa pine and 

dry mixed conifer for strata 1 to 3

Stratum PNVT Undiscounted 

Net Revenue

Present Net Value 

at 3% Discount

Benefit:Cost Ratio

at 3% Discount

1 Ponderosa Pine -$6,558/acre -$1,473/acre 0.0190

1 Dry Mixed Conifer -$6,666/acre -$1,509/acre 0.0185

1 Wet Mixed Conifer -$7,264/acre -$1,687/acre 0.0141

2 Ponderosa Pine -$6,770/acre -$1,637/acre 0.0171

2 Dry Mixed Conifer -$7,304/acre -$1,785/acre 0.0157

2 Wet Mixed Conifer -$7,834/acre -$1,970/acre 0.0121

3 Ponderosa Pine -$19,912/acre -$4,580/acre -0.0479

3 Dry Mixed Conifer Not modeled NA negative

3 Wet Mixed Conifer Not modeled NA negative

Benefit:cost ratios for strata 1 and 2 in all three PNVTs are low but positive, while the value for 

stratum 3 is negative. There was no need to model dry mixed conifer and wet mixed conifer in 

stratum 3, because they have benefit:cost ratios more negative than the ponderosa pine result, are 

on steep slopes, and are MSO protected habitat that has management requirements which conflict

with timber harvest. Any species mix harvested in the dry mixed conifer and wet mixed conifer 

brings lower market sale value than ponderosa pine, while the costs of operating in these two 

PNVTs are higher than the ponderosa pine costs. The excessively high costs to manage a 

regulated timber production program associated with stratum 3 (cable/helicopter operable lands) 

on all PNVTs were considered cost-prohibitive and were removed from further consideration.

Forest Service roads budgets have been declining dramatically. Less than 10 miles of new NFS 

road construction has been done in the past 5 years, and this trend is expected to continue. 

Additive costs of deferred maintenance roads in stratum 1, combined with new construction roads 

and future maintenance for stratum 2 under current budget trends, would also make stratum 2 

cost-inefficient for this planning period. 

Although there are short-term costs associated with stratum 1, long-term benefits of treatments 

include fewer acres of trees/timber and wildlife habitat lost to uncharacteristic fire, better tree 

growth rates and overall forest health, and greater resiliency to climate change. There are also 

benefits associated with contributions to the local economy through a steady flow of timber 

products.

It was determined that 0 (zero) acres in alternative A, 69,590 acres in alternative B, and 85,234 

acres in alternative C are not economically cost efficient. These acres were subtracted from the 

tentatively suitable land base and not carried forward to the next step.

Step 3: Lands Suitable for Timber Production

The final step in the suitability evaluation was to apply any remaining criteria identified in 

chapter 4 Suitability of the proposed plan. These criteria (table 183) include lands where 

management objectives limit timber harvest (e.g., Recommended Wilderness Management Area, 

Mexican spotted owl (MSO) protected lands). GIS was used to identify the not suitable areas.
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 809

Accessible and operable acres in alternative D are not available for commercial timber 

production, due to this alternative’s emphasis on using one single cutting entry, with maintenance 

by natural processes (e.g., fire) thereafter. Therefore, due to the intentional design of alternative 

D, all 808,368 acres of tentatively suitable lands are not appropriate for timber production and no 

economic or further suitability analysis was needed.

Table 183. Lands suitable or not suitable for timber production

Area Suitable Not Suitable

General Forest Management Area X

Community-Forest Intermix Management Area X

High Use Developed Recreation Area Management Area X

Energy Corridor Management Area X

Wild Horse Territory Management Area X

Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area X

Natural Landscape Management Area X

Recommended Research Natural Area Management Area X

Research Natural Area Management Area X

Primitive Area Management Area X

Recommended Wilderness Management Area X

Wilderness Management Area X

Communications sites X

Developed recreation and administrative sites X

Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river corridors X

MSO protected lands X

Since management areas change by alternative, the resultant acres identified as suitable for timber 

production vary. These are identified in the results section below.

Results

The following tables (table 184, table 185, and table 186) display the criteria and resulting acres 

considered to be suitable for timber production by alternative. Differences in final acres of 

suitable timberlands between the alternatives are a result of different reductions shown from the 

tentatively suitable lands due to the differing theme of each alternative.
Appendix B

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

Table 184. Alternative A timber production suitability determination

PNVT 

Acres Acres SubtotalAcres

Total 

Acres

Total Apache-Sitgreaves NFS Land 2,015,352

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 807,289

Lands where Management Area Prescriptions 

Precludes Timber Production

12,258

Special Management Areas, Energy Corridor, and Water 12,258

Lands where Management Objective Limit Timber 

Harvest

30,159

Riparian 19,407

Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river corridors 

classified as recreational or scenic

10,752

Lands not economically cost efficient 0

The 1987 plan did not limit suitable acres

to cost efficient lands

0

Lands Not Appropriate for Timber Production 42,417

Lands Suitable for Timber Production

(38 percent of NFS land)

764,872 764,872

Dry mixed conifer 108,208

Ponderosa pine 503,412

Spruce-fir 5,180

Wet mixed conifer 148,072

Lands Not Suitable for Timber Production

(62 percent of NFS land)

1,250,480
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 811

Table 185. Alternative B timber production suitability determination

PNVT 

Acres Acres SubtotalAcres

Total 

Acres

Apache-Sitgreaves NFS Land 2,015,352

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 808,368

Lands where Management Area Prescriptions Precludes 

Timber Production 65,497

High Use Developed Recreation Area, Energy Corridor, 

Natural Landscape, Recommended Research Natural Area, 

and Recommended Wilderness Management Areas 

65,497

Lands where Management Objective Limit Timber 

Harvest 76,537

Riparian 15,696

Communications sites 91

Developed recreation sites and administrative sites 5,862

Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river corridors classified

as recreational or scenic 8,258

Mexican spotted owl protected lands (PACs) 46,630

Lands not economically cost efficient 69,590

Steep slope but loggable 54,466

Dry mixed conifer 18,631

Ponderosa pine 6,327

Spruce-fir 2,548

Wet mixed conifer 26,960

Unroaded areas 12,511

Dry mixed conifer 1,292

Ponderosa pine 9,589

Spruce-fir 32

Wet mixed conifer 1,598

Too isolated or too small to log 2,613

Lands Not Appropriate for Timber Production 211,624

Lands Suitable for Timber Production

(30 percent of NFS land) 596,743 596,744*

Dry mixed conifer 65,086

Ponderosa pine 445,440

Wet mixed conifer 86,217

Lands Not Suitable for Timber Production

(70 percent of NFS land) 1,418,608

* Difference from subtotal due to rounding
Appendix B

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

Table 186. Alternative C timber production suitability determination

PNVT 

Acres Acres SubtotalAcres

Total 

Acres

Apache-Sitgreaves NFS Land 2,015,352

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 808,368

Lands where Management Area Prescriptions Precludes 

Timber Production 27,321

High Use Developed Recreation Area, Energy Corridor,

Natural Landscape, Recommended Research Natural Area, 

and Recommended Wilderness Management Areas

27,321

Lands where Management Objective Limit Timber 

Harvest 91,067

Riparian 19,927

Communications sites (buffer to 5 acres) 94

Developed recreation sites and administrative sites 6,341

Eligible or suitable wild and scenic river corridors 

classified as recreational or scenic 12,174

Mexican spotted owl protected lands (PACs) 52,531

Lands not economically cost efficient 85,234

Steep slope but loggable 62,261

Dry mixed conifer 21,415

Ponderosa pine 8,731

Spruce-fir 3,086

Wet mixed conifer 29,029

Unroaded areas 13,637

Dry mixed conifer 1,295

Ponderosa pine 10,381

Spruce-fir 82

Wet mixed conifer 1,879

Too isolated or too small to log 9,336

Lands Not Appropriate for Timber Production 203,622

Lands Suitable for Timber Production

(30 percent of NFS lands) 604,746 604,746

Dry mixed conifer 65,778

Ponderosa pine 451,179

Wet mixed conifer 87,789

Lands Not Suitable for Timber Production

(70 percent of NFS lands) 1,410,606
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 813

For alternatives B and C all acres of spruce-fir forest were classified as non-suitable because they 

are located inside withdrawn lands, are too isolated or small to log, and/or are in MSO protected 

habitat. Some acres of spruce-fir forest were classified as suitable timberlands in the 1987 plan.

MSO protected activity centers (PACs) were eliminated as “lands where management objectives 

limit timber harvest” due to a 9-inch diameter cutting cap limitation required by the current 

“MSO Recovery Plan” (USFWS, 2012). Additional MSO protected habitat on steep slopes 

outside of PACs was further eliminated as not cost-efficient to harvest. Care was taken to avoid 

double-counting these acreage deductions when more than one reason exists for the deduction. 

Should the “MSO Recovery Plan” be revised during this planning period, changes in timberland 

suitability classification may need to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.

Timber Calculations

The “Forest Products Specialist Report” and report appendices (Forest Service, 2014) in the “Plan 

Set of Documents” provides complete records of all assumptions, rationale, data sources, 

methodologies, and references used to estimate timber volumes by alternative. The following is a 

brief summary of how the ASQ, LTSYC, and nonindustrial wood volumes were derived.

All wood volumes cut under each alternative are considered as byproducts of vegetation 

restoration treatments that maintain or move toward desired conditions. The PNVTs from which 

wood could be cut that were modeled in VDDT include ponderosa pine forest, dry mixed conifer, 

wet mixed conifer forests, spruce-fir forest, piñon-juniper woodland, and Great Basin grassland.

Two models were used to estimate volumes of wood cut under each alternative: (1) Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and (2) Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT). Various 

cutting simulations modeled in the FVS were used by the U.S. Forest Service Southwestern

Region to produce estimates of three product categories: cubic feet per acre of industrial timber, 

and nonindustrial firewood cut, as well as tons of biomass per acre resulting from proposed 

restoration treatments (Weisz et al., 2012). The per-acre estimates from FVS were then 

incorporated into the VDDT model as another outcome attribute for the first 5 decades of 

treatments simulated for each PNVT, and expanded for multiple acres cut in each alternative.

The resulting VDDT wood volumes were entered into MS Excel spreadsheets for further 

summation of the three different wood product categories, as estimates for treated acres of both 

suitable timberlands and non-suitable timberlands. Those volumes only represent green trees 

expected to be cut and offered to markets under plausible cutting methods to implement each 

alternative. The same average volume estimate of green and dead poles, posts, firewood, power

line corridor/roadside hazard tree salvage small sales, and other wood products sold annually 

under personal and commercial use permits to meet local public demand (not modeled in VDDT) 

was also included in the total volume estimated for each alternative.

ASQ Volume Calculations

Only volumes of industrial conifer timber species and commercial sizes cut from suitable 

timberlands, and used as logs, bolts, or roundwood (excluding firewood) are included in the ASQ 

calculation. See the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014) for industrial 

definitions and tree species included. Because the modeling only represents one possible greentree cutting scenario under each alternative, the resulting volume outputs are too precise for a 
Appendix B

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

forestwide programmatic assessment. Therefore, all ASQ values have been rounded to the nearest 

thousand CCF.

According to the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), dead salvage volume of wildfirekilled and insect/disease-killed trees from suitable timberlands does not contribute to the ASQ. 

Because such volume may be unpredictable and highly variable, it is an additional volume that 

can be offered above the ASQ. 

LTSYC Calculations

When a forest has achieved the desired regulated condition, the basic concept of long-term 

sustained yield is that annual harvest levels should cut no more than the net annual growth. Net 

growth is gross growth less natural mortality. In cases when net growth volume exceeds total cut 

volume, an excess of overgrowth poses an imbalance in the ecosystem that eventually is not 

sustainable. Such an imbalance can contribute to higher risks of severe stand-replacement 

wildfire, and outbreaks of insect or disease species which capitalize on trees weakened by overcrowding. Figure 83 below illustrates this concept.

Long term sustained yield capacity (sustainable harvest) for suitable timberlands was determined 

for each alternative using the following formula:

LTSYC = (24 cubic feet /acre/year of net growth) x (number of suitable timberland 

acres in the alternative) 

The net growth volume per acre per year is based on an average 30-year re-entry cutting cycle 

modeled in FVS for each forested PNVT by the USFS Southwestern Region as the ideal 

timeframe to maintain desired forest conditions stated in the proposed plan and for implementing 

an uneven-aged cutting system to reach forest regulation for sustained harvest yields (Youtz and 

Vandendriesche, 2012).

Figure 83. Conceptual diagram of ideal cutting level for a sustainable

forest and sustainable harvest (not drawn to any scale)

For simplification of analysis, the long-term sustained yield of 24 cubic feet per acre per year 

used is a rounded, weighted average value for all suitable timberlands, using the regional model 
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 815

run results for each PNVT, based on the proportional acres of each forested PNVT present on the 

Apache–Sitgreaves NFs suitable land base. Only the Southwestern Region’s high-site model run

for the ponderosa pine/grass type was used in this calculation, because soils not capable of 

producing at least 20 cubic feet/acre/year (approximately site index of 70 or greater) were 

eliminated from the tentatively suitable land base with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’soils 

assessment (see the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014)). Because acres of 

suitable timberland vary by PNVT, a weighted average was used to verify the correct average to 

be used for all analyses of all PNVTs combined. Table 187 shows how this average was derived 

mathematically.

Table 187. Average LTSY calculation for all suitable timberland PNVTs on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs by alternative

PNVT Suitable Acresa LTSY in cubic 

feet/acre/yearb Multiplication Product

Alternative A

Ponderosa Pinec 503,412 23.6 11,880,523

Dry Mixed Conifer 108,208 22.9 2,477,963

Wet Mixed Conifer 148,072 24.7 3,657,378

Spruce-Fir 5,180 0 0

Totals 764,872 71.2 18,015,864

Weighted Average: 18,015,864 / 764,872 = 23.6, rounded to 24 cubic feet/acre/year

Alternative B

Ponderosa pinec 445,440 23.6 10,512,384

Dry Mixed Conifer 65,086 22.9 1,490,469

Wet Mixed Conifer 86,217 24.7 2,129,560

Spruce-Fir 0 0 0

Totals 596,743 71.2 14,132,413

Weighted Average: 14,132,413 / 596,743 = 23.7, rounded to 24 cubic feet/acre/year

Alternative C

Ponderosa pinec 451,179 23.6 10,647,824

Dry Mixed Conifer 65,778 22.9 1,506,316

Wet Mixed Conifer 87,789 24.7 2,168,388

Spruce-Fir 0 0 0

Totals 604,746 71.2 14,322,528

Weighted Average: 14,322,528 / 604,746 = 23.7, rounded to 24 cubic feet/acre/year

a See the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014), appendix A-2 for additional information.

b From Youtz and Vandendriesche, 2012.

c Only the regional ponderosa pine/grass type high site index LTSY model result was used.

Because this net growth average of 24 cubic feet per acre per year does not vary by alternative, it 

was used in all LTSYC calculations for all alternatives in FEIS chapter 3, table 149.
Appendix B

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

To comply with legal direction of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and Multiple 

Use-Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA), long-term sustained yield also means that ASQ volumes 

harvested from suitable timberlands cannot decline from one decade to the next. Ideally, harvest 

volumes below the LTSYC should continue increasing to eventually reach the LTSYC and then 

level off at or near that regulated value. The only exception to this rule is if the cutting volumes 

are departed above the LTSYC, in which case they would be expected to decline toward the 

LTSYC over time.

Alternative A’s ASQ volumes for decades 1 through 5 are all within 1 to 2 percent of each other, 

which indicates a flat line of sustained yield harvests. VDDT methodology used in this analysis 

did not permit the ability to model the most logical changes in cutting methods for subsequent reentries on acres previously treated with the model inputs. By decade three, less intermediate 

thinning treatments to cut smaller sized trees would be used; instead more uneven-aged group 

selection cuts which require cutting bigger trees would be used, thus producing greater harvest 

volumes than those shown here for decades 3 through 5.

Alternatives A and B comply with legal requirements by cutting at levels which do not decline 

and are below the LTSYC. The first five decades of VDDT modeling do not produce substantially 

increasing harvest volumes that ramp up closer to the LTSYC, due to predicted cutting levels on 

suitable timberlands according to budget and workforce estimates for these alternatives in this 

planning period. 

ASQ cutting departures above the LTSYC can be temporarily justified to correct the imbalance of 

excess net growth, provided the volumes cut decline over time to eventually level out at or below 

the LTSYC. This is the case for Alternative C. This declining volume trend came from the VDDT 

model runs for decades 1 through 5 and is based on treatment inputs for each alternative that are 

documented in the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014). A declining trend 

is logical when heavy restoration cuts are needed early to prevent excessive tree mortality from 

high severity wildfires, competition, and insect/disease outbreaks. Once overgrowth levels have 

been reduced, then subsequent decades should produce volumes which taper down toward

reaching desired conditions that are intended to promote a more sustainable forest. Because 

VDDT modeling was not done beyond 50 years, it is assumed that continued aggressive cutting 

levels beyond decade five would be needed to bring forested conditions closer to desired 

conditions and the LTSYC. 

Alternatives A and C were found to comply with the non-declining even flow legal direction by 

continuing the same treatment strategy each decade in the initial level of VDDT modeling. In the 

case of alternative B, however, the initial VDDT model runs which repeated the same treatment 

strategy in subsequent decades after this planning period produced ASQ volumes that consistently 

declined each decade, while staying below the LTSYC. Therefore, additional analysis at a more 

refined level of modeling revealed that treatment strategy would need to change after the 15-year 

planning period for alternative B.

In order to sustain a non-declining even flow of ASQ volumes on suitable timberlands in 

alternative B, additional modeling revealed that the restoration strategy for decades 2 through 5

would need to do the following: increase treatment acreages in closed canopy transition 

vegetation states in the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer PNVTs; and shift to using lowseverity prescribed fire as a maintenance tool for thinning just the seedling/sapling sizes. 
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 817

These modeling shifts represent adaptive management that is predictable because as more acres 

are restored to desired open-canopy in these two PNVTs, cuts in each transition state would 

produce less volume per acre; thus the need to cut more acres overall to sustain the same total 

volume yields. Likewise, using moderate-high severity fire as a thinning tool would predictably 

reduce measurable volume available for ASQ harvest. Thinning only seedlings/saplings that have 

very little measurable wood volume by using only low-severity fire would not impact available 

ASQ volume.

These shifts in management methodology could begin after the planning period. It is assumed that 

continued restoration treatments toward desired conditions beyond decade five would eventually 

bring alternative B ASQ levels up closer to the LTSYC, provided uncharacteristic disturbances 

don’t occur first to drastically alter the trends shown in this analysis. 

Base Sale Schedule 

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule call for a base sale schedule, or timber sale schedule. 

This planning effort emphasizes proposed management outcomes rather than outputs. The desired 

outcome is to restore the forested PNVTs toward desired ecological conditions, while also 

providing wood products to the economy as a byproduct of the restoration activities. Therefore, 

listing site-specific volume outputs tied to individual sales for each of ten years is not appropriate 

to provide here as a forest program target. The action alternatives offer a flexible range of annual 

cutting volumes, based on the realistic objective levels that help to frame the alternative. Annual 

volume levels offered for sale would vary as budgets, market demand, and opportunities occur.

For example, the annual cutting level for alternative B may vary from one year to the next 

between the high and low range of ASQ volumes shown in the FEIS chapter 3 table 148 (ASQ 

volume from suitable timberlands for the first decade), provided the decade total does not exceed 

the annual average times ten. Therefore, forestwide ASQ cutting volumes could fluctuate between 

122,000 CCF and 26,000 CCF each year, provided that the total maximum volume of all cuts in 

the decade would not exceed 736,000 CCF for the 10-year total ASQ.

ASQ volumes from suitable timberlands only constitute a fraction of the total wood products that 

would result from cutting treatments implemented to restore forested acres toward the ecological 

desired conditions. In reality, a majority of industrial tree species in the traditional sawtimber, 

pulp, and pole size classes are no longer sold as these products. Many are currently sold as 

firewood, and/or extracted from the forest and scaled as tons of biomass, which are not included 

in the definition of ASQ volume. This trend is expected to increase, as the nation continues to 

emphasize alternative energy (heat and electricity) generation from green biomass fuel. The 4FRI 

contract identifies traditional sawtimber, roundwood products, and biomass offerings which all 

can be provided from a mix of suitable and non-suitable timberlands on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs.

Non-ASQ Volume Calculations

All sizes of industrial conifer species cut on lands classified as non-suitable timberlands were also 

estimated from VDDT model runs, and tabulated as cubic feet of non-ASQ wood volume. Noncommercial sizes of industrial species cut from both suitable and non-suitable timberlands were 

tabulated as tons of biomass. Woodland species cut from both suitable timberlands and non-
Appendix B

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

suitable lands were tabulated as cubic feet of firewood. These non-ASQ volumes would be 

available for market and public offerings.

Total Wood Products

The total of all wood products of all categories potentially available to offer markets in the first 

decade was tabulated for each alternative, by high and low treatment objective levels in table 188.

