Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 49

Chapter 3. Affected Environment

and Environmental Consequences

Introduction

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.

Programmatic Framework of the Land Management Plan

The proposed plan and its alternatives do not authorize implementation of management activities 

described in the effects analyses. The proposed plan and its alternatives each provide a 

programmatic framework that guide site-specific actions, but they do not authorize, fund, or carry

out any project or activity. 

Because the proposed plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or activities 

(including ground-disturbing actions), there can be no direct effects. However, there may be 

implications or longer term environmental consequences of managing the forests under this 

programmatic framework. The proposed plan sets the stage for what future management actions 

are needed to achieve desired outcomes (desired conditions, objectives, special areas) and 

provides the sideboards (suitability, standards, guidelines) under which future activities may 

occur in order to manage risks to ecological, social, and economic environments. To actually 

implement site-specific projects, project- and activity-level planning, environmental analysis, and 

decisions must occur. For example, the proposed plan may contain direction to close or 

rehabilitate roads to benefit riparian areas; however, a subsequent site-specific analysis and 

decision must be made for proposals that involve road closures or decommissioning.

Environmental Analyses and Overall Assumptions

In development of the environmental analyses that follow, the best available science was 

considered and is documented in the “Plan Set of Documents.” The environmental analyses focus 

on the need for change and issues identified through the scoping process. 

Several overall assumptions were made in the analyses of alternatives. They include the 

following:

• The land management plan provides a programmatic framework for future site-specific 

actions. The actual site-specific location, design, and extent of these actions are not 

known at this time and would be developed through future project-level analysis.

• Land management plans may have implications, or environmental consequences, of 

managing the forests under a programmatic framework.

• The potential environmental consequences are only estimates. These environmental 

analyses are useful in comparing and evaluating alternatives on a forestwide basis but are 

not to be applied to specific locations on the forests.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• The plan decisions (i.e., desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, special 

areas, suitability, monitoring) would be followed when planning or implementing sitespecific projects and activities.

• Laws, regulations, policies, and applicable best management practices (BMPs) would be 

followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects and activities.

• Monitoring would occur and management practices would adapt to new information (see 

the “Adaptive Management” section below).

• The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would be funded in future years at levels similar to the past 

5 years.

• The planning timeframe (planning period) is 15 years; other timeframes may be analyzed 

depending on the resource.

• Resource management activities proposed by alternative would occur to the extent 

necessary to achieve objectives and maintain, move toward, or achieve desired 

conditions.

• Plan objectives are generally stated as a range (from low to high). The actual level of 

accomplishment would depend on environmental conditions, budgets, and staffing.

• As movement toward or achievement of desired conditions is made, forest ecosystems 

would become healthier and more resilient and would continue to provide for species 

diversity, goods, and services.

Terminology

Varied terminology is used throughout this document to represent key concepts in these analyses, 

including the following:

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting a degraded, damaged, or destroyed 

ecosystem in the recovery of its resilience and adaptive capacity. Restoration focuses on 

establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future 

conditions. In the Southwestern Region, achievement of desired conditions means that the 

ecosystem has been restored. Restoration treatments are those that move ecosystem 

components toward desired conditions. This concept is also referred to as restoration or 

maintenance and/or improvement of ecosystems.

Potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) is the vegetation that would occur in the presence 

of natural disturbance processes such as frequent fire return intervals. 

Reference conditions are environmental conditions that infer ecological sustainability.

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

characteristic range of variation, not the total range of variation) for a particular attribute, 

prior to European settlement and under the current climatic period. For some ecosystems, the 

historic range of variation reflects native burning prior to settlement.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR § 1502.16). As 

declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial 

and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare; create 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 51

and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony; and fulfill 

the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans 

(NEPA Section 101). Short-term uses are those that generally occur for a finite time period. Longterm productivity refers to the ability of the land to produce a continuous supply of a resource.

The change in the programmatic management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs under any of the 

action alternatives would not provide for any short-term uses that would jeopardize the long-term 

productivity of the lands and resources of the forests because productivity is addressed at the 

project-level. Descriptions of short-term and long-term environmental consequences can be found 

in the “Environmental Consequences of Each Alternative by Resource” section of this chapter.

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Consequences

The proposed plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but does 

not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Therefore, decisions made in the proposed 

plan do not cause unavoidable adverse environmental consequences. The application of standards 

and guidelines during future project and activity decisionmaking would provide resource 

protection measures and would limit the extent and duration of any adverse environmental 

impacts. For a detailed discussion of types of environmental consequences expected from future 

activities, see specific resource topic areas in this chapter.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those lost for a period but 

could be regained, such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas kept clear 

for use as a power line right-of-way or road.

Because the proposed plan does not directly authorize or mandate any site-specific project or 

activity (including ground-disturbing actions), none of the alternatives causes an irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources. Future project-level decisions under any alternative may 

result in potential irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, which would be 

disclosed accordingly.

Adaptive Management

All alternatives assume the use of adaptive management principles. Forest Service decisions are 

made as part of an ongoing process, including planning, project implementation, and monitoring 

and evaluation. The proposed plan identifies a monitoring strategy. Monitoring the results of 

actions would provide a flow of information that may indicate the need to change a course of 

action or the plan. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also indicate the need to adapt 

resource management to new information. The forest supervisor will continue to evaluate the plan 

monitoring results to determine if any changes are needed in management actions or the plan 

itself. In general, biennial evaluations of the monitoring information consider the following 

questions on a forestwide basis:

• What are the effects of resource management activities on the productivity of the land?

• To what degree are resource management activities maintaining or making progress 

toward the desired conditions and objectives set by the plan?
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• What changes are needed to account for unanticipated changes in conditions?

As a result of biennial monitoring and evaluation or other information, the forest supervisor may 

amend the plan or complete an administrative correction at any time. The land management plan 

is ordinarily revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle.

Climate Change

Most climate scientists agree that the earth is undergoing a warming trend and that human-caused 

increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) are among the causes of global temperature increases. The observed concentrations of 

these greenhouse gases are projected to increase. Climate change may intensify the risk of 

ecosystem change for terrestrial and aquatic systems, affecting ecosystem structure, function, and 

productivity.

Appendix A of the proposed plan identifies the potential climate change trends and impacts to 

management of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. For applicable resources, the possible environmental 

consequences associated with climate change are discussed in this chapter. 

Environmental Consequences of

Each Alternative by Resource

All relevant resources were analyzed for anticipated environmental consequences from 

implementing each alternative. Unless noted, the effects of the 2011 Wallow Fire are incorporated 

into the affected environment descriptions. Specialist reports containing further documentation of 

the analyses and resulting consequences can be found in the “Plan Set of Documents” located at 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Supervisor’s Office in Springerville, Arizona. 

Air

This qualitative analysis describes general trends and projected conditions in relation to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Rule (EPA, 1999) as 

described in the State Implementation Plan (ADEQ, 2011). Any differences in projected 

conditions due to proposed forest activities are described in this section. Environmental 

consequences to air quality related to smoke are described in the “Fire” section. The full analysis 

for air quality can be found in the “Air Quality Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014a) 

available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

There are six pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that were 

reviewed in relation to sources within and outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (EPA, 1990):

• Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, tasteless, odorless gas produced primarily by 

motor vehicles. Other sources include wood burning stoves, fireplaces, wildfires, and 

industries that process metals or manufacture chemicals. High CO concentrations can 

occur in large urban areas and settle in mountain valleys. CO is poisonous at high levels 

and can damage the heart and central nervous system.

• Lead in the air exists primarily as particulates. The major source used to be gasoline, but 

currently is metals processing. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and leadacid battery manufacturers. Lead particularly affects young children and infants and is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 53

found at high levels in urban and industrial areas. Lead deposits on soil and water and can 

harm animals. 

• Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) has a reddish-orange-brown color and a pungent odor. Nitrogen 

oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The 

primary sources are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, 

and residential operations that burn fuels. Some NO2 is emitted by wildfires through 

combustion of forest fuels. Once in the atmosphere, NO2 is easily converted to nitrates, a 

major component of acid rain, contributing to impacts to vegetation, visibility, and soil 

and water quality. Nitrogen dioxide also impairs human health. 

• Ozone is an unstable gas and has a characteristic odor. Ozone forms when hydrocarbons 

and nitrogen oxides chemically react in sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial 

emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and natural sources emit compounds that 

form ozone. Ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including permanent lung 

damage after long-term exposure. It can also damage plants and ecosystems. 

• Particulate Matter (PM) consists of particles of solid or semisolid materials in the 

atmosphere. Most human-made particles are 0.1 to 10 micrometers in diameter. 

Particulates less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) can cause respiratory problems;

while larger particulates settle out of the air. Airborne dust, or particle pollution, causes 

significant problems with human health and the environment. Particulates less than or 

equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) are generally created during combustion and are the 

major cause of visibility impairment. These fine particles can be moved over long 

distances by wind and settle on ground or water. High PM concentrations are often 

associated with large urban areas or mountain valleys where dust, smoke, and emissions 

are common. Health effects of PM include respiratory problems, decreased lung function, 

asthma, chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks, and premature 

death in people with heart or lung disease.

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas that easily dissolves in water to form acid. It is a 

major pollutant throughout the world and potentially carcinogenic. The main source is 

burning fossil fuels, but diesel fuel and gasoline also contribute to SO2 in the air.

A portion of the forests falls within Arizona’s sulfur dioxide (SO2) maintenance plan (ADEQ, 

2002) area near Morenci, AZ. Disturbances (e.g., vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, smoke 

from fires) may have an insignificant impact on air quality within this nonattainment area. Since 

the Morenci copper smelter was closed, measured values of SO2have been well below those 

stipulated in the maintenance plan (ADEQ, 2002).

In addition, Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth a national goal to prevent any 

future (and the remedying of any existing) impairment of visibility in Class I areas from humancaused emissions. The Regional Haze Rule, 40 CFR § 51, calls for states to establish goals and 

emissions reduction strategies for improving visibility in all mandatory Class I national parks and 

wilderness areas. The national visibility goal for each Class I area is to return to natural visibility 

conditions by 2064. A Class I airshed on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is located above Mount 

Baldy Wilderness; attainment of air quality standards for visibility are measured at this site.

For this analysis, air pollutants were separated into two categories: pollutants from sources 

outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and pollutants from sources within the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs. The impacts of these sources were analyzed based on whether the emissions would cause 

the Mount Baldy Class I airshed to be in nonattainment. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Sources contributing some of the six pollutants from outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are 

nearby coal-fired power plant emissions, motor vehicle emissions, and regional haze contributors 

(particulate matter emissions) including road dust and smoke from nearby prescribed fires and 

road use. Sources contributing some of these six pollutants from within the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs are motor vehicle emissions and regional haze contributors including road dust and smoke 

from prescribed fires.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• Outside sources of air pollutants would either stay constant or would improve (i.e., fewer 

emissions) during the planning period. 

• Proposed forest restoration activities would occur to the extent necessary to achieve the 

desired conditions and objectives of each alternative and would adhere to air quality 

standards as set forth by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 

Affected Environment

Existing Impacts of Air Pollution on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs from Outside Sources

Emissions of air pollutants from outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs come from nearby coal-fired 

power plants, motor vehicles, and regional haze. The air quality, as measured at the Mount Baldy 

Class I airshed, is currently in attainment and expected to stay in attainment or improve (ADEQ, 

2011). 

Coal-Fired Power Plants

Coal-fired power plants are located in the vicinity of the planning area. The Springerville 

Generating Station is about 14 miles away from the forests and about 31 miles from Mount Baldy 

Wilderness. The Coronado Generating Station is about 30 miles from the forests and about 45 

miles from Mount Baldy Wilderness. The Cholla Generating Station is about 30 miles from the 

forests and 80 miles from Mount Baldy Wilderness. They produce air pollution emissions 

recognized as contributors to degraded air quality impacting the planning area. Air pollution, in 

the forms of gases and aerosols, reaches ecosystems on the ground through atmospheric 

deposition. Pollutants deposited include oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, ozone, and particulates. 

These compounds can impair terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, impair visibility, and impact 

human health. Specific concerns include maintaining air quality sufficient to comply with 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as those related to degradation of 

visibility and increased deposition. While impacts of air pollution on visibility have been well 

documented, in many cases, the inventorying, monitoring, and research necessary to document air 

pollution effects on NFS ecosystems are insufficient.

Several components of air pollution can affect vegetation, but ozone generally results in the 

greatest amount of damage. Visible effects on leaves or needles can include stipple (dark colored 

lesions resulting from pigmentation of injured cells), fleck (tiny light-colored lesions on the upper 

layers of the leaf), mottle (degeneration of the chlorophyll that cause a blotchy appearance), 

necrosis (death of tissue), and in extreme cases, mortality. Ozone exposure can also decrease 

plant growth rates. Ponderosa pine is recognized as an ozone-sensitive species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 55

Acidity in rain, snow, fog, and dry deposition can affect soil fertility and nutrient cycling and can 

result in acidification of lakes and streams. Sulfate deposition to sensitive watersheds results in 

increasing soil acidification and surface water acidification. Deposition of excess nitrogen (nitrate 

and ammonium) in both terrestrial and aquatic systems can acidify streams, lakes, and soils. 

Aquatic ecosystems in Arizona are generally well buffered and not subject to episodic or chronic 

acidification except at the highest elevations in and around Mount Baldy Wilderness

(Blankenship, 1991). 

Motor Vehicles

Tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contributing air pollutants are considered negligible in 

relation to the Class I airshed at Mount Baldy. Dilution and air mixing reduces impacts within a 

short distance. Although vehicle pollution can pose a problem in confined areas, such as a city, 

the number of vehicles contributing emissions within the Mount Baldy Class I airshed is not 

deemed measurable. In addition, the majority of motor vehicles are approved to meet EPA 

emission standards, which reduce off-forest impacts further. 

Regional Haze

Regional haze is a contributor to visibility impairment and has been documented in all Class I 

airsheds in Arizona and New Mexico. In the Intermountain West, sulfate, organics, and elemental 

carbon are the main cause of visibility impairment. Sources of regional haze contributing to the 

Mount Baldy Class I airshed are dust and smoke in the form of particulate matter (PM). 

In the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress established the requirements to address 

regional haze. They gave EPA the authority to establish visibility transport commissions and 

promulgated regulations to address regional haze. The 1990 amendments also established a 

visibility transport commission (Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission or GCVTC) to 

investigate and report on regional haze visibility impairment in Grand Canyon National Park and 

nearby Class I areas (including Mount Baldy). The assessment (GCVTC, 1996) indicated that 

road dust is a large contributor to visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau which includes 

the northern half of Arizona. Road dust is generated on the forests as well as off the forests on 

private, State, and tribal lands. Most of the roads on the Colorado Plateau are not paved and 

contribute to visibility impairment.

Smoke is also a contributor to regional haze. The State has developed statutes for the 

management of smoke within each smoke management zone (airshed) and regulates smoke from 

prescribed fires. Smoke management zones include multiple jurisdictions and landowners. This 

coordination results in mitigation of the cumulative effects of smoke from burning activities (see 

the “Fire” section). 

Existing Impacts of Air Pollution 

from within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs management activities do not appreciably contribute to the six pollutants 

identified by the EPA, except for particulate matter. The primary source of particulate matter from 

the forests comes from road and fugitive dust and emissions from smoke, contributing to regional 

haze. Motor vehicle use on the forests also contributes vehicle emissions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Motor Vehicles

Motor vehicle emissions from within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are deemed negligible in 

relation to the Mount Baldy Class I airshed. The number of vehicles operating across the forests 

is not considered to measurably impact air quality. Additionally, Mount Baldy is located upwind 

of all roads on the forests and has few nearby roads which receive little traffic. In addition, the 

majority of motor vehicles are approved to meet EPA emission standards, which reduce forest 

impacts further.

Regional Haze

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs do not currently fall within nonattainment areas for any of the listed 

pollutants (EPA, 2006). According to Arizona regulations, this eliminates the need to do complex 

modeling or projections for minor projects and activities that do not have regional 

significance13. Prescribed fire does have regional significance; therefore, modeling and 

projections are conducted for all prescribed fire projects. Counties and municipalities may invoke 

additional requirements for projects or activities that are a source of pollutants; however, none 

have been identified in lands associated with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Dust generated from vehicles driving on unpaved NFS roads can contribute to regional haze. 

There is no direct relationship between miles of roads on the forests and actual miles traveled by 

motor vehicles. This is more a function of peak usage times such as during summer holidays 

when the forests get high use. During winter, the same roads generate almost no usage by 

vehicles. Additionally, dust generated from unpaved roads generally settles out within a short 

distance (around 20 feet) of the point of generation. Larger particle sizes of road dust drop out 

within tens of feet, while smaller particles drop out within a quarter mile. Unless winds carry road 

dust a farther distance, dust generated on the forests does not leave the forests.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Impacts of Air Pollution on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs from Outside Sources

In relation to sources of air pollution from outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, emissions from 

coal-fired power plants would likely remain the same or decrease in all alternatives, as would 

emissions from motor vehicles. Some contributors to regional haze related to wildfire, road, and 

windblown dust would increase. The State’s source emission projections describe decreases in 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, elemental carbon, and volatile organic compounds. Increases are 

projected in organic carbon, ammonia, and fine and coarse particles (ADEQ, 2011). These haze 

pollutants are monitored near Mount Baldy by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) (Colorado State University, 2006) program. 

None of Arizona’s Class I areas, including Mount Baldy, are projected to meet the Uniform Rate 

of Progress (URP) for 2018; however, most would be below baseline conditions (table 5). Many 

 13 The State Implementation Plan (40 CFR § 51.309(d)(7)) (ADEQ, 2003) for Arizona from December 23, 2003, states

“road dust is not a measurable contributor on a regional level to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas. Due to 

this finding, no additional road dust control strategies are needed...”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 57

of the air pollutants that affect Arizona originate from sources outside Arizona, such as Mexico 

and surrounding states, and are due to natural conditions. The State has a list of strategies (longterm strategy or LTS) to address regional haze visibility impairment in each Class I area in 

Arizona. For further information on the LTS, refer to the 2011 State Implementation Plan 

at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/plan/notmeet.html.

Table 5. Summary of 2018 projected visibility conditionsa

20% Worst 

Days

Visibility

(dvb)

20% Best 

Days 

Visibility 

(dv)

Class I Area

Worst Day 

Baseline 

(2004)

2018 URPc

Goal

2018 

Projected 

Visibility

Best 

Days 

Baseline 

(2004)

2018 

Projected 

Visibility

2018 

Projected 

less than 

Baseline

Mount Baldy 

Wilderness

11.85 10.54 11.52 2.98 2.12 Yes

a

Information from ADEQ 2011 State Implementation Plan (p. 81).

b

A deciview is the change in the haze index which is derived using a complex calculation from measured particulate 

concentrations data. One deciview is considered a humanly perceptible change under ideal conditions, regardless of 

background visibility conditions (ADEQ, 2011).

c

The uniform rate of progress (URP) is the calculation of the slope of the line between baseline visibility conditions and 

the natural visibility condition over the 60-year period to 2064. For the first regional haze plan, the first benchmark is 

the deciview (dv) level that should be achieved in 2018 (ADEQ, 2011).

Impacts of Air Pollution from within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

There would be continued use of forest roads by motor vehicles, which is expected to increase 

over the next 15 years. Under all alternatives, the environmental consequences from motor 

vehicle emissions would be slightly 

higher than described in the affected 

environment due to increased forest 

use; however, emissions would not 

be expected to measurably impact 

air quality. The Class I airshed

above Mount Baldy would continue 

to be in attainment of air quality 

standards and would continue to 

meet NAAQ standards as set by 

EPA. 

Use of motor vehicles on unpaved 

roads would also increase over the 

existing condition. This would 

result in the generation of dust, which is not expected to cause impairment in visibility and would 

not cause a measurable impact to the Class I airshed at Mount Baldy. Any proposed forest 

management activities that would contribute dust would adhere to air quality standards as set by 

EPA and ADEQ and the effects would be mitigated at the project-level. 

Figure 6. Aerial view of Mount Baldy Wilderness
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Dust Generated from Mechanical Treatments

The soils of the forests’ undisturbed ecosystems resist wind through plant or litter cover, as well 

as naturally occurring crusts known as macrobiotic soil crusts. Soil crusts are fragile; however, 

they resist wind and help prevent dust particles from becoming airborne. When the crust is broken 

through mechanical activities or disturbance such as grazing, small particles can get into the air 

during the activity or later during high wind events. Under all alternatives, all land disturbing 

activities, including wildland fire, would include site-specific best management practices (BMPs) 

or soil and water conservation practices (SWCPs) (Forest Service Handbook 2509.23 R3) that 

prescribe measures to reduce or mitigate formation of fugitive dust either by preventing loss of 

protective ground cover or by requiring reestablishment of ground cover.

Dust generated from mechanical treatments would potentially be greatest under alternative C, 

which proposes the highest amount of mechanical treatment and associated road use. It would be 

less in alternative B, then alternative A, and least in alternative D where wildland fire

treatment acres are much higher than mechanical treatment acres.

Road dust and dust generated from motorized equipment would be largely dependent upon the 

season of use, the amount of traffic, rainfall patterns, and materials selected for road construction. 

This dust generally settles quickly, but can become fugitive dust where conditions are typically 

dry and/or where roads are constructed from fine-grained materials and do not have a paved or 

gravel surface. Dust mitigation (e.g., road watering, surfacing, chemical treatment) may occur in 

high traffic areas to improve road visibility and where activities are close to private land or large 

campgrounds to prevent impacts to human health. 

Dust Generated from Recreation Activities 

Recreation use of the transportation system can vary in intensity during late spring/early summer 

and late fall months, when dust can be problematic. Recreation use can occur on any open road. 

One of the most popular recreation uses on the forests is driving for pleasure (Kocis et al., 2002). 

Dust abatement measures may not be applied on most system roads due to budget limitations, and 

may not occur on non-NFS roads. Dust generated from recreation activities may increase in the 

long term as the general population increases in all alternatives. However, alternative C

emphasizes motorized recreation opportunities more than the other alternatives; consequently, it 

would result in the highest level of dust generated from recreation activities. 

Dust Generated from Grazing Activities

Under all alternatives, grazing management use of the transportation system is limited and 

effects to air quality from this activity would not be measurable. Fugitive dust may be generated 

in areas with the highest livestock concentration or from vehicles accessing allotments to conduct 

livestock management. There is no measurable difference expected between alternatives as 

related to dust generated from livestock grazing activities. BMPs should be effective in retaining 

protective ground cover, reducing exposed soil susceptible to wind erosion, and creation of dust.

Dust Generated from Special Uses

Under all alternatives, road use associated with mineral materials or energy development may 

require dust abatement measures. Implementation of dust abatement measures would reduce or 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 59

eliminate impacts to air quality. There are no formal applications currently known. Effects of dust 

would be analyzed prior to issuance of each special use permit.

Climate Change

Based on current climate models, the climate change factors that may influence smoke and dust 

are projected increases in wildfire risk and national forest socioeconomic uses and demands. 

These indicate the need to improve forest health to reduce wildfire risk, as well as preparing for 

increased use of forest materials and greater demand for recreation. All alternatives include 

desired conditions to manage for healthy, resilient forests, reduce uncharacteristic wildfire, and 

provide wood products and recreation opportunities. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative environmental consequences are spatially bounded by an area much larger than 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Some effects are limited to local airsheds which generally follow 

watershed boundaries. Others, such as those affecting visibility, can be generated as far away as 

Mexico or California. Long-range transport of pollutants was analyzed and displayed in the 2011 

SIP (ADEQ, 2011). 

Pollutants generated from off-forest activities that affect the forests’ visibility at the local 

watershed level include road dust, prescribed fires, and emissions from industrial sources. Road 

dust is generated off-forest on private, State, and tribal lands in addition to dust generated onforest. Most of the roads on the Colorado Plateau are not paved. Vehicle use off-forest combined 

with vehicle use on-forest would occur in all alternatives and could contribute to visibility 

impairment.

Prescribed fires on other lands within the same airshed may affect the ability of the forests to use 

prescribed fire under all alternatives due to the cumulative environmental consequences of 

smoke. Wildfires are exempt from this rule, but may also affect the ability of the forests to use 

prescribed fire due to the cumulative environmental consequences of smoke. Smoke is also a 

contributor to regional haze.

In addition, coal-fired generating plants would continue to contribute pollutants known to degrade 

air quality as described in the affected environment. Emissions are closely monitored and 

generating plants are regulated by the State as meeting best available control technology when 

new units are constructed or old units are refurbished. Emissions, such as sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxides, are expected to be reduced in the future (ADEQ, 2011). 

Soil

This section analyzes the soil resource by describing the current soil condition and projected 

trends in soil condition by alternative. It also describes the potential effects to soil conditions

associated with management activities. The alternatives are compared using the average treatment 

level.

The forests use soil condition as a descriptive indicator of general soil health. Soil condition is 

based on the primary soil functions of soil hydrology, soil stability, and nutrient cycling. The 

current soil condition rating is described in the “Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Service, 2008e) and is based on how departed soils are from the reference condition. The 

projected trends in soil condition are based on estimates of vegetative ground cover, soil 

productivity, and organic matter. The full analysis for soil resources can be found in the “Soils 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014s) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The 2011 Wallow Fire had dramatic effects on soil conditions, including an estimated 28 percent 

increase in impaired and unsatisfactory conditions. Details can be found in the “Soils Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2014s). Estimated time for recovery to satisfactory conditions within the 

burned area depends on many factors including pre-burn conditions, burn severity, post-fire 

treatments, management, and weather patterns. As a result, soil condition would not be 

inventoried until more of the fire area has stabilized. Within 5 years and where soils are capable, 

ground cover is expected to increase enough in high and moderate burn severity areas to bring 

erosion rates to a level where long-term soil productivity is no longer at risk (Forest Service, 

2008e; Forest Service, 2010j; Elliot, 2001). Many areas treated with mulch and seeding have 

already stabilized. The forestwide soil condition trend estimates described in table 7 do not reflect 

changed conditions from the 2011 Wallow Fire.

Affected Environment

Soils of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Soils are a physical element of the environment made up of mineral particles (sand, silt, and 

clay), air, water, and organic matter. Soils form by the interaction between climate, organisms, 

topography, parent material, and time. Soils store water, supply nutrients for plants, and provide a 

medium for plant growth. Soils also provide habitat for a diverse number of belowground 

organisms. Due to their slow rate of formation, soils are essentially a nonrenewable resource.

The forests soils are described in the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs” (TES) (Laing et al., 1987). The TES is the result of the systematic analysis, mapping, 

classification, and interpretation of terrestrial ecosystems, also known as ecological types, 

delineated in ecological units. It stems from decades of work and is the only complete mapping of 

vegetation and soils available across the forests that include field validated and correlated sites 

meeting regional and national protocol. The TES was developed using local, regional, and 

southwestern U.S. research data collected prior to its publication in 1987. The forests use ground 

cover and vegetation canopy cover provided for each mapping unit to establish resource value 

ratings for soil and plant health for many management activities, particularly in the analysis and 

monitoring of restoration treatments and for grazing allotment management. The TES will be 

updated as new information is available and will occur within the planning period.

Soils of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs developed primarily from sedimentary and volcanic origins. 

Soils range from very shallow to deep and old and well developed to recent and less developed. 

They occur on all slope ranges from nearly level to very steep. 

Soil Condition 

Soil condition is a descriptive indicator of general soil health. Soil condition is primarily 

determined by evaluating surface soil properties. This is the critical area where plant and animal 

organic matter accumulate, begin to decompose, and eventually become incorporated into soil. It 

is also the zone of maximum biological activity and nutrient release. The physical condition of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 61

this zone plays a significant role in soil stability, nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and energy 

flows. The presence and distribution of the surface soil is critically important to productivity.

Soil condition is based on an interpretation of factors which affect three primary soil functions: 

soil hydrology, soil stability, and nutrient cycling, all of which are interrelated. Soil condition is 

categorized by four classes: satisfactory, impaired, unsatisfactory, and inherently unstable. The 

following definitions describe each class:

• Satisfactory: Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is 

functioning properly and normally. The ability of the soil to maintain resource values and 

sustain outputs is high.

• Impaired: Indicators signify a reduction in soil function. The ability of the soil to 

function properly and normally has been reduced and/or there exists an increased 

vulnerability to degradation. An impaired category indicates there is a need to investigate 

the ecosystem to determine the cause and degree of decline in soil functions. Changes in 

land management practices or other preventative measures may be appropriate.

• Unsatisfactory: Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred. Degradation 

of vital soil functions results in the inability of the soil to maintain resource values, 

sustain outputs, or recover from impacts. Unsatisfactory soils are candidates for improved 

management practices or restoration designed to recover soil functions. 

• Inherently Unstable: These soils have natural erosion exceeding tolerable limits and are 

eroding faster than they are renewing themselves, but they are functioning properly and 

normally.

Current soil condition was developed for the forests during this analysis, using TES ecological 

map units as a basis. It is summarized by PNVT to help describe conditions where past 

management activities and proposed treatments may be similar. Table 6 displays the percent of 

each current soil condition class (with the desired soil condition class percentage in parentheses) 

for each PNVT. 

Approximately half the PNVTs have a majority of satisfactory soil conditions (6 of 14 PNVTs). 

Impaired soils are dominant on most of the remaining types (5 of 14 PNVTs). Three PNVTs have

large extents of unsatisfactory or inherently unstable soil conditions: Madrean pine-oak 

woodland, interior chaparral, and semi-desert grassland. PNVTs with satisfactory soil condition 

have natural overstory canopy cover levels to allow for the desired amount of plant and litter 

ground cover. They have unaltered or natural levels of soil hydrologic function, such as high 

infiltration rates, high capacity for soil moisture storage, strong structure, and soil pores to aid 

transmission of water deeper into the soil profile. They are stable and readily cycle nutrients for 

improved plant growth. 

Woodland and grassland PNVTs with soil condition less than satisfactory tend to have unnaturally 

dense overstory canopy cover levels, reduced levels of vegetative ground cover, poor distribution 

of vegetative ground cover (plant basal area and litter), and reduced soil hydrologic function. 

They are generally not stable and may have reduced levels of nutrient availability. They also can 

be in areas where uncharacteristic wildfire has altered canopy and ground cover levels, altered 

infiltration rates, and high levels of soil erosion. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

desired condition

PNVT Satisfactory Impaired Unsatisfactory Inherently Unstable

Ponderosa Pine Forest 94% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

6% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 87% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

13% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 100% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Spruce-Fir Forest 100% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 4% 

(37–42%)

9% 

(0–5%)

29% 

(0%)

58%

(58%)

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 16% 

(85–90%)

74% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

10%

(10%)

Interior Chaparral 0% 

(14–19%)

0% 

(0–5%)

19% 

(0%)

81%

(81%)

Great Basin Grassland 5% 

(95–100%)

92% 

(0–5%)

3% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Semi-desert Grassland 7% 

(42–47%)

26% 

(0–5%)

15% 

(0%)

53%

(53%)

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 92% 

(95–100%)

8% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian

Forest

25% 

(85–90%)

57% 

(0–5%)

8% 

(0%)

10%

(10%)

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest

28% 

(95–100%)

64% 

(0–5%)

8% 

(0%)

10%

(10%)

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 28% 

(95–100%)

68% 

(0–5%)

4% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 100% 

(95–100%)

0% 

(0–5%)

0% 

(0%)

0%

(0%)

a Condition is a pre-Wallow Fire estimate.

Soil Crusts

An important component that affects soil condition is the condition of soil crusts. Macrobiotic 

crusts are the community of organisms living at the surface of soils. Major components are 

cyanobacteria, green algae, microfungi, mosses, liverworts, and lichens. Biological soil crusts are 

commonly found in semiarid and arid environments and have been observed in coarse-textured 

soils predominantly in piñon-juniper woodlands, semi-desert grasslands, and desert communities 

on the forests, and to a limited extent, in other vegetation dryer than piñon-juniper woodlands. Of 

most importance is the role crusts play in maintaining productivity of the semi-desert and Great 

Basin grassland and woodland ecosystems. Mosses and other crust-forming organisms are found 

in wetter environments but are less important to overall soil productivity. 

Crusts are well adapted to severe growing conditions but poorly adapted to compressional 

disturbances. Domestic livestock and elk grazing and recreation activities (e.g., hiking and biking 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 63

cross-country, motorized cross-country travel) place a heavy toll on the integrity of the crusts. 

Disruption of the crusts decreases organism diversity, soil nutrients, stability (and increased soil 

loss), organic matter, and soil productivity. Studies of trampling disturbance have noted that 

losses of moss cover, lichen cover, and cyanobacterial presence can be severe (10 percent, 

33 percent, and 50 percent, respectively), runoff can increase by half, and the rate of soil loss can 

increase six times without apparent damage to vegetation. Ungulate grazing where crusts are 

present poses an unquantifiable risk to soil productivity and ecosystem diversity and those species 

that depend on soil crust habitat for their survival (Johnston, 1997).

According to Belnap et al. (2001), biological crusts are generally killed by hot ground fires, 

resulting in loss of biomass and visible cover (Johansen et al., 1993). Frequent burning prevents 

recovery of lichens and mosses, leaving only a few species of cyanobacteria (Whisenant, 1990). 

Damage and recovery of biological crusts depends on pre-fire conditions, as well as 

characteristics of the fire. Historic burning left small patches of unburned areas between 

bunchgrasses, or at larger scales, it left patches of unburned shrubs across the landscape. This left 

a mosaic of successional stages and provided regeneration material for fire damaged areas 

(Whisenant, 1990; Peters and Bunting, 1994).

In most areas where crusts have been observed, they currently cover less than 5 percent of the soil 

surface. There are areas within the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire within the ponderosa pine and 

piñon-juniper PNVTs that have developed macrobiotic crusts (up to 10 percent ground cover). 

Past Management Impacts on Soil Condition

Before European settlement, soil loss, soil compaction, and nutrient cycling would likely have 

been within functional limits to sustain soil function and maintain soil productivity for most soils. 

The exception to this could be relatively short-term effects of wildfire during times of drought. 

Soil condition would have been similar on similar soils throughout the range of the PNVTs both 

within and outside of the forests.

Much of the current soil condition is related to past management on the forests. Soil condition is 

impacted by activities that occur or recur at the same place over time. Permanent loss of soil 

productivity affects the future level of forest products and beneficial uses of the forests. 

Management activities that have affected soil condition include timber harvesting, prescribed 

fires, road construction and use, recreation facilities construction and use, grazing, and special 

uses. Some examples of impacts that have affected current soil condition on the forests include

the following:

• Heavily compacted soils from forest restoration treatments, grazing, and recreation 

activities have caused or may cause reduced productivity for decades (Burger et al., 

1998). 

• Land disturbing activities have caused erosion of topsoil at rates greater than the soils 

natural ability to replace it (commonly referred to as soil loss tolerance rate) and resulted

in permanent loss of soil productivity, as soils are considered a nonrenewable resource 

(Renard et al., 1997). 

• From 1902 to 1987, as more livestock numbers and acres were grazed, range condition 

(and soil condition) declined. As fewer number and acres were grazed, range condition 

improved. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• According to Gori et al. (2007), livestock and large wildlife grazing removed fine fuels 

needed to carry surface and mixed-severity fires that likely maintained the more open 

structure and composition of piñon-juniper savannas and shrub woodlands historically. 

• Road corridors that make up the forests’ road system resulted in loss of soil productivity. 

• Mineral material extraction pits and mines resulted in permanent loss or reduction in soil 

productivity.

• Uncharacteristic wildfire resulted in erosion rates well beyond tolerance erosion rates.

• Areas within administration and recreation sites have reduced soil productivity.

• Permanent special use sites—such as communication towers and buildings—eliminated 

soil productivity within the footprint of such structures.

There are activities that have improved soil condition, as well as removed risk to soil 

productivity:

• Prescribed fire has removed fuels and undesirable plant material which impede 

vegetation growth and condition.

• Dense forest, woodland, and invaded grassland canopy thinning treatments have reduced 

light and water competition for desired understory grasses and shrubs.

• Channel restoration projects have restored bank and vertical streambed stability and 

reestablished groundwater table levels resulting in increased vegetation/soil productivity. 

• Closure of maintenance level 1 roads and decommissioning or removal of unneeded 

roads has resulted in revegetation of old roadbeds.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Soil Condition Trends

Generally, alternative A would trend away from desired conditions for soil condition and could 

result in additional areas with reduced soil function and increased vulnerability to degradation. 

The action alternatives would trend toward desired conditions or would be static in most cases 

and would have the most areas where soil function is sustained and functioning properly and 

normally. 

Table 7 displays the projected trends in soil condition based on estimates of the soil condition 

indicators of vegetative ground cover, soil loss, and organic matter, by alternative. Soil conditions 

were estimated for each PNVT to determine whether conditions would generally trend toward, 

away, or remain static with the implementation of objectives of each alternative. Desired 

condition is described as satisfactory condition. Departure is the relative difference between 

satisfactory and either impaired or unsatisfactory condition. The estimated trends do not take into 

consideration the effects to soil condition from the Wallow Fire. The effects of the Wallow Fire 

were not included in this determination as conditions are variable by PNVT within the fire 

perimeter. The general trend would be that the area is improving at natural recovery rates. Current 

management within the Wallow Fire burned area ranges from complete avoidance to active 

management. Plans are not currently in place to determine where future activities would occur.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 65

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

alternative

PNVT Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Current Departure 

From DC

Ponderosa Pine Forest Toward Toward Toward Toward Slight

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest Toward Toward Toward Toward Slight

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest Static Static Static Static None

Spruce-Fir Forest Static Static Static Static None

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland Static Toward Toward Toward Moderate

Piñon-Juniper Woodland Toward Toward Toward Toward High

Interior Chaparral Static Static Static Static Slight

Great Basin Grassland Away Toward Away Toward Very High

Semi-desert Grassland Away Toward Away Toward Moderate

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands Away Away Static Away None

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest Away Toward Away Toward High

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Forest Away Static Away Static High

Montane Willow Riparian Forest Away Toward Static Toward High

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas Away Static Static Static None

When PNVTs are closer to their desired conditions, they are more likely to contribute to 

satisfactory soil conditions. This is because the type and amount of ground cover provides 

resistance to soil erosion and enhances nutrient cycling and water infiltration by decreasing 

overland flow rates. A major consideration in predicting ground cover conditions is to compare 

the current departure of existing vegetative condition and the expected outcomes by alternative 

(see the “Vegetation” section) to determine whether vegetative conditions are moving toward

desired conditions, are static, or are moving away from them. 

Soil conditions within riparian areas are tied closely to proper functioning condition (PFC). 

Riparian areas that are functioning properly have satisfactory soil condition. These soils have 

adequate vegetation to withstand bank erosion from high flows and trap sediment to form stable 

floodplains. Functioning-at-risk or not functioning riparian areas generally do not have stable, 

productive soils. During high flows, ground cover and vegetation are generally not adequate to 

protect soils; the result is impaired soil condition. Soil condition trends in riparian areas are tied 

directly to the predicted riparian area trends (see the “Riparian” section).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Soil Crusts

Macrobiotic crusts are affected directly through physical damage and alteration of habitat. 

Compressional forces compact the soils’ hydrologic function, which could provide less water and 

nutrients to biological crusts. Across all alternatives, it is estimated that ongoing, improved cattle 

management on the forests would benefit biological crusts through decreased trampling as 

allowable use is aligned with available forage and capacity of the land. In addition, estimated 

increases in forage would benefit crusts by reducing the pressure from grazing. In all action 

alternatives, because motorized cross-country travel would not be allowed, the elimination of 

most off-road use would benefit crusts by removing direct damage from compaction and soil 

displacement by wheeled vehicles. Alternative A does not eliminate recreational off-road use.

Wildland fire is used in all alternatives and can kill biological crusts and alter soil properties. 

Individual ground-disturbing projects, including prescribed fire, require site-specific analysis to 

mitigate effects to biological crusts, especially in the woodland and grassland PNVTs. 

Forest Restoration Activities

Mechanical Treatments

Mechanical treatments may impact soil hydrologic function, soil stability, and nutrient cycling 

through soil compaction and removal of ground cover. Alternative C proposes the most 

mechanical harvest treatments and, thus, the most risk of soil compaction and ground cover 

removal, followed by alternatives B, D, and A. See table 8 below for average objective levels 

(acres) of mechanical harvest treatments.

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

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

12,182a 19,591 23,997 15,954

a Based on the past 25-year average of vegetation treatments.

The bulk of treatments in alternative C would be in the ponderosa pine PNVT on level to 

moderately steep slopes. 

In all alternatives, soil compaction, which reduces the soils ability to absorb water and nutrients, 

could result from timber harvesting operations. The amount of soil compaction is dependent on 

harvest methods, amount of slash in traffic lanes, operator technique, and soil conditions and 

properties (Page-Dumroese et al., 2010). Project-level activities would follow BMPs and SWCPs 

and develop mitigations that would result in minimal soil compaction. 

Ground cover may be disturbed during mechanical treatments (including the removal of 

vegetation) and may, therefore, result in some exposure of mineral soil. Although timber 

harvesting operations may result in some local soil movement, soil displacement and soil erosion 

are expected to be minor because most harvest units are designed to have slopes that are not steep 

(less than 35 percent), with short slope lengths, and adequate ground cover and topsoil would 

remain intact. BMPs and SWCPs (Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 R3) are effective in 

mitigating ground disturbance as well as intercepting sediment in runoff. Slash distribution in cut 

units following timber harvesting may also protect exposed mineral soils from raindrop impacts 

and erosion.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 67

Wildland Fire Treatments

All alternatives propose the use of wildland fire (both planned and unplanned ignitions) for fuel 

reduction and ecosystem restoration. Use of prescribed fire allows the manager the opportunity to 

control the intensity of the fire and to avoid creating high severity burn areas.

Alternative D prescribes the most fire for ecosystem restoration, followed by alternatives B, C, 

and then A (table 9). Fire treatments range from low severity broadcast burning for ground fuel 

reduction to mixed- or high severity fire (in patches) intended to kill overstory vegetation and 

reduce canopy cover to a desired level. Alternatives B and D propose the most acres of mixedand high severity fire. These generally may occur in priority watersheds away from urban 

interface areas. Alternatives A and C have the fewest acres of mixed- and high severity fire in 

forested PNVTs; however, mixed- and high severity fires in woodland PNVTs and grassland 

PNVTs that are encroached by piñon and juniper species are prescribed. Table 10 describes the 

environmental consequences to soil condition based on fire severity.

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

Estimated Fire Severity Alt. Aa Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Low Severity 3,348 3,066 6,700

Mixed Severity 6,844 23,608 9,082 39,353

High Severity 1,622 707 2,423

a Based on the past 25-year average of wildland fire treatments. No breakdown of fire type is available; however, the 

vast majority (95 percent) is estimated to be low severity. Wildland fire treatments planned in riparian areas not 

included.

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

Low Severity Mixed Severity High Severity 

Wildland Fire

Characteristics

Prescribed fire reduces fuel 

loading either for pre- or 

post- restoration treatment.

Removes some ladder fuels.

Reduces risk of crown fire. 

Some moderate and high 

severity fire in patches to 

improve structural diversity 

and open canopy.

Allows for regeneration of 

shade-intolerant species and 

restores ecologic condition 

in most PNVTs.

Some stand replacement, 

high severity firein small 

stands to improve structural 

diversity and open canopy.

Allows for regeneration of 

shade-intolerant species and 

restores ecologic condition 

in selected PNVTs.

Effects to Soil 

Function

Little to no effect to soil 

functions at all scales.

Soil chemical, physical, and 

biological function retained 

in more than 85 percent of 

the treated area at the fine 

and mid scales.

Soil chemical, physical, and 

biological functions may be 

impacted and require 

rehabilitation treatments.

Soil function retained is 

more than 85 percent of the

treated area at the fine and 

mid scales.

Wildland fires managed for multiple resource objectives may negatively affect soil’s physical, 

chemical, and biological characteristics. The most important physical characteristic of soil that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

affects its hydrologic function and stability is soil structure. The organic matter component, which 

provides for loose, granular structure, can be lost at relatively low temperatures. The loss of soil 

structure increases the bulk density of the soil and reduces its porosity, thereby reducing soil 

productivity and making the soil more vulnerable to post-fire runoff and erosion. 

Loss of organic matter due to soil heating during wildland fires negatively affects the most basic 

soil chemical properties (Neary et al., 2005). Soil organic matter plays a key role in nutrient 

cycling and exchange and water retention in soils. When organic matter is combusted, the stored 

nutrients are either lost to the atmosphere or are changed into highly available forms that can be 

taken up readily by microbial organisms and vegetation. The available nutrients not immobilized 

are easily lost by leaching or surface runoff and erosion. Nitrogen is the most important nutrient 

affected by fire; it is easily lost from the site at relatively low temperatures. The amount of 

change in organic matter and nitrogen is directly related to the magnitude of soil heating from fire 

intensity. High- and moderate-intensity fires cause the greatest losses (severity). Nitrogen loss by 

volatilization during fires is of particular concern on low-fertility sites because nitrogen can only 

be replaced by nitrogen-fixing organisms. 

Cations (soil nutrients) are not easily volatilized and usually remain on the site in a highly 

available form. An abundance of cations can be found in the thick ash layers (ashbed) remaining 

on the soil surface following high severity fires. Soils inherently low in nutrients and thin soils 

are most impacted by high severity fires, as nutrients are lost. These fragile soils would be 

identified at the project-level and protection measures would be prescribed. 

Soil biology is also affected by wildland fire. How soil microorganisms respond to fire depends 

on numerous factors, including fire intensity, site characteristics, and pre-burn community 

composition. Some generalities can be made. First, most studies have shown strong resilience by 

microbial communities to fire. Recolonization to pre-burn levels is common, with the amount of 

time required for recovery generally varying in proportion to fire severity. Second, the effect of 

fire is greatest in the forest floor (litter and duff). Wildland fires that consume major fuels but 

protect forest floor, humus layers, and soil, are recommended. (Neary et al., 2005)

Motorized Routes

The motorized trail and road system analyzed is the same for all alternatives. The motorized 

route system results in a net loss of soil productivity within the road corridor, including cut and 

fill slopes. Roads are the dominant source of erosion and sediment in forests (Swank, 1989; 

MacDonald and Coe, 2008). Some roads are located in areas more sensitive than others, such as 

along riparian areas or in areas of inherently unstable soils. Removal of roads in riparian areas 

would eliminate direct deposition of sediment and would allow for channel widening where 

needed, expansion of plants, and floodplain development. There are a large number of 

unauthorized routes contributing to loss of soil productivity as well. Table 11 displays objective 

levels for road removal by alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 69

Table 11. Motorized routes treatment objectives by alternative

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

Minimum amount of NFS roads or trails 

that negatively impact streams or riparian 

areas to be relocated, repaired, improved, 

or decommissioned

Opportunity 4 miles/

planning 

period

Opportunity 4 miles/

planning 

period

Average amount of unauthorized roads or 

trails that negatively impact streams or 

riparian areas to be removed

Opportunity 2 miles/year 3 miles/year 3 miles/year

The motorized route system (miles, management level, and location) is the same for all 

alternatives; however, use of roads, trails, and the additional amount of level 1 roads are 

estimated to be higher in alternative C followed by alternatives B, D, and then A, because 

alternatives C and B have the greatest percentages of timber harvest/mechanical restoration 

treatments of all alternatives. Motorized recreation is also emphasized in alternative C. 

New road construction is generally not required for timber harvesting within the planning area;

however, the reopening of level 1 (those roads placed in storage between intermittent uses) 

increases the amount of open roads and the amount of soil erosion that occurs during the life of a 

project. Occasionally, temporary road construction would also remove vegetation along the road 

corridor, expose mineral soil, and result in soil compaction along the roadbed. Typically, there is a 

pulse of erosion from roads during the first 2 years following road construction or reopening 

(MacDonald and Coe, 2008; Megahan, 1974). Slope failures and mass movement of soils may 

occur as the result of road construction. New roads or reopening closed roads may also provide an 

avenue for the invasion and establishment of invasive plant species. Temporary roads would be 

removed and revegetated following use. Road design, avoidance of problem soils, appropriate 

design criteria, and road closures would be implemented in order to minimize impacts to soils. 

Recreation Activities

Recreation use and demand is estimated proportionately for all alternatives with the increase in 

population. Recreation uses shown to impact soils include camping, hiking, mountain biking, and 

horseback riding. All of these activities may result in erosion and compaction. Impacts tend to be 

minor and may occur on only a small percentage of the planning area. Implementing site-specific 

BMPs and SWCPs for recreation projects would minimize adverse soil impacts. The impacts 

from recreation could occur under all alternatives. No recreation development is specifically 

outlined in any alternative.

Alternative A would continue to allow motorized cross-country travel. Motorized cross-country 

travel would increase the potential for sediment delivery to streams, reduce soil productivity due 

to compaction and erosion, and destroy vegetative cover and natural ground litter. Cross-country 

motorized travel also could destroy biological soil crusts. The action alternatives would 

eliminate motorized cross-country travel. Erosion and sediment transport would be reduced as 

disturbed areas revegetate and there would be less physical impact to biological soil crusts. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Grazing Activities

Grazing would continue under all alternatives. Livestock and wildlife grazing has the potential 

to reduce soil condition through hoof compaction and the removal of protective vegetation and, 

subsequently, ground cover. The effects to soil condition would be reduced soil hydrologic 

function in highly compacted concentration areas and reduced soil stability from loss of ground 

cover wherever overutilization of available forage occurs. Grazing cattle would not be considered 

detrimental where sufficient herbaceous material remains to protect the soils during periods of 

intense summer rains or during spring runoff. Site-specific BMPs and SWCPs would provide 

protection from the effects of grazing and are prescribed in project-level analysis. 

Differences in soil condition, as related to grazing impacts between alternatives, are indirectly 

tied to the level of restoration treatments provided for each alternative. Decreased overstory 

canopy cover, as prescribed in the desired conditions, would potentially increase the understory 

vegetation, as treatments are implemented and maintained. The relationship between overstory 

cover and herbaceous production has been studied in Arizona forests (Jameson, 1967; Thill et al., 

1983). Increased understory vegetation would indirectly reduce grazing pressure as treatments 

progress across the forests, because it would increase available forage and allow range managers 

increased flexibility in management to favor rehabilitation or rest in areas currently not in 

satisfactory soil condition, such as found in riparian, grassland, and woodland vegetation. Direct 

impacts to soils from grazing are analyzed at the project-level where effects are mitigated and 

monitored.

All alternatives would prescribe treatments that improve the vegetation conditions on uplands to 

more open conditions. By reducing tree canopy, there would be an increase in available forage for 

grazing animals. This would provide an opportunity for reduced grazing pressure on riparian 

areas from both domestic and wild animals. Alternative B, then D would provide the most 

opportunity for soil condition improvement or protection because of predicted forage increases in 

all open canopy PNVTs, as well as direct treatment objectives in riparian areas. Alternative C

would provide upland improvement in open forested and grassland PNVTs; however, it provides 

for less forage improvement in woodland or riparian PNVTs. Alternative A would provide 

improvements in soil conditions in open forested and grassland PNVTs. Grazing management 

plans would provide mitigation to protect sensitive areas from domestic use, including riparian, 

where often times, grazing exclusion is the only option. Wildlife impacts generally would not be 

mitigated. 

Special Uses 

Terms and conditions of special use permits would require site-specific BMPs to provide for 

maintenance of soil productivity in all alternatives. Therefore, there are no anticipated effects to 

soil condition from permitted special use activities.

Climate Change

Based on current climate models, some of the climate change factors that may influence soil 

condition include the following: 

• More extreme natural ecological disturbance events, including wildfires, intense rains, 

flash floods, and wind events (Swetnam and Betancourt, 1997).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 71

• Greater vulnerability to invasive species, including insects, plants, fungi, and vertebrates 

(Joyce et al., 2006).

• Long-term shifts in vegetation patterns (Westerling et al., 2006; Millar et al., 2007).

• Cold-tolerant vegetation moving upslope or disappearing in some areas, migration of 

some plant species to the more northern portions of their existing range (Clark, 1998).

• Potential decreases in overall forest productivity due to reduced precipitation (Forest 

Service, 2008e).

• Potential lower vigor and productivity of forage plants and, thus, overall soil conditions. 

• Potential decrease in forage production and shortened growing and grazing season.

• Potential flash floods and increased risk of animal disease could adversely affect the 

livestock industry (Joyce et al., 2001) dependent upon the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ forage 

resources. 

• Potential decline if adjustments to grazing numbers, based on allowable forage, are not 

made in response to productivity decreases from climate change. 

In light of the changes indicated above, there is a need to reduce vulnerability by maintaining and 

restoring resilient native ecosystems. Restoring and maintaining resilience in forest, woodland, 

chaparral, grassland, and riparian ecosystems would be an outcome in alternatives B, D, C, and 

A (in order from greatest resilience to least). Restoring and maintaining resilience would likely 

improve the potential for ecosystems to retain or return to desired conditions after being 

influenced by climate change related impacts and variability. Management practices that sustain 

healthy plant and animal communities (e.g., thinning for age class diversity and structure, 

reclaiming and restoring native grasslands) and provide adequate nutrients, soil productivity, and 

hydrologic function promote resilience and reduce opportunities for disturbance and damage. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Potential cumulative environmental consequences from or to other land owners, when added to 

the environmental consequences listed above for all alternatives, include the following:

• Soil loss through wind or water erosion leaving the forests or sediment coming onto the 

forests could reduce soil productivity.

• Airborne deposition of pollutants could reduce soil productivity; however, this is 

currently not contributing to a measureable reduction and it is not expected to in the 

future (see the “Air Quality” section).

Watershed

Watershed condition is the state of the physical and biological characteristics and processes 

within a watershed that affect the hydrologic and soil functions that support aquatic ecosystems. 

For this analysis, watershed conditions were assessed at the 6th level HUC (hydrologic unit code) 

which was determined to be the most appropriate scale for programmatic planning. The initial 

assessment of watershed condition was conducted in March 2011 using the national watershed 

condition framework (WCF) and assessment tool (Potyandy and Geier, 2010). The WCF provides 

a consistent way to evaluate watershed condition at both the national and forest levels. The WCF 

consists of reconnaissance level assessments by individual national forests, implementation of 

integrated improvement activities within priority watersheds, monitoring of watershed condition 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

class changes, and aggregation of program performance data for national reporting. The specific 

watershed condition ratings by each 6th level HUC watershed can be found in the “Watershed 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014v) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The environmental consequences section provides a qualitative assessment of forecasted trends in 

watershed conditions by alternative based on the concept of concentrating restoration treatments 

within priority watersheds and, in a more general sense, describing potential effects from forest 

restoration activities, recreation activities, roads, grazing, special uses, and climate change on 

watershed condition. The full analysis for watershed condition can be found in the “Watershed

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014v).

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• Priority watersheds are designated where the primary purpose of restoration activities 

would be to improve watershed condition. The selection of these watersheds is ongoing 

and, once selected, will be a major consideration for project implementation in some 

alternatives.

• The following sections qualitatively describe and compare the effects to watershed 

condition by the types of activities allowed under the description of the alternatives and 

how each alternative influences where work would be concentrated.

Affected Environment

Watershed condition reflects a range of variability from natural pristine (properly functioning) to 

degraded (severely altered state or impaired). Watersheds in properly functioning condition have 

terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems that capture, store, and release water, sediment, wood, 

and nutrients similar to their reference conditions. Properly functioning watersheds create and 

sustain functional terrestrial, riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats capable of supporting diverse 

populations of native aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. The greater the departure from the 

natural pristine state, the more impaired the watershed condition is likely to be, up to the point of 

being severely altered. 

Watershed condition classification is the process of describing watershed condition by discrete 

categories (or classes) that reflect the level of watershed health or integrity. Watersheds with high 

integrity are in properly functioning condition and represent ecosystems that show little or no 

influence from human actions.

There are three classes to describe watershed condition:

• Class 1 (Functioning): Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition and they are functioning properly. 

These are synonymous with functioning watersheds.

• Class 2 (Functioning-At-Risk): Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, 

and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition and they are functioning, 

but at risk. These are synonymous with functioning-at-risk watersheds. 

• Class 3 (Impaired): Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition and their function is impaired. These are 

synonymous with impaired watersheds. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 73

Table 12 below describes the number of 6th level HUCs within each watershed basin (3rd level 

HUC) by watershed condition class and lists some of the common degrading factors that have 

reduced condition. According to the watershed condition framework, pre-Wallow Fire, 32 percent 

of forests’ 170 6th level HUCs are considered to be functioning properly (Class 1), 68 percent are 

functioning-at-risk (Class 2), and less than 1 percent are considered impaired (Class 3). The 

assessment after the Wallow Fire revealed 21 percent of the watersheds are satisfactory, 71 

percent are at-risk, and 7 are impaired, primarily due to changes in aquatic, riparian, terrestrial, 

and road conditions as a result of loss of cover, increased sediment, and larger peak flows.

