Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan

Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement

Errata

October 6, 2016

These errata in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan Programmatic 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) were identified during appeal resolution as 

follows: 

1. The Forest Service agreed to make certain changes to the FEIS through appeal 

negotiation for the partial withdrawal of Appeal #16-13-00-0006 by Arizona Game and 

Fish Department in a letter dated April 12, 2016, from Regional Forester Calvin Joyner to 

AZGFD Director Larry Voyles. 

2. The Forest Service agreed to make certain changes to the FEIS through appeal 

negotiation for the withdrawal of Appeal #16-13-00-0007 by the International Society for 

the Protection of Mustangs and Burros and TerraWind Ranch Eco-Action Group in a 

letter dated July 1, 2016, from Regional Forester Calvin Joyner to Anthony W. Merrill, 

Polsinelli Law Firm. 

3. Changes to the FEIS were necessitated by the Forests' compliance with instructions 

from Brian Ferebee, Reviewing Officer for the Chief, in a decision letter to Regional 

Forester Calvin Joyner dated July 13, 2016. 

Additions to the text of the FEIS are indicated here by bold text. Deletions are indicated by 

strike-through text. Additions that would be in boldface in the original are indicated by bold 

italics. In addition to the above indicators, minor changes are highlighted in yellow to enhance 

their visibility. [Explanatory text which is not part of the change is enclosed in square brackets.] 
Errata

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

Changes to FEIS through appeal negotiation for partial withdrawal of Appeal #16-

13-00-0006

FEIS v. 1, p. 143

[Add footnote to paragraph 1 as indicated.]

For example, fish stocking on adjacent lands and private inholdings (e.g., ponds, streams, reservoirs) 

continues to impact native fish species and their aquatic habitats on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. While 

providing extensive and highly desirable recreational fishing opportunities, AZGFD continue to impact 

native fish throughout the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs through stocking and management of nonnative fish1. 

Populations of nonnative species (existing and those stocked) on the San Carlos and White Mountain 

Apache tribal lands also contribute to the spread and persistence of nonnative species and further degrade 

existing conditions for native fish species and aquatic habitats.

________________________

1

In August 2011, USFWS and AZGFD published a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) for AZGFD's statewide Sport Fish Stocking Program for the years 2011-2021. The Biological Conference 

and Opinion concluded that the program would, when executed as proposed, not jeopardize the continued existence of 

species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act or result in adverse modification of critical 

habitat. 

FEIS v. 1, p. 148

[Delete the words "due to elk browsing" from paragraph 4.]

With respect to DI, there is an over representation (37 percent) of vegetation structural states that are 

lacking or have limited aspen regeneration due to elk browsing and an under representation (38 percent) 

of large to very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees with closed canopy cover. Historically, 

these forests were dominated by shade tolerant shrub and tree species and had a diverse herbaceous 

understory. 

FEIS v. 1, p. 149

[Delete the words "due to elk browsing" from paragraph 5.]

With respect to DI, there is an over representation (29 percent) of vegetation structural states that are 

lacking or have limited aspen regeneration due to elk browsing. There is an under representation (43 

percent) of large to very large size trees, single-storied or multistoried with closed canopies. Historically, 

these forests were dominated by shade tolerant shrub and tree species and had a diverse herbaceous 

understory. 

Changes to FEIS through appeal negotiation for withdrawal of Appeal #16-13-00-

0007

FEIS v. 1, p. 49

[Add text to end of paragraph 1.]

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the planning area 

and the environmental consequences to those environments that may occur by implementing each 

alternative. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented 

in chapter 2. More detailed information, including methodology and assumptions, can be found in the 

specific resource specialist report located in the “Plan Set of Documents” and available upon request. 
Errata

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

Specialist reports are one of a host of factors considered in the decision-making process. The final 

decision is based on information derived from a number of sources and may not fully reflect 

statements made in the specialist reports. 

FEIS v. 1, p. 336

[Delete paragraph 3.]

Feral horses have become established in several locations within the forests. Herds (small groups) of these 

animals can be found along the western forest boundary on the Apache portion (within the Black River 

drainage on Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts, areas west of Big Lake on the Springerville 

Ranger District, and upper Eagle Creek on the Clifton Ranger District) and along the southern forest 

boundary on the Sitgreaves portion (along and north of Forest Road 300 on the Black Mesa and Lakeside 

Ranger Districts). A feral horse is defined as a free-roaming horse having escaped from domestication. 

Feral horses are escaped domestic horses, or their descendants (branded or unbranded), that strayed, 

escaped, or were deliberately released onto National Forest System lands and continue to survive and 

reproduce on the forests in the wild. Feral horses are animals that do not meet the definition of a wild 

free-roaming horse and are considered unauthorized livestock. These unauthorized animals are negatively 

impacting ecological conditions as well as management opportunities were they occur. Feral horses have 

few natural predators.

FEIS v. 2, p. 531

[Replace definition of "Feral horse" with that of "Feral animal."]

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

(branded or unbranded), that strayed, escaped, or were deliberately released onto National Forest System 

lands and continue to survive and reproduce on the forests in the wild. Feral horses are animals that do not 

meet the definition of a wild free-roaming horse (see wild horse) and are considered unauthorized 

livestock (see unauthorized livestock).

Feral animal – ". . . animals, including horses, burros, cattle, swine, sheep, goats, reindeer, dogs, 

and cats, without ownership that have reverted to the wild from a domestic state . . ." (50 CFR 

30.11). Feral horses and burros are animals that do not meet the definition of a wild free-roaming 

horse in accordance with 36 CFR 222.60(b)(13).

FEIS v. 2, p. 544

[Add definition of "stray animal" to glossary before definition of "Structure."] 