Table 188. Estimated ranges of annual wood product volumes potentially available to offer 

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

Product Class Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Average High Low High Low High Low

Cuts on Suitable Lands

ASQ Industrial Speciesa

(Timber 9+” and Pulp 5-9”) in CCF 

74,392 121,591 25,585 268,353 38,522 0 0

Firewood

(5+” non-industrial conifer and 

hardwood species) in CCF, Non-ASQ 

14,606 17,530 8,533 33,615 10,019 0 0

Biomass

(0+” non-industrial sizes and species) 

in Tons, Non-ASQ 

323,302 400,667 59,336 1,202,219 128,463 0 0

Cuts on Non-suitable Lands

Non-ASQ Industrial Species

(Timber 9+” and Pulp 5-9”) in CCF

5,780 17,804 2,959 31,192 3,402 48,403 6,065

Firewoodb

(5+”non-industrial conifer and 

hardwood species) in CCF, Non-ASQ

10,976 76,528 46,633 18,413 8,699 59,438 32,203

Biomass

(0+”non-industrial sizes and species) 

in Tons, Non-ASQ 

24,822 185,132 82,848 122,548 13,418 246,798 66,026

Summary of Total Cuts on All 

Treated Lands (ASQ and NonASQ Combined)

Industrial Speciesa

(Timber 9+” and Pulp 5-9”) in CCF

80,172 139,395 28,544 299,545 41,924 48,403 6,065

Firewoodb

(non-timber conifer and hardwood 

species) in CCF

25,582 94,058 55,166 52,028 18,718 59,438 32,203

Biomass

(non-industrial sizes and species) in 

Tons

Or Converted to CCFc

348,124

or

99,464

585,799

or

167,371

142,184

or

40,624

1,324,767

or

378,505

141,881

or

40,537

246,798

or

70,514

66,026

or

18,865

Grand Total of All Wood Products, 

All in CCF 

205,218 400,824 124,334 730,078 101,179 178,355 57,133

Averaged Grand Total of All Wood 

Products, All in CCF 205,218 262,579 262,579 415,629 415,629 117,744 117,744
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 819

a Industrial species for all alternatives include different live trees modeled in VDDT for restoration cutting, plus 

additional constant volume sold in small sales and on TIM permits (miscellaneous live and dead small salvage sales, 

road and recreation site hazard trees, pulp and poles).

b Firewood for all alternatives is different live trees modeled for restoration cutting plus additional constant TIM permit 

sales for dead/down firewood sales, plus posts sold in TIM. 

c Conversion factor used: 3.5 tons = 1 CCF. Source: R3 Measurements Specialist, based on R3 weight scale study 

conducted locally.

The table above is the source for table 150 in the FEIS chapter 3, and shows how those volumes 

were further summarized for FEIS display. The same alternative averaged grand total volumes in 

the table above are shown in figure 84.

Figure 84. Total annual wood product volume estimates for decade 1 (from both 

suitable and non-suitable timberlands)
Appendix B

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

References

Laing, L.; N. Ambos; N., T. Subirge; C. McDonald; C. Nelson; and W. Robbie. (1987). Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. U.S. Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 453 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2012). Final Recovery Plan for 

the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. Southwestern 

Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, NM. 413 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. (2009). Identification of Lands Suitable for Timber Production –

Southwestern Region (R3) Plan Revisions. Version 3.0 – October 2009. Albuquerque, 

NM.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014). Forest Products Specialist Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

Weisz, R; D. Vandendriesche; and M. Moeur. (February 2012). White Paper O - Overview of 

How We Created VDDT Models with FVS - Calibrating Natural and Anthropogenic 

Events in State and Transition Models with FVS: A case study for ponderosa pine forest 

ecosystems. (One of 16 papers in the regional white paper series titled “The R3 FVS 

Process for Evaluating the Effects of Vegetation Management Activities in the Forest 

Plan Revision Process”). USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Regional Office.

Albuquerque, NM. Interoffice publication.

Youtz, J.A.; and D. Vandendriesche. (2012). White paper entitled: National Forest Planning and 

Sustained Yield of the Timber Resource Long-Term Sustained-Yield Calculations for 

Forest Land and Resource Management Planning. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region. Albuquerque, NM, and Washington Office Forest Management Service Center. 

32 pp.

Livestock Grazing Suitability Analysis

Provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule require that the capability and suitability for producing 

forage for grazing animals on NFS lands be determined. The analysis process and results are 

discussed in the following sections.

Capability is the potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and 

allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of 

management intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as 

climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, 

such as silviculture, wildland fire, or insect and disease treatments.

Suitability is the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land, in consideration of relevant social, economic, and ecological factors. A 

unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices.

Capability

Capability to produce forage for grazing animals was originally determined in the 1980s during 

the development of the 1987 plan and was based on individual allotment data. Landscape scale 

conditions that determine capability have not changed since the first evaluation. The Analysis of 
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 821

the Management Situation (1983) and the Environmental Impact Statement (1987) document the 

analysis of grazing capability and suitability for the 1987 plan. 

Suitability

Suitable rangeland is that which is appropriate for the activity of livestock grazing in 

consideration of relevant social, economic, and ecological factors. Suitable rangeland is 

determined based on compatibility with desired conditions and objectives in the plan area. Lands

within the plan area are not identified as suitable for a certain use if that use is prohibited by law, 

regulation, or policy; would result in substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of 

the land or renewable resources; or if the use is incompatible with the desired conditions for the 

relevant portion of the plan area. 

An identification of an area as suitable for a particular use does not mean that the use will occur 

over the entire area. Likewise, identifying that a particular use is not suitable in a management 

area does not mean that the use will not occur in specific areas. The identification of an area as 

suitable for various uses is guidance for project and activity decision-making and is not a resource 

commitment or final decision approving projects and activities. Final decisions on resource 

commitments are made at the project level. 

To identify the lands suitable for livestock grazing, additional criteria (table 189) from chapter 4 

Suitability of the proposed plan were used.

Table 189. Lands suitable or not suitable for livestock grazing

Management Area

Suitable

for Livestock 

Grazing

Not Suitable

for Livestock 

Grazing

General Forest X

Community-Forest Intermix X

High Use Developed Recreation Area X

Energy Corridor X

Wild Horse Territory X

Wildlife Quiet Area X

Natural Landscape X

Recommended Research Natural Area X

Research Natural Area X

Primitive Area X

Recommended Wilderness X

Wilderness X

Other Areas

Active and vacant grazing allotments X

Current National Forest System land not in a grazing 

allotment X
Appendix B

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

Results

Table 190 displays the acres of land that are suitable for livestock grazing in alternative A and 

table 191 displays the action alternatives. To calculate the acres suitable for livestock grazing in 

the action alternatives, GIS was used to subtract areas not in an allotment, the Black River 

Conservation Area, and the designated and recommended research natural areas. The 1987 plan 

was used as the baseline to identify lands suitable for livestock grazing in alternative A.

Table 190. Alternative A acres suitable for livestock grazing as identified in the 1987 plan

Management Area Acres

1: Forest Land 836,288

2: Woodland 611,025

3: Riparian 6,870

4: Grasslands 243,126

5: Developed Recreation Site 0

7: Mount Baldy Wilderness 7,079

8: Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions 187,410

9: Escudilla Demonstration Area 10,872

10: Research Natural Area 0

11: Water 0

12: Bear Wallow Wilderness 11,080

13: Escudilla Wilderness 5,200

14: Black River 7,176

15: West Fork Black River 3,465

16: Chevelon Canyon 0

17: East and West Forks Little Colorado River 2,360

18: Sandrock 0

Total Acres Suitable for Livestock Grazing = 1,931,951
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 823

Table 191. Acres suitable for livestock grazing by action alternative

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Total Acres of NFS Land 2,015,352

Acres of NFS Land in the Black River 

Conservation Area

-28,430

Acres of NFS Land outside grazing allotments -77,270

Acres of NFS Land in Research Natural Area and 

Recommended Research Natural Area 

Management Area

-8,140 -8,140 -6,536

Total Acres Suitable for 

Livestock Grazing

1,901,512 1,901,512 1,903,116

References

U.S. Forest Service. (1983). Analysis of the Management Situation. Southwestern Region. 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

U.S. Forest Service. (1987). Environmental Impact Statement for the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Plan. Southwestern Region. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Species Viability Analysis Process

The process of analyzing all the forest planning species (FPS), potential natural vegetation types 

(PNVTs), habitat elements, and four plan alternatives is complex. It therefore relies heavily on an 

approach that categorizes species, habitats, and management and compares plan alternatives. The 

viability process involved a series of steps for analyzing the 95 non-fish FPS, consisting of 30 

mammals, 22 birds, 6 amphibians/reptiles, 12 invertebrates, and 25 plants. The same process was 

followed, but in a more generalized manner, for the remaining fourteen FPS, consisting solely of 

fish species. A description of the species viability analysis process follows.

Step 1: Characterize Species

The first part of the process characterizes the existing condition of FPS relative to their current 

abundance and distribution. Species most subject to risk for viability are generally those that are 

rare or uncommon or those whose habitat is most likely to be substantially affected by forest 

management and activities. 

FPS were evaluated using information from earlier wildlife assessment reports which reflected 

input from Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and other biologists, species specialists, a collaborative 

wildlife group, knowledgeable publics, and Arizona Game and Fish Department. Each FPS was 

given a forest or F ranking described in table 192.
Appendix B

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

Table 192. Forest (F) rankings for forest planning species (FPS) on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs

F Ranking Description of species abundance and distribution relative to 

reference or desired habitat conditions

F?a Unknown abundance and distribution

F1 Extremely rare

F2 Rare

F3 Uncommon (including locally common but in rare locations)

F4b Widespread

F5 Secure

a Because of insufficient information to determine abundance and distribution, F? species are analyzed as F1 species.

b Populations of some F4 species could be affected by extensive landscape scale management and activities depending 

on timing, both spatial and temporal.

Some of the rarer or uncommon species are designated threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species. In addition, some of the FPS are noted as being “highly interactive” species. These are 

species that play an important ecological role by impacting their habitat or populations of other 

species, and/or species needing large landscapes and habitat connectivity. 

Step 2: Characterize Habitat

The second part of the viability process entails identifying important habitat that is most likely to 

influence viability. Habitat can be the broad vegetation type or certain habitat features. For the 

wildlife (non-fish) viability analysis, habitat is characterized by the PNVTs and specific “habitat 

elements” (e.g., snags, dense cover, down woody debris).

Next, future habitat abundance and future habitat distribution are determined for each PNVT and 

habitat element based on plan implementation. An underlying assumption is that habitat 

abundance and distribution within the range of conditions that species have experienced over 

evolutionary time is likely to maintain them into the future (Haufler, 1999)1

. As such, the historic 

or reference condition is the desired condition for habitat in order to sustain FPS viability into the 

future2

. 

Future habitat abundance is qualitatively classified as rare, occasional, or common, Future habitat 

distribution is qualitatively classified as poor, fair, or good. Table 193 and table 194 provide a 

description of these classifications. Note that future habitat distribution is classified in terms of

desired conditions; hence, while a PNVT or habitat element’s abundance may be common across 

 1 Note that the scale of abundance and distribution differs among species (Holthausen, 2002) and was so considered for 

this analysis.

2 Historic, called reference, condition for PNVTs was provided by The Nature Conservancy. Desired conditions are 

essentially the same as reference conditions for most PNVTs; however, the desired conditions for three PNVTs were 

adjusted based on three FPS’ needs (see the “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014b) for more 

information). Historic conditions for habitat elements are less well understood but are generally described in other plan 

desired conditions.
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 825

the planning area in the future, if it is still mostly departed from desired conditions based on 

VDDT modeling states (ESSA Technologies, 2006), it would be considered “poorly” distributed.

See the Vegetation Specialist Report (Forest Service, 2014b) for more information.

Table 193. Values used to classify future habitat abundance

Future Habitat 

Abundance Value Description

rare The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is rare, with limited occurrences, or habitat 

consists of patches generally occurring over a very minor portion of the planning 

area.

occasional The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is encountered occasionally, generally 

occurring over a small portion of the planning area. 

common The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is abundant and frequently encountered, 

generally occurring over much of the planning area.

Table 194. Values used to classify future habitat distribution

Future Habitat 

Distribution Value Description

poor The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is poorly distributed within the planning area 

relative to historic or desired conditions. Number and size of habitat patches and/or 

their evenness in distribution over the landscape is greatly reduced.

fair The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is fairly well distributed within the planning 

area relative to historic or desired conditions. Number and size of habitat patches 

and/or their evenness in distribution over the landscape is somewhat reduced.

good The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) is well distributed within the planning area 

relative to historic or desired conditions. Number and size of habitat patches and/or 

their evenness in distribution over the landscape is similar to those conditions. 

Combined into table 195, the above classes express the likelihood that a particular PNVT or 

habitat element would affect viability of the associated species FPS with plan implementation.

This is referred to as the likelihood of limitation. Table 196 defines the categories of likelihood of 

limitation to viability used to compare plan alternatives.

Table 195. Likelihood of limitation to FPS viability based on future habitat abundance and 

future habitat distribution

Future Habitat Distribution

Future Habitat 

Abundance Poor Fair Good

rare High limitation High limitation Moderate limitation

occasional High limitation Moderate limitation Low limitation

common Moderate limitation Low limitation Low limitation
Appendix B

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

Table 196. Definitions for likelihood of limitation to viability based on future habitat 

abundance and distribution

Likelihood of

Limitation Description

High limitation High probability that the habitat (PNVT or habitat element) will be limiting for 

a species’ viability

Moderate limitation The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) has a likelihood of some limitation for a 

species’ viability

Low limitation The habitat (PNVT or habitat element) will likely not be limiting to a species’ 

viability

Step 3: Characterize the Species-Habitat Relationship

The third part of the process characterizes the relationship between species and associated habitat 

in order to make comparisons between alternatives. The viability risk rating (VRR) value is 

created by combining F rankings for individual FPS with the likelihood of limitation for its 

associated PNVT(s) and habitat element(s). This linkage of species ranking and habitat elements 

is referred to as the species-habitat relationship.

Table 197. Viability risk rating (VRR) values reflecting species' F rank and likelihood of 

limitation

Likelihood of

Habitat Limitation F? or F1 F2 F3 F4/F5a

high very-high high moderately-high moderate/lowb

moderate high moderately-high Moderateb low/lowb

low moderately-high Moderateb Lowb low/lowb

a F4 and F5 species are not species of viability concern but a few are considered FPS as highly interactive species.

b Moderate and low level risk ratings are not considered viability risk ratings of consequence, see the assumptions.

Step 4: Characterize Management Effects

All alternatives include actions to restore or maintain habitat and species viability, but their 

relative effectiveness varies. Hence, the fourth part of the process characterizes management by 

alternative in an overall general manner. The management effect (ME) value describes the 

alternative’s relative consequence to each PNVT or habitat element in terms of minimizing risk 

and contributing to associated species viability as shown in the following table. 
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 827

Table 198. Description of relative management effect (ME) rating for alternatives

Rating Management Effect 

1 Greatest relative improvement or maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution through 

management and activities.

2 Intermediate relative improvement or maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution through 

management and activities.

3 Least to no relative improvement or maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution as a result 

of management/activities or lack of thereof (or by factors outside of Forest Service control).

Step 5: Viability Consequences 

The viability risk rating outcomes and the management effect rating outcomes form the basis for 

the determination of environmental consequences to FPS as a result of plan implementation. 

These consequences are expressed as the relative “viability effectiveness” for each alternative for 

the 15-year planning period, with consideration of trend to 50 years.

This step entails summarizing likelihood of limitation and management effect for each PNVT and 

habitat element by alternative (figure 85, box 1). The viability risk ratings for each species-habitat 

relationship by alternative is also summarized (figure 85, box 2).

Next, the number of species-habitat risk ratings of consequence (moderately-high, high, veryhigh) is tallied for both PVNTs and habitat elements by alternative (figure 85, box 3). The number 

of viability risk ratings is summarized by alternative for each of the management effects (figure 

85, box 4). The viability analysis uses the information generated in the above steps to show how 

effectively plan implementation would contribute to species viability by alternative. 

Figure 85. Viability Risk Rating outcomes and Management Effect outcomes that form the 

basis for environmental consequences
Appendix B

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

Information used in the species viability analysis as described above include forest plan decisions 

such as desired conditions, standards and guidelines, different alternative management area

allocations, different alternative treatment objectives, and different alternative vegetation states 

provided by the VDDT modeling (ESSA Technologies, 2006).

Results

The viability risk rating outcomes and the management effect rating outcomes form the basis for 

the determination of environmental consequences to FPS, expressed as the relative “viability 

effectiveness” for each alternative. These species viability results are presented in chapter 3 

(“Wildlife and Rare Plants” and “Fisheries” sections) of this FEIS. Complete details of the 

species viability analysis can be found in the wildlife and fisheries specialist reports (Forest 

Service, 2014c and 2014a) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

References

ESSA Technologies Ltd. (2006). [online] URL: http://essa.com/

Haufler, J.B. (1999). Strategies for conserving terrestrial biological diversity. Pages 17–34 in 

R.K. Baydack, H. Campa III and J.B. Haufler (eds.). Practical approaches to the 

conservation of biological diversity. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Holthausen, R.S. (2002). White paper on managing for population viability. Draft. July 2002. 

U.S. Forest Service. (2010). Technical Guide Species and Ecosystem Diversity Evaluation. 

February 24, 2010. Washington, DC.

U.S. Forest Service. (2012a). Iterative Update to Species Considered and Identification of Forest 

Planning Species Report. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014a). Fisheries Specialist and Viability Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. 

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014b). Vegetation Specialist Report. Forest Plan Revision FEIS.

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014c). Wildlife Specialist Report - Viability. Springerville, AZ.

Socioeconomic Resources Analysis

Section 219.12(h) of the 1982 Planning Rule directs the planning team to

[E]valuate the significant physical, biological, economic, and social effects of each 

management alternative that is considered in detail. The evaluation shall include a 

comparative analysis of the aggregate effects of the management alternatives and shall 

compare present net value, social and economic impacts, outputs of goods and services, and 

overall protection and enhancement of environmental resources.” The economic analysis 

helps to fulfill these evaluation requirements.
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 829

Data Sources

Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0 (IMpact analysis for 

PLANning, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.) with 2009 data. IMPLAN is an input-output model, 

which estimates the economic impacts of projects, programs, policies, and economic changes on a 

region. IMPLAN analyzes the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. Direct economic 

impacts are generated by the activity itself, such as the value of cattle grazed on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Indirect employment and labor income contributions occur when a sector 

purchases supplies and services from other industries in order to produce their product. Induced 

contributions are the employment and labor income generated as a result of spending new 

household income generated by direct and indirect employment. The employment estimated is 

defined as any part-time, seasonal, or full-time job. In the economic impact tables, direct, indirect, 

and induced contributions are included in the estimated impacts. The IMPLAN database 

describes the economy in 440 sectors using Federal data from 2009.

Data on use levels under each alternative were collected from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

resource specialists. In most instances, the precise change is unknown. Therefore, the changes are 

based on the professional expertise of the forests’ resource specialists (provisions of the 1982 

Planning Rule, 219.12(g)).

Regional economic impacts of the alternatives are estimated based on the assumption of full 

implementation of each alternative. The actual changes in the economy would depend on 

individuals taking advantage of the resource-related opportunities that would be supported by 

each alternative. If market conditions or trends in resource use were not conducive to developing 

some opportunities, the economic impact would be different than estimated here.

Financial efficiency analysis was conducted with QuickSilver Version 6. The financial efficiency 

analysis compares the anticipated Forest Service expenditures and revenues, by alternative over 

the life of the plan. Data on program revenues and program expenditures were provided by the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs budget staff and resource specialists (provisions of the 1982 Planning 

Rule, 219.12(e)). A 4 percent discount rate is commonly used for evaluations of long-term 

investments and operation in land and resource management by the Forest Service (Forest Service 

Manual 1971.21). This discount rate was used in the calculation of present net value (PNV). PNV 

is the difference between program revenues (benefits) and program expenditures (costs) over a 

15-year period, using a 4 percent discount rate. The annual expenditures were summed over 

15 years using a 4 percent discount rate (so that one dollar today is valued higher that one dollar 

in 10 years). The sum of the discounted annual expenditures represents the present value of costs. 

The same exercise was conducted using the annual program revenues for key resource areas. The 

sum of the discounted annual revenues represents the present value of benefits. The difference 

between the present value of costs and the present value of benefits is PNV. The higher the PNV, 

the more financially efficient the alternative. Inflation can affect PNV; however, due to the 

uncertainty of future inflation, OMB Circular A-94 recommends avoiding assumptions about the 

inflation rate whenever possible. Thus for the purposes of this analysis, inflation is left at zero.

Social impacts use the baseline social conditions presented in the socioeconomic resources 

affected environment section of the FEIS and visitor profiles from the NVUM results for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 2001) to discern the primary values that the forests 

provide to area residents and visitors. Social effects are based on the interaction of the identified 

values with estimated changes to resource availability and uses.
Appendix B

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

Assumptions

• Information on the timing of costs and benefits was not available for the economic 

efficiency analysis. Furthermore, the analysis does not provide a full accounting of all 

costs and benefits. The only benefits considered are program revenues (i.e., forest 

receipts) and the only costs considered are direct forest expenditures. Therefore, the 

estimates of net present value are limited to the available data, which was sufficient to 

conduct a thorough economic efficiency analysis.

• The economic impact of grazing was estimated using authorized levels. However, actual 

use is permitted annually based on various factors, such as current forage conditions. 