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

watershed condition by watershed basin (3rd level HUC)

Watershed

Basin

Total Number 

of 6th Level 

HUCsa

6th Level 

HUCs in 

Class 1b

6th Level 

HUCs in 

Class 2b

6th Level 

HUCs in 

Class 3b

Common Degrading 

Factors

Little 

Colorado 

River

92 23

(19)

69

(68)

0

(5)

High road density, poor 

aquatic habitat conditions, 

departed fire regime 

conditions, poor aquatic 

biota conditions

Upper Gila 

River

55 20

(14)

35

(39)

0

(2)

Impaired soil conditions, 

departed fire regime 

conditions, poor aquatic 

habitat conditions

Upper Salt 

River

23 11

(3)

11

(13)

1

(7)

Poor aquatic habitat 

condition, departed fire 

regime conditions

Total

Percent of 

Total

170

100%

54

32%

(36)

(21%)

115

68%

(120)

(71%)

1

< 1%

(14)

(8%)

a Watersheds with minor amounts of NFS lands are not tallied.

b Post-Wallow Fire numbers are displayed in parentheses ( ).

Figure 7 shows the 2010 watershed condition rating across the forests; while figure 8 shows the 

2012 watershed condition rating. These maps display watershed conditions prior to and after the 

2011 Wallow Fire. There were 50 watersheds affected by the fire. Some watersheds were heavily 

affected, resulting in a shift to a lower class. The effects of the fire to watershed condition in some 

of these watersheds were minimal. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Figure 7. Map of 2010 watershed condition rating for 6th level HUC across the forests
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 75

Figure 8. Map of 2012 watershed condition rating for 6th level HUC across the forests
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Alternatives are compared based on their ability to move watersheds toward properly functioning 

conditions. Ground-disturbing activities, such as restoration treatments, roads, recreation 

activities, grazing, and certain special uses have short- and long-term effects on watershed 

condition. 

Forest Restoration Activities

There are a variety of treatment methods available in all alternatives that could improve the 

watershed condition, including several kinds of mechanical and wildland fire treatments. 

Ecological condition is currently highly departed from desired conditions in many of the PNVTs. 

Vegetation ecological condition affects many of the attributes used to characterize watershed 

condition, such as soil and riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. 

Alternative A does not provide a focused approach to watershed restoration. Treatments would 

likely not be concentrated within priority watersheds and would not substantially remove

degrading factors that cause functioning-at-risk or impaired watersheds to improve. Although the 

level of treatments is comparable or greater than other alternatives, it is unlikely that entire 

watersheds would be restored, except as opportunities arise. Alternatives B and D concentrate 

treatments in priority watersheds which allows a better opportunity for restoring or maintaining 

watersheds across the forests. Alternative C also has an objective to treat priority watersheds. 

However, under alternative C, improvement of watershed conditions would be limited to those 

PNVTs that can contribute to economic sustainability (e.g., ponderosa pine that is on level terrain 

and near transportation routes) or within the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area 

(table 13).

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

Alternative

Number of Priority 

Watersheds Treated in the 

15-year Planning Period

Basis and Priority of Treatment Areas

Alternative Aa None Reduction of hazardous fuels around communities

Alternative B 10 Restore or maintain properly functioning watershed 

condition and ecosystems within priority watersheds

Reduce hazardous fuels within the areas identified in the 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs)

Alternative C 10 Contribute to economic sustainability

Reduce hazardous fuels within the Community-Forest 

Intermix Management Area

Alternative D 10 Restore or maintain properly functioning watershed 

condition and ecosystems within priority watersheds

a 1987 plan as currently implemented.

Motorized Routes and Recreation Activities

The road and motorized trail system analyzed is the same for all alternatives. Basic road 

maintenance is to be completed on at least 20 percent of passenger vehicle roads and motorized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 77

trails per year and 10 percent of all high-clearance roads per year. Watershed condition would be 

affected by the miles of open road and trails and the level of use. In addition, there are hundreds 

of miles of unauthorized routes throughout the forests. Restoration objectives would consider 

rehabilitating the network of unauthorized routes. 

Alternatives C and B have the highest potential, followed by alternatives D and A, for 

increased traffic as well as the most open roads based on the amount of acres planned to be 

treated mechanically. Maintenance level 1 roads are opened only during management activities—

such as mechanical restoration treatments—to access and remove forest products. Opening these 

roads may increase up to 10 times the amount of roads open within a watershed, providing 

potential for increased sediment in the stream system. 

The action alternatives implement the most treatments within priority watersheds; while 

alternative A does not emphasize treatments in these watersheds. See table 3 in chapter 2, 

specifically under “Type, Priority, and Amount of Restoration Treatments.” Road needs would be 

analyzed for implementation of projects; unauthorized motorized routes would be identified for 

obliteration. Road networks would potentially be reduced to decrease sediment and loss of soil 

productivity, thereby reducing the degrading factors within priority watersheds caused by too 

many roads or roads in poor condition.

The action alternatives have an objective to remove unauthorized roads which negatively impact 

streams or riparian areas. Alternatives B and D have an additional objective to relocate, repair, 

improve, or decommission NFS roads that negatively impact streams or riparian areas. These 

actions would reduce sediment input to streams as well as returning roadbeds to production 

primarily within priority watersheds. Alternative A does not contain a similar objective, thus 

sediment from roads may continue to impact streams or riparian areas.

During maintenance of structures and road surfacing under all alternatives, BMPs would be 

effective in reducing sediment and improving watershed conditions. The forests would implement 

BMPs for road maintenance to mitigate sediment and limit the road system footprint.

Recreation emphasis in alternative C would favor motorized recreation opportunities and 

developed campgrounds. Alternative D would favor nonmotorized recreation opportunities and 

dispersed camping. Alternatives A and B would provide a mix. Emphasis on motorized 

opportunities could result in more roads and trails available for use, with more potential for soil 

and water degradation. Concentration of recreationists may result in more site disturbance and 

impacts would be compounded. Dispersed camping would tend to spread these impacts over a 

larger area. 

Grazing Activities

All alternatives would prescribe treatments that improve the vegetation conditions on uplands to 

more open conditions. By reducing tree canopy, there would be a projected increase in available 

forage for grazing animals (see the “Vegetation” section on overstory and herbaceous understory 

relationships). This would provide an opportunity for reduced grazing pressure on uplands and 

riparian areas from both domestic and wild animals.

Alternative A would result in the least long-term improved forage condition because it would 

have the fewest treatments to reduce canopy cover. Alternative C would improve condition in 

only a few PNVTs, generally the open forested and piñon-juniper woodland PNVTs. Alternative 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

B and then alternative D would reduce canopy cover in all open canopy vegetation types, 

providing improved conditions in grasslands and woodlands as well as forested PNVTs. See the 

“Vegetation” section for detailed discussion of the relationship between the overstory and 

herbaceous understory vegetation cover.

BMPs and SWCPs are effective in retaining protective ground cover and would be implemented 

under all alternatives. General improvement of vegetation condition (e.g., reduced canopy cover, 

increased herbaceous cover) could allow for improved rangeland and watershed conditions. 

Special Uses 

The effects of special uses to watershed condition would be the same in all alternatives. Sitespecific BMPs would be prescribed and would be effective in mitigating effects to soil and water 

quality components of watershed condition. Impacts to watershed condition can occur from group 

events, power line and water transmission corridors, access roads, and mineral extraction.

Climate Change

Based on current climate models, the climate change factors that may influence watershed 

condition are changes in water distribution, timing of precipitation, availability, storage, 

watershed management, and human water uses. These indicate the need to improve forest health, 

conserve water, and reduce fire risk, as well as prepare for increased use of forest materials and 

the greater demand for recreation. Concentrating restoration treatments within watersheds reduces 

the risk to watershed and ecological condition within entire watersheds. The action alternatives

would move vegetation conditions toward desired conditions and reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire within priority watersheds. Alternative A would reduce the risk to lands 

treated, but not on a watershed basis, limiting the effectiveness of treatments to improve 

watershed condition. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Almost all of the watersheds associated with the forests have private in-holdings and areas where 

the watersheds extend to outside of the forests’ boundary (figure 7). Many of the impacts 

discussed above occur on lands of other ownership (e.g., unpaved roads, grazing, mineral 

materials removal, fuel treatments) and could impact the forests’ watershed conditions and 

possibly result in reduced watershed conditions. Large-scale industry, such as industrial mining 

and power generating, as well as medium to large urban areas, require large quantities of water 

for their operations and can impact groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Forest Service 2012f).

All alternatives would maintain or improve watershed conditions and help mitigate the effects of 

off-forest activities that are outside Forest Service control. Management of priority watersheds 

emphasizes using an “all lands” approach to enhance coordination with external agencies and 

partners in watershed management and aquatic species recovery efforts.

Water Resources

This section describes the current condition and potential environmental consequences to water 

quality, water yield, water rights, instream flow, and groundwater from implementing the 

alternatives. The analysis relies on qualitative comparisons and describes potential environmental 

consequences by major ground-disturbing activities (e.g., forest thinning, animal grazing, roads, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 79

mining, fire). More detailed descriptions of these topics can be found in the “Water Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2014u) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Water quality has been assessed in major perennial stream reaches and lakes on the forests. The 

general classification used for surface water quality by Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ) designates each waterbody in one of five categories:

• Category 1: Attaining all designated uses.

• Category 2: Attaining some designated uses, and no use is threated or impaired.

• Category 3: Insufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated use is 

attained.

• Category 4: Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses, but a TMDL is not 

necessary because

○ 4a – A total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment has already been completed.

○ 4b – Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in the 

attainment of the water quality standard.

○ 4c – The impairment is caused by pollution but not a pollutant.

○ 4n – The impairment is solely by natural conditions. 

• Category 5: Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by a pollutant, and a 

TMDL needs to be developed or revised.

The State of Arizona sets narrative and numeric surface water standards for water quality based 

on the uses people and wildlife make of the water. These “designated uses” are specified in the 

standards for individual surface waters, or if the surface water is not named in the rule, the 

designated uses are determined by the tributary rule. “Attaining” means that the water quality has 

met State and Federal standards to fully support the assigned designated use for a water body, and 

data used in the determination meets the credible data requirements of the Arizona’s Impaired 

Water Identification Rule (A.A.C. R18-11-602).

Water quality is assessed by comparing existing conditions (categories 1 to 5) with desired 

conditions (standards) set by the State of Arizona under authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

ADEQ is the regulating authority for water quality in Arizona as promulgated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Waters that are not impaired (those not on 303d14 list or 

in category 4 or 5) are providing for beneficial uses identified for that stream and can be 

considered in a desired condition until further sampling indicates impairment. Waters in 

categories 2 through 5 require special attention during site-specific project analysis. 

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions and methodology include the following:

 14 Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop 

lists of impaired waters. These impaired waters do not meet water quality standards that states, territories, and 

authorized tribes have set for them, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of 

pollution control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists 

and develop TMDLs for these waters.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Data used in this analysis represents forestwide conditions and may not represent water 

quality or flow conditions at any given point. Onsite inspections will be conducted for 

site-specific project assessments.

• Generally, reducing canopy cover in vegetation types within higher precipitation zones 

will generate more runoff. This change implies changes in water yield.

• Effects to groundwater availability are discussed qualitatively using regional studies and 

Forest Service policies. Between the alternatives, there would be little difference from a 

groundwater use or quality standpoint; however, slight differences are predicted in 

groundwater recharge potential from the forests.

• To provide a baseline for discussion of water produced from the forests, an analysis was 

performed to estimate the amount of water yield that reaches surface streams which leave 

the forests. The analysis does not attempt to account for waters on the forests that 

infiltrate deep aquifers. Estimates are made for water yield from NFS land by individual 

5th level HUC watersheds. These estimates are then aggregated to individual 4th level 

HUC watersheds. Similar estimates are made for the water yield from entire 5th and 4th

level HUC watersheds containing Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands. 

Affected Environment

Water Quality

Improvements to the Nation’s waters over the past 3 decades are largely due to the control of 

traditional point sources of water pollution. However, a large number of water bodies remain 

impaired and the goal of eliminating pollutant discharge and attaining fishable and swimmable 

waters is still unrealized. Nonpoint sources of pollution such as agriculture, construction, forestry, 

and mining are responsible for much of the Nation’s remaining water quality impairment. The 

desired condition is that water quality meets or exceeds Arizona State standards15 or EPA water 

quality standards for designated uses, and meets critical needs of aquatic species.

Currently on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the most prevalent nonpoint source of pollution is 

sediment generated from sources including motorized routes in close proximity to drainages; 

residual effects of past, and in some cases, current livestock grazing; and short-term impacts of 

ground-disturbing activities such as timber harvest and higher severity fire. Before the initiation 

of BMPs in the 1980s, timber harvesting was widespread and was a nonpoint source of pollution 

in the form of sediment delivery into streams. Currently, the forests implement and monitor sitespecific BMPs for all activities that have the potential to pollute surface water. Forest Service 

policy directs compliance with required CWA permits, State rules and regulations, and the use of 

approved BMPs in adaptive management strategy to control nonpoint source pollution to meet 

applicable water quality standards and other CWA requirements.

The following lakes and stream reaches have been identified by ADEQ as those with the most 

severe water quality problems. Permit requirements for discharge into these waters are very strict;

ADEQ and the forests must make sure that any new discharges or modifications would not 

further degrade water quality.

• Category 4 “Not Attaining.” Waters include the following: Nutrioso Creek, Little 

Colorado River below the Greer Lakes, Luna Lake, Rainbow Lake, and Crescent Lake. 

 15 Arizona Administrative Code Title 18. Chapter 11 Arizona Water Quality Standards.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 81

These waters have approved TMDLs with recommendations that, when implemented, are 

believed to improve the water quality and the ADEQ would move them into lower 

categories. There are 27 miles of streams in this category.

• Category 5 “Impaired.” Waters currently on the 303d list include the following: Bear 

Canyon Lake, lower Blue River, and the San Francisco River below the confluence with 

the Blue River. These waters were not listed prior to 2006. There are 26 miles of stream 

within this category.

The remaining waters (about 422 miles) fall into categories 1, 2, and 3. Overall, forestwide water 

quality, based on data from 1987 to 2008, is improving. 

The State of Arizona has also identified stream segments that are particularly pristine and where 

no degradation of water quality is allowed (see figure 9). These are called “Outstanding Arizona 

Waters,” formerly known as “Arizona Unique Waters,” nine of which are located in the high 

elevation regions east, south, and southeast of Mount Baldy Wilderness (ADEQ, 2009 and 2012):

• Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to the boundary of the San Carlos Indian 

Reservation;

• South Fork Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to Bear Wallow Creek; 

• North Fork Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to Bear Wallow Creek; 

• Hay Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River; 

• KP Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Blue River; 

• Lee Valley Creek, from its headwaters to Lee Valley Reservoir;

• West Fork Little Colorado River, above Government Springs; 

• Snake Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Black River; and 

• Stinky Creek, from the Fort Apache Indian Reservation boundary to its confluence with 

the West Fork of the Black River.

The 2011 Wallow Fire burned significant portions of the watersheds contributing to all of these 

streams except Lee Valley Creek. Potential effects to these streams include additional sediment 

and nutrients, primarily from erosion of severely burned uplands; increased flood flow intensity 

and frequency, which may alter streambank and streambed stability; increased amounts of debris 

from mass wasting due to slope instability; and increased water temperature from loss of shading 

vegetation. The outstanding character of these streams was based on the need to protect water 

quality to support the cold water fisheries designated use (primarily for protection of Apache trout 

habitat). To date, the forests and ADEQ have yet to determine the current status of these streams 

or determine what actions may be required to mitigate the effects of the Wallow Fire. Wildfires

are unplanned events and can be of natural origin, human-caused, or escaped prescribed fire;

natural recovery can be allowed based on the State’s anti-degradation policies.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

Water Yield

Streamflow is directly dependent on annual precipitation, including snowpack. Overall, the 

current trend in water yield appears to be static or slightly reduced over time as tree density 

increases. Additionally, climate change predictions for the Southwest favor higher temperatures 

and increased drought occurrence. More evapotranspiration and earlier snowpack melt are 

predicted, which may affect available water in the forests.

Development in the Southwest has been primarily dependent upon technology to deliver water 

resources. The locations of most snowpack and upland reservoirs are on national forests in the 

Southwest (Smith et al., 2001; State of New Mexico, 2005). There are an estimated 3,771 surface 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 83

acres of perennial lakes and ponds within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 2008e). 

The forests also contain many of the headwater streams for the Little Colorado, Salt, and Upper 

Gila River Basins. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs receive a large portion of Arizona’s annual 

snowpack. Current estimated water yields from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are roughly 

384,650 acre-feet per year (Forest Service, 2008e), the majority going to the greater Phoenix 

metropolitan area.

Although there are no designated municipal watersheds within the forests, many local 

communities and individuals depend on water generated from the forests through springs, 

streams, and groundwater pumping for domestic, irrigation, and some industrial/agricultural uses.

Periodic flooding is a natural disturbance necessary for maintenance of stream channels and many 

riparian plant species. Occasionally, high flow causes damage to road infrastructure and other 

manmade structures. Flooding is more common after large high severity wildfires, where 

protective vegetation is removed and soil structure is altered. In severely burned watersheds, 

studies show peak flows (the highest flow rate measured after a storm event) can be slightly to 

thousands of times higher than the pre-fire flow rate (Neary et al., 2005) as was observed during 

the summer rainstorms after the Rodeo-Chediski Fire near Heber, Arizona (Folliott and Neary, 

2003). 

Other damaging flow events have occurred during very high intensity summer rainstorms or 

when a warm rainstorm falls over a melting snowpack, such as occurred in 1992 in the Willow 

Creek watershed east of Heber, destroying the concrete bridge at Wiggins Crossing. Flooding and 

debris flows have occurred as a result of the 2011 Wallow Fire, including extreme runoff events 

from summer thunderstorms within numerous small watersheds. Flood events may continue for 

many years; damage is expected to be somewhat localized under normal rainfall conditions, the 

communities of Eagar, Nutrioso, Tal WiWi, Alpine, Blue, and Greer are at risk for flooding. 

Water Rights

The current trend of surface water use by the forests is static. The forests’ consumptive use is 

expected to remain static into the future, as surface water in Arizona is considered to be fully 

appropriated. Water rights adjudications are proceeding slowly, and will eventually dictate the 

amount and ownership of surface waters within the forests. According to Arizona Department of 

Water Rights (ADWR) Statement of Claim filings for water rights, there are over 2,240 stock tank 

claims located on the forests. The forests have a total of 3,547 forest owned claims and 

certificates. These claims include several watershed level reserved water right claims allowing 

use of water for firefighting and road maintenance. 

Instream Flow

Instream flow water rights are unique rights created by Arizona to protect the State’s fisheries and 

associated riparian resources in selected stream segments. They are fundamentally different from 

appropriated water rights since they are non-consumptive. Under Arizona law, the instream flow 

water rights the Forest Service is applying for do not allow use from the stream; the Forest 

Service cannot divert or interfere with surface water flow and cannot affect any existing (senior) 

water rights. The Forest Service is applying for these rights to ensure the minimum flows needed 

for fish, wildlife, and water-based recreation are protected from future claims on these waters. 

There is no other mechanism available to maintain sufficient flows in the streams, which are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

critical to protect wildlife habitats and tourism-based economies in rural Arizona. With instream 

flows provided for, the water may still be available for future appropriation; however, it must be 

taken after the water leaves the national forest boundary or only at a time when streamflows are 

not below the minimum base flow levels set by the permitted right. The forests’ program to 

acquire instream flow rights is summarized in the “Water Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2014u).

Groundwater

Water resources are obtained from surface water 

runoff, shallow perched water-bearing zones 

(which generally do not provide a useful water 

source), and very deep regional aquifers. Although 

not well understood, groundwater is connected to 

surface water and where groundwater is pumped at 

a rate greater than recharge, connected surface 

water flow is reduced. Groundwater recharge 

occurs throughout all watersheds but is greatest at 

higher elevations where precipitation is greater 

and in areas with heavily fractured rock units. 

Groundwater pumping outside of designated 

active management areas16 is not limited by 

current Arizona groundwater codes. One of the 

three basins (Little Colorado) associated with the 

forests have documented groundwater pumping to 

some level greater than inflow (ADWR, 2009a, 

2009b, and 2009c; Feth and Hem, 1963; Freethey 

and Anderson, 1986; Hart et al., 2002). Reference 

conditions are described as being in a steady state, 

or where inflow equals outflow. Continued or increased pumping may negatively affect base flow 

of streams directly connected to major aquifers, such as Chevelon Creek and Tonto Creek, which 

are tied to the Coconino-De Chelly Aquifer (C Aquifer) (Hart et al., 2002). Groundwater pumping 

within the C Aquifer may negatively affect aquatic habitat and the amount of water forest wells 

can access for stock watering and domestic use as groundwater levels are drawn down. See figure 

10 for location of the C Aquifer. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Water Quality

Trend

The trend in all alternatives would be toward desired conditions. Water quality monitoring 

provided by ADEQ would continue to result in a reduction of Category 5 (impaired) reaches and 

 

16 The 1980 Arizona Groundwater Code recognized the need to aggressively manage the State’s finite groundwater 

resources to support the growing economy. Areas with heavy reliance on mined groundwater were identified and 

designated as active management areas (AMAs). There are five AMAs: Prescott, Phoenix, Pinal, Tucson, and Santa 

Cruz. 

Figure 10. Map showing extent of the 

Coconino-De Chelly Aquifer (C Aquifer).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 85

lakes through completion of TMDL plans. Water quality was improving throughout the forests 

until the 2011 Wallow Fire occurred. Water quality monitoring is needed to determine new 

baseline levels and establish recovery rates for Arizona Outstanding Waters, as all but one was 

affected to some extent by the Wallow Fire. Implementation of BMPs would reduce water quality 

impacts from all land-disturbing projects and protect Outstanding Arizona Waters from long-term 

water quality degradation.

Forest Restoration Activities

Mechanical Treatments

Although much of the effects to water quality from mechanical treatments are mitigated through 

BMPs and soil and water conservation practices (SWCPs), there may be short-term sediment 

pulses from activity roads, skid trails, and landings. Alternative C would prescribe the most 

mechanical treatment and, therefore, would have the highest risk to water quality, followed by 

alternatives B, D, and then A. At the project-level, site-specific mitigation would reduce impacts 

to water quality below significant levels under all alternatives. 

Timber harvest and restoration treatment activities have the potential to adversely affect water 

resources. Typical ground disturbance includes use and maintenance of motorized routes, skid 

trails, log landings, and stream crossings (Litzchert and MacDonald, 2009). In addition to erosion 

and sedimentation, impacts may include vegetation loss in riparian areas, effective extension of 

the channel network through roads and skid trails connecting upstream disturbances to streams, 

and channel damage from higher flows (generated from canopy reduction) within the contributing 

watershed area. 

Additional impacts from timber harvest, forest restoration activities, and prescribed fire may 

include the contamination of water or wetlands from chemical substances (e.g., gasoline, oil, 

hydraulic fluid) that leak from equipment used on the forests. There are also potential effects 

from chemicals (e.g., herbicides) used for site preparation, timber stand improvement, and 

treatment of invasive plants associated with timber harvest activities. 

Erosion that results from timber harvest activity is generally temporary and usually returns to preharvest erosion rates within 2 years. Effectiveness monitoring and research have shown that 

proper implementation of BMPs and SWCPs greatly reduce erosion, compaction, sedimentation, 

and other water quality impacts (Forest Service, 2007d and 2008h; EPA, 2005). In addition, 

streamside management zones or vegetative filters would be prescribed for all streams to 

minimize impacts from all ground-disturbing activities. The width of these filter strips would vary 

based on stream order, type, slope, erosion hazard of adjacent uplands, and protection status (e.g., 

federally listed critical habitat, Outstanding Arizona Water) (Forest Service, 2008c). Activities 

that are allowed in streamside management zones are modified in degree, extent, or timing to 

minimize sediment and wildlife habitat modification (e.g., hand thinning, no treatments in 

breeding season).

Wildland Fire Treatments

Although much of the effects to water quality from wildland fire treatments would also be 

mitigated through BMPs and SWCPs, there may be short-term sediment and ash pulses from 

higher severity burn areas within fire areas. Alternative D would prescribe the most fire

treatment acres and, therefore, the greatest risk to water quality, followed by alternatives B, C, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

and then A. At the project-level, site-specific mitigation would reduce impacts to water quality 

below significant levels under all alternatives. 

The effects of wildland fire on water quality would vary depending on fire intensity, type and 

amount of vegetation burned, soil moisture, proximity to streams, weather conditions, and 

burning techniques. The magnitude of the effects of fire on water quality is primarily driven by 

fire severity. Fire severity is a qualitative term describing the immediate effects of fire on 

vegetation, litter, or soils. Fire intensity is a key component of burn severity and refers to the rate 

at which a fire produces heat at the flaming front and is expressed in terms of temperature or heat 

yield. Moderate or high intensity fires consume more fuel and release more nutrients than low 

intensity broadcast burns. Additionally, areas affected by moderate and high severity fires are 

more susceptible to soil erosion and releasing nutrients into streams where water quality can be 

degraded (Neary et al., 2005). Burning prescriptions would be designed to limit fire intensity to 

only the level needed to meet resource objectives for the area. BMPs are prescribed for all 

wildland fires and have shown to be effective in reducing sediment to streams through the use of 

filter strips and implementation strategies. 

There is little evidence that sedimentation or water yield increases significantly in streams from 

forested lands burned according to a prescribed fire plan that is designed to meet resource 

objectives (e.g., wildlife, recreation, watershed, vegetation, ecological) (Neary et al., 2005). 

Wildland fire under higher intensity conditions can result in water quality degradation. Physical 

changes of soil cover and structure would lead to additional runoff and sediment loss. Water flows

in watersheds when burned under higher intensities high severity are typically high volume and of 

short duration, which can increase channel erosion and loss of floodplains from extensive 

flooding (Neary et al., 2005). High intensity fires in riparian areas can result in higher burn 

severities by removing protective vegetation and large wood needed to retain vertical and 

horizontal stability.

Motorized Routes 

Alternative C would provide the greatest potential for increasing sediment from roads and 

motorized trails as it has a higher proportion of mechanical treatments/harvest as well as 

increased emphasis in motorized recreation opportunities. Less mechanized harvesting and 

restoration treatment acres would be proposed in alternative B, followed by alternative D, 

where more wildland fire and nonmotorized recreation opportunities are emphasized, and finally 

alternative A.

Numerous studies have identified unpaved roads as a major source of sediment in forested 

watersheds (Elliot and Foltz, 2001; Burroughs and King, 1989). Roads near streams have the 

greatest impact on water quality, as there is less area to filter sediment. Increased road density 

(miles per unit area) increases drainage density and can also increase the size of peak flows as it 

reduces the time to concentration of flows. This increases the proportion of sediment delivered as 

water at higher flows has more energy to scour and carry sediment (Wemple et al., 2001; 

Troendle and Olsen, 1994). 

Road erosion can be reduced over native raw roads by surfacing with gravel, lining inside ditches 

with riprap, revegetating cut and fill slopes, and minimizing maintenance of road surfaces and 

ditches (Burroughs and King, 1989). Newer road designs include vegetative filter strips, more 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 87

frequent drainage features, outsloping of the road surface to disperse road runoff, and narrower 

road surfaces to reduce the size of the road tread, cut slopes, and fill slopes. Whenever possible, 

roads would be relocated in upslope or ridgetop positions rather than along drainages. Temporary 

roads would be removed and revegetated following use.

Recreation Activities 

Recreationists are drawn to water as evidenced by the fact that most of the forests’ campgrounds 

are in close proximity to lakes and rivers. All alternatives emphasize maintenance of existing 

developed recreation sites. Managed campgrounds and picnic areas are hardened and provide a 

more efficient setting for managed access to water, as well as human and animal waste, as 

compared to dispersed camping. In the action alternatives, there is guidance to locate dispersed 

campsites away from streams or sensitive areas, and facilities or developments could be provided 

for protection of the environment rather than the convenience of visitors. Alternative A does not 

contain this guidance and would allow campsites to be located in close proximity to the forests’ 

waters. This concentrated unmanaged recreation use would continue to cause damage to 

vegetation; soil compaction and erosion; and water pollution from human and animal waste, 

dishwashing, trash, and vehicle fluids.

Grazing Activities

The action alternatives would reduce pressure on riparian areas by improving upland vegetation 

condition (forage condition), thereby reducing impacts to water quality from grazing (see the 

“Vegetation” section on overstory and herbaceous understory relationships). In addition, the

action alternatives would concentrate restoration efforts in priority watersheds. These 

alternatives would provide comprehensive restoration on a watershed basis and have the most 

opportunity for improving water quality. Alternative A would provide fewer opportunities for 

improved forage conditions that would relieve grazing pressure in and around the forests’ waters.

Water quality can be affected by grazing activities in many ways. Consumption and trampling of 

vegetation and compaction or displacement from animal hooves in riparian areas reduces 

streambank stability and can change vegetation composition from the potential spread of noxious 

weeds. Loss of vegetation reduces the ability of a stream to trap and hold sediment in floodplains 

and may reduce shading of the stream. Defecation and urination into streams can reduce water 

quality. Overgrazing can diminish upland conditions, which in turn, may increase storm flows 

that potentially add sediment to streams reducing water quality. 

All of these factors are mitigated, to some extent, with the implementation and monitoring of 

BMPs and SWCPs for grazing. As allotment management plans are revised and BMPs are 

incorporated into daily livestock management, degrading factors (mentioned above) to water 

quality are diminished. 

Special Uses 

In all alternatives, terms and conditions of special use permits would require site-specific BMPs 

to provide for protection of water quality. All alternatives would allow authorization of occupancy 

and use of NFS lands based on public need when services or uses cannot be met on private or 

other Federal lands. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Climate Change

Effects to water quality from climate change are similar to effects to soil condition. All 

alternatives would reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change by moving ecosystems 

toward vegetation desired conditions. Unlike alternative A, the action alternatives would 

provide an approach to restore priority watersheds, allowing opportunities to provide the highest 

quality water within those treated watersheds. Alternative A trends would move ecosystems 

toward desired conditions at the slowest rate.

Water Yield and Water Rights

Trend

Industrial and municipal use of the Coconino-De Chelly Aquifer is estimated to be above the 

recharge rate (Hart et al., 2002.) and would be expected to continue under all alternatives. Water 

use is expected to remain static over the planning period, as water is considered to be overallocated in Arizona. The forests’ major water uses include firefighting, road maintenance, and 

domestic and wild ungulate watering, with minor amounts for administrative use. Water yields are 

expected to increase slightly because of implementation and maintenance of ecological 

restoration treatments that result in more open forests and improved woodland and grassland 

conditions. 

Forest Restoration Activities

Alternative C would generate the most increased water yield, followed by alternatives D, B, 

and then A. Following timber harvest, there is a potential short-term increase in water yield or 

quantity in the harvest units. However, annual water yield for a watershed is only measurable 

when 25 percent or more of the timber volume in a watershed is removed, especially in areas 

receiving more than 18 inches of precipitation per year (Troendle and Olsen, 1994; Troendle et 

al., 2001; Grant et al., 2008; Brown et al., 1974; Rich and Thompson, 1974). Therefore, 

alternatives that reduce canopy cover in forested PNVTs would generate additional runoff. 

Generally, as the treatment areas revegetate and begin absorbing soil moisture, water runoff 

returns to pre-harvest levels. However, desired conditions for much of the forested PNVTs require 

converting the currently closed overstory condition to open. As these areas would be maintained 

at a much lower canopy cover over time, water yield increases should remain. 

Streamflow responses to prescribed broadcast fire would be smaller in magnitude than the 

responses to high severity wildfires. Prescribed burning generally leaves portions of the organic 

soil surface (DeBano et al., 1996). Increases in streamflow discharges are much lower following 

prescribed fire than as those resulting from high severity wildfires. 

Motorized Routes 

Since the road and motorized trail system (miles, location, and maintenance level) is similar for 

all alternatives, there would be no difference in water yield expected. 

Recreation Activities 

Across all alternatives, there are no new dams or other impoundments planned for recreation 

within the forests’ boundary that would require additional water use. Maintenance of existing 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 89

dams would continue, which may involve rebuilding of spillways and sealing the core. However, 

no additional capacity is expected to be added. 

Grazing Activities

All alternatives would provide for some increase in water yield which may provide more reliable 

waters for livestock use, especially in areas with greater than 18 inches of precipitation. Areas in 

lower precipitation zones would probably not have much of an increase from restoration 

treatments. 

For a pasture to be available for grazing, it has to have sufficient, nutritious forage and adequate 

water availability. Some pastures rely on wells and developed springs to water livestock, but 

many utilize tanks built with native materials to capture runoff from snowmelt and rainfall for 

later use. During the recent droughts, many dirt tanks on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs dried up, 

making many pastures unusable for cattle even though forage may have been available. The 2,240 

stock tanks have altered water supply to some of the forests’ streams. By far, most of these

impoundments are found in ephemeral drainages. Many provide for sediment capture; however, 

their maintenance often releases or creates sediment that eventually travels to forest streams. 

Special Uses

There are no projected differences between all alternatives for special uses. Easements and 

special use permits to transmit water from water sources, such as springs and streams, to private 

or public holdings are common on the forests. These are subject to terms and conditions that 

require demonstrating proof of water right ownership and monitoring of flows. Other terms 

require maintenance of structures and mitigation of possible resource damage. New special uses 

for water transmission would require mitigation of damage to downstream uses. 

Pumping of groundwater near streams has the potential to reduce streamflow (Forest Service, 

2008e). Forest Service policy states that groundwater tests are required to demonstrate whether 

groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Forest Service, 2012f) are affected. Special use permits may 

be denied or uses would be mitigated to prevent loss of riparian habitat or aquatic species. No 

new groundwater pumping projects are planned on the forests at this time. 

Climate Change

Changes in water distribution, timing of precipitation, availability, storage, watershed 

management, and human water uses may present some of the most important challenges of 

climate change and national forest management in the Southwest. Terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems and human socioeconomic systems depend on water. Two scenarios are discussed: 

wetter/warmer and drier/warmer. 

In wetter climate scenarios, the potential for flooding is very likely to increase because of earlier 

and more rapid melting of the snowpack, with more intense precipitation. Even if total 

precipitation increases substantially, snowpack would likely be reduced because of higher overall 

temperatures. However, it is possible that more precipitation would also create additional water 

supplies, reduce demand, and ease some of the competition among competing uses (Joyce et al., 

2001; Smith et al., 2001).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

In contrast, a drier climate scenario is very likely to decrease water supplies and increase demand 

for such uses as agriculture, recreation, aquatic habitat, and power, thus increasing competition 

for decreasing supplies (Joyce et al., 2001). Overall, these trends would increase pressures on the 

already limited water supplies in the Southwest, increase energy demand, alter fire regimes and 

ecosystems, create risks for human health, and affect agriculture in the region (Swetnam and 

Betancourt, 1997; Sprigg and Hinkley, 2000).

Some studies predict water shortages and lack of storage capabilities to meet seasonally changing 

river flow and transfers of water from agriculture to urban uses, as critical climate-related impacts 

to water availability occur (Barnett et al., 2008). Without upland reservoirs and watersheds (e.g., 

Little Colorado, Salt, and Upper Gila River Basins) important to Arizona’s largest metropolitan 

center located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, alternative water sources, water delivery systems, 

and infrastructure support for agriculture would need to be developed (Lenart, 2007).

Effects to water yield from climate change are similar to effects to soil condition and water 

quality. Reduced vulnerability to the effects of climate change is provided by returning ecosystem 

health to desired conditions. Alternatives that reduce canopy cover in higher precipitation zones 

would allow for more water storage and yield as there is less interception and transpiration loss. 

Alternatives D, B, and then C would move ecosystems toward vegetation with more open 

canopies, while alternative A would trend toward desired vegetation conditions at the slowest 

rate. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Water Quality

The cumulative environmental consequences are spatially bounded by an area much larger than 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Some effects are limited to local watersheds, while some can have 

effects downstream of the forests within the three major watershed basins: the Upper Gila, Little 

Colorado, and Salt River watersheds. The forests are considered headwaters to these major river 

systems.

Cumulative effects to water quality are the result of impacts in both time and space. Many of the 

kinds of impacts to water quality off-forest (e.g., private, local and State governments, other 

Federal agencies) are similar to those on NFS lands, such as effects of roads, grazing, material 

removal, recreation, and fuel reduction/restoration treatments. Others impacts are not the same, 

such as urbanization, industrial mining, manufacturing, and power generation. Some are 

considered point sources of pollution and must meet stringent requirements for release of 

pollutants. 

Acidity in rain, snow, fog, and dry deposition can affect soil fertility and nutrient cycling and can 

result in acidification of lakes and streams. Sulfate deposition to sensitive watersheds results in 

increasing soil and surface water acidification. Deposition of excess nitrogen (nitrate and 

ammonium) in both terrestrial and aquatic systems can acidify streams, lakes, and soils. Aquatic 

ecosystems in Arizona are generally well buffered and not subject to episodic or chronic 

acidification except at the highest elevations in and around Mount Baldy Wilderness. There are 

pollution sources around the forests known to emit elements that form acids of sulfur and 

nitrogen. The forests’ waters are currently not impacted by airborne deposition to the extent there 

is a measureable reduction in water quality; they are not expected to be in the future (see the “Air 

Quality” section). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 91

Since the trend of water quality under all alternatives would be toward desired conditions, this 

would reduce or dilute possible off-forest effects of potential pollutants and provide better water 

quality to downstream users. Alternatives B, D, C, and A, in order, provide for this overall water 

quality improvement.

Water Yield and Water Rights

There are documented studies of effects of groundwater pumping on the Colorado Plateau 

predicting that streams and wells on the forests would be impacted. Projected population growth 

would put higher demands on surface and groundwater resources and, therefore, more pressure to 

provide water could be placed on Federal managers. Implementation of all alternatives are 

expected to slightly increase the amount of water leaving the forests and provide more water for 

aquifer recharge due to the expected reduction of vegetation transpiration and interception 

(Brewer, 2008; Baker et al., 1999) and general improvement of watershed conditions.

Riparian

This section examines the current trend of riparian condition and function. A qualitative estimate 

of the riparian condition trend for each alternative is provided, as well as the potential effects 

from management activities.

Four riparian PNVTs are classified within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: cottonwood-willow 

riparian forest, mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forest, montane willow riparian forest, and 

wetland/cienega riparian areas. These PNVTs are described in detail in the “Vegetation” section. 

The full analysis of riparian condition and function can be found in the “Riparian Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2014q) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Since the mid-1990s, the forests have utilized the proper functioning condition (PFC) (BLM, 

1998 and 2003) protocol to determine condition of riparian areas. The protocol is a consistent 

approach to determine how well physical processes are functioning. It is a qualitative assessment 

based on quantitative science. 

Streams and wetlands are classified in the protocol as follows:

• Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): Riparian and wetland areas are functioning 

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

○ dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality; 

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

○ improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge;

○ develop root masses that stabilize stream banks; and 

○ develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide habitat for fish, 

waterfowl and other uses, and support greater biological diversity.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Functioning-at-Risk (FAR): Riparian and wetland areas that are in functional condition 

but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to 

degradation17.

• Nonfunctioning (NF): Riparian and wetland areas that clearly are not providing 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy 

associated with high flows, and they are not reducing erosion or improving water quality.

• Unknown: Riparian and wetland areas that managers lack sufficient information on to 

make any form of determination.

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumption applies:

• Motorized cross-country vehicle use in riparian areas would be limited to occasional 

crossings on designated roads and trails in all alternatives.

Affected Environment

Riparian areas are basic to the hydrologic function of watersheds. They are terrestrial ecosystems 

characterized by hydric (wet) soils and plant species that are hydrophilic or dependent on the 

water table or its capillary fringe zone. Riparian areas include springs, seeps, streams, ponds, 

lakes, and their associated wet areas and floodplains. Riparian areas collect and transport water, 

soil, and organic material from upslope and upstream. Even though they make up less than 3

percent of the forests’ land, they compose the most potentially productive and diverse 

components of forest and range ecosystems. Fish, wildlife, and many plant species depend on 

riparian areas for their existence.

Many of the forests’ streams have been altered to the point where the change in stream channel 

morphology has resulted in drops in water tables and loss of floodplains where excess sediment 

can be stored. This change negatively affects the abundance, distribution, and reproduction of 

native riparian vegetation, especially willows and cottonwoods. The effects of past activities have 

reduced the overall potential of the riparian resource to provide wildlife habitat needed for species.

Overgrazing has been observed to reduce effective vegetative ground cover and riparian 

vegetation, which contributes to accelerated erosion and soil compaction (Forest Service, 1991; 

Tellman and Yarde, 1997; Knutson and Naef, 1997), as well as sedimentation into connected 

perennial waters. Elk grazing is largely uncontrolled and have been observed in riparian areas, 

especially in unfenced wetlands.

The Wallow Fire in 2011 also affected riparian areas throughout its extent. The effects of the fire 

potentially degraded riparian areas directly as riparian vegetation was burned and indirectly as 

fire removed protective vegetation and litter within the watersheds causing increased streamflow 

energy that resulted in changes in stream channel stability. Recent observations in many riparian 

areas reveal a range of little change from fire effects to severe degradation in specific riparian 

areas from channel cutting, sediment deposition, and, in extreme cases, debris flow. Forest 

personnel are still evaluating the effects to riparian as funding and workload allow. It will take 

many years to understand the full effects of the Wallow Fire on riparian areas.

The current vegetation and soil conditions and trends in relation to desired conditions in all four 

riparian PNVTs are displayed in table 14 below. The trend is measured by the movement toward

 17 The term degraded means “a decline in the viability of ecosystem functions and processes” (Armantrout, 1998).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 93

or away from desired conditions. Trend is based on a qualitative analysis of threats and risks to 

riparian function for each riparian PNVT. Apparent trend is estimated for each PFC assessment 

discussed in the “Riparian Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014q). Desired conditions for 

riparian and wetlands are based on the function of riparian vegetation through hydrologic, 

vegetation, and erosion/deposition processes and attributes. In general, the desired condition for 

riparian areas and wetlands is to be in proper functioning condition.

Table 14. Riparian vegetation and soil condition trends

Riparian Vegetation (PNVT) Current Riparian Vegetation 

Condition Trenda

Current Riparian Soil 

Condition Trendb

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest

(15,876 acres)

Away Away

Mixed Broadleaf Riparian Forest

(9,657 acres)

Away Away

Montane Willow Riparian Forest

(4,808 acres)

Away Away

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas

(17,900 acres)

Away Away

a See the “Vegetation” section

b See the “Soil” section

Riparian Areas Along Streams

There are over 2,800 linear miles of riparian areas on the forests. Approximately 24 percent of 

riparian areas are in proper functioning condition (PFC), 68 percent are functioning-at-risk 

(FAR), and 8 percent are nonfunctioning (NF) (table 15). Effects of past grazing, logging and 

roads, flooding, and periods of drought have degraded riparian conditions (Forest Service, 

2008e). Based on current trends, PFC areas are expected to remain in the same condition based on 

BMP implementation for road, timber, and grazing management. The FAR areas remain static or 

show downward trend where negative effects of activities are beyond the forests’ control or show 

upward trend where BMPs and other mitigations are effectively protecting riparian values.

Although there is a public perception that riparian areas are fragile, current information indicates 

that riparian systems are often resilient. Once stresses (e.g., livestock grazing, wildland fires, dirt 

roads) are relieved, these riparian systems can regain their equilibrium within a few years because 

of resilient, native, herbaceous, riparian plants (Baker et al., 1999). Nonnative bluegrass 

dominated riparian areas have converted to native sedges where stressors have been reduced 

(AZGFD, 2000–2010). In other cases, such as in large systems where a large wood matrix is 

needed to overcome accelerated channel dynamics (e.g., the Blue River), the riparian system may 

take decades to reach PFC, even with the removal of direct impacts (National Riparian Service 

Team, 2000). Upland watershed conditions can also affect recovery of riparian and stream 

channels. Upland watershed areas that have been altered by high severity fire or intensive 

management treatments can reduce resistance to flow and water storage onsite and lead to

increased and often damaging runoff. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

4th Level 

HUC 5th Level HUC Riparian Conditiona (miles and percent of watershed)

Watershed Watershed PFC % FAR % NF % Total 

Miles

Little Colorado 

River 

Headwaters

Nutrioso Creek 58 42 81 58 0 0 139

South Fork Little 

Colorado River-Little 

Colorado River 

Headwaters

79 58 54 40 3 2 137

Coyote Creek 4 15 21 82 1 3 25

Carnero Creek-Little 

Colorado River 

Headwaters

2 15 10 85 0 0 12

Upper Little 

Colorado 

River

Big Hollow Wash 0 0 2 100 0 0 2

Oso Draw 5 10 50 90 0 0 55

Silver Creek Show Low Creek 4 7 53 88 3 5 60

Upper Silver Creek 0 0 11 54 10 46 21

Cottonwood Creek 8 5 136 80 27 16 171

Middle Little 

Colorado 

River

Phoenix Park Wash-Dry 

Lake

0 0 38 88 5 12 43

Upper Clear Creek 49 29 84 50 34 21 167

Lower Clear Creek 14 100 0 0 0 0 14

Chevelon 

Canyon

Upper Chevelon Canyon 123 53 92 40 16 7 231

Black Canyon 0 0 60 49 64 51 124

Lower Chevelon Canyon 0 0 3 74 1 26 4

Mangus 

Creek-Upper 

Gila River

Apache Creek-Upper 

Gila River

8 29 19 71 0 0 26
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 95

4th Level a

5th Riparian Condition (miles and percent of watershed) HUC Level HUC

Watershed Watershed Total PFC % FAR % NF % Miles

San Francisco Centerfire Creek-San 8 11 58 84 3 5 69

River Francisco River

Upper Blue River 86 28 195 65 21 7 302

Pueblo Creek-San 0 0 12 100 0 0 12

Francisco River

Lower Blue River 92 29 200 64 21 7 312

Mule Creek-San 27 22 86 70 9 8 123

Francisco River

Chase Creek-San 22 36 32 51 8 13 62

Francisco River

Upper Gila Upper Eagle Creek 61 34 109 61 11 6 181

River-San 

Carlos 

Reservoir

Lower Eagle Creek 56 43 66 51 7 6 129

Black River Upper Black River 54 15 299 81 14 4 368

Middle Black River 23 45 28 55 0 0 51

White River Upper North Fork White 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 

River

Upper Salt Canyon Creek 8 60 5 40 0 0 13

River

Carrizo Creek Carrizo Creek (local 0 0 3 100 0 0 3 

drainage)

Total Miles and Average Percent 791 24 1,808 68 258 8 2,857

a Riparian condition ratings are PFC = proper functioning condition, FAR = functioning-at-risk, and NF = 

nonfunctioning. Total miles may not equal mileages in the rating categories due to rounding.

Wetlands

All wetlands on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have been mapped; however, not all wetlands have 

been assessed in detail. There are about 7,000 acres of wetlands on the forests. Conditions of a 

limited number of wetlands have been determined through the use of the PFC protocol. Others 

have been described and evaluated for suitability for waterfowl and threatened and endangered

species habitat. Many of the forests’ wetlands are small and only seasonally wet. Little more than 

anecdotal information is available to document the reference condition, extent, and conditions of 

wetland and riparian areas. However, Cline (1976) inferred that wetland conditions prior to Euro-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

American settlement (early 1800s) was probably dominated by proper functioning condition, 

because there was little human disturbance compared to today. Datasets from 1913 to 1915 

describe various areas known today as reservoirs—such as Sierra Blanca Lake—as large wetlands 

(Riblett et al., 1915). More recent aerial photo analysis (post 1940) indicates wetland extent then 

was about the same as it is today. Current disturbances are similar to those listed in the “Water 

Resources” section. Nonfunctional wetlands include those that have been artificially drained by 

the practice of creating pit tanks for livestock watering. Others have been enhanced through 

watershed and wildlife improvement projects.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

In all alternatives, environmental consequences within the foreseeable future to riparian areas 

and wetland ecosystems from management activities (timber harvesting/forest restoration) are 

expected to be minor. This is because project design incorporating BMPs, aquatic management 

zones, and wildlife habitat mitigation would be implemented; riparian areas and wetland 

ecosystems would be avoided; and new road construction related to timber harvesting is not 

expected to occur. Livestock grazing would continue into the foreseeable future throughout the 

planning area; continued impacts to riparian areas and wetland ecosystems may occur. Continued 

monitoring and adaptive management applied to livestock grazing would aid in minimizing 

impacts to riparian areas and wetlands. 

Trend

The current trend is away from desired conditions in all riparian PNVTs. There are no specific 

objectives in alternative A regarding treating the riparian vegetation structure or composition or 

treating roads that impact riparian condition; therefore, the trend is estimated to be away. 

Alternatives B and D have objectives to treat riparian areas as well as remove roads that impact 

riparian condition; therefore, some positive trend is expected. Although alternative C does not 

have specific objectives to treat the riparian vegetation, it does contain an objective to remove 

unauthorized routes and unneeded maintenance level 1 roads; therefore, some positive 

improvement is expected. All alternatives, in most PNVTs, would result in improving upland 

watershed conditions, which would result in an improvement in riparian condition. See table 3 in 

chapter 2, specifically under “Type, Priority, and Amount of Restoration Treatments.”

Reduction in canopy cover is expected to improve forage conditions in most PNVTs (see the 

“Vegetation” and “Livestock Grazing” sections), resulting in less demand by grazers to use 

riparian areas. Alternatives B and D additionally would provide for direct treatment of riparian 

streams and roads currently impacting riparian areas. Alternatives A and C would provide for 

improvement of upland conditions which would indirectly contribute to riparian improvement.

Forest Restoration Activities

Improvements of 2 to 6 percent toward desired conditions in alternatives B and D are estimated 

due to treatments (mechanical and wildland fire) in riparian areas; while no reductions in 

departure from desired conditions are expected in alternatives A and C which lack riparian 

treatment objectives. Improvements to riparian areas under alternatives A and C would occur as 

opportunities arise and as a result of general vegetation and soil condition improvements in 

upland portions of watersheds.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 97

Mechanical

Since all alternatives would have timber harvest and restoration treatment activities, there is the 

potential to adversely affect riparian habitats. Haul routes, skid trails, log landings, and stream 

crossings used to remove trees may impact riparian vegetation, soils, and stream function. In 

addition to erosion and sedimentation within the riparian area, these impacts can cause an 

effective extension of the channel network through the roads and skid trails connecting upstream 

disturbances to streams and can often overload the sediment filtering and storage ability of 

riparian areas. 

These effects are typically limited in duration due to the closed roads being reclosed after the 

project and the natural rehabilitation of skid trails. Effectiveness monitoring and research have 

shown that proper implementation of BMPs and SWCPs (Forest Service Handbook 2209.23) 

greatly reduces erosion, compaction, displacement, and loss of soil structure by limiting heavy 

equipment access in riparian areas. Streamside management zones or vegetative filters would be 

prescribed for riparian areas minimizing impacts from all ground-disturbing activities as they are 

currently. The width of filter strips varies based on stream order, type, slope, erosion hazard of 

adjacent uplands, and the existing riparian area condition (Forest Service, 2008c). 

Beneficial effects from mechanical treatments include removal of competing, non-riparian

vegetation to allow for reestablishment of native riparian species, treatment of invasive species,

and potential removal of unneeded roads within riparian corridors. 

Wildland Fire

Wildland fire would be used as a management tool in all alternatives. Fire is a common 

disturbance in riparian ecosystems and surrounding hill slopes (Neary et al., 2005). Fire may lead 

to burning of surrounding uplands within the watershed resulting in higher sediment input, a 

higher degree of stream damage from increased peak flows, and a general decrease in basin 

stability (Neary et al., 2005). The magnitude of the effects of fire on riparian areas is primarily 

driven by fire intensity. As fire burns across the landscape, burn intensity is generally lower in 

riparian areas than surrounding upland vegetation because of the higher moisture content. High 

intensity wildfires can cause profound damage to plant cover and can indirectly increase 

streamflow velocity, sedimentation rates, and water temperatures, in contrast to low-intensity

fires, which have less severe (severity) consequences. 

BMPs are prescribed for all wildland fires and have been shown to be effective in reducing 

damage to riparian areas through the use of filter strips and implementation strategies. As an 

example, ignition techniques—such as mid-slope ignition—are used to protect riparian areas, 

allowing a lower intensity fire to burn downslope toward riparian areas and achieving other 

objectives upslope. Streamside management zones are also implemented for prescribed fire 

projects. The benefits for prescribed fire in riparian areas are similar to those listed for 

mechanical treatments.

Beneficial effects from wildland fire would include the removal of light competing, non-riparian

vegetation to allow for reestablishment of native riparian species. 

Motorized Routes

All alternatives address effects (listed below) from roads and motorized trails to riparian 

function to some degree. All alternatives provide standards and guidelines that reduce route
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

impacts through BMPs and SWCPs. All alternatives strive to improve long term upland 

condition through forest restoration treatments, reducing the effects of high flows responsible for 

channel damage. Alternatives B and D provide an objective to decommission NFS roads or trails 

that reduce the area of productive lands, thus reducing road sediment and allowing channels to 

reoccupy the width necessary to reduce stream energy. The action alternatives also provide for 

restoration of priority watersheds, where concentrated efforts to inventory, rehabilitate, and 

relocate roads can make positive change in riparian function. 

Generally, prior to the National Environmental Policy Act, roads were often located adjacent to 

water bodies and crossed them frequently. These traditional road location, design, construction, 

and maintenance activities have had considerable negative impacts on riparian areas across the 

forests; these impacts continue to some degree. Besides removal of productive riparian land to 

roadbed and ditches, some effects include the following (DeBano and Schmidt, 1989): 

• Riparian areas are dewatered due to lowered channel bed nick points and gully formation, 

and they advance upstream from compaction and reduction of effective channel width.

• Plant composition is changed, with a shift from riparian dependent plants to drier and less 

productive upland species.

• Runoff is accelerated, causing increased flood peaks and related damages.

• Base flows are decreased in volume and duration, causing streams to dry up earlier in the 

year.

• Perennial streams are reduced to non-perennial flow.

• Channel bed and bank erosion is increased.

• Downstream sedimentation is increased from eroded soil.

• Habitat for riparian dependent wildlife species is reduced.

Recreation Activities 

Common recreation activities within riparian areas include hiking, camping, fishing, swimming, 

biking, and motorized vehicle use. All of these activities can impact riparian condition by 

affecting vegetation and soils through soil compaction and displacement and destruction or 

damage to riparian vegetation. Off-highway vehicle use is limited in riparian areas to occasional 

crossing on approved roads and trails in all alternatives. In the action alternatives, there is 

guidance to locate dispersed campsites away from streams or sensitive areas, and facilities or 

developments could be provided for protection of the environment rather than for convenience of 

visitors. Alternative A does not contain this guidance and would allow campsites to be located in 

close proximity to the forests’ waters. This concentrated unmanaged recreation use could cause 

damage to vegetation, soil compaction and erosion, and water pollution from human and animal 

waste, dishwashing, trash, and vehicle fluids.

Grazing Activities

All alternatives would prescribe treatments that improve the vegetation conditions on uplands to 

more open conditions. By reducing tree canopy, there would be an increase in available forage for 

grazing animals. This would provide an opportunity for reduced grazing pressure on riparian 

areas from both domestic and wild animals. Many riparian areas are very resilient and respond 

quickly to removal or reduction of degrading factors such as overgrazing. Recovery of 

functioning-at-risk riparian areas could occur within the planning period of 15 years in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 99

alternatives B and D if high treatment objective levels are implemented. Because there are no or 

few planned treatments to improve riparian conditions in alternatives A and C, there is less 

likelihood of recovering functioning-at-risk riparian areas.

Livestock (cattle and sheep) and wildlife grazing and browsing would continue in all alternatives

and occur throughout many perennial streams, riparian areas, and some wetlands. Riparian and 

wetland areas have the capacity to produce forage in greater amounts and for longer periods than 

surrounding uplands due to increased moisture and deeper soils. For these reasons, these areas 

may attract concentrations of herbivores which can lead to detrimental overuse of the vegetation, 

thereby reducing long term forage productivity. Upland forests restored or maintained in open 

canopied conditions can also produce relatively more forage which can reduce grazing pressure 

on adjacent riparian and wetland areas. 

All allotment management plans direct the use of best management practices (BMPs) and sitespecific mitigation to reduce direct effects to riparian function, such as compaction from 

trampling or overutilization of forage. Currently, the forests do not permit livestock grazing on 

Federal lands along the mainstem portions of the Blue and San Francisco Rivers and Eagle Creek. 