Stray animal – 

 " . . . livestock, bison or ratites whose owner is unknown or cannot be located, or any such 

animal whose owner is known but permits the animal to roam at large on the streets, alleys, 

roads, range or premises of another without permission." (Arizona Revised Statute: Title 3, 

Chapter 11, Article 7, 3-1401) 

 Stray horses and burros are animals that do not meet the definition of a wild free-roaming 

horse in accordance with 16 USC 1332(b), 36 CFR 222.60(b)(13), and 36 CFR 222.63. 

FEIS v. 2, p. 546

[Replace definition of Wild horse (wild free-roaming horse) with that of Wild free-roaming horses 

and burros.]
Errata

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

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

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

introduced onto National Forest System lands on or after December 15, 1971, by accident, negligence, or 

willful disregard of private ownership. Animals that stray from other lands onto National Forest System 

lands are not considered wild free-roaming horses and are not under Forest Service protection. No known 

records or documentation exists that the Apache NF had any unbranded and unclaimed horses prior to 

December 15, 1971. See 36 CFR § 220 and Forest Service Manual 2260 for more information.

Wild free-roaming horses and burros – 

 " ... all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States." 

(16 USC 1332(b)). 

 "Wild free-roaming horses and burros mean all unbranded and unclaimed horses and 

burros and their progeny that have used lands of the National Forest System on or after 

December 15, 1971, or do hereafter use these lands as all or part of their habitat, but does 

not include any horse or burro introduced onto the National Forest System on or after 

December 15, 1971, by accident, negligence, or willful disregard of private ownership. 

Unbranded, claimed horses and burros for which the claim is found to be erroneous, are 

also considered as wild and free-roaming if they meet the criteria above." (36 CFR 

222.60(b)(13)) 

 "Horses and burros not within the definition in § 222.20(b)(13) [recodified as 36 CFR § 

222.60(b)(13)] which are introduced onto Wild Horse and Burro Territories or ranges after 

December 15, 1971, by accident, negligence, or willful disregard of private ownership, and 

which do not become intermingled with wild free-roaming horses or burros shall be 

considered as unauthorized livestock and treated in accordance with provisions in 36 CFR 

261.7 and 262.10." (36 CFR 222.63)

FEIS v. 2, p. 546

[Add a glossary definition for "Wild horse and burro territory" after the definition for "Wild freeroaming horses and burros."]

Wild Horse and Burro Territory – " . . . lands of the National Forest System which are identified by 

the Chief, Forest Service, as lands which were territorial habitat of wild free-roaming horses and/or 

burros at the time of the passage of the Act." (36 CFR 222.60(b)(15))

FEIS v. 2, p. 692

[Revise "response."]

Response: The definition for feral horse animal was added to the plan. See definitions for feral horse

animal, unauthorized livestock, and wild horse free-roaming horses and burros in the plan’s glossary.

FEIS v. 2, p. 693

[Revise "response" (delete final sentence).]

Response: The wild horse territory remains as one of the 12 management areas identified in chapter 3 of 

the plan. The Heber Wild Horse Territory management plan (in progress) will identify the appropriate 

management level (number of wild horses) for this area. If this number is zero, the plan could be amended 

in the future to remove the territory.
Errata

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

Changes to the FEIS in response to Appeal Resolution Instructions

FEIS v. 1, p. 480

[Table 152 is replaced.]

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

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

1,931,951

(96%)

1,901,512

(94%)

1,901,512

(94%)

1,903,116

(94%)

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

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

1,741,060

(86%)

1,656,974

(82%)

1,656,974

(82%)

1,658,417

(82%)

FEIS v. 1, p. 481

[Replace Figure 75.]
Errata

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

FEIS v. 1, p. 482

[Replace Figure 76.]
Errata

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

FEIS v. 1, p. 483

[Replace Figure 77.]
Errata

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

FEIS v. 1, p. 484

[Replace Figure 78.]
Errata

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

FEIS v. 1, p. 485

[Replace Figure 79.]
Errata

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

FEIS v. 1, p. 486

[Replace Figure 80.]
Errata

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 11

FEIS v. 2, pp. 820-821

Capability

Although Ccapability to produce forage for grazing animals was originally determined in the 1980s 

during the development of the 1987 plan, it was necessary to recreate that determination because the 

original records were not retained. This process is documented in the planning record (Nelson 

2016). and was based on individual allotment data. Landscape scale conditions that determine capability 

have not changed since the first evaluation. The Analysis of the Management Situation (1983) and the 

Environmental Impact Statement (1987) document the analysis of grazing capability and suitability for 

the 1987 plan.

FEIS v. 2, p. 822

[Table 190 is replaced.]

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 RecreationError! Bookmark not defined. 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
Errata

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

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

Management Area Acres

1: Forest Land 847,086

2: Woodland 649,001

3: Riparian 35,426

4: Grasslands 52,330

5: Developed RecreationError! Bookmark not defined. Site 0

7: Mount Baldy Wilderness 6,748

8: Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions 111,176

9: Escudilla Demonstration Area 4,895

10: Research Natural Area 0

11: Water 0

12: Bear Wallow Wilderness 11,075

13: Escudilla Wilderness 4,194

14: Black River 6,499

15: West Fork Black River 8,990

16: Chevelon Canyon 0

17: East and West Forks Little Colorado River 3,640

18: Sandrock 0

Total Acres Suitable for Livestock Grazing = 1,741,060

FEIS v. 2, p 823

[Table 191 is replaced]

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
Errata

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 13

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 Areas

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

Additonal acres of NFS Land Not Capable and 

Not Suitable for livestock grazing

-252,678 -252,678 -251,235

Total Acres Suitable for 

Livestock Grazing

1,656,974 1,656,974 1,658,417