Therefore, the estimated economic impact of grazing is likely to overstate the jobs and 

income provided.

• Changes in use levels were estimated using professional judgment. However, actual 

changes in use are difficult to predict and frequently depend on factors outside the control 

of the Forest Service.

• The framework for the social analysis employs generalities. Area residents and ApacheSitgreaves NFs forest visitors have diverse preferences and values that may not be fully 

captured in the description of social consequences. Nevertheless, the general categories 

are useful for assessing social impacts based on particular forest-related interests. 

References

U.S. Forest Service. (2001). National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (NVUM). Accessed 

March 21, 2011. http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/products/NVUM_Results/index.shtml

U.S. Forest Service. (2009). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Economic and Social 

Sustainability Assessment. Springerville, AZ.

Research Needs

As a result of extensive environmental analysis related to plan revision, several research needs 

have been identified related to the resource topics under review. Future data and information 

provided by research in these areas would help better manage the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• Aspen

○ How can the distinction between elk and livestock impacts be made? 

○ How can the age of aspen clonal root systems be determined?

○ What is the best indicator of a healthy aspen stand? Is it an even-aged or multi-storied 

stand? 

• Recreation Use

○ Are there other monitoring systems, besides the National Visitor Use Monitoring

program, that can provide more accurate and timely visitor use information?

• Grazing

○ At the project level, how can range readiness be determined based on growing 

degree days?
Appendix B

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 831

• Species Habitat

○ What is a reasonable allocation of forage between livestock and wildlife across all 

ownerships?

• Wildlife Quiet Areas

○ What is the effectiveness of wildlife quiet areas?

○ What are the effects of nonmotorized activities, human presence, and level of noise 

on wildlife? 

• Minor species (sensitive species)

○ What are the locations, abundance, genetic exchange, and condition of species where 

this knowledge is lacking?

• White pine blister rust resistance

○ What is the genetic diversity of white pine across the forests to counter the impact of 

white pine blister rust?

• Priority watersheds

○ What indicators should be monitored to show actual improvement of watershed 

condition?

• Fire

○ Are planned and unplanned ignitions (wildland fire) an effective tool for moving 

toward desired conditions?

• Research Natural Areas (RNA)

○ What potential research can the recommended RNAs facilitate?

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 833

Appendix C. Coordination

with Other Public Planning Efforts

Overview

Per the provisions of the 1982 planning regulations, the responsible official shall review the 

planning and land use policies of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 

American Indian tribes. In addition, the Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, has called for 

an “all-lands approach” to accomplish ecosystem restoration. This involves landowners and 

stakeholders working together across boundaries to decide on common goals for the landscapes 

they share. In order to facilitate this all-lands approach, it is important to understand the goals and 

anticipated activities of landowners adjacent to the national forest. The following sections provide 

a summary of those goals and activities. Table 199 lists the other public planning efforts that were 

considered in the plan revision process.

Table 199. Other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and American Indian

tribes planning efforts considered in the plan revision process

Eastern Arizona Counties 

Organization

Apache County, Arizona

Show Low, Arizona Arizona Department of 

Agriculture

Coconino County, Arizona Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona Arizona Department of 

Transportation

Greenlee County, Arizona Greer, Arizona Arizona Game and Fish 

Department

Navajo County, Arizona Springerville, Arizona Arizona State Forestry Division

Catron County, New Mexico Eagar, Arizona Arizona State Land Department

Graham County, Arizona Nutrioso, Arizona Arizona State Parks

Gila County, Arizona Alpine, Arizona Governor’s Forest Health Council

Grant County, New Mexico Blue, Arizona Bureau of Land Management

Heber-Overgaard, Arizona Eagle Creek, Arizona Federal Highway Administration

Forest Lakes, Arizona White Mountain Apache Tribea Coconino National Forest

Clay Springs, Arizona San Carlos Apache Tribe Tonto National Forest

Pinedale, Arizona Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality Gila National Forest

Linden, Arizona Arizona Department of Water 

Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

a The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Other Lands and Land Use Plans (Forest Service, 2011e) only reviewed 

American Indian tribes that have reservations that border the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Other tribes that affect forest 

management are described in the FEIS.
Appendix C

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

Counties

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lie in five counties: Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo 

Counties in Arizona and Catron County in New Mexico. The Apache National Forest portion in 

New Mexico is administered by the Gila National Forest. The forest borders three other counties: 

Graham and Gila Counties in Arizona and Grant County in New Mexico.

County comprehensive plans can be used as a source of information on the history of land use 

within the region, the patterns of development, desired conditions, and current county land use 

policies. County governments hold no legal authority over independent jurisdictions such as 

Federal and state lands, incorporated cities and towns or American Indian tribal reservations. 

County land use within the planning area ranges from traditional uses such as farming and 

ranching in rural areas to denser concentrations of residential, industrial, and commercial uses in 

and around more urban areas (e.g., Show Low, Pinetop-Lakeside, Springerville, Eagar, HeberOvergaard). One of the common themes is how, and whether, private owners and public land 

managers can manage the competing priorities of resource conservation and economic 

development – in particular how to cope with the growing demands for housing and recreation 

while ensuring preservation of a shrinking natural resource base that contributes to Arizona’s 

highly valued “rural character.”

Apache County

The comprehensive county plan’s (2004) vision statement includes “Apache County offers a rural 

character of natural beauty and abundance. This includes values such as independence, privacy, 

and personal freedom that attract many seeking both permanent residence and seasonal refuge.”

Only 13 percent of the county is privately owned, more than 65 percent is covered by American 

Indian reservations, and 21 percent is in public ownership. There are three incorporated 

communities in the county, two of which border the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: Springerville and 

Eagar. County lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are classified as range land, 

community village, and rural edge.

The county plan recognizes the National Forest System land exchange process as a growth 

management tool to help facilitate development of new communities and discourage development 

in remote or sensitive areas. There is one goal with direct ties to the national forest: 

• Goal 9: Reduce the danger from fire for all residents living in a wildland-urban interface 

or near a national forest boundary.

Greenlee County, Arizona

The vision for Greenlee County from the comprehensive county plan (2003) includes the rural 

character, outdoor recreation, access, and natural resource harvesting and extracting. Forest 

Service land makes up 64 percent of the county. Only 6 percent of the county is privately owned. 

The county has two incorporated towns – Clifton and Duncan. The county goals directly tied to 

the national forest include the following:

• Connect the forest trails with new trails.

• Return to the multi-use of the land.
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 835

• Consider local concerns and implement appropriate actions.

• Maintain a healthy sustainable forest that provides raw materials while limiting 

incompatible uses.

• Develop roads in the forest for people that cannot hike or use horses.

Navajo County, Arizona

The comprehensive county plan (2004) “character areas” describe the vision for the county by 

helping to protect the existing community character while maximizing balanced economic 

development. The lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are characterized as community 

village, rural edge, and rural ranch.

Almost 66 percent of Navajo County is American Indian reservation land. The Forest Service and 

BLM lands make up 9 percent of the county. The county has six incorporated cities/towns: 

Holbrook, Pinetop-Lakeside, Show Low, Snowflake, Taylor, and Winslow. 

The Rodeo-Chediski Fire prompted a focus on long-term forest health as critical to future growth 

and development of the county. In particular, the plan focuses on population centers, paved roads, 

and previously treated forest areas as central to managing similar fires in the future. The plan 

recommends strategically located treatment programs in areas where multiple canyons converge 

or where canyons allow fires from below the Mogollon Rim to reach and gain strength at higher 

elevations. It also recommends that the Mogollon Rim Road and State Route 260 be paved to 

provide broader firebreaks. It also recommends treatment of a defensible area one mile outside 

each populated area. The plan advocates a forestwide management plan and professional 

treatment program that would eliminate excess fuels while providing forest-related jobs for the 

local economy.

Coconino County, Arizona

The comprehensive county plan’s (2003) vision for Coconino County is based on a conservation 

framework and emphasizes healthy landscapes where natural resources are conserved and land is 

used efficiently.

Forest Service land makes up 28 percent of the county, most of the land lies within the Coconino 

and Kaibab National Forests and the rest lies within the Apache-Sitgreaves and Prescott National 

Forests. Incorporated cities/towns include Flagstaff, Fredonia, Page, Sedona, and Williams.

The county goals tied to the national forest include the following:

• Improve forest health and promote the restoration of forest ecosystems.

• Manage recreational uses in a manner that minimizes impacts to communities and the 

environment.

• Concentrate development in designated growth areas while preserving open space and 

landscapes.
Appendix C

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

Catron County, New Mexico

Catron County borders the Apache National Forest along its eastern border. The primary land 

owner along the forest boundary is the Gila National Forest, although there are also several nonFederal parcels. 

The primary purpose of the plan for Catron County (1992) is to protect the custom, culture, and 

livelihoods of county residents in the face of onerous state and Federal regulations. The plan 

states that county citizens are particularly vulnerable to “aggressive” state and Federal land use 

policies given the fact most of the county is managed under other jurisdictions. Government land 

agencies (primarily BLM and Forest Service) have jurisdiction on over 70 percent of lands in 

Catron County. Reserve is the only incorporated town in Catron County.

In response to a perceived abuse of Federal authority on county lands, the plan explains,

[A]ll natural resource decisions affecting Catron County shall be guided by the principles of 

protecting private property rights, protecting local custom and culture, maintaining traditional 

economic structures through self-determination, and opening new economic opportunities 

through reliance on free markets.

The plan describes Federal and state land use restrictions as arbitrary barriers that have been 

“illegally imposed” without county government input. This sentiment is found throughout the 

plan and emphasizes close coordination on the development of Federal and state land use policies 

that are responsive to the public interest.

The Catron County plan describes both the custom and culture of the county as being linked to 

traditional land use practices such as livestock grazing, timber harvesting, mining, and hunting. A 

primary basis for the plan is the stated notion that Federal regulations aimed at protecting the 

environment and endangered species have had a particularly detrimental effect on the economy 

and social stability of Catron County.

The plan does not specifically address topics such as preferred locations and densities for 

residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, nor does it provide guidelines or standards 

pertaining to community infrastructure or services. The Catron County plan is currently being 

revised.

Graham County, Arizona

Graham County borders the west side of the Apache National Forest. The San Carlos Indian 

Reservation occupies the county adjacent to the forests. See the “San Carlos Apache Tribe”

section for more info.

Gila County, Arizona

Gila County borders the far southwest portion of the Sitgreaves National Forest along the 

Mogollon Rim. The county lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are not zoned, platted, 

developed, or are in extremely remote or difficult-to-access locations. The goal for these areas is 

to maintain a rural, very low density, large lot residential development (LVA Urban Design 

Studio, 2003).
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 837

The “Southern Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan” (Logan Simpson Design, Inc., 

2010) does not identify wildland-urban interface directly adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

There are several wildland-urban interface areas located within 20 miles and southwest of the 

forests.

Grant County, New Mexico

Grant County borders the far southeast portion of the Apache National Forest along the New 

Mexico border. The primary landowner along the boundary is the Gila National Forest, although 

there are also several non-Federal parcels. The county currently does not have a comprehensive 

land use plan.

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization

The Eastern Arizona Counties Organization (ECO) is a local government organization created in 

1993 to review Federal programs which affect the custom, culture, and economic well-being of 

the counties. ECO represents five counties: Apache, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and Navajo. 

ECO has identified seven objectives for the counties that relate to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

land management plan:

1. Rangelands Resources Management 

2. Forest Products Resources Management 

3. Mineral and Energy Resources Management

4. Motorized Travel and Recreation Management

5. Forested Ecosystems Restoration and Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention

6. Watersheds Restoration

7. Management Areas Designation

Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) 

Three community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) outline goals for at-risk-communities within 

and around the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs:

• “Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk Communities of the Apache National 

Forest in Apache County” (Logan Simpson Design, Inc., 2004a)

• “Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk Communities of the Sitgreaves 

National Forest in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo Counties” (Logan Simpson Design, 

Inc., 2004b)

• “Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk Communities of the 

Apache National Forest in Greenlee County” (Logan Simpson Design, Inc., 2005)

The primary goal of the plans is for Federal land to return to Condition Class I where wildland 

fire can be incorporated into long-term management practices to sustain forest health. The plans 
Appendix C

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

also delineate the wildland-urban interface where human development meets and intermingles 

with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. The plans are used by Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

managers to help prioritize areas for fuel reduction treatments.

Communities, Towns, and Cities

There are several communities, towns, and cities within or adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs. These include Heber-Overgaard, Forest Lakes, Clay Springs, Pinedale, Linden, Show Low, 

Pinetop-Lakeside, Greer, Springerville, Eagar, Nutrioso, Alpine, Blue, and Eagle Creek. 

The communities surrounding the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have a history of involvement with and 

dependence upon the national forests and natural resources in general. Arizona has long been 

dependent upon natural resources for commodity production, clean water, tourism, and aesthetic 

enjoyment. As a result the public has frequently expressed interest in the use and management of 

these resources. Some recent examples include the following:

• Town of Pinetop-Lakeside – In 2008, the town inquired about a special designation for 

Woodland Lake Park. The park is under permit to the town and is within city limits;

however, it is located on NFS land.

• City of Show Low – In 2009, the city adopted a resolution supporting the Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative, a strategy to implement landscape-scale restoration of the region’s 

forests, and authorizing the signing of a letter of support urging Congress to provide the 

necessary resources to implement it.

• Town of Eagar – In 2010, the town council adopted a resolution requesting the ApacheSitgreaves NF maintain the existing management practice (allowing cross-country travel) 

and the accessibility of all existing roadways and trails as they currently are within the 

forests.

One of the most common concerns of these communities is the risk associated with 

uncharacteristic wildfire and hazardous fuel buildup. This issue has been articulated in the 

community wildfire protection plans (see above).

Tribes

Federally recognized American Indian tribes occupy about 53.5 million acres (7 percent) of land 

in the western states. Two reservations border the west side of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: Fort 

Apache Indian Reservation and San Carlos Apache Reservation. These tribes are legally 

considered to be sovereign nations, meaning the Forest Service has a government-to-government

relationship with the tribes. Tribes that enter into contracts with the Federal government do so just 

as state governments or sovereign nations do.

In addition, the Federal government also holds a special responsibility to consult with tribes about 

management concerns that may affect them. This process is governed by a variety of Federal

regulations and policies, including the Forest Service Handbook 1509.13, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, the Tribal 

Forest Protection Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, and several presidential 

executive orders.
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 839

Tribes’ use of Forest Service land includes free, non-permitted activities such as gathering boughs 

and basket materials as well as the use of products such as sawtimber. In addition, the ApacheSitgreaves NFs include traditional cultural places, the locations of which are known only to the 

tribes.

Fort Apache Indian Reservation (White Mountain Apache Tribe)

Forest Management

The 2005-2014 Forest Management Plan (Fort Apache Agency, 2005) identifies several 

reservation-wide forest management objectives. They include the following:

• Utilize a variety of silvicultural tools including commercial harvesting, precommercial 

thinning, prescribed fire, site preparation, and natural and artificial regeneration to move 

stand structure, composition, and other characteristics toward that of the target forest.

• To the extent possible, practice uneven-aged management within ponderosa pine and 

mixed conifer stands. Even-aged methods are silviculturally appropriate for spruce and 

aspen stands, fire damaged areas, or areas with severe insect or disease infestations.

• Maintain forest qualities that will protect or provide wildlife habitat, recreational 

opportunities, good forage, quality scenery, clean rivers and streams, and other multipleuse values.

• Improve wildlife habitat by increasing production of forage and browse and diversity in 

species, density, and cover.

• Enhance opportunities for livestock production by increasing abundance and vigor of 

palatable forage, through density management of overstory trees. Work with range 

conservationists to coordinate any grazing deferments or systematic grazing schedules 

that benefit the resource as a whole.

• Protect soil and water quality by developing prescriptions that will enhance watershed 

condition through time.

• Conduct harvest operations to obtain as complete utilization of forest products as 

practical. Assist the White Mountain Apache Tribe in developing markets for previously 

under-utilized forest products or species.

• Minimize threat to life and property, and damage to forests, soils and watersheds from 

catastrophic wildfire through effective fire prevention, enforcement, pre-suppression, and 

suppression programs.

• Provide sufficient initial attack forces to confine fires as soon as possible. For fires which 

escape, or are expected to escape initial attack, systematically build up suppression and 

support forces to the level required to bring about control in a safe, effective, and 

efficient manner.

• Manage natural and activity-created wildland fuels to reduce wildfire size, intensity, 

behavior, and threat to life and property.

The forest management plan divides the reservation into twelve management emphasis areas 

(MEAs) including wilderness, sensitive fish, sensitive plants, water, sensitive wildlife, recreation, 

sensitive sites, scenic byways, community, fuels management, limited management, and forest 

products. 
Appendix C

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

Recreation and Wildlife

Recreation is managed with a permit system for fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, river rafting, 

sightseeing, picnicking, biking, and cross-country skiing. The tribe offers a trophy elk hunting 

program that has been in operation since 1976 (White Mountain Apache Tribe, 2010).

Transportation

There are approximately 1,000 miles of roadways on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. There 

are also about 128 miles of State highways, including State Route 73 in the northern part of the 

reservation which passes through the communities of Fort Apache and White Mountain. U.S. 

Highway 60/State Route 77 runs from the Salt River Canyon and the border with the San Carlos 

Indian Reservation to the intersection with State Route 260, north of the reservation border. State 

Route 260 is an east-west route in the northeast corner of the reservation that goes through HonDah and McNary. The BIA agency roads engineer works closely with the tribe on transportation. 

The BIA has staff on the reservation and is responsible for the roads’ programming and 

maintenance. The BIA has a consulting contract to develop the long-range transportation plan for 

the tribe. As of 2004, ongoing and proposed road projects included the reconstruction of BIA 

Road 690, the construction of dirt and gravel roads in residential areas of McNary, the 

stabilization, and resurfacing of an 8-mile stretch of BIA Road 69, and a cooperative project with 

ADOT to improve the intersection of State Road 73 and State Road 260 (FHWA, 2004).

San Carlos Apache Tribe (Nde Nation)

Forest Management

The Tribe has a forest resources program, including timber sales, thinning, wood cutting, and fire 

activities (San Carlos, 2011).

Recreation and Wildlife

A recreation permit is required for non-tribal members and allows entry on the Reservation for 

any recreational activities (e.g., hiking, picnicking, touring, camping), other than hunting or 

fishing. Wildlife resources include Rocky Mountain elk, Coues whitetail deer, Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep, desert bighorn sheep, javelina, pronghorn antelope, black bear, mountain lion, 

wild turkey, predators, and other small game. The Drylake and Hilltop trophy elk units are 

managed for older age structure and have produced some of the largest elk in the world (San 

Carlos, 2010). 

Transportation

The San Carlos Apache Tribe does not receive the same Federal Highway Administration (FHA) 

transportation planning support as the White Mountain Apache Tribe; however, information on 

transportation concerns on the San Carlos Apache Reservation can be requested through the Inter 

Tribal Council of Arizona’s Transportation Working Group.

State of Arizona

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is located in the State of Arizona. State regulatory agencies, as well 

as adjacent State-owned lands, affect the management of the national forests.
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 841

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s mission is to protect and enhance public

health, welfare, and the environment in Arizona. The agency serves as the State’s environmental 

regulatory agency in the areas of air and water quality and waste programs. Forest management 

activities strive to be in compliance with the applicable Arizona Revised Statutes (particularly 

Title 49 which outlines specifics such as water quality standards and total maximum daily loads).

Arizona Department of Water Resources

The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) mission is to secure long-term dependable 

water supplies for Arizona (ADWR, 2011). The ADWR administers and enforces the State’s 

groundwater code and surface water rights laws. Title 45 of the Arizona revised statutes contains 

the provisions related to water and groundwater resources.

Arizona Department of Agriculture

The Arizona Department of Agriculture is the State’s regulatory agency for agriculture, including 

animals, plants, and environmental services (ADA, 2010). Title 3 of the Arizona Revised Statutes 

contains the provisions related to agricultural topics such as dangerous plant pests and diseases, 

pesticides, brands and marks, and seizure of livestock. 

Arizona Department of Transportation

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is responsible for planning, building, and 

operating a state highway system and maintaining bridges.

Improvement and Construction

The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Fiscal Years 2010-2013 (ADOT, 

2010) was completed in January 2010. The 2011-2015 Five-year Transportation Facilities 

Construction Program was approved on June 23, 2010. These documents identify planned 

improvements and construction over the next several fiscal years. The planned improvements to 

the following highways and forest highways may affect forest management:

• Forest Highway 43-1 Sunrise Park to Big Lake – FY2010 grading, drainage and paving 

work were initiated; project expected to be complete in FY2013

• State Route 260 Heber to Show Low – FY2011 construct passing lanes

• U.S. Highway 60 Show Low to Little Mormon Lake – FY2014 widen highway

• National Scenic Byways Statewide – FY2011 install signs

Several highway improvement studies are also underway.

Long Range Planning

ADOT’s long-range transportation plan for 2010-2035 was completed in November 2011 

(ADOT, 2011). It serves as the principal high-level capital programming guide for ADOT and 

identifies broader statewide transportation investment needs. 
Appendix C

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

Scenic Byways

The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Environmental and Enhancement Group prepared 

the “Coronado Trail Corridor Management Plan” in March 2005. This plan identifies the goals 

and objectives for the byway corridor.