Many other grazing allotments have limited livestock use along perennial streams and limited 

livestock access to hardened areas or to times when grazing pressure does not adversely affect 

riparian area condition.

The height and density of herbaceous vegetation in riparian areas is important for maintaining 

streambank stability needed for proper riparian condition and function. Areas of high concern are 

those with actively eroding stream banks or high erosion potential. Restoring native species in 

riparian areas is important to long term riparian condition. For example, Kentucky bluegrass and 

Canadian bluegrass have spread into many riparian areas as a result of widespread settlement and 

livestock management. These bluegrass species are far less productive than native grasses and 

willows and do not have root masses capable of withstanding streamflows required for 

streambank protection. 

Special Uses

Water developments and road access are common special uses that affect riparian areas. In all 

alternatives, site-specific mitigations, BMPs, and maintenance requirements are written into each 

permit along with periodic monitoring to protect riparian areas.

Climate Change

Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are expected to decline (due to reduced 

precipitation); thereby reducing water in riparian zones. Water losses are also likely to increase 

due to elevated evapotranspiration rates at higher temperatures and greater runoff losses 

associated with increased frequencies of high intensity convectional storms. Urban expansion 

would increase human demand for water and further reduce water availability for ecosystems. 

Decreased water availability would affect riverine and riparian ecosystem function, due to 

modifications in geomorphological processes and an overall reduction in the availability of 

moisture to plant communities. 

Although riparian areas compose less than 3 percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands, they 

provide important habitat for vertebrates, invertebrates, migratory birds, and other ripariandependent species. Reduced water inputs would cause riparian ecosystems to contract in size. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Furthermore, lowered water availability would stress riparian plants and increase the ecosystem 

susceptibility to invasion by nonnative plants (e.g., salt cedar, Russian olive) which in turn would 

disrupt the natural wildlife community (Archer and Predick, 2008). Climate change is likely to 

alter wetland/cienega, fen, and bog ecosystems (Karl et al., 2009). Due to their ability to store and 

slowly release water, properly functioning wetlands/cienegas are imperative in periods of extreme 

droughts and may help mitigate the effects of climate change. 

In light of the changes indicated above, there is a need to reduce vulnerability by maintaining and 

restoring resilient native ecosystems. Restoring and maintaining resilience in all ecosystems is

part of the basic elements of forestwide desired conditions, and objectives and management 

approaches would be most provided for by alternatives B, D, C, and then A, respectively. 

Restoring and maintaining resilience would likely improve the potential for ecosystems to retain 

or return to desired conditions after being influenced by climate change related impacts and 

variability. Management practices such as thinning for age class diversity and structure and 

reclaiming and restoring native grasslands would help sustain healthy plant and animal 

communities. These practices would provide adequate nutrients, soil productivity, and hydrologic 

function to promote resilience and reduce opportunities for disturbance and damage. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Population growth impacts to riparian areas could increase, as demand for water and water-based 

recreation grows. Restriction of vehicles to roads and travel ways would reduce impacts to 

riparian areas compared to existing conditions, where few restrictions are in place. Urban demand 

for water may increase pressure on the Forest Service to reduce on-forest water use, although 

obtaining instream flow water rights on the forests’ most valuable streams would help protect 

base flows to retain riparian function. Groundwater pumping is not regulated outside of Arizona’s 

active management areas in southern and western Arizona. There are documented studies of 

effects of groundwater pumping on the Colorado Plateau that predict streamflow would be 

reduced which would affect water for riparian vegetation (Hart et al., 2002). Implementation of 

the action alternatives would be expected to slightly increase the long-term amount of water 

available for bank storage recharge and provide more water for aquifer recharge due to the 

expected reduction of upland vegetation transpiration and interception (Brewer, 2008; Baker et 

al., 1999). Alternative A would likely show only short-term gains in riparian improvement. 

Fisheries

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences to fish and their 

habitat on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs through implementation of a new land management plan. 

Four alternatives are analyzed, which include the current forest plan (1987 plan) and three new 

alternatives. This section also provides a summary of the fish species viability assessment and the 

identification and descriptions of the endangered, threatened, and sensitive fish species and their 

occupied, critical, and recovery habitats that occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Viability risks 

to fish species were determined by evaluating their abundance and distribution, current habitat 

conditions, and potential impacts to species populations and habitats from management actions 

that could occur within the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population is defined as 

one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its 

continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. The term degraded means “a decline 

in the viability of ecosystem functions and processes” (Armantrout, 1998).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 101

Affected Environment

Fish Species

There are presently 14 native fish species located throughout the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (table 

16). Seven of these native fish species are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); 4

are listed as endangered and 3 are listed as threatened. The roundtail chub is a candidate species

under the ESA and is also on the Southwestern Region Regional Forester’s designated sensitive 

species list dated September 21, 2007; along with five other fish species also considered sensitive. 

The speckled dace is not federally listed or classified as sensitive. The razorback sucker was 

introduced into Eagle Creek and the Blue River in the 1980s; these introductions were not 

successful and the species is not currently present within or downstream of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs, although designated critical habitat does occur in the Gila River approximately 7 to 15 miles 

south of the forests.

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

on Apache-Sitgreaves NFS lands

Species (Status) Occupied 

Habitat Critical Habitat Recovery Habitata

Apache trout (threatened) 31.6 miles NA 81.9 miles

Gila chub (endangered) 9.3 milesb 32.8 miles NA

Gila trout (threatened) None NA 33.5 miles

Loach minnow (endangered) 51.8 milesb 109.4 miles NA

Razorback sucker (endangered) None None, downstream NA

Roundtail chub (candidate/senstive) 45.2 miles NA NA

Spikedace (endangered) Unknown 91.2 miles NA

Little Colorado spinedace (threatened) 33.6 miles 7.1 miles 102.4 miles

Bluehead sucker (sensitive) 94 miles NA NA

Desert sucker (sensitive) 178 miles NA NA

Little Colorado River sucker (sensitive) 42.5 miles NA NA

Longfin dace (sensitive) 1,119 miles NA NA

Sonora sucker (sensitive) 156.1 miles NA NA

Speckled dace (NA) 378.9 miles NA NA

a Habitat that has been identified as necessary for recovery/restoration of the species.

b Occupied habitat miles for these species spatially overlap with critical habitat miles.

Along with the native fish species, there are 24 nonnative fish species occurring on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Several of these species are cold water fish that generally do not occur below 

6,500 feet in elevation, especially the trout species. Most are warm water centrarchid (sunfish 

family) and cyprinid (minnow family) species that occur below 8,000 feet in elevation.

Following is a list of nonnative fish species that occur within the forests:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Black Bullhead

Channel Catfish

Golden Shiner

Black Crappie

Goldfish

Green Sunfish

Cutthroat Trout

Flathead Catfish

Western mosquitofish

Bluegill

Rainbow Trout

Brown Trout

Red Shiner

Redear Sunfish

Yellow Perch

Brook Trout

Common Carp

Smallmouth Bass

Fathead Minnow

Walleye

Northern Pike

Largemouth Bass

White Crappie

Arctic Grayling

Native Fish Population, Distribution, and Habitat 

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs historically provided habitat for 14 native fish species, from high 

elevation cold water trout streams to lower elevation warm water streams with primarily cyprinid 

species. Together, these 14 species occur in approximately 477 miles (63 percent) of the 

763 miles of perennial streams on the forests (Vander Lee et al., 2006).

Aquatic and riparian habitat on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is extremely limited (less than 3

percent of the forests) but provides for a wide array of aquatic biota and terrestrial flora and 

fauna. These habitats are critical to sustaining aquatic biota diversity in the Southwest. Overall, 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs account for 41 percent of the perennial streams and 38 percent of the 

stream reaches with native fish on national forests in Arizona (Vander Lee et al., 2006).

The speckled dace, Sonora sucker, and desert sucker have the largest distributions on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs; while the Gila trout, Gila chub, and spikedace have the smallest. All of the 

streams with loach minnow on national forests in Arizona are on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. In 

addition, within national forests in Arizona, over two-thirds of the stream reaches with the 

bluehead sucker (95 percent), Apache trout (80 percent), Gila trout (71 percent), Little Colorado 

sucker (70 percent), and Little Colorado spinedace (66 percent) are on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

(Vander Lee et al., 2006). 

Current information regarding aquatic and riparian habitats and aquatic biota primarily consists of 

surveys and studies completed by State and Federal agencies over the last 10 to 20 years. These 

surveys show that approximately 70 percent of the surveyed stream reaches are not meeting a 

minimum habitat condition index (HCI) standard of 60 percent18. Where repeat surveys have 

 18 The 1987 plan provides management emphasis and monitoring for fish species and riparian habitat using the habitat 

condition index (HCI) and biologic condition index (BCI) for aquatic macroinvertebrates. The HCI is a multivariate 

rating of existing habitat conditions based on several factors: pool frequency and occurrence; substrate conditions and 

types; and streambank cover, soil, and vegetation stability. The HCI evaluates the stream’s existing habitat conditions 

relative to its potential. The BCI incorporates stream habitat, water quality, and environmental tolerances of aquatic 

macroinvertebrate community species. The BCI is a function of a Predicted Community Tolerance Quotient divided by 

the Actual Community Tolerance Quotient and evaluates a stream’s condition in relation to its own potential. As 

required in the 1987 plan, minimum conditions (values) for the HCI should be 60 percent and 80 percent for the BCI.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 103

occurred, HCI ratings on approximately 50 percent of those stream reaches have declined over 

the last 20 years, while HCI ratings have increased on the other 50 percent. 

Fish population surveys and sampling efforts have also shown declines for many species over the 

last 20 years. According to Robinson et al. (2006), most of Arizona’s stream length was assessed 

to be in the “most disturbed”19 ecological condition; 70 percent was in most disturbed condition 

based on the aquatic vertebrate index of biotic integrity (IBI) and 57 percent was in most 

disturbed based on a macroinvertebrate IBI. 

Most streams and aquatic and riparian habitats have experienced considerable degradation and 

alteration from a variety of human and management related activities; their ability to recover and 

improve has been affected, especially as ongoing and new impacts occur. Habitat quality and 

complexity changes have resulted from loss of pool habitat, loss of large wood within streams, 

riparian area impacts, channel alterations, and down cutting. Increased sedimentation rates can 

adversely impact habitat and species through negative impacts to water quantity and quality. Fish 

population surveys and sampling efforts have also shown declines for some species, while some 

nonnative species have shown increases. 

Historic activities (e.g., grazing, water developments and diversions, timber harvest and roads, 

fire suppression) that occurred 20 to over 100 years ago caused impacts to aquatic communities 

and their watersheds. The species and habitats of today have not yet recovered. Fish populations 

have been reduced from large interconnected populations to isolated populations within severely 

altered and degraded habitats. All native species have lost much of their population redundancy20

within and outside the forests. This is reflected in the historic and recent (last 20 years) 

population declines and fragmentation of fish species on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest 

Service, 2008e). Historically, 17 of the 33 5th level HUC watersheds on the forests contained one 

or more fish species. Currently, only 12 of these watersheds contain native fish; those that still 

contain native fish have lost one to several species. There are two watersheds (Coyote Creek and 

Oso Draw) on the forests where no fish were historically present, but are currently occupied by 

Apache trout (table 17).

 19 Most disturbed ecological condition for macroinvertebrates is defined as having lost more than 50 percent of the 

expected taxa (species naming hierarchy). For native aquatic vertebrates and habitat, it is the 5 percent most divergent 

relative to the reference condition.

20 Redundancy means having several distinct populations of a species, so that if some catastrophic event killed one 

population, the species would not become extinct.
104

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 17. Current and historical occurrences of native fish species by 4th and 5th level hydrologic unit code (HUC)

4th Level HUC 

Name

5th Level HUC 

Name

Longfin dace

Sonora sucker

Gila chub

Roundtail chub

Spinedace/

Spikedace

Apache trout

Gila trout

Desert sucker

Bluehead sucker

Speckled dace

Loach minnow

Little Colorado 

River Sucker

Razorback sucker

Historic

Current

Little Colorado 

River 

Headwaters

Nutrioso Creek H1 C2 H C C 5 3

South Fork Little 

Colorado RiverLittle Colorado 

River Headwaters

H C C C H 5 3

Coyote Creek C3 1

Carnero Creek-Little 

Colorado River 

Headwaters

0

Upper Little 

Colorado River

Big Hollow Wash 0

Oso Draw C3 1

Silver Creek Show Low Creek H H H H H 5 0

Upper Silver Creek H H H H 4 0

Cottonwood Creek H H H H 4 0

Middle Little 

Colorado River

Phoenix Park WashDry Lake0

Upper Clear Creek H H C C C 5 3

Lower Clear Creek H H C C C 5 3
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 105

4th Level HUC 

Name

5th Level HUC 

Name

Longfin dace

Sonora sucker

Gila chub

Roundtail chub

Spinedace/

Spikedace

Apache trout

Gila trout

Desert sucker

Bluehead sucker

Speckled dace

Loach minnow

Little Colorado 

River Sucker

Razorback sucker

Historic

Current

Chevelon 

Canyon

Upper Chevelon 

Canyon

H H C C C 5 3

Black Canyon H H H 3 0

Lower Chevelon 

Canyon

H H H H C 5 1

Mangus CreekUpper Gila 

River

Apache CreekUpper Gila River0

San Francisco 

River

Centerfire CreekSan Francisco RiverH H H H 4 0

Upper Blue River C C H H C C C C C 9 7

Pueblo Creek-San 

Francisco River

0

Lower Blue River C C H H H C C C H 9 5

Mule Creek-San 

Francisco River

C C C H H C C H H 9 5

Chase Creek-San 

Francisco River

C C H H H C C H H 9 4

Upper Gila 

River – San 

Carlos 

Reservoir

Willow Creek 0
106

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

4th Level HUC 

Name

5th Level HUC 

Name

Longfin dace

Sonora sucker

Gila chub

Roundtail chub

Spinedace/

Spikedace

Apache trout

Gila trout

Desert sucker

Bluehead sucker

Speckled dace

Loach minnow

Little Colorado 

River Sucker

Razorback sucker

Historic

Current

Upper Eagle Creek C C C C C H C C C H 10 8

Lower Eagle Creek C C H H H C C H H 9 4

Black River Upper Black River C C C C C C 6

Middle Black River C C C C C 5

White River Upper North Fork 

White River

0

East Fork White 

River

0

Upper Salt 

River

Canyon Creek 0

Carrizo Creek Corduroy Creek 0

Carrizo Creek (local 

drainage)

0

Tonto Creek Haigler Creek-Tonto 

Creek

0

H1 = historic occurrence only, no current occurrences of this fish species

C = current occurrence of this fish species

C2 = current and historic occurrence of this fish species

C3 = current occurrence where there was no historic occurrence of this fish species
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 107

The native fish species and populations analyzed here (especially federally listed) lack the 

resiliency to survive environmental disturbances from either natural or anthropogenic actions 

(e.g., fire and suppression of fire, climate variation, degraded watersheds and aquatic habitat, 

altered hydrologic conditions, loss of riparian and aquatic habitat, recreation demands, nonnative

species introductions, roads). The watersheds and ecosystems that these aquatic species and their 

habitats depend on are also altered and departed from historical conditions. While most of these 

impacts have occurred slowly over many decades, the individual and collective impacts still 

remain. Current conditions for fisheries at the 5th level HUC watershed can be attributed to many 

factors. Changes throughout vegetation types have altered fire regimes, successional structure, 

composition and cover classes, and processes from historic conditions. Several vegetation types 

also have impaired soil conditions. Additionally, riparian condition is predominantly functioningat-risk and hydrologic conditions (e.g., groundwater, water quality, streamflow) have also 

changed from historic conditions. See the “Vegetation,” “Soil,” “Water Resources,” and 

“Riparian” sections for more information.

The razorback sucker has not been found on the forests since the late 1980s and the spikedace has 

not been found recently. Although razorback sucker is considered extirpated (locally extinct) at 

this time, the spikedace is not. Spinedace, spikedace, and loach minnow are likely declining

range-wide. The roundtail chub, Little Colorado sucker, and the bluehead sucker have recently 

been included within a multistate conservation agreement in an attempt to improve their status 

and potentially prevent them from future listing under the ESA. The longfin dace, Sonora sucker, 

desert sucker, and speckled dace are also likely declining in their numbers and/or distributions 

across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Recent declines for the speckled dace are associated with 

chemical treatments of streams for Apache trout recovery projects. Although this has likely 

impacted large numbers of individuals and reduced distribution, no populations have been lost 

and the species is considered secure within the planning area. 

Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat

Apache Trout (Oncorhynchus apache)

The life history, ecology, historical distributions and abundances, habitat requirements, and other 

information relevant to this species are limited; data and information collection has primarily 

occurred on White Mountain Apache Tribal lands. Some of this information has been summarized 

and reviewed within the three Apache trout recovery plans, the first version completed in 1979 

and the latest in 2009. Recovery efforts for this species began as early as the 1940s on White 

Mountain Apache Tribal lands and later on NFS lands in the 1960s. Over the last 5 to 10 years, 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), with assistance from the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs, has expended considerable efforts on recovery actions to improve the species status. These 

have primarily included barrier construction and maintenance, chemical treatments to remove 

nonnative fish, and the subsequent introductions of Apache trout. Despite these efforts, recovery 

of populations has been very limited due to barrier and chemical treatment efficacy and the 

genetic purity and availability of Apache trout to place into historical habitats on the forests. 

The historical distribution of Apache trout has been somewhat confused with that of Gila trout.

Originally, Apache trout were thought to have historically occurred and occupied the headwaters 

of the Little Colorado, Salt, and San Francisco Rivers. The more recent view is that the 

headwaters of the San Francisco River were historically occupied by Gila trout. Regardless, the 

former widespread distribution of Apache trout in the Black, White, and Little Colorado 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

drainages is not disputed based on historical and more recent documented collections. The San 

Francisco River headwaters are now considered within historic range of Gila trout, although some 

Apache trout populations are still present from past recovery actions (i.e., Coleman, Grant, and 

KP Creeks).

Existing and potential Apache trout recovery populations occur on the forests and White 

Mountain Apache Tribal lands in Arizona within the historic range of the species. Outside of their 

historic range, several introduced populations occur on the Coronado NF and one occurs on the 

Kaibab NF. Existing and recovery populations on the forests included in this analysis are Bear 

Wallow Creek, Centerfire/Boggy/Wildcat Creeks, Coleman Creek, Conklin Creek, Coyote/Mamie 

Creeks, East Fork Little Colorado River (and Lee Valley Creek), Fish Creek, Grant Creek, 

Hannagan Creek, Hayground Creek, Home Creek, KP Creek, Mineral Creek, Snake Creek, 

Soldier Creek, South Fork Little Colorado River, Stinky Creek, West Fork Black River, and West 

Fork Little Colorado River.

The Apache trout was listed as threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act of 1966. A final rule was issued in the Federal Register on July 16, 1975, that 

determined the Apache trout is a threatened species as defined by the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. The reasons for listing and threats to the species can be found in the three versions of the 

recovery plans, and the final rule “Threatened Status for Three Species of Trout” (40 FR 29863) 

published in the Federal Register in 1975. Threats to the species include the destruction, 

modification, and curtailment of its habitat or range; logging operations and the associated 

erosion, siltation, and increases in water temperatures; and the introduction of nonnative trout 

species that hybridize and compete with the Apache trout.

Gila Chub (Gila intermedia) and Critical Habitat

Life history, ecology, historical distributions and abundances, habitat requirements, and other 

information relevant to this species are limited; data and information collection has primarily 

occurred on populations outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Most of the available information 

for this species has been summarized and reviewed within the proposed and final rules for the 

“Listing Gila Chub as Endangered with Critical Habitat” completed in 2002 and in 2005, 

respectively. This species is found in pools in smaller streams and cienegas ranging in elevation 

from approximately 600 to 1,675 meters (2,000 to 5,500 feet). They are highly secretive; adults 

prefer deeper water in pools and eddies below riffles or runs, often remaining in cover from 

terrestrial vegetation, boulders, and fallen logs. Young use the shallow pool margins with aquatic 

vegetation or debris for cover, while older juveniles may be found in higher velocity runs and 

riffles. Primary food items are aquatic and terrestrial insects and filamentous algae. Breeding 

primarily occurs in late spring to summer, males follow the larger females over beds of aquatic 

plants; there is no parental care of the young. Temperature may be the primary cue for initiation 

of spawning.

Gila chub potentially occur within six streams on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: Eagle Creek, East 

Eagle Creek, Dix Creek, Left Prong Dix Creek, Right Prong Dix Creek, and Harden Cienega 

Creek. These six streams are considered to be three distinct populations: Dix Creek, Eagle/East 

Eagle Creek, and Harden Cienega Creek. The Eagle/East Eagle Creek population is located 

within the upper portion of this watershed; Eagle Creek flows through the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

before entering the Gila River approximately 15 miles downstream of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs’ boundary. Dix Creek and Harden Cienega Creek are located south of the San Francisco 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 109

River; both flow north into the San Francisco River. The Dix Creek watershed is entirely within 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, while the upper portion of the Harden Cienega watershed is located 

in New Mexico on the Gila NF.

Gila chub was listed with critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered in 

2005. Gila chub are becoming rare, especially where land use practices such as overgrazing lead 

to incision of floodplains and lowering of water tables, which, in turn, drain marshlands and other 

stream-associated habitats. Threats to the chub include introduced nonnative aquatic competitors 

and predators (e.g., fish, bullfrogs, crayfish), continued water use for development purposes, and 

habitat degradation due to improper land management on the watershed. Erosion from roads or 

off bare ground on the watersheds can fill in the deep pools needed by the species, thus degrading 

the habitat. Where it is still present, populations are often small, fragmented, and at risk from 

known and potential threats and from random events such as drought, flood events, and wildfire.

Critical habitat was designated for the Gila chub on November 2, 2005. Critical habitat on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs was designated in six streams for the three separate populations as 

follows:

• Eagle Creek and East Eagle Creek for 39.2 kilometers (24.4 miles) of creek extending 

from the confluence of Eagle Creek with an unnamed tributary upstream to its confluence 

with East Eagle Creek, and including East Eagle Creek to its headwaters just south of 

Highway 191. 

• Harden Cienega Creek for 22.6 kilometers (14 miles), beginning from its confluence with 

the San Francisco River and continuing upstream to its headwaters. Approximately 65

percent (9 miles) is located on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• The Dix Creek critical habitat includes the portion of the creek beginning 1 mile 

upstream from the confluence with the San Francisco River at a natural rock barrier and 

continuing upstream for 0.9 kilometers (0.6 mile) to the confluence of the right and left 

forks of Dix Creek. The critical habitat also includes the Left Prong Dix Creek as it 

continues upstream 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) and the Right Prong Dix Creek as it 

continues upstream 4.8 kilometers (3 miles).

Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus gilae)

Life history, ecology, historical distributions and abundances, habitat requirements, and other 

information relevant to this species are limited; data and information collection has primarily 

occurred on the Gila NF in New Mexico. Some of this information has been summarized and 

reviewed in the four Gila trout recovery plans; the first version completed in 1979 and the latest 

in 2003. Over the last 5 to 10 years, the AZGFD and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have implemented 

some recovery actions to improve the species status on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, although most 

efforts have been focused on Apache trout recovery.

The historical distribution of Gila trout has been somewhat confused with that of Apache trout. 

Originally Apache trout were thought to have historically occurred and occupied the headwaters 

of the Little Colorado, Salt, and San Francisco Rivers. The more recent view is that the 

headwaters of the San Francisco River were historically occupied by the Gila trout. The San 

Francisco River headwaters are now considered within historic range of Gila trout, although some 

Apache trout populations are still present from past recovery actions (i.e., Coleman, Grant, and 

KP Creeks).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Existing and potential Gila trout recovery populations occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs within 

the Blue River and Eagle Creek drainages. Existing and recovery populations on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs included in this analysis are Castle/Buckalou Creeks, Chitty Creek, Grant Creek, 

KP Creek, Lanphier Creek, McKittrick Creek, and Raspberry Creek.

The Gila trout was listed as threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Preservation 

Act of 1966. The reasons for listing and threats to the species can be found within the four 

versions of the recovery plans and the final rule “Reclassification of the Gila Trout From 

Endangered to Threatened; Special Rule for Gila Trout in New Mexico and Arizona” (71 FR 

40657) published in the Federal Register in 2006. Threats to the species include the destruction, 

modification, and curtailment of its habitat or range; livestock grazing; fire; timber harvest 

operations and the associated erosion, siltation, and increases in water temperatures; and the 

introduction of nonnative trout species that hybridize and compete with Gila trout.

The most recent version of the recovery plan identified eight candidate streams on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs for potential Gila trout introduction. These include one stream within the Eagle 

Creek drainage (Chitty Creek) and seven streams within the Blue River drainage 

(Castle/Buckalou Creek, Coleman Creek, Grant Creek, KP Creek, Lanphier Creek, McKittrick 

Creek, and Raspberry Creek). Some streams are also currently occupied by hybridized Apache 

trout; Raspberry Creek is the only stream that could potentially have Gila trout present because

they were introduced into this stream in 2000. The eight populations being considered here cover 

approximately 51,686 acres and 25 miles of streams. The AZGFD surveyed a portion of 

Raspberry Creek in 2006; five fish were observed and three were captured in electrofishing 

efforts. The current status is unknown, but if Gila trout have persisted, it is likely their numbers 

are very low. 

Little Colorado Spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) and Critical Habitat

The natural history of Little Colorado spinedace can be found in the “Little Colorado River 

Spinedace Recovery Plan,” and the “Final Rule to Determine Lepidomeda vittata (Little Colorado 

Spinedace) to be a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat” (52 FR 35034). The Little Colorado 

spinedace is a member of the Cyprinidae family and is typically less than 10 cm long. This 

species is predacious, feeding on aquatic and terrestrial insects, as well as filamentous algae. This 

species inhabits medium to small streams and is characteristically found in pools with water 

flowing over fine gravel and silt-mud substrates. Many of the streams are seasonally intermittent, 

at which times the Little Colorado spinedace persists in the deep pools that retain water. During 

flooding, the spinedace redistributes itself throughout the stream. Spawning primarily occurs in 

early summer, but some spawning continues until early fall. Typical habitat ranges in elevation 

from 4,000 to 8,000 feet.

Most of the existing and potential Little Colorado spinedace recovery streams or populations 

occur on and downstream of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the Coconino NF. Existing 

populations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are within Nutrioso Creek and one of its tributaries, 

Rudd Creek. On July 23, 2007, 95 fish were introduced into West Chevelon Creek. Potential 

recovery streams on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs include Chevelon Creek and Willow Creek (and 

its tributaries). Leonard Canyon is the boundary between the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the 

Coconino NF and is currently occupied by Little Colorado spinedace. Critical habitat occurs on 

the Springerville Ranger District within the lower 5 miles of Nutrioso Creek from Nelson 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 111

Reservoir Dam downstream to the forests’ boundary. Primary constituent elements for critical 

habitat include clean, permanent flowing water, with pools and a fine gravel or silt-mud substrate.

Past threats and declines of this species resulted from habitat alterations and loss due to 

impoundment, removal of water from streams, channelization, grazing, road building, urban 

growth, and other human activity. Their decline is also related to the introduction and spread of 

nonnative predatory and competitive fish species and the use of pesticides (ichthyotoxins) in 

many of its native streams. Current threats to the species’ survival include changes in streamflow 

patterns, declines in water quality and quantity, modifications of watersheds (logging, dams, road 

construction), manipulations of fish populations (use of chemicals and other factors), and 

interactions with introduced fishes and other aquatic species. 

Existing and potential recovery populations of Little Colorado spinedace occur in Chevelon 

Creek, Leonard Canyon, Nutrioso Creek, Rudd Creek, West Chevelon Creek, and Willow Creek 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs; all except Chevelon and Willow Creeks are currently occupied by 

the species. All of these streams are contained in three watersheds (Nutrioso Creek, Chevelon 

Creek, and East Clear Creek) that drain into the Little Colorado River. Recent impacts to the 

species are due to drought, nonnative species, and alteration of natural hydrographs in occupied 

habitat. Livestock and wild ungulate grazing have also been identified as contributing to poor 

watershed conditions which exacerbate the effects of drought and result in diminished habitat 

quality. Fuels reduction, forest restoration projects, and fire management actions have also 

contributed to altered hydrographs and sediment loads in streams occupied by Little Colorado 

spinedace.

Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) and Critical Habitat

Loach minnows are found in turbulent, rocky riffles of rivers and tributaries from approximately 

2,300 to 8,000 feet in elevation. Loach minnow are bottom-dwelling inhabitants of shallow, swift 

waters flowing over gravel and cobble substrates in mainstream rivers and tributaries. They use 

the spaces between and the protective shelter of larger substrates for resting and spawning. The 

species is rare or absent from habitats where fine sediments fill the spaces between larger 

substrate. Loach minnow generally first spawn in their second year, primarily from March 

through May; they may also spawn in the fall. Spawning occurs in the same riffles occupied by 

adults during the non-spawning season. The adhesive eggs are attached under the downstream 

side of a rock that forms the roof of a small cavity in the substrate. Longevity is typically 15 

months to 2 years, although loach minnow can live as long as 3 years. Loach minnow feed 

exclusively on aquatic insects and are opportunistic bottom-feeding insectivores, feeding 

primarily on riffle-dwelling larval mayflies and midges. They actively seek their food on bottom 

substrates, rather than pursuing food items in the drift.

The loach minnow is endemic to the Gila River basin of Arizona and New Mexico and Sonora, 

Mexico. Its historic range included the basins of the Verde, Salt, San Pedro, San Francisco, and 

Gila Rivers. During the last century, both the distribution and abundance of the loach minnow 

have been greatly reduced throughout its range. Extant populations are geographically isolated 

and inhabit the upstream reaches of their historic range. Historically in Arizona, the loach 

minnow occupied up to 1,400 miles of streams, but it is now found in less than 140 miles. The 

loach minnow is generally rare to uncommon where it is found in the following areas: Aravaipa 

Creek (Pinal and Graham Counties), limited reaches of the White River (Gila County) and the 

North and East Forks of the White River (Navajo County), Three Forks area of the East Fork 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Black River, throughout the Blue River, Campbell Blue Creek, Eagle Creek, and the San 

Francisco River between Clifton and the New Mexico border.

The loach minnow is currently listed as an endangered species. On February 23, 2012, a final rule 

was published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to change the status to endangered and 

designate critical habitat for both spikedace and loach minnow. During the last century, the 

distribution and abundance of loach minnow have been greatly reduced throughout the species 

range. Competition and predation by nonnative fish and habitat destruction have reduced the 

historic range of the loach minnow by about 85 percent. Both historic and present landscapes 

surrounding loach minnow habitats have been impacted to varying degrees by domestic livestock 

grazing, mining, agriculture, timber harvest, recreation, development, and impoundments. These 

activities degrade loach minnow habitats by altering flow regimes, increasing watershed and 

channel erosion and, thus, sedimentation, and adding contaminants to streams and rivers. These

activities may affect loach minnow through direct mortality, interference with reproduction, and 

reduction of invertebrate food supplies.

All the populations listed above are experiencing low abundance which can be attributed to many 

factors. Recent surveys (last 5 to 20 years) have not documented the species’ presence in the East 

Fork Black River, Eagle Creek, or the San Francisco River populations; although the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service consider the populations to still exist. Recent surveys on the Blue River have

documented the continued presence of this species; this population is likely more stable than 

others on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Approximately 110 miles of critical habitat was designated for loach minnow in the Blue River 

(45.3 miles), Campbell Blue Creek (6 miles), Little Blue Creek (3.1 miles), Eagle Creek 

(12.1 miles), East Fork Black River (11.9 miles), North Fork East Fork Black River (4.4 miles), 

Boneyard Creek (1.4 miles), Coyote Creek (2.1 miles), and the San Francisco River (23.7 miles) 

within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and Critical Habitat

The razorback sucker, also known as the humpback sucker, is a member of the Catostomidae 

family. The species can grow more than 600 mm (2 feet) in length, weigh more than 3 kg 

(6 pounds), and live over 40 years. Examination of stomach contents of adult razorback suckers 

from Lake Mohave indicates that the species is a bottom feeder, whose diet includes planktonic 

crustaceans, diatoms, filamentous algae, and detritus. Spawning occurs in the lower Colorado 

River basin from January through April; in the upper basin, observation indicates that spawning 

occurs from late April through mid-June. Spawning occurs over mixed substrates that range from 

silt to cobble and at water temperatures ranging from 10.5 to 21 oC (51 to 70 oF). Razorback 

sucker inhabit riverine systems which provide a wide variety of habitats including backwaters, 

sloughs, oxbow lakes, and seasonally inundated floodplains, which are used to satisfy various life 

history requirements. Adult razorback suckers prefer shallow and swift waters of mid-channel 

sandbars (less than 12 feet in depth) during the summer months and slow runs, slack waters, and 

eddies in the winter. The “Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan” (USFWS, 1998) describes the life 

history and habitat use of this species in detail. 

Detailed information relative to the distribution and abundance of razorback sucker can be found 

in the recovery plan. Razorback suckers are listed as occurring in the Verde and Salt Rivers with 

designated critical habitat in both systems. Razorback suckers have been regularly stocked in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 113

Verde River since the 1980s. The Salt River subbasin has not been stocked since the early 1990s. 

Surveys do detect the species in the Verde River. However, a viable population is not thought to 

exist. It is likely that the razorback sucker is not currently present in the Salt River subbasin of the 

Gila River Basin. Razorback suckers are thought to no longer occur in Eagle Creek and the Blue 

River on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These populations were stocked during the 1980s; surveys 

conducted since stocking have failed to detect the species. 

Fifteen river reaches covering about 49 percent of the historic razorback sucker habitat 

(2,775 km; 1,724 miles) are designated critical habitat within the Colorado River Basin. The Gila 

River from the Arizona-New Mexico state line to Coolidge Dam is included in this designation. 

After leaving the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, both Eagle Creek and the San Francisco River enter 

this portion of critical habitat, approximately 15 to 20 miles downstream of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs boundary. Three primary constituent elements have been identified for razorback 

sucker critical habitat: water, physical habitat, and the biological environment. The water element 

includes consideration of water quality and quantity. Water quality is defined by parameters such 

as temperature, dissolved oxygen, environmental contaminants, nutrients, turbidity, and others. 

Water quantity refers to the amount of water that must reach specific locations at a given time of 

year to maintain biological processes and to support the various life stages of the species. The 

physical habitat elements include areas of the Colorado River system that are or could be suitable 

habitat for spawning, nursery, rearing, and feeding, as well as corridors between such areas.

Decline of the razorback sucker has been associated with major changes in its riverine ecosystem 

including water diversion, water depletion, and construction and operation of dams. The species 

decline is also attributed to predation by green sunfish, warmouth, channel catfish, flathead 

catfish, threadfin shad, smallmouth bass, and largemouth bass. 

Razorback suckers were introduced into Eagle Creek and the Blue River on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs in the 1980s. There are no historical records of this species occurring in either of 

these streams, although it is more likely they would have occurred historically in the San 

Francisco River on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. From 1983 through 1989, 335,506 razorback 

suckers were introduced into Eagle Creek within and downstream of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Between 1986 and 1989, 167,457 razorback suckers were introduced into the Blue River on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Only 5 to 10 individuals were ever recaptured, and these recaptures 

occurred within the stocking years of 1983 to 1989. The fate of these fish is unknown, but they 

are no longer considered to be present in either stream on or downstream of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs boundary.

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) and Critical Habitat

Adult spikedace are 2.5 to 3 inches long, the eyes are large, the snout fairly pointed, and the 

mouth is slightly subterminal with no barbells present. The species is slender and somewhat 

anteriorly compressed. Spikedace can live up to 24 months, although few survive more than 

13 months; reproduction occurs primarily in 1-year-old fish. Spawning occurs mid-March into 

June in shallow riffles with gravel and sand bottoms and moderate flow. By mid-May, most 

spawning has occurred, although in years of high water flows, spawning may continue into late 

May or early June. Spikedace feed primarily on aquatic and terrestrial insects.

Spikedace occupy mid-water habitats usually less than 3 feet deep, with slow to moderate water 

velocities over sand, gravel, or cobble substrates. Adults often occur in shear zones along gravel-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

sand bars where rapid water borders slower flow, quiet eddies on the downstream edges of riffles, 

and broad shallow areas above gravel-sand bars. The preferred habitat of the spikedace varies 

seasonally and with maturation. In winter, the species congregates along stream margins with 

cobble substrates. The erratic flow patterns of southwestern streams, including periodic and 

recurrent flooding, are essential to the feeding and reproduction of the spikedace by scouring the 

fine sediment and keeping gravels clean. Spikedace larvae and juveniles tend to occupy shallow, 

peripheral portions of streams that have slow currents and sand or fine gravel substrates, but also 

occupy backwater habitats. 

The spikedace is native to the Gila River drainage, including the San Francisco drainage, except 

in the extreme headwaters. The spikedace currently persists only in the upper Verde River and 

Aravaipa Creek in Arizona and portions of the Gila River in New Mexico; spikedace have not 

been collected in the Verde River in recent years. In New Mexico the species is generally absent 

from the Gila River from the confluence of the West and East Forks downstream to the mouth of 

Turkey Creek, and occurs irregularly downstream from the mouth of the Middle Box of the Gila 

River to the Arizona-New Mexico state line.

The majority of historic spikedace habitat has been drastically altered or destroyed by human uses 

of the rivers, streams, and watersheds. Causes of such alterations and degradation include 

damming, water diversion, channel downcutting, excessive groundwater pumping, lowering 

water tables, channelization, riparian vegetation destruction, erosion, mining, grazing, and other 

watershed disturbances. An increasing threat to spikedace includes the introduction and spread of 

nonnative species that compete or predate upon spikedace.

Resource activities that affect water quality (e.g., removal of riparian vegetation, sedimentation, 

control of water levels) can affect spikedace habitat quality. All of these activities have impacted 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to varying degrees. The only documentation of spikedace on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs has been in Eagle Creek; although it is likely historical habitat could have 

been in the San Francisco River. The species is still considered to be present within Eagle Creek, 

even though it has not been collected for over 20 years. 

Critical habitat for spikedace was published in the Final Rule (77 FR 10810) on February 23, 

2012; designates approximately 90 miles of streams including the Blue River (45.3 miles), 

Campbell Blue Creek (6 miles), Little Blue Creek (3.1 miles), Eagle Creek (12.1 miles), and the 

San Francisco River (23.7 miles) on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Sensitive Species

Roundtail Chub

Roundtail chub utilize slow moving, deep pools for cover and feeding. They are found in the 

main stems of major rivers and smaller tributary streams. Roundtail chub utilize a variety of 

substrate types (silt, sand, gravel, and rocks) and prefer murky water. Habitat use varies by life 

stages (adult, juvenile, and young-of-year). Juveniles and young-of-year are found in quiet water 

near the shore or backwaters with low velocity and frequent pools rather than glides and riffles. 

Juveniles use instream boulders for cover, while young-of-year are found in gaps between and 

under boulders or the slack-water area behind boulders. Adults generally do not frequent 

vegetation and avoid shallow water cover types, such as overhanging and shoreline vegetation. 

Adults are found in eddies and pools adjacent to strong current and use instream boulders as 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 115

cover. Roundtail chub are carnivorous and opportunistic feeders; food items include aquatic and 

terrestrial insects, fish, snails, crustaceans, and algae. 

Threats to roundtail chub include habitat alteration and degradation from water diversions, 

groundwater pumping, dewatering, mining, contaminants, urban and agricultural development, 

livestock grazing, and predation and competition by nonnative aquatic species. Only three 

populations are found on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: lower Chevelon Creek, Black River, and 

Eagle Creek. Although the historical distribution and reference conditions for this species on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are unknown, it is likely that the approximately 40 miles of occupied 

habitat for this species has been reduced. Trends in population and habitat for roundtail chub on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have decreased from historical levels; primarily resulting from

reduction in habitat quantity and quality, along with establishment of nonnative aquatic species.

Bluehead, Desert, Little Colorado River, and Sonora Suckers

Bluehead suckers tend to utilize swifter velocity, higher gradient streams than those occupied by 

Little Colorado River suckers. They are found in warm to cool streams with rocky substrates;

habitat use varies by life state. Larval and juvenile fish inhabit near-shore, low velocity habitats,

and as they mature, they move to deeper habitats further from shore and with more cover. The 

Little Colorado River sucker occurs primarily in pools with abundant cover. Both of these sucker 

species occur within the upper Little Colorado River watershed; their ranges and occurrences 

often overlap. For the bluehead sucker, approximately 80 miles of occupied habitat occurs on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs; streams include Chevelon Creek, Leonard Canyon, Little Colorado 

River, Nutrioso Creek, and Willow Creek. The Little Colorado River suckers occupied habitat is 

approximately half that of the bluehead sucker (approximately 40 miles); streams occupied are 

Chevelon Creek and Leonard Canyon. Desert suckers are found in rapids and pools, primarily 

over areas of gravel-cobble with sand-silt in between the larger substrate and elevations range 

from approximately 500 to 8,500 feet. They occur within numerous streams within the planning 

area (168 miles) and are found throughout the Black River, Eagle Creek, Blue River, San 

Francisco River, and their tributaries. Sonora suckers are found in a variety of habitats from warm 

rivers to higher elevation trout streams between 1,500 and 8,750 feet. They also occur throughout 

the planning area in the same streams as the desert sucker, with a somewhat reduced distribution 

of approximately 148 miles. Threats to these species and their habitats include the alteration and 

destruction of habitat from anthropogenic and management activities and the introduction and 

establishment of nonnative aquatic species.

Longfin Dace

The distribution and habitat of longfin dace is wide ranging, from intermittent, hot, low desert 

streams to clear and cold streams at higher elevations. They tend to occupy relatively small to 

medium size streams with sand or gravel bottoms and eddies and pools near overhanging banks 

or other cover. They are rarely abundant in large streams or above 5,000 feet elevation. They are 

generally found in water less than 75 °F, but are tolerant of high temperatures and low dissolved 

oxygen. Occupied habitat on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is approximately 105 miles including

Eagle Creek, San Francisco River and several tributaries, and the Blue River and numerous 

tributaries. Threats to longfin dace are similar to those of the suckers, primarily being nonnative

aquatic species and habitat destruction and alteration. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Nonnative Species

Nonnative species currently present a significant threat to all native fish species. Prior to EuroAmerican settlement, nonnative species were not present. However, most of the streams and lakes 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are managed by the AZGFD for, or contain, socially desirable 

nonnative species (e.g., sport fish). Crayfish are also widely distributed and are usually found in 

high densities and are considered an undesirable, nonnative species. 

Fish Recovery Efforts 

Fisheries habitat improvement in streams began in the 1930s on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The 

efforts were probably in response to highly degraded habitat conditions (likely from livestock 

grazing) and were focused on higher elevation trout streams to stabilize streams and provide pool 

habitat that had been reduced. Later efforts in the 1970s and 1980s focused on areas that had been 

impacted by past management activities and concentrated recreation use (e.g., East Fork of the 

Black River, West Fork of the Little Colorado River). Considerable efforts were made in the 

1990s to improve conditions for Apache trout recovery by installing habitat improvements in 

several streams, primarily on the Springerville Ranger District. Recent efforts related to Apache 

trout recovery have focused on fish barrier maintenance and chemical treatment of streams to 

remove nonnative species. Efforts under current plan implementation to provide for other 

federally listed and other native fish species have been limited to the introduction of one Little 

Colorado spinedace population in West Chevelon Canyon and a recently completed analysis for 

construction of a fish barrier on the lower Blue River.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Fish Species Viability

The process to assess the diversity of ecosystems and wildlife for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

began prior to plan revision and was prepared in support of the “Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

Ecological Sustainability Report” (Forest Service, 2008e). This report summarized the diversity 

of ecosystems, including the diversity of animals and plants, on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. As a 

result of this report, species were initially identified as having potential or possible risk to their 

viability; the identification of these species and their potential viability risks helped with 

development of plan direction to address or reduce the risk. Since 2009, this list has been refined 

and updated, with a final list of 109 species considered “forest planning species” (i.e., species

with potential risk to their viability). For more detail, see the “Iterative Update to Species 

Considered and Identification of Forest Planning Species Report” (Forest Service, 2012b).

A total of 14 native fish species occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, of which 7 are listed as 

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and 6 are listed by the Regional 

Forester as sensitive. All 14 native fish species are considered as forest planning species. The 

other 95 non-fish forest planning species are discussed in the “Wildlife and Rare Plants” section.

As part of the revision process, plan decisions were developed that describe desired conditions for 

ecosystems, PNVT types, fire regimes, riparian and aquatic habitat, and wildlife within the 

planning area. For species determined to be at low risk, the “coarse filter” plan decisions (e.g. 

desired conditions, objectives) would provide and maintain viability. For those species at some 

risk to their viability, additional “fine filter” plan decisions were developed (e.g., standards, 

guidelines) to contribute and provide for viability to reduce risk. Table 18 provides a summary of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 117

the plan decisions—at the coarse filter and fine filter level—for fish species that are necessary to 

reduce population viability concerns to a low risk level. A listing of the coarse and fine filter plan 

decisions can be found below. In addition, fine filter plan decisions can be found in appendix G. 

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

coarse and fine filter levels

Plan decision Desired 

Conditions Objectives Standards Guidelines

Coarse Filter 

plan decisions 

that provide 

viability for: 

bluehead sucker, 

desert sucker, 

Little Colorado 

sucker, longfin 

dace, razorback 

sucker, Sonora 

sucker, speckled 

dace, Apache 

trout, Gila chub, 

Gila trout, Little 

Colorado 

spinedace, 

roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spinedace

Ecosystem Health

Soil

Water Resources

Aquatic Habitat and

Species 

All PNVTs 

Riparian Areas 

Invasive Species

Ecosystem Health

Soil

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species

All Forested

PNVTs

All Woodland 

PNVTs

Grasslands

Invasive Species 

Water Uses

Fine Filter plan 

decisions in 

addition to the 

coarse filter plan 

decisions above 

that provide 

viability for: 

Apache trout, Gila 

chub, Gila trout, 

Little Colorado 

spinedace, 

roundtail chub, 

loach minnow, and 

spikedace

Water Resources

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species 

Vegetation

Invasive Species

Water Uses

Soil

Water Resources

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species

Vegetation

Riparian Areas

Invasive Species

Landscape Scale 

Disturbance

Events

Motorized 

Opportunities

Nonmotorized 

Opportunities

Livestock Grazing

Minerals and 

Geology

Coarse Filter

All alternatives would provide for the viability of all native fish species by maintaining and/or 

improving their habitat and populations through implementation of various plan decisions. The 

desired conditions below are the same for all alternatives and address viability concerns for all 

native fish species and their habitats that have primarily been impacted by habitat loss and 

alteration and the introduction and spread of nonnative fish and other aquatic invasive species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The implementation of plan decisions for all alternatives may have some short-term indirect 

effects to aquatic habitat and fish populations, but would result in long-term benefits to the 

maintenance and improvement of aquatic habitat and species populations. Long-term benefits

would occur by moving overall conditions closer to reference conditions while increasing and 

improving ecosystem resiliency and, therefore, the aquatic habitat and fish species they contain

(see the “Soil,” “Watershed,” “Water Resources,” “Riparian,” “Vegetation,” and “Invasive 

Species” sections).

Desired conditions (coarse filter plan decisions) as described in the “Overall Ecosystem Health,” 

“Soil,” “Water Resources,” “Water Uses,” “Aquatic Habitat and Species,” “Vegetation,” 

“Riparian Areas,” and “Invasive Species” sections of the plan would help provide for the viability 

of bluehead sucker, desert sucker, Little Colorado sucker, longfin dace, razorback sucker, Sonora 

sucker, and speckled dace as described in the next several paragraphs. These desired conditions 

would also help contribute to the viability of Apache trout, Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, 

roundtail chub, loach minnow, and spikedace.

The desired conditions and objective in overall ecosystem health that contribute and provide for 

viability include the following: 

• Desired Condition: Ecological components (e.g., soil, vegetation, water) are resilient to 

disturbances including human activities and natural ecological disturbances (e.g., climate 

variability, fire, drought, wind, insects, disease, pathogens).

• Desired Condition: Natural ecological disturbances return to their characteristic roles 

within the ecosystem. Wildfire, in particular, is restored to a more natural function.

• Desired Condition: Natural ecological cycles (i.e., hydrologic, energy, nutrient) facilitate 

shifting of plant communities, structure, and ages across the landscape. Ecotone shifts are 

influenced at both the landscape and watershed scale by ecological processes. The mosaic 

of plant communities and the variety within the communities are resilient to disturbances.

• Desired Condition: Ecological conditions for habitat quality, distribution, and abundance 

contribute to self-sustaining populations of native and desirable nonnative plants and

animals that are healthy, well distributed, connected, and genetically diverse. Conditions 

provide for the life history, distribution, and natural population fluctuations of the species 

within the capability of the landscape.

• 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: Habitat configuration and availability allows wildlife populations to 

adjust their movements (e.g., seasonal migration, foraging) in response to climate change 

and promote genetic flow between wildlife populations.

• Desired Condition: Habitat quality, distribution, and abundance exist to support the 

recovery of federally listed species and the continued existence of all native and desirable 

nonnative species.

• Desired Condition: Healthy ecosystems provide a wide range of ecosystem services.

• Desired Condition: Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 119

• Objective: During the planning period, improve the condition class on at least 10 priority 

6th level HUC watersheds by removing or mitigating degrading factors.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would improve ecological conditions and 

move conditions closer to reference conditions for vegetation, watersheds, and riparian areas. 

Additionally, ecological processes across these areas and landscapes would improve overall 

ecosystem function and condition and reduce the potential for high severity fire. Restoration 

treatments and management actions for these desired conditions would improve vegetation, soil, 

watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions within the planning area and would help 

provide long-term benefits by maintaining and improving aquatic habitat and fish species 

populations (i.e., viability) across the forests. 

Desired conditions and objective for soils that contribute and provide for viability include the 

following: 

• Desired Condition: Ecological and hydrologic functions are not impaired by soil 

compaction.

• Desired Condition: Soil condition rating is satisfactory.

• Desired Condition: Soils are stable within their natural capability. Vegetation and litter 

limit accelerated erosion (e.g., rills, gullies, root exposure, topsoil loss) and contribute to 

soil deposition and development.

• Desired Condition: Soils provide for diverse native plant species. Vegetative ground 

cover (herbaceous vegetation and litter) is distributed evenly across the soil surface to 

promote nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and maintain natural fire regimes.

• Desired Condition: Biological soil crusts (mosses, lichens, algae, liverworts) are present 

and reestablished if potential exists.

• Desired Condition: Soil loss rates do not exceed tolerance soil loss rates.

• Desired Condition: Logs and other woody material are distributed across the surface to 

maintain soil productivity. 

• Desired Condition: Vegetation and litter are sufficient to maintain and improve water 

infiltration, nutrient cycling, and soil stability.

• Objective: Annually, enhance or restore an average of 350 acres within priority 6th level 

HUC watersheds, including treating the causes of State and federally designated impaired 

or threatened waters to improve watershed condition and water quality.

The improvement in soil conditions resulting from plan implementation toward these desired 

conditions would help improve and move hydrologic function and watershed conditions toward

reference conditions and greater resiliency. Soil condition improvements would help improve 

water and aquatic habitat quality in the long term. Sedimentation from runoff would be reduced 

as watershed conditions are improved. 

Desired conditions for all PNVTs that contribute and provide for viability include the following: 

• Desired Condition: Each PNVT contains a mosaic of vegetative conditions, densities, and 

structures. This mosaic occurs at a variety of scales across landscapes and watersheds. 

The distribution of physical and biological conditions is appropriate to the natural 

disturbance regimes affecting the area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Desired Condition: The vegetative conditions and functions are resilient to the frequency, 

extent, and severity of ecological disturbances (e.g., fire, insects and disease, flood, 

climate variability). The landscape is a functioning ecosystem that contains all its 

components, processes, and better able to cope with climate change.

• Desired Condition: Natural processes and human and natural disturbances (e.g., wildland 

fire, mechanical vegetation treatments) provide desired overall tree density, structure, 

species composition, coarse woody debris, and nutrient cycling. Natural fire regimes are 

restored. Uncharacteristic fire behavior is minimal or absent on the landscape.

• Desired Condition: Wildland fire maintains and enhances resources and, as nearly as 

possible, is allowed to function in its natural ecological role.

• Desired Condition: Native plant communities dominate the landscape.

• Desired Condition: The range of species genetic diversity remains within native 

vegetation and animal populations, thus enabling species to adapt to changing 

environmental and climatic conditions.

• Desired Condition: Vegetative connectivity provides for species dispersal, genetic 

exchange, and daily and seasonal movements across multiple spatial scales.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation characteristics (e.g., density, litter) provide favorable 

conditions for water flow and quality.

• Desired Condition: Organic soil cover and herbaceous vegetation protect soil, facilitate 

moisture infiltration, and contribute to plant and animal diversity and ecosystem function.

• Desired Condition: Diverse vegetation structure, species composition, densities, and seral 

states provide quality habitat for native and desirable nonnative plant and animal species 

throughout their life cycle and at multiple spatial scales. Landscapes provide for the full 

range of ecosystem diversity at multiple scales, including habitats for those species 

associated with late seral states and old growth forests.

• Desired Condition: Old growth is dynamic in nature and occurs in well-distributed 

patches that spatially shift across forest and woodland landscapes over time.

• Desired Condition: Old or large trees, multistoried canopies, large coarse woody debris, 

and snags provide the structure, function, and associated vegetation composition as 

appropriate for each forested and woodland PNVT.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation conditions allow for transition zones or ecotones between 

riparian areas, forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. Transition zones may shift 

in time and space due to changing site conditions from disturbances (e.g., fire, climate

variability).

• Desired Condition: Insect and disease populations are at endemic levels with occasional 

outbreaks. A variety of seral states usually restricts the scale of localized insect and 

disease outbreaks.

• Desired Condition: Stand densities and species compositions are such that vegetation 

conditions are resilient under a variety of potential future climates. 

• Desired Condition: Vegetation conditions provide hiding and thermal cover in contiguous 

blocks for wildlife. Native plant species are present in all age classes and are healthy, 

reproducing, and persisting.

• Desired Condition: Vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation and litter) is 

optimized to protect and enrich soils and promote water infiltration. There is a diverse 

mix of cool and warm season grasses and desirable forbs species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 121

• Desired Condition: Grasses, forbs, shrubs, and litter are abundant and continuous to 

support natural fire regimes.

• Desired Condition: The composition, density, structure, and mosaic of vegetative 

conditions reduce uncharacteristic wildfire hazard to local communities and forest 

ecosystems.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would help move the PNVTs closer to their 

ecological composition, structure, and processes relative to reference conditions. The closer each 

PNVT is to reference conditions, the more secure dependent species are within the associated 

habitats. PNVT improvements would reestablish the natural patterns and processes within these 

vegetation communities that allow for natural resiliency; especially important when faced with 

uncharacteristic wildfire, the presence of invasive species, and climate change. 

Desired deconditions for water resources and uses that contribute and provide for viability 

include the following:

• Desired Condition: Water quality, stream channel stability, and aquatic habitats retain 

their inherent resilience to natural and other disturbances.

• Desired Condition: Water resources maintain the capability to respond and adjust to 

disturbances without long-term adverse changes.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation and soil conditions above the floodplain protect

downstream water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitat.

• Desired Condition: Instream flows provide for channel and floodplain maintenance, 

recharge of riparian aquifers, water quality, and minimal temperature fluctuations.

• Desired Condition: Streamflows provide connectivity among fish populations and 

provide unobstructed routes critical for fulfilling needs of aquatic, riparian dependent, 

and many upland species of plants and animals.

• Desired Condition: Stream channels and floodplains are dynamic and resilient to 

disturbances. The water and sediment balance between streams and their watersheds 

allow a natural frequency of low and high flows.

• Desired Condition: Stream condition is sufficient to withstand floods without disrupting 

normal stream characteristics (e.g., water transport, sediment, woody material) or altering 

stream dimensions (e.g., bankfull width, depth, slope, sinuosity).

• Desired Condition: Floodplains are functioning and lessen the impacts of floods on 

human safety, health, and welfare.

• Desired Condition: Water quality meets or exceeds Arizona State standards or 

Environmental Protection Agency water quality standards for designated uses.

• 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.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would ensure water quality, quantity, and 

connectivity occurs across the forests, along with improving watershed and hydrologic conditions 

necessary for maintaining and improving riparian areas and aquatic habitats. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Desired conditions and objectives for aquatic habitat and species that provide viability for 

bluehead sucker, desert sucker, Little Colorado sucker, longfin dace, razorback sucker, Sonora 

sucker, and speckled dace include the following:

• Desired Condition: Streams and aquatic habitats support native fish and/or other aquatic 

species providing the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat within reference conditions.

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

species. 

• Desired Condition: Streamflows, habitat, and water quality support native aquatic and 

riparian dependent species and habitat.

• Desired Condition: Habitat and ecological conditions are capable of providing for selfsustaining populations of native, riparian dependent plant and animal species.

• Desired Condition: Native fish, reptile, amphibian, and invertebrate populations are free 

from or minimally impacted by nonnative plants and animals.

• Desired Condition: Aquatic species habitat conditions provide the resiliency and 

redundancy necessary to maintain species diversity and metapopulations.

• Desired Condition: Desirable nonnative fish species provide recreational fishing in waters 

where those opportunities are not in conflict with the recovery of native species.

• Desired Condition: Wetlands are hydrologically functioning and have sufficient 

(composing 50 percent of the wetland) emergent vegetation and macroinvertebrate 

populations to support resident and migratory wetland-dependent species.

• Objective: Annually, enhance or restore 5 to 15 miles of stream and riparian habitat to 

restore structure, composition, and function of physical habitat for native fisheries and 

riparian-dependent species.

• Objective: During the planning period, complete at least five projects (e.g., remove 

barriers, restore dewatered stream segments, or connect fragmented habitat) to provide 

for aquatic and riparian associated species and migratory species.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions and objectives would help improve aquatic 

habitat conditions for all native fish species, reduce impacts associated with nonnative species, 

and improve distributions and resiliency of threatened and endangered fish species. Conditions

for all native fish species would improve by addressing habitat and loss and alteration of habitat 

by moving conditions closer to reference conditions.

Desired conditions for riparian areas that provide for viability include the following: 

• Desired Condition: Natural ecological disturbances (e.g., flooding, scouring) promote a 

diverse plant structure consisting of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species of all ages and 

size classes necessary for the recruitment of riparian-dependent species.

• Desired Condition: Riparian-wetland conditions maintain water-related processes (e.g., 

hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic). They also maintain the physical and biological 

community characteristics, functions, and processes.

• Desired Condition: Stream (lotic) riparian-wetland areas have vegetation, landform, 

and/or large coarse woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high water

flow.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 123

• Desired Condition: Streams and their adjacent floodplains are capable of filtering, 

processing, and storing sediment; aiding floodplain development; improving floodwater 

retention; and increasing groundwater recharge.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation and root masses stabilize stream banks, islands, and 

shoreline features against the cutting action of water.

• Desired Condition: Ponding and channel characteristics provide habitat, water depth, 

water duration, and the temperatures necessary for maintaining populations of ripariandependent species and for their dispersal.

• Desired Condition: Lentic riparian areas (e.g., wet meadows, fens, bogs) have vegetation 

and landform present to dissipate wind action, wave action, and overland flow from 

uplands.

• Desired Condition: Wetland-riparian areas are capable of filtering sediment and aiding 

floodplain development that contribute to water retention and groundwater recharge.

• Desired Condition: The spatial extent of wetlands is maintained. 

• Desired Condition: Soil compaction from forest activities (e.g., vehicle use, recreation, 

livestock grazing) does not negatively impact riparian areas.

• Desired Condition: Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species that support a 

wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive plant and 

animal species.

• Desired Condition: The ecological function of riparian areas is resilient to animal and 

human use.

• Desired Condition: Riparian-obligate species within wet meadows, along stream banks, 

and active floodplains provide sufficient vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation 

and litter) to protect and enrich soils, trap sediment, mitigate flood energy, stabilize 

stream banks, and provide for wildlife and plant needs

• Desired Condition: Riparian soil productivity is optimized as described by the specific 

TES map unit under consideration as indicated by the vigor of the herbaceous vegetation 

community. Based on species composition, ungrazed plant heights range from 10 inches 

to 36 inches.

• Desired Condition: Large coarse woody debris provides stability to riparian areas and 

stream bottoms lacking geologic control (e.g., bedrock) or geomorphic features (e.g., 

functioning floodplains, stream sinuosity, width/depth ratio).

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would help improve conditions for all native 

fish species by addressing habitat and loss and alteration of habitat by moving conditions closer 

to reference conditions.

Desired conditions and objective for invasive species that provide for viability include the 

following:

• Desired Condition: Invasive species (both plant and animal) are nonexistent or in low 

occurrence to avoid negative impacts to ecosystems.

• Desired Condition: Undesirable nonnative species are absent or present only to the extent 

that they do not adversely affect ecosystem composition, structure, or function, including 

native species populations or the natural fire regime.

• Desired Condition: Introduction of additional invasive species rarely occurs and is 

detected at an early stage.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Objective: Annually control or eradicate invasive species (e.g., tamarisk, bullfrogs) on at 

least 2 stream miles.

Plan implementation toward these desired conditions would help improve conditions for all native 

fish species by addressing threats to those species from nonnative invasive species.

In addition to the above, objectives for all forested PNVTs, all woodland PNVTs, grasslands, and 

water uses would also help contribute to species viability by moving vegetation conditions closer 

to desired conditions and securing water rights. These include the following:

• Objective: Annually treat 5,000 to 35,000 acres to reduce tree densities, restore natural 

fire regimes, promote species habitat and ecosystem health, reduce fire hazard, maintain 

desired conditions, initiate recovery from uncharacteristic disturbance, and provide forest 

products, leaving a desired mix of species with the range of desired densities that are 

resilient to changing climatic conditions.

• Objective: Annually treat or maintain 5,000 to 15,000 acres to promote a highly diverse 

structure.

• Objective: Decrease or maintain the woody canopy cover at less than 10 percent by 

treating up to 25,000 acres annually.

• Objective: Annually prepare at least one instream flow water rights application until 

water acquisition needs are complete to sustain riparian areas, fish, wildlife, and waterbased recreation.

Fine Filter

While the above coarse filter desired conditions provide and maintain viability for numerous fish 

species, additional fine filter plan decisions were needed for those fish species with higher risk to 

their viability. These species include Apache trout, Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, 

roundtail chub, loach minnow, and spikedace. The plan decisions (i.e., fine filter standards and 

guidelines) discussed below are applicable and necessary for the six fish species listed. They are 

applicable to all six species as the potential impacts to watersheds, riparian areas, and aquatic 

habitats are similar; the specific threats to these species are also similar (e.g., sedimentation, 

nonnative species). 

The fine filter plan decisions are designed to address the threats and risks to these species, 

especially as they relate to potential short-term impacts. These standards and guidelines were 

developed to ensure species viability by improving and maintaining habitat and populations 

across the forests, while minimizing any potential short-term impacts associated with restoration 

treatments and management activities.

As these species are more vulnerable to short-term habitat impacts due to their lower population 

numbers and reduced distributions, the additional standards and guidelines would provide for 

viability by addressing the primary concerns associated with habitat loss and alteration, nonnative

species, and uncharacteristic landscape-scale disturbances (e.g., uncharacteristic fire).

The standards and guidelines identified in the “Invasive Species,” “Landscape Scale Disturbance 

Events,” “Riparian Areas,” “Water Resources,” “Water Uses,” “Motorized Opportunities,” 

“Aquatic Habitat and Species,” and “Livestock Grazing” sections of the plan under all 

alternatives contribute and provide for viability for Apache trout, Gila chub, Little Colorado 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 125

spinedace, roundtail chub, loach minnow, and spikedace. A list of these fine filter plan decisions 

can also be found in appendix G.

Fine filter plan decisions for invasive species include the following: 

• Standard: 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.

• Guideline: Project areas should be monitored to ensure there is no introduction or spread 

of invasive species.

• Guideline: Treatment of invasive species should be designed to effectively control or 

eliminate them; multiple treatments may be needed.

• Guideline: Pesticide use should minimize impacts on nontarget plants and animals.

• Guideline: 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.

As nonnative species are negatively impacting all federally listed fish species, these plan 

decisions would reduce current impacts and ensure restoration treatments and management 

actions do not result in additional impacts from invasive species or actions taken to control 

existing nonnative populations. 

Fine filter plan decisions for landscape scale disturbance include the following: 

• Guideline: 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.

• Guideline: 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).

Due to their limited and/or reduced distributions and isolated populations, federally listed fish 

species are more susceptible to large-scale disturbances (e.g., wildfire) that can also negatively 

impact vegetation, watersheds, riparian areas, and aquatic habitat. When large-scale disturbances 

occur, these guidelines would ensure that conditions required for the restoration of ecological 

functions and processes would be in place and any potential impacts to streams and federally 

listed species would be minimized. 

Fine filter plan decisions for riparian areas include the following: 

• Guideline: Storage of fuels and other toxicants should be located at least 100 feet outside 

of riparian areas to prevent spills that could impair water quality or harm aquatic species.

• Guideline: Equipment should be fueled or serviced at least 100 feet outside of riparian 

areas to prevent spills that could impair water quality or harm aquatic species.

• Guideline: Construction or maintenance equipment service areas should be located at 

least 100 feet from riparian areas and treated to prevent gas, oil, or other contaminants 

from washing or leaching into streams.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Guideline: 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.

• Guideline: Active grazing allotments should be managed to maintain or improve to 

desired riparian conditions.

These guidelines would minimize potential impacts to riparian vegetation, water quality, aquatic 

habitat, and fish species associated with restoration treatments and/or management actions. 

Fine filter plan decisions for water resources and water uses include the following: 

• Guideline: Streams, stream banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, seeps, springs and other 

bodies of water should be protected from detrimental changes in water temperature and 

sediment to protect aquatic species and riparian habitat.

• Guideline: Aquatic 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.

• Guideline: 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 ApacheSitgreaves NFs.

• Guideline: 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.

• Standard: 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.

• Standard: Groundwater withdrawals shall not measurably diminish surface water flows 

on NFS lands without an appropriate surface water right.

• Standard: Consistent with existing water rights, water diversions or obstructions shall at 

all times allow sufficient water to pass downstream to preserve minimum levels of water 

flow which maintain aquatic life and other purposes of national forest establishment.

Where water uses and management of resources occur, the potential to impact water quality, 

riparian areas and vegetation, aquatic habitat, and fish may occur. The standards and guidelines 

for water resources and uses would minimize and mitigate any potential impacts by protecting 

aquatic habitat and species from disturbance by implementing streamside management zones. 

Fine filter plan decisions for motorized opportunities include the following: 

• Guideline: 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.

• Guideline: Roads and motorized trails removed from the transportation network should 

be treated in order to avoid future risk to hydrologic function and aquatic habitat.

• Guideline: 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 127

• Guideline: New trails and trail relocations should be designed and located so as to not 

impede terrestrial and aquatic species movement and connectivity.

These guidelines for motorized opportunities would minimize potential impacts to or conflicts 

with aquatic species and habitats by maintaining and improving hydrologic conditions and 

functions and avoiding riparian areas. 

Fine filter plan decisions for aquatic habitat and species include the following: 

• Guideline: The needs of rare and unique species associated with wetlands, fens, bogs,

seeps, and springs should be given priority consideration when developing these areas for 

waterfowl habitat and other uses.

• Guideline: Sufficient water should be left in streams to provide for aquatic species and 

riparian vegetation.

• Guideline: Projects and activities should avoid damming or impounding free-flowing 

waters to provide streamflows needed for aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

• Standard: 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).

• Guideline: When new water diversions are created or existing water diversions are 

reanalyzed, measures should be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic 

organisms.

• Guideline: 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.

As stated previously, habitat loss and alteration and nonnative species are the primary concerns 

for most native and federally listed fish species. These standards and guidelines for aquatic 

habitat and species would provide for the habitat needs for fish species, while reducing and 

minimizing any potential impacts associated with nonnative species. 

Fine filter plan decisions for livestock grazing include the following: 

• Guideline: Critical areas should be managed to address the inherent or unique site factors, 

condition, values, or potential conflicts associated with them.

• Guideline: 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.

• Guideline: To minimize potential resource impacts from livestock, salt or nutritional 

supplements should not be placed within a quarter mile of any riparian area or water 

source. Salt or nutritional supplements should also be located to minimize herbivory 

impacts to aspen clones.

• Guideline: To prevent resource damage (e.g., stream banks) 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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The removal and/or relocation of livestock trailing, waters, holding facilities, salt, and nutritional 

supplements away from waters and riparian areas would help reduce potential negative impacts to 

riparian vegetation, water quality, and aquatic habitats. 

Overall Environmental Consequences

In all alternatives implementation of plan decisions (i.e., desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, suitability, special areas, and monitoring) may have both short-term and 

long-term environmental consequences that are positive, negative, or neutral to aquatic and 

riparian habitat and fish populations. Improvements in vegetation conditions, primarily through 

mechanical treatments and fire management activities, along with watershed improvements may 

result in long-term beneficial impacts that could improve aquatic habitat conditions and fish 

populations. These potential beneficial impacts would be dependent on the extent to which these 

treatments occur within watersheds occupied or identified for the recovery of fish species. 

Although ecosystem, watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions have varying departures

from reference conditions, achievement or movement toward desired conditions would improve 

these conditions across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Vegetation, fuels, and wildland fire restoration treatments can influence and improve aquatic 

habitat conditions across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat 

treatments would have the greatest potential to positively impact aquatic habitat. Through 

implementation of plan decisions (i.e., desired conditions and objectives) for ecosystem health, 

soils, water resources, aquatic habitat and species, vegetation, riparian areas, invasive species, and 

water uses, both the physical and biological processes for maintaining and improving aquatic 

habitat and fish populations would move toward reference conditions across the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and provide for viability and recovery for threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

fish species.

Within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and areas downstream, management activities may impact fish 

species and their critical/potential habitat. Impacts to hydrologic conditions (i.e., changes in water 

quantity and quality) and riparian and aquatic habitats are the result of vegetation alterations, soil 

erosion, and sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities. These include, but are not limited 

to, wildland fire and mechanical treatments, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, road 

construction and maintenance, recreation, and developments. How watersheds, riparian areas, and 

streams respond to management activities would be influenced by their geology, soils, vegetation 

conditions and cover, their existing conditions at the time of the impact, and environmental 

conditions that exist after impact has occurred. As mentioned in the previous section, all 

alternatives contain plan decisions to address and minimize potential short-term negative 

impacts to all of the endangered, threatened, and sensitive fish species and their habitats on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Endangered Species Act Species and Critical Habitat

In all alternatives the implementation of plan decisions related to ecosystem health, soils, water 

resources, aquatic habitat and species, vegetation, riparian areas, and invasive species may have 

short-term negative effects, but may also result in long-term beneficial environmental 

consequences to the maintenance and improvement of fish species populations and habitats on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 129

ESA Determinations for All Alternatives

Two biological assessments (BAs) address effects of forest plans to ESA species in accordance 

with Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act. Determination of effects for the continued 

implementation of the 1987 plan are found in the April 6, 2011 BA (Forest Service, 2011a). These 

findings are shown in table 19 below (fish ESA species) and represent the determination of 

effects to 2011 species and critical habitat should alternative A, the 1987 plan, continue to be 

implemented. Findings for ESA non-fish species are found in table 85.

A May 29, 2014 biological assessment was prepared for alternative B for plan revision. The 

determination of effects for species and critical habitat for ESA species and the BA findings for 

them (Forest Service, 2014cc) are also shown in table 19 below. This BA was submitted to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for formal consultation on May 29, 2014.

Note that it is assumed that implementation of alternatives C and D would result in similar 

determinations as alternative B, although the level of effects to ESA species would likely be 

different. However, alternatives C and D are not analyzed in a biological assessment.

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

Species Status 2011 BA Findings 

(Alternative A) a Findings Alternative B

Apache trout Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect May affect, likely to adversely affect

Gila chub Endangered

Critical habitat

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

Gila trout Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect May affect, likely to adversely affect

Little Colorado 

spinedace

Threatened

Critical habitat

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

Loach minnow Endangered

Critical habitat

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

Spikedace Endangered

Critical habitat

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

May affect, likely to adversely affect

Razorback 

sucker

Endangered

Critical habitat

NAb No effect

No effect

Roundtail chub Candidate May affect, likely to adversely affect Not likely to jeopardize, if proposed

a Alternative A findings are based on current 1987 plan direction; plan direction is not reinterated here. 

b Razorback sucker was not analyzed in the 2011 BA or the 2012 BO on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Determinations of effects were the same for alternatives A and D, although the razorback sucker 

and roundtail chub were not addressed for the current 1987 plan. Roundtail chub was included in 

this FEIS analysis as it is a candidate species, and the razorback sucker was included as critical 

habitat occurs downstream off the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. As discussed within the BA, standards 

and guidelines in alternative B would protect or mitigate potential effects to fish and 

aquatic/riparian areas from the Wildland Fire Management, Ecosystem/Vegetation Health, 

Rangeland Management, Watershed and Soil management Engineering, Lands and Minerals, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plant program activities. The desired conditions and objectives included 

with alternative B would help promote the restoration of PNVTs, natural fire regimes, watersheds, 

aquatic and riparian areas, and incorporate recovery actions and conservation strategies for 

federally listed and candidate species. These standards and guidelines would help to maintain 

federally listed and candidate fish species; although as determined within the BA, the extent to 

which impacts are reduced or eliminated cannot be considered insignificant or discountable.

Overall Alternative Comparisons for ESA Fish Species

While all alternatives provide for the needs of ESA fish species by moving habitat conditions 

closer to desired or reference conditions, plan objectives vary between the alternatives and their 

outcomes determine the potential for fish habitat and population improvements across the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• Stream and riparian habitat restoration treatment objectives for native fish species for 

alternatives B and C are 5 to 15 miles per year, less than 10 miles per year for 

alternative A, and on an opportunity basis for alternative C.

• Objectives for riparian habitat vegetation treatments are 5 miles per year for alternatives 

B, C, and D, and on an opportunity basis for alternative A. 

• Aquatic invasive treatment objectives are 2 miles per year for alternatives B, C, and D, 

and on an opportunity basis for alternative A. 

• Riparian restoration treatments for alternative D are 300 to 600 acres per year, 200 to 

500 acres per year for alternative B, and on an opportunity basis for alternatives A and 

C. 

• Road and trail restoration for streams and riparian areas are 4 miles over the planning 

period for alternatives B and D, and on an opportunity basis for alternatives A and C. 

Plan decisions associated with ecosystems, soils, vegetation, and other restoration activities are 

not specifically discussed here; more specific information on these actions and their potential 

environmental consequences can be found in the appropriate EIS sections.

The overall greatest improvements for all the endangered and threatened fish species are likely to 

result through implementation of alternative D. Alternative B would result in similar 

improvements, but to a lesser extent than alternative D. Alternative C would not restore 

conditions to the extent of alternative D or alternative B, but would be greater than alternative 

A. 

Sensitive Species

In all alternatives the implementation of plan decisions related to ecosystem health, soils, water 

resources, aquatic habitat and species, vegetation, riparian areas, and invasive species may have 

short-term negative environmental consequences, but would also result in long-term beneficial 

environmental consequences to the maintenance and improvement of sensitive fish species 

populations and habitats on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The implementation of all alternatives

would provide and maintain viability for all four sensitive fish species on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs and would result in a “may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss of viability” determination for Desert sucker, Little Colorado River sucker, 

roundtail chub, and the Sonora sucker.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 131

While all alternatives provide for viability by moving habitat conditions closer to reference 

conditions, plan objectives vary between the alternatives and these differences among outcomes 

would determine the potential for habitat and population improvements for sensitive fish species 

across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• Stream and riparian habitat restoration treatment objectives for native fish species for 

alternatives B and C are 5 to 15 miles per year, less than 10 miles per year for 

alternative A, and on an opportunity basis for alternative C.

• Objectives for riparian habitat vegetation treatments are 5 miles per year for alternatives 

B, C, and D, and on an opportunity basis for alternative A. 

• Aquatic invasive treatment objectives are 2 miles per year for alternatives B, C, and D, 

and on an opportunity basis for alternative A. 

• Riparian restoration treatments for alternative D are 300 to 600 acres per year, 200 to 

500 acres per year for alternative B, and on an opportunity basis for alternatives A and 

C. 

• Road and trail restoration for streams and riparian areas are 4 miles over the planning 

period for alternatives B and D, and on an opportunity basis for alternatives A and C. 

Plan decisions associated with ecosystems, soils, vegetation, and other restoration activities are 

not specifically discussed here; more specific information on these actions and their potential 

environmental consequences can be found in the appropriate EIS sections.

The overall greatest improvements for all sensitive fish species are likely to result through 

implementation of alternative D; alternative B would result in similar improvements, but to a 

lesser extent. Alternative C would not restore conditions to the extent of alternative D or 

alternative B, but would be greater than alternative A. The biological evaluation for sensitive 

species is documented in the “Fisheries Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014g).

Restoration Treatment Activities

Under all alternatives, management actions to implement ecological restoration would include 

treating vegetation through wildland fire, timber harvest, and mechanical treatments across the 

landscape over the planning period. Treatments could affect aquatic habitat through increased 

runoff, erosion, sediment, and streamflow. All projects would minimize impacts to aquatic 

ecosystems and maintain habitat quantity and distribution by implementing appropriate plan 

direction. All treatments are intended to improve ecological conditions by restoring the natural 

fire regime, improving vegetation health and conditions, and reducing the potential for high 

severity wildfire. All treatments would result in improved watershed, soil, and vegetation 

conditions and, thus, would have long-term benefits of maintaining and improving aquatic 

habitats and fish species populations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Watershed improvement projects would occur across the landscape across the forest; these 

projects would move soil and vegetation conditions toward satisfactory conditions. Closing and 

obliterating unauthorized routes would improve watershed conditions and decrease erosion. 

Improvement of stream crossings would reduce impacts to aquatic habitats from sedimentation. 

These projects would follow plan direction to minimize impacts to aquatic ecosystems and 

habitats and would have long-term benefits of maintaining or improving aquatic habitats and fish 

species populations across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The following sections provide further discussion and description of potential impacts. The 

severity of any unavoidable negative impacts may be reduced or minimized by designing 

mitigation measures for site-specific project implementation. Where management activities occur, 

some impacts cannot be avoided; therefore, some unavoidable impacts could occur to fish and 

aquatic habitats.

Table 3 in chapter 2 displays the restoration objectives, or planned treatment amounts, for each 

alternative. The restoration activities are used as indicators to compare the four alternatives 

relative to their potential impacts to fish and their habitats. Drainage areas were calculated for 

each species to aid these comparisons; the acreages presented for each species include all upland 

areas that drain into occupied, critical, or recovery habitat for each fish species. By limiting the 

analyses to only those areas that can impact and influence each fish species, this allows for a 

more meaningful comparison of the potential environmental consequences for each fish species 

for each alternative.

Figure 11 and figure 12 display the drainage areas that were analyzed for fish species and their 

habitats.

Figure 11. Map of fish drainage areas – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 133

Figure 12. Map of fish drainage areas – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Impacts Related to Mechanical and Wildland Fire Treatments

The primary vegetation management tools in all alternatives are mechanical and wildland fire 

treatments. While these activities would be implemented with the intent of restoring vegetative 

conditions (i.e., structure and composition) and natural fire regimes, the potential short- and longterm environmental consequences could vary by specific treatment types and combinations used. 

Table 20 summarizes each alternative’s total acreages and percent of habitat for each species that 

could potentially be treated during the planning period, by treatment type. The total potential 

treatment acres would not vary by alternative for any species, but the potential treatment methods

would vary. These are primarily a result of the emphasis on mechanical treatments and lands 

managed for timber production on a regulated basis in alternatives A, B, and C. Overall, 

mechanical treatment lands are reduced (with no lands being managed for timber production on a 

regulated basis) and the use of wildland fire is increased in alternative D. It is assumed that 

100 percent of each species drainage area would be treated, which would likely result in all 

species potentially impacted by one or more treatment methods within the planning period.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 135

Table 20. Acres and percent of the species drainage area potentially affected by treatment type (mechanical and wildland fire) for 

each alternative

Species Drainage Area (acresa) Alternative Ab Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Apache Trout (109,986)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur

85,746 78% 82,663 75% 82,788 75% 72,986 66%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur

24,018 22% 27,323 25% 27,198 25% 37,000 34%

Bluehead Sucker (374,967)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur

326,673 87% 333,539 89% 333,533 89% 288,061 77%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur

46,780 13% 41,429 11% 41,434 11% 86,907 23%

Desert Sucker (847,535)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur

387,631 46% 396,467 47% 396,549 47% 238,983 28%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur

459,140 54% 451,068 53% 450,986 53% 608,553 72%

Gila Chub (92,705)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur

51,105 55% 51,105 55% 51,105 55% 8,657 9%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur

41,600 45% 41,600 45% 41,600 45% 84,048 91%

Gila Trout (51,615)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur

15,644 30% 15,645 30% 15,645 30% 12,126 23%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur

35,971 70% 35,970 70% 35,970 70% 39,489 77%
136

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Species Drainage Area (acresa) Alternative Ab Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Little Colorado Spinedace (268,697)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur 237,847 89% 243,409 91% 243,403 91% 204,344 76%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur 30,240 11% 25,289 9% 25,294 9% 64,353 24%

LCR Sucker (180,663)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur 166,424 92% 172,386 95% 172,387 95% 140,187 78%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur 13,734 8% 8,276 5% 8,276 5% 40,476 22%

Loach Minnow (724,558)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur 269,142 37% 279,439 39% 279,439 39% 131,468 18%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur 454,651 63% 445,120 61% 445,120 61% 593,090 82%

Longfin Dace (634,010)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur 201,812 32% 207,735 33% 207,734 33% 70,773 11%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur 432,198 68% 426,276 67% 426,276 67% 563,237 89%

Razorback Sucker (637,401)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur 203,907 32% 212,115 33% 212,115 33% 69,183 11%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 137

Species Drainage Area (acresa) Alternative Ab Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur 433,494 68% 425,286 67% 425,286 67% 568,218 89%

Roundtail Chub (543,293)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland

FireTreatments Could Occur 416,913 77% 425,790 78% 425,872 78% 321,579 59%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur 125,127 23% 117,503 22% 117,421 22% 221,715 41%

Sonora Sucker (847,535)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

TreatmentsCould Occur 387,631 46% 396,467 47% 396,549 47% 238,983 28%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur 459,140 54% 451,068 53% 450,986 53% 608,553 72%

Spikedace (653,098)

Lands where Mechanical and Wildland Fire 

Treatments Could Occur 209,436 32% 217,655 33% 217,655 33% 69,684 11%

Lands where Only Wildland Fire Treatments 

Could Occur 443,662 68% 435,444 67% 435,444 67% 583,414 89%

a The acres in parentheses represent the drainage area that influences the occupied habitat for each species; these acreages do not change by alternative.

b The sum of alternative A treatment acres does not equal the drainange area acres because the water management area is not included in this calculation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Mechanical treatments include vegetation treatments and associated skidding, road improvement 

and maintenance (e.g., road use, new construction, reconstruction, temporary construction of 

roads), log and/or biomass transportation, piling, disposal/removal of slash, and site preparation. 

While these treatments could result in short-term impacts to specific treatment sites and 

cumulatively within a watershed, standards and guidelines would ensure any short-term impacts 

are minimized. Mechanical and wildland fire treatments improve forest health and vegetation 

conditions, restore a more natural fire regime, and reduce the potential for high severity wildfire. 

These ecological restoration actions would have long-term benefits to maintaining and improving 

aquatic habitats and maintaining fish species populations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Alternatives A, B, and C would have the highest potential for short-term negative impacts to 

aquatic habitat and fish populations because they have the greatest area that could be

mechanically treated. Negative impacts could occur when the hydrologic conditions, including 

increased sedimentation rates, of watersheds and riparian areas are altered. Potential negative 

impacts from alternative D would be less than those under alternatives A, B, or C, as fewer 

lands could be mechanically treated. 

Potential long-term beneficial impacts would occur in all alternatives through improvements in 

vegetation conditions. Additionally, beneficial impacts to watersheds and riparian and aquatic

habitat could occur through restoration of a more natural fire regime and reducing the potential 

for uncharacteristic wildfire. Potential impacts to fish species and aquatic habitats are associated 

with lands that can be treated either by mechanical or wildland fire treatments. While the 

proportion of treatment types (mechanical versus fire) varies between species, the outcomes 

associated with the treatments are similar for all species, as they would restore aquatic habitats 

and move toward desired conditions for all fish species.

Alternative A has the most acres (9 to 66 percent of species drainage areas) that would be 

managed as suitable timber production lands, followed by alternatives C and B. These lands 

would be subject to periodic mechanical entries over time, although only one entry may occur 

during the planning period. Potential long-term negative environmental consequences to water 

quality, riparian areas, and aquatic habitats could result from higher road densities and the 

associated watershed and hydrologic impacts from repeated entries. 

Alternative D has no lands suitable for timber production. In terms of wildland fire-only 

treatments, alternatives A, B, and C would potentially treat the least acres; therefore, they would 

likely result in the fewest beneficial impacts. Alternative D would result in the most beneficial 

impacts, as it could treat 22 to 91 percent more acres within each fish species drainage area than

alternatives A, B, and C. Wildland fire only treatments require fewer ground-disturbing impacts 

and infrastructure (e.g., roads, landings) than mechanical treatments and can reduce the potential 

for future wildfires. Wildfires can negatively impact watershed conditions, riparian areas, aquatic 

habitats, and fish populations through uncharacteristic amounts of moderate and high severity fire 

activity.

Impacts Associated with Management Area Allocations

The fish species drainage areas are located in a variety of management areas. It is assumed that 

certain management areas have a higher probability of management activities, including grounddisturbing activities. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 139

For the action alternatives, these management areas include General Forest, Community-Forest 

Intermix, High Use Developed Recreation Area, Energy Corridor, and Wild Horse Territory. 

Alternative A includes the Sandrock, Escudilla Demonstration Area, Forest Land, Grassland, 

Riparian, and Woodland Management Areas. Table 21 displays the percent species drainage area 

acres that occur in these management areas.

Increases in management intensity that alters ecological processes (e.g., ground-disturbing 

activities) across the landscape may reduce the likelihood of restoring ecosystems and providing 

for ecological sustainability. Increased management intensity can alter watershed and hydrologic 

process and functions, provide greater risks and threats to riparian and aquatic habitats, and limit 

and degrade aquatic habitat conditions and resiliency.

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

actions, including ground-disturbing activities, are most likely to occur

Species Drainage Area Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Apache trout 82% 70% 78% 69%

Bluehead sucker 93% 89% 92% 70%

Desert sucker 75% 35% 74% 30%

Gila chub 100% 30% 100% 13%

Gila trout 33% 26% 33% 24%

Little Colorado spinedace 94% 92% 93% 66%

LCR sucker 94% 93% 93% 57%

Loach minnow 72% 24% 69% 20%

Longfin dace 70% 18% 67% 13%

Razorback sucker 70% 17% 68% 12%

Roundtail chub 95% 70% 95% 55%

Sonora sucker 75% 35% 74% 30%

Spikedace 70% 17% 67% 12%

Average of All Drainage Areas 79% 47% 77% 36%

The fish species in alternatives C and A are at higher risk from potential management activities. 

Alternatives D and B would have the least risk. Treatments and activities associated with 

vegetation, fire, recreation, specials uses, livestock grazing, and the transportation system can 

impact watersheds, riparian areas, aquatic habitat, and fish species. While the extent and 

cumulative and collective impacts of future actions cannot be determined at this time, recognizing 

and minimizing these risks can help maintain existing conditions and reduce any potential 

negative environmental consequences.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Impacts Associated with Other Management Activities

Future activities would include project implementation related to multiple-use management and 

would occur over most of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Activities likely to occur are recreation, 

livestock grazing, special use authorizations, motorized transportation, and watershed, riparian, 

and aquatic habitat restoration. 

Recreation

Potential impacts associated with recreation activities would be similar across alternatives A, B, 

and D. Alternative C impacts would be greater because of its emphasis on motorized and 

developed recreation opportunities. Water plays a critical role in many aspects of recreation on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Lakes and streams attract visitors to the forests. Recreation activities 

occur near or adjacent to ponds, lakes, streams, and riparian areas which could negatively impact 

these areas by reducing vegetation, increasing sedimentation, and altering water quality and 

aquatic habitat conditions. Increases in motorized recreation activities could have similar impacts, 

while increasing the potential to transfer or introduce nonnative species that can negatively 

impact riparian areas and aquatic habitat.

Many developed and dispersed recreation sites are located on or near lakes and streams. This use 

typically results in trampling and altering of riparian areas and stream banks, damage to riparian 

vegetation, and soil compaction. Resulting erosion and sedimentation can alter aquatic habitat and 

water quality. The risk of water pollution from human wastes, dishwashing, trash, fish cleaning, 

and livestock use can occur where recreationists congregate. These risks can be reduced by 

designing and locating recreation sites and trails away from riparian areas. Stream and drainage 

crossings must be minimized and routes should terminate a distance from water to avoid impacts 

to riparian areas and water quality.

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing activities in uplands and riparian areas can have numerous impacts on the 

quality of aquatic resources and habitat. These impacts can be substantial and are a primary 

source of hydrologic alteration of watersheds, sedimentation, nutrient loading, changes to water 

quality, and fish habitat alteration and destruction.

The management strategy for livestock grazing does not vary by alternative; therefore, all 

alternatives would have similar impacts to hydrologic conditions, riparian vegetation, 

streambank conditions, and aquatic habitat within the allotments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Livestock also could introduce nonnative species, especially into riparian areas. The introduction 

of some nonnative plant species can displace native species, resulting in the loss of habitat 

diversity and alterations to the physical and biological components of the aquatic ecosystem. 

Special Uses

Special uses for the occupancy and use of NFS lands for both private and public purposes occur 

through the issuance of special use authorizations and easements. Under all alternatives, a range 

of uses may be permitted, including, but not limited to, water storage and transmission, electric 

transmission and distribution lines, communications sites, alternative and renewable energy 

generating facilities, research permits, outfitters and guides, recreation events, large group 

gatherings, collecting permits, recreation residences, and target ranges.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 141

While most activities either currently exist or could occur within many management areas, based 

on the suitability analysis, the General Forest Management Area has the greatest potential for 

these types of actions to occur. Special use authorizations and easements are not likely to 

contribute any potential beneficial impacts to watersheds, riparian areas, or aquatic habitats and 

the native species present. Many of these activities are long term and many result in permanent 

alterations and impacts to various resources where they occur. 

Dams and diversions can have substantial impacts to riparian areas and aquatic species, while 

providing beneficial impacts to undesirable nonnative species. Outfitters and guides, research 

permits, and road easement special uses may occur within or adjacent to riparian areas and 

aquatic habitats and, depending on the activity, may negatively impact these areas and alter 

riparian and aquatic habitat conditions through ground disturbance, sedimentation, vegetation 

alteration and removals, and impacts to water quality. Many of these activities are conducive to 

promoting or spreading invasive plant species, especially those occurring within utility corridors, 

rights-of-way or easements, and riparian areas. 

Motorized Routes

Generally, new road construction may occur when access to a particular resource or private 

inholding is needed. These roads may be permanent, if intended for long-term use, or they may be 

temporary for a one-time use and then removed. Less than 10 miles of new NFS road has been 

constructed over the past 5 years. It has been limited to relocation of poorly located roads (e.g., 

routes located in or near riparian areas, wet meadows) and developed campground construction. 

Temporary roads are used for forest product extraction where a permanent road is not needed for 

future access.

All alternatives would include the continued use and maintenance of the existing motorized road 

and trail systems. The existing systems currently impact riparian and aquatic ecosystems through 

erosion, sedimentation, changes to channel morphology and, to some extent, the movement of 

fish and other aquatic organisms. This infrastructure and its continued use may be the primary 

source of impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. However, all alternatives include objectives, 

standards, and guidelines to reduce impacts over time and to reduce impacts from construction 

and maintenance of motorized routes. Road and trail systems may contribute to the introduction 

of invasive species—either aquatic or terrestrial plant species—by providing access to lakes, 

reservoirs, ponds, streams, and riparian areas. Stream crossings provide access for many types of 

recreation activities, which can increase the likelihood of introducing invasive plant, invertebrate, 

and fish species.

While none of the alternatives proposes to increase the transportation system, maintenance and 

reconstruction would occur in all alternatives. Alternatives A, B, and C could have the greatest 

potential to increase sedimentation, erosion, and alteration of hydrologic conditions due to their

greater emphasis on mechanical vegetation treatments, commodity outputs, road maintenance and 

use, reconstruction, and temporary construction. Alternative D could result in the least amount of 

impacts associated with road reconstruction, temporary roads, and skid trail construction because 

it emphasizes wildland fire treatments rather than mechanical treatments. 

Watershed/Riparian/Aquatic Habitat Restoration

Watershed and riparian restoration objectives vary by alternative (see table 3 Type, Priority, and 

Amount of Restoration Treatments in chapter 2). Although all watershed treatments could
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

improve conditions for aquatic species and their habitats, restoration treatments within the 

riparian areas and aquatic habitats could result in the most beneficial impacts. Beneficial impacts 

should reduce sedimentation, improve riparian vegetation conditions, and increase the 

productivity of aquatic habitat. As alternative D has the most treatments, it would result in the 

most benefits to aquatic habitat, followed by alternatives B, C, and A. 

Impacts Associated with Nonnative Fish Species

The presence of nonnative fish species has resulted in impacts (e.g., competition, predation, 

hybridization, habitat alteration) across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The harmful interactions are 

well documented (e.g., recovery plans) and a primary cause of the current declining status of 

federally listed and sensitive fish species throughout the Southwest. Approximately 24 nonnative

fish species occur within or adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The deliberate or 

unintentional introductions of amphibians, invertebrates (e.g., crayfish, snails, clams, mussels), 

parasites and diseases, and aquatic invasive plants have also impacted aquatic communities and 

habitats. 

The potential impacts from nonnative fish would be similar across alternatives A, B, and D. 

Alternative C impacts would be greater because of greater access and increased developed and 

motorized recreation opportunities. Roads and trails can contribute to the introduction of invasive 

species, either aquatic or terrestrial, by providing access to ponds, lakes, streams, and riparian 

areas. Boats and boat trailers are a primary source of lake introductions while river and stream

crossings provide recreation and angler access that can also increase the potential for introduction 

of nonnative fish, mollusks, crayfish, diseases, and parasites.

While watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat restoration treatments are necessary and beneficial, 

they must consider the potential to increase the spread of invasive species by providing increased 

connectivity and altering habitat. Improvement in habitat conditions may benefit some nonnative

species, as well as native species. These interactions and interrelationships would also be 

considered when implementing restoration treatments.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The analysis area for fisheries cumulative environmental consequences includes lands managed 

by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and lands of other ownership (e.g., State, tribal, private) within and 

adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These other lands can also influence and impact the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and their management, as discussed below. 

Aquatic habitats are very unique and limited over the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Habitat alteration 

is the major cause of declines in native aquatic species. The most common physical habitat 

alterations are changes to stream channel and riparian vegetation, water impoundments (e.g., 

ponds, lakes), sedimentation and water quality changes, and streamflow changes. Additionally, 

other substantial human impacts include pollution, introduction and spread of invasive species

and, for some fish species, overharvesting. Under all alternatives, aquatic habitat quality and 

quantity is determined and influenced by activities that occur within the watershed and can also 

be influenced and impacted by actions occurring on private lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs and downstream outside the forests. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 143

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 ApacheSitgreaves 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 fish. 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.

Private lands within and adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs can influence watersheds and 

aquatic and riparian habitat in many ways. Urban development and the associated infrastructure 

can impact water quantity and quality from water diversions and consumptive use, groundwater 

pumping, and septic and sewer systems. Roads and utility infrastructure can also impact 

watersheds, water quality, and aquatic habitat and can increase the spread of invasive species. All 

of these activities occur to varying degrees across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and within 

communities adjacent to the forests, such as Alpine, Eagar, Heber, Forest Lakes, Show Low, and 

Springerville. In addition, numerous private inholdings, such as those on the Blue River and 

Eagle Creek, are located near riparian/aquatic corridors and have impacts similar to those 

discussed above.

Vegetation

This section describes and analyzes the 14 potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. All PNVT overstory structure and cover data is post-2011 Wallow Fire. 

Understory vegetation data is pre-Wallow Fire (2007 to 2008) and does not reflect the soil and 

understory vegetation acreage that was burned at moderate and high severity levels. Acreage 

within each PNVT is static, because it is based on a combination of several factors such as 

topography, elevation, aspect, soil type, soil moisture and temperature, ambient air temperature, 

and associated biotic influences. However, the acreage within each PNVT overstory structural 

state may vary over time because of natural succession, management treatments, and other 

disturbance factors.

This section quantifies the extent each PNVT’s overstory structure, size class, and canopy cover 

have departed from desired conditions using the measure of departure index (DI). It then predicts 

what the departure and trend would be after implementing the vegetation treatment objectives in 

each alternative. It discusses the threats and risks that have caused departures from desired 

conditions and may hinder progress toward desired conditions. This section also examines the 

state of aspen on the forests by estimating current acres and potential reduction in the amount by 

alternative. The section also describes the relationship between overstory canopy and the 

condition of the herbaceous understory vegetation using the amount (acres) of closed canopy 

cover, as well as ecological range condition.

See the “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014t) in the “Plan Set of Documents” for 

more in-depth discussion of these topics. The specialist report also discusses the relationship 

between current PNVTs on the forests, their reference condition, and the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

ecological contribution to the larger ecoregion.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Projected trends in the movement of vegetation between states (or transitions) were derived 

through use of the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT)21. The following PNVTs 

were modeled using VDDT software: ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, wet mixed conifer, and 

spruce-fir forests; Madrean pine-oak and piñon-juniper woodlands; Great Basin and semi-desert 

grasslands; and interior chaparral. State and transition modeling was not conducted for 

montane/subalpine grasslands and the four riparian PNVTs. Additional information about the 

vegetative modeling methodology can be found in appendix B.

In most cases, desired conditions and reference conditions are the same. However, they are not 

for 5 of the 14 PNVTs. In ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests the desired conditions

reflect contemporary landscape vegetation structural states important to northern goshawks and 

Mexican spotted owls. In Madrean pine-oak woodland the desired conditions reflect 

contemporary landscape vegetation structural states important to Mexican spotted owls. Desired 

conditions are also different from reference conditions for the wet mixed conifer and spruce-fir 

forests to reflect areas absent the succession of aspen cover types, where even-aged conifer 

succession predominates. As an expression of socioeconomic sustainability, a minor percentage 

of areas without aspen cover types would be managed on shorter rotations than the historic stand 

replacement intervals (120 years versus 200+ years). These desired conditions have somewhat 

higher proportions of early successional vegetation structural states than reference conditions, 

proportions of mid-successional vegetation structural states that are somewhat lower than 

reference conditions, and proportions of late successional vegetation structural states that are 

somewhat lower than reference conditions.

The departure index (DI) is a rating based on departure from desired vegetation conditions. 

Determination of the amount of departure is based on comparisons of forest structure, size class, 

and canopy cover. DI classes include the following: 

• No departure (0 to 20 percent): Composition and structure of overstory vegetation is 

similar to desired conditions and the risk of losing key ecosystem components (e.g., 

native species, forest structure, soil) is minimal. Areas within this DI class can be 

maintained within their historical fire regime by such treatments as fire.

• Low departure (21 to 40 percent): Composition and structure of overstory vegetation is 

somewhat altered from desired conditions and the risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is low. Areas within this DI class may need some level of restoration 

treatments (e.g., fire, mechanical) to be restored to reference conditions. 

• Moderate departure (41 to 60 percent): Composition and structure of overstory 

vegetation is moderately altered from desired conditions and the risk of losing key 

ecosystem components is moderate. Areas within this DI class may need moderate levels 

of restoration treatments (e.g., fire, mechanical) to be restored to reference conditions.

• High departure (61 to 80 percent): Composition and structure of overstory vegetation is 

highly altered from desired conditions and the risk of losing key ecosystem components 

is high. Areas within this DI class may need greater levels of restoration treatments (e.g., 

fire, mechanical) to be restored to reference conditions.

 21 VDDT software is a nonspatial model that allows the user to model vegetation change over time as a series of states 

that differ in structure, composition, and cover. VDDT also specifies the amount of time it takes to move from one 

vegetation state to another in the absence of disturbance. VDDT Version 6.0.25 was used for this analysis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 145

• Severe departure (81 to 100 percent): Composition and structure of overstory vegetation 

is extremely altered from desired conditions and the risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is pronounced. Areas within this DI class may need very high levels of 

restoration treatments (e.g., fire, mechanical) to be restored to reference conditions.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• Because overstory vegetation desired conditions have been identified at or near reference 

conditions, the closer the composition, structure, and processes of an individual PNVT 

are to desired conditions the more properly the PNVT is functioning. 

• Restoration will reestablish more natural patterns and processes within these vegetation 

communities that allow for natural resiliency. This is especially important when faced 

with potential changes in climate, uncharacteristic wildfire, and the presence of invasive 

plant species.

Affected Environment

Potential Natural Vegetation Types

Potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) are coarse-scale groupings of ecosystem types that 

share similar geography, vegetation, and historic ecosystem disturbances, such as fire, drought, 

and grazing by native species. PNVTs represent the vegetation type and characteristics that would 

occur when natural disturbance regimes and biological processes prevail (Vander Lee et al., 

2006). Tables 22 and 23 display the major PNVTs (Vander Lee et al., 2006) found on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Maps displaying the spatial distribution of all PNVTs across the forests are 

located in appendix J.

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

Forests Woodlands Grasslands Chaparral Riparian Areas/

Riparian Forests

ponderosa pine

wet mixed conifer

dry mixed conifer

spruce-fir

Madrean pine-oak

piñon-juniper

Great Basin

semi-desert

montane/subalpine

interior wetland/cienega

cottonwood-willow

mixed broadleaf

deciduous

montane willow
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

PNVT Acres of NFS Land Percent of NFS Land

Ponderosa Pine Forest 602,206 29.9%

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 394,927 19.6%

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 222,166 11.0%

Great Basin Grassland 185,523 9.2%

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 177,995 8.8%

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 147,885 7.3%

Semi-desert Grassland 106,952 5.3%

Interior Chaparral 55,981 2.8%

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 51,559 2.6%

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 17,900 0.9%

Spruce-Fir Forest 17,667 0.9%

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 15,876 0.8%

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 9,657 0.5%

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 4,808 0.2%

Table 24 lists the current departure index (DI), a comparison between the existing overstory

vegetation conditions and the desired conditions, for each PNVT. 

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

percent from desired conditions

No 

(0–20 

Departure

percent)

Low 

(21–40 

Departure

percent)

Moderate 

(41–60 

Departure

percent)

High 

(61–80 

Departure

percent)

PNVT DI PNVT DI PNVT DI PNVT DI

cottonwoodwillow 

riparian forest

20 wetland/

cienega 

riparian areas

36 spruce-fir 

forest

59 semi-desert 

grassland

79

interior 

chaparral

8 mixed 

broadleaf 

deciduous 

riparian forest

33 montane/

subalpine 

grasslands

54 ponderosa 

pine 

forest

77

piñon-juniper

woodland

26 wet mixed 

conifer 

forest

54 Great Basin 

grassland

67

montane 

willow

riparian forest

21 dry mixed 

conifer 

forest

67

Madrean 

pine-oak 

woodland

61
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 147

The following sections describe the setting, current DI, forest overstory structure, size class, 

canopy cover, and threats to the PNVT. More detailed descriptions of each PNVT, including 

species composition, can be found in the proposed plan. For information on the fire regime and 

fire regime condition class (FRCC) for each PNVT, see the “Fire” section in chapter 3. See 

appendix B in the proposed plan for PNVT graphs that depict current and desired vegetation 

structural states.

Forested PNVTs – Ponderosa Pine

The ponderosa pine forest is widespread 

(figure 13) and represents the largest PNVT 

and the largest forested PNVT. Current 

conditions within the ponderosa pine forest are 

highly departed from desired conditions. With 

a DI of 77, this PNVT is the second most 

departed PNVT from desired conditions. 

With respect to DI, there is considerable over

representation (56 percent) of all size and age 

trees, single-storied or multistoried with 

closed canopy cover. There is also an atypical 

early developmental state (11 percent) that 

was created by uncharacteristic wildfire. 

Historically, this forested PNVT was characterized by open canopies, but currently there is an 

under representation (58 percent) of medium to very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees 

with open canopy cover. Historically, these forests were dominated by shade intolerant shrub and 

tree species and had a diverse herbaceous understory. 

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (94 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the ponderosa pine 

forest; approximately 98 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderately-high

ecological status23; while only 2 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in ecological status

 

22 Grazing capability is a qualitative expression of the inherent ability of an ecosystem to support grazing use by 

various classes of livestock on a sustained yield basis; that is, maintaining the stability and productivity of the site. Soil 

stability determinations and site productivity evaluations are used in combination to determine and assign grazing 

capability. Capable areas are those which can be used by grazing animals under proper management without long-term 

damage to the soil resource or plant communities. Typically, this land is stable. Vegetative ground cover is maintaining 

site productivity and producing a minimum of 100 pounds of dried forage per acre per year. Soil loss as judged by 

available techniques is within tolerance (Forest Service, 2013). Because areas classified as having no grazing capability 

are not allocated for livestock grazing they are not usually evaluated for range condition and ecological status, therefore 

this information is generally not collected from these areas and is unavailable or incomplete. In addition, other resource 

program areas do not generally collect this type of data as well, so again, this type of information is not available 

outside of capable grazing areas. 

23 Ecological status is the degree of similarity or dissimilarity (i.e., departure) between the existing vegetation (all 

components and their characteristics) and existing soil conditions when compared to the potential natural plant 

community and the desired soil condition on a site. The present state of a TES map unit stated in terms of specific 

values or potentials with respect to species composition, ground cover, and soil characteristics. (Forest Service, 2013). 

Ecological status ratings are: high, moderately-high, moderate-low, and low (FSH 2209.21. R3) departure from the 

potential natural plant community.

Figure 13. Location map of ponderosa pine 

forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of plant 

vigor and growth, as well as species compositional changes and possible changes in site potential.

The majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the ponderosa pine forest capable 

grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from desired conditions. 

The most important and far-reaching threats under Forest Service authority that have affected this 

forested PNVT include past livestock grazing which removed fine fuels needed for carrying 

frequent, low intensity surface fires; forest management practices (vegetation treatments) which 

changed forest age class distribution, composition, density, and cover and greatly reduced 

understory productivity; and fire suppression which effectively ended the frequent fire regime 

typical of this forested PNVT. 

Forested PNVTs – Wet Mixed Conifer

The wet mixed conifer forest is found primarily 

on the Alpine, Black Mesa, and Springerville 

Ranger Districts (figure 14) and is the second 

largest forested PNVT. Current conditions 

within the wet mixed conifer forest are 

moderately departed from desired condition. 

The current DI is 54 percent. 

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. 

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable grazing lands (45 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the wet mixed conifer 

forest; approximately 96 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderately-high

ecological status; while only 4 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in ecological status

have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of plant 

vigor and growth, as well as species compositional changes, and possible changes in site 

potential. The majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the wet mixed conifer 

forest capable grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from desired conditions.

The most important and far-reaching threats under Forest Service authority that have affected this 

forested PNVT are human-caused fires and forest management practices (vegetation treatments) 

which changed forest age class distribution, composition, density, and cover. 

Forested PNVTs – Dry Mixed Conifer

The dry mixed conifer forest is widespread, found primarily on the Alpine, Black Mesa, and 

Springerville Ranger Districts (figure 15). Current conditions within the dry mixed conifer forest 

are highly departed from desired conditions. The current DI is 67 percent. 

Figure 14. Location map of wet mixed 

conifer forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 149

With respect to DI, there is an over representation 

(56 percent) of all size and age trees, single-storied or 

multistoried with closed canopy cover. In addition, 

there is an atypical early developmental state created 

by uncharacteristic wildfire (25 percent). Historically, 

this forested PNVT was characterized by open 

canopies, but currently there is an under

representation (52 percent) of medium to very large 

size, single-storied or multistoried trees with open 

canopy cover. Historically, these forests were

dominated by shade intolerant shrub and tree species 

and had a diverse herbaceous understory. 

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest 

Service, 2007c) indicate that within the capable

grazing lands (71 percent of the total PNVT’s area) 

associated with the dry mixed conifer forest; approximately 97 percent of the herbaceous 

understory is in low to moderately-high ecological status; while only 3 percent is in high 

ecological status. Declines in ecological status have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous 

vegetation ground cover and lower levels of plant vigor and growth, as well as species 

compositional shifts, and possible changes in site potential. The majority of the understory within 

the dry mixed conifer forest capable grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from 

desired conditions.

The threats to dry mixed conifer are the same as those listed for ponderosa pine. 

Forested PNVTs – Spruce-Fir

The spruce-fir forest is found on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts (figure 16). It is 

the smallest of the forested PNVTs. Current conditions within the spruce-fir forest are moderately 

departed from desired condition. The current DI is 59 percent. 

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.

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data 

(Forest Service, 2007c) indicates that within the 

capable grazing lands (12 percent of the total 

PNVT’s area) associated with the spruce-fir forest; Figure 16. Location map of spruce-fir 

forest approximately 55 percent of the herbaceous 

understory is in high ecological status23; while 

45 percent is in moderately-low to moderately-high ecological status. Declines in ecological 

Figure 15. Location map of dry mixed 

conifer forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

status have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of 

plant vigor and growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in site 

potential. However, the majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the spruce-fir 

forest capable grazing lands has low or no departure from desired conditions. 

The threats to spruce-fir are the same as those listed for wet mixed conifer. 

Woodland PNVTs – Madrean Pine-Oak

The Madrean pine-oak woodland is found primarily below the Mogollon Rim on the Alpine and 

Clifton Ranger Districts (figure 17). It is the largest of the woodland PNVTs and the second 

largest PNVT. Current conditions within the 

Madrean pine-oak woodland are highly departed 

from desired conditions. The current DI is 61 

percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an over representation 

(59 percent) of small to very large size trees with 

closed canopy cover. Historically, this woodland 

PNVT was characterized by open canopies which 

are now reflected in an under representation (60 

percent) of seedling, saplings, small, and medium to 

very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees 

with open canopy cover. Historically, these 

woodlands were dominated by shade intolerant 

shrub and tree species and had a diverse herbaceous 

understory. 

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (46 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the Madrean pineoak woodland; approximately 84 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderatelyhigh ecological status; while 16 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in ecological status

have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of plant 

vigor and growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in site potential.

The majority of the understory within the Madrean pine-oak woodland capable grazing lands is 

moderately to severely departed from desired conditions. 

The most important and far-reaching threats under Forest Service authority that have affected the 

Madrean pine-oak woodland include past livestock grazing which removed fine fuels needed for 

carrying frequent, low intensity surface fires; forest management practices which changed age 

class distribution, composition, density, and cover and greatly reduced understory productivity; 

fire suppression which effectively ended the frequent fire regime typical of this woodland; and 

the introduction of invasive plants. 

Figure 17. Location map of Madrean 

pine-oak woodland
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 151

Woodland PNVTs – Piñon-Juniper

The piñon-juniper woodland occurs primarily 

along the forests’ northern boundary on the 

Black Mesa, Lakeside, Springerville, and 

Alpine Ranger Districts (figure 18). It 

represents the third largest PNVT. Current 

conditions within the piñon-juniper woodland 

are at a low departure from desired conditions 

with a DI of 26 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an over 

representation (19 percent) of medium to very 

large size trees with open canopy cover and an 

under representation (25 percent) of early 

successional, seedlings, saplings, and small 

size trees with open canopy cover. Historically, 

these woodlands were dominated by shade intolerant shrub and tree species and had a diverse 

herbaceous understory. 

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (96 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the piñon-juniper 

woodland; approximately 98 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderately-high

ecological status; while only 2 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in ecological status

have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of plant 

vigor and growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in site potential.

The majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the piñon-juniper woodland capable 

grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from desired conditions. 

The threats to piñon-juniper are the same as those listed for Madrean pine-oak. 

Grassland PNVTs – Great Basin

The Great Basin grassland occurs primarily 

along the forests’ northern boundary on the 

Black Mesa, Lakeside, Springerville, and 

Alpine Ranger Districts; it is closely associated 

with piñon-juniper woodland (figure 19). It is 

the largest of the grassland PNVTs and the 

fourth largest PNVT. Current conditions within 

the Great Basin grassland are highly departed 

from desired conditions with a DI of 

67 percent.

With respect to DI, there is an over 

representation (66 percent) of encroaching 

shrubs and trees of all sizes with open and 

closed canopies and an under representation 

(63 percent) of open, dense stands of perennial 

grasses and forbs with less than 10 percent 

Figure 18. Location map of piñonjuniper woodland

Figure 19. Location map of Great Basin 

grassland
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

woody canopy cover. There is also an uncharacteristic state where various noxious weeds and 

invasive plants makeup a significant portion of the vegetation composition. 