Arizona Game and Fish Department

The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AZGFD) Strategic Plan for the Years 2007-2012 

Wildlife 2012 (AZGFD, 2007) provides the management direction for the department’s program 

of work. The plan contains several goals and objectives that may have an impact on ApacheSitgreaves NFs management:

• Wildlife Resource Management – Conserve, preserve, enhance, and restore wildlife 

populations and their habitats.

• Wildlife Recreation – Increase the opportunity for the public to enjoy Arizona’s wildlife 

resources, while maintaining and improving wildlife resources. In addition, address the 

underlying reasons for denial of public access across private lands by providing technical 

and financial assistance to private landowners and educating the public about ethical use 

and habitat protection.

• Public Awareness, Support and Involvement – Maintain an informed and supportive 

public that recognizes its ownership and stewardship responsibilities for wildlife 

resources and helps to disseminate and act upon messages about watercraft safety and the 

safe, responsible and ethical use of off-highway vehicles.

• Off-highway Vehicle, Watercraft and Shooting Sports Recreation Goals – Increase the 

opportunity for the public to enjoy shooting sports. Encourage participation in education 

and information programs supporting safe and responsible use of off-highway vehicles 

and watercraft, while maintaining or improving wildlife resources and habitats.

• Customer Diversity – Increase customer diversity to better reflect the demographics of 

Arizona.

• Partnerships – Maintain and develop effective partnerships that enable the Department 

and its partners to reach mutual goals.

The Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan, titled “Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy: 2005-2015” (AZGFD, 2006) provides the vision for managing Arizona’s fish, wildlife, 

and wildlife habitats over the next 10 years. The plan contains several key elements which may 

provide information to or have an impact on Apache-Sitgreaves NFs management:

• Species of Greatest Conservation Need – The AZGFD prioritized a list of species for 

conservation actions aimed at improving conditions for those species through 

intervention at the population or habitat level. Over 300 species were identified as being 

vulnerable or the species with the greatest conservation needs.

• Habitats of Greatest Conservation Need – The AZGFD divided the State into 

17 vegetation types. All of these habitats were treated as habitat in need of conservation. 

A statewide habitat analysis that answers the question of where to focus in each habitat 

has not been completed.

• Stressors/Threats to Arizona’s Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats – The AZGFD identified 

70 stressors that have serious impacts to habitat in Arizona and an additional 4 stressors 
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 843

that act on species alone. The stressors were categorized into a rapidly increasing human 

population, changes to water storage and delivery systems in the Southwest, alteration of 

communities by invasive nonnative species, and the ongoing drought and warming trend.

• Conservation Actions for Arizona’s CWCS – The AZGFD identified several action items 

to address stressors, these action items will be implemented where feasible and 

appropriate.

Arizona State Forestry Division

The Arizona State Forester oversees the Arizona State Forestry Division (ASFD). The ASFD 

mission is to manage and reduce wildfire risk to Arizona’s people, communities, and wildland 

areas and provide forest resource stewardship through strategic implementation of forest health 

policies and cooperative forestry assistance programs. In 2010, the ASFD released the “Arizona 

Forest Resource Assessment” (Arizona State Forestry Division, 2010) and “Arizona Forest 

Resource Strategy” (Arizona State Forestry Division, 2010a).

The strategy identifies major resource issues and their related goals. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

is a key partner and stakeholder in helping to implement this strategy.

• People and Forests-Goal 1: People and communities receive maximum benefits from 

forests and trees.

• People and Forests-Goal 2: Minimized human impacts to trees and forests.

• Ecosystem Health-Goal 1: Resilient and diverse ecosystem structures, processes, and 

functions.

• Ecosystem Health-Goal 2: Progress toward landscape scale outcomes, restoration of 

unhealthy ecosystems, and enhanced sustainability with limited negative impacts.

• Water-Goal 1: Improved water quality and quantity from forested watershed.

• Water-Goal 2: Improved health and resiliency of forested aquatic systems (riparian areas, 

springs, and wet meadows.)

• Water-Goal 3: Increased public understanding of the importance of forests to Arizona's 

water quality.

• Air-Goal 1: Improved air quality.

• Air-Goal 2: Increased public understanding of the importance and effects of fire on 

Arizona's air quality.

• Fire-Goal 1: Wildland ecosystems where appropriate fire regimes maintain health and 

resiliency of natural vegetation.

• Fire-Goal 2: “Fire Adapted Communities” that provide shared stakeholder responsibility 

for healthy landscapes and wildfire prepared communities.

• Fire-Goal 3: Enhanced wildland fire management capacity in Arizona.

• Fire-Goal 4: An Arizona public and government leadership that is well informed about 

wildland fire management, science, and prevention issues.

• Economics-Goal 1: Realized long-term economic potential of sustainable forest products 

and bioenergy (while achieving Ecosystem Health goals).

• Economics-Goal 2: Protection of areas with economic development potential related to 

ecosystem services.
Appendix C

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

• Economics-Goal 3: Community recognition of the economic importance to protecting 

healthy natural systems.

• Climate Change-Goal 1: Increased resilience of ecosystems to climate change.

• Climate Change-Goal 2: Reduced rate of future climate change through maximized 

carbon sequestration in Arizona forests and trees.

• Culture-Goal 1: Improved communication between all land management agencies, 

indigenous tribes, and other cultural groups about varying perspectives and beliefs related 

to forests, trees, and other natural resources.

• Culture-Goal 2: Effective collaboration mechanisms for sharing of information about 

resources, priorities, policies, and management strategies between Tribes and non-Tribal 

organizations.

Arizona State Land Department

The practice of allocating public lands for various beneficiaries in Arizona dates back to the 

founding of the territory in 1863. The current system of managing these lands, referred to as State 

Trust lands, was established with the Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD) in 1915 (AZSLD, 

2011a and 2011b).

Since its inception, the AZSLD has been granted authority over all trust lands as well as the 

natural products they provide. This authority over trust land is central to the AZSLD’s primary 

mission of maximizing revenues for its beneficiaries, a role that distinguishes it from other 

agencies charged with management of public lands (e.g., national parks, national forests, state 

parks). 

As of 2008, the AZSLD managed over 9 million acres in land holdings for 14 beneficiaries, the 

most prominent of which is the K-12 public school system. Most of the state lands can be used 

for livestock grazing purposes only. Public use of the lands is regulated by permit. A recreational 

permit allows the signatory limited privileges to use State Trust Land for some recreation, namely 

hiking, horseback riding, picnicking, bicycling, photography, sightseeing, and bird watching. 

Camping is restricted to no more than 14 days per year. Off-highway vehicle travel on State Trust 

Land is not permitted without proper licensing.

The AZSLD may dispose of (exchange) or lease the lands for natural resource use or commercial 

development purposes. Since state lands border much of the national forests, especially the 

southern portion of the Apache NF and the northern portions of both the Apache NF and 

Sitgreaves NF, any changes in management could affect the management of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. The AZSLD prepares a five-year plan that presents potential areas of concern to 

initiate land sales and long term leases. As of July 2012, this plan was not available. 

Arizona State Parks

The mission of the Arizona State Parks (ASP) is to manage and conserve Arizona’s natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources for the benefit of the people, both in the parks and through 

their partners (Arizona State Parks, 2010).

ASP manages several parks across Arizona. Four of these parks are near or on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs; these include Fool Hollow Lake, Lyman Lake, Tonto Natural Bridge, and Roper 
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 845

Lake. The Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area, located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, is operated 

by ASP. 

Arizona State Parks have seen a continual increase in visitation over the years, with over 

1,000,000 visitors in 1985 to over 2,000,000 visitors in 2010 (Arizona State Parks, 2010). The 

State and National financial crisis impacted the management of state parks. In FY2010, the ASP 

reduced the number of employees and closed 13 of its 28 parks (Arizona State Parks, 2010).

The 2008 “Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan” (SCORP) identifies the 

State’s outdoor recreation priorities. The priority issues include secure sustainable funding, plan 

for growth/secure open space, resolve conflicts, improve collaborative planning and partnerships,

respond to the needs of special populations and changing demographics, fill the gaps between 

supply and demand, secure access to public lands and across State Trust Lands, protect Arizona’s 

natural and cultural resources, and communicate with and educate the public (Arizona State 

Parks, 2007). Several action items have the potential to influence NFS lands:

• Look holistically across geographic boundaries, disciplines, governments, private 

interests, and generations and examine all benefits and costs, not just fiscal costs (in 

reference to growth).

• Expand options such as private landowner incentive programs and recreational liability 

laws, which would allow public access across private and State and Federal leased lands,

• Provide for OHV use on public lands but manage it properly, to reduce conflicts with 

other recreation users and minimize the activity’s impacts on natural and cultural 

resources, as is done for other recreational activities. Implement standards for 

constructing sustainable OHV routes, involving user groups in planning, building and 

maintaining satisfactory routes and facilities, and enacting and enforcing consistent OHV 

laws and regulations.

• State and Federal agencies should implement coordinated interagency planning efforts for 

new recreational areas and trail systems to ensure an equitable regional distribution of 

desired recreational opportunities and access to natural environments.

The SCORP also identifies the major impacts and trends related to outdoor recreation in Arizona. 

Arizona offers a wide variety of outdoor recreation opportunities with 6 national forests, 21 

national park sites, 8 national wildlife refuges, 8 Bureau of Land Management field offices, 21 

American Indian tribes, 30 State Parks, 23 State wildlife areas, and hundreds of county and city 

parks and recreation areas. These public lands provide opportunities for activities such as 

picnicking, developed and primitive camping, wilderness backpacking, hiking, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, cross-country skiing, wildlife watching, hunting, fishing, boating, water skiing, 

rock climbing, four-wheel driving, motorized trail biking, all-terrain vehicle riding, and 

snowmobiling, among others (Arizona State Parks, 2007).

The Arizona Trails 2010: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Recreation Trails plan provides 

information and recommendations to guide ASP and other agencies in their management of trails. 

The priority recommendations for motorized trails are protect access to trails/acquire land for 

public access; maintain and renovate existing trails and routes; mitigate and restore damage to 

areas surrounding trails, routes, and areas; and establish and designate motorized trails, routes, 

and areas. The priority recommendations for nonmotorized trails are maintain existing trails, keep 

trails in good condition, and protect access to trails/acquire land for public access (Arizona State 

Parks, 2009).
Appendix C

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

Governor’s Forest Health Council

In 2003, Governor Janet Napolitano formed the Forest Health Advisory Council and the Forest 

Health Oversight Council in response to the growing number, frequency, and intensity of 

uncharacteristic wildfires threatening Arizona’s resources and communities. In 2007, the councils 

produced the “Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona’s Forests” (Governor’s Forest Health 

Council, 2007). The report identifies five key strategies:

1. Increase the human and financial resources dedicated to restoring Arizona’s forests and 

protecting communities.

2. Coordinate and implement action at the landscape scale.

3. Increase the efficiency of restoration, fire management, and community protection 

activities.

4. Encourage ecologically sustainable, forest-based economic activity.

5. Build public support for accomplishing restoration, community protection, and fire 

management across the state.

Federal

Other Federal agencies affect the management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, either because they 

have lands that adjoin the forests (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, other national forests), they 

manage features that occur on the national forest (e.g., Federal Highway Administration), or they 

have oversight responsibilities (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

Bureau of Land Management

The majority of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

occurs on the southern border of the Apache NF and is administered by the Safford Field Office. 

The 1991 “Safford District Resource Management Plan” (BLM, 1991) provides guidance to the 

district in the management of its resources. The plan addresses the following issues: access, area 

of critical environmental concerns and other types of special management areas, off-highway 

vehicles, riparian areas, wildlife habitat, lands and realty, outdoor recreation and visual resource 

management, energy and minerals, cultural resources, soil erosion, vegetation, water resources, 

air quality, and paleontological resources.

The focus of active management includes riparian improvement treatments, wildlife habitat 

improvement projects (including prescribed fire and suppression), soil erosion reduction, land 

treatments or vegetation manipulation including mechanical, chemical or prescribed fire, and 

firewood cutting. The majority of the public lands are managed to limit off-highway vehicle use 

to existing roads and trails. The 1,708-acre Hot Well Dunes is open to off-highway vehicle use 

anywhere in the area (Brady, 2011).

The only Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) or Coordinated Resource Management 

Plan Area that borders the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is the 120-acre Coronado Mountain Research 

Natural Area (RNA) ACEC. This area is managed to exclude rights-of-way, mineral entry and 

woodcutting; use prescribed fire; and preserve its scenic quality.
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 847

Future Activities

A review of the 2011 NEPA Project Log for the Safford Field Office (BLM, 2011) showed that no 

projects are currently planned. However, personal communication with the district staff 

highlighted activities that are occurring near Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands: renewable energy 

(including windfarm installations north of the forest and potential energy transmission corridors), 

potential juniper thinning on BLM lands north of the forest, and burning south of the forests.

The district has several ongoing projects (Aravaipa Ecosystem Management Plan, Proposed

SunZia Southwest Transmission Line Project, Chiricahua FireScape Project), although they occur 

in the southeastern part of the State.

Federal Highway Administration

The role of the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) is to ensure that America’s roads and 

highways are safe and technologically up-to-date. Although most highways are owned by State, 

local, and tribal governments, FHWA provides financial and technical support (FHA, 2011). The 

Federal Lands Highways funding provides dollars for roads and highways within federally owned 

lands, such as national forests. 

The Central Federal Lands Highway division, of which Arizona is a part, is in the process of 

developing its long-range transportation plan (FHA, 2010). The planning effort has identified two 

major trends: (1) Arizona population is increasing primarily in urban areas, and (2) forest 

visitation and recreation is increasing as a result of population increase. Within Arizona, 12 

percent of the paved forest highway network is rated as poor or failed, while 7 percent of the 

unpaved network is rated as poor or failed and 3 percent of the bridges are in poor condition. 

Forest Highway 43 improvements, including paving, were completed as of January 2011. These 

upgrades to the highway have the potential to change visitor use.

Table 200. Forest highways located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Forest Highway Owner Road Type Condition

FH 41 Federal Paved Poor

FH 40 Federal Unpaved Good

FH 11 (SR 260) State Paved Good

FH 30 State Paved Excellent

FH 43 (SR 273) State Paved Excellent

FH 35 (SR 261) State Paved Fair

FH 20 (U.S. 180) State Paved Good

FH 42 Federal Unpaved Good

FH 19 (U.S. 191) State Paved Fair
Appendix C

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

Forest Service

Three national forests border the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: the Coconino, Tonto, and Gila National 

Forests. Each of these forests’ management is guided by a land management plan. The Coconino 

National Forest is currently in the process of revising their plan; the Tonto and Gila National 

Forests are expected to revise their plans in the near future. As forest management changes are 

proposed, the forests coordinate and adjust their management strategies as appropriate.

Coconino National Forest 

The Coconino National Forest is managed by their forest plan originally developed in August 

1987 (Forest Service, 1987). The plan identifies several forestwide goals for 19 topic areas, 

including (1) outdoor recreation, (2) wilderness, (3) wildlife and fish, (4) riparian, (5) range, 

(6) noxious and invasive weeds, (7) timber, (8) soil, water and air quality, (9) minerals, 

(10) lands, (11) transportation and administrative facilities, (12) protection, (13) law enforcement, 

(14) research natural areas, botanical areas, and geological areas, (15) Elden environmental study 

area, (16) public affairs, (17) human resources, (18) land management planning, and (19) general 

administration.

The management areas of the Coconino NF that border the western edge of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs are the following:

• Management Area 10: Grassland and Sparse Piñon-Juniper Above the Rim – The 

management emphasis is range management, watershed condition, and wildlife habitat. 

Other resources are managed to improve outputs and quality. Emphasis is on prescribed 

burning to achieve management objectives. 

• Management Area 7: Piñon-Juniper Woodland, Less than 40 Percent Slope – The 

management emphasis is firewood production, watershed condition, wildlife habitat, and 

livestock grazing. Other resources are managed in harmony with the emphasized 

resources.

• Management Area 6: Unproductive Timber Land – Emphasis is a combination of wildlife 

habitat, watershed condition, and livestock grazing. Other resources are managed in 

harmony with the emphasized resources.

• Management Area 3: Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer, Less than 40 Percent Slope –

Emphasis is a combination of multiple-uses including a sustained yield of timber and 

firewood production, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, high quality water, and dispersed 

recreation.

• Management Area 19: Mogollon Rim – Emphasis is dispersed and developed recreation, 

visual quality, and wildlife travel corridors across the Rim, generally the heads of major 

canyons running to the northeast. Dwarf mistletoe is aggressively treated.

The Coconino NF is currently in the process of revising their forest plan.

Gila National Forest 

The Gila National Forest is managed by their forest plan, originally published in September 1986

(Forest Service, 1986). The plan identifies goals in 17 topic areas including (1) range, 

(2) recreation, (3) wilderness, (4) timber, (5) wildlife and fish habitat, (6) minerals, (7) soil and 

water, (8) riparian, (9) air quality, (10) fire, (11) law enforcement, (12) lands and special uses, 
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 849

(13) facilities, (14) cultural resources, (15) land management planning, (16) human resources, and 

(17) research natural areas.

The management areas of the Gila NF that border the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs from north to south 

along the New Mexico border are the following:

• Management Area 3D – management emphasis is to provide for a long term increase of 

about 20 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; 

firewood harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from semiprimitive to roaded natural.

• Management Area 3B − management emphasis is to provide for a long-term increase of 

about 40 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; 

firewood harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from semiprimitive to roaded natural.

• Management Area 3A – management emphasis is to provide for a long-term increase of 

about 60 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage wilderness resource to protect and restore natural 

conditions; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; firewood

harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from primitive to 

roaded natural.

• Management Area 4B − management emphasis is to provide for a long-term increase of 

about 10 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage wilderness resource to protect and restore natural 

conditions; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; firewood

harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from primitive to 

roaded natural.

• Management Area 7 – management emphasis is to provide for a long-term increase of 

about 30 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage wilderness resource to protect and restore natural 

conditions; firewood harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range 

from semi-primitive motorized to roaded natural.

• Management Area 4C − management emphasis is to provide for a long-term increase of 

about 20 percent in herbaceous forage for wildlife; manage woodlands and forests to 

provide wildlife habitat; manage wilderness resource to protect and restore natural 

conditions; manage suitable timber to provide long-term sustained yield; firewood

harvest to provide sustained yield; recreation opportunities range from semi-primitive to 

roaded natural.

Tonto National Forest 

The Tonto National Forest is currently managed by their forest plan originally developed in 

October 1985 (Forest Service, 1985). The plan identifies five forestwide goals for the following 

topics: (1) soil water and air quality, (2) fire management, (3) pest management, (4) wildlife and 

fish, and (5) transportation and utility corridors.

There is only one Tonto NF management area that lies adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs:
Appendix C

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

• Management Area 4D: Payson Ranger District, Mogollon Rim Area – The management 

emphasis is to manage for a variety of renewable resource outputs with primary emphasis 

on intensive, sustained yield timber management, timber resource protection, creation of 

wildlife habitat diversity, increased populations of harvest species and recreation 

opportunity. Recreation opportunities range from semi-primitive to urban.

Four-Forest Restoration Initiative

The Four-Forest Restoration Initiative is a collaborative effort to restore forest ecosystems on 

portions of four national forests—Coconino, Kaibab, Apache-Sitgreaves, and Tonto—primarily 

along the Mogollon Rim in northern Arizona. Environmental analysis for the proposed action 

began in 2010 and the contract to begin implementation was awarded in 2012.

The overall goal of the four-forest effort is to create landscape-scale restoration approaches that 

provides for fuels reduction, forest health, and wildlife and plant diversity. A key objective is 

doing this while creating sustainable ecosystems in the long term. Businesses play a key role in 

the effort by harvesting, processing, and selling wood products. This reduces treatment costs and 

provides restoration-based work opportunities that create jobs.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The main role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) is to administer the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) (USFWS, 2011). Section 7 (a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to aid in 

conservation of listed species and section 7 (a)(2) requires that agencies, through consultation 

with the USFWS, ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. As projects and activities are 

planned, forest managers consult with the USFWS.

The USFWS also issues national polices to promote the conservation and recovery of listed 

species, including species recovery plans. The USFWS is in the process of developing a strategic 

plan to react to climate change.

The USFWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge System; there are no refuges near the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. They occur primarily in the far west and southern portions of Arizona 

and central New Mexico.

Other Landowners

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs border and surround other ownerships besides those listed above. 

There is no known inventory of these landowners’ activities and potential impacts to the forests. 

Conclusion

As identified above, other landowners and land policies have the potential to impact the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and vice-versa. In the development of the land management plan, these 

considerations have been taken into account. Table 201 identifies some of the key potential 

impacts and how the proposed plan deals with those impacts. Table 202 identifies potential 

activities on adjacent lands that may impact forest management. Impacts of actions on adjacent 
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 851

lands are analyzed in the cumulative environmental consequences section of chapter 3 in the 

FEIS. No major conflicts with Forest Service planning have been identified at this time.

Table 201. Potential impacts to forest management and their relationship to the proposed 

plan

Potential Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Call for multiple use of the forests The overall goal of managing National Forest System lands is to sustain the 

multiple uses of its resources in perpetuity while maintaining the long-term

productivity of the land.

The proposed plan carries out that goal.