Currently, much of this grassland more closely resembles woodland than grassland. 

Approximately 68 percent, or nearly 126,200 acres, of this grassland have been encroached by 

woody species, primarily piñon and juniper and no longer have the appearance of a grassland 

community. According to Vander Lee et al. (2006) approximately 70 percent of these encroached 

acres may be non-restorable to their former grassland state. Historically, these grasslands were 

dominated by a diverse herbaceous vegetation community. 

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (99 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the Great Basin 

grassland; approximately 97 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderately-high

ecological status; while only 3 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in ecological status

have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of plant 

vigor and growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in site potential.

The majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the Great Basin grassland capable 

grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from desired conditions. 

The most important threats under Forest Service authority that have affected this grassland 

include fire suppression which effectively ended the frequent fire regime typical of this grassland, 

woody species encroachment and establishment, human-caused fires and roads, highways and 

energy corridors, livestock grazing, and invasive plants. These threats result in modification of 

natural processes and habitats which have negative consequences to ecological composition, 

structure, function, and processes.

According to Gori and Enquist (2003), changes in the structure and function of grassland systems 

have been noted as the primary cause of the loss of native diversity within grasslands (Stacey, 

1995). Finch (2004) identified and summarized the major threats to grassland biological diversity 

as the loss of natural fire cycles, overgrazing by livestock, prairie dog eradication, exotic grasses, 

shrub encroachment, erosion, and habitat 

fragmentation. 

Grassland PNVTs – Semi-Desert

This grassland occurs primarily on the Clifton 

Ranger District closely associated with the 

Madrean pine-oak woodland (figure 20). Current 

conditions within the semi-desert grassland are 

highly departed from desired conditions with a DI 

of 79 percent; this PNVT is the most departed from 

desired conditions. 

With respect to DI, there is an over representation 

(77 percent) of encroaching shrubs and trees of all 

sizes with open and closed canopies and an under Figure 20. Location map of semidesert grassland

representation (81 percent) of open, dense stands 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 153

of perennial grasses and forbs (late seral) with less than 10 percent woody canopy cover. There is 

also an uncharacteristic state where various noxious weeds and invasive plants make up a 

significant portion of the vegetation composition. 

Currently, much of this grassland more closely resembles woodland than grassland.

Approximately 80 percent, or nearly 85,600 acres, of this PNVT has been encroached by woody 

species, primarily juniper and mesquite and no longer have the appearance of a grassland 

community. According to Vander Lee et al. (2006) approximately 36 percent of these encroached 

acres may be non-restorable to their former grassland state. Historically, these grasslands were 

dominated by a diverse herbaceous vegetation community. 

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (80 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the semi-desert 

grassland; approximately 82 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderately-high

ecological status; while 18 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in ecological status have

resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of plant vigor 

and growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in site potential. The 

majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the semi-desert grassland capable 

grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from desired conditions. 

The threats to semi-desert grassland are the same as those listed for Great Basin grassland. 

Grassland PNVTs – Montane/Subalpine

This grassland occurs primarily on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts (figure 21). It is 

the smallest of the grassland types. Current conditions within the montane/subalpine grasslands 

are moderately departed from desired 

conditions with a DI of 54 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an over 

representation (50 percent) of middevelopment (mid-seral), open canopy 

(herbaceous vegetation), encroaching shrubs 

and trees of all sizes with open and closed 

canopies, and an under representation (41 

percent) of late development (late seral), 

open canopy (herbaceous vegetation). There 

is also an uncharacteristic state where various 

noxious weeds and invasive plants make up a 

significant portion of the vegetation 

composition. Approximately 10 percent or 

nearly 5,200 acres of this PNVT have been 

encroached by woody species, primarily 

mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and piñonjuniper (depending on elevation and slope aspect). 

Figure 21. Location map of 

montane/subalpine grassland

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (99 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the 

montane/subalpine grasslands; approximately 82 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

moderately-high ecological status; while 12 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in

ecological status have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower 

levels of plant vigor and growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in 

site potential. The majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the montane/subalpine 

grasslands capable grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from desired conditions. 

The threats to montane/subalpine grasslands are the same as those listed for Great Basin 

grassland. 

Chaparral PNVT – Interior Chaparral

Interior chaparral occurs primarily on the Clifton Ranger District (figure 22). 

Current conditions within interior chaparral are not departed from desired condition with a DI of 

8 percent. With respect to DI, there is a small over representation (8 percent) of early 

development (early seral) open canopy herbaceous dominated conditions in a historically shrub 

dominated PNVT. 

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data 

(Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (44 percent of the total 

PNVT’s area) associated with the interior 

chaparral; approximately 88 percent of the 

herbaceous understory is in moderately-low to 

moderately-high ecological status; while 

12 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in

ecological status have resulted in lower levels of 

herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower 

levels of plant vigor and growth, as well as 

species compositional shifts, and possible changes 

in site potential. The majority of the herbaceous 

understory vegetation within the interior chaparral

capable grazing lands is moderately to highly 

departed from desired conditions. 

The most important and far-reaching threats under Forest Service authority that have affected 

interior chaparral are human-caused fires, invasive species establishment, inappropriate livestock 

grazing, and loss of soil and soil productivity. 

Riparian PNVTs

Riparian areas are of primary importance because of the scarcity of water in the Southwest. All 

riparian PNVTs are unique in that they represent a very small portion (less than 3 percent) of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. However, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are responsible for management of 

the majority of this type within the ecoregion. These areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are a 

focal point for humans, terrestrial wildlife, and livestock activities, as well as species that are 

dependent on wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitats. Therefore, both demand and impacts are 

high. For more information about the condition of riparian areas, see the “Riparian” section in 

chapter 3.

Figure 22. Location map of interior 

chaparral
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 155

Riparian PNVTs – Wetland/Cienega

Wetland/cienega riparian areas occur primarily on 

the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts (figure 

23). This PNVT is associated with perennial springs 

or headwater streams, bogs, and fens where 

groundwater intersects the surface and creates pools 

of standing water, sometimes with channels flowing 

between pools. 

Current conditions within wetland/cienega riparian 

areas have a low departure from desired conditions 

with a DI of 36 percent. With respect to DI, there is 

an under representation (27 percent) of middevelopment (mid-seral), open canopy (herbaceous 

vegetation) and an over representation (37 percent) Figure 23. Location map of 

wetland/cienega riparian areas of encroaching shrubs and trees with open and 

closed canopies. Historically, these riparian areas 

were dominated by herbaceous vegetation. 

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (94 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with wetland/cienega 

riparian areas; approximately 92 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderatelyhigh ecological status; while only 8 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in ecological 

status have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of 

plant vigor and growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in site 

potential. The majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the wetland/cienega 

riparian areas capable grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from desired conditions. 

Changes in the structure and function of wetland/cienega systems have been noted as the primary 

cause of the loss of biological diversity within these systems. The causes of adverse change in the 

ecological character of wetland/cienegas can be grouped in five broad categories: (1) changes to 

the water regime, (2) water pollution, (3) physical modification, (4) exploitation of biological 

products, and (5) introduction of invasive species (Bodner and Simms, 2008). 

The most important threats under Forest Service management authority that have affected the 

riparian areas and riparian forested PNVTs include fire suppression, which has allowed nonriparian species expansion into these communities; inundation (e.g., diversions, dams, and 

impoundments) and drying of the riparian communities below the impoundment and concurrently 

flooding those communities above the impoundment; human-caused fires; roads, highways, and 

corridors; inappropriate livestock grazing; and wild ungulates. These threat types include natural 

process modification and habitat conversion which have negative consequences to ecological 

composition, structure, function, and processes. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Riparian PNVTs – Cottonwood-Willow 

This riparian forest occurs primarily on the 

Alpine, Black Mesa, and Lakeside Ranger 

Districts along approximately 800 miles of rivers 

and streams (figure 24). Current conditions 

within the cottonwood-willow riparian forest are 

not departed from desired conditions with a DI of 

20 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an under 

representation (20 percent) of small size trees 

with open and closed canopies and an over 

representation (16 percent) of medium to very 

large size trees with open and closed canopies. 

These conditions are indicative of an older stand 

structure which lacks young tree recruitment. 

Historically, these forests were dominated by shade int

Figure 24. Location map of cottonwoodwillow riparian forest

olerant shrub and tree species with open 

canopies allowing for an abundance of herbaceous species.

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (97 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the cottonwoodwillow riparian forest; approximately 96 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to 

moderately-high ecological status; while only 4 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in

ecological status have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower 

levels of plant vigor and growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in 

site potential. The majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the cottonwoodwillow riparian forest capable grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from desired 

conditions. 

The threats to cottonwood-willow riparian forest are the same as those listed for wetland/cienega 

riparian areas. 

Riparian PNVTs – Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous

This riparian forest occurs primarily on the 

Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts along 

approximately 860 miles of rivers and streams 

(figure 25). Current conditions within the 

mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forest are 

at a low departure from desired conditions with 

a DI of 33 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an over 

representation (31 percent) of seedlings, 

saplings, and small to medium size trees with 

closed canopies and an under representation 

(29 percent) of seedlings, saplings, and small 

to very large size trees with open canopies. Historically, these forests were dominated by shade 

Figure 25. Location map of mixed 

broadleaf deciduous forest
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 157

intolerant to very shade intolerant shrub and tree species with open canopies allowing for an 

abundance of herbaceous species.

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data (Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (85 percent of the total PNVT’s area) associated with the mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian forest; approximately 75 percent of the herbaceous understory is in low to 

moderately-high ecological status; while 25 percent is in high ecological status. Declines in 

ecological status have resulted in lower levels of herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower 

levels of plant vigor and growth, as well as species compositional shifts, and possible changes in 

site potential. The majority of the herbaceous understory vegetation within the mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian forest capable grazing lands is moderately to severely departed from desired 

conditions. 

The threats to mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forest are the same as those listed for 

wetland/cienega riparian areas. 

Riparian PNVTs – Montane Willow

This riparian forest occurs primarily on the Alpine, Black Mesa, and Springerville Ranger 

Districts along approximately 1,130 miles of rivers and streams (figure 26). It represents the 

smallest PNVT on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Current conditions within the montane willow 

riparian forest are at a low departure from desired conditions with a DI of 21 percent. 

With respect to DI, there is an over 

representation (21 percent) of seedlings, 

saplings, and small to very large size trees with 

open and closed canopies and an under 

representation (21 percent) of herbaceous 

vegetation, seedlings, and saplings with open 

canopies. Historically, these forests were 

dominated by shade intolerant shrub and tree 

species with open canopies allowing for an 

abundance of herbaceous species.

The most current Apache-Sitgreaves NFs data 

(Forest Service, 2007c) indicate that within the 

capable22 grazing lands (85 percent of the total 

PNVT’s area) associated with the montane 

willow riparian forest; approximately 92 percent 

of the herbaceous understory is in low to moderately-hi

Figure 26. Location map of montane 

willow riparian forest

gh ecological status; while only 8 percent 

is in high ecological status. Declines in ecological status have resulted in lower levels of 

herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of plant vigor and growth, as well as species 

compositional shifts, and possible changes in site potential. The majority of the herbaceous 

understory vegetation within the montane willow riparian forest capable grazing lands is 

moderately to severely departed from desired conditions. 

The threats to montane willow riparian forest are the same as those listed for wetland/cienega 

riparian areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Threats and Risks to PNVTs

The threats to the forests’ PNVTs, mentioned above in each PNVT discussion, pose the following 

risks. Many of these risks, when combined, have compounding effects with negative 

consequences to ecological composition, structure, function, and processes, specifically by 

affecting the following: 

• vegetation health (e.g., resulting in atypical composition, structure, and function of both 

the overstory and understory vegetation); 

• soil compaction, erosion, sedimentation, and loss of soil fertility; 

• altered watershed and hydrologic functions; 

• reduced water quality and quantity; 

• riparian, aquatic, and terrestrial site loss and/or degradation and fragmentation of these 

habitats within these PNVTs; 

• altered fire regimes, uncharacteristic wildfire, and inability to reestablish natural wildfire 

processes;

• introduction and spread of invasive species;

• modification of natural processes and changes in ecological potentials; and

• species extinction and/or reduction in population(s) and/or habitat(s). 

Additionally, climate influences a variety of ecological processes. However, the true 

consequences of the risks posed by the threats are unknown because of the unidentified aspects 

about the complex interactions between the spatial and temporal variability of climate, ecosystem 

processes, disturbance regimes, hydrology, and 

forest management activities.

Aspen

Quaking aspen (aspen) occurs as a species 

primarily within the conifer forested PNVTs 

(ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, dry mixed 

conifer, and spruce-fir) and is found primarily 

on the Alpine, Black Mesa, and Springerville 

Ranger Districts (figure 27). As a species, aspen 

is adapted to a much broader range of 

environmental conditions than most plant 

species associated with it. 

On the forests, this highly variable ecological 

community is composed mostly of aspen 

(roughly 24,000 acres) or aspen codominating 

with few to several conifer species (roughly 

52,000 acres). The greatest number of aspen 

acres (50,335) is found in the wet mixed conifer 

PNVT. However, proportionally, the spruce-fir PNVT contains the largest aspen component at 

33 percent (5,875 acres) and the ponderosa pine PNVT contains the smallest at 1 percent 

(5,988 acres). 

Figure 27. Location map of aspen across 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 159

Aspen exist as single-storied or multistoried depending on disturbance history and local stand 

dynamics. Due to their high productivity and structural diversity, aspen communities are capable 

of supporting the broadest array of plant and animal species of any forest type in the West and are 

considered second only to riparian areas in support of biological diversity (Mueggler, 1985; Kay, 

1997; Chong et al., 2001). The understory structure may be complex with multiple shrub and 

herbaceous layers or simple with just an herbaceous layer. 

According to Little (1976), aspens are very shade intolerant, form clonal thickets of relatively 

short-lived trees which are subsequently replaced by conifers, and grow in burned areas (pioneer 

trees). According to Bartos and Mueggler (1981), aspen reaches maturity in 80 to 120 years, with 

a few individual trees living 300 years or more (Jones and Schier, 1985). Relatively pure aspen 

stands may function as natural firebreaks across the landscape, support watershed stability, and 

contribute to scenic landscapes.

Aspen is considered a shade-intolerant, disturbance-dependent species, in that it is perpetuated on 

sites where fire, windthrow, fungal diseases, tent caterpillars and other insects, snow damage, 

hail, lightning, and sunscald (Jones and DeByle, 1985a and 1985b; Jones et al., 1985; Romme et 

al., 2009; Veblen, 2000), or other stand-replacing events are active (Bartos, 2001). Fire has long 

been recognized as a vital natural force in the perpetuation of aspen groves and forests in the 

Rocky Mountains (Baker, 1925). According to Romme et al. (2001), the most important agent of 

disturbance in aspen forests of the southern Rocky Mountains before 1900 was fire, although 

other natural disturbances were locally important. Without periodic fire or with high levels of 

herbivory, conifers will replace aspen. As a result, this type is significantly altered today and is 

very difficult to identify because of conifer succession. The presence of even a single aspen tree 

in a conifer stand provides strong evidence that the area historically supported aspen. Because of 

its communal root system, aspen is mechanically stable and a highly resilient species (Lieffers et 

al., 2001), and its presence may increase resistance of neighboring conifers to windthrow (Simard 

et al., 2001). As a direct result of the 2011 Wallow Fire, roughly 33 percent of the aspen overstory 

was eliminated and those acres are now being regenerated into the seedling/sapling size class with 

closed canopy characteristics, largely through clonal root sprouting (additional acres, previously 

unoccupied may be established through seed production and germination to new seedlings). 

The decline in aspen throughout its western range is an ecological concern. This declining trend 

has been noted for the past 50 years, but aspen mortality has become more pronounced since 

about 2002. Not only are trees dying, but their clonal root systems are dying as well. Several 

factors have been hypothesized as causal agents in the decline of aspen: climate change, fire 

suppression, conifer competition, ungulate browsing, drought, insects, and pathogens (UFRWG, 

2010; Crawford, 2011). As a consequence of the Wallow Fire, the acreage dominated by aspen is 

expected to increase on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. However, given all of the agents of decline 

mentioned, the longevity of this increase in aspen is unknown.

Large/Old Trees, Snags, and Coarse Woody Debris

In brief, large trees/old trees contribute to old growth forest conditions. According to Binkley et 

al. (2007), ecological processes are the driving forces behind any ecosystem, those processes are 

reflected and supported by the composition of the ecosystem, that is by the living and nonliving 

entities that exist in the ecosystem. Old growth forests, by definition, have old/large trees, but the 

presence of old trees is just the beginning of a description of the composition of an old growth 

forest (Binkley et al., 2007). Old growth forests are a significant and unique part of the diverse 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

ecological web formed by natural forest landscapes. Human activities or natural disturbances in 

one part of the forest landscape can affect many other parts of the landscape (Silva Ecosystem 

Consultants, 1992). As an important part of the landscape ecology of natural forests, old growth 

provides unique resources for plants and animals (including people) within the landscape (Harris, 

1984; Franklin et al., 1986). Old growth forests are also important because we do not fully 

understand their functions, the life forms they support, or their importance to the ecology of the

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Ecologically, a dead tree is as important to the forest ecosystem as a live one (Franklin et al., 

1989) and, according to Marcot (2002), provides several key ecological functions that influence 

the ecosystem through trophic relations, species interactions, soil aeration, primary cavity and 

burrow excavation, and dispersal of fungi, lichens, seeds, fruits, plants, and invertebrates. Snags 

(standing dead trees) and rotting logs are essential to healthy forest ecosystems in several ways. 

Snags provide cavity and nesting sites for birds and roosting sites for bats, both of which eat 

insects. When snags fall and become coarse woody debris, they provide habitat for small animals 

and insects. When these logs rot they store water and provide nutrients for the continued growth 

of the forest. Dead wood rotting on the forest floor is eventually incorporated into the soil. This 

underground wood feeds many insects and bacteria which provide nitrogen to feed the trees and 

other plants in the forest. Underground wood is the major source of nitrogen for dry forests.

The importance of coarse woody debris in forests has been partially documented, although much 

remains to be discovered (Stevens, 1997). What is known is divided into four, inter-related 

categories: (1) the role in productivity of forest trees; (2) the role in providing habitat and 

structure to maintain biological diversity; (3) the role in geomorphology of streams and slopes; 

and (4) the role in long-term carbon storage. The importance of each to an ecosystem varies 

throughout the forests by natural disturbance type, biogeoclimatic zone, and moisture regime 

(Stevens, 1997).

Overstory and Herbaceous Understory Relationship

Since the arrival of Euro-Americans, herbaceous understory vegetation has been reduced by 

increased densities of established forest and woodland stands and encroachment of new forest and 

woodland stands into grasslands (Clary, 1971; Allen, 1998). Herbaceous vegetation cover and 

production within all PNVTs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is departed from potential; anywhere 

from 1 to 87 percent and 8 to 91 percent for herbaceous cover and production, respectively. 

Overall, the least departure from potential in herbaceous cover and production has occurred in the 

spruce-fir forest, while the greatest departure from potential in herbaceous cover and production 

has occurred in the montane willow riparian forest.

24

Historically, ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests and Madrean pine-oak and piñonjuniper woodlands were generally characterized by open, 10 to 30 percent, canopies, Great Basin, 

semi-desert, and montane/subalpine grasslands were generally characterized by landscapes 

covered by grasses and forbs with less than 10 percent woody canopy cover.

Today, over 60 percent of the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests, 75 percent of the 

Madrean pine-oak woodland, and 20 percent of the piñon-juniper woodland have canopy cover 

 24 Data gleaned from Laing et al., 1987.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 161

greater than 30 percent. Approximately 85 percent of the Great Basin and 79 percent of the semidesert grasslands have woody canopy cover greater than 10 percent.

Herbaceous understory vegetation and grassland vegetation provide habitat, hiding, and thermal 

cover, nesting sites, and food sources for a myriad of plant and animal species. In addition, 

understory vegetation provides the fine fuels that maintain and support the natural fire regimes 

(relatively frequent, low-intensity fires) needed to renew these forested, woodland, and grassland 

PNVTs, as well as the organic matter needed for soil development. 

Fire is one of the most influential forces in inhibiting woody species encroachment (Daubenmire, 

1968; Allen, 1984) into grasslands. The alteration of natural fire regimes by suppression, 

introduction of livestock, shifts in climate, atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and reduced soil 

moisture have disrupted these ecosystems in many ways, including the extensive loss of 

herbaceous vegetation. These actions have contributed to an increase in the distribution and 

density of woody overstory vegetation. 

Jameson (1967) found a greater than 2.3- to 3.4-fold increase in herbaceous understory vegetation 

production between open (30 percent or less) and closed (greater than 30 percent) canopy sites in 

ponderosa pine forests in northern Arizona. Tree canopy closure in southwestern ponderosa pine 

old growth stands ranges from 17 to 30 percent (Laughlin et al., 2006), which suggests that 

understory patches may have composed greater than 70 percent of the forested landscape. 

Moore and Deiter (1992) reported that understory vegetation response to overstory reduction 

appeared to be dependent on understory plant type. They found that overstory density effects on 

understory production were most predictable for herbaceous plants (i.e., grasses, sedges, forbs) 

while shrubs showed only a slight response to changing overstory density. The extent that 

understory vegetation responds to overstory removal also depends on the health and condition of 

the existing understory community and its ability to respond as well as available seed bank and 

soil productivity. 

The desired conditions for understory vegetation within the forested, woodland, and riparian 

PNVTs have the composition, structure, and function of the herbaceous and shrub (where 

appropriate) layers to provide for species of all ages and size classes within these communities 

and promote a greater level of ecosystem health by moving them closer to desired conditions. The 

desired conditions for the grassland communities have the composition, structure, and function to 

promote a greater level of ecosystem health (moving closer to desired conditions) provided by 

grassland species of all ages and size classes, namely by removing woody vegetation and invasive 

species.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

The underlying assumption is that for each PNVT the closer their ecological composition, 

structure, and processes are to their reference conditions (having low departure indices25 (DI) 

 25 Departure index (DI) measures the degree to which the state composition, structure, and cover between current and 

reference conditions are dissimilar and it is being used as an inference of sustainability; the lower the DI, the closer to 

reference conditions and the greater the sustainability. The five DI classes are described at the beginning of this section. 

The higher the DI class number, the more altered the ecosystem is from reference conditions. The DI provides a 

quantitative value used for reference and comparison in discussions regarding the PNVTs. The current DI can also be 

compared to results derived from modeling potential change.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

versus a high DI), the more properly each PNVT is functioning and the more secure dependent 

species (plants and animals) are within the associated habitats. This is particularly important with 

potential changes in the climate. The intent is to reestablish the natural patterns and processes 

within these vegetation communities that allowed for natural resiliency; especially important 

when faced with uncharacteristic wildfire, the presence of invasive plant species, and climate 

change. More detailed descriptions of the environmental consequences, including expected 

changes to individual vegetation structural states, can be found in the “Vegetation Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2014t).

PNVTs Modeled with VDDT

Ponderosa Pine Forest PNVT

Based on the treatment objectives for each alternative (table 25), the departure index (DI) is 

expected to vary by alternative (table 26).

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objective under alternative C would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 77 to 52 

(table 26). This is a change of one DI class, from high to moderate. Under this alternative there 

would be the greatest overall reduction of all size and age trees, single-storied or multistoried 

with closed canopy cover; it would have the greatest overall increase of medium to very large 

size, single-storied or multistoried trees with open canopy cover. Reductions in overstory canopy 

cover favor shade intolerant and very shade intolerant species, including the herbaceous 

vegetation understory.

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

PNVT

Alt.

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland Fire

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland Fire

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland Fire

Treatment

A — — — — 7,119 3,150

B 11,025 11,025 1,552 1,575 6,289 6,300

C 24,255 10,187 2,426 1,040 13,341 5,614

D 9,450 22,050 1,417 3,308 5,434 12,679

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

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H77

Treatment Objective 

Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — H63 M52 H61

Average H65 H 63 M60 H66

Low — H69 H69 H70

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 163

The proposed average treatment objectives under alternative C would produce the second 

greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 77 to 60. This is also a 

change of one DI class, from high to moderate. The proposed high treatment objectives under 

alternative D would produce the third greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the 

current rating of 77 to 61. However, this would not change its high departure rating. The high and 

average treatment objectives under alternative B would produce the fourth greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. The low treatment objectives proposed under the action alternatives

and the average treatment objectives proposed under alternative D would provide less movement 

toward desired conditions than alternative A.

Figure 28 displays the long-term trend toward desired conditions for ponderosa pine based on the 

proposed average acre treatments. All alternatives produce reductions in departure from 

immediately and continue to move toward desired conditions through all modeling periods (out to 

50 years). All alternatives move from a high to moderate departure class. Overall, alternatives 

A, B and C produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, respectively; followed by 

alternative D. 

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

year time period, for the average treatment level

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, alternative C does the most to 

address the threats and risks within the 15-year planning period, followed by alternative B, then 

A, and finally D when assessing movement toward both. When assessing movement toward 

desired conditions over the 50-year modeling period for the proposed average acre treatment 

objectives, alternatives A, B, and C equally address the threats and risks more than alternative 

D.

Large/Old Trees, Snags, and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 27). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative A, alternative D proposed low 

treatment objectives, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, alternative B proposed 

high and low treatment objectives, and finally alternative C proposed high treatment objectives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

the 15-year planning period within the ponderosa pine PNVT

Vegetation 

Structural Across All Ponderosa Pine Vegetation Structural States

Alternative States E, I, K, 

Ma Number of Snags Tons of Coarse Woody Debris

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≥ 18′′ 

DBH/acre

≤ 3′′ (diameter/ 

acre)

> 3′′ & ≤ 

12′′(diameter/acre)

> 12′′ 

(diameter/

acre

Total 

(diameter/ 

acre)

Desired 

Condition

427,566 average 1–2 range from 

3–10

range from 

3–10

range from 

3–10

range from 

3–10

Current 175,013 3.1 4.4 6.5 2.9 13.8

A 219,145 3.7 4.6 7.1 3.5 15.2

B High 202,935 3.5 4.5 6.9 3.4 14.8

B Average 206,655 3.6 4.4 6.7 3.4 14.5

B Low 201,048 3.5 4.6 7.0 3.3 14.9

C High 199,004 3.6 4.5 6.7 3.4 14.6

C Average 200,026 3.5 4.0 6.3 3.3 13.6

C Low 204,795 3.5 4.7 7.0 3.4 15.1

D High 270,289 4.1 4.7 7.4 3.6 15.7

D Average 241,884 3.8 4.7 7.5 3.8 16.0

D Low 213,478 3.6 4.7 7.2 3.4 15.3

a See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 28), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 29).

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

PNVT

Alt.

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland Fire

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland Fire

Treatment

A — — — — 2,147 950

B 3,325 3,325 475 475 1,900 1,900

C 7,315 3,135 731 313 4,023 1,725

D 2,851 6,650 428 998 1,640 3,824
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 165

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

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is M54

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — M52 M56 M50

Average M49 M53 M56 M52

Low — M54 M55 M54

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the average treatment objectives under alternative A would produce 

the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 54 to 49 (table 29). 

However, this does not produce a change in the DI class; it would remain moderate. Under 

alternative A there would be the greatest overall reduction in vegetation structural states lacking 

aspen regeneration and the greatest overall increase of medium to very large size, single-storied 

or multistoried trees with open canopy cover. Reduction in overstory canopy cover would favor 

aspen and mixed shade tolerant species, including the herbaceous vegetation understory.

The proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D produce the second greatest 

movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 54 to 50. However, this does not 

produce a change in the DI class; it would remain moderate. The proposed high treatment 

objectives under alternative B and the average treatment objectives under alternative D would 

produce the third greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 54 to 

52. Again, this would not produce a change in the DI classes; they would remain moderate. The 

proposed alternative B low and average treatment objectives, all aspects of alternative C, and 

the proposed low treatment objectives in alternative D would produce less change or no change 

in the movement toward desired conditions compared to alternative A.

Figure 29 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for wet mixed conifer, 

based on the average treatment acres. Alternative A would produce the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions during the planning period and would continue throughout all modeling 

periods. Alternatives B and D would produce some movement toward desired conditions, while 

alternative C would continue to trend away throughout all modeling periods. However, around 

year 30, trend changes very little in all alternatives and management changes would be needed to 

reset movement toward desired conditions within this PNVT.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternative A does the most to address the threats and risks within the 

15-year planning period followed by alternative D, then B, and finally C. For the proposed 

average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement toward desired conditions, within 

the 50-year modeling period, alternative A does the most to address the threats and risks 

followed by alternative D, then B, and finally C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

50-year period, for the average treatment level

Large Trees/Old Trees, Snags, and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 30). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative C proposed high treatment objectives, 

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative A, alternative C proposed low 

treatment objectives, alternative D proposed low treatment objectives, and finally alternative B

proposed low treatment objectives.

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

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

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

Vegetation 

Structural Across All Wet Mixed Conifer Vegetation Structural States

Alternative States E, F, I, 

J, N, O, R, Sa

Number of 

Snags Tons of Coarse Woody Debris

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≥ 18′′ 

DBH/acre

≤ 3′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

> 3′′ & ≤ 

12′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

> 12′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

Total 

(diameter/acre)

Desired 

Condition

80,543 1–5 range from 5–

40

range from 

5–40

range from 5–

40

range from 5–40

Current 20,058 9.8 8.2 16.6 10.5 35.3

A 36,004 10.0 9.5 18.6 12.7 40.7

B High 39,080 10.4 9.6 18.5 12.7 40.8

B Average 36,238 10.0 9.5 18.4 12.6 40.5

B Low 33,396 9.7 9.4 18.3 12.5 40.2

C High 39,966 10.7 9.2 17.7 12.3 39.3

C Average 36,729 10.2 9.3 18.0 12.3 39.2
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 167

Structural Across All Wet Mixed Conifer Vegetation Structural States

Alternative

States E, F, I,

J, N, O, R, Sa

Number of

Snags

Tons of Coarse Woody Debris

Acres of

Large/Old

Trees

≥ 18′′

DBH/acre

≤ 3′′

(diameter/

acre)

> 3′′ & ≤

12′′

(diameter/

acre)

> 12′′

(diameter/

acre)

Total

(diameter/acre)

C Low 33,492 9.7 9.4 18.2 12.5 40.1

D High 41,950 11.0 9.7 19.2 13.3 42.2

D Average 37,689 10.4 9.6 18.7 12.9 41.2

D Low 33,428 9.8 9.4 18.3 12.6 40.3

Vegetation

a See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest PNVT 

Based on the treatment objectives for each alternative (table 31), the departure index (DI) is 

expected to vary by alternative (table 32).

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

PNVT

Alt.

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

— — — — 1,808 800

B 2,772 2,910 396 416 1,584 1,663

C 6,160 2,772 616 277 3,388 1,525

D 2,400 5,880 360 881 1,380 3,381

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

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H67

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative C would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 67 to 49 

(table 32). This would be a change of one DI class, from high to moderate. 

Treatment

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — M53 M49 M56

Average M57 M56 M54 M58

Low — M60 M59 M59
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The proposed high treatment objectives under alternative B would produce the second greatest 

movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 67 to 53. This is a change of one 

DI class, from high to moderate. The proposed average treatment objectives under alternative C

would produce the third greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 

67 to 54. This is also a change of one DI class, from high to moderate. The low treatment 

objectives proposed under the action alternatives and the average treatment objectives proposed 

under alternative D would provide less movement toward desired conditions than alternative A.

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

50-year time period, for the average treatment level

As all alternatives move toward desired conditions, there would be an overall reduction of all 

size and age trees, single-storied or multistoried with closed canopy cover. There would be an 

increase of medium to very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees with open canopy. 

Reduction in overstory canopy cover would favor shade intolerant and very shade intolerant 

species, including the herbaceous vegetation understory.

Figure 30 displays the long-term trend toward desired conditions for dry mixed conifer based on 

the average treatment acres. All alternatives would produce movement toward desired conditions 

immediately and would continue to trend toward desired conditions through all modeling periods. 

They would all move from high to moderate departure. Overall, alternative A would produce the 

greatest movement toward desired conditions over the other alternatives.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternative C does the most to address the threats and risks within the 

15-year planning period followed by alternative B, then A, and finally D. When assessing 

movement toward desired conditions over the 50-year modeling period for the proposed average 

acre treatment objectives, alternative A does the most to address the threats and risks followed 

by alternative B, then C, and finally D.

Large Trees/Old Trees, Snags, and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 33). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative C proposed high treatment objectives, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 169

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative A, alternative B proposed low 

treatment objectives, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, and finally alternative D

proposed low treatment objectives.

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

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

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

Vegetation 

Structural Across All Dry Mixed Conifer Vegetation Structural States

Alternative States E, I, 

K, Ma

Number of 

Snags Tons of Coarse Woody Debris

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≥ 18′′ 

DBH/acre

≤ 3′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

> 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

> 12′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

Total 

(diameter/ 

acre)

Desired 

Condition

84,295 average 3 range from 

5–15

range from 

5–15

range from 

5–15

range from 

5–15

Current 17,618 4.9 10.1 10.5 5.4 26.0

A 30,071 7.9 7.3 11.5 6.3 25.2

B High 34,905 8.3 7.0 10.9 6.0 23.9

B Average 32,618 8.1 7.3 11.3 6.3 24.9

B Low 29,606 7.9 7.5 11.8 6.6 25.9

C High 36,116 8.4 6.8 10.4 5.7 22.9

C Average 31,648 8.0 7.2 11.2 6.2 24.6

C Low 27,179 7.5 7.6 12.0 6.7 26.3

D High 36,995 8.2 7.2 11.6 6.6 25.4

D Average 31,598 7.7 7.4 11.8 6.6 25.9

D Low 26,201 7.3 7.6 12.0 6.7 26.3

a See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Spruce-Fir Forest PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 34), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 35).

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

Alt.

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

A — — — — 108 100

B 95 606 14 87 55 347

C 208 892 16 93 112 493

D 36 964 6 145 21 555
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

treatment objective levels; current DI is M59

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High - H 64 H63 H64

Average H68 H66 H 65 H 65

Low - H 68 H67 H 67

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure.

After one planning period, all alternatives would trend away from desired conditions and change 

one DI class, from moderate to high (table 35). Within the planning period, no alternative would 

produce a reduction of vegetation structural states that are lacking aspen regeneration or an 

increase of medium to very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees with open canopy. In 

addition, there would be no reduction in overstory canopy cover to favor aspen and mixed shade 

tolerant species, including the herbaceous vegetation understory. 

However, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative C would produce the smallest 

increase in departure, from the current rating of 59 to 63. The proposed high treatment objectives 

under alternatives B and D would produce the next smallest increase, from the current rating of 

59 to 64. The average treatment objectives under alternative A and the proposed low treatment 

objectives in alternative B would produce the greatest departure, from the current rating of 59 to 

68. As mentioned earlier, these are all changes of one departure class, from moderate to high.

Figure 31 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for spruce-fir based on the 

average treatment acres. At first, all alternatives would increase in departure from desired 

conditions immediately; however at year 10, the trend reverses and all alternatives would begin 

trending toward desired conditions throughout all modeling periods. At the end of the modeling 

period (50 years), alternative D would produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions. 

By the end of the modeling period, all alternatives would have moved from a moderate to a high 

departure rating. However, it appears that around year 10 management changes would be needed 

to reset movement toward desired conditions within this PNVT.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 171

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

time period, for the average treatment level

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternatives C and D equally do more to address the threats and risks 

within the 15-year planning period followed by alternative B, then finally A. When assessing 

movement toward desired conditions over the 50-year modeling period for the proposed average 

acre treatment objectives, alternative D does more to address the threats and risks followed 

equally by alternatives B and C, then finally A.

Large/Old Trees, Snags, and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 36). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative C proposed high treatment objectives, 

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative A, alternative B proposed low 

treatment objectives, alternative D proposed low treatment objectives, and finally alternative C

proposed low treatment objectives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

the 15-year planning period within the spruce-fir PNVT

Vegetation 

Structural Across All Spruce-Fir Vegetation Structural States

Alternative States E, F, I, 

J, N, O, R, Sa Number of Snags Tons of Coarse Woody Debris

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≥ 18′′ 

DBH/acre

≤ 3′′ 

(diameter/acre)

> 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ 

(diameter/acre)

> 12′′ 

(diameter/

acre)

Total 

(diameter/

acre)

Desired 

Condition

7,067 1–3 range from 5–40 range from 5–40 range from 5–

40

range from 5–

40

Current 1,829 8.4 10.1 20.7 7.4 38.2

A 3,660 13.1 12.8 25.4 11.4 49.7

B High 4,344 14.6 13.2 26.5 12.4 52.1

B Average 3,970 13.8 13.0 25.9 11.9 50.7

B Low 3,596 12.9 12.8 25.3 11.3 49.5

C High 4,525 15.1 13.2 26.7 12.8 52.6

C Average 4,029 14.1 13.0 26.0 12.0 51.0

C Low 3,533 13.0 12.7 25.3 11.3 49.4

D High 4,587 15.2 13.3 26.9 12.8 53.0

D Average 4,090 14.1 13.0 26.1 12.1 51.2

D Low 3,593 13.1 12.7 25.4 11.4 49.5

a See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 37), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 38).

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

PNVT

Alt.

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

A — — — — 0 1,063

B 0 11,143 0 3,714 0 7,429

C 0 5,000 0 1,250 0 3,125

D 0 22,335 0 3,722 0 13,029
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 173

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

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H61

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High - M41 M50 L28

Average M59 M47 M55 M41

Low M54 M59 M54

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 61 to 28 

(table 38). This would be a change of two DI classes, from high to low.

The proposed high treatment objectives under alternative B and the average treatment objectives 

under alternative D would produce the second greatest movement toward desired conditions, 

from their current ratings of 61 to 41. This would be a change of one DI classes, from high to 

moderate. The average treatment objectives under alternative A and the proposed low treatment 

objectives under alternative C would produce the least movement toward desired conditions, 

from the current rating of 61 to 59. However, this would change their DI class, from high to 

moderate.

As all alternatives move toward desired conditions, there would be an overall increase of 

seedlings, saplings, small, and medium to very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees with 

open canopy cover. There would also be a reduction in closed canopy structural states. Reduction 

in overstory canopy cover would favor shade intolerant and very shade intolerant species, 

including the herbaceous vegetation understory.

Figure 32 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for Madrean pine-oak 

based on the average treatment acres. All action alternatives would produce reductions in 

departure from desired conditions immediately; however, alternative D has the greatest 

movement during the planning period and across the modeling period (at which point departure 

has dropped two classes). Alternatives B, C, and A, respectively, lag behind. However, 

alternative B would also decrease two departure classes, while alternatives A and C would each 

decrease by one departure class.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, alternative D does the most to 

address the threats and risks within both the 15-year planning and the 50-year modeling periods 

followed by alternative B, then C, and finally alternative A when assessing movement toward 

desired conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

50-year time period, for the average treatment level

Large/Old Trees, Snags, and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 39). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative D proposed low treatment objectives, 

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative B proposed low treatment 

objectives, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, alternative A, and finally 

alternative C proposed high treatment objectives
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 175

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

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

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

Vegetation 

Structural Across All Madrean Pine-Oak Vegetation Structural States

Alternative States D, Ga Number of 

Snags Tons of Coarse Woody Debris

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≥ 18′′ 

DBH/acre

≤ 3′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

> 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

> 12′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

Total (diameter/ 

acre)

Desired 

Condition

84,295 average 3 1–3 1–3 1–3 1–3

Current 119,259 0.9 0.3 1.3 0.8 2.4

A 167,913 1.4 3.4 3.6 2.1 9.0

B High 176,473 1.3 2.8 3.0 1.8 7.6

B Average 176,088 1.4 3.1 3.2 1.9 8.2

B Low 175,703 1.4 3.3 3.5 2.1 8.9

C High 162,582 1.3 3.0 3.1 1.9 8.0

C Average 171,142 1.3 3.2 3.4 2.0 8.6

C Low 174,370 1.4 3.4 3.6 2.1 9.2

D High 178,991 1.3 2.4 2.5 1.5 6.4

D Average 178,695 1.3 2.8 3.0 1.8 7.6

D Low 178,399 1.4 3.3 3.5 2.1 8.8

a See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Piñon-Juniper Woodland PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 40), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 41).

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

PNVT

Alt.

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

A — — — — 500 713

B 2,341 1,412 780 470 1,561 941

C 4,213 600 1,053 150 2,633 375

D 4,042 3,443 673 575 2,358 2,009
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is L26

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — N19 N18 N19

Average L21 N20 N19 N19

Low — N20 L21 N20

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative C would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 26 to 18 

(table 41). There would be a change in DI class from low to no departure. 

All proposed treatments under alternatives B and D and the proposed average treatment 

objectives under alternative C would produce movement toward desired conditions, from the 

current rating of 26 to 19 and 20. These are all changes in departure index class from low to no 

departure. The average acre treatments under alternative A and the proposed low acre treatments 

under alternative C would not change departure class.

As all alternatives move toward desired conditions, there would be an overall increase of 

seedling, saplings, small, and medium to very large size, single-storied or multistoried trees with 

open canopy cover and a reduction in closed canopy. Reduction in overstory canopy cover would 

favor shade intolerant and very shade intolerant species, including the herbaceous vegetation 

understory.

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

year time period, for the average treatment level

Figure 33 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for piñon-juniper based on 

the average treatment acres. All alternatives would produce reductions in departure from desired 

conditions immediately; however, around 15 to 20 years, all alternatives would start trending 

away from desired conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 177

Alternative D would maintain a lower departure trend than the other alternatives; while 

alternative A would maintain a higher departure trend than alternatives B and C. Alternative D

would maintain the lowest departure rating across the modeling period, followed by alternatives 

B, C, and then A. Only alternative D would end in a no departure class, while alternatives B 

and C would end in a low DI class and alternative A would end in a moderate DI class. 

However, it appears that around year 15 trend changes in all alternatives and management 

changes would be needed to reset movement toward desired conditions within this PNVT.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions alternatives C and D equally do more to address the threats and risks 

by the end of the 15-year planning period followed by alternative B, and finally A. However, 

when assessing movement toward desired conditions by the end of the 50-year modeling period 

for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, alternative D does more to address the 

threats and risks, followed by alternative B, then C, and finally A.

Large/Old Trees, Snags, and Coarse Woody Debris

After one planning period, none of the alternatives would achieve the desired conditions for 

number of acres of vegetation states composed of large/old trees (table 42). However, the 

proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would provide the greatest movement 

toward desired conditions. This is followed by alternative C proposed high treatment objectives, 

alternative B proposed high treatment objectives, alternative D proposed low treatment 

objectives, alternative A, alternative C proposed low treatment objectives, and finally 

alternative B proposed low treatment objectives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

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

Vegetation 

Structural Across All Piñon- Juniper Vegetation Structural States

Alternative States D, Ga Number of 

Snags Tons of Coarse Woody Debris

Acres of 

Large/Old 

Trees

≥ 18′′ 

DBH/acre

≤ 3′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

> 3′′ & ≤ 12′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

> 12′′ 

(diameter/ 

acre)

Total (diameter/ 

acre)

Desired 

Condition 99,971 1–2 2–5 2–5 2–5 2–5

Current 139,845 1.5 0.6 2.2 1.4 4.2

A 128,541 1.4 0.7 2.9 1.4 5.0

B High 128,307 1.4 0.7 2.4 1.3 4.4

B Average 129,806 1.4 0.7 2.6 1.4 4.6

B Low 129,844 1.4 0.7 2.7 1.4 4.8

C High 125,196 1.4 0.7 2.5 1.3 4.5

C Average 128,408 1.4 0.7 2.8 1.4 5.0

C Low 129,768 1.4 0.7 2.8 1.4 4.9

D High 124,493 1.4 0.6 2.1 1.2 3.9

D Average 128,357 1.4 0.6 2.4 1.3 4.3

D Low 128,508 1.4 0.7 2.7 1.4 4.8

a See appendix B in the proposed plan for a description of vegetation structural states.

Great Basin Grassland PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 43), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 44).

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

grassland PNVT

Alt.

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

A — — — — 500 41

B 10,269 10,000 5,135 5,000 7,702 7,500

C 0 0 0 0 0 0

D 6,161 14,000 3,081 7,000 4,621 10,500
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 179

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

by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H66

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — N9 H63 N8

Average H63 N17 H63 N19

Low — L24 H63 L29

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the proposed high treatment objectives under alternative D would 

produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 67 to 8 

(table 44). This would be a change of four DI classes, from high to no departure. The proposed 

high treatment objectives under alternative B would produce the second greatest movement 

toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 67 to 9. This would also be a change of four 

DI classes, from high to no departure. The proposed average treatment objectives under 

alternative B would produce the third greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the 

current rating of 67 to 17. This would be a change of three DI classes, from high to low. There 

would be no planned treatments under alternative C.

As alternatives D and B move toward desired conditions, there would be a reduction in woody 

vegetation encroachment and a return to historic grassland conditions (dense stands of perennial 

grasses and forbs with less than 10 percent woody canopy cover). Reduction in overstory canopy 

cover would favor shade intolerant and very shade intolerant herbaceous species.

Under alternatives A and C, Great Basin grassland would stay highly departed from desired 

conditions. This grassland would continue to be encroached by shrubs and trees of all sizes with 

open and closed canopies and lack adequate stands of perennial grasses and forbs.

Figure 34 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for Great Basin grassland 

based on the average treatment acres. Both alternatives B and D would reduce departure from 

desired conditions immediately, from high to no departure. Alternative D would remain within 

the no departure class; while alternative B would move from the no departure class to the low 

departure class after 50 years. Both alternatives A and C would produce movement away from 

desired conditions.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternative B does more to address the threats and risks within both 

the 15-year planning period followed by alternative D, then equally by alternatives A and C. 

However, when assessing movement toward desired conditions within the 50-year modeling 

period, alternative D does the most to address the threats and risks followed by alternative B, 

then equally by alternatives A and C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level

Semi-Desert Grassland PNVT

Based on the planned treatment objectives for each alternative (table 45), the departure index (DI) 

is expected to vary by alternative (table 46).

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

grassland PNVT

Alt.

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

High 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Low 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland 

Fire

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Mechanical 

Treatment

Average 

Treatment 

Objective

Wildland Fire

Treatment

A — — — — 0 27

B 0 3,000 0 2,000 0 2,500

C 0 0 0 0 0 0

D 0 3,000 0 2,000 0 2,500

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

by alternative treatment objective levels; current DI is H79

Treatment Objective 

Level Alt. A DI Alt. B DI Alt. C DI Alt. D DI

High — H66 — H66

Average S84 H68 S84 H68

Low — H70 — H70

N = no departure, L = low departure, M = moderate departure, H = high departure, S = severe departure

After one planning period, the proposed high acreage treatments under alternatives B and D 

would produce the greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 78 to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 181

66 (table 46). However, there would be no change in DI class and the grassland would remain 

highly departed. The proposed average treatment objectives under alternatives B and D would 

produce the second greatest movement toward desired conditions, from the current rating of 78 to

68. Again, there would be no change in DI class and the grassland would remain highly departed. 

Under these alternatives, there would be a reduction in woody vegetation encroachment and some 

movement toward historic grassland conditions. Reduction in overstory canopy cover would 

favor shade intolerant herbaceous species. There would be no planned treatments under 

alternative C and minimal treatments under alternative A.

Under alternatives A and C, semi-desert grasslands would continue to trend away from desired 

conditions. There would still be encroaching shrubs and trees of all sizes with open and closed 

canopies and not enough open, dense stands of perennial grasses and forbs (late seral).

Figure 35 displays the long-term trend in relation to desired conditions for semi-desert grassland 

based on the average treatment acres. Alternatives B and D would produce reductions in 

departure from desired conditions from high to moderate by year 30; the DI class would remain 

the same through the long term. Alternatives A and C would produce movement away from 

desired conditions; the PNVT would transition from highly to severely departed. Alternatives B 

and D would do the most to address the threats and risks to the semi-desert grassland PNVT 

within the planning period than the other alternatives. However, around year 40 trend changes 

very little in all alternatives and management changes would be needed to reset movement 

toward desired conditions within this PNVT.

In summary, for the proposed average acre treatment objectives, when assessing movement 

toward desired conditions, alternatives B and D equally do the most to address the threats and 

risks to the semi-desert grassland PNVT by the end of the 15-year planning period and the 50-

year modeling period, followed equally by alternatives A and C.

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

a 50-year time period, for the average treatment level

Summary of Modeling Results Relative to Desired Conditions

When comparing the alternative average treatment acreages after one planning period (15 years) 

and across all modeled PNVTs (this includes the four forested, two woodland, and two grassland 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

PNVTs), the action alternatives display reductions from high to moderate departure from desired 

conditions.

Numerically, all alternatives average treatment acres would produce some movement toward 

desired conditions within the planning period. Alternative D would produce the greatest 

movement toward desired conditions when considering the modeling results across the eight 

PNVTs (from 64 DI at existing condition to 48 DI after 15 years). Alternative B would produce 

the second greatest movement in the direction toward desired conditions when considering the 

modeling results across the eight PNVTs (to a 49 DI after 15 years). Qualitatively, these are 

movements from high to moderate DI class.

Alternative C would produce the next greatest movement toward desired conditions when 

considering the modeling results across the eight PNVTs (to a 54 DI after 15 years). Alternative 

A would produce the least movement toward desired conditions (to a 57 DI after 15 years). 

Qualitatively, there would be no change in DI class for alternatives C and A when considering 

the modeling results across the eight PNVTs.

PNVTs Not Modeled with VDDT

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands

There are no specific objectives regarding this PNVT in alternative A other than a general 

statement on eliminating tree encroachment to maintain grasslands as suitable range. The action 

alternatives would treat approximately 500 acres per year to restore grassland conditions. Based 

on the treatment objectives (table 47), the vegetation outcome is described below.

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

grasslands PNVT

Alternative Mechanical Treatment Wildland Fire Treatment

A 0 0

B 500 0

C 500 0

D 500 0

The action alternatives would provide equal benefit to the montane/subalpine grasslands. These 

alternatives have a 500-acre annual treatment objective through the planning period, specifically 

under alternative C for commercial tree removal where encroachment in the grasslands has 

occurred and under alternatives B and D for grassland restoration. Although not quantified, 

wildland fire (planned and unplanned ignitions) would also be emphasized under alternatives B 

and D. At this rate, treating the 10 percent tree encroached area of this PNVT would take 

approximately 11 years to complete. Since alternative A has no proposed treatment objectives, it 

would provide less benefit to these grasslands than alternatives B, C, and D.

The departure from desired conditions within these grasslands is rated as moderate and trending 

away. While removal of encroaching trees would be beneficial, they are a minor contributor to 

overall departure. In a study conducted on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, White (2002) found 

significant changes had occurred between 1913 and 1998 that were not related to woody species 

encroachment. These changes were in soil surface cover, exposed soil, herbaceous vegetation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 183

composition and cover, and dominant species composition. White determined that ungulate 

grazing (both livestock and elk) was the principal causal factor responsible for these changes, 

followed by fire suppression. The proposed treatment objectives under the action alternatives

would not change this PNVT’s departure class.

Changes in the structure and function of grassland systems have been noted as the primary cause 

of the loss of native diversity within grasslands (Stacey, 1995; Gori and Enquist, 2003). Finch 

(2004) identified and summarized the major threats to grassland biological diversity as the loss of 

natural fire cycles, overgrazing by livestock, prairie dog eradication, introduction of nonnative 

vegetation, woody species encroachment, erosion, and habitat fragmentation.

Interior Chaparral

There are no specific objectives for this PNVT in any alternative. 

Since interior chaparral is not departed from desired conditions, the management approach under 

all alternatives would be to maintain this condition into the future, primarily by wildland fire 

(planned and unplanned ignitions). There would be no variation in environmental consequences 

between alternatives. The overstory and understory structure, composition, and function of the 

interior chaparral ecosystem would be expected to remain similar to current conditions during the 

planning period.

Effects to the capable grazing lands associated with interior chaparral are also estimated to remain 

similar to current conditions with approximately 45 percent of the herbaceous understory retained 

in moderately low ecological condition, while about half retained in moderately high ecological 

condition. Low to moderately low ecological conditions would result in lower levels of 

herbaceous vegetation ground cover and lower levels of growth, as well as species compositional 

shifts and changes in site potential. Lower growth levels would result in lower available forage 

for livestock and wildlife on those lands.

The interior chaparral has the lowest road density of all PNVTs. Effects to vegetation from roads 

are primarily from sediment leaving the road surface and concentration of road drainage causing 

rills and gullies resulting in loss of productivity. The road network would remain constant in all 

alternatives and would result in no difference in effects between alternatives.

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas and Riparian Forests

Based on the treatment objectives for each alternative (table 48), the vegetation outcome is 

described below.

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

Alternative

Mechanical 

Treatment

Wildland Fire

Treatment

Number of wetland/cienegas 

restored

A 0 0 0

B 0 350 15

C 0 0 0

D 0 450 15
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

As mentioned earlier, wetland/cienega riparian areas and riparian forest PNVTs have no to low 

departure from desired conditions. There are no specific objectives regarding treating the 

vegetation structures and compositions of these PNVTs in alternative A or C. Alternatives B 

and D propose to restore 200 to 500 acres and 300 to 600 acres annually. Alternatives B and D

also have an objective to restore 5 to 25 wetland/cienega riparian areas during the planning period 

and would, therefore, have a greater benefit than alternatives A or C. 

If treatments include removal of non-riparian woody and herbaceous species, alternatives B and 

D would provide the greater benefit to all of the riparian PNVTs. The action alternatives propose 

to reduce animal damage on 5 miles of riparian area annually. This should reduce ungulate 

damage to willows and other riparian woody species. 

Again, alternatives B and D have an objective to restore 5 to 25 wetland/cienega riparian areas 

during the planning period and would, therefore, have a greater benefit than either alternative A 

or C.

The riparian areas and riparian forest PNVTs have some of the highest road densities on the 

forests, ranging from 1.8 to 3.4 linear miles of road per square mile. All action alternatives

propose to remove unauthorized routes during the planning period. In this regard, alternative D

would produce the greatest benefit by removing the most roads, followed by alternative B, and 

then C. Since roads are the main source of erosion and sediment; removal would eliminate direct 

deposition of sediment into the riparian areas. Alternative A does not contain specific objectives 

to remove roads for the benefit of riparian areas; there would continue to be the threat of erosion 

from existing roads and sedimentation into the riparian areas. See table 49 below.

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

Objective Description A B C D

Minimum amount of NFS roads or trails that negatively impact streams or 

riparian areas to be relocated, repaired, improved, or decommissioned

0 4 0 4

Average amount of unauthorized roads or trails that negatively impact 

streams or riparian areas to be removed

0 2 3 3

Aspen

All alternatives have the desired condition to retain aspen on the landscape. This would entail 

actions to maintain and regenerate aspen at the desired condition level of roughly 50,000 acres or 

more during the planning period (compared to current condition of aspen at 76,500 acres). Aspen 

readily regenerates after disturbance like fire. Actions to maintain aspen include fencing or other 

browsing controls and removal of conifer encroachment within aspen clones.

All alternatives would maintain aspen at desired conditions during the planning period (table 

50). The level of aspen, as a consequence of forest management and activities, could be further 

affected by actions outside of Forest Service control. Primary examples of aspen loss not related 

to forest management and activities, and occurring now, include ungulate browsing of aspen 

seedlings and saplings, insects and disease, and sudden aspen decline (SAD).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 185

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

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

Treatment 

Objective Level Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

High — 65,696 61,049 61,793

Average 71,076 68,204 65,796 65,517

Low — 70,711 70,542 69,241

Overstory and Herbaceous Understory Vegetation Cover Relationship

One of the most distinctive features of frequent-fire forests, woodlands, and grasslands of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is the major contribution the understory vegetation (grasses, forbs, 

shrubs) makes to ecosystem diversity and productivity. According to Laughlin and Grace (2006), 

in the absence of fire, the density of overstory trees increases which can reduce the diversity of 

understory vegetation 10 to 30 percent. Restoration efforts on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs focus 

on the enhancement and/or recovery of native herbaceous species. 

This section summarizes the environmental consequences that would occur as overstory canopy 

cover moves toward or away from desired conditions. These consequences can be applied to 

alternative outcomes presented in the following sections. The following sections present potential 

changes between overstory (represented by canopy cover) and understory vegetation resulting 

from the different proposed alternative treatment levels. 

As overstory canopy cover moves toward desired conditions with the reduction in overstory 

canopy cover and reintroduction of periodic fire in the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer 

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

grasslands, understory species diversity, cover, composition, and production would increase. 