Community growth demand The proposed plan identifies a management emphasis to work with local 

communities to understand their community expansion needs and retain 

access to NFS land.

Danger from wildfire for residents 

living in a wildland-urban interface

Desired Condition: Human life, property, and natural and cultural 

resources are protected within and adjacent to NFS lands.

Desired Condition: The composition, density, structure, and mosaic of 

vegetative conditions reduce uncharacteristic wildfire hazard to local 

communities and forest ecosystems.

Desired Condition: Forest visitors have access to information about topics 

of concern related to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (e.g., ecosystem 

restoration, unmanaged recreation, uncharacteristic wildfire), including 

appropriate visitor behavior (e.g., follow forest orders, pack out trash, 

appropriate sanitation, wildfire prevention).

The vegetative treatment objectives are prioritized in priority watersheds 

and areas identified in community wildfire protection plans.

The proposed plan contains a “Wildland Fire Management” section that 

describes the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ management intent for wildland fire. 

The “Landscape Scale Disturbance Events” section provides direction for 

protecting existing resources and facilitating recovery of soil and 

vegetation components following a large disturbance.

Improve forest health and promote 

the restoration of ecosystems

The desired conditions describe a healthy, sustainable forest and the 

objectives identify actions that would help restore ecosystems. The 

proposed plan’s management focus is on achieving satisfatory watershed 

conditions and restoring ecological functions, especially natural fire 

regimes.

Objective: During the planning period, improve the condition class on at 

least 10 priority 6th level HUC watersheds by removing or mitigating 

degrading factors.

Maintain a healthy, sustainable 

forest that provides raw materials

Desired Condition: The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs provide a sustainable 

supply of forest products (e.g., small roundwood, sawlogs, biomass,

firewood, cones, Christmas trees,wildings) to business and individuals 

within the capability of the land.

Forest-related jobs for the local 

economy

Timber production and tree cutting continue and contribute to the local and 

regional economy. Other multiple uses of the forests, including recreation, 

range, and wildlife also contribute to the local economy. See the 

“Socioeconomic Resources” section of the FEIS.

Support local traditional custom and 

culture

The uses of livestock grazing, timber harvesting, mining, and hunting 

continue to be allowed in the proposed plan. The proposed plan

acknowledges that many local residents have traditional ties, such as forest 

product collection, hunting, holiday celebrations, and annual picnics. 
Appendix C

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

Potential Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Loggers and ranchers continue to be an important part of the forests’ 

history and their traditional uses remain an important part of the cultural 

landscape.

Rangeland resources management The proposed plan promotes adaptive management to balance use by 

livestock, wild horses, and wildlife with estimated short- and long-term 

forage production. The plan provides direction to manage livestock 

grazing, invasive species (e.g., feral horses), and the Heber Wild Horse 

Territory.

Protect private property rights The proposed plan honors the continuing validity of private, statutory, or 

pre-existing rights.

Consider local concerns, collaborate 

with government agencies, consult 

with tribes

Throughout the proposed plan, there is a management emphasis on 

collaboration and cooperation with Federal, State, and local governments, 

tribes, and stakeholders.

Growing demand for recreation 

(e.g., hiking trails, designated OHV

routes )

Desired Condition: The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs offer a spectrum of 

recreation settings and opportunities varying from primitive to rural and 

dispersed to developed, with an emphasis on the natural appearing 

character of the forests.

Although the proposed plan does not identify specific new developments, it 

does allow for it, if needed. The proposed plan focuses on maintaining 

existing recreation opportunities and improving their quality.

Manage recreation and impacts to 

communities

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFS lands provide less developed opportunities 

than residents and visitors find in urban settings, such as greenbelts and 

parks.

Desired Condition: The construction or placement of fences and gates, 

structures, signs, or other private property on NFS land (occupancy 

trespass) rarely occurs. Disposal of personal property (e.g., dumping) 

rarely occurs on NFS lands.

Guideline: Access points to NFS land from adjacent non-NFS 

developments and subdivisions should be limited and provide all residents 

(not just edge lot owners) common entry points. Individual access points 

should be discouraged to minimize the development of unauthorized roads 

or trails.

Tribal use and traditional cultural 

properties

Desired Condition: Significant cultural resources (i.e., archaeological, 

historic, traditional cultural properties (TCP), known American Indian 

sacred sites) are preserved and protected for their cultural importance and 

are free from adverse impacts.

Desired Condition: Members of affiliated tribes have access to gather 

forest resources and products for traditional cultural purposes (e.g., 

medicinal plants, boughs, basket materials, pollen, and plants and minerals 

for pigments).

Desired Condition: Traditionally used resources are not depleted and are 

available for future generations.

Desired Condition: Sacred sites and significant TCPs are accessible and 

free of adverse impacts allowing for culturally affiliated tribes to gather 

traditional forest products and conduct ceremonies.

Desired Condition: All sacred objects, human remains, funerary objects, 

and objects of cultural patrimony removed from lands of ApacheSitgreaves NFs have been repatriated to the appropriate tribe.

Conserve, preserve, enhance, and Desired Condition: Habitat quality, distribution, and abundance exist to 
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 853

Potential Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

restore wildlife and their habitats support the recovery of federally listed species and the continued existence 

of all native and desirable nonnative species.

Desired Condition: Habitat is well distributed and connected.

In addition, the proposed plan focuses on restoring vegetative conditions 

and wildlife habitat.

Desired Condition: Large blocks of habitat are interconnected, allowing 

for behavioral and predator-prey interactions, and the persistence of 

metapopulations and highly interactive wildlife species across the 

landscape. Ecological connectivity extends through all plant communities.

Desired Condition: Wildlife are free from harassment and disturbance at a 

scale that impacts vital functions (e.g., breeding, rearing young) that could 

affect persistence of the species.

The proposed plan also contains other desired conditions that benefit 

wildlife, including vegetation-specific desired conditions. In addition, the 

Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area focuses on wildlife habitat.

Provide opportunities for wildliferelated recreationDesired Condition: Dispersed recreation opportunities (e.g., hunting, 

fishing, hiking, camping) are available and dispersed recreation sites (e.g., 

campsites, trailheads, vistas, parking areas) occur in a variety of ROS 

classes throughout the forests.

Objective: Within the planning period, work with the AZGFD, ADOT, 

and other partners to provide at least 10 new wildlife viewing 

opportunities.

Minimize impacts from invasive 

species 

Desired Condition: Invasive species (both and animal) are nonexistent or 

in low occurrence to avoid negative impacts to ecosystems.

Objective: Annually, contain, control, or eradicate invasive species (e.g., 

musk thistle, Dalmatian toadflax) on 500 to 3,500 acres.

Objective: Annually, control or eradicate invasive species (e.g., tamarisk,

bullfrogs) on at least 2 stream miles.

Provide opportunities for shooting 

sports, off-highway vehicles, and 

watercraft

The proposed plan continues to allow these activities. The plan provides 

the framework for future travel management planning.

Mineral and energy development The proposed plan provides direction to manage existing and potential 

mineral and development. It includes suitability determinations for energy 

corridor, other energy development, and communications sites.

Threats related to changes in water 

availability

Desired Condition: Water developments contribute to fish, wildlife, and 

riparian habitat as well as scenic and aesthetic values.

Desired Condition: Apache-Sitgreaves NFs water rights are secure and 

contribute to livestock, recreation, wildlife, and administrative uses.

Desired Condition: Surface water is not diminished by groundwater 

pumping.

Desired Condition: Dams, diversions, or other water control structures are 

designed, maintained, and operated to conserve water resources.

Threats related to changes in 

climate

Appendix A of the proposed plan provides information and discussion 

about climate change and considerations for land management planning
Appendix C

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

Potential Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Public education to benefit wildlife Desired Condition: Forest visitors have access to information about topics 

of concern related to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (e.g., ecosystem 

restoration, unmanaged recreation, uncharacteristic wildfire), including 

appropriate visitor behavior (e.g., follow forest orders, pack out trash, 

appropriate sanitation, wildfire prevention).

Desired Condition: Forest visitors have access to information about the 

features of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, its ecosystems, multiple uses, and 

other management aspects of the forests.

Desired Condition: Interpretive information (e.g., ecology, wildlife, 

cultural resources, unique geologic features, Forest Service mission) is 

available to forest visitors at Apache-Sitgreaves NFs visitor centers, 

administrative offices, recreation sites, and along major forest roadways.

Other Appendix A of the FEIS addresses other potential impacts/issues 

highlighted during the 90-day public comment period.

Table 202. Activities on adjacent lands that may impact forest management

Activities Possible Impact on Forest Management

Changes in land ownership Commercial harvesting and thinning, forest restoration and 

thinning, removal of overstory trees/juniper treatments

Highway improvements Prescribed fires

Fire suppression Recreation improvements and new construction

Permitted recreation use (restrictions on types of 

uses)

Renewable energy development (e.g., wind farms, energy 

corridors) 

Removal of nonnative fish species and 

restoration of native aquatic species

Continued livestock grazing

Noxious and invasive weed treatments Four-Forest Restoration Initiative

References

Apache County. (2004). Apache County Comprehensive Plan. St. Johns, AZ. 

http://www.co.apache.az.us/pdfs/PlanningandZoning/P&ZPage/ApacheCountyComprehe

nsivePlan.pdf

Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA). Annual Report FY2009-2010. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). (2010). Arizona State Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) Fiscal Years 2010–2013. Phoenix, AZ. Available at: 

http://www.azdot.gov/MPD/Priority_Programming/index.asp

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). (2011). What Moves You Arizona, Long-Range 

Transportation Plan 2010-2035. The Arizona Department of Transportation. Phoenix, AZ. 

Available at: http://whatmovesyouarizona.gov/PDF/LRTP-2011-1129.pdf

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). (2011). Missions and Goals. Phoenix, AZ. 

Available at: 

http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/PublicInformationOfficer/MissionAndGoals.htm
Appendix C

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 855

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2006). Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy: 2005–2015. Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). (2007). Wildlife 2012 Strategic Plan. Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona State Forestry Division. (2010). Arizona Forest Resource Assessment. Phoenix, AZ. 

Available at:

https://azsf.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Arizona%20Forest%20Resource%2

0Assessment-2010.pdf

Arizona State Forestry Division. (2010a). Arizona Forest Resource Strategy. Phoenix, AZ. 

Available at: 

https://azsf.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Arizona%20Forest%20Resource%2

0Assessment-2010.pdf

Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD). (2011a). Real Estate Division. Phoenix, AZ. Available 

at: http://www.land.state.az.us/programs/realestate/futureDisp.htm#apache

Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD). (2011b). State Land Department Historical Overview. 

Phoenix, AZ. Available at: http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm

Arizona State Parks. (2007). Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

(SCORP). Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona State Parks. (2009). Arizona Trails 2010: A Statewide Motorized and Nonmotorized 

Recreational Trails Plan. Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona State Parks. (2010). Arizona State Parks FY09/10 Annual Report July 1, 2009 – June 30, 

2010. Phoenix, AZ. 

Brady, Lance. (2011). Personal Communication. Safford District Bureau of Land Management. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (1991). Safford District Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management. Safford, AZ. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2011). U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management Arizona 2011 NEPA Project Log. 

Catron County. (1992). Catron County Comprehensive Land Use and Policy Plan. Bountiful, UT: 

National Federal Lands Conference.

Coconino County. (2003). Coconino County Comprehensive Plan. Flagstaff, AZ. Available at: 

http://www.coconino.az.gov/comdev.aspx?id=142

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2010). Planning Update 1: Long Range 

Transportation Plan for Forest Highways in Arizona. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Federal Highway Administration.

Federal Highway Administration (FHA). (2011). About FHA. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Federal Highway Administration. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/

Forest Service. (1985). Tonto National Forest Plan. United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Southwestern Region. 
Appendix C

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

Forest Service. (1986). Gila National Forest Plan. United States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service Southwestern Region.

Forest Service. (1987). Coconino National Forest Plan. United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Southwestern Region.

Fort Apache Agency White Mountain Apache Tribe. (2005). Forest Management Plan 2005 –

2014. White River, AZ.

Governor’s Forest Health Councils, State of Arizona. (2007). The Statewide Strategy for 

Restoring Arizona’s Forests. Aumack, E., T. Sisk, and J. Palumbo, editors. Published by 

Arizona Public Service. Phoenix, AZ.

Greenlee County. (2003). Greenlee County Comprehensive Plan. Clifton, AZ. Available at: 

http://www.co.greenlee.az.us/pz/pdfs/ComprehensivePlan.pdf

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2004a). Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk 

Communities of the Apache National Forest in Apache County. Tempe, AZ.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2004b). Community Wildfire Protection Plan for At-Risk 

Communities of the Sitgreaves National Forest in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo 

Counties. Tempe, AZ.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2005). Greenlee County Community Wildfire Protection Plan for 

At-Risk Communities of the Apache National Forest in Greenlee County. Tempe, AZ.

Logan Simpson Design, Inc. (2010). Southern Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 

Tempe, AZ.

LVA Urban Design Studio, L.L.C., Kimley-Horne and Associates, Inc. (2003). Gila County 

Comprehensive Plan. Globe, AZ.

Navajo County. (2004). Navajo County Comprehensive Plan. 

San Carlos Apache Tribe. (2010). San Carlos Apache Tribe - Recreation and Wildlife. San Carlos, 

AZ. University of Arizona. Available at: http://www.scatrwd.com/

San Carlos Apache Tribe. (2011). San Carlos Forestry Web Site. Available at: http://forestry.scatnsn.gov/publicweb/forestry.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2011). Consultations – Overview. United States 

Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/consultations-overview.html

White Mountain Apache Tribe. (2010). Wildlife and Outdoor Recreation Division. Whiteriver, 

Arizona. Available at: http://wmatoutdoors.org/
Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 857

Appendix D. Management Area Descriptions

This appendix describes the management areas used in the alternatives. The action alternatives 

share a similar set of management areas. The no action alternative (1987 plan) used a different set 

of management areas. The management areas are described in this appendix and table 203 shows 

how they generally relate to one another. 

Table 203. Crosswalk showing the general comparison of the action alternatives and the 

no action alternative management areas

Action Alternative Management 

Area No Action Alternative Management Area(s) 

General Forest = Forest Land, Woodland, Grasslands, Riparian, Water

Community-Forest Intermix = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management area

High Use Developed Recreation Area = Developed Recreation Site

Energy Corridor = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management area

Wild Horse Territory = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management area

Wildlife Quiet Area = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management area

Natural Landscape = The 1987 plan does not contain a similar management area

Recommended Research Natural Area = Research Natural Area

Research Natural Area = Research Natural Area

Primitive Area = Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions

Recommended Wilderness = The 1987 plan does not recommend any areas for wilderness 

designation

Wilderness = Bear Wallow Wilderness, Escudilla Wilderness, Mount Baldy 

Wilderness

Management Areas – Action Alternatives

There are 12 management areas identified in the action alternatives. A brief description of each 

follows. For more detailed information about these management areas, including suitability of 

various uses, see the proposed plan. 

• General Forest: This management area allows the broadest variety of uses. These areas 

are managed to restore ecosystem integrity while providing for sustainable economic and 

social values and uses. A variety of forest products (commercial and noncommercial) are 

available that may contribute to local and regional communities. This management area 

contains undeveloped areas as well as developed facilities and open roads and trails.

• Community-Forest Intermix: This management area includes lands within 1⁄2 mile of 

communities-at-risk. Due to the threat of wildfire moving into or from developed areas, 

higher levels of management, including regular maintenance, may be needed to restore 

fire-adapted ecosystems.

• High Use Developed Recreation Area: This management area includes areas with high 

levels of developed recreation use that provide a wide variety of opportunities to a broad 
Appendix D

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

spectrum of visitors. High use developed recreation areas contain one or more facilities 

and may accommodate large numbers of people.

• Energy Corridor: This management area includes the three existing high power energy 

corridors. It is limited to the existing rights-of-way corridor. This area is managed to 

facilitate the operation and maintenance of the energy infrastructure.

• Wild Horse Territory: This management area contains the Heber Wild Horse Territory. 

The territory was established in 1973 under the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act 

of 1971 with the purpose of providing use by and for the protection of wild horses.

• Wildlife Quiet Area: This management area provides relatively undisturbed habitat 

where big game and other wildlife can reside with minimal disturbance from motorized 

vehicle use. Management activities, including habitat improvement projects, may occur 

in this area.

• Natural Landscape: This management area is managed to retain its natural appearance 

and low level of development. It provides primitive and semi-primitive recreation 

opportunities, both nonmotorized and motorized. Management activities for ecological 

restoration purposes may occur, but are limited.

• Research Natural Area: This management area is managed for scientific study and 

education. It also contributes to the maintenance of biological diversity.

• Recommended Research Natural Area: These areas are recommended for designation 

as research natural areas.

• Wilderness: Wilderness is managed to protect its values according to the Wilderness Act 

of 1964. Wilderness areas provide opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation and other ecosystem and societal benefits.

• Primitive Area: This management area consists of the Blue Range Primitive Area and 

the Presidential recommended additions to the area. It is managed similar to wilderness, 

with one exception; the area is open to mineral prospecting and mineral development.

• Recommended Wilderness: These areas are recommended for wilderness designation 

and are managed to retain wilderness characteristics.

Management Areas – No Action Alternative

There are 17 management areas used in the no action alternative (1987 plan). A brief description 

of each management area follows. For more details, see the 1987 “Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Plan” (Forest Service, 1987).

• Forest Land: Forested lands managed for a variety of values and uses.

• Woodland: Woodlands managed for a variety of values and uses.

• Riparian: Riparian areas managed to maintain or improve conditions.

• Grasslands: Grasslands managed for a variety of values and uses.

• Developed Recreation Sites: This management area includes developed recreation 

facilities and the areas surrounding them. 

• Mount Baldy Wilderness: Managed to protect wilderness values.

• Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions: Managed similar to wilderness, except open 

for mineral prospecting and development.

• Escudilla Demonstration Area: Area for scientific research on a variety of forest 

management practices.
Appendix D

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 859

• Research Natural Area: This management area contains one research natural area and 

four recommended areas that are managed for scientific study and education.

• Water: Management emphasis is the production of fish and wildlife and dispersed 

recreation use.

• Bear Wallow Wilderness: Managed to protect wilderness values.

• Escudilla Wilderness: Managed to protect wilderness values.

• Black River: Managed for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System.

• West Fork Black River: Managed for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River 

System.

• Chevelon Canyon: Managed for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River 

System.

• East and West Forks Little Colorado River: Managed for possible inclusion into the 

Wild and Scenic River System.

• Sandrock: An area deferred from livestock grazing to accelerate recovery of the 

watershed.

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 861

Appendix E. Other Supporting 

Documentation

The “Plan Set of Documents” is the complete set of documentation supporting the land 

management plan. It includes, but is not limited to, evaluation reports, documentation of public 

involvement, the plan including applicable maps, background documents, and applicable NEPA 

documents. The “Plan Set of Documents” is available in the Supervisor’s Office.

Some of the key components of the “Plan Set of Documents” are outlined in table 204.

Table 204. Other supporting documentation for the FEIS

Document Description

FEIS Supporting Documents

Specialist Reports: 

Air Quality, Soil, Water, Riparian, Watershed, 

Fisheries, Vegetation, Forest Health, Fire, Wildlife, 

Invasive Species, Recreation, Infrastructure, 

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

Wilderness Resources and Inventoried Roadless 

Areas, Research Natural Areas, Scenic Resources, 

Lands, Cultural Resources, American Indian Rights 

and Interests, Forest Products, Livestock Grazing, 

Minerals and Geology, and Socioeconomic

Specialist reports include supplementary information that 

may not appear in the FEIS including methodology, 

relevant laws, regulations, and policy, assumptions, 

adaptive management considerations, and other planning 

efforts.

Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation Evaluation of the effects of the preferred alternative to 

federally listed species and Regional Forester designated

sensitive species.

Biological Opinion The Biological Opinion is the result of the consultation 

process with USFWS and includes Incidental Take 

Statements, Conservation Recommendations, Reasonable 

and Prudent Measures, and Terms and Conditions relating 

to listed species which occur on the forests.

Species Viability Evaluations Species viability evaluations are documented in the wildlife 

and fisheries specialist reports.

2012 Report on the Selection of Management 

Indicator Species and Ecological Indicators

Documents the process and rational for selection of 

management indicator species (MIS) and ecological 

indicators (EI).

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Other Lands 

and Land Use Plans (May 2011)

A review of the planning and land use policies of other 

Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 

American Indian tribes.

Suitability Analyses Suitability analyses for livestock grazing, timber, and 

recreation can be found in the respective specialist report.

Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic 

River System (May 2009)

Addendum to the Eligibility Report for the National 

Wild and Scenic River System

(April 2012)

Documents the administrative review process, required by 

Forest Service policy, to identify rivers that are eligible for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System.

The addendum updates river conditions in light of the 2011 

Wallow Fire.

Final Potential Wilderness Evaluation Reports

(October 2012)

As required by the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs developed an inventory of 

potential wilderness and evaluated each area.
Appendix E

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

Document Description

Research Natural Area Evaluation (March 2012) The RNA evaluation is documented in the Research 

Natural Area Specialist Report.

Scenery Management System (SMS) Inventory 

Report (March 2009)

Documents the SMS inventory and assessment process for 

the plan revision. 

Need for Change

Comprehensive Evaluation Report

(December 2008)

This report highlights the social, economic, and ecological 

conditions and trends in and around the Apache-Sitgreaves, 

as detailed in the Ecological Sustainability Report, the 

Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment, and the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ Resource Evaluations. 

It summarizes the need for change for revising the 1987 

plan. 

CER Supplement to Meet AMS Requirements

(March 2010)

Documents how the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ assessments

conform to the 1982 Planning Rule provisions.

Wallow Fire Changed Condition Assessment

(December 2012)

Documents the change to existing conditions and the 

proposed plan caused by the 2011 Wallow Fire.

Recreation, Grazing, Minerals, and Timber Demand 

Analysis of the Management Situation

(December 2009)

Estimates of recreation, grazing, mineral, and timber 

demand to help define need for change. Prepared by Joshua 

Wilson and Henry Eichman Economists TEAMS Planning 

Enterprise Unit

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Planning Team Supplement 

to the Demand Report

(February 2010)

Prepared by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ interdisciplinary 

(ID) planning team to supplement the above report.

Ecological Sustainability Report

(December 2008)

Describes how the forests contribute to ecological 

sustainability and defines the ecological needs for change.

Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment 

(January 2009)

Describes how the forests contribute to social and 

economic sustainability and defines the social/economic 

needs for change.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ Resource 

Evaluations

(July 2008)

This document provides detailed information about the 

individual resource and program areas outlined in the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 1987 plan. It describes the current 

conditions and trends, how well the plan is working, and 

what needs to change. 

Vegetation 

Mid-scale Existing Vegetation Map

(2009, updated 2012) 

Forestwide GIS map of vegetation type, canopy cover, and 

structure (size class). 

Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVT) Map Forestwide GIS map showing potential vegetation based on 

terrestrial ecosystem survey.

Ecological and Biological Diversity of National 

Forests in Region 3: Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

(August 2006)

Describes the extent and distribution of PNVTs, condition 

of low-elevation grasslands, distribution of stream reaches 

with native fish, and species richness and conservation 

status. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy. 

Historical Range of Variation for Potential Natural

Vegetation Types of the Southwest

Consists of several papers that document the historical 

range of variation for various PNVTs (chaparral, aspen 
Appendix E

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 863

Document Description

(2006) forest and woodland, Madrean encinal woodland, montane 

subalpine grassland, mixed conifer forest, piñon-juniper 

woodland, ponderosa pine forest, semi-desert grassland, 

and spruce-fir forest). Prepared by The Nature 

Conservancy.

Historic Fire Return Intervals for Arizona and New 

Mexico: A Regional Perspective for Southwestern 

Land Managers

(April 2006)

Identifies the historic fire return intervals for 21 PNVTs 

throughout Arizona and New Mexico. Prepared by The 

Nature Conservancy.

Other Background Documents

Forest Insect and Disease Activity on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and Fort Apache Indian Reservation

(February 2010)

Summarizes the historic and contemporary disturbance 

information of the major forest insects and diseases. 

Prepared by Rocky Mountain Research Station and the 

Arizona Zone Office of Forest Health Protection.

Socioeconomic Assessment of the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests

(2005)

Provides a summary characterizing the social and 

economic environment surrounding the forests by showing 

the linkage between NFS lands and neighboring 

communities. Prepared by Arizona National Forests 

Socioeconomic Assessment Team and The University of 

Arizona School of Natural Resources. Manager’s 

summary, annotated bibliography, and a supplement to the 

socioeconomic assessment are available.

Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs Toward National 

Forest System Lands: Arizona Tribal Peoples

(April 2006)

Describes the context for tribal involvement in plan 

revision and management decisionmaking, the beliefs and 

values about the consultation process, and resource and 

multiple-use beliefs and values. Prepared by John C. 

Russell, Ph D. and Peggy A. Adams-Russell.

Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs Toward National 

Forest System Lands: The Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest (May 2006)

Describes the values, attitudes, and beliefs of local 

stakeholders toward the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Prepared 

by John C. Russell, Ph D. and Peggy A. Adams-Russell.

Collaboration

Public Participation Plan Outlines the public participation strategy for the plan 

revision process. 

Collaboration Log Spreadsheet that tracks public involvement and public 

contacts.

ReVision Review and Messages from the Forest 

Supervisor

Newsletters and updates sent to the plan revision mailing 

list and posted to the web to help inform stakeholders about 

the revision process.

Mailing lists Mailing lists used for each public outreach effort.

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 865

Appendix F. Collaboration

and Public Involvement

This appendix describes the collaborative process and key public involvement opportunities for 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan revision effort. More detailed information, including the Public 

Participation Plan (Forest Service, 2014b) and the Collaboration Log (Forest Service, 2014a), can 

be found in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Plan Revision Timeline

Table 205 below provides a summary of the key steps in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ plan 

revision process. Plan revision has been conducted under several different planning rules since 

revision activities began in 2006 (see information in the next section). This table also lists the 

planning rule that was in effect at various points in the process.

Table 205. Timeline of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ plan revision process

Date Started Key Step Planning 

Rule in Effect

April 2006 Interdisciplinary (ID) planning team is formed to begin revision of the 

1987 plan

2005

Spring 2006 Public and Forest Service employee meetings to identify need for 

change

2005

March 2007 U.S. District Court in California enjoined the Forest Service from using 

the 2005 planning rule

April 2008 The 2008 planning rule is published in the Federal Register

August 2008 Iterative Development of the Proposed Plan - the initial set of draft 

desired conditions is made available for review and comment

2008

September 2008 Iterative Development of the Proposed Plan - public meetings to gather 

feedback on the draft desired conditions

2008

December 2008 Comprehensive Evaluation Report and related documents (Ecological 

Sustainability Report and Economic and Social Sustainability 

Assessment) are available for review and comment

2008

December 2008 Notice of Initiation (to revise the forest plan) is published in the Federal 

Register

2008

June 2009 Iterative Development of the Proposed Plan - the Working Draft Land 

Management Plan is available for review and comment

2008

June 2009 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California enjoined the 

Forest Service from using the 2008 planning rule

December 2009 Notice of Intent (to revise the forest plan and to prepare an EIS) is 

published in the Federal Register; revision efforts proceed following the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule

2000/1982

March 2010 Development of Initial Alternatives – public meetings to gather feedback 

on the initial alternatives 

2000/1982

May 2010 Interdisciplinary (ID) planning team finalizes alternatives and begins

analysis and development of the DEIS and proposed plan

2000/1982
Appendix F

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

Date Started Key Step Planning 

Rule in Effect

May 2011 Wallow Fire – 538,000 acre fire on the Apache National Forest 

interrupts plan revision

2000/1982

August 2011 ID planning team begins to inventory, assess , and document the 

changed conditions caused by the Wallow Fire. The information is used 

to update the DEIS

2000/1982

April 2012 The Forest Service publishes the final rule and record of decision for the 

2012 planning rule

2012/1982

February 15,

2013

Publication of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs proposed plan and DEIS in 

the Federal Register for public review and comment

2012/1982

February 15, 

2013 – May 17, 

2013

90-day public comment period for the proposed plan and DEIS 2012/1982

June 2015 Publication of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs land management plan, FEIS, 

and ROD

2012/1982

Planning Rules

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 directs that every national forest or 

grassland managed by the Forest Service will develop and maintain a land management plan. The 

process for the development and revision of the plans, along with the required content of plans, is 

outlined in the planning regulations (planning rule). Individual forests and grasslands then follow 

the direction of the planning rule to develop a land management plan specific to their unit. 

When the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ plan revision started in 2006, the planning team followed 

direction under the 2005 Planning Rule, which had been finalized by the Forest Service and 

published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2004. The following year, on March 30, 2007, 

the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an injunction that ordered the 

Forest Service to discontinue use of the 2005 Planning Rule. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

complied with the court order, and further planning activities undertaken were in compliance with 

laws and rulings not affected by the injunction. Much of the information and public comments 

gathered prior to the injunction remained useful in the planning effort. Work continued until 

finalization of the 2008 Planning Rule occurred on April 21, 2008. At that time, plan 

development began following guidance from the 2008 rule. 

A little over a year later, on June 30, 2009, the 2008 Planning Rule was enjoined by the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of California and the revision of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs plan was again interrupted. The U.S. Department of Agriculture subsequently determined on 

December 18, 2009, that plans could be amended, revised, or developed using the 2000 Planning 

Rule, as amended. The 2000 Planning Rule’s transition provisions allowed use of the provisions 

of the planning rule in effect prior to the effective date of the 2000 rule, commonly called the 

1982 Planning Rule. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ planning effort moved forward using the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule and a notice of intent to revise the plan and publish a DEIS 

was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 1009. 

The Forest Service published the current planning rule, the 2012 Planning Rule, in the Federal 

Register on April 9, 2012. The transition provision, 36 CFR § 219.17(b)(3), of the 2012 Planning 
Appendix F

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 867

Rule allows the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to continue to use the provisions of the 1982 planning to 

revise the plan.

Key Collaboration and Public 

Involvement Steps in the Revision Process

This section lists some of the key collaboration and public involvement activities that have 

occurred in the revision process. In addition to the activities listed in the tables below, several 

other tools were used to communicate with the public and other entities. Information about the 

process, including assessments, draft documents, timelines, letters, and meeting announcements 

were posted to the forests’ Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/asnf/. Newspaper articles, radio 

announcements, flyers, legal notices, comment periods, presentations to groups, phone calls, oneon-one meetings, and other tools were used to share information about revision and gather input.

Identification of the Need for Change

The initial step in revising the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 1987 plan was to identify the need for 

change in the land management plan. Two primary methods were used to do this: (1) public and 

employee input and (2) science-based evaluations. A series of meetings and workshops were 

conducted to ask “what needs to change in the current forest plan or current forest management.”

Public and employee input was supplemented with science-based reports describing conditions, 

trends, and risks to sustainability that indicate where the 1987 plan does not provide adequate 

guidance for the present and future management of the forests. Some of the key actions taken to 

identify the need for change are outlined in table 206.

Table 206. Key actions related to the identification of the need for change

Date Action Description

2005 Report - Socioeconomic 

Assessment for the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests

The report profiles the social and economic 

environment surrounding the Apache-Sitgreaves

NFs.

March 2006 Mailing and Flyers Letter to mailing list lets receipents know that 

the forests are beginning forest plan revision. 

Invites them to be involved by returning 

postcard so that the mailing list can be updated.

Flyers distributed via frontliners, meetings, post 

offices, campgrounds, etc. Intent to notify folks 

this summer (especially visitors).

March 2006 Meetings with Employees Meetings at all ranger districts and the 

Supervisor’s Office to provide an overview of 

revision and conduct an exercise to identify 

geographic areas, themes, and need for change.

April 2006 Report – Values, Attitudes and 

Beliefs Toward National Forest 

System Lands: Arizona Tribal 

Peoples

The report contains information on values and 

beliefs of Arizona tribal peoples about national 

forest lands based on discussion/focus groups.
Appendix F

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

Date Action Description

May 2006 Report - Values, Attitudes and 

Beliefs toward National Forest 

System Lands: The ApacheSitgreaves National Forests

The report documents the results of a project to 

identify values, attitudes, and beliefs (VAB) 

about forest resources and their management for 

all national forests and grasslands in the 

Southwestern Region, including the ApacheSitgreaves NFs.

May – July 2006 Meetings with Greenlee, Navajo, 

Apache Counties, Arizona Game 

and Fish Department (AZGFD),

Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, and Natural Resource 

Conservation District (NRCD).

Meetings to provide an overview of plan 

revision and ask for input on the need for 

change.

July – September 2006

7/17 – Clifton

7/18 – Safford

7/19 – Greer

7/20 –

Eagar/Springerville

8/1 – San Carlos

8/3 – Pinetop-Lakeside

8/9 – Whiteriver

8/10 – Alpine

8/29 – Heber/Overgaard/

Forest Lakes

8/30 – Clay 

Springs/Linden/

Pinedale

8/31 – Nutrioso

9/14 – Blue

9/19 – Vernon

9/21 – Snowflake/Taylor

9/27 – Winslow

Public Meetings Meetings to share information about the forests, 

the new planning rule, the planning schedule, 

and how interested parties can become 

involved. Participants were asked what they 

value about the national forests, what significant 

changes have occurred over the last 20 years, 

and what forest managers should focus on 

during the next 20 years. Participants 

encouraged to join discussion groups to further 

explore topics or issues.

October 2006 Mailing – Letter from the Forest 

Supervisor

A followup to the July-Sept 2006 public 

meetings – the letter explains where to find 

meeting notes and announces the next round of 

public meetings.

October – November 

2006

Comment Analysis ID planning team reviews public comments and 

summarizes need for change.

December 2006 Mailing – ReVision Review 

Newsletter

Newsletter outlines what we've heard so far as 

well as background on revision and how folks 

can become involved. 
Appendix F

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 869

Date Action Description

January 2007

1/9 – Clifton

1/11 – Alpine

1/16 – Eagar

1/17 – Heber/Overgaard

1/18 – Show Low

Pubilc Meetings/Workshops Meetings to obtain more information about 

issues/topics. Participants asked to share what 

they feel is a priority (or are priorities) to focus 

on during revision. 

January – February 2007 Employee Meetings Meetings to gather feedback from employees on 

issues/topics and what they feel is a priority (or 

are priorities) to focus on during revision.

February 2007 Mailing – Message from the

Forest Supervisor

Followup to January 2007 public meetings. The 

letter explains where to find meeting notes and 

discusses the development of the 

Comprehensive Evaluation Report, next 

meetings, and dates for upcoming meetings on 

the Tonto NF.

March 2007

3/5 Mesa

3/13 Cave Creek

Public Meetings – Tonto NF During Tonto NF revision meetings, provide

status of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs revision 

process and encourage folks to sign up for the 

mailing list and submit comments.

March 2007 Meeting with local, state, and 

tribal representatives – social and 

economic sustainability 

assessment

Opportunity for participants to provide feedback 

on the draft social and economic sustainability 

assessment.

April 2007 Public Meetings Sponsored by the 

Arizona Game and Fish 

Department

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

informational meetings on how to become 

involved in the process of Federal land 

management plan. Forest representatives attend 

and answer questions.

July 2007 Mailing – ReVision Review 

Newsletter

Newsletter outlines the key findings of 

assessments, public input, and need for change 

and requests comments.

August 2007 Wildlife Discussion Group A group of interested publics, Forest Service, 

and other agency representatives meet to 

discuss the key findings from the draft 

ecological sustainability report and species list.

October 2007 Mailing – Update from the Forest 

Supervisor

The letter includes information about new 

proposed planning rule, upcoming public 

meeting to share technical information 

regarding processes, and science used in the 

upcoming need for change report. Next step 

together (sometime in 2008) will be describing 

the desired ecological, economic, and social 

outcomes of forest management. 

November 2007 Public Meeting – Findings from 

the Sustainability Reports

A public meeting to share the more technical 

findings regarding need for change. The

findings are a result of the work completed so 

far on the social-economic and ecological 

sustainability reports.
Appendix F

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

Date Action Description

November 2007 Meeting - Range Discussion 

Group

A group of interested publics, Forest Service, 

and other agency representatives discuss status 

of revision and next steps of revision process:

desired conditions and objectives.

April 2008 Mailing – Message from the 

Acting Forest Supervisor

Letter announces retirement of former Forest 

Supervisor Elaine Zieroth, release of the 2008 

Planning Rule, and notice of amendment to 

current 1987 plan.

June 2008 Meeting – Wildlife Discussion 

Group

A group of interested publics, Forest Service, 

and other agency representatives meet to review 

and refine the species diversity lists.

July 2008 Report – Forest Plan Revision 

Resource Evaluations

The report details information about individual 

resource and program areas outlined in the 1987 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan.

December 2008 Mailing – ReVision Review 

Newsletter

Newsletter provides status of revision, including 

message from new forest supervisor, upcoming 

publication of the NOI, and summary of need 

for change. 

December 2008 Report – Ecological Sustainability

Report

Report about the ecological environment of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the surrounding 

area. This report profiles the diversity of 

ecosystems and species, and identifies threats 

and associated risks. It also provides 

information regarding needs for ecological 

change.

December 2008 Report – Comprehensive 

Evaluation Report

This report highlights the social, economic, and 

ecological conditions and trends in and around 

the forests, as detailed in the Ecological 

Sustainability Report, the Economic and Social 

Sustainability Assessment, and the Resource 

Evaluations.

December 2008 Notice of Initiation The Notice of Initiation to begin forest plan 

revision was published in the Federal Register 

on 12/16/2008. The legal notice was published 

in the White Mountain Independent.

January 2009 Report – Economic and Social 

Sustainability Assessment

The report documents the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs contribution to economic and social 

sustainability within the assessment area.

May 2009 Report – Eligibility Report of the 

National Wild and Scenic River 

System

Comprehensive evaluation of the potential for 

rivers on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to be 

eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. Note: addendum 

completed in April 2012

June 2009 Report – Draft Potential 

Wilderness Evaluation

Draft reports made available for public 

comment. The Forest Service evaluated all 

lands possessing wilderness characteristics for 

potential wilderness during plan revision. The

reports presents the evaluation findings.
Appendix F

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 871

Date Action Description

June 2009 Comment Analysis ID planning team reviews comments received 

during the Notice of Initiation comment period 

and validates the need for change topics

February 2010 Report – Forest Insect and 

Disease Activity on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and Forest 

Apache Indian Reservation

An assessment of insect and disease impacts.

March 2010 Report – CER Suppment to Meet 

AMS Requirements

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule

require the completion of an Analysis of the 

Management Situation (AMS). The previously 

published Comprehensive Evaluation Report 

met most of this requirement. This report 

addresses the remaining AMS requirements. 

Note: planning team supplement completed 

February 2010

December 2010 Report – Final Potential 

Wilderness Evaluation

Reports for those lands that were evaluated and 

met the criteria for potential wilderness. Note: 

reports updated and additional reports

completed in 2012

Iterative Development of the Proposed Plan

The next stage of the revision process was to develop the proposed plan. Initial efforts were 

focused on describing the desired conditions for the forests. Desired conditions are the social, 

economic, and ecological attributes toward which management of the land and resources is to be 

directed. After using public and employee input to refine the desired condition statements, the 

next step was to draft the remaining plan components. The Working Draft Land Management 

Plan was published to provide a foundation for collaborative discussion and feedback which

evolved into the proposed plan. Table 207 identifies some of the key actions completed during the 

iterative development of the proposed plan.
Appendix F

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

Table 207. Key actions related to the iterative development of the proposed plan

Date Action Description

August 2008 Initial Draft Desired Conditions The initial set of draft desired conditions are 

available for review and input.

August 2008 Mailing – Message from the 

Acting Forest Supervisor

Letter provides an update on revision, including 

upcoming open houses and an initial draft desired 

conditions packet.

August – October 

2008

Employee Meetings Meetings to provide status of revision, summary 

of need for change, what the revised forest plan 

will look like, and obtain feedback on initial draft 

desired conditions.

September 2008

9/3 – Alpine

9/4 – Show Low

9/5 – Springerville

9/9 – Overgaard

9/11 – Clifton

Public Meetings – Initial Draft 

Desired Conditions

Open houses to answer questions and gather 

input on the initial draft desired conditions.

October 2008 Comment Analysis ID planning team reviews public comments on 

the initial draft desired conditions and uses input 

to update desired condition language.

December 2008 Newsletter – ReVision Review Newsletter shares status of revision, including 

message from the new Forest Supervisor, 

upcoming publication of the NOI, and summary 

of need for change.

April-May 2009 Employee Meetings Meetings provide overview of the upcoming

working draft plan, how it is organized, and 

request comment and feedback.

June 2009 Working Draft Land Management 

Plan

The Working Draft Land Mangement Plan is

made available and serves as a foundation for 

collaborative discussion and feedback.

June 2009 Mailing – Message from the Forest 

Supervisor & Users Guide to the 

Working Draft Plan

Letter includes a status of revision and announces 

release of the Working Draft Land Management 

Plan for review. Attached is a Users Guide of the 

Working Draft Plan to aid review.

August 2009 Mailing – Message from the Forest 

Supervisor

Letter includes update on status of revision, 

including update on enjoinment of 2008 Planning 

Rule and discontinued use of the 2008 Planning 

Rule.

September 2009 Comment Analysis ID planning team reviewes public comments on 

the Working Draft Land Management Plan and 

uses input to modify draft plan language and 

identify issues.

December 2009 Mailing – Message from the Forest 

Supervisor

Letter includes update on status of plan revision 

and announces upcoming publication of Notice 

of Intent in the Federal Register. Also announces

that the revision process will follow the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule.
Appendix F

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 873

Date Action Description

December 2009 Notice of Intent The Notice of Intent to revise the forest plan and

prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS)

published in the Federal Register on 12/29/2009. 

Legal notice published in White Mountain

Independent.

March –May 2010 Meetings – Catron County Board

of Commissioners, Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, Greenlee 

County Board of Supervisors.

Meetings to provide update on forest activities,

including plan revision.

Development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The next stage in the revision process was to develop alternatives to address issues not covered by 

the proposed plan. Once the alternatives were identified, the planning team began to develop the 

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The DEIS analyzes the effects of implementing the 

alternatives. Table 208 outlines some of the key actions taken during the development of the 

DEIS.

Table 208. Key actions related to the development of the DEIS

Date Action Description

March 2010 Initial Draft Alternatives The initial draft alternatives and associated maps (e.g., 

management areas, suitability) are made available for 

review and comment.