Laughlin et al. (2005) found that low intensity surface fire is an important ecological disturbance

in lower montane and subalpine forests that maintains understory communities within the range 

of natural variability and appears to promote species diversity. According to several authors 

(Bailey and Copeland, 1961; Blackburn et al., 1986; Knight, 1993), species composition is a clear 

indicator of hydrologic function. Hydrologic function is the capacity of a site to capture, store, 

and release moisture, and its ability to withstand and recover from capacity reducing events 

(Pellant et al., 2000).

The significance of changes in vegetation composition and structure is their relation to ecosystem 

function and process—litter and root biomass of herbaceous vegetation build and enrich soils at a 

far greater rate than in adjacent forested or woodland sites (Aber and Melillo, 1991) or areas now 

encroached by trees. Within southwestern ponderosa pine forests, Kaye and Hart (1998) reported 

that net rates of nitrogen transformation beneath relict grassy openings were twice those beneath 

post-settlement pines. Other studies have identified some understory vegetation components that 

may function as major community and ecosystem drivers (Nilsson and Wardle, 2005).

As overstory canopy cover moves away from desired conditions (greater than 10 percent in 

grasslands and 30 percent in forests and woodlands), there would continue to be negative 

environmental consequences. Shifts in compositions that change the vegetative structure from 

herbaceous species to woody species have effects on levels of surface runoff and soil loss 

(McGinty et al., 1995). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Ecologically, the most far reaching, long-term negative effect due to shifts in grass and woody 

plant abundance is loss of soil, soil productivity, and species diversity. For grassland soils, 10 to 

94 percent are in impaired and/or unsatisfactory condition, much of this can be attributed directly 

to the loss of herbaceous vegetation. According to Friedel (1991), once grass has been displaced, 

this alteration may result in a difficult to reverse conversion to woody vegetation. Soil erosion can 

irreversibly alter the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil (CRC, 1994) and, in 

turn, alter the kind and amount of vegetation a site can support.

Vegetation species compositional shifts have occurred within all PNVTs (White, 2002; Vander 

Lee et al., 2006), a decreasing understory species diversity. The effect of the loss of a species on 

an ecosystem is the result of both the loss of the direct effects of the organism on ecosystem 

functioning, and the response of other organisms to that loss. These effects and responses occur 

through numerous mechanisms (e.g., species can directly affect soil nutrient and water content 

through varying root mass). In addition, specific species can alter plant community composition 

through competition and associated effects which, in turn, may affect ecosystem function. 

Forested PNVTs

Ponderosa pine forest: Within the 15-year planning period, all alternatives would produce a 

reduction in closed canopy acres (figure 36). However, alternative C would reduce the closed 

canopy cover on the greatest number of acres, from 410,912 to 324,765 acres, a 21 percent 

reduction. Alternatives B, A, and D would result in 13, 10, and 8 percent reductions, 

respectively. At the end of 50 years, the alternatives would have reduced closed canopy acres by 

24, 21, 18, and 16 percent for alternatives C, D, B, and A, respectively. 

Understory vegetation cover has been directly related to time since fire and ponderosa pine basal 

area (Laughlin et al., 2005). There should be an increase in understory plant cover, richness, 

diversity, and heterogeneity in this PNVT from canopy cover reductions through mechanized 

thinning and periodic fire. With expected increases in herbaceous plant vigor through decreased 

competition for sunlight and moisture and more rapid nutrient cycling by fire, there could be 

greater herbage growth. Current average herbaceous cover (45 to 78 percent) could increase by as 

much as 27 percent. Average estimated production (255 to 387 pounds per acre) has the potential 

to increase by as much as 39. Given the opportunity to respond to overstory canopy reduction, the 

existing understory of low and moderately low ecological conditions or very poor and poor range 

conditions occur on more than 480,000 acres should move to higher ecological levels and closer 

to desired conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 187

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

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

Wet mixed conifer forest: Wet mixed conifer is a naturally closed canopy forest; desired 

conditions are for no more than 21 percent (37,379 acres) of this PNVT with open canopy cover. 

Within the 15-year planning period and over 50 years, all alternatives would increase closed 

canopy acres (figure 37). Alternatives A, B, and D would increase closed canopy acres from 

101,457 to 113,917, a nearly 12 percent increase. Alternative C would increase in closed canopy 

acres roughly 5 percent, from 101,457 to 106,797 acres. At the end of 50 years, closed canopy 

acres would increase by 19, 18, 17, and 14 percent, for alternatives B, A, D, and C, respectively. 

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

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

As a result of canopy cover increases within this PNVT, there would be very little change in 

understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity from current conditions. Current 

average herbaceous cover (73 to 94 percent) and average estimated production (59 to 136 pounds 

per acre) would not increase. Overstory canopy increase would facilitate minimal, if any, 

movement of the existing understory situation where low and moderately low ecological 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

conditions occur on more than 60,000 acres to higher ecological levels and closer to desired 

conditions; in fact, the opposite is more likely to occur.

Dry mixed conifer forest: Dry mixed conifer is a naturally open canopied forest; desired 

conditions are for 68 percent (100,562 acres) of this PNVT with open canopy cover. Within the 

planning period all alternatives proposed average acre treatment objectives would increase 

closed canopy acres (figure 38). Alternative C yields the smallest increase in closed canopy 

acres, from 90,210 to 107,217 acres, a 19 percent increase (figure 37); alternatives B and A

follow with 20 and 23 percent increases, respectively. At the end of 50 years, closed canopy acres 

would increase by 20, 21, 22, and 26 percent for alternatives B, A, C, and D, respectively.

Under all alternatives, insufficient acres would be treated within this PNVT to achieve desired 

conditions. 

As a result of canopy cover increases within this PNVT there would be little change in understory 

plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity. Current average herbaceous cover (57 to 

89 percent) and average estimated production (206 to 497 pounds per acre) would not increase. 

Overstory canopy increase would facilitate minimal, if any, movement of the existing understory 

situation where low and moderately low ecological conditions occur on more than 81,000 acres to 

higher ecological levels and closer to potential; in fact, the opposite is more likely to occur.

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

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

Spruce-fir forest: Spruce-fir is a naturally closed canopy forest; desired conditions are to have 

no more than 19 percent (3,357 acres) of this PNVT with open canopy cover. Within the 15-year 

planning period, all alternatives would increase closed canopy acres (figure 39). Alternative A

would produce the greatest increase from 10,777 to 12,014 acres, an 11 percent increase. 

Alternative B would increase closed canopy acres to 11,925, a nearly 11 percent increase. 

Alternative D would increase closed canopy acres to 11,837, a nearly 10 percent increase. 

Alternative C would increase closed canopy acres the least from 10,777 to 11,749 acres, a 

9 percent increase. Desired conditions for this PNVT are to have roughly 81 percent or 

14,310 acres with closed canopy cover. However, at the end of 50 years, all alternatives except 

A would decrease closed canopy acres. Alternative A would increase by 2 percent. Alternative 

B would decrease by 3 percent and alternative C would decrease by 4 percent, while alternative 

D would decrease by 7 percent. The number of years required to meet the canopy cover desired 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 189

conditions for this entire PNVT would be 83 years, 41 years, 28 years, and 33 years, respectively,

for alternatives A, B, C, and D.

As a result of canopy cover increases through mechanized thinning and introduction of some 

prescribed fire within this PNVT, there should be a small increase (at least in the short term) in 

understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity because of more rapid nutrient 

cycling by fire; there could be greater herbage growth. Current average herbaceous cover ranging

(90 to 95 percent) and average estimated production (25 to 50 pounds per acre) could increase by 

as much as 6 and 8 percent for cover and production, respectively. Overstory canopy decrease 

may facilitate minimal movement of the existing understory situation where low and moderately 

low ecological conditions occur on more than 500 acres to higher ecological levels and closer to 

potential.

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

year timeframe by alternative

Woodland PNVTs

Madrean pine-oak woodland: Madrean pine-oak is naturally an open-canopy woodland; desired 

conditions are for less than 21 percent (82,935 acres) of this PNVT with closed canopy cover. 

Within the planning period, all alternative proposed average acre treatment objectives would 

reduce in closed canopy acres (figure 40). However, alternative D reduces the closed woody 

canopy cover on the greatest number of acres, from 308,927 to 231,032 acres, a 25 percent 

reduction; alternatives B, C, and A follow with 15, 8, and 3 percent reductions, respectively. At 

the end of 50 years, closed woody canopy acres would be reduced by 42, 32, 24, and 6 percent for 

alternatives D, B, C, and A, respectively. Because this PNVT is predominantly roadless 

(93 percent) and has no suitable lands for timber production or mechanical harvest treatments, 

fire is the only management tool available. Under all alternatives, an insufficient number of 

acres would be treated or prescribed fire treatments would be only partially effective in achieving 

desired conditions. 

As a result of canopy cover reductions through thinning with periodic fire, within this PNVT,

understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity should increase. With expected 

increases in herbaceous plant vigor through decreased competition for sunlight and moisture and 

more rapid nutrient cycling by fire, herbage growth could be greater. Current average herbaceous 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

cover (6 to 35 percent) and average estimated production (102 to 154 pounds per acre) could

increase by as much as 43 and 79 percent for cover and production, respectively. Given the 

opportunity to respond to overstory canopy reduction, the existing understory state of affairs 

where low and moderately low ecological conditions or very poor and poor range conditions 

occur on more than 100,000 acres, should enable some movement to higher ecological levels and 

closer to desired conditions.

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

over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

Piñon-juniper woodland: The majority of the piñon-juniper on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is 

naturally open canopy woodland; desired conditions are for less than 28 percent (62,204 acres) of 

this PNVT with closed woody canopy cover. Within the planning period, all alternative proposed 

average acre treatment objectives increase closed canopy acres (figure 41). However, alternative 

D yields the smallest increase in closed canopy acres, from 48,877 to 64,428 acres, a 32 percent 

increase. Alternatives B, C, and A follow with 52, 61, and 82 percent increases in closed canopy 

acres, respectively. By the end of the 50-year modeling period, closed canopy acres would 

increase by as much as 70, 116, 145, and 191 percent for alternatives D, B, C, and A, 

respectively. Under all alternatives, insufficient acres would be treated to achieve the desired 

conditions over time. At the proposed treatment rates, it would take approximately 377 years, 

79 years, 74 years, and 53 years for alternatives A, B, C, and D, respectively, to treat the entire 

PNVT; natural regeneration and growth may occur at a rate greater than treatment removal.

As a result of canopy cover increases within this PNVT, understory plant cover, richness, 

diversity, and heterogeneity should decrease. With herbaceous plant vigor decreases from

increased competition for sunlight and moisture and slower nutrient cycling by fire, herbage 

growth should be less. Current average herbaceous cover (17 to 37 percent) and average 

estimated production (101 to 224 pounds per acre) could increase by as much as 60 and 

73 percent for cover and production, respectively. Overstory canopy increase would not facilitate 

movement of the existing understory situation where low and moderately low ecological 

conditions occur on more than 192,000 acres, to higher ecological levels and closer to desired 

conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 191

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

50-year timeframe by alternative

Grassland PNVTs

Grasslands are dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, and/or forbs and are maintained in this 

condition by natural successional processes, primarily drought and fire. Grasslands should not 

have a woody species component contributing greater than 10 percent of the overall canopy 

cover. Herbaceous vegetation provides critical soil cover and hiding cover and shelter for small 

wildlife. In addition, open grasslands have the potential to produce from 6 to 110 times the 

herbaceous biomass per acre than adjacent forested areas (Laing et al., 1987).

Great Basin grassland: Great Basin grassland is naturally an open herbaceous vegetation 

dominated PNVT; desired conditions are to have less than 22 percent (40,815 acres) with closed 

woody canopy cover. Within the planning period, all alternatives proposed average acre 

treatment objectives would reduce in woody canopy acres (figure 42). However, alternative B

reduces the woody canopy cover on the greatest number of acres, from 165,190 to 61,223 acres, a 

63 percent reduction. Alternative D follows with a 57 percent reduction in closed canopy cover. 

Under alternatives A and C, closed woody canopy acres are reduced by 5 and 7 percent, 

respectively. By the end of the 50-year modeling period, all alternative proposed average acre 

treatment objectives would reduce woody canopy acres. Alternative D reduces the woody 

canopy cover on the greatest number of acres, from 165,190 to 69,571 acres, a 58 percent 

reduction, alternative B follows with a 56 percent reduction in closed canopy cover. Under 

alternatives A and C closed woody canopy acres are reduced by 2 and 8 percent, respectively. 

Under alternatives A and C, insufficient acres would be treated to achieve the desired 

conditions. Around year 40, management actions under alternatives B and D would need to 

change to continue to reduce closed woody canopy acres. 

As a result of woody canopy cover elimination through mechanized thinning and introduction of 

periodic fire, understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity should increase. With 

expected herbaceous plant vigor increases through decreased competition for sunlight and 

moisture and more rapid nutrient cycling by fire, herbage growth could be greater. Current 

average herbaceous cover (23 to 45 percent) and average estimated production (258 to 

440 pounds per acre could increase by as much as 46 and 66 percent for cover and production, 

respectively. Overall, woody overstory canopy elimination should facilitate movement of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

existing understory situation where low and moderately low ecological conditions occur on more 

than 160,000 acres, to higher ecological levels and closer to desired conditions.

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

percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

Semi-desert grassland: Semi-desert grassland is naturally an open herbaceous vegetation 

dominated PNVT; desired conditions are for less than 10 percent (10,695 acres) of this PNVT 

with closed woody canopy cover. By the end of the 15-year planning period, both alternatives B 

and D proposed average acre treatment objectives would reduce closed woody canopy acres 

(figure 43) from 84,492 to 70,588 acres, a 16 percent reduction. However, under both 

alternatives A and C, closed woody canopy acres would increase by 6 and 4 percent, 

respectively. By the end of the 50-year modeling period, alternatives B and D would reduce

closed woody canopy acres by 30 percent, while under alternatives A and C closed woody 

canopy acres would increase by an additional 19 and 16 percent, respectively. 

As a result of woody canopy cover elimination through the introduction of periodic fire , under 

alternatives B and D understory plant cover, richness, diversity, and heterogeneity should 

increase. With herbaceous plant vigor increases from decreased competition for sunlight and 

moisture and more rapid nutrient cycling by fire, herbage growth could be greater. Current 

average herbaceous cover (7 to 16 percent) and average estimated production (52 to 107 pounds 

per acre) could increase by as much as 56 and 89 percent for cover and production, respectively. 

Overall, woody overstory canopy elimination should facilitate movement of the existing 

understory situation where low and moderately low ecological conditions occur on more than 

44,800 acres, to higher ecological levels and closer to desired conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 193

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

percent over a 50-year timeframe by alternative

Climate Change

Restoring and maintaining PNVT resilience would likely improve the potential for ecosystems to 

retain or return to desired conditions after being influenced by climate change impacts and 

variability (Forest Service, 2010h). The alternative that makes the most progress toward desired 

conditions and historic fire regimes would provide the most resiliency and adaptation to climate 

change for all 14 PNVTs on the forests. Climate change is likely to exacerbate the effects of 

natural and altered disturbance regimes, including wildfire, insect outbreaks, and flooding and 

erosion across all Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ PNVTs may prompt abrupt ecological changes. 

Resilient and redundant resource conditions provide reasonable assurances of these PNVTs 

ability to adapt to the uncertainties of changing climate. Moving current forest, woodland, and 

grassland vegetation composition and structure toward their desired conditions and/or reference 

condition and restoring historic ecological disturbance regimes should make these PNVTs more 

functional, enabling them to be more resistant and resilient to uncertain future climate shifts and 

disturbance events. The closer ecological composition, structure, and process are to reference 

conditions, the more properly each PNVT is functioning and the more secure dependent species 

(plants and animals) are within the associated habitats. This is especially important with potential 

changes in the climate. The alternative that moves most toward desired conditions and, therefore, 

reduces in risk the most within the planning period is alternative B.

Reestablishing the ecological processes and patterns necessary to make these terrestrial 

ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under proposed restoration treatments and future 

climatic conditions is of primary importance to their continued existence or evolutionary ability 

to adapt. Based on this analysis when assessing each alternatives combined contribution toward 

achieving desired conditions (i.e., modeled movement toward desired conditions/reference 

conditions, acres of old/large trees, snags/acre, coarse woody debris, aspen retention, overstory

and herbaceous understory), alternative B would move the most toward desired conditions. 

Alternative B would reduce risk the most. It would also increase the most resistance, resilience, 

and adaptive capacity of these PNVTs to absorb disturbances and to reorganize while undergoing 

change to retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedback within the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

planning period. The other alternatives rank in order of contribution are alternatives D, C, and 

A, respectively.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area boundary for this analysis is the White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim 

ecoregion (figure 44). This ecoregion shares common climatic and vegetation characteristics. 

The sum of past management actions over time has resulted in the departure of most PNVTs from 

their characteristic vegetation states on and around the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These departures 

are largely due to fire suppression, in conjunction with past, unsustainable timber and grazing 

practices, and other anthropogenic disturbances of natural processes. The results are a dramatic 

increase in stand-replacing fires, particularly since the mid-1990s, decreases in water yields, 

degradation of aspen stands, and woody species encroachment of grasslands. Departures from 

reference conditions exist in all PNVTs on the forests, and most continue to trend further from 

reference conditions.

The Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NFs are updating their land management plans. Neighboring 

national forests, tribal, State, and BLM lands are located within this ecoregion and are also 

conducting treatments within vegetative communities very similar to those on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Vegetation treatments include both mechanical (e.g., commercial harvesting, 

thinning, planting) and wildland fire. One of the largest foreseeable projects is the Four-Forest 

Restoration Initiative (4FRI), a planning effort designed to restore forest resiliency and function 

across four national forests in Arizona: Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto (figure 

45). The first restoration activities would occur on approximately 600,000 acres on the Coconino 

and Kaibab NFs. If successful, this effort could decrease susceptibility to large and 

uncharacteristic disturbances, increase water yields from winter snowfall through the creation of 

interspaces, and provide long-term carbon sequestration in large old trees at a scale meaningful to 

improving the resiliency and ability to adapt to climate change in the ponderosa pine forests of 

the Southwest. The Gila NF is also managing for improved ecosystem health, movement toward 

reference conditions, and reduction of fire risk. The White Mountain and San Carlos Apache 

Tribes also continue to manage their lands for multiple resource purposes. Management within 

these lands has been directed at reducing fire risks.

Agencies within the State of Arizona (i.e., Department of Transportation, Game and Fish

Department) and neighboring Federal, state, and tribal land managers have programs to eradicate 

or limit the spread of invasive plants and animals.

The cumulative environmental consequences of proposed management under all alternatives in 

the context of the larger ecoregion would contribute to the movement of vegetation toward 

desired conditions. These efforts would contribute to landscape restoration, control of invasive 

species, a reduction in uncharacteristic wildfire across the broader landscape, and the resiliency of 

these PNVTs to adapt to climate change.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 195

Figure 44. Map of White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim Ecoregion
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

Forest Health

This section discusses the roles and impacts of tree dependent insects and disease on the forests’ 

health. It examines the risk of tree loss caused by insects and disease resulting from management 

activities or lack of management activities by alternative. For the purposes of this analysis, forest 

health concerns are grouped into five categories: bark beetles, defoliators, aspen decline, 

persistent diseases, and new invasive species. This analysis covers ponderosa pine, dry mixed 

conifer, wet mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forested PNVTs and piñon-juniper woodland PNVT. 

The analysis relies heavily on a report prepared by Lynch et al. (2010). The full analysis for this 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 197

topic can be found in the “Forest Health Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014h) available in 

the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Because no new insect-disease surveys have been conducted after the 2011 Wallow Fire, 

assumptions include the following:

• The percentages of affected lands stated in Lynch et al. (2010) include both ApacheSitgreaves NFs and Fort Apache Tribal Reservation lands across east-central Arizona 

which collectively are valid for application to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• The existing insect-disease activity described in Lynch et al. (2010) is still representative 

for all forest and woodland acres not burned by high or moderate severity fire in the 

Wallow Fire. 

• Portions of existing insect and disease populations were reduced directly by the Wallow 

Fire or indirectly by the fire’s reduction of their obligate host tree species and forest 

structure. 

• All localized populations of insect-disease species were temporarily eliminated from 

areas now deforested.

• Dwarf mistletoe infection levels in trees surviving the Wallow Fire on moderate or low 

severity burned acres may be reduced due to scorched lower limbs (Conklin et al., 2009).

• Some insects, like bark beetles, will thrive as they take advantage of fire-killed and/or 

fire-stressed trees. The resulting insect population irruptions could threaten more live 

trees within and adjacent to burned areas (Anhold, 2011; Parker et al., 2006).

• Existing insect/disease species and their hosts remain near the severely burned areas, 

such that reestablishment of infestation/infection would occur in burned areas as the host 

trees and conditions again become favorable.

• When the structures and tree species compositions for all vegetation states are in the 

desired condition proportions for each potential natural vegetation type (PNVT), native 

insects and diseases function in their natural ecosystem roles. All alternatives are 

designed to manage toward the same desired conditions.

Affected Environment

Approximately 22 percent of all forested PNVT acres are currently deforested as a result of high 

severity wildfire and other uncharacteristic disturbances (see the “Forest Products” section for 

more information). The following affected environment descriptions are for the remaining 

78 percent of lands that still support tree cover, ranging from early developmental to mature 

vegetation structural states. 

Insects and Diseases

Insects and diseases are natural disturbance agents. Interactions can be very complex between 

them and their host tree species, the environment, and other pest species. Activity by these agents 

is always expected, although the extent and severity of damage can vary spatially and temporally. 

Due to the episodic nature of insect outbreaks, damage is evaluated over an extended period 

before designating any shorter period as “unusual.” As documented by Lynch et al. (2010), a 

century-long record of insect and disease activity across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the 

adjacent Fort Apache Indian Reservation gives some information on which species impact forests 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

in east-central Arizona, how often outbreaks of insects and transitory pathogens might occur, and 

how much damage may be expected from insects and diseases. 

All native insects and diseases play a natural role in the ecosystem within which they evolved. 

When forest conditions are within their natural range of variability, native insects and diseases 

generally survive at endemic levels and, thus, generally are not considered pests because they act 

as natural thinning agents, killing individual trees or small to large tree groups.

Insect and disease activity considered normal in forests of east-central Arizona includes the 

following:

• Bark beetle damage associated with localized tree disturbances (e.g., road building, 

harvesting, wind events, snow breakage, fire) in piñon-juniper woodland and ponderosa 

pine, mixed-conifer, and spruce-fir forests. 

• Periodic localized outbreaks of Dendroctonus bark beetles, particularly western and 

roundheaded pine beetles, in large diameter ponderosa pine. 

• Increased bark beetle activity during droughts in piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine, and 

to a lesser extent mixed conifer, where the timing and severity of damage is dependent 

upon host species, insect species, drought severity, length of drought conditions, and 

coincidence with other disturbance agents. 

• Persistence of dwarf mistletoe infestations, including spread and intensification. 

• Defoliation by native defoliating agents (e.g., western tent caterpillar, black leaf spot on 

aspen) and several defoliators in mixed conifer. Typically, except in aspen, damage from 

these agents is localized rather than widespread. 

When forest conditions are departed from their natural range of variability, native insects and 

diseases can take advantage of resulting opportunities to increase their population levels and 

expand into new territory. If this continues, epidemic population levels can be reached. In such 

cases, they inflict greater damage or damage at a faster rate than their normal role in the 

ecosystem. They are considered pests whenever tree mortality exceeds stated management 

objectives. Likewise, nonnative insect or diseases can find opportunities to move into areas of 

weakened forest conditions and become established in the absence of natural controls that would 

resist or restrain them. 

Insect activity in east-central Arizona’s forests has increased in the last couple of decades. In most 

vegetation types, the acreage affected is greater than what was damaged during the 1950s drought 

period (Lynch et al., 2010). Insect and disease populations have responded to changing forest 

character (especially forest structure and tree species composition) and variability in climate. 

Contemporary patterns of insect and disease activity in east-central Arizona have changed from 

pre-1950s regimes. These changes include the following: 

• In ponderosa pine, Ips genus bark beetle species (pine engraver beetle and Arizona 

fivespined ips, which typically attack 3 to 12 inch diameter trees) became more prevalent 

and damaging than the drought responsive Dendroctonus genus bark beetle species 

(western pine beetle and roundheaded pine beetle, which typically attack 12 inch or 

greater diameter trees). The reverse occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. 

• Damage to white fir by bark beetles and defoliators increased in all PNVTs where it 

occurs. The fir engraver beetle was not a significant damaging agent until the 1980s. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 199

• Damage in the spruce-fir PNVT is unprecedented in the historical record, in terms of the 

severity of damage and the identity and variety of insects causing damage. Engelmann 

spruce has especially suffered unprecedented damage from several insects including 

native (and previously innocuous) defoliators such as loopers, an invasive foliar aphid, 

and an aggressive bark beetle outbreak. These species’ populations may be influenced by 

warm temperatures.

• Over the past decade, widespread mortality of mature aspen occurred due to a 

combination of drought, frost, and defoliation events, in conjunction with conifer 

competition and failure of aspen regeneration to recruit to larger sizes because of

herbivory and damage from domestic and wild ungulates such as Rocky Mountain elk. 

• For piñon-juniper woodlands in east-central Arizona, the size and severity of drought and 

Ips-related piñon mortality in the early 2000s was unprecedented. It was six times larger

than the 1990 outbreak, the first notable outbreak recorded for this area. 

• Extensive areas of damaged piñon-juniper are becoming juniper woodlands or grasslands. 

• In areas not recently burned, dwarf mistletoe occurrence and severity of infection have 

increased in ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce. This increase is due to altered 

disturbance regimes and loss of forest openings and canopy gaps, resulting in more 

continuous forest canopy.

• Root/butt/stem decay diseases are a problem in developed recreation areas due to tree 

overmaturity and stress from soil compaction. These diseases exist across all forested 

PNVTs at varying amounts, but they have only been surveyed and documented in 

developed recreation sites. 

Several of these changes in disturbance regimes appear to be responses to changes in forest 

structure and tree species composition that resulted from fire exclusion and past management 

practices. Drought also modifies disturbance regimes. Warming climate is a factor in spruce-fir 

forest health; however, its role in the other vegetation types is not yet known. All forest and 

woodland tree insects and diseases capitalize on changes in stand conditions that stress trees and 

make them more vulnerable. Changes in stand conditions may be caused by environmental 

factors (e.g., lightning, wildfire) and human actions (e.g., logging, fire damage). In addition, 

infestation by one insect or disease may predispose trees to attack by other damaging agents. For 

example, heavy dwarf mistletoe infection of ponderosa pine increases their susceptibility to attack 

by Ips beetles during drought (Kenaley et al., 2008).

Bark Beetles

The most destructive forest insects in western coniferous forests are bark beetles (Furniss and 

Carolin, 1977). During the past decade, a widespread bark beetle outbreak in ponderosa pine 

impacted more than 200,000 acres across east-central Arizona (figure 46).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

Pine mortality during this time averaged approximately 9.6 percent by basal area and approached 

100 percent in some stands. Douglas-fir beetle and fir engraver affected about 2,000 to 8,000 

acres of mixed conifer annually, causing the mortality of entire groups of Douglas-fir and white 

fir (increases might be expected based on records of historical outbreaks). Nearly 40,000 acres of 

spruce have been impacted by spruce beetle, with related tree mortality in the past decade. Piñon 

ips activity occurred on more than 150,000 acres in the same timeframe, where tree mortality 

reduced piñon stand density by approximately 60 percent. 

Numerous bark beetle species, which may attack almost all native conifers and some hardwood 

trees, exist across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ forest and woodland ecosystems. Beetle 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 201

populations and corresponding tree mortality generally increase above endemic levels under the 

following conditions: drought; overstocked tree densities; stress caused by dwarf mistletoe, root 

decay fungi, or defoliating insects; and buildup of fresh, dead green wood as brood material 

across large areas. Brood material may result from logging/thinning slash left untreated onsite in 

consecutive years or from windthrow, fire, or other damaging agents.

Douglas-fir and spruce beetles are expected to increase attacks on large trees (12 inch or greater 

diameter) within and near the Wallow Fire burned area (Anhold, 2011) which would be a key 

concern for surviving patches of old growth, Mexican spotted owl habitat, and developed 

recreation sites in the mixed conifer and lower elevation spruce-fir PNVTs. 

Defoliators

Defoliators weaken and sometimes kill trees by consuming the green needles or leaves. During 

the past decade, various defoliators have impacted over 300,000 acres across east-central Arizona 

(figure 47). Damage by native defoliators is typically localized rather than widespread, and

recently most notable in the mixed conifer and spruce-fir types, especially on Mount Baldy and 

across the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts. 

Key defoliators include aphids, loopers, western spruce budworm, western tent caterpillar, larvae 

of other moths and sawflies, black leaf spot, tip moths, and shoot borers. They generally do not 

kill trees outright unless outbreaks are intense and persist under the right conditions. Defoliators 

contribute to tree stress and decline, predisposing trees to mortality by other agents like bark 

beetles. Conditions which can lead to the most damaging outbreaks include warmer and drier 

weather patterns and/or climate shifts, dwarf mistletoe infection, abundance of host tree species, 

uninterrupted multistoried or uneven-aged stand structure that occurs across large acreages, and 

host species encroachment into offsite vegetation types where they normally would not be found 

when natural processes are functioning correctly (Hanavan and Boehning, 2010). 

Cumulatively, Mount Baldy Wilderness is the area most affected on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

by recent outbreaks of several major defoliators. The high number of resulting dead trees has 

greatly increased the fire hazard in the wilderness. Portions of the other two wilderness areas are 

also affected, but to a lesser extent. Mount Baldy Wilderness is the only wilderness area not 

burned by the Wallow Fire.

Aspen Mortality

Figure 48 illustrates non-wildfire aspen mortality from 2008 to 2009. Mortality is shown in 

context of aspen occurrence across the area. In those 2 years, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lost 

27,541 acres of aspen to factors other than tree cutting or wildfire. Much of this mortality was 

mapped in previous years as aspen damage, indicative of true aspen decline. Numerous factors 

have been documented as contributors to aspen decline (see the “Vegetation” section).

Although aspen trees typically mature after about age 80, they can persist for more than 200 years

in the West (DeByle and Winokur, 1985). Root systems can persist much longer, although no 

good method has been developed to determine the age of aspen roots. Pure aspen forests do not 

burn readily; however, above ground, aspen trees can be easily killed by fire of even the lightest 

intensity due to their extremely thin bark (Debyle and Winokur, 1985). This species is adapted to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

compiled from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys

fire because its extensive root system has the ability to survive ground surface heat and, 

afterward, produce root sprouts (known as suckers) to begin a new, young aspen stand. 

Occasionally, mature aspen can produce wind borne seed to germinate new seedlings in post-fire 

bare soil. A single fire event or treatment can be a means to replace old trees with young aspen 

regeneration, provided all other conditions support the long-term survival of the new trees. Once 

successfully established, young and immature aspen clones benefit from a lack of fire until they 

reach maturity and are ready to repeat the renewal process.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 203

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

from annual Forest Service aerial detection surveys

Persistent Diseases

Persistent pathogens (diseases like dwarf mistletoes, root/butt/stem decay fungi, and white pine 

blister rust) often cause substantial tree stress and growth losses over time. They diminish the 

mature trees’ ability to produce viable seed. They also threaten the ability of young trees to 

successfully reach maturity. They intensify and/or spread infection beyond desired levels under 

the following conditions: excessively high forest densities, decline in site quality during drought; 

uniformity of host tree species; multistoried or uneven-aged stand structure uninterrupted across 

large acreages; host species encroachment into offsite vegetation types, including grassland and 

riparian PNVTs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Dwarf mistletoe abundance was likely lower historically based on the present understanding of 

mistletoe ecology, increases in host abundance and canopy continuity over the past 150 years, and 

decreases in fire frequency. Table 51 shows known information about major disease infections on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs by ranger district. See the “Forest Health Specialist Report” (Forest 

Service, 2014h) for data sources.

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

Major Diseases Black 

Mesa Lakeside Springervilleb Alpineb Cliftonc Estimated 

Forestwide 

Average

Dwarf 

Mistletoe

Ponderosa 

Pine

54–61% 39% 67% 51% NA 52%

by Tree Douglas-fir Present NA Present Present NA 50%

Host Spruce-Fir NA NA Present Present NA 60%

Species SW White 

Pine

Present NA Present, possibly 

20–30+%

Present, 

possibly 

30+%

NA Percent 

unknown

White Pine 

Known Centers

Blister 

Rust

Infection

Surveys 

in 

progress

Present, 

more 

surveys in 

progress

Present, more 

surveys in 

progress

Present, 

more 

surveys in 

progress

Surveys in 

progress

Percent 

unknown

Root/Butt/Stem

Fungi

Decay 

Infections

Present Present Present Present Present Percent 

unknownd

a NA = detailed information not available or not applicable. Air detection surveys are not designed to inventory or 

monitor these diseases. Ground visits, permanent monitoring plots, and reported district observations are used instead.

b Data represent conditions prior to the 2011 Wallow Fire. Post-fire changed conditions have not been assessed. 

c Persistent pathogenic disease levels are not well documented for the Clifton Ranger District due to a lack of road 

access for ground surveys and limited commercially suitable timber acres. This category is not easily mapped from air 

detection surveys.

d Levels of root/butt/stem disease infections are often missed during surveys because they are difficult to detect and 

mortality is often associated with bark beetles and/or dwarf mistletoe.Impacts on forest ecosystems may be 

underestimated.

Root rots can increase and spread to additional host trees when woody food sources are created 

and left onsite in the form of stumps and dead trees. Fires which do not create intense heat below 

the soil surface generally do not kill root diseases. Root diseases are a problem when they persist 

in developed recreation sites and other areas of human use because of hazard trees and continuing 

loss of desired tree cover. This persistent problem makes it more critical for comprehensive 

vegetation management plans to be completed under site-specific (project-level) NEPA analysis.

Recent Arrivals of Invasive or New Pests

Establishment of new invasive insects and pathogens is a growing threat. Recent arrivals of 

several nonnative pest species are of particular concern because natural resistance and control 

organisms may not exist or they are currently unknown in these ecosystems. White pine blister 

rust, an invasive disease, now infects Southwestern white pine. Numerous areas within the
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 205

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs provide suitable conditions for it to persist and spread because the 

prevalence of its required alternate host, Ribes (gooseberry and currant) bushes. Ribes bushes are 

common across the widespread area where white pines occur. This disease frequently attacks host

trees in very wet drainage bottoms near permanent waters. Some infected trees and nearby Ribes

bushes were killed by the Wallow Fire. Spruce aphid, a nonnative insect, now infests Engelmann 

spruce and, to a lesser extent, Colorado blue spruce (Lynch, 2004). 

Several new insect and disease issues are likely to develop with native insects and diseases. If 

predicted warmer, drier climate trends continue, some insect and disease agents may become 

more prevalent and impact larger areas. Some localities may become more suitable for additional 

damaging insect and pathogen species. Insects and pathogens may expand their range into new 

territory or exhibit enhanced population dynamics through factors such as increased growth rates 

or increased survival. Previously innocuous native insects and diseases that become serious 

problems are known as emerging pests. Recent examples of emerging pests are loopers known as 

Janet’s looper and mountain girdle. These previously innocuous defoliators have severely 

damaged spruce-fir and mixed conifer forests across east-central Arizona. Prior to these events, 

Janet’s looper was known only from its taxonomic description, and neither looper had been 

recorded as causing damage in the Southwest. These outbreaks may be associated with warm 

climate trends or altered forest character. Janet’s looper is well distributed throughout the 

Southwest and California, including northern Arizona, so an outbreak is quite possible. Outbreaks 

by other previously innocuous species are also possible in northern and east-central Arizona. 

Mountain pine beetle was not previously known to occur locally until its discovery above the 

Mogollon Rim on the Alpine Ranger District in 2008. It was first documented in association with 

fresh attacks on several Southwestern white pines that had survived the 2007 Chitty Fire 

(McMillin and Fitzgibbon, 2008; McMillin, 2009). The southern pine beetle, with the Mexican 

pine beetle, damaged almost 12,000 acres of Chihuahuan and Apache pine in the Chiricahua 

Mountains of southern Arizona in 2000. This was the first recorded southern pine beetle outbreak 

in Arizona. Southern pine beetle is part of the complex of pine bark beetles now present in northcentral Arizona. Chihuahuan pine is regenerating naturally and successfully on harsh sites 

deforested by the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire. The roles of southern and mountain pine beetles in 

future outbreaks are not clear. 

Future Trends

Prevalent pest problems are expected to change as forest structure, species composition, and 

environmental conditions change. These changes may occur naturally and/or as a result of 

treatments. Many insects and diseases attack specific tree species and sizes or particular parts of 

trees. If small diameter ponderosa pine continues to be abundant, especially in dense stands, Ips

outbreaks would continue. If shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant tree species continue to proliferate, so 

would their pests (e.g., fir engraver, western spruce budworm, root disease). Tip moth damage 

could worsen if warming temperature regimes occur. 

Mortality would be elevated during droughts, perhaps dramatically. Based on observations of the 

recent severe drought, ponderosa pine and piñon mortality during future drought episodes should 

be greatest at middle to low elevations, in areas of poor site quality (e.g., shallow soils, southern 

aspects), and in high density stands. In recent outbreaks, mortality on some of the high risk sites 

approached 100 percent; therefore, those sites cannot experience the same severity of mortality 

until tree densities increase to pre-drought levels. During non-drought periods, ponderosa pine 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

and piñon mortality should be higher in stands with high stand density indices and greater dwarf 

mistletoe infection. 

If ponderosa pine forests continue to be dominated by smaller diameter size classes, Ips species 

would probably continue to be more significant than Dendroctonus species. This could be the 

case on new acres of pine sapling states resulting from wildfires. Conversely, where recent fuel 

reduction cuts, large tree retention strategies, aging stands, and proposed burns reduce smaller 

size classes and shift more of the average forest size to larger diameter classes, Dendroctonus

beetle species would be favored.

If trends continue toward warmer climate and increasing fire damage, tree stress would also 

intensify. Tip moth and shoot borer damage may also increase, particularly in large post-fire tree 

planting projects. Production of fewer cone crops with viable seed is possible, as are more insect 

attacks to cones and seed. These could cause indirect problems for reforestation potential and 

wildlife food supply. 

All aspen roots depend on plentiful green leaves above ground to produce good food supply for 

storage as root reserves. Newly formed aspen suckers depend on the parent root for nutrients and 

water (DeByle and Winokur, 1985). When mature aspen trees are replaced by suckers or new 

seedlings, the root system becomes most vulnerable to mortality by ungulate browsing and other 

defoliators. An increasing trend of widespread intense sucker browsing by ungulates has been 

well documented as killing persistent aspen root systems in less than 3 years after fire or aspen 

regeneration cutting (Fairweather, 2008; Shepperd and Fairweather, 1994; Rolf, 2001).

Aspen are known to readily resprout across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, both without and with 

disturbance (e.g., fire, tree cutting). Aspen regenerated prolifically after the 1951 Escudilla Fire 

and persisted onsite, growing into larger trees until 2011. However, the trend in survival of aspen 

suckers has been limited across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in the later portion of the 20th century, 

as evidenced by a widespread lack of the sprout/sapling and small tree sizes (generally less than 

8 inches in diameter) outside of the Wallow Fire burned area. Informal monitoring across the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs over the last 15 years has found substantial ungulate browsing of aspen 

suckers and barking (teething) of aspen trees’ photosynthetic bark during winter and spring, when 

herbaceous forage is unavailable or in a dormant (non-nutritious) state. This occurs when 

livestock are not on high elevation aspen and conifer forest sites. Given reduced snowfall over the 

last two decades, wild ungulates such as elk and deer, have remained on these high elevation sites 

during winter and spring for many of the last 20 years.

Across the Apache-Sitgreaves and other northern Arizona forests, where ungulates are fenced 

from aspen or where aspen occurs in very steep or rocky areas, its regeneration is persisting and 

thriving (Beschta and Ripple, 2010; Rolf, 2001; Shepperd and Fairweather, 1994; Rogers, 2008, 

2009, 2011; Stritar et al., 2010). One factor for aspen decline may be that the primary wild 

ungulate on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs today, Rocky Mountain elk, occurs in numbers far greater 

than the elk once native to the southwestern U.S., Merriam’s elk, which became extinct by the 

first half of the 20th century (Thomas and Toweill, 1982).

Sudden aspen decline (SAD) has become a prevalent trend across the Southwest, including on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This phenomenon includes aspen trees dying above ground as well as 

mortality occurring below the ground in the clonal root system (Rogers, 2008, 2009, and 2011). 

Documented observations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs following wildfires and prescribed fire
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 207

include intensive sucker browsing, sapling girdling and toppling, and mature tree girdling 

(Rogers, 2011); residual aspen stands needing to be protected from further damage from slash pile 

and prescribed fire since excessive browsing by ungulates, particularly elk, is limiting successful 

regeneration of aspen (Fairweather, 2008); and preexisting clonal roots that were in decline 

before a wildfire not producing any suckers after the fire. Thus, aspen decline may be 

contributing to the inability of vulnerable clones to recover from fire.

This decline in clonal root system vigor is expected to continue as conifers on unburned acres 

continue to dominate aspen clones and weaken them by outcompeting for limited soil moisture in 

a drying climate; insects, diseases, and localized weather extremes (like unseasonable frost 

events) cause damage; lack of characteristic fire and/or occurrence of uncharacteristic fire 

continue; and elk browsing and bark gnawing damage persist on the majority of acres accessible 

to these ungulates (Rogers, 2008; Beschta and Ripple, 2010).

Dwarf mistletoe populations would continue to spread and intensify in ponderosa pine and 

Douglas-fir, further affecting stand character, forest character, and bark beetle vulnerability. 

Increases in dwarf mistletoe infection would occur where understory trees are exposed to infected 

overstory trees. Decreases in infection levels would occur in areas exposed to fire, which tends to 

burn the lower, usually more heavily infected limbs. 

Invasive species and emerging pests would continue to present problems, and additional species 

would establish and become problematic. White pine blister rust would continue to expand into 

uninfected stands with top-kill, branch dieback, and mortality of larger Southwestern white pine

on high hazard sites. Continued spruce aphid outbreaks would lead to diminished representation 

of Engelmann spruce. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Not all conditions that influence insects and diseases can be controlled by treatment actions. Even 

with uncertainty regarding future climate and insect and pathogen activity, general management 

recommendations for reducing susceptibility and vulnerability to insects and diseases remain the 

same. These recommendations are to improve tree vigor and promote forest health by maintaining 

natural species, size, age class distributions, and stocking densities. Proposed treatments are 

intended to restore forest health by incorporating these general management recommendations. 

Under all alternatives, thinning and wildland fire treatments combined would not be 

implemented on enough acres annually in the first 15 years to improve forest health trends 

forestwide. Only an average of 1.7 percent of the ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, wet mixed 

conifer, and spruce-fir PNVTs acres would be treated annually by alternative A, while 

alternative B would treat an annual average of 2.2 percent of each forested PNVT, alternative C

would treat 3.3 percent of each, and alternative D would treat 3.2 percent annually of each 

forested PNVT. At year 15, a total average of about 24 percent of each forested PNVT would be 

treated by alternative A, roughly 33 percent treated by alternative B, about 49 percent by 

alternative C, and approximately 47 percent by alternative D.

In the piñon-juniper woodland PNVT, total thinning and wildland fire treatments would average 

from 0.5 percent annually in alternative A (under 8 percent total by year 15), to 1.1 percent 

annually in alternative B (under 17 percent by year 15), 1.4 percent annually in alternative C 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

(about 21 percent by year 15), and 2 percent annually in alternative D (about 30 percent by year 

15).

All remaining forest and piñon-juniper acreages would be left untreated each year, with generally 

about a third of each of these PNVTs benefitting from treatments by year 15, regardless of the 

alternative. Thus, nature would continue to manage more acres than humans could in this 

planning period.

Future Trends for Treated Acres 

The following discussions pertain to factors that can be influenced by treatment actions and 

resulting consequences.

Bark Beetles

Risk of tree mortality due to bark beetles is most highly associated with four forest and woodland 

conditions that can be controlled by management activities: (1) high stand/forest density causing 

reduced vigor from intense tree competition; (2) activity created slash and/or windthrown trees 

left untreated onsite; (3) high dwarf mistletoe infections; and (4) trees stressed by fire damage 

(Parker et al., 2006; Fettig et al., 2007; Breece et al., 2008; Kenaley et al., 2008; Youngblood et 

al., 2009). Reduced dwarf mistletoe infection also reduces tree susceptibility to bark beetles.

High stand densities are correlated with higher beetle activity. Generally, a change from higher 

density to lower density would reduce tree competition and improve tree resistance to bark beetle 

attack. Threshold basal areas are used in determining bark beetle risk rating, along with amount 

of host tree species, and bole diameters most used by certain beetle species (McMillin and 

Boehning, 2010). For beetles in dry/warm forested PNVTs like ponderosa pine and dry mixed 

conifer, the basal area thresholds are lower than for the cold/moist forested PNVTs like wet mixed 

conifer and spruce-fir, because of differences in tree species shade tolerance.

The Southwestern Regional Office used regional and local forest inventory analysis plot data in 

the Forest Vegetation Simulator model to compute many biometric variables (e.g., basal area, 

number of canopy stories) for vegetation transition states in each forested PNVT (see Forest 

Service, 2014h and Weisz et al., 2012). When the percentage of each vegetation structural state 

across the landscape is estimated by the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT) model 

for each alternative at a point in time, such as year 15, the percentages of resulting basal area 

ranges can be tabulated. Using this approach, the following comparisons are made in table 52.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 209

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

planning period (year 15) compared to existing conditions

Forested PNVT Beetle Risk 

Ratinga

Existing 

Percentb

Year 15 

Alt. A

Year 15 

Alt. B

Year 15 

Alt. C

Year 15 

Alt. D

Low 26 20 21 23 19

Ponderosa Pinec Moderate 20 28 28 32 25

High 51 45 43 37 48

Low 36 15 16 17 18

Dry Mixed Coniferc Moderate 2 9 10 11 6

High 61 56 44 55 56

Low 36 5 5 6 7

Wet Mixed 

Coniferd

Moderate 10 14 9 9 10

High 14 21 24 22 26

Low 34 5 10 10 11

Spruce-Fird Moderate 0 3 10 10 9

High 6 18 15 16 15

a The risk rating excludes states which are least utilized by conifer bark beetles. In the ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer PNVTs, the following states are excluded: seedling/sapling states B and F (<5′′ diameter). In the wet mixed 

conifer and spruce-fir PNVTs, the following states are excluded: the all size aspen state B and seedling/sapling/small 

states C, G, L, and P (<10′′ diameter).

b Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding differences in VDDT model results and exclusion of model states 

little used by bark beetles.

c

Risk rating based on basal area: low (<80), moderate (80–120), and high (>120)

d Risk rating based on basal area: low (<100), moderate (100–150), and high (>150)

As shown in the above table, all alternatives would reduce the amount of high risk acres in the 

ponderosa pine PNVT, with alternative C improving the most, followed by alternatives B, A, 

and D, respectively. Likewise, all alternatives would reduce the amount of high risk acres in the 

dry mixed conifer PNVT, with alternative B showing the most improvement, followed by 

alternatives C, and then A and D, respectively. Alternative D would consistently retain higher 

density of larger diameter trees on mechanically-treated acres because of a 16-inch diameter 

upper cutting limit (although the entire treatment includes more prescribed fire on other acres so 

that the modeled state transitions disguise this). 

In the wet mixed conifer and spruce-fir PNVTs, all alternatives would increase the beetle risk 

with higher conifer densities dominated by trees 10 inches in diameter and larger, according to 

vegetation structural state transitions from the treatments modeled. This may be related to the 

higher densities of larger trees retained in modeling intended for legal compliance with the 

Mexican spotted owl recovery plan for existing protected habitat and target replacement habitat 

across the landscape. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Based on treatment rates and amount of wildland fire used, alternative C would have the least 

bark beetle risk in the short term (next 15 years and until all acres have received their first entry) 

followed by alternatives B, D, and A, respectively. Alternative C could reduce risk the most 

because it would create the highest amount of open forest/woodland using mechanical treatments 

without using as much wildland fire as the other alternatives. Alternatives B and D would also 

convert many acres to open density, but would use more wildland fire (especially moderate and/or 

high severity fire during the planning period) than alternative C. Alternative D would use the 

most wildland fire, thereby increasing tree stress and bark beetle susceptibility. Alternative A

would treat the least acres and use the least wildland fire treatments. 

The action alternatives include direction for prompt and appropriate treatment of tree cutting 

created slash and prevention of accelerated windthrow where dense stands are thinned to open the 

canopy. Alternative A provides some direction to prevent bark beetle outbreaks, but lacks 

direction on prevention of accelerated windthrow caused by overcutting.

Acres treated mechanically pose less threat than acres treated by wildland fire because thinning 

operations should not harm residual trees left onsite and slash would be treated afterward. 

Wildland fire stresses residual trees left onsite and the resulting tree mortality can become bark 

beetle brood material in 1 to 2 years, before it can be salvaged (Youngblood et al., 2009). 

Alternative D is expected to create and leave the most snags and untreated windthrow onsite as 

beetle brood material because it employs the most moderate and/or high severity fire while 

deemphasizing mechanized treatments. Alternatives C, B, and A, in order, could create fewer 

snags and prevent or salvage more windthrow to reduce risk of activity created bark beetle 

outbreaks.

Alternative D would preclude appropriate control of dwarf mistletoe by restricting cutting to 

trees under 16 inches in diameter, thereby leaving heavy infection where it occurs in large, 

stressed trees more susceptible to bark beetles. Alternatives A and B would also leave more 

infected trees to attract bark beetles than alternative C, but less than alternative D.

Defoliators

The risk of tree mortality by defoliators is associated with two forest conditions that can be 

controlled by management activities: (1) high stand/forest density that reduces tree vigor because 

of intense tree competition and (2) continuous multistoried canopies that allow defoliators free 

access to the most tree foliage food source at all canopy levels (Lynch et al., 2010; Hanavan and 

Boehning, 2010). Defoliators can use host trees of all sizes, especially when in very close 

proximity to many other host species trees, both horizontally and vertically. This means that large 

contiguous acreages of high density (closed canopy) and multistoried (i.e., uneven-aged) states 

are at greatest risk of defoliator outbreaks.

The percent of each forested PNVT in closed canopy, single-storied or multistoried structure as a 

result of proposed treatments in each alternative is displayed in table 53 below. This table uses the 

same methodology as table 52 above.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 211

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

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

Forested PNVT Canopy Level 

Classa ExistingPercentb

Year 15

Alt. A

Year 15

Alt. B

Year 15

Alt. C

Year 15

Alt. D

Ponderosa Pine Single-storied 17 19 16 14 23

Multistoried 55 43 44 40 39

Dry Mixed 

Conifer Single-storied 17 13 12 12 18

Multistoried 45 61 60 61 58

Wet Mixed 

Conifer Single-storied 2 2 2 2 2

Multistoried 50 66 67 67 68

Spruce-Fir Single-storied 48 44 36 34 34

Multistoried 17 39 38 38 37

a In the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer PNVTs, all closed canopy states (F, G, H, I, L, M) are included. In the 

wet mixed conifer and spruce-fir states, all closed canopy states (B, C, D, E, F, L, M, N, O) are included.

b Percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding differences in VDDT model results and exclusion of model states 

little used by defoliators.

Ponderosa pine is the only PNVT where all alternatives would reduce the amount of closed 

multistoried canopy acres. Alternatives D and C would create the least closed multistoried forest 

structure, with at least a 3 percent advantage over alternatives A and B. In both mixed conifer 

and in spruce-fir PNVTs, where defoliator outbreaks are presently the highest concern, all 

alternatives would increase the amount of closed multiple-storied canopy structure, partly 

consistent with the desired conditions for more uneven-aged forest. Defoliator risk would remain 

high, with no alternative causing the least risk because all rank within 1 to 2 percent of each other. 

Acres impacted by conifer-defoliating insects would be reduced as shade tolerant tree species like 

white fir and spruce are removed from the dry mixed conifer PNVT. Prescribed cutting selection 

to reduce offsite shade tolerant tree species would reduce forest susceptibility to defoliator insects 

to a greater degree than wildland fire treatments. Alternative C would have the greatest ability to 

remove offsite host trees, followed by alternatives B, A, and D, respectively. Alternative D

would rank lowest because it would restrict cutting to trees less than 16 inches in diameter, 

thereby leaving seed cone bearing size, shade tolerant, and offsite tree species to perpetuate as an

understory food source (Triepke et al., 2011).

As more acres of tree planting (see the “Forest Products” section) occurs after wildfires and/or 

substantial bark beetle outbreaks, the risk would increase for pine tip moth and similar 

foliar/bud/shoot insects to easily attack numerous seedlings. Alternatives C, B, A, and D, 

respectively, would rank from highest to lowest risk, ranked by fastest to slowest proposed 

planting rates. This risk could be mitigated for all alternatives at the project-level by designing 

plantations which are not continuously large areas of uniformly spaced trees of the same species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Aspen Decline and Mortality

Risk of aspen mortality can be reduced by (1) removing conifers to reduce competition with 

aspen for water and sunlight and thereby improving clone health, restoring root carbohydrate 

reserves, and extending the lifespan of above ground trees; (2) protecting above ground trees 

from serious damage by fire, ungulates, and mechanized equipment (Debyle and Winokur, 1985; 

Fairweather, 2008; Shepperd and Fairweather, 1994; Rolf, 2001; Burns and Honkala, 1990); and 

(3) protecting below ground shallow lateral root systems that produce suckers from severe heat.

Given the large existing acreages of aspen damage, mortality, and decline, the risk of long-term 

aspen loss would be least in alternatives which provide opportunities for aspen roots to remain

healthy. Reducing conifer competition and minimizing return fire to acres already burned would 

be most advantageous for long-term aspen tree and root maintenance (Fairweather, 2008; Debyle 

and Winokur, 1985). Based on differences in cutting methods emphasized, the alternatives most 

able to reduce conifer competition that is overtopping and shading out aspen would be 

alternative C followed by B, because these do not utilize a 16-inch diameter cutting limit (cap).

Alternatives A and D would follow based on their respective use of that diameter cap26.

Moreover, under all alternatives, all mixed conifer and spruce-fir sites managed in closed 

canopy, high conifer density condition would not be successful in maintaining or regenerating the 

aspen tree component on those acres. 

Alternative A, with the least return of fire at any severity level, would maintain the most young 

and immature aspen above ground, followed by C, B, and then D. Where aspen are protected

from ungulate damage this order may be reversed. Where mature/overmature aspen acreages need 

renewal, the action alternatives focus on using wildland fire to accomplish this first restoration 

step in the short term. Immediate follow-up steps to protect new aspen regeneration would help 

ensure long-term aspen recruitment. 

Remaining aspen already in decline (perhaps as much as 35 percent of mature aspen acres, per 

surveys reported in Lynch et al., 2010) intentionally treated with moderate and/or high severity 

fire in the next 15 years may not recover in the long term if weakened root systems are unable to 

produce enough suckers or withstand repetitive ungulate browsing. In this case, alternative D

would pose the greatest threat to aspen sustainability based on the amounts of moderate and/or 

high severity wildland fire treatments proposed annually, followed by alternatives B, C, and A. 

The action alternatives provide guidance for aspen including desired conditions, an objective, 

management approach, and guidelines (e.g., discouraging new surface water developments in 

close proximity to aspen stands) that are improvements over the aspen direction in alternative A. 

One guideline could help reduce ungulate browsing pressure on aspen. These alternatives also 

provide other guidance for aspen which could achieve results comparable to the guidance in 

alternative A. The action alternatives recommend the Corduroy Research Natural Area 

(3,350 acres) as a study area to test various treatment methods for aspen protection, maintenance 

and restoration, and study of elk impacts in the absence of livestock. This could add to the 

knowledge base for managing aspen. Alternative A does not recommend this research natural 

area and would not provide additional information to help manage aspen.

 26 Alternative A (1987 plan) does not specify a 16-inch diameter cap. However, this diameter cap has been used as a 

treatment in recent and current vegetation management.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 213

For long-term consequences to aspen from implementing the alternatives, see the VDDT model 

results summarized in the “Vegetation” section.

Persistent Diseases

Dwarf mistletoes and root/butt/stem decay diseases would persist under all alternatives. The risk 

of spread to more trees or acres for both types of pathogens is most highly associated with (1) the 

absence of alternate non-host tree species within and around infection centers and (2) the absence 

of large canopy gaps/openings in the forest (Conklin and Fairweather, 2010; Hagle, 2004). 