March 2010 Mailing – Message from 

the Forest Supervisor

Letter includes update on progress of revision, the 

upcoming development of an EIS, explanation of 

alternatives, presents the initial draft alternatives 

developed by the forest, asks for comment, and 

announces open house meetings in April. Includes 

detailed description of the four initial draft alternatives.

March - April 2010 Employee Meetings Meetings to discuss and gather feedback on the initial 

draft alternatives.

April 2010

4/12 – Clifton

4/14 – 

Heber/Overgaard

4/15 – Lakeside

4/19 − Eagar

Public Meetings Public open house forum meetings to discuss initial draft 

alternatives and gather feedback.

May 2010 Comment Analysis ID planning team reviews public comments on initial 

draft alternatives and uses to refine alternatives. 

August 2010 Mailing - Postcards Postcards sent to the mailing list. Recipients are asked to 

identify the format (e.g., printed, electronic) of DEIS

they prefer. 

September 2010 Mailing – Message from 

the Forest Supervisor

Letter includes reference to the comments received on 

the initial draft alternatives and current status of revision.
Appendix F

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

Date Action Description

May−June 2011 Wallow Fire The 538,000-acre Wallow Fire burns on the Apache NF. 

Progress on plan revision is interrupted.

August 2011 Mailing – Message from 

the Forest Supervisor

Letter provides the status of forest plan revision postWallow Fire. ID planning team is assessing changes and 

working on proposed plan and DEIS.

January 2012 Meetings – Greenlee 

County Board of 

Supervisors, Apache 

County Natural Resouce 

Conservation District, 

Navajo County, Arizona 

Game and Fish Department

Meetings with forest supervisor and deputy forest 

supervisor to discuss status of plan revision.

May 2012 Mailing – Message from 

the Forest Supervisor

Letter provides update on status of revision: ID planning 

team is developing the DEIS. The proposed plan and 

DEIS are scheduled to be available for review and 

comment this fall. Letter references new planning rule 

and states that the forests are still following the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule.

January−March 2013 Employee Meetings Meetings to discuss the upcoming release of the 

proposed plan and DEIS.

February 4, 2013 Mailing – Letter from the 

Forest Supervisor

Letter announces the availability of the proposed plan, 

DEIS, and associated documents for review. Also 

anticipates the publication of the Notice of Availability 

to occur on February 15, 2013.

February 15, 2013 Notice of Availability 

(NOA)

NOA published in the Federal Register on Friday, 

February 15, 2013, announces the release of the 

proposed plan and DEIS. The publication of the NOA 

begins the 90-day public comment period.

February 2013

2/26 − Show Low

2/27 − Springerville

2/28 − Duncan 

(Clifton)

Public Meetings Open house format public meetings to discuss the 

proposed plan and DEIS. 

Development of the Final Proposed Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement

The last stage in the revision process was to develop the final proposed land management plan 

(plan) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and to document the responsible official’s 

decision in the record of decision (ROD). Table 209 outlines some of the key actions taken during 

the finalization of these documents.
Appendix F

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 875

Table 209. Key actions related to the development of the final proposed plan and FEIS

Date Action Description

May 2013 – April 

2014

Analysis of Public 

Comment

The forests received over 41,000 comment letters. Of these

letters, 145 letters contained unique and substantially different 

comments. In addition 7 different form letters were received. 

The plannng team, with the assistance of the TEAMS 

enterprise team, read, sorted, grouped, and responded to 

public comments. These responses are located in appendix A 

of this FEIS. The plan and FEIS reflect changes resulting 

from public and internal comments.

March 2014 Mailing – Letter from the 

Forest Supervisor

Letter provides an update on the status of plan revision. 

Describes current efforts (comment analysis, consultation) 

and estimates the release of the plan and FEIS in fall 2014.

May 2015 State Historic 

Preservation Office

The Arizona SHPO declined to comment on the DEIS or 

Draft Land Management Plan.

Sept 2013 – May 

2015

Consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

The forests consulted with USFWS on the effects of 

implementation of the Revised Land Management Plan on 

federally listed species on the forests. This consultation 

resulted in the issuance of a Biological Opinion, which is 

available on the forests’ planning web page. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/asnf/landmanagement/planning/

June 2015 Notice of Availability 

(NOA) and Record of 

Decision (ROD)

The NOA was published in the Federal Register [citation]. 

The Record of Decision was signed on [date] and is available 

on the forests’ planning web page. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/asnf/landmanagement/planning/

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 of 2009, the tribes were sent a letter that provided the status of 

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

and concerns. In addition to consultation, the tribes have been included in all public outreach 

efforts throughout the plan revision process.

Three tribes provided written responses: White Mountain Apache Tribe, Navajo Nation, and 

Tonto Apache Tribe. Consultation meetings were held with the San Carlos Apache Tribe (August 

and November 2006), White Mountain Apache Tribe (August 2006, March 2007, April 2010), 

Navajo Nation (August 2006, September 2008, December 2009), Hopi Tribe (August 2006, 

November 2009), and Pueblo of Zuni (August 2006, September 2008, July 2011).
Appendix F

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

Tribes were sent a copy of the proposed land management plan and DEIS for their review in 

February 2013, slightly before the documents were released to the public. The Yavapai-Prescott 

Tribe provided written comments.

References

U.S. Forest Service. (2014a). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Collaboration Log.

Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014b). Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Public Participation Plan.

Springerville, AZ.
Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 877

Appendix G. Plan

Decisions and Species Viability

The following table (table 210) provides a crosswalk that shows how fine filter plan decisions 

meet species viability needs. More detailed information on individual species and the species 

viability analysis can be found in the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 

2012b) and the “Fisheries Specialist and Viability Report” (Forest Service, 2014a).

As part of the plan revision process, coarse filter plan decisions (i.e., desired condition

statements) were developed that describe the desired outcomes and conditions for vegetation, 

riparian, and aquatic features, and other resources within the planning area. These desired 

conditions provide habitat for wildlife which helps to reduce risks to species and provides for 

their viability. Where desired conditions would result in low to moderate risk ratings for some 

species, meeting and maintaining those desired conditions would provide for their population 

viability. This is because low to moderate ratings of risk are assumed to be similar enough to 

normal ecosystem fluctuations and therefore within a species’ ability to adjust, thus posing little 

risk to viability. Where the risk rating would be moderately-high, high, or very high, additional 

fine filter plan components (e.g., standards, guidelines) were developed to address or mitigate 

risk. However, the coarse-fine filter approach is not entirely discrete in that standards and 

guidelines can contribute to viability for some coarse filter species; while the needs of fine filter 

species can also be provided for, in part, by coarse filter desired conditions and PNVTs.

The crosswalk in table 210 lists those fine filter plan decisions that reduce risks to species and 

provide for viability. Other plan decisions (objectives, special areas, suitability, and monitoring) 

and management area allocations also contribute to species viability and are discussed in the 

“Wildlife and Rare Plants” and “Fisheries” sections of chapter 3 of the FEIS.

In the table below, the following abbreviations are used:

ST = standard 

GL = guideline

PNVT = potential natural vegetation type

FPS = forest planning species
878

Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 210. Species crosswalk for how plan decisions meet species’ viability needs

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

All PNVTs, all habitat 

elements, and other factors 

of concern

All FPS GLs for Soil: Projects with ground-disturbing activities should be designed to minimize long- and shortterm impacts to soil resources. Where disturbance cannot be avoided, project-specific soil and water 

conservation practices should be developed.

Severely disturbed sites should be revegetated with native plant species when loss of long-term soil

productivity is predicted.

Locally collected seed should be used where available and cost effective. Seeds should be tested to ensure 

they are free from noxious weeds and invasive nonnative plants at a State-certified seed testing laboratory 

before acceptance and mixing.

Coarse woody debris retention and/or creation should be used as needed to help retain long-term soil 

productivity.

GL for Water Resources: Projects with ground-disturbing activities should be designed to minimize long 

and short-term impacts to water resources. Where disturbance cannot be avoided, project-specific soil and 

water conservation practices and best management practices (BMPs) should be developed.

ST for All PNVTs: Vegetation treatments shall include measures to reduce the potential for the 

introduction of invasive plants and animals and damage from nonnative insects and diseases.

GLs for All PNVTs: During project design and implementation, precautions should be taken to reduce the 

potential for damage to residual vegetation in order to prevent premature or excessive mortality.

Landscape scale restoration projects should be designed to spread treatments out spatially and/or temporally 

within the project area to reduce implementation impacts and allow reestablishment of vegetation and soil 

cover.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants and Aquatic Habitat and Species: Management and activities should 

not contribute to a trend toward the Federal listing of a species.

Activities occurring within federally listed species habitat should apply habitat management direction and 

species protection measures from recovery plans.

The needs of localized species (e.g., New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, Bebb willow, White Mountains

paintbrush) should be considered and provided for during project activities to ensure their limited or 

specialized habitats are not lost or degraded.

ST for Invasive Species: Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential for the 

introduction of new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or terrestrial nonnative
Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 879

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

populations.

GLs for Invasive Species: Project areas should be monitored to ensure there is no introduction or spread of 

invasive species.

Treatment of invasive species should be designed to effectively control or eliminate them; multiple 

treatments may be needed.

GLs for Landscape Scale Disturbance Events: Erosion control mitigation features should be implemented 

to protect significant resource values and infrastructure such as stream channels, roads, structures, 

threatened and endangered species, and cultural resources.

Projects and activities (e.g., revegetation, mulching, lop and scatter) should be designed to stabilize soils 

and restore nutrient cycling, if needed, and establish movement toward the desired conditions for the 

affected PNVT(s).

GL for Motorized Opportunities: New roads or motorized trails should be located to avoid Mexican 

spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs), northern goshawk post-fledging family areas (PFAs), and 

other wildlife areas as identified; seasonal restrictions may be an option.

ST for Forest Products: Authorizations to cut, collect, or use forest products for any personal, commercial, 

or scientific purpose (i.e., permits, contracts, agreements) shall include provisions to ensure the needs of 

wildlife, which depend upon those forest products, will continue to be met (e.g., fungi and cone collection 

with respect to overwinter forage needs of squirrels).

GLs for Livestock Grazing: Grazing use on seasonal allotments should be timed to the appropriate plant 

growth stage and soil moisture.

Forage, browse, and cover needs of wildlife, authorized livestock, and wild horses should be managed in 

balance with available forage so that plants providing for these needs remain at or move toward a healthy, 

persistent state.

GL for Wildlife Quiet AreaManagement Area: Restoration treatments should consider the needs of 

wildlife (e.g., calving/fawning areas, wallows, game crossings) to minimize potential impacts to the species 

and their habitat.

ST for WildernessManagement Area: Human-caused disturbed areas that do not complement wilderness 

characteristics will be rehabilitated to a natural appearance, using plant species or other materials native to 

the area.

ST for Recommended Wilderness Management Area: Human-caused disturbed areas that do not 

complement wilderness characteristics shall be rehabilitated to a natural appearance, using plant species or 

other materials native to the area.
880

Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

GL for Research Natural AreaManagement Area: To minimize impacts to unique and sensitive plant 

species, recreational activities (other than use on the designated trail) should not be encouraged.

GL for Recommended Research Natural Area Management Area: To minimize impacts to unique and 

sensitive plant and animal species, recreational activities should not be encouraged.

Forested PNVTs All FPS listed under 

ponderosa pine, dry mixed 

conifer, wet mixed conifer 

and spruce-fir forested 

PNVTs

GLs for All Forested PNVTs: Where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late seral 

states and species composition on a landscape scale, old growth characteristics should be retained or 

encouraged to the greatest extent possible within the scope of meeting other desired conditions (e.g., reduce 

impacts from insects and disease, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire). 

Healthy southwestern white pine should be retained to maintain the wide range of genetic variability that 

contributes to resistance against the nonnative white pine blister rust disease.

Tree species that are less susceptible to root disease should be retained within areas of root disease infection 

to reduce spread of disease.

When thinning dwarf mistletoe infected sites, as much mistletoe should be removed as possible without 

sacrificing the healthiest, most desirable trees for the particular site (in some situations this may involve 

retaining some trees in the upper canopy that are lightly infected to meet multiple resource objectives).

Trees, snags, and logs immediately adjacent to active red squirrel cone caches, Abert’s squirrel nests, and 

raptor nests should be retained to maintain needed habitat components and provide tree groupings.

Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover should be provided where needed by 

wildlife.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: A minimum of six nest areas (known and replacement) should be 

located per northern goshawk territory. Northern goshawk nest and replacement nest areas should be located 

around active nests, in drainages, at the base of slopes, and on northerly (northwest to northeast) aspects. 

Nest areas should be 25 to 30 acres each in size.

Northern goshawk post-fledging family areas (PFAs) of approximately 420 acres in size should be 

designated around the nest sites.

During treatments, snags should be retained in the largest diameter classes available as needed to meet 

wildlife or other resource needs.

Active raptor nests should be protected from treatments and disturbance during the nesting season to 

provide for successful reproduction. Specifically for goshawk nest areas, human presence should be 

minimized during nesting season of March 1 through September 30.
Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 881

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Ponderosa pine forested

PNVT

Arizona myotis bat, Abert’s 

squirrel, northern goshawk, 

zone-tailed hawk, Grace’s 

warbler, flammulated owl, 

Mexican spotted owl 

(where Gambel oak)

GL for Ponderosa Pine: Where Gambel oak or other native hardwood trees and shrubs are desirable to 

retain for diversity, treatments should improve vigor and growth of these species.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Dry mixed conifer forested

PNVT

Arizona myotis bat, red 

squirrel, northern goshawk, 

flammulated owl, Mexican 

spotted owl

GL for Dry Mixed Conifer: Where Gambel oak or other native hardwood trees and shrubs are desirable to 

retain for diversity, treatments should improve vigor and growth of these species.

GL for Aspen: Restoration of aspen clones should occur where aspen is overmature or in decline to 

maintain a sustainable presence of this species at the landscape level.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Wet mixed conifer 

forested PNVT

red squirrel, black bear, 

northern goshawk, redfaced warbler, dusky blue 

grouse, MacGillvray’s 

warbler, Mexican spotted 

owl, yellow lady’s slipper, 

wood nymph, heathleaf 

ragwort, yellow Jacob’sladder, hooded lady’s 

tresses

GL for Aspen: Restoration of aspen clones should occur where aspen is overmature or in decline to 

maintain a sustainable presence of this species at the landscape level.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Spruce-fir forested PNVT red squirrel, black bear, 

Mexican spotted owl, 

crenulate moonwort, White 

Mountains paintbrush, 

yellow lady’s slipper, wood 

nymph, heathleaf ragwort, 

yellow Jacob’s-ladder, 

hooded lady’s tresses

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.
882

Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Madrean pine-oak 

woodland PNVT

mule deer (winter), juniper 

titmouse, Mexican spotted 

owl (often in association 

with canyons), gray vireo, 

Bigelow’s onion

GL for All Woodland PNVTs: Treatments should leave single or small groups of medium to large trees 

that are widely spaced with expanses of herbaceous vegetation and coarse woody debris to provide for soil 

productivity, traditional uses (e.g., piñon nut gathering), and wildlife needs such as foraging habitat for 

migratory birds (e.g., black-throated gray warbler, pinyon jay) and other birds.

GL for Madrean pine-oak woodland: Where Mexican spotted owls are found nesting in canyons or on 

north slopes within the Madrean pine-oak woodland, adjacent treatments should be modified to meet the 

needs of foraging owls.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

During treatments, snags should be retained in the largest diameter classes available as needed to meet 

wildlife or other resource needs.

Active raptor nests should be protected from treatments and disturbance during the nesting season to 

provide for successful reproduction. Specifically for goshawk nest areas, human presence should be 

minimized during nesting season of March 1 through September 30.

Montane/subalpine

grasslands PNVT

pronghorn antelope, 

Gunnison’s prairie dog, 

dwarf shrew, savannah 

sparrow, splachnoid dung 

moss

ST for ALL PNVTs: Within each PNVT, vegetation management activities shall be designed to maintain 

or move plant composition towards a moderate to high plant community similarity as compared to site 

potential.

GLs for Grasslands: New fence construction or reconstruction where pronghorn antelope may be present

should have a barbless bottom wire which is 18 inches from the ground to facilitate movement between 

pastures and other fenced areas. Pole and other types of fences should also provide for pronghorn antelope 

passage where they are present.

Pronghorn antelope fence and other crossings should be installed along known movement corridors to 

prevent habitat fragmentation.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Prairie dog controls should not be authorized except when consistent with approved State of Arizona 

Gunnison’s prairie dog conservation strategies.

GL for Livestock Grazing: Grazing use on seasonal allotments should be timed to the appropriate plant 

growth stage and soil moisture.
Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 883

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Great Basin grassland 

PNVT

pronghorn antelope, 

Gunnison’s prairie dog, 

Arizona sunflower

ST for ALL PNVTs: Within each PNVT, vegetation management activities shall be designed to maintain 

or move plant composition towards a moderate to high plant community similarity as compared to site 

potential.

GLs for Grasslands: New fence construction or reconstruction where pronghorn antelope may be present 

should have a barbless bottom wire which is 18 inches from the ground to facilitate movement between 

pastures and other fenced areas. Pole and other types of fences should also provide for pronghorn antelope 

passage where they are present.

Pronghorn antelope fence and other crossings should be installed along known movement corridors to 

prevent habitat fragmentation.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Prairie dog controls should not be authorized except when consistent with approved State of Arizona 

Gunnison’s prairie dog conservation strategies.

Semi-desert grassland 

PNVT

Bigelow’s onion, Arizona 

sunflower, superb 

penstemon

ST for All PNVTs: Within each PNVT, vegetation management activities shall be designed to maintain or 

move plant composition towards a moderate to high plant community similarity as compared to site 

potential.

GLs for Grasslands: New fence construction or reconstruction where pronghorn antelope may be present 

should have a barbless bottom wire which is 18 inches from the ground to facilitate movement between 

pastures and other fenced areas. Pole and other types of fences should also provide for pronghorn antelope 

passage where they are present.

Pronghorn antelope fence and other crossings should be installed along known movement corridors to 

prevent habitat fragmentation.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Sometimes shaded or often 

wet meadow or forest 

opening 

(ponderosa pine, dry 

mixed conifer, wet mixed 

Mogollon vole, Merriam’s 

shrew, four-spotted 

skipperling butterfly, 

Arizona sneezeweed, 

Mogollon clover, Oak 

Creek triteleia 

GL for All PNVTs: Restoration methods, such as thinning or prescribed fire, should leave a mosaic of 

untreated areas within the larger treated project area to allow recolonization of treated areas by plants, small 

mammals, and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies). 

GL for Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed Conifer Forests: Where consistent with project or activity 

objectives, canopy cover should be retained on the south and southwest sides of small, existing forest 

openings that are naturally cooler and moister. These small (generally one-tenth to one-quarter acre) shaded 
884

Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

conifer, and spruce-fir 

forested and Madrean 

pine-oak woodland 

PNVTs)

openings provide habitat conditions needed by small mammals, plants, and insects (e.g., Merriam’s shrew, 

Mogollon clover, four-spotted skipperling butterfly). Where these openings naturally occur across a project 

area, these conditions should be maintained on an average of two or more such openings per 100 acres.

GL for Riparian Areas: Wet meadows and cienegas should not be used for concentrated activities (e.g., 

equipment storage, forest product or mineral stockpiling, livestock handling facilities, special uses) that 

cause damage to soil and vegetation.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

GLs for Motorized Opportunities: New roads, motorized trails, or designated motorized areas should be 

located to avoid meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high 

concentrations of significant archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or 

mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic species.

As projects occur in riparian or wet meadow areas, unneeded roads or motorized trails should be closed or 

relocated, drainage restored, and native vegetation reestablished to move these areas toward their desired 

condition.

GL for Nonmotorized Opportunities: New nonmotorized routes should avoid meadows, wetlands, 

riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high concentrations of significant archaeological 

sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic 

habitat.

GL for Livestock Grazing: Critical areas (e.g., meadows) should be managed to address the inherent or 

unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts.

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate measures to 

reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

Cool understory microclimate 

(dry mixed conifer 

forested and Madrean 

pine-oak woodland 

PNVTs)

Goodding’s onion, 

Mexican hemlock parsley

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species 

needing these habitat components (e.g., Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains chipmunk, western 

yellow-billed cuckoo).

The needs of localized species (e.g., New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, Bebb willow, White Mountains 

paintbrush) should be considered and provided for during project activities to ensure their limited or 

specialized habitats are not lost or degraded. 

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate measures to 

reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).
Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 885

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Mosaic of conditions

(species that need 

adjacent untreated areas 

for persistence)

lesser long-nosed bat, longtailed vole, dwarf shrew, 

White Mountains ground 

squirrel, Springerville 

pocket mouse, western 

burrowing owl, 

Montezuma’s quail, plateau 

giant tiger beetle, Greene 

milkweed

GL for All PNVTs: Restoration methods, such as thinning or prescribed fire, should leave a mosaic of 

untreated areas within the larger treated project area to allow recolonization of treated areas by plants, small 

mammals, and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies).

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

ST for All PNVTs: Within each PNVT, vegetation management activities shall be designed to maintain or 

move plant composition towards a moderate to high plant community similarity as compared to site 

potential.