Due to the less predictable nature of fire (including prescribed fire, especially at moderate and 

high-burn severity proposed during the planning period) those alternatives which employ more 

tree cutting may have more control in selecting the right mix of non-host tree species and/or 

spacing arrangement to prevent further disease spread. Alternative C, followed by alternatives 

B, A, and then D, respectively, would have the highest potential to minimize the spread of 

persistent diseases. 

The spread of dwarf mistletoe disease to more host trees would occur where understory trees are 

exposed to infected overstory trees. This condition would exist on all infected acres with a 

multistoried vertical structure. Alternative D would restrict all cuts to less than 16-inch diameter 

trees on all acres, which would leave all infected overstory trees that would spread infection to 

nearby understory trees. Based on current management trends, alternative A would continue to 

use diameter limit cuts (diameter caps) on some acres to a lesser extent, even though the 1987 

plan provides the most direction to control dwarf mistletoe. Alternatives B and C do not include

diameter caps; alternative B has some focus on treating mistletoe. Alternative C emphasizes

aggressive sanitation and/or even-aged cuts for removal of infected overstory trees where needed 

to maintain the uninfected small and medium size classes underneath or nearby. In this case, 

short-term use of even-aged treatments designed to control dwarf mistletoe spread on moderately 

to severely infected acres would temporarily delay attainment of desired conditions, yet may be a 

necessary first step to ultimately achieve long-term sustainability.

The potential for dwarf mistletoe to intensify infection levels within the same host trees (causing 

growth loss and mortality) would be reduced by removal of lower limbs (which are often the most 

highly infected). Mechanized tree cutting activities rarely involve pruning lower limbs because it 

is time consuming and expensive. Prescribed fire has shown some promise at reducing tree 

infection levels by killing the lower limbs (Conklin and Geils, 2008). With this consideration, 

alternatives which treat the most acres with wildland fire, in combination with sanitation cuts that 

would remove the most infected trees of all sizes, could be most successful at overall control in 

this order: alternative B, followed by alternatives C, A, and then D.

Root diseases could increase nearly equally in all alternatives because cutting, as well as 

wildland fire, would be used to treat acres, leaving new stumps that could become a food source 

for these diseases. Low to moderate intensity wildland fire would do little to kill root diseases. 

However, root disease spread would be slowed by the presence of non-host trees. In this order, 

alternatives C and B would not be limited in the methods of cut that enable favoring alternative 

non-host tree species inside root disease infection centers, and alternatives A and D would have 

the least control for this purpose because of diameter limit cutting methods. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

White pine blister rust is now a persistent pathogen on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Its control 

depends on keeping as many healthy white pines as possible across the landscape to ensure an 

abundance of genetically diverse individuals and trees groups (Conklin et al., 2009). Because 

many local populations of Southwestern white pine were killed by the Wallow Fire before seed 

could be collected from them, genetic diversity has already been greatly reduced. Remaining 

genetic diversity might still provide a blister rust resistant seed source that could be used to 

replace lost trees where desired. The consequences of individual alternatives upon the rust’s 

alternate Ribes host are not yet possible to predict. Alternatives that would use the most wildland 

fire and diameter limit cuts could indiscriminately remove critically important healthy white pines 

and leave unhealthy ones. Alternative C, followed by alternatives B, A, and D, respectively, 

would have the greatest tree selection control to leave the healthiest remaining white pines.

Susceptibility to Additional Invasive Pests

Forests and woodlands most in balance (least departed from historic reference conditions) with 

respect to horizontal and vertical structure, native vegetation species composition and genetic 

diversity, soil and watershed stability, and natural disturbance patterns should be the most 

vigorous and resilient to threats from new invasive species. The alternatives which would move 

the four forested PNVTs and the piñon-juniper PNVT closest to desired conditions in the next 

15 years are expected to help minimize that threat. Alternative C would provide the most 

resilience to invasive pests, followed by alternatives B, D, and A, respectively.

Future Trends for Untreated Acres 

Current and future insect and disease trends described earlier are expected to continue on the vast 

majority of acres left untreated each year and in each cutting cycle, until these acres are fully 

restored to the desired conditions. Current trends on undisturbed acres differ enough from historic 

trends that ecosystem processes are anticipated to be altered in those areas where the benefits of 

treatment are delayed from occurring as needed. Drought, warmer climate, and uncharacteristic 

vegetation densities have increased the forests’ vulnerability to insects, especially bark beetles. 

Consequently, the potential for substantial insect outbreaks continues, but it is difficult to 

characterize the risks in a temporal framework of 10 to 20 years. There is more uncertainty 

regarding future insect outbreaks than the past record indicates. In the current period of ecological 

change, additional large-scale insect disturbances are expected, though the timing and intensity of 

those events cannot be predicted. 

Other than the continued spread and intensification of dwarf mistletoe infestations, it is harder to 

predict pathogen response to climate change and altered forest composition and fire regimes than 

insect population responses. Additionally, the potential effects of invasive insect and pathogen 

species (e.g., spruce aphid, white pine blister rust) are uncertain. The effects of invasive plants on 

forest disturbance regimes, including insect and pathogen outbreaks, are also unknown.

Under each alternative, the insect and disease trends described are expected to continue and 

possibly increase in proportion to the acres left untreated each year and decade. As stated 

previously, average treatment rates for alternatives A and B would result in the least amount of 

acres restored annually. Therefore, the affected environment trends and uncertainties would be 

greatest under these two alternatives. Alternatives C and D would treat more acres annually and 

would result in lower insect and disease risks. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 215

Based strictly on expected treatment rates and relative amounts of annual untreated acres, 

alternative A would have the highest potential for insect and disease outbreaks in the four 

forested PNVTs, followed by alternatives B, D, and C respectively. This same order would also 

represent risk in the piñon-juniper woodland PNVT, except the rankings for alternatives D and 

C would be reversed.

As more acres of natural conifer regeneration (see the “Forest Products” section) occur after 

wildfires and/or substantial bark beetle outbreaks, the risk would increase under all alternatives

for pine tip moth and similar foliar/bud/shoot insects to easily attack numerous seedlings. 

Survival of young trees (less than 6 feet) could be jeopardized, especially during drought years.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area boundary considered for this level of analysis is the White Mountains-San Francisco 

Peaks-Mogollon Rim Ecoregion Section and the seven subsections on which it occurs (see the 

“Vegetation” section for more information about this region). Insect-disease conditions on the 

adjacent Fort Apache Indian Reservation are included in the report by Lynch et.al (2010).

Insect outbreaks typically start in one or more places and spread in subsequent years to additional 

areas. Persistent diseases have the potential to spread to or from adjacent ownerships wherever 

the same host tree species are present.

Past forest and woodland management approaches (e.g., fire suppression, lack of thinning) 

created surpluses of trees that dominate untreated areas for years across the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs and adjacent lands. Recent past and present forest and woodland management actions on 

national forest, private, and State lands have been mostly focused on reducing immediate fire 

hazards, rather than restoration toward reference conditions. Insect and disease outbreak trends, 

similar to those on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and across the Southwest, may be found across the 

ecoregion.

Future forest/woodland management strategies across all other national forests within the 

ecoregion are expected to be similar to those proposed for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Those 

forests are also revising their land management plans or intend to revise their plans in the near 

future. The other national forests and the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would use similar desired 

conditions for the forested and woodland PNVTs, including uneven-aged silviculture and the 

return of fire and other natural disturbances to their natural roles. Similar conditions for insects 

and diseases could be expected to result. However, increased thinning slash and fire-killed trees 

from management actions on all adjacent ownerships could cumulatively increase risk of larger 

scale bark beetle outbreaks. Treatment timing and coordination, with proper slash management 

(DeGomez et al., 2008), would need to occur across ownerships to prevent bark beetle outbreak.

Due to multiple ongoing bark beetle and defoliator outbreaks, the current scale and extent of dead 

and dying trees on both ownerships of Mount Baldy (Fort Apache Indian Reservation and 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs) predispose it to a large, stand-replacement wildfire event, particularly 

inside the wilderness. None of the alternatives would be able to prevent such an event, given 

that the spruce-fir PNVT dominating the area is an infrequent, high-intensity fire regime and 

Mount Baldy is due for such an event. Prevailing winds could easily push a wildfire from the Fort 

Apache side of the mountain onto the Forest Service. Such a fire would virtually eliminate all the 

insect and disease problems present, simply by removing nearly all host tree species across many 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

acres. Widespread, even-aged forest conditions would result with subsequent artificial and/or 

natural reforestation expected to occur on both ownerships. 

Alternative C would emphasize more thinning treatments in the dominant wet mixed conifer and 

spruce-fir PNVTs, outside the Mount Baldy Wilderness, than the other alternatives. This could 

break up the remaining continuous forest and fuel loadings to the extent that such a wildfire event 

may not affect the entire watershed in every direction simultaneously and, thus, threaten more 

national forest acres to the north and northeast that are not yet restored.

The first known occurrence of white pine blister rust in this ecoregion was on the Gila NF in New 

Mexico; the first known occurrences in Arizona were found on the Fort Apache Indian 

Reservation. Future discovery of trees potentially resistant to white pine blister rust could 

contribute to tree seed tree orchards for a long-term rust resistance reforestation program; the 

perpetuation of this ecologically vital tree species is urgently needed (Conklin et al., 2009). On 

the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is cutting every white pine tree 

with observed blister rust infection. There is a critical need to preserve the gene pool of the 

remaining local species population on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The action alternatives

contain direction to protect white pines for this purpose; while alternative A does not.

Fire

This section discusses the current role and management of wildland fire on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs. It also examines how the plan alternatives address the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and 

how they contribute to returning wildfire to a more natural role. This is done by comparing the 

existing fire regime condition class (FRCC) with the alternatives to determine the percent of the 

forests that would move toward desired conditions. It also compares how each alternative may 

contribute smoke, by comparing the amount of wildland fire that is planned in each alternative 

and how each alternative varies in its emphasis of treatments near the wildland-urban interface.

Additional information can be found in the “Fire Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014f).

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• To meet plan objectives, acres to be treated would include a combination of planned 

(prescribed fire) and unplanned (wildfire) ignitions across all NFS lands. 

• A set acreage would be burned each year. This number varies by alternative. The actual 

acres burned, when the plan is implemented, may fluctuate yearly due to natural 

ignitions, weather, and burning conditions.

• All wildfires would be analyzed at the time of ignition and documented in the Wildland 

Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS). Management response to a wildfire would be 

based on direction in the land management plan. All wildfires would receive a 

management response appropriate to conditions of the fire, fuels, weather, and 

topography to accomplish specific objectives for the area where wildland fire may occur.

• The response to wildfires is not discretionary and is considered an emergency action. 

Suppression responses would vary markedly in scale and duration, depending on the 

particular fire and conditions.

• Particulate emissions from prescribed fires would be modeled at the project level. 

• For this analysis, each PNVT was given an overall FRCC classification. For example, 

there are some areas in the ponderosa pine forest which have recently been treated and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 217

those stands may now be in FRCC 1 or 2; however, the majority of the ponderosa pine 

across the forests is highly departed and, thus, the entire PNVT is classified as FRCC 3. 

FRCC classification represents conditions after the 2011 Wallow Fire.

Affected Environment

National Fire Policy and Wildland-Urban Interface

Fire managers have been faced with increasing costs, urban development, and uncharacteristic

fire behavior. Decades of government policy directed at extinguishing every fire on public lands 

have contributed to the disruption of natural fire processes. In response to these issues, there have 

been several changes in national fire policy over the past two decades.

The Federal Fire Policy was signed in 1995 and reviewed and updated in 2001. In June 2003, the 

Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 

replaced this cohesive fire policy. The current Federal Fire Policy, Guidance for Implementation 

of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, was signed in February 2009. This latest update

guides the philosophy, direction, and implementation of fire management planning, activities, and 

projects on Federal lands. The policy helps ensure consistency, coordination, and integration of 

wildland fire management programs and related activities throughout the Federal government. 

The intent of this framework is to solidify that the full range of strategic and tactical options are 

available and considered in the response to every wildland fire and are used to achieve objectives 

as described in land management plans and/or fire management plans.

On August 8, 2000, the President directed the Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture and 

Department of the Interior to prepare a report recommending how best to respond to that year’s 

severe fires, reduce the impacts of those fires on rural communities, and ensure sufficient fire 

management resources in the future. On September 8, 2000, the President accepted their report, 

“Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment” (USDA and USDOI, 

2000), which provided an overall framework for fire management and forest health programs (66 

FR 751-777). 

These recommendations initiated a number of policies including the National Fire Plan, the 

Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), long-term stewardship contracting authority, and the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). These policies led to the preparation of community wildfire 

protection plans (CWPPs) to define the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and to establish priorities 

for wildfire preparedness and hazardous fuels reduction work in these areas.

WUI is more complex and extensive than previously considered in the 1995 and 2001 Federal 

Fire Policy reviews. Fire management activities affecting WUI areas require closer coordination 

and more engagement between Federal, state, local and tribal land and fire managers to ensure 

firefighter and public safety and mitigate property loss from wildland fire.

The WUI exists where humans and infrastructure intermix with wildland fuels. There continues to 

be a significant growth in the communities surrounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, both in 

population and construction of summer homes. For example, it was estimated in 2004 that there 

were approximately 25,000 full-time residents and 80,000 seasonal residents (primarily summer) 

in the White Mountain communities (Forest Service, 2008b).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

There are 12 communities within or adjacent to the forests which have been identified as “Urban 

Wildland Interface Communities within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk from 

Wildfire” (66 FR 751-777). They include Alpine, Eagar, Forest Lakes, Greer, Heber-Overgaard, 

Hideaways, Linden, McNary, Nutrioso, Pinedale, Pinetop-Lakeside, and Show Low (see figure 

49 below). Hazardous fuel reduction treatments on adjacent Federal lands around these 

communities are ongoing.

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

wildfire and areas currently covered by CWPPs

The forests have three CWPPs that cover over 895,000 acres of WUI on Federal, State, county, 

and private lands and include 36 communities within the boundaries. Approximately 

612,000 acres on NFS lands are covered by the CWPPs (see figure 49). The CWPPs include 

“CWPP for At-Risk-Communities in Apache County,” “CWPP for At-Risk-Communities in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 219

Greenlee County,” and the “Sitgreaves CWPP (includes Apache, Coconino, and Navajo 

Counties)” (Logan Simpson Design, Inc., 2004a, 2004b, and 2005). These plans identify and 

prioritize areas for treatment based upon input from the communities. Because the CWPPs did 

not cover all development that might be threatened by wildfire, the following WUI definition is 

also used when considering values to be protected:

“Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) - includes those areas of resident populations at imminent 

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

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

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

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

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

of the distance involved.” (R3 Supplement Forest Service Manual 5140.5)

Alternative A (1987 plan) does not address hazards associated with the WUI. However, since 

2001, there has been a management emphasis to treat areas identified in the CWPPs and WUI.

Fire History and Behavior

At the time of Euro-American settlement, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, as well as other forests in 

northern Arizona, generally consisted of open stands of uneven-aged ponderosa pine with an 

extensive grass-forb understory. Frequent (every 2 to 17 years) low-intensity fires burning 

through small pine regeneration and other ground fuels, prevented forests from becoming the 

dense stands frequently found in northern Arizona today.

Fire scar samples from ponderosa pine trees in the White Mountains show an average return 

interval of 3 years with widespread fires occurring every 10 years (Forest Service, 2002). 

Grasslands on southern aspects had the greatest frequency; fires were fast moving and killed 

conifer seedlings encroaching from adjacent forested areas. 

Fire frequency and severity have been altered from historic condition in most vegetation types. 

Historically, fires could burn until they were extinguished by precipitation, ran out of fuel, or 

reached a previously burned area. Fires could burn for months and cover thousands of acres 

(Swetnam and Betancourt, 1990; Swetnam and Baisan, 1996). Fire severity is an actual physical 

change in the vegetation, litter, or soils caused by fire. Post-fire effects are typically classified as 

low to high severity27.

Table 54 displays historical frequency and severity of fires within PNVTs. The 2011 Wallow Fire

is used as an example of how these vegetation types burned based on mapped burn soil severity 

classes. It also summarizes, in the last column, the observed effects from the Wallow Fire. For 

example, the dry mixed conifer PNVT, which would have historically burned every 10 to 

22 years with low-severity fires, experienced a wide range of severities in the Wallow Fire. While 

dry mixed conifer within the Wallow Fire experienced predominately low-severity effect, almost 

41 percent of the acres burned at moderate to high severity. In addition, the wet mixed conifer 

PNVT had approximately 50 percent of the acres burned in moderate to high severity. 

Historically, wet mixed conifer burned with a mixed fire severity with discontinuous patches of 

high severity.

 27 http://www.northernrockiesfire.org/history/fireis.htm
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

severities

Historic Fire Wallow Fire Burn 

Acres

Severity

(Percent) within Perimeter

PNVT Fire 

Return 

Interval 

(years)

Fire 

Severity High Moderate Low Unburned

Wallow 

Fire 

Severity

Ponderosa Pine Forest 2 to 17 Low 11,809

(9.2)

22,734

(17.6)

79,821

(61.9)

14,488

(11.2)

Low-Mixed

Dry Mixed Conifer 

Forest

10 to 22 Low 19,412

(24.9)

12,253

(15.7)

31,462

(40.4)

14,813

(19)

Low-High

Wet Mixed Conifer 

Forest

35 to 50 Mixed 47,409

(35.3)

19,835

(14.8)

43,494

(32.4)

23,702

(17.6)

Low-High

Spruce-Fir Forest 150 to 400 High 3,874

(30.6)

2,462

(19.5)

3,897

(30.8)

2,423

(19.1)

Low-High

Madrean Pine-Oak 

Woodland

3 to 8 Low 1,246

(2.3)

4,767

(9.0)

20,396

(38.4)

26,679

(50.3)

Low

Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland

6 to 400 Low, 

Mixed, and 

High

583

(3.3)

2,225

(12.5)

5,587

(31.4)

9,389

(52.8)

Low

Interior Chaparral 20 to 100 High 357

(3.6)

2,426

(24.4)

3,266

(32.8)

3,900

(39.2)

Low-Mixed

Great Basin Grassland 10 to 30 Low 88

(1.3)

325

(4.9)

3,311

(50.3)

2,854

(43.4)

Low

Semi-desert Grassland 3 to 10 Low 35

(2.3)

251

(16.5)

606

(40.0)

624

(41.2)

Low

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands

2 to 400 Low 176

(0.5)

1,679

(4.6)

27,422

(75.3)

7,159

(19.6)

Low

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

0 to 35 Low 441

(3.7)

759

(6.4)

7,406

(62.7)

3,212

(27.2)

Low

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest

0 to 35 Low 72

(4.2)

176

(10.1)

731

(42.0)

759

(43.7)

Low-Mixed

Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciuous Riparian 

Forest

0 to 35 Low 0

(0.1)

27

(5.6)

212

(43.2)

251

(51.1)

Low

Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest

0 to 35 Low 196

(5.9)

424

(12.7)

1,674

(50.2)

1,041

(31.2)

Low-Mixed

a Forest Service, 2008e

Years of land management practices in the early 1900s (e.g., fire suppression, livestock grazing) 

have impacted the ability of fire to play its natural role in maintaining ecosystem health 

(Covington and Moore, 1994). Consequently, there are higher levels of woody vegetation (fuel 

loads) and less herbaceous cover than existed historically (Forest Service, 2008e). Altered fire 

regimes are now the norm in fire-adapted ecosystems in the Southwest and have resulted in 

uncharacteristic wildfires, which are increasingly larger and more severe. This has resulted in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 221

increased attention to the way land is managed in the Southwest (Swetnam and Betancourt, 

1997). 

On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, fire season is generally April 1 through October 15. Strong 

southwest winds and low humidity prevail from mid-April to mid-June, resulting in mainly wind 

driven fire behavior. Hot, dry, and unstable conditions usually occur from mid-June to early July. 

The potential for dry lightning is highest during this time period. The monsoon season, 

accompanied by higher humidity and rainfall potential, decreased wind, and reduced fire 

behavior, generally begins the first or second week in July and typically ends in the second or 

third week in September when dry and mild conditions return, leading to a period of increased 

fire behavior potential before the onset of winter conditions. 

From 1997 to 2011, the majority of fires on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs were caused by lightning, 

averaging 155 fire starts per year. The remaining fires were human caused, averaging 64 fire 

starts per year. Both human and lightning fires contribute to the total number of acres burned on 

the forests. Fires occurred every month of the year with the greatest number occurring from May 

to August and usually lasting less than 2 days.

Over a million acres burned on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs between 1997 and 2011. About 

80 percent were unplanned ignitions, while approximately 20 percent were planned ignitions. 

Approximately 40 percent of the acreage burned in the ponderosa pine PNVT. Fire sizes have 

been generally small with over 65 percent less than one quarter of an acre and 94 percent less 

than 10 acres (Fire Family Plus). The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire burned 173,000 acres on the 

forests and the 2011 Wallow Fire burned 538,000 acres. Both of these fires were human caused.

Fire Regime Condition Class

A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in 

the absence of modern human mechanical intervention, but includes the influence of aboriginal 

burning (Agee, 1993; Brown, 1995). Coarse-scale definitions for natural fire regimes have been 

developed by Hardy et al. (2001) and Schmidt et al. (2002) and interpreted for fire and fuels 

management by Hann and Bunnell (2001). The five natural fire regimes are classified based on 

average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity of the fire on 

the dominant overstory vegetation. These five regimes include the following:

• Fire regime I: 0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed 

severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime II: 0- to 35-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater 

than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime III: 35- to 100+-year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of 

the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime IV: 35- to 100+-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity 

(greater than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime V: 200+-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity.

All fire regimes are represented across the forests (Landfire, 2011) as noted in table 55.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

PNVT Fire Regime

Ponderosa Pine Forest I

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest I

Wet Mixed Conifer Foresta III

Spruce-Fir Forest III, IV

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland I

Piñon-Juniper Woodlandb I, II, III, IV, V

Interior Chaparral IV

Great Basin Grassland I

Semi-desert Grassland I, II

Montane/Subalpine Grassland I, II

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forestc I, III

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forestc I, III

Montane Willow Riparian Forestc I, III

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areasc I, III

a Within wet mixed conifer, fire regime IV and V may occur; however, it is rare.

b Within piñon-juniper, fire regime I is found in piñon-juniper savanna; while II, III, IV, and V are found in piñonjuniper persistant woodland.

c Wetland/cienega riparian areas and mixed broadleaf deciduous, montane willow, and cottonwood-willow riparian 

forests’ historic and current fire return intervals are strongly influenced by surrounding PNVTs and their fire regimes.

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

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

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

classification is based on a relative measure describing the degree of departure from the historical 

fire regime. FRCC is developed as a measure of the difference in structure between current and 

reference condition. This disparity has inferences about fire regime and changes to one (or more) 

of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (e.g., species composition, 

structural states, stand age, canopy closure, mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, 

severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g., insect and disease mortality, grazing, 

drought). 

There are three condition classes for each fire regime based on low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 

2), and high (FRCC 3) departure from the central tendency of the natural fire regime (Hann and 

Bunnell, 2001; Hardy et al., 2001; Schmidt et al., 2002). Low departure is considered to be within 

the natural (historical) range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside. The 

desired condition is to move toward or maintain vegetation conditions in FRCC 1.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 223

Vegetation in FRCC 1 is more 

resilient and resistant and less 

likely to lose key ecosystem 

components (e.g., native 

species, large trees, soil) after a 

disturbance. Fire behavior and 

other associated disturbances 

are similar to those that 

occurred prior to fire exclusion. 

For example, ponderosa pine in 

FRCC 1 would have a fire 

regime and vegetative structure 

similar to reference conditions 

where fires were low intensity 

and high frequency and 

vegetation consisted of open 

stands and clumps of trees. 

Vegetation in FRCC 2 and 3 is 

moderately to highly altered and 

there is a risk of losing key 

ecosystem components. Fire 

behavior and other associated 

disturbances are moderately to 

highly departed from reference 

conditions.

For this analysis, FRCC 1 is represented by vegetation departure index 0 to 33, FRCC 2 is 34 to 

66, and FRCC 3 is 67 to 100. For more information about vegetation condition and departure 

from desired conditions, see the “Vegetation” section. Approximately 86 percent of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs are departed from reference conditions and are in FRCC 2 and 3 (figure 50 and 

table 56). Current overall FRCC by PNVT is displayed in table 57. Only 14 percent of the PNVTs 

are in FRCC 1. 

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

FRCC 1 FRCC 2 FRCC 3 Total

Acres 287,804 287,804 280,996 1,442,302 2,011,102a

Percent 14% 14% 14% 72% 100%

a Total excludes water, quarries, urban/agriculture lands.

Figure 50. Map of existing fire regime condition classes on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs based on PNVT departure
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Table 57. Current FRCC by PNVT

PNVT FRCC

Ponderosa Pine Forest 3

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 3

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 2

Spruce-Fir Forest 2

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 3

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 1

Interior Chaparral 1

Great Basin Grassland 3

Semi-desert Grassland 3

Montane/Subalpine Grassland 2

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 2

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 1

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 3

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 2

Air Quality Related to Smoke

Periodic planned ignitions (prescribed burns) and unplanned ignitions (wildfires) are tools used to 

decrease fuel accumulation and to restore ecosystem processes. Wildfires and prescribed burns 

within the planning area may produce temporary, but large, amounts of smoke, particulates, 

carbon monoxide, and other ozone precursors. 

Limits to smoke emissions from prescribed fires and wildfires are imposed by the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Smoke from wildfires is considered a natural 

event; fire managers work to influence smoke production by suppressing fires, checking or 

redirecting the growth of the fire, or through smoke reduction techniques, such as performing 

burns when climatic conditions are optimal.

Prescribed fires and wildfires have the potential to produce smoke that may impact air quality 

depending on the amount, extent, and duration. Wildfire events and associated poor air quality 

can last for weeks. For example, during June and July of 2002, when the Rodeo-Chediski Fire

occurred, over 460,000 acres burned across multiple jurisdictions and affected air quality in the 

communities along the Mogollon Rim for weeks.

Particulate matter (PM) is the greatest concern because particulate emissions in smoke can affect 

both visibility and human health. Particulate matter is described as very fine solid particles 

suspended in smoke and is measured as a 24-hour average. PM10 particles are 10 microns or less 

in size; PM2.5 particles are 2.5 microns or less in size. The amount of particles present in these

size classes, especially PM2.5, is important when considering the health effects of smoke. PM2.5 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 225

particles can become lodged in the deepest part of the respiratory system and are difficult for the 

body to expel. 

The Clean Air Act mandates that every state have a statewide implementation plan to regulate 

pollutants. Smoke is regulated with oversight and compliance by the State of Arizona. The 

Arizona State Implementation Plan, administered by the ADEQ, requires that Federal and State 

land management agencies submit annual registrations, prescribed fire burn plans, and prescribed 

burn requests in order to obtain authorization to burn.

Arizona is divided into 11 smoke management units (SMUs). The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs occurs 

within 3 units: Little Colorado River Airshed (SMU 3), Lower Salt River Airshed (SMU 6), and 

Upper Gila River Airshed (SMU 7). Special considerations to address smoke are required when a 

fire is in a nonattainment area for national ambient air quality standards28 including ensuring 

compliance and conformity with State and tribal implementation plans. There are no 

nonattainment areas within SMUs 3 and 7; however, there is a nonattainment area in SMU 6 

southwest of the forests around Payson, Arizona, and a southeastern portion of the forests falls

within a sulfur dioxide (SO2) maintenance plan area near Morenci. Disturbances, as described 

within this plan (e.g., vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, smoke from fires), may have an 

insignificant impact on air quality within the nonattainment area. 

There is one Class I airshed on the forests, Mount Baldy Wilderness. Petrified Forest National 

Park is another Class I airshed directly north of the forests. Class I is an airshed classification 

which requires the highest level of protection under the Clean Air Act. Projects which may impact 

Class I airsheds must include efforts to minimize smoke impacts on visibility. See the “Air 

Quality” section of chapter 3 for more information on Class I airsheds and overall air quality. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Wildland-Urban Interface

Alternative A (1987 plan) would not specifically address hazards associated with the WUI or 

prioritize treatments to address those hazards. Since 2001, however, there has been a management 

emphasis to treat areas identified in CWPPs and WUI.

Due to the threat of fire moving into or from developed areas, higher levels of management may 

be needed to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, including regular maintenance treatments. The

action alternatives have a management area to address this threat. The Community-Forest 

Intermix Management Area consists of NFS lands within 1⁄2 mile of communities-at-risk. The 

Community-Forest Intermix Management Area accounts for approximately 10 percent of the NFS 

lands identified in the CWPPs. See appendix J for maps of the management areas.

All the action alternatives have land allocated to the Community-Forest Intermix Management 

Area where fuels reduction treatments and maintenance are emphasized. However, these 

alternatives differ in where overall forest treatments are prioritized for placement. 

Alternative B would most emphasize treating lands identified in the CWPPs, including the 

Community-Forest Intermix Management Area. Alternative C would prioritize treatments just in 

 28 The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area (versus the entire CWPP). Alternative D

would not emphasize treating areas identified in the CWPPs because treatment emphasis is spread 

over all PNVTs across the forests.

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

hazards associated with the WUI

Least Emphasis Less Emphasis More Emphasis Most Emphasis

Alternative A Alternative D Alternative C Alternative B

As treatments occur within the WUI, the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and the resulting threat 

to communities and ecosystems would be reduced and potential losses from such fires would be 

mitigated. Treatments within the WUI would help protect communities and protect the forests 

from fire that starts on private lands. These treatments would also benefit firefighter and public 

safety. Treatments aimed to protect natural resources from uncharacteristic wildfire could 

outweigh the short-term impacts to the landscapes during treatment. Alternative B would provide 

the greatest benefit followed by alternatives C, D, and A based on the alternative’s emphasis.

Fire Regime Condition Class 

Both mechanical and wildland fire treatments would be used to move vegetation toward desired 

conditions in all alternatives. These treatments are used to change the character of the vegetation 

(e.g., a dense forest with too many evenly spaced trees to an open forest with groups and clumps 

of trees) that would result in lower risk of uncharacteristic fire and a return of wildfire to a more 

natural role. The desired condition is to move toward or maintain vegetation conditions in FRCC 

1. The treatment acreages vary by alternative, as shown in tables 59 and 60.

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

PNVTs

Treatment Type Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

Mechanical 12,182 19,591 23,997 15,954

Wildland Fire (Planned and 

Unplanned Ignitions) 6,844 28,930 12,857 48,927

Total 19,026 48,521 36,854 64,881
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 227

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

PNVT Total NFS 

Acres

Alt. A Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Alt. B Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Alt. C Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Alt. D Acres

(Percent 

PNVT)

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest 602,206 10,269(1.7%)

12,589

(2.1%)

18,955

(3.1%)

18,113

(3.0%)

Dry Mixed Conifer 

Forest 147,885 2,608(1.8%)

3,247

(2.2%)

4,913

(3.3%)

4,761

(3.2%)

Wet Mixed Conifer 

Forest 177,995 3,097(1.7%)

3,800

(2.1%)

5,748

(3.2%)

5,464

(3.1%)

Spruce-Fir Forest 17,667 208

(1.2%)

402

(2.3%)

605

(3.4%)

576

(3.3%)

Madrean Pine-Oak 

Woodland 394,927 1,063

(0.3%)

7,429

(1.9%)

3,125

(0.8%)

13,029

(3.3%)

Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland 222,166 1,213(0.5%)

2,502

(1.1%)

3,008

(1.4%)

4,367

(2.0%)

Interior Chaparral 55,981 * * * *

Great Basin 

Grassland 185,523 541(0.0%)

15,202

(8.2%)

0

(0.0%)

15,121

(8.2%)

Semi-desert 

Grassland 106,952 27

(0.0%)

2,500

(2.3%)

0

(0.0%)

2,500

(2.3%)

Montane/Subalpine 

Grassland 51,559 * 500(1.0%)

500

(1.0%)

500

(1.0%)

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest 15,876

Mixed Broadleaf 

Deciduous Riparian 

Forest

9,657 * 350

(0.7%) * 450

(0.9%)

Montane Willow 

Riparian Forest 4,808

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas 17,900

Total 2,011,102 19,026

(0.9%)

48,521

(2.4%)

36,854

(1.8%)

64,881

(3.2%)

*No treatments planned. However, as opportunities arise wildfire may be used to allow fire to play a natural role.

Table 61 displays the forestwide FRCC outcome by alternative after 15 years of vegetative 

treatments at the average treatment objective levels. Alternatives B and D would result in the 

most acreage in FRCC 1 (24 percent) followed by alternatives A and C (14 percent).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

15 years of treatment

Alternative FRCC 1 FRCC 2 FRCC 3 Total

A 287,804

(14%)

614,405

(31%)

1,108,893

(55%)

2,011,102

(100%)

B 473,327

(24%)

823,809

(41%)

713,966

(35%)

2,011,102

(100%)

C 287,804

(14%)

1,009,332

(51%)

713,966

(35%)

2,011,102

(100%)

D 473,327

(24%)

823,809

(41%)

713,966

(35%)

2,011,102

(100%)

Table 62 displays the FRCC trend from 15 to 50 years as noted by the downward, upward, or 

neutral arrows. In all alternatives, wildland fire and mechanical treatments (table 59) would be 

used to move vegetation conditions toward desired condition. The desired condition is to move 

toward or maintain vegetation conditions in FRCC 1. A downward trend (downward arrow) 

shows movement toward a lower FRCC.

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

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

PNVT Current

FRCC

Alt. A

FRCC

Alt. B

FRCC

Alt. C

FRCC

Alt. D

FRCC

Ponderosa Pine Forest 3 3↓ 3↓ 3↓ 3↓

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 3 2↓ 2↓ 2↓ 2↓

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 2 2↓ 2↓ 2↓ 2↓

Spruce-Fir Forest 2 2↓ 2↓ 2↓ 2↓

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 3 3↓ 2↓ 2↓ 2↓

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 1 1↑ 1↑ 1↑ 1↔

Interior Chaparral 1 1↔ 1↔ 1↔ 1↔

Great Basin Grassland 3 2↑ 1↑ 2↑ 1↓

Semi-desert Grassland 3 3↑ 3↓ 3↑ 3↓

Montane/Subalpine Grassland 2 2↑ 2↑ 2↑ 2↑

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest 2 2↑ 2↓ 2↑ 2↓

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 1 1↑ 1↓ 1↑ 1↓

Montane Willow Riparian Forest 3 3↑ 3↓ 3↑ 3↓

Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas 2 2↑ 2↔ 2↔ 2↔

↑ Indicates trend toward a higher FRCC from 15 to 50 years. 

↓ Indicates trend toward a lower FRCC from 15 to 50 years.

↔ Indicates a static trend in FRCC from 15 to 50 years.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 229

Over the planning period of 15 years, the action alternatives would have the most (6) PNVTs at 

desired condition. Alternative A would have the least number (5) of PNVTs that meet desired 

conditions.

Between 15 and 50 years, alternatives D and B trends show that FRCC continues to move 

toward a lower FRCC or remain within FRCC 1 in the most PNVTs (12). Alternatives C and A

show the least improvement at 50 years (8).

Under all alternatives there would be some improvement in FRCC by PNVTs (table 62). 

Changes in FRCC are directly related to the number of acres treated within a PNVT. For example, 

Great Basin grassland would be treated in alternatives B and D and would move from FRCC 3 

to 1. In alternatives A and C, there would be less emphasis on treating Great Basin grassland; it 

would move to FRCC 2 but would trend back toward a higher FRCC. 

As the FRCC is improved over the planning period, there should be movement toward a natural 

fire regime and a reduced risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. Vegetation would become more 

resistant and resilient and less likely to lose key ecosystem components after a disturbance. This 

would benefit firefighter and public safety. Additionally, treatments aimed to protect natural 

resources from uncharacteristic wildfire would outweigh the short-term impacts upon the 

landscapes during treatment.

As FRCC is improved over the planning period, fire would behave more similar to reference 

conditions. For example, ponderosa pine in FRCC 1 would have a fire regime and vegetative 

structure similar to reference conditions where fires were low intensity and high frequency. 

Vegetation consisting of open stands and clumps of trees would promote surface versus crown 

fire behavior. 

Although this analysis examined overall FRCC by total PNVT, it is anticipated that as sitespecific projects are conducted, there would be an improvements in FRCC for those treated acres. 

For example, the overall FRCC for ponderosa pine is 3, but includes areas which have been

treated and are now rated at FRCC 1 and 2.

Fire disturbances may have short-term, adverse environmental consequences on some resources 

(e.g., smoke affecting communities, vegetation structure). Over the long term, however, these 

resources would benefit from fire disturbances that result in more sustainable and productive 

ecosystems and reduced risk of uncharacteristic wildfire.

Wildland fire is a management tool for altering vegetation; however, there could be some risks

such as (1) prescribed fires could escape and become wildfires, (2) some fires may not get 

accomplished due to narrow burning windows and/or smoke management constraints, and (3) use 

or allowing of high and/or moderate intensity fire may result in more acres needing reforestation 

efforts (e.g., Wilkins, Durfee, and Wagon Draw wildland fires.)

Air Quality Related to Smoke

All alternatives include an average number of acres that would be treated by wildland fire each 

year with the expectation that desired conditions for air quality, including Class I airsheds, are 

met. Treatments with wildland fire include both prescribed fires and use of wildland fires. Table 

60 displays the amount of acres treated by alternative. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Smoke production is an unavoidable part of planned ignitions (prescribed burns). However, 

strategies to limit smoke impacts are required in every prescribed fire plan. Because climatic and 

environmental conditions vary (e.g., ventilation, wind direction, mixing height), the number of 

acres burned on any given day would also vary. Climatic and environmental conditions each year 

may also affect the annual total number of acres treated. Projects are designed in a way to lessen 

the impacts produced by smoke emissions. The prescribed fire burn plan may include such 

strategies as burning with wind directions and other atmospheric conditions that allow smoke to 

adequately ventilate or be transported away from communities. The burn plan may also stipulate 

management practices which would mitigate smoke production. For example, managers can 

choose ignition sequences and patterns, avoid lighting heavy fuels, community notification, and 

use other management practices that would limit smoke production. ADEQ reviews daily burn 

requests and may limit the amount of acres burned daily to reduce smoke impacts.

Impacts on air quality from wildfires may be highly variable. Smoke management for wildfires

includes notifying the ADEQ based on fire size and location, and assessing potential fire behavior 

and smoke. If smoke impacts occur, overall fire management strategies may be adjusted in order 

to mitigate smoke to sensitive individuals, communities, and visibility.

Problem or nuisance smoke is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as the amount of 

smoke in the ambient air that interferes with a right or privilege common to members of the 

public, including the use or enjoyment of public or private resources. While no laws or 

regulations govern nuisance smoke, it effectively limits opportunities of land managers to use 

fire. Public outcry regarding nuisance smoke often occurs long before smoke exposures reach 

levels that violate NAAQS (Achtemeir et al., 2001). Public tolerance of smoke, however, sets the 

social limit of the number of acres burned and smoke produced from wildland fires. The level of 

acceptance varies from year to year and by community. Smoke may impact nursing homes, 

hospitals, and other populations sensitive to temporary air pollution. Smoke can also impact other 

areas such as local communities, transportation corridors, and highly valued scenic vistas.

With its number of acres being treated with wildland fire, there is a higher probability that 

alternative D would have more short-term impacts to forest visitors and local residents. These 

impacts could include smoke, areas of blackened or charred vegetation, and possibly delay or 

deny forest access due to fire activity. Alternative A would have fewer acres proposed for 

wildland fire treatments and, therefore, would have fewer short-term impacts followed by

alternatives C and B, respectively.

The potential for nuisance smoke impacts to communities varies by alternative due to the number 

of acres burned and proximity of treatments. Alternative D treats the most acres with wildland 

fire, distributing the treatments among the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area (1/2 

mile buffer around communities-at-risk) and priority watersheds. Alternative B emphasizes 

treatments within areas identified in the CWPPs. Potential smoke impacts to communities would 

be lessened because treatments are spread across the entire CWPP and not concentrated within 

the half-mile buffer of the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area. Alternative C

emphasizes treatments within the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area. However, 

fewer acres are treated than in alternatives B and D, reducing the potential impacts to 

communities. The emphasis in alternative A is to treat around communities. However, this 

alternative treats the least number of acres by wildland fire so potential smoke impacts are 

reduced.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 231

There is also a potential to have smoke impacts due to the mechanical treatments and subsequent 

burning of slash created by those treatments. Residual slash would be treated by prescribed fire. 

Alternative C mechanically treats the greatest number of acres within the Community-Forest 

Intermix Management Area which results in the highest potential for burning activity fuels in 

close proximity to communities. Even though alternative B mechanically treats the next highest 

number of acres, alternative D has more potential to impact communities due to the placement of 

treatments within the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area. Alternative A treats the 

least number of acres around communities. 

Under all alternatives, the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and subsequent smoke emissions is 

expected to increase in proportion to the acres left untreated (based on the average wildland fire 

and mechanical treatment objectives over the 15-year planning period). Untreated acres would 

have a greater overall fuel load and increased presence of ladder fuels over the long term. 

Alternative D, while creating the most short-term impacts to communities, would in the long 

term reduce potential smoke impacts by reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires. 

Alternative B treats the next highest amount of acres followed by alternatives C and A, 

respectively. Treated acres would reduce fuel loads and ladder fuels resulting in a lower 

likelihood of crown fire and associated smoke impacts over the long term. See the “Air Quality” 

section in chapter 3 for more information on Class I airsheds and overall air quality. 

Climate Change

There may be environmental consequences associated with climate change. Temperature changes 

may alter fire regimes (Sprigg and Hinkley, 2000). For instance, higher temperatures increase 

evaporation rates, and higher temperatures combined with a drier landscape increase wildfire 

hazard and put extra stress on ecosystems (Lenart, 2007). Fire frequency and severity may be 

exacerbated if temperatures increase, precipitation decreases, and overall drought conditions 

become more common. Seasonal timing of planned and unplanned wildland fires may be affected 

by climate change (e.g., if there are hotter drier seasons, fires may occur during times when areas 

would have usually been covered in snow). During the planning period, alternatives B and D

followed by alternatives C and A would provide the most resiliency to climate change since they 

have the greatest amount of vegetation at desired condition (vegetation within or moving toward

FRCC 1). 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area considered for this level of analysis includes adjacent land ownerships, national forests 

in Arizona, and the SMUs that cover the forests (Little Colorado River Airshed, Lower Salt River 

Airshed, and Upper Gila Airshed). Through CWPPs, there has been an emphasis to treat not only 

NFS lands but also private and State lands within the WUI. Communities are working to reduce 

the risk of wildfire to and from private lands by emphasizing community fire and fuels reduction 

programs. These efforts identified in all alternatives, in combination with treatments on adjacent 

Federal land, help to further reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires to communities and the 

national forests.

Numerous national forests within Arizona are revising their land management plans. These plans 

would emphasis vegetation treatments that would improve FRCC. Neighboring tribal, State, and 

BLM lands are also conducting vegetation treatments. These efforts, in combination with ApacheSitgreaves NFs’ treatments in all alternatives, would contribute to landscape restoration, overall 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

improvement in FRCC, the return of wildfire to a more natural role, and a reduction in 

uncharacteristic wildfire across the broader landscape.

Neighboring land managers (e.g., tribes, Bureau of Land Management, Coconino and Tonto NFs) 

are also implementing projects that produce emissions (i.e., smoke). Considering these projects, 

wildland fire activities on the forests identified in all alternatives, and climatologic conditions, 

there may be additional impacts to air quality, visibility, and human health. Effects from multiple 

sources can affect the three SMUs that encompass the forests. Agencies within Arizona fall under 

the purview of the ADEQ air quality division and the State implementation plan; however, tribes 

cooperate with the ADEQ on a voluntary basis. ADEQ coordinates its issuance of burn permits 

among all the resource agencies to minimize the potential effects, including impacts to air quality 

and public safety, of numerous agencies prescribed fires concurrently.

Wildlife and Rare Plants

This section describes the affected environment for wildlife and rare plants. It also evaluates and 

discloses the potential environmental consequences on wildlife and plants of implementing four 

plan alternatives. As used in this section, “wildlife” is inclusive of all terrestrial and aquatic 

animal species (including invertebrates) and plants (including lichen, mosses, and fungi). For 

species of wildlife that are fish, see the “Fisheries” section. For this wildlife analysis, habitat is 

characterized as potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) and also as “habitat elements” that 

occur within or across PNVTs (e.g., snags). Other factors of concern for wildlife are also 

considered. Before the affected environment and environmental consequences are covered, the 

analysis process and legal direction for wildlife and plants is discussed.

Wildlife species viability is addressed in fulfillment of National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

direction (provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule). NFMA regulations direct that habitat be 

managed to maintain viable populations of native and desirable nonnative vertebrates within the 

planning area. A species is considered viable if the following conditions are met: (1) habitat is 

well distributed relative to reference conditions (see the “Terminology” section at the beginning 

of chapter 3), (2) the species occupies a substantial portion of its habitat where that habitat occurs 

across the planning area, and (3) management will maintain or restore (move) the habitat toward 

reference conditions. Plan direction for the maintenance or movement toward desired ecological 

conditions (see the “Purpose and Need for Change” section in chapter 1) is, for the most part, 

maintenance or movement toward reference conditions important for species viability (see the 

following wildlife analysis assumptions). These species-habitat relationships are evaluated in 

terms of viability effectiveness. For the analysis, how well each alternative addresses viability 

effectiveness is tallied by PNVT and by categories of species (e.g., sensitive species). 

NFMA regulations also direct the identification of management indicator species (MIS) to assess 

how plan alternatives may affect wildlife populations (1982 Planning Rule section 219.19 (a)(1)) 

and as a monitoring tool upon plan implementation (219.19(a)(6)). Forest Service Manual

2620.5-2 direction allows identification of ecological indicators (EIs) such as plant communities 

that contribute substantially to species viability. Three MIS species and two EIs are identified and 

discussed in this section. Chapter 5 of the proposed plan includes monitoring for MIS and EIs. 

In addition to the NFMA assessment of viability, other laws, regulations, and executive orders 

provide specific requirements and direction for the analysis of (1) Endangered Species Act

species (ESA), (2) Regional Forester designated sensitive species (sensitive), (3) eagles, and (4) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 233

migratory birds. Most of these species are also discussed under the viability analysis. For ESA 

species, a biological assessment is prepared for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). Per Forest Service Manual direction, a biological evaluation is prepared for 

sensitive species. Executive Order 13186 requires the Agency to consider migratory birds in the 

planning process with an emphasis on species of concern and priority habitats. A separate report 

(Forest Service, 2014y) is prepared that addresses migratory birds of concern, bald and golden 

eagles, and important bird areas. All wildlife specialist reports are available in the “Plan Set of 

Documents” and their findings are included in this section.

Habitat security and connectivity, the amount of wildlife quiet areas, and the needs of far ranging 

species and their influence across large landscapes (i.e., highly interactive species) were concerns 

raised by the public during scoping (see the “Alternative Development” section in chapter 2). To 

address this issue, the revised plan would include wildlife habitat areas (i.e., wildlife quiet areas). 

Wildlife quiet areas together would compose a management area, also helping to contribute to 

species viability. The analysis examines (1) the number and acreage of management areas best 

providing for wildlife habitat security and connectivity and (2) the average distance between 

these management areas.

Diversity and Forest Planning Species

In anticipation of forest plan revision, a review of the diversity of wildlife on the forests was 

conducted beginning in 2007. Initially, over 2,000 species of wildlife were screened using a 

collaborative approach to identify which ones may be present or have suitable habitat in the 

planning area. Biologists from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and other plan revision forests, 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), The Nature Conservancy, universities, species 

specialists, and individuals or groups with wildlife interests assisted in this effort. 

Based on a series of species status reviews, an evaluation was made to determine whether there 

may be risks to each species’ viability because habitat conditions are departed from reference 

conditions and/or because of species’ vulnerability to impacts from forest management or 

activities. Those species with risk are identified as forest planning species (FPS). Risks to 

viability were then considered in the development of plan direction and/or components. A few 

common species with limited risk (highly interactive species) are also identified as FPS. In total, 

there are 109 FPS, consisting of 14 fish and 95 non-fish species. Documentation of the FPS 

process is found in the “Iterative Update to Species Considered and Identification of Forest 

Planning Species Report” (Forest Service, 2012b). See the “Fisheries” section for analysis of the 

14 FPS that are fish.

Provision for Species Viability

Historically, species persisted (were viable) having adapted to the risks associated with normal 

ecosystem functions (e.g., fire, drought) and the habitat conditions that resulted. Risk to species 

viability is also a result of human influences. Regardless of source, risks at some level can begin 

to threaten species viability; hence, in a general manner, risk and viability are inversely related.

To help ensure that the viability needs of species are addressed in the development of plan 

alternatives, possible risks from forest management and activities are identified. Goals or desired 

conditions that support native plant and animal diversity and viability are also identified; these 

goals are known as desired conditions. Desired conditions are reflective of reference conditions 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

which historically supported these species (see assumptions below). This step in planning for 

viability is the coarse filter which also takes into account desired conditions for vegetation, soils, 

watershed, water, and aquatic/riparian resources, which contribute to habitat conditions that 

support species viability.

Another step in planning for viability is the fine filter, which is added where desired conditions 

do not fully address the habitat needs of species. Here, other plan components (i.e., standards and 

guidelines), are identified to address the fine filter habitat element needs of species (e.g., wet or 

shaded habitat areas). Standards and guidelines are also identified, as needed, for situations where 

there are other factors of concern (risks) related to activities (e.g., collection) or indirectly related 

to habitat (e.g., predation). 

Because of the programmatic nature of forest planning, site specific measures for projects and 

activities may still be needed to address short-term implementation impacts and provide for 

species needs. These impacts are often a result of treatment methods (e.g., thinning, wildland fire) 

or timing of management activities. See the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest 

Service, 2014bb) for more information.

Species Viability

The wildlife analysis characterizes risk from forest management and forest activities and the 

viability effectiveness of the alternatives. The determination of environmental consequences for 

95 species, numerous habitat elements, and 4 plan alternatives is extremely complex. As such, the 

wildlife analysis relies heavily on an approach that categorizes or groups species and habitats. 

The general analysis process is described below, for more detail see appendix B.

F ranking variable: The existing condition of each FPS is expressed in terms of the species’ 

abundance and distribution on the planning unit. This variable is called a forest or F ranking 

(table 63). Note that rare species are most often associated with rare habitats which would not 

become common with management.

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

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)

F4 b/ 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 235

Abundance and distribution of habitat: Abundant and well-distributed habitat provides for the 

continued persistence of a species. Habitat abundance (i.e., the quantity (acres) of habitat 

provided by a PNVT), generally changes little; however, in some cases the amount of suitable 

(i.e., quality) habitat acres can change such as when grassland becomes wooded or when 

uncharacteristic high severity fire or stand replacing wildfire completely removes the entire forest 

overstory. Habitat distribution, expressed in terms of the mix of vegetation states within a PNVT, 

can change with management, which is often the purpose of treatments. 

Values for the future habitat abundance and distribution are estimated for the 15-year planning

period with consideration of trend to 50 years. This is done for each PNVT and each habitat 

element by alternative. The values are based on different alternative treatment objectives along 

with treatment method (thin or wildland fire) and specific prescriptions. For more information, 

see the “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014t), “Forest Products Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2014i), and the “Forest Health Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2014h).

Likelihood of limitation variable: Habitat abundance and distribution values are combined to 

indicate the likelihood that a PNVT or habitat element would limit future populations of 

associated species based on management and activity implementation. In general, habitats that are 

poorly distributed or rare are most likely to have risk for associated species viability; while 

common or well-distributed habitats are least likely to have risk for their species viability. 

Species viability risk rating variable: Species and habitats are linked by combining the species 

F ranking variable and the likelihood of limitation of associated PNVTs and habitat elements. 

Each species-habitat relationship is expressed as a viability risk rating by alternative. 

The viability risk rating is determined for the 15-year planning period with consideration of trend 

to 50 years. Within their given habitat, widespread and abundant species generally have less risk 

and are more likely to persist, as compared to rare species with small populations. Viability risk 

ratings are described in table 64.

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

Likelihood of

Habitat Limitation ranking FPS F ranking

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 considered no more substantial than normal ecosystem fluctuations.

Viability risk ratings of low and moderate are not considered substantial enough to threaten 

species viability (see assumptions). The three risk ratings of moderately high, high, and very high 

indicate further consideration of species needs is necessary (see the following coarse filter and 

fine filter discussion). The number of viability risk ratings in these three ratings is tallied for each 

species-habitat relationship. This facilitates comparison of alternatives by how effectively each 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

addresses species viability. These are also tallied for three categories of species: ESA, sensitive, 

and the remaining FPS (except MIS). 

Management effect variable: This variable categorizes the relative expected outcome of 

management and activities in terms of minimizing species viability risk. Management effect, by 

alternative, is determined for each PNVT and habitat element. It is based on how well plan 

objectives maintain or move habitat toward (i.e., reduce departure from) desired conditions as a 

result of alternative treatment objectives. Management effect is determined for the 15-year 

planning period. Movement toward desired conditions reflects desired changes in the mix of 

vegetation states to provide suitable habitat. Management effect ratings are described in table 65.

Management effect rating outcomes (the numbers of management effect categories across PNVTs 

and habitat elements) are tallied in order to compare how effectively each alternative addresses 

species viability. The numbers are also tallied for three categories of species: ESA, sensitive, and 

the remaining FPS (except MIS). 

Table 65. Description of relative management effect rating for alternatives

Rating Management Effect Outcomes Based on Alternative Objectives

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). 

Environmental consequences: 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. Appendix B provides more 

information on the analysis process. Details and results of the analysis can be found in the 

“Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2014bb).

Species Viability Assumptions

Assumptions for the wildlife analysis include the following:

• If a species is associated with a particular habitat, then the quality and quantity of habitat 

elements available to the species help to predict its distribution and abundance within that 

habitat.

• Habitat abundance and distribution similar to that which supported associated species 

during conditions as a consequence of evolutionary time, will likely contribute to their 

maintenance in the future (Haufler, 1999). Therefore, habitat abundance and distribution 

similar to reference condition will likely contribute to associated species maintenance in 

the future. 

• Desired conditions are synonymous with reference conditions with the exception of three 

PNVTs where desired conditions were adjusted from reference conditions as follows: In 

the dry mixed conifer and Madrean pine-oak woodland PNVTs, vegetation states to 

reflect needed habitat conditions for the threatened Mexican spotted owl (e.g., closed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 237

canopies) are included in desired conditions. In ponderosa pine, vegetation states to 

reflect needed habitat conditions for the sensitive northern goshawk (e.g., large trees) are 

included in desired conditions. 

• In general, the further a habitat is departed from desired conditions (i.e., from reference 

or reference adjusted conditions), the greater the risk to viability of associated species and 

the less the alternative’s viability effectiveness. Conversely, the closer a habitat is to 

desired conditions, the lower the risk to viability of associated species and the greater the 

alternative’s viability effectiveness. 

• Low to moderate ratings of species viability risk are considered no more substantial than 

normal ecosystem fluctuations and within a species’ ability to adjust and, therefore, pose

no risk to viability. Hence, only moderately high, high, and very high viability risk 

ratings are used to develop further plan components to assure viability and used to 

compare alternatives.

• The evaluation of environmental consequences to species viability is framed as a risk 

assessment in terms of alternative viability effectiveness. However, there is a level of 

uncertainty about the projected effects of forest management and activities on species 

viability because of gaps in knowledge about the complex interaction between species 

and their habitats (Holthausen, 2002). Because of this uncertainty and impacts outside of 

Forest Service control, monitoring, as identified in chapter 5 of the proposed plan, will 

take place, thereby facilitating adaptive management and changes, as needed, to support 

ongoing species viability.

• Acreage of each PNVT is static because it is based on geology, soils, and climate. 

However, the acreage of states within a PNVT varies due to disturbance and management 

(Forest Service, 2014t). As such, PNVT states (i.e., habitat conditions that are most 

suitable for a particular FPS) vary among alternatives. 

Affected Environment

Wildlife and Rare Plants

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs provide some of the most diverse habitats on national forests in the 

Southwestern Region. These habitats span almost 8,000 feet in elevation, ranging from semidesert grasslands at about 3,500 feet to spruce-fir forests at about 11,400 feet. A large portion of 

the forests is ponderosa pine (part of the largest, contiguous ponderosa pine forest in the world); 

yet, the forests also contain much of the acreage in unique habitats of the Southwestern Region. 

These habitats include montane and subalpine grasslands, extensive wetlands (including bogs and 

fens), and the headwaters of major river systems in Arizona (Blue, Black, San Francisco, and 

Little Colorado). The forests encompass over 2,000 miles of rivers and perennial streams and 

more than 30 lakes and reservoirs. Both extensive and unique habitats support species ranging 

from one of the largest elk herds in Arizona to rare species like the Three Forks springsnail which 

only occurs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. These diverse habitats and the wildlife they support 

help draw upward of 2 million visitors to the forests annually.

The following sections detail the affected environment or existing condition of wildlife and rare 

plants and their habitats.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Habitat 

The following sections describe habitat at two levels: (1) the PNVT(s) or the coarse filter for 

meeting species needs and viability and (2) the habitat element(s) (e.g., wet meadows or large 

snags) or the fine filter for further assuring species viability. Viability needs of species associated 

with the coarse filter PNVT are generally met by providing PNVT desired conditions or 

movement toward them, while standards and guidelines help meet the viability needs of species 

associated with fine filter habitat elements. 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 the coarse filter 

desired conditions of PNVTs.

PNVTs and Habitat Elements for Forest Planning Species 

Table 66 lists wildlife habitat provided by PNVTs and habitat elements, along with associated 

FPS. Note that not all of the PNVTs are listed. Two PNVTs are not departed from their reference 

conditions (interior chaparral and piñon-juniper woodland) and they have no associated species 

with viability concerns. Because of the diversity of riparian habitats and species, riparian habitat 

needs are primarily addressed at the fine filter level. These riparian habitat elements are also 

shown in the table with associated FPS. 

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

viability, showing associated forest planning species

PNVTs (coarse filter)

Habitat Elements (fine filter) Associated Forest Planning Species (FPS)

Forested PNVTs (4)

Ponderosa Pine Forest (PPF) Arizona myotis bat, Abert’s squirrel, northern goshawk,

zone-tailed hawk, Grace’s warbler, flammulated owl,

Mexican spotted owl (where Gambel oak occurs)

Sometimes shaded or often wet meadow or

forest opening

Mogollon vole, Merriam’s shrew, four-spotted skipperling

butterfly, Arizona sneezeweed, Mogollon clover, Oak Creek

triteleia

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest (DMCF) Arizona myotis bat, red squirrel, northern goshawk,

flammulated owl, Mexican spotted owl

Cool understory microclimate Goodding’s onion

Dense, low-mid canopy with ample ground 

vegetation/litter and/or woody debris

black bear, red-faced warbler

Sometimes shaded or often wet meadow or

forest opening

Merriam’s shrew

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest (WMCF) red squirrel, black bear, northern goshawk, red-faced

warbler, Mexican spotted owl, White Mountains paintbrusha

, 

yellow lady’s slipper, wood nymph, heathleaf ragwort,

yellow Jacob’s-ladder, hooded lady’s tresses

Dense, low-mid canopy with ample ground 

vegetation/litter and/or woody debris

White Mountains chipmunk, Swainson’s thrush, southern 

red-backed vole, dusky blue grouse
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 239

PNVTs (coarse filter)

Habitat Elements (fine filter) Associated Forest Planning Species (FPS)

Spruce-Fir Forest (SFF) red squirrel, black bear, Mexican spotted owl, crenulate 

moonwort, White Mountains paintbrusha

, yellow lady’s 

slipper, wood nymph, heathleaf ragwort, yellow Jacob’sladder, hooded lady’s tresses

Dense, low-mid canopy with ample ground 

vegetation/litter and/or woody debris

White Mountains chipmunk, Swainson’s thrush, southern 

red-backed vole, dusky blue grouse

Woodland PNVT (1)

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland (MPOW) mule deer (winter), juniper titmouse, Mexican spotted owl 

(often in association with canyons), gray vireo, Bigelow’s 

onion 

Cool understory microclimate Mexican hemlock parsley

Mosaic of conditionsc Greene milkweed

Grassland PNVTs (3)

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (MSG) pronghorn antelope, Gunnison’s prairie dog, dwarf shrew, 

savannah sparrow, splachnoid dung moss

Seasonally wetted swales Ferris’ copper butterfly, Alberta arctic butterfly, nitocris 

fritillary butterfly, nokomis fritillary butterfly

Mosaic of conditionsc long-tailed vole, dwarf shrew, White Mountains ground 

squirrel

Great Basin Grassland (GBG) pronghorn antelope, Gunnison’s prairie dog, Arizona 

sunflower

Seasonally wetted swales Parish alkali grass (alkali soils only)

Mosaic of conditions3 Springerville pocket mouse, White Mountains ground 

squirrel, western burrowing owl, Montezuma’s quail, Greene 

milkweed

Semi-Desert Grassland (SDG) Bigelow’s onion, Arizona sunflower, superb penstemon

Mosaic of conditions3 lesser long-nosed bat, Montezuma’s quail, plateau giant tiger 

beetle

Across All PNVTs

Canyon slopes/cliffs, caves, rocky slopes 

(often in vicinityof riparian areas, often cool 

microclimate)

Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, greater western 

mastiff bat, Allen’s big-eared bat, peregrine falcon, 

Eastwood alumrootb

, Arizona alumrootb, Davidson’s cliff 

carrot (primarily within PPF, MPOW)

Habitat connectivity Mexican wolf, jaguar, mountain lion, black bear 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

PNVTs (coarse filter)

Habitat Elements (fine filter) Associated Forest Planning Species (FPS)

Riparian PNVTs (4)

d

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian 

Forest (MBDRF), Cottonwood-Willow

Riparian Forest (CWRF), Montane Willow

Riparian Forest (MWRF), Wetland/Cienega

Riparian Areas (WCRA)

High water quality—all Riparian PNVTs water shrew, bald eagle, Arizona toad, Chiricahua leopard

frog, northern leopard frog, lowland leopard frog, northern 

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

Healthy riparian conditions (i.e., well 

vegetated and untrampled streambanks and

floodplains—all Riparian PNVTs (unless

otherwise specified)

Arizona montane vole, water shrew, New Mexico meadow

jumping mouse, southwestern willow flycatcher, peregrine

falcon, Lincoln’s sparrow (MWRF), Mexican spotted owl,

northern Mexican gartersnake (below Mogollon Rim),

narrow-headed gartersnake (above Mogollon Rim),

Blumer’s dock, Arizona willow (MWRF only), Bebb willow

Large trees, snags and/or dense canopies—

MBDRF (unless otherwise specfied)

beaver (all riparian forests), greater western mastiff bat,

Allen’s big-eared bat, Arizona gray squirrel, common blackhawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle (all riparian forests), 

Mexican spotted owl (all riparian forested PNVTs), evening 

grosbeak (all riparian forests)

Dense low-mid canopy with ample ground

litter—MBDRF

western red bat, ocelot, southwestern willow flycatcher

(MWRF), MacGillvray’s warbler (all riparian forested

PNVTs), gray catbird (all riparian forests), black bear

Permanent wet meadow-like areas—WCRA Ferris’ copper butterfly, nitocris fritillary butterfly, nokomis

fritillary butterfly

a White Mountains paintbrush classified as either Castilleja mogollonica or C. sulpure

b Eastwood alumroot also known as Senator mine alum root and Arizona alumroot also known as Chiricahua Mountain 

alumroot.

c Mosaic of conditions indicates these species need adjacent untreated areas for persistence within the PNVT.

d Because of the great diversity of conditions in the riparian PNVTs, some important fine filter habitat elements are 

identified beyond desired conditions. Note that fish are addressed in the prior “Fisheries” section.

The amount and current condition of coarse filter PNVTs providing habitat are described in 

affected environment of the “Vegetation” section. Although FPS associated with a particular 

PNVT do not typically use every acre of the PNVT, the total PNVT acreage is considered suitable 

habitat and potentially occupied for this analysis unless otherwise noted. The amount and current 

condition of fine filter habitat elements is not available on a forestwide basis (it is normally 

determined on a project-level basis). However, table 67 provides a general description of existing 

condition for each habitat element and its associated risks to viability. This is based, in part, on 

information in the “Riparian Specialist Report” and “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 241

Service, 2014q and 2014t). Even where some habitat element locations are not currently used by 

FPS, all are considered suitable habitat that is potentially occupied unless otherwise noted. 

Table 67. Description of fine filter habitat elements and risks

Fine Filter Habitat 

Elementsa Description of General Existing Condition and Risks

Sometimes shaded or often 

wet meadow or forest

opening (PPF, DMCF, and 

WMCF)

Mostly small areas (one-quarter acre, sometimes more or less) within forest and

woodland PNVTs with no trees that are dominated by herbaceous vegetation,

often with cool seasonb

/ herbaceous forage due to moister soil conditions or

shading from adjacent trees.

High to moderate intensity fire and extensive thinning can dry and warm these 

areas. Concentrated livestock use can change herbaceous vegetation structure and

composition (shifts to warm season and lower seral state vegetation and introduce

nonnative invasive plants), decrease ground cover, cause soil compaction, and

increase erosion. These risks are most likely on lower elevation, yearlong

allotments which comprise about 797,000 acres on the forests.

Cool understory

microclimate (DMCF,

MPOW)

Not openings among trees but rather cool, moist areas under dense trees with high 

canopy closure, where summer temperatures and high winds are mitigated.

High to moderate intensity fire and extensive thinning can dry and warm these

areas, changing herbaceous vegetation structure and composition. The Wallow

Fire resulted in the complete loss of forest canopy on over 50,000 acres within 

these two PNVTs

c with the associated loss of this habitat element.

Dense, low-mid canopy

with ample ground litter or 

woody debris (DMCF,

WMCF, SFF, and

MBDRF) 

Dense low and/or mid canopies provide foraging and nesting habitat, necessary

hiding and travel cover, and help limit detection by predators. Ample ground 

cover and woody debris provide habitat structure (e.g., cover) and associated

forage plants. These areas increase habitat effectiveness (carrying capacity)

because more individuals of certain FPS can persist in locations where cover is

denser.

High to moderate intensity fire and extensive thinning can degrade hiding and

travel cover. The Wallow Fire resulted in the complete loss of forest canopy on 

almost 106,000 acres

c within these four PNVTs with the associated loss of this

habitat element.

Seasonally wetted swales

(MSG and GBG)

Low areas with greater seasonal moisture inflow or wetted from below; these can

be small or, in the MSG, extensive in size (40 acres or more). They provide 

denser, often more diverse, and often cool seasonb/

herbaceous forage.

High to moderate intensity fire and extensive thinning can dry and warm these 

areas. Concentrated livestock use can change herbaceous vegetation structure and

composition (shifts to warm season and lower seral state vegetation and introduce

nonnative invasive plants), decrease ground cover, cause soil compaction, and 

increase erosion. These risks are most likely on lower elevation, yearlong

allotments which comprise about 797,000 acres on the forests and on seasonal

allotments with May and June livestock use every year about 514,000 acres on the 

forests.

Canyon slopes, 

cliffs/caves, rocky slopes—

often in vicinity of riparian 

areas or often providing 

cool micro-climate 

conditions due to aspect 

(across all PNVTs)

All are found across the forests (roughly 18 percent of the acreage on the forests is 

over 40 percent slope with most of that on the Apache side of the forests). 

Although typically limited in such areas, fire which burns hotter on steep slopes 

can impact plants, while human activity can disturb foraging or roosting bats and 

nesting birds.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Fine Filter Habitat 

Elementsa Description of General Existing Condition and Risks

High water quality (all 

Riparian PNVTs)

All associated aquatic and semiaquatic species.

All are susceptible to degradation of water quality and sedimentation from 

management and activities. Sediment can smother invertebrates, smother prey 

eggs and larvae, clog invertebrate prey habitat, and reduce oxygen needed by fish 

prey species. There are over 2,000 miles of riparian corridors (both perennial and 

intermittent) including many of the State’s headwater streams, all of which have 

experienced channel changes and sedimentation impacts over time. However, 

management and activity impacts have been reduced or removed resulting in 

improved water quality in numerous locations over the last decade.

Healthy riparian 

conditions, (e.g., well 

vegetated and untrampled 

streambanks and 

floodplains)—all Riparian 

PNVTs (unless otherwise 

specified)

Dense, untrampled herbaceous vegetation and uncompacted stream or drainage 

banks and floodplains provide habitat structure and forage, as well as hunting 

cover and nesting sites. These conditions allow for vigorous, successfully 

reproducing plants that protect banks and floodplains.

Wildfire and all but low intensity prescribed fire can reduce plant and woody 

debris cover and lead to sedimentation. Thinning and all ungulate use can trample 

or remove vegetation and lead to soil compaction and erosion. Many riparian 

locations have reduced ground cover, damaged banks, and compositional shift to 

lower seral state vegetation (see the following Riparian ecological indicator 

section for more information.

Large trees and/or dense

canopies (MBDRF, 

CWRF, and MWRF)

Provides roosting, nesting, hiding, and foraging habitat for FPS or their prey. 

Although generally limited in riparian areas, all but low intensity fire can easily 

weaken or kill woody riparian vegetation (flooding is its primary ecological 

disturbance). Livestock and wild ungulate use, especially during spring and early 

summer, have impacted the successful regeneration of woody species in numerous 

locations. In total, there are over 48,000 acres of riparian habitat on the forests.

Large snagsd (MBDRF and 

CWRF) 

Provide nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat.

Although generally limited in riparian areas, all but low intensity fire can weaken 

or topple large snags. The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire burned many snags in 

CWRF. Overall, burn out operations along the Blue River for the 2011 Wallow 

Fire had limited impact on large snags in MBDRF. The number of large snags is 

not available for these PNVTs.

Permanent wet meadowlike areas (WCRA)Moist ground surface and vegetation along with flowers provide egg laying and 

foraging habitat for FPS invertebrates and foraging and hiding cover for small 

FPS mammals.

High to moderate intensity fire and concentrated livestock use can dry these areas 

out, changing herbaceous vegetation structure and composition (shifts to warm 

seasonb and lower seral state vegetation), decrease ground cover, cause soil 

compaction, and lower the water table. The majority of these areas occur at higher 

elevations (>7,500 feet) and there are over 20,000 acres in this PNVT. These risks 

are most likely in locations where livestock grazing use occurs every year during 

May and June (about 564,000 acres on the forests).

a Parentheses ( ) indicates the PNVT where a habitat element most commonly falls within.

b Because a greater percentage of moisture falls during the summer period in the Southwest, most herbaceous plant 

species do the majority of their growth during the warm summer months (warm season growing plants) and forage is 

typically abundant during this period unless droughty; however, fewer plants do the majority of their growth during the 

spring to early summer (May and June) period (cool season growing plants) based on winter moisture so there is 

limited herbaceous forage during the period before summer rains and, additionally, most cool season plants are found 

in riparian areas where foraging is often concentrated during spring and early summer.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 243

c Acreage with tree basal area (BA) loss of 75 to 100 percent which reflects complete (100 percent) loss of all trees 

based on the 7/18/11 RVAG mapping provided by USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center. 

d While desired conditions for forested and woodland PNVTs address needed snags at the coarse filter, the riparian 

desired conditions do not. 

Habitat Ecological Indicators (EIs)

Ecological indicators (EIs) are selected to estimate the effects of each alternative upon biological 

diversity. They provide an indirect way to estimate how forest management and activities 

influence species associated with important habitats. The “Report on the Selection of 

Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicators” (Forest Service, 2012d) documents the 

indicator selection process.

Aspen and riparian are two vegetation communities that are important to the viability of many 

species. They were selected as EIs according to direction in Forest Service Manual 2621.1. 

Existing condition for these two EIs follow.

Aspen EI 

Aspen occurs primarily within the forested PNVTs. Aspen stands provide a wide range of habitat 

for wildlife, including migratory birds. Aspen leaves provide forage in summer and the bark 

provides winter forage. Aspen stands can have twice the density and diversity of insects as 

compared to pure conifer stands, supporting many species of wildlife (Simard et al., 2001). Aspen 

stands also provide preferred cavity nesting sites for a large number of birds (Martin et al., 2004). 

Given the regeneration of existing aspen and anticipated new appearances of aspen (via seeding) 

after the Wallow Fire, this EI is expected to play a major role in the viability of many species 

during the life of the land management plan (see the affected environment of the “Vegetation” and 

“Forest Health” sections for more information).

Prior to the 2011 Wallow Fire, trend for this habitat community was static to down due to conifer 

encroachment and browsing. Aspen have been observed to be root-sprouting prolifically after the 

fire; therefore, it could be inferred that the trend is now up. Table 68 depicts the amount of aspen 

habitat as of 2012, after the Wallow Fire. However, while aspen acreage across forested PNVTs is 

expected to increase, the extent of that is unknown, as is aspen’s ability to persist over time given 

domestic and wild herbivory, and impacts from removal of hazard and salvaged trees.

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

Ponderosa

Pine

Wet Mixed 

Conifer Dry Mixed Conifer Spruce-Fir Total

Total Acreage of Forested PNVTs Containing Aspen

602,206 acres 177,995 acres 147,885 acres 17,667 acres 945,753 acres

Amount of Aspen within each Forested PNVT

5,988 acres

1.0%

50,355 acres

28.3%

14,232 acres

9.7%

5,875 acres

33.3%

76,506 acres

8.1%

Desired conditions for forest types containing aspen are the coarse filter for assessing associated 

FPS viability. In addition, aspen EI monitoring, upon plan implementation, would determine the 

response to and persistence of aspen over time to recent large fires, subsequent ungulate use, tree 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

removal, and any climate change. Monitoring (proposed plan chapter 5) would inform adaptive 

management and any need for change. 

Riparian EI 

The cottonwood-willow riparian forest PNVT (CWRF) and the montane willow riparian forest

PNVT (MWRF) represent a substantial portion of the riparian forests across the Southwestern 

Region (up to 78 percent of the regional acreage for the latter). The CWRF is the largest riparian 

PNVT on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, and the MWRF is the smallest but particularly subject to 

impacts (e.g., browsing, trampling). These three riparian forested PNVTs are together considered 

the riparian ecological indicator for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs29. 

The 2005 and 2006 midscale vegetation inventory determined the existing condition of riparian 

overstory vegetation relative to reference condition. Overall, existing conditions reflect low 

departure from reference or desired condition in terms of riparian canopy composition and 

structure. However, based on some historic photographs from the first half of the 20th century 

(Forest Service, 2010e), it appears that the extent of woody riparian vegetation has been 

substantially reduced in some areas. 

Reference conditions in riparian understories are not as well understood. However, monitoring 

across the forests over the last decade has found that riparian area soils and herbaceous vegetation 

(e.g., grasses, forbs) and deciduous trees and shrubs (e.g., cottonwoods, willows) receive far 

greater impacts from browsing ungulates (domestic and wild) than the uplands. This is especially 

true where ungulates are present during the winter and spring periods when there is little other 

forage that provides adequate nutrition. Road and recreation activities also contribute to existing 

conditions (e.g., sedimentation, trampling). 

Proper functioning condition (PFC) riparian surveys to determine how well riparian processes are 

functioning (e.g., vegetation bank cover and stability, woody debris) have been conducted across 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Based on PFC riparian surveys conducted in the last 15 years, many 

riparian areas were not at proper functioning condition prior to the Wallow Fire. The majority of 

stream segments on 9 of 12 streams in the Little Colorado River watersheds were not in proper 

functioning condition; the majority of stream segments on all streams in the San Francisco, Black 

River, and Eagle Creek watersheds were not in proper functioning condition; and the majority of 

stream segments on 6 of 7 streams in other watersheds were also not in proper functioning 

condition. However, in the last 15 years, a number of riparian drainages have been excluded from 

primarily livestock impacts and are in the process of recovering.

The 2011 Wallow Fire impacted riparian forested PNVTs, but overall, not substantially. Of the 

15,876 acres in CWRF, only 1.5 percent received moderate to high severity burn. Of the 

4,808 acres in MWRF, just fewer than 14 percent burned at these levels. However, the long-term 

indirect impact from heavy post-fire flooding has not been assessed. Since woody riparian species

in these PNVTs typically resprout, PNVT acreage is not considered reduced by the Wallow Fire 

for this analysis, although succession is set back to earlier seral states in burn areas.

 29The other two riparian PNVTs, wetland/cienega riparian area and mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forest, were not 

included in the riparian ecological indicator. The former is typically already monitored since its a critical area for 

livestock grazing, so there is no need to also monitor it as an ecological indicator. The latter occurs along larger streams 

and rivers within large watersheds with multiple impacts making it difficult to assess the effects of any given forest 

management action. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 245

Table 69 describes current understory (herbaceous and soil) conditions taken from the “Riparian 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014q) and “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2014t) and reflects post-Wallow Fire conditions.

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

Riparian EI by 

PNVT

Decline in 

Ground Cover 

from Potential

Decline in 

Herbaceous 

Production 

from Potential

Ecological 

Condition

Current Trend 

Relative to Desired 

Conditions for 

Understory 

Vegetation/

Soils

Cottonwoodwillow riparian 

forest

11–46% 56% low–

moderate

away/away

Montane willow 

riparian forest

up to 20% 91% low–

moderate

away/away

Because of the normal sensitivity of riparian habitat and major watershed adjustments (movement 

of soil, reestablishment of vegetation) after the Wallow Fire, ongoing species viability is an 

important consideration in riparian areas. Riparian EI monitoring, upon plan implementation, 

would determine the response of especially understory components (e.g., young trees, stream

banks) to management and activities. Monitoring (proposed plan chapter 5) would inform 

adaptive management and any need for change.

Other Factors of Viability Concern

Other factors of viability concerns raised by biologists and others, some related indirectly to 

habitat, include factors such as disease, harassment, and entrapment. These are generally 

addressed by fine filter guidelines. Table 70 lists these factors and affected FPS.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

Other Factors of Concern (fine filter) Forest Planning Species (FPS)

Collection or loss from management nitocris fritillary butterfly, nokomis fritillary butterfly, yellow 

lady’s slipper, hooded lady’s tresses

Nest parasitism southwestern willow flycatcher, Grace’s warbler

Disease Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, western red bat, 

Arizona toad, Chiricahua leopard frog, northern leopard frog, 

lowland leopard frog

Entrapment FPS that are small mammals, bats, and young of other species

Substantial predation or competition from 

invasive species

pronghorn antelope, Three Forks springsnail

Intentional harassment, forced removal, or 

avoidable disturbance

Mexican wolf, Gunnison’s prairie dog, black bear, many FPS 

(at least during important life cycle periods)

Some species collection activities are under special use permit on the forests; however, collection 

is likely much greater than known. The density of forest roads currently impacts habitat 

connectivity and can contribute to harassment or disturbance. The level of nest parasitism and 

extent of disease is unknown. However, inventory and non-mechanized work in riparian areas 

generally incorporates USFWS aquatic disease decontamination protocol. A deadly fungus (white 

nose syndrome) in bats can be spread by human presence in caves; the disease is not yet known in 

Arizona. Wildlife entrapment is not uncommon in water troughs and occasionally fences. 

Currently some troughs have escape ramps but most do not and some fences meet wildlife needs 

for passage while others do not. The springsnail has been greatly impacted by the proliferation of 

crayfish over the last decade. Efforts to remove crayfish have had mixed results because, while 

numbers of adults are reduced, numbers of young are not. 

Forest Planning Species

The 95 non-fish forest planning species (FPS) comprise 8 ESA species, 53 Regional Forester 

sensitive species, and 34 other species. The latter 34 species hold no special regulatory status 

except as addressed for viability under NFMA. Public scoping identified six FPS (mammals) as 

highly interactive (HI) species for which there are landscape level concerns relative to habitat 

security and connectivity (one highly interactive species is an ESA and another is a sensitive 

species, while four are other species). Fish that are FPS are addressed in the prior “Fisheries” 

section. 

Table 71 characterizes the existing condition of FPS in terms of their abundance and distribution 

(F ranking), along with associated PNVTs and habitat elements. It also lists their status as of 

2012. Note that a species can have more than one status, and status can change over time. FPS are 

grouped as follows: 30 mammals, 22 birds, 6 reptiles/amphibians, 12 invertebrates, and 25 plants. 

FPS that are also ESA, sensitive, and highly interactive (HI) are further discussed after the table.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 247

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

FPS by Species Group Statusa F Rankingb PNVT Habitat 

Elementc

Mammals (30)

pronghorn antelope Antilocapra america HI F4 GBG, MSG, substantial 

predation

Mexican wolf Canus lupus baileyi ENE, HI F1 habitat connectivity, 

intentional harassment

beaver Castor canadensis HI F4 large trees (riparian 

forested PNVTs)

southern red-backed 

vole

Clethrionomys (Myodes) 

gapperi

S F? ample litter and woody 

debris (WMCF, SFF)

Townsend’s bigeared batCorynorhinus townsendii 

pallenscens

S F? caves, disease 

Gunnison’s prairie 

dog

Cynomys gunnisoni S, HI F? GBG, MSG, intentional 

harassment

spotted bat Euderma maculatum S F1 wet meadow (PPF, 

DMCF), wet swales (MSG, 

GBG), cliffs

greater western 

mastiff bat

Eumops perotis 

californicus

S F? large trees (MBDRF), cliffs

Allen’s big-eared bat Idionycteris phyllotis S F3 large trees and snags 

(MBDRF), cliffs

western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii S F2 ample debris and litter 

(MBDRF), caves, disease

ocelot Leopardus pardalis E F? dense, low vegetation and 

cover (MBDRF)

lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae 

yerbabuenae

E F? mosaic of conditions 

(SDG)

long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus S F3 wet swales (MSG)

Arizona montane 

vole

Microtus montanus 

arizonensis

S F3 healthy riparian conditions 

(CWRF, MWRF) 

Mogollon vole Microtus mogollonensis 

mogollonensis 

S F3 wet meadow (PPF)

Arizona myotis bat Myotis occultus F3 PPF, DMCF

mule deer Odocoileus hemionus F4 MPOW, winter

jaguar Panther onca E F? habitat connectivity 

(MBDRF)

Springerville pocket 

mouse

Perognathus flavus 

goodpasteri

S F3 mosaic of conditions 

(GBG)

mountain lion Puma concolor HI F5 habitat connectivity (all 

PNVTs)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

FPS by Species Group Statusa F Rankingb PNVT Habitat 

Element

c

Abert’s squirrel Sciurus aberti F4 PPF

Arizona gray squirrel Sciurus arizonensis 

arizonensis

S F? large trees (MBDRF)

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami S F3 wet meadow (PPF, DMCF)

dwarf shrew Sorex nanus S F3 MSG

water shrew Sorex palustris navigator S F? water quality (CWRF,

MWRF), healthy riparian

conditions

(CWRF,MWRF)

White Mountains

ground squirrel

Spermophilus

tridecemlineatus

monticola

S F3 mosaic of conditions

(MSG, GBG)

White Mountains

chipmunk

(Neo)Tamias minimus

arizonensis

S F3 ample veg, woody debris

(WMCF, SFF)

red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus F4 DMCF, WMCF, SFF

black bear Ursus americanus HI F4 dense low-mid canopy,

woody debris (DMCF),

WMCF, SFF, habitat

connectivity

New Mexico

meadow jumping

mouse

Zapus hudsonius luteus E F1 healthy riparian conditions

(all riparian PNVTs)

Birds (22)

northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis S F4 PPF, DMCF, WMCF

western burrowing

owl

Athene cunicularia 

hypugaea

S F? GBG

juniper titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi F4 MPOW

zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus S F3 PPF

common black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus S F3 large trees (MBDRF) 

red-faced warbler Cardellina rubrifrons F3 dense, low vegetation and 

litter (DMCF), WMCF

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus F2 ample litter and woody

debris (WMCF, SFF)

evening grosbeak Coccothraustes

vespertinus

F3 dense canopies (riparian

forested PNVTs)

western yellowbilled cuckooCoccyzus americanus

occidentalis

pT F1 large trees, dense canopies

(forested riparian PNVTs)

Montezuma quail Cyrtonyx montezumae

mearnsi

F3 mosaic of conditions

(GBG, SDG)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 249

FPS by Species Group Statusa F Rankingb PNVT Habitat 

Elementc

dusky blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus F2 ample woody debris 

(WMCF, SFF) 

Grace’s warbler Dendroica graciae F4 PPF, nest parasitism

gray catbird Dumetella carolinensi S F3 dense low-mid canopy 

(riparian forested PNVTs)

southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus E, CH F1 dense low-mid canopy 

(MWRF), healthy riparian 

conditions (MWRF), nest 

parasitism

peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum S F3 Cliffs, healthy riparian 

conditions

bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S F2 water quality (CWRF, 

MBDRF), large trees 

(CWRF, MBDRF) 

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii F1 healthy riparian conditions 

(MWRF) 

MacGillivray’s 

warbler

Oporornis tolmiei F2 dense low-mid canopy 

(riparian forested PNVTs)

flammulated owl Otus flammeolus F3 PPF, DMCF

savannah sparrow Passerculus 

sandwichensis

F3 MSG

Mexican spotted 

owld

Strix occidentalis lucida T, CH F3 DMCF, WMCF, MPOW, 

PPF where Gambel oak

gray vireo Vireo vicinior S F2 MPOW

Amphibians/

Reptiles (6)

Arizona toad Bufo microscaphus S F3 water quality (MBDRF), 

disease

Chiricahua leopard 

frog

Lithobates chiricahuensis T, pCH F1 water quality, disease

northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens S, C F1 water quality, disease

lowland leopard frog Lithobates yavapaiensis S F3 water quality, disease

northern Mexican 

gartersnake

Thamnophis eques 

megalops

T F? water quality, healthy 

riparian conditions 

narrow-headed 

gartersnake 

Thamnophis rufipunctatus T F1 water quality, healthy 

riparian conditions 

Invertebrates (12)

plateau giant tiger 

beetle

Amblycheila picolominii F? mosaic of conditions 

(SDG)

false ameletus 

mayfly

Ameletus falsus F? water quality
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

FPS by Species Group Statusa F Rankingb PNVT Habitat 

Elementc

California floater Anodonta californiensis S F1 water quality

Mosely caddisfly Culoptila moselyi F? water quality

Ferris’ copper 

butterfly

Lycaena ferrisie S F2 wet swale (MSG), WCRA

Alberta arctic 

butterfly

Oeneis alberta daura F3 mosaic of conditions 

(MSG)

Arizona snaketail 

dragonfly

Ophiogomphus arizonicus S F? water quality 

four-spotted 

skipperling butterfly

Piruna polingii S F3 wet meadow or shaded 

opening (PPF)

White Mountains 

water penny beetle

Psephenus montanus F1 water quality

Three Forks 

springsnail

Pyrgulopsis trivialis E, CH F1 water quality, predation by 

invasives

nitocris fritillary 

butterfly

Speyeria nokomis nitocris S F3 wet swales (MSG), 

WCRA, collection

nokomis fritillary 

butterfly

Speyeria nokomis nokomis S F3 wet swales (MSG), 

WCRA, collection

Plants (25)

Bigelow’s onion Allium bigelovii F3 MPOW, SDG 

Goodding’s onion Allium gooddingii S F3 cool microclimate (DMCF) 

Greene milkweed Asclepias uncialis spp. 

uncialis 

S F? MPOW, GBG 

crenulate moonwort Botrychium crenulatum F? SFF

White Mountains 

paintbrush

Castilleja mogollonica S F2 WMCF (meadows), SFF 

(meadows) 

Mexican hemlock 

parsley

Conioselinum mexicanum F2 cool microclimate 

(MPOW)

yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium parviflorum 

var. pubescens

S F1 collection (WMCF, SFF)

Arizona sneezeweed Helenium arizonicum S F2 wet meadow (PPF) 

Arizona sunflower Helianthus arizonensis S F1 mosaic of conditions 

(GBG, SDG)

Eastwood alumroot Heuchera eastwoodiae S F1 canyon slopes

Arizona alumroot Heuchera glomerulata S F3 canyon slopes

wood nymph Moneses uniflora F3 WMCF, SFF 

heathleaf 

(bittercress) ragwort

Packera cardamine S F3 wet meadow, shaded forest 

opening, (WMCF, SFF) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 251

FPS by Species Group Statusa F Rankingb PNVT Habitat 

Elementc

superb penstemon Penstemon superbus F2 MPOW, SDG

yellow Jacob’s

ladder

Polemonium 

foliosissimum var. flavum

F2 collection (WMCF, SFF)

Davidson’s cliff 

carrot

Pteryxia davidsonii S F1 cliffs, canyon slopes

Parish alkali grass Puccinellia parishii S F1 wet alkali swales (GBG)

Blumer’s dock Rumex orthoneurus S F3 water quality, healthy 

riparian conditions

Arizona willow Salix arizonica S F1 healthy riparian conditions

Bebb willow Salix bebbiana S F3 healthy riparian conditions 

hooded lady’s tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana F2 collection (WMCF, SFF)

splachnoid dung 

moss

Tayloria splachnoides F2 MSG 

Mogollon clover Trifolium neurophyllum S F3 wet meadow, shaded forest 

opening (PPF) 

Oak Creek triteleia Triteleia lemmoniae F3 shaded forest opening 

(PPF) 

carnivorous 

bladderwort

Utricularia macrorhiza F1 water quality

a Status: T = ESA threatened; E = ESA endangered; ENE = ESA experimental, nonessential; CH = ESA critical habitat; 

p = ESA proposed; C = ESA candidate for listing under ESA; S = Southwestern Region sensitive species; HI = highly 

interactive species (see the following section).

b F ranking (existing condition relative to reference or desired conditions): F? = unknown abundance/distribution, F1 = 

extremely rare, F2 = rare, F3 = uncommon (including locally common but in rare locations), F4 = widespread, F5 = 

secure 

c Parentheses ( ) notes where a habitat element is tied to a particular PNVT, otherwise the habitat element generally 

occurs irrespective of PNVT(s). 

d Initially, the Mexican spotted owl was widespread in suitable habitat across the planning unit; the Wallow Fire 

affected habitat suitability substantially and there is uncertainty about their persistence so that their F ranking is 

adjusted to F3. Post-fire MSO surveys began in 2012.

e Currently recognized as Lycaena rubidus ferrisi.

Endangered Species Act Species and Critical Habitat 

Existing abundance and distribution (F ranking) of the 10 ESA species included as FPS is shown 

in table 71 above. Due to their status as endangered with extinction or threatened with 

endangerment (ESA section 3(6) and (20)), viability is a concern and all are ranked F1. Suitable 

ESA species habitat identified below is considered quality habitat in that it contains the 

components necessary to support successful reproduction, young rearing, and species persistence

(i.e., viability).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The amount (acreage) of habitat for each ESA species provided by their associated PNVT(s) is 

found in affected environment of the “Vegetation” section (table 23) so is not reiterated here. The 

existing condition of each PNVT (i.e., the quality of that habitat described in terms of departure 

from desired conditions) is also found the in the affected environment of the “Vegetation” section. 

Additional information about the species, critical habitat (if designated under ESA), and habitat 

occupancy follows. For more detail, see the biological and conference opinion for the continued 

implementation of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs land and resource management plan (USFWS, 

2012a) and the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Biological Assessment” (Forest Service, 2014z).

Note that each ESA species can have a different focus for recovery so that terminology for each 

can be different (e.g., management unit or recovery unit).

Mexican Spotted Owl: Threatened with Critical Habitat

Population, i.e., breeding population, information for the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) is found in 

the following ”Management Indicator Species” section. Threats to the species include standreplacing fires and past silviculture treatments. Improper livestock grazing impacts prey habitat 

while land and water developments reduce habitat. Roads and special uses can disturb nesting 

MSO. General habitat information follows; however, details about MSO habitat components are 

found in the “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” and the “Wildlife Specialist Report –

Biological Assessment” (Forest Service, 2014z). 

Habitat for MSO is provided by various forested PNVTs: dry mixed conifer, wet mixed conifer, 

spruce-fir, the pine-oak portion (approximately 30 percent) of ponderosa pine, a portion of 

Madrean pine-oak woodland, and the three riparian forested PNVTs. Table 72 provides the 

amount of acreage in these PNVTs, or portions thereof, along with the amount of acreage that 

remains suitable after the 2011 Wallow Fire. These compose MSO restricted habitat on the forests

but also include protected habitat (see paragraph below). Restricted habitat is managed to 

maintain and develop potential nesting and roosting habitat now and into the future (USFWS,

1995). 

Protected areas provide MSO breeding and young rearing habitat. It includes protected activity 

centers (PACs), other steep slopes (greater than 40 percent not harvested in 20 years), and 

reserved areas (e.g., wilderness or primitive area). On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, there are 

147 MSO PACs delineated around nesting and roosting sites of no less than 600 acres each. 

These PACs encompass 93,117 acres30. All MSO protected and restricted habitat on the forests is 

considered occupied or potentially occupied, especially after the Wallow Fire because it is 

unknown how MSO would adjust habitat use after this landscape scale fire. 

 30 In order to delineate logical PAC boundaries, PAC acreage sometimes include small acreages in PNVTs not listed 

here, e.g., ponderosa pine without oak or wetland/cienega riparian areas. In addition, four PACs fall partially outside 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs onto other forests (three on the Coconino NF and one on the Gila NF), encompassing about 

an additional 568 acres.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 253

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

suitable habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire

MSO Habitat by PNVT and 

Acreage

Proportion of Habitat with 100% 

Basal Area (canopy cover) Loss 

from the 2011 Wallow Firea

(% loss of PNVT acres)

MSO Habitat by PNVT Adjusted for the 

Loss of Total Basal Area from the Wallow 

Fire (100% of canopy cover loss)b = 

Remaining Currently Suitable MSO 

Habitat

Dry mixed conifer

147,885 acres

34,959 acres (24%) 112,926 acres

Wet mixed conifer

177,995 acres

64,794 acres (36%) 113,201 acres

Spruce-firc

17,667 acres

6,098 acres (35%) 11,569 acres

Pine-oak portion of 

ponderosa pine

90,336 acresd

22,584 acres (25%)e estimated as 67,752 acres

North and northeast slopes of 

Madrean pine-oak woodland

42,903 acrese

6,864 acres (16%)f estimated as 36,039 acres

Mixed broadleaf deciduous, 

cottonwood-riparian, and 

montane willow riparian 

forests

30,341 acres

1,142 acres (4%) 29,199 acres

Total

507,127 acres

estimated as 136,441 acres

(27% habitat loss overall)

estimated as 370,686 acres

a Figures are from the 75-100% BA loss category which reflects complete (100%) loss of all trees based on the 7/18/11 

RVAG mapping provided by USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center. 

b These figures represent currently suitable MSO habitat. Recovery to the forest structure and age needed by MSO for 

breeding and nesting extend beyond the planning period and a century or more, the adjusted acreage is considered 

suitable (quality) MSO habitat acreage across the forests for the planning period.

c Note that the spruce-fir PNVT on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs meets the definition of “mixed conifer” in the 2012 

MSO Recovery Plan.

d Based on forest inventory analysis, this figure represents the amount of medium to large size ponderosa pine with 

closed canopies and Gambel oak (90,336 is approximately 30 percent of mid-scale states H, I, L, M).

e This acreage represents Madrean pine-oak woodland on slopes >40 percent with a north and northeast aspect.

f Not specifically determinable because the actual spatial occurrence of pine-oak within ponderosa pine and Madrean 

pine-oak that is suitable as MSO habitat is not available at the forest planning mid-scale level; however, it is estimated 

as noted above at 25 percent of all ponderosa pine forest acreage and 16 percent of Madrean pine-oak woodland 

acreage on slopes with north and northeast aspects.

The ESA directs that critical habitat be identified for listed species. For the Mexican spotted owl, 

critical habitat consists of acreage that qualifies as protected and restricted habitat (as defined in 

the “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan”) within the bounds of the broad 2004 USFWS MSO 

critical habitat delineation. The primary constituent elements of critical habitat that are important
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

for breeding, young rearing, and foraging include large trees and snags, high basal areas and 

canopy closures, large volume of woody debris, and herbaceous plant cover and seeds for prey. 

Critical habitat is estimated for this analysis as shown in table 73, along with the amount of 

acreage that remains suitable after the Wallow Fire. Note that these estimates have not been field 

verified; this would be done on a project-specific basis.

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

suitable critical habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire

MSO Habitat by PNVT and 

Acreagea

PNVT Acres as 

Critical HabitatProtected and 

Restrictedb

Critical Habitat (CH) 

Acres with 100% BA 

Loss

(% of total critical 

habitat acres in 

Wallow Fire)

Critical Habitat Acres 

Adjusted for the Loss 

of Total Basal Area 

from the Wallow Fire 

(100% of canopy cover 

loss) = Remaining 

Currently Suitable 

MSO Critical Habitat 

Dry mixed conifer

147,885 acres

132,681 acres 31,914 acres

(52%)

100,767 acres

Wet mixed conifer

177,995 acres

154,679 acres 61,798 acres

(81%)

92,881 acres

Spruce-fir

17,667 acres

12,549 acres 6,059 acres

(97%)

6,490 acres

Pine-oak portion of ponderosa 

pine

90,336 acresc

27,1002 acresd estimated as 6,775 acres

(25%)e

20,325 acres

North and northeast slopes of 

Madrean pine-oak woodland

42,903 acres

14,797 acres estimated as 631 acres

(16%)e

14,166 acres

Mixed broadleaf deciduous, 

cottonwood-riparian, and 

montane willow riparian forests

30,341 acres

12,339 acres 4,638 acres

(38%)

7,701 acres

Total

507,127 acres

345,145 acres 111,815 acres

(32% CH loss overall)

242,330 acres

a PNVT acreage from table 72 previously.

b Based on USFWS, 2004.

c See the column footnotes from table 72 previously.

d Not specifically determinable because the actual spatial occurrence of pine-oak within ponderosa pine is not available 

at the forest planning level scale; however, it is estimated based on forest inventory analysis showing about 30 percent 

of ponderosa pine is pine-oak and assuming 30 percent falls within the 2004 USFWS critical habitat designation.

e Estimated at 25 percent and 16 percent as noted in footnote e from table 72 previously.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: Endangered with Critical Habitat

Southwestern willow flycatchers (SWWF) nest within two recovery management units (MUs) on 

the forests: the Little Colorado River and the San Francisco River. The number of SWWF 

territories, based on monitoring between 1993 and 2007, ranged from 2 to 14. While the number 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 255

of territories appears to be generally declining over time, consistent surveys have not been 

conducted since 2007. Threats to the species include ungulate grazing, loss of surface and 

subsurface water (from pumping, drought, climate change), and nest parasitism by brown-headed 

cowbirds.

The Greer, River Reservoir, and Alpine nesting sites are found within the montane willow 

riparian forest PNVT where existing conditions at these sites consist of tall, dense, expansive 

stands of primarily Geyer’s willow and slow moving or standing water for insect prey. While 

flycatchers need extensive willow structure density and depth for nesting, they do migrate along 

stream corridors where willow cover is not as well developed or has been reduced due to wild 

ungulate browsing. As such, in addition to the three known nesting sites, all of this PNVT is 

considered occupied or potentially occupied for at least a portion of the year. In total, there are

4,808 acres of montane willow riparian forest PNVT.

All three nesting sites are excluded from livestock grazing with the Alpine site additionally 

protected from browsing by wild ungulates. Another potential nesting site, Nutrioso Wetland 

above Nelson Reservoir, is also protected from all ungulate use in order to allow willows there to 

expand in stature and width. Wild ungulate use is limited at the Greer and River Reservoir sites 

because they are within the Greer community. None of these sites were directly affected by the 

Wallow Fire, nor subsequently indirectly impacted by heavy flooding to date.

Since the publication of the DEIS, revised critical habitat has been finalized and designated for 

the Southwestern willow flycatcher. On the forests, it would include three areas: portions of the 

Little Colorado River and the West Fork Little Colorado River for a total of 12.5 river miles and 

344 acres (includes the two Greer area nest sites); portion of the San Francisco River in the 

vicinity of Alpine for a total of 6.3 river miles and 311 acres (includes the Alpine nest site); and 

another portion of the San Francisco River, all on the Clifton Ranger District for a total of 

22.6 river miles and 1,418 acres. 

The primary constituent elements of critical habitat that are important for breeding, dispersing, 

and migrating SWWF include dense riparian vegetation with small openings and slow moving 

water attracting insect prey populations. The Wallow Fire impacted watershed containing critical 

habitat, especially within the West Fork Little Colorado River canyon where it resulted in low to 

high severity.

Western Yellow-billed cuckoo: Proposed Threatened

Since publication of the DEIS, the western yellow-billed cuckoo has been proposed for listing 

under the ESA as threatened. While there have been no systematic surveys for this species by the 

forests, it is known from upper and lower Blue River, San Francisco, and Eagle Creek. Other 

rivers and floodplains may provide the shelter and cover needed along movement corridors 

between foraging sites and as post-breeding dispersal areas for adults and young. These perennial 

streams contain the mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forest PNVT that provides large riparian 

trees such as cottonwood, willows, and boxelder with dense canopies for nesting and for foraging 

of large insect and other prey such as frogs. The 2011 Wallow Fire did not substantially affect 

habitat in the Blue River.

Threats to the species include features or actions that impact natural water flows (e.g., dams, 

ditches, ground water pumping, bank stabilization features, channel work, roads), development or 

extraction within floodplains (e.g., gravel pits), expansion of nonnative vegetation within streams 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

and floodplains, and livestock grazing that impacts woody riparian vegetation and its 

regeneration. Water diversions, groundwater pumping, and roads occur on NFS lands primarily, 

but not solely, along Eagle Creek. Livestock grazing is not currently authorized along these three 

waterways although livestock trailing is authorized along Eagle Creek.

Since the publication of the DEIS, critical habitat has been proposed for this species. The primary 

constituent habitat elements that are important for breeding, young rearing, and movement 

include riparian woodlands with high canopy closures of the woody riparian species noted above 

where the cuckoo is found on the forests. Another primary constituent element is the presence of 

a large insect fauna (e.g., cicadas, caterpillars, grasshoppers, large beetles, and dragonflies) and 

tree frogs and the vegetation and water that support these. Dynamic riverine processes are another 

primary constituent element; hydrologic processes are functions such as sediment movement and 

deposition that allow seedling germination and growth, elevated groundwater tables, and 

perennial water that support continuous regeneration and multiple age classes of vigorous riparian 

vegetation. 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog: Threatened with Critical Habitat

The Chiricahua leopard frog is found on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in pools along streams, 

creeks, wetland cienegas, and springs. It was historically found in larger rivers and bodies of 

water like Chevelon Creek and Nelson Reservoir. Currently the species is being captive reared in 

facilities in Phoenix and Pinetop. Since 2000, a number of new or supplemental frog releases 

have occurred on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts including recently in two isolated 

stock tanks on the ridge above Three Forks. Threats to the species include poor water quality, 

disease, drought and climate change, and loud noises that interrupt the advertisement call of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog during breeding season.

This species is currently found in two watersheds on the forests. The Upper Black River 

watershed was functioning-at-risk prior to the Wallow Fire. Based on the post-fire hydrology 

report, approximately 2,700 acres burned moderately to severely above the Three Forks area 

(North Fork East Fork Black River subwatershed). The Campbell Blue watershed was in proper 

functioning condition prior to the fire, but about 18,400 acres burned moderately to severely 

(Campbell Blue and Coleman Creek subwatersheds). Although post-fire stream surveys have not 

yet been conducted, the conditions of Campbell Blue Creek and Coleman Creek have declined. 

There are four Chiricahua leopard frog recovery units (RUs) that fall partially on the forests. 

Recovery is concentrated on the two RUs on the east side of the forests: White Mountains-Upper 

Gila (RU 6) encompassing forests lands above the Mogollon Rim and the Upper Gila-Blue River 

(RU 7) encompassing lands below the rim (both extend into New Mexico). RUs contain recovery 

management areas (RMAs) which are designated because they have the greatest potential for 

successful recovery actions and threat alleviation. 

RMAs are as follows, including subwatershed acreage on the forests; however, not all acreage 

within a RMA provides suitable habitat for this species but would contribute to indirect effects. 

RU 6 contains three RMAs: Black River (185,900 acres), Coleman Creek/Blue River

(179,900 acres), and Nutrioso/Rudd Creek (105,400 acres). RU 7 contains one RMA, San 

Francisco/Blue Rivers (77,500 acres). 

Within each RMA, there are recovery sites where metapopulations and robust, isolated 

populations occur or will be established. For this analysis, all of these sites are considered 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 257

occupied given that surveys do not guarantee detection and that continuing releases are planned 

by the AZGFD. All historic sites (1928–1999) are considered suitable habitat but are unoccupied 

at this time. Dispersal and nonbreeding habitat provides corridors for frogs between breeding 

sites. It consists of (1) areas with ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial water not generally 

suitable for breeding and (2) associated upland or riparian habitat. These areas are considered 

potentially occupied habitat for at least part of the year (USFWS, 2012a).

Critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog is found in five critical habitat units (CHUs). All 

are occupied and in total encompass approximately 270 acres. In RU 6, the CHUs are (1) Concho 

Bill and Deer Creek and (2) Campbell Blue and Coleman Creek. In RU 7, the CHUs are (3) Left 

Prong Dix Creek, (4) Rattlesnake Pasture and Tanks, and (5) Coal Creek. Primary constituent 

elements of critical habitat important to breeding and dispersal include fresh water, 

emergent/submerged vegetation, and well distributed ephemeral or intermittent drainage dispersal 

corridors free of barriers.

Based on the post-fire hydrology report, the Wallow Fire impacted subwatersheds containing the 

two CHUs in RU 6 where it burned approximately 32,600 acres at the high and moderate soil 

burn severity levels. This includes the three management areas within RU 6 (Black River, 

Coleman Creek/Blue River, and Nutrioso/Rudd Creeks). It did not impact any CHUs in RU 7 nor 

its one RMA (San Francisco/Blue Rivers). Besides uncharacteristic wildfires, risks to this species

include impacts to water quality, die-offs due to a fungal skin disease (Chytridiomycosis), and 

predation by nonnative organisms (crayfish).

Narrow-headed Gartersnake: Threatened with Proposed Critical Habitat

Northern Mexican Gartersnake: Threatened with Proposed Critical Habitat

Since publication of the DEIS, the narrow-headed and northern Mexican gartersnakes have been 

listed as threatened species with proposed critical habitat. The first record of NMGS on the 

ASNFs occurred on Campbell Blue Creek in 2000 when four snakes were found. In 2007, a total 

of eight NMGS were located on the Blue River, near Juan Miller Road and near its confluence 

with Campbell Blue Creek. In 2009, one NMGS was located on the Blue River at its confluence 

with Campbell Blue Creek.

The 2011 Wallow Fire resulted in siltation of habitat and a decrease in fish prey species, but prey 

are rebounding based on observation and preliminary survey by Forest Service and AZGFD 

biologist. In addition, native sucker and dace populations that provide gartersnake prey appear to 

be recovering post Wallow Fire in the Blue and Black Rivers. Other threats to these two 

gartersnakes include nonnative species such as crayfish and nonnative spiny-rayed fish, roads and 

livestock that impact riparian areas (e.g., sediment, trampling), and drought and climate change. 

Critical habitat for the northern Mexican gartersnake is proposed on the main Black River. For the 

narrow-headed gartersnake, critical habitat is also proposed on the main Black River and also 

along Eagle and Campbell Blue Creeks, and the Blue and San Francisco Rivers. Proposed critical 

habitat includes consideration of adequate terrestrial space of 600 feet (182.9 m) lateral extent to 

either side of bankfull stage important to support life functions. Primary constituent elements of 

proposed critical habitat include aquatic habitat that provides foraging opportunities for native 

fish and amphibians and shoreline or floodplain components that include rocks, woody debris, 

leaf litter, and small mammal holes that support thermoregulation, gestation, shelter, and 

protection from predators
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Three Forks Springsnail: Endangered with Critical Habitat

The Three Forks springsnail is a tiny freshwater spiral-shelled invertebrate known only from the 

Alpine Ranger District, originally from three sites in the Black River watershed. Its habitat is very 

rare consisting of springheads and associated rheocrene flows (shallow spring water outflow) 

often associated with fens (upwelling of groundwater not likely associated with the immediate 

water table). Since 2004, the snail is not currently found at the Three Forks site but is found at 

nearby Boneyard Bog and along Boneyard Creek sites. Because a thorough inventory of springs 

in the Black River watershed has not been conducted, any spring of this type within the watershed 

is considered suitable and potentially occupied.

This species is found in the Upper Black River watershed which was functioning-at-risk prior to 

the 2011 Wallow Fire. Based on the post-fire hydrology report, approximately 2,700 acres burned 

moderately to severely above the Three Forks area (North Fork East Fork Black River 

subwatershed). Although post-fire stream surveys have not yet been conducted, the condition of 

the East Fork Black River, Boneyard Creek, and their tributaries may have declined.

Other threats to the species include vegetation trampling and soil sediment. All three locations are 

excluded from livestock grazing by NEPA decision and the Three Forks site is additionally 

excluded from human entry by a forest special closure order. However, all sites are subject to 

wild ungulate impacts (specifically, seasonal elk wallowing and bank trampling). Populations are 

additionally threatened by uncharacteristic wildfires, predatory crayfish, drought, and climate 

change. Crayfish trapping has been conducted for several years but they persist at all sites.

While the 2011 Wallow Fire did not directly burn snail habitat, straw waddles were installed to 

divert ash on adjacent burned slopes from entering the sites. In addition, Three Forks springsnails 

were removed prior to post-fire flooding and taken to facilities in Phoenix and Pinetop for later 

return to the spring runs where they were removed from. Flooding from 2011 summer rains after 

the fire resulted in several of the occupied spring runs in Boneyard Bog and Boneyard Creek 

being overrun by high flows. September 2012 surveys only observed snails at a few of the spring 

runs that had been occupied before the fire. The ability of those snails onsite to persist and the 

success of subsequent reintroduction of snails removed prior to flooding are unknown. 

Critical habitat for this springsnail is designated at three sites: Three Forks (6 acres), Boneyard 

Bog (5.3 acres), and Boneyard Creek (5.8 acres along approximately 0.6 mile of creek). Primary 

constituent elements of critical habitat include adequately clean, emerging spring water (free from 

contamination) and flowing across the surface; substrates that include cobble, gravel, pebble, and 

aquatic vegetation (periphyton, attached algae) for feeding and escape from predators; and either 

an absence of nonnative predators (crayfish) or their presence at low population levels.

Mexican Wolf: Experimental, Nonessential Population

The Mexican wolf (or Mexican gray wolf) was reintroduced onto the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in 

1998. Over 655,000 acres of primary recovery area and 543,000 acres of secondary recovery area 

are on the Apache side of the forests, all of which is considered suitable habitat. Additional 

secondary recovery area is located on the adjacent Gila National Forest. Given the far ranging 

nature of this species, all acreage within the primary and secondary recovery areas is considered 

potentially occupied and used by Mexican wolves.

As of winter 2011-12, there are five wolf packs with established territories on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, ranging in size from two to five individuals. Two of these packs also use areas on 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 259

the White Mountain and San Carlos Indian Reservations. Wolves are habitat generalists, 

occurring wherever prey are seasonally found. In a diet study on the forests, Reed et al. (2006)

found that elk make up the majority (77 percent) of their diet biomass, reflecting availability of 

their most common prey species. It has been found that wolves are at risk from roads and open 

visibility that exposes them to danger from vehicle collisions and shootings. These types of 

mortality account for 65 percent of known wolf mortality since reintroduction (USFWS, 2011). It 

is not known if the extensive loss of mid to low ground cover across the landscape from the 

Wallow Fire may contribute to this risk. Other threats to the species include vehicle-related deaths 

and concerns about the inadequacy of the size of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.

New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse: Endangered with Proposed Critical Habitat

Since publication of the DEIS, the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has been listed as 

endangered with proposed critical habitat. As of surveys in 2008 and 2009, there are 12 know 

occupied sites within the boundaries of the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts. One of the 

sites is on AZGFD property and one site is on private land that may be exchanged into NFS 

ownership. All of the sites are in the montane willow riparian forest PNVT with elements of the 

wetland-cienega PNVT, except one that is in the cottonwood-willow riparian forest PNVT. 

Threats to the species include uncharacteristic wildfire. Fire severity from the 2011 Wallow Fire 

in the watersheds containing the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse ranged from low to severe 

but post fire flooding has been substantial at primarily one site, Campbell Blue Creek. Other 

threats include roads, water developments, and recreation in riparian areas.

Critical habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is proposed in the East and West 

Forks of the Little Colorado River, East and West Forks of the Black River, Centerfire and Boggy 

Creeks, Nutrioso Creek, San Francisco River (in the Alpine valley), Campbell Blue Creek, and 

Corduroy Creek. Proposed critical habitat includes consideration sufficient areas of up to 15 miles 

along streams to support dispersal, and adjacent floodplain and upland areas approximately 330 

feet outward from the water’s edge are necessary for young rearing and hibernation. Primary 

constituent elements of proposed critical habitat in these areas include flowing water, saturated 

soils, and dense, tall riparian herbaceous species to support foraging and nesting and adjacent 