Dense, low-mid canopy 

with ample ground 

vegetation/litter and/or 

woody debris 

(dry mixed conifer, wet 

mixed conifer, and 

spruce-fir forested and 

riparian forested PNVTs)

southern red-backed vole, 

dusky blue grouse, western 

red bat, ocelot, White 

Mountains chipmunk, black 

bear, red-faced warbler, 

MacGillvray’s warbler

(mixed broadleaf deciduous 

riparian forest), Swainson’s 

thrush, gray catbird 

(riparian forested PNVTs), 

southwestern willow 

flycatcher (montane willow 

riparian forest)

GL for Soil: Coarse woody debris retention and/or creation should be used as needed to help retain longterm soil productivity.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species needing these habitat components (e.g., 

Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains chipmunk, western yellow-billed cuckoo).

Seasonally wetted swales 

(montane/subalpine and

Great Basin grassland 

PNVTs)

Ferris’ copper butterfly, 

Alberta artic butterfly, 

nitocris fritillary butterfly, 

nokomis fritillary butterfly, 

Parish alkali grass (alkali 

soils only)

GL for All PNVTs: Restoration methods, such as thinning or prescribed fire, should leave a mosaic of 

untreated areas within the larger treated project area to allow recolonization of treated areas by plants, small 

mammals, and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies).

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate measures to 

reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

High quality water

(all riparian PNVTs)

water shrew, bald eagle,

Arizona toad, Chiricahua 

leopard frog, northern 

leopard frog, lowland 

leopard frog, northern 

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic 

species and riparian vegetation.

GLs for Riparian Areas: Storage of fuels and other toxicants should be located outside of riparian areas to 

prevent spills that could impair water quality or harm aquatic species.
886

Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Mexican gartersnake, 

narrow-headed gartersnake, 

false ameletus mayfly, 

California floater, Mosely 

caddisfly, Arizona snaketail

dragonfly, White 

Mountains water penny 

beetle, Three Forks 

springsnail, Blumer’s dock, 

carnivorous bladderwort, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

Equipment should be fueled or serviced outside of riparian areas to prevent spills that could impair water 

quality or harm aquatic species.

Construction or maintenance equipment service areas should be located and treated to prevent gas, oil, or 

other contaminants from washing or leaching into streams.

GLs for Water Resources: Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water 

should be protected from detrimental changes in water temperature and sediment to protect aquatic species 

and riparian habitat.

Streamside management zones should be in place between streams and disturbed areas and/or road locations 

to maintain water quality and suitable stream temperatures for aquatic species.

As State of Arizona water rights permits (e.g., water impoundments, diversions) are issued, the base level of 

instream flow should be retained by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Constraints (e.g., maximum limit to which water level can be drawn down, minimum distance from a 

connected river, stream, wetland, or groundwater-dependent ecosystem) should be established for new 

groundwater pumping sites permitted on NFS lands in order to protect the character and function of water 

resources.

Short-term impacts in watersheds containing Outstanding Arizona Waters may be allowed when long-term 

benefits to water quality, riparian areas, and aquatic resources would occur.

To protect water quality and aquatic species, heavy equipment and vehicles driven into a water body to 

accomplish work should be completely clean of petroleum residue. Water levels should be below the gear 

boxes of the equipment in use. Lubricants and fuels should be sealed such that inundation by water should 

not result in leaks.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Any action likely to cause a disturbance and take to bald and golden eagles in nesting and young rearing 

areas should be avoided per the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

ST for Dispersed Recreation: Dispersed campsites shall not be designated in areas with sensitive soils or 

within 50 feet of streams, wetlands, or riparian areas to prevent vegetation and bank damage, soil 

compaction, additional sediment, or soil and water contamination.

ST for Motorized Opportunities: Road maintenance and construction activities shall be designed to 

reduce sediment (e.g., water bars, sediment traps, grade dips) while first providing for user safety.

GL for Motorized Opportunities: New roads, motorized trails, or designated motorized areas should be 
Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 887

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

located to avoid meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high 

concentrations of significant archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or 

mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic species.

GL for Nonmotorized Opportunities: New nonmotorized routes should avoid meadows, wetlands, 

riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high concentrations of significant archaeological 

sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic 

habitat.

GL for Livestock Grazing: To minimize potential resource impacts from livestock, salt or nutritional 

supplements should not be placed within a quarter of a mile of any riparian area or water source. Salt or 

nutritional supplements should also be located to minimize herbivory impacts to aspen clones.

STs for Water Uses: Special uses for water diversions shall maintain fish, wildlife, and aesthetic values 

and otherwise protect the environment.

Streams on NFS lands with high aquatic values and at risk from new water diversions shall be preserved and 

protected with instream flow water rights.

Groundwater withdrawals shall not measurably diminish surface waterflows on NFS lands without an 

appropriate surface water right.

Healthy riparian 

conditions (i.e., well 

vegetated and untrampled 

streambanks and 

floodplains)

(all riparian PNVTs)

Arizona montane vole, 

water shrew, NM meadow 

jumping mouse, 

southwestern willow 

flycatcher, peregrine 

falcon, Lincoln’s sparrow

(montane willow riparian 

forest), northern Mexican 

gartersnake, narrow-headed 

gartersnake, Blumer’s 

dock, Arizona willow 

(montane willow riparian 

forest only), Bebb willow, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

GLs for Aquatic Habitat and Species: The needs of rare and unique species associated with wetlands, 

fens, bogs, and springs should be given priority consideration when developing these areas for waterfowl 

habitat and other uses.

Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic species and riparian vegetation.

Projects and activities should avoid damming or impounding free-flowing waters to provide streamflows 

needed for aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

GLs for Riparian Areas: Ground-disturbing projects (including prescribed fire) which may degrade longterm riparian conditions, should be avoided.

Wet meadows and cienegas should not be used for concentrated activities (e.g., equipment storage, forest 

product or mineral stockpiling, livestock handling facilities, special uses) that cause damage to soil and 

vegetation.

Active grazing allotments should be managed to maintain or improve to desired riparian conditions.

ST for Water Resources: Consistent with existing water rights, water diversions or obstructions shall at all 

times allow sufficient water to pass downstream to preserve minimum levels of waterflow which maintain 

aquatic life and other purposes of national forest establishment.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 
888

Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

ST for Motorized Opportunities: Road maintenance and construction activities shall be designed to 

reduce sediment (e.g., water bars, sediment traps, grade dips) while first providing for user safety.

GLs for Motorized Opportunities: New roads, motorized trails, or designated motorized areas should be 

located to avoid meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high 

concentrations of significant archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or 

mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic species.

As projects occur in riparian or wet meadow areas, unneeded roads or motorized trails should be closed or 

relocated, drainage restored, and native vegetation reestablished to move these areas toward their desired 

condition.

Roads and motorized trails removed from the transportation network should be treated in order to avoid 

future risk to hydrologic function and aquatic habitat.

GL for Nonmotorized Opportunities: New nonmotorized routes should avoid meadows, wetlands, 

riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high concentrations of significant archaeological 

sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic 

habitat.

GLs for Livestock Grazing: Critical areas (e.g., riparian) should be managed to address the inherent or 

unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts.

New livestock troughs, tanks, and holding facilities should be located out of riparian areas to reduce

concentration of livestock in these areas. Existing facilities in riparian areas should be modified, relocated, 

or removed where their presence is determined to inhibit movement toward desired riparian or aquatic 

conditions.

To minimize potential resource impacts from livestock, salt or nutritional supplements should not be placed 

within a quarter of a mile of any riparian area or water source. Salt or nutritional supplements should also be 

located to minimize herbivory impacts to aspen clones.

To prevent resource damage (e.g., streambanks) and disturbance to federally listed and sensitive wildlife 

species, trailing of livestock should not occur along riparian areas. Where no alternative route is available, 

approval may be granted where effective mitigation measures are implemented (e.g., timing of trailing, 

number of livestock trailed at one time).

GL for Minerals and Geology: Streambed and floodplain alteration or removal of material should not 

occur if it prevents attainment of riparian, channel morphology, or streambank desired conditions.

GLs for Energy Corridor Management Area: Trees and shrubs in riparian areas should only be removed 
Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 889

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

when there is an imminent threat to facilities and, in these cases, trees should be left for large coarse woody 

debris recruitment into the stream and riparian system.

When planning and implementing vegetation treatments (e.g., corridor maintenance), vegetation within 

riparian zones that provides rooting strength important for bank stability should be encouraged.

Large trees, snags, and/or 

dense canopies

(mixed broadleaf 

deciduous, cotton-willow, 

and montane willow 

riparian forested PNVTs)

beaver, greater western 

mastiff bat, Allen’s bigeared bat, Arizona gray 

squirrel, common blackhawk, evening grosbeak, 

yellow-billed cuckoo, bald 

eagle

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species needing these habitat components (e.g., 

Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains chipmunk, western yellow-billed cuckoo).

During treatments, snags should be retained in the largest diameter classes available as needed to meet 

wildlife or other resource needs.

GL for Landscape Scale Disturbance Events: An adequate number and size of snags and logs, 

appropriate for the affected PNVT, should be retained individually and in clumps to provide benefits for 

wildlife and coarse woody debris for soil and other resource benefits.

Permanent wet meadowlike areas

(wetland/cienega riparian 

areas PNVT including 

fens and bogs) 

Ferris’ copper butterfly, 

nitocris fritillary butterfly, 

nokomis fritillary butterfly, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

GL for All PNVTs: Restoration methods, such as thinning or prescribed fire, should leave a mosaic of 

untreated areas within the larger treated project area to allow recolonization of treated areas by plants, small 

mammals, and insects (e.g., long-tailed voles, fritillary butterflies).

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: The needs of rare and unique species associated with wetlands, fens, 

bogs, and springs should be given priority consideration when developing these areas for waterfowl habitat 

and other uses.

GL for Motorized Opportunities: As projects occur, existing meadow crossings should be relocated or 

redesigned, as needed, to maintain or restore hydrologic function using appropriate tools such as French 

drains and elevated culverts.

GL for Nonmotorized Opportunities: Meadow crossings should be designed or redesigned to maintain or 

restore hydrologic function using appropriate tools such as French drains and elevated culverts.

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate measures to 

reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

Canyon slopes/cliffs, 

caves, rocky slopes (often 

in vicinity of riparian 

areas, often cool microTownsend’s big-eared bat, 

spotted bat, greater western 

mastiff bat, Allen’s bigeared bat, peregrine falcon, 

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Rare and unique features (e.g., talus slopes, cliffs, canyon slopes, caves, fens, bogs, sinkholes) should be 
890

Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

climate)

(all PNVTs)

Eastwood alumroot, 

Arizona alumroot, 

Davidson’s cliff carrot 

protected to retain their distinctive ecological functions and maintain viability of associated species.

The needs of localized species (e.g., New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, Bebb willow, White Mountains 

paintbrush) should be considered and provided for during project activities to ensure their limited or 

specialized habitats are not lost or degraded.

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate measures to 

reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

Habitat connectivity

(all PNVTs)

Mexican wolf, jaguar, 

mountain lion, black bear, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

GL for All PNVTs: Landscape scale restoration projects should be designed to spread treatments out 

spatially and/or temporally within the project area to reduce implementation impacts and allow 

reestablishment of vegetation and soil cover.

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic 

species and riparian vegetation.

GL for All Woodland PNVTs: Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover should 

be provided where needed by wildlife.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

GLs for Overall Recreation Opportunities: Developed and dispersed recreation sites and other authorized 

activities should not be located in places that prevent wildlife or livestock access to available water.

Constructed features should be maintained to support the purpose(s) for which they were built. Constructed 

features should be removed when no longer needed.

GL for Motorized Opportunities: Roads and motorized trails should be designed and located so as to not 

impede terrestrial and aquatic species movement and connectivity.

GL for Nonmotorized Opportunities: New trails and trail relocations should be designed and located so 

as to not impede terrestrial and aquatic species movement and connectivity.

ST for Livestock Grazing: New or reconstructed fencing shall allow for wildlife passage, except where 

specifically intended to exclude wildlife (e.g., elk fencing).

GLs for Wildlife Quite AreaManagement Area: Fences surrounding and within WQAs should be 

inspected and improved to allow wildlife movement within and outside of the areas. Fences should be 

removed if no longer needed.

Hiding cover and travelways for wildlife should be maintained to provide for security and connectivity of 

habitat.
Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 891

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Restoration treatments should consider the needs of wildlife (e.g., calving/fawning areas, wallows, game 

crossings) to minimize potential impacts to the species and their habitat.

Collection or loss from 

management

nitocris fritillary butterfly, 

nokomis fritillary butterfly, 

yellow lady’s slipper, 

hooded lady’s tresses, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

ST for Aquatic Habitat and Species: When drafting (withdrawing) water from streams or other 

waterbodies, measures will be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic organisms and the spread of 

parasites or disease (e.g., Asian tapeworm, chytrid fungus, whirling disease).

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: When new water diversions are created or existing water diversions 

are reanalyzed, measures should be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic organisms.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

GL for Invasive Species: Pesticide use should minimize impacts on non-target plants and animals.

ST for Forest Products: Authorizations to cut, collect, or use forest products for any personal, commercial, 

or scientific purpose (i.e., permits, contracts, agreements) shall include provisions to ensure the needs of 

wildlife, which depend upon those forest products, will continue to be met (e.g., fungi and cone collection 

with respect to overwinter forage needs of squirrels).

GL for Forest Products: Permits issued for forest products should include stipulations to protect resources.

ST for Special Uses: Special use authorizations for the collection of live species with limited distribution 

(e.g., some invertebrates, plants) shall include permit provisions to ensure the species persist onsite.

GL for Special Uses: As applicable, issuance of special use authorizations should incorporate measures to 

reduce potential impacts to wildlife and avoid rare and unique habitats (e.g., bogs, fens).

GLs for Research Natural Area Management Area: Management measures should be used (e.g., 

fencing) to protect unique features. 

To minimize impacts to unique and sensitive plant species, recreational activities, other than use on the 

designated trail, should not be encouraged.

Research special use authorizations should limit impacts to sensitive resources, unique features, and species 

within the RNA.

GLs for Recommended Resarch Natural AreaManagement Area: To minimize impacts to unique and 

sensitive plant and animal species, recreational activities should not be encouraged. 
892

Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

If necessary, recommended RNAs should be fenced to manage unique features.

Research special use authorizations should limit impacts to sensitive resources, unique features, and species 

within recommended RNAs.

Recommended RNAs should be managed for nonmotorized access within the area to minimize ground 

disturbances and protect the resources which make these areas unique.

Nest parasitism southwestern willow 

flycatcher, Grace’s warbler

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

ST for Invasive Species: Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential for the 

introduction of new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or terrestrial nonnative

populations.

Disease Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

spotted bat, western red 

bat, Arizona toad, 

Chiricahua leopard frog, 

northern leopard frog, 

lowland leopard frog, 

Apache trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little Colorado 

spinedace, roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: To prevent degradation of native species habitat and the incidental 

or accidental introduction of diseases or nonnative species, aquatic species should not be transferred through 

management activities from one 6th level HUC watershed to another.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

GL for Livestock Grazing: Efforts (e.g., temporary fencing, increased herding, herding dogs) should be 

made to prevent transfer of disease from domestic sheep and goats to bighorn sheep wherever bighorn sheep 

occur. Permit conversions to domestic sheep or goats should not be allowed in areas adjacent to or inhabited 

by bighorn sheep.

GLs for Minerals and Geology: To reduce disturbances from human activities and prevent the spread of 

disease, bat gates should be constructed and installed in cave and mine entrances used as shelter for bats 

within 3 years of discovery when there are no conflicts with cultural resources.

Caves and abandoned mines that are used by bats should be managed to prevent disturbance to species and 

spread of disease (e.g., white-nose syndrome).

Entrapment FPS that are small

mammals, bats, young of 

other species, Apache trout, 

Gila chub, Gila trout, Little 

Colorado spinedace, 

roundtail chub, loach 

GLs for Aquatic Habitat and Species: Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic 

species and riparian vegetation.

When new water diversions are created or existing water diversions are reanalyzed, measures should be 

taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic organisms.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 
Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 893

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

minnow, and spikedace reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

STs for Livestock Grazing: New or reconstructed fencing shall allow for wildlife passage, except where 

specifically intended to exclude wildlife (e.g., elk fencing).

New livestock watering facilities shall be designed to allow wildlife access and escape.

GL for Livestock Grazing: During maintenance of existing watering facilities, escape ramps that are 

ineffective or missing should be replaced.

GLs for Special Uses: Environmental disturbance should be minimized by co-locating pipelines, power

lines, fiber optic lines, and communications facilities.

Power pole installation or replacement under special use authorization should include raptor protection 

devices in open habitat such as large meadows and grasslands. Raptor protection devices should be installed 

on existing poles where raptors have been killed.

GL for Wildlife Quite AreaManagement Area: Fences surrounding and within WQAs should be 

inspected and improved to allow wildlife movement within and outside of the areas. Fences should be 

removed if no longer needed.

Substantial predation or 

competition from invasive 

species

pronghorn antelope, Three 

Forks springsnail, Apache 

trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, 

Little Colorado spinedace, 

roundtail chub, loach 

minnow, and spikedace

ST for All PNVTs: Vegetation treatments shall include measures to reduce the potential for the 

introduction of invasive plants and animals and damage from nonnative insects and diseases.

GL for Aquatic Habitat and Species: To prevent degradation of native species habitat and the incidental 

or accidental introduction of diseases or nonnative species, aquatic species should not be transferred through 

management activities from one 6th level HUC watershed to another.

GL for Wildlife and Rare Plants Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

ST for Invasive Species: Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential for the 

introduction of new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or terrestrial nonnative

populations.

GL for Invasive Species: Projects and activities should not transfer water between drainages or between 

unconnected waterbodies within the same drainage to avoid spreading disease and aquatic invasive species.

ST for Special Uses: Noxious plants and nonnative invasive species monitoring and control shall be 

included in contracts, permits, and agreements.

GL for High Use Developed Recreation AreaManagement Area: Management should focus on 
894

Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

operation and maintenance, safety, aesthetics, and control of noxious weeds and nonnative invasive species.

GL for Energy CorridorManagement Area: Invasive plant species should be aggressively controlled 

within energy corridors to prevent or minimize spread.

Intentional harassment, 

forced removal, or 

avoidable disturbance

Mexican wolf, Gunnison’s 

prairie dog, black bear, 

many FPS (at least during 

important life cycle 

periods)

GL for All Forested PNVTs: Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover should 

be provided where needed by wildlife.

GL for All Woodland PNVTs: Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover should 

be provided where needed by wildlife.

GLs for Wildlife and Rare Plants: Modifications, mitigations, or other measures should be incorporated to 

reduce negative impacts to plants, animals, and their habitats and to help provide for species needs, 

consistent with project or activity objectives.

Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species needing these habitat components (e.g., 

Goodding’s onion, black bear, White Mountains chipmunk, western yellow-billed cuckoo).

GL for Wildland Fire Management: Firelines, helispots, and fire camps should be located to avoid 

disturbance to critical species and impacts to cultural resources.

GLs for Overall Recreation Opportunities: Developed and dispersed recreation sites and other authorized 

activities should not be located in places that prevent wildlife or livestock access to available water.

Food and other items that attract wildlife should be managed to prevent reliance on humans and to reduce 

human-wildlife conflicts.

GLs for Dispersed Recreation: Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to reduce 

conflicts with wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions.

Dispersed campsites should not be located on or adjacent to archaeological sites or sensitive wildlife areas.

ST for Developed Recreation: Where trash facilities are provided, they shall be bear resistant.

GLs for Special Uses: Large group and recreation event special uses should not be authorized within 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, primitive area, wildlife quiet areas, eligible “wild” river corridors, 

riparian and wetland areas, cultural resource sites, Phelps Cabin Botanical Area, Phelps Cabin Research 

Natural Area (RNA), or recommended RNAs to protect the unique character of these areas.

The use of underground utilities should be favored to avoid potential conflicts with resources (e.g., scenic 

integrity, wildlife, wildfire, heritage).

GLs for Minerals and Geology: To reduce disturbances from human activities and prevent the spread of 

disease, bat gates should be constructed and installed in cave and mine entrances used as shelter for bats 

within 3 years of discovery when there are no conflicts with cultural resources.
Appendix G

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 895

PNVT, Habitat 

Element, or Other 

Factors of Concern

Associated Forest 

Planning Species 

(FPS)

Plan Decisions That Address Risks to Species Viability

Caves and abandoned mines that are used by bats should be managed to prevent disturbance to species and 

spread of disease (e.g., white-nose syndrome).

GLs for Wildlife Quiet Area Management Area: All WQAs should be managed to preclude snowmobile 

use to minimize disturbance during the critical winter period.

WQA boundaries should be signed to identify the areas and educate the public about their purpose.

GL for Research Natural AreaManagement Area: Research special use authorizations should limit 

impacts to sensitive resources, unique features, and species within the RNA.

GL for Recommended Resarch Natural AreaManagement Area: Research special use authorizations 

should limit impacts to sensitive resources, unique features, and species within recommended RNAs.

References

U.S. Forest Service. (2014a). Fisheries Specialist and Viability Report Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Springerville, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service. (2014b). Wildlife Specialist Report - Viability. Springerville, AZ.
Appendices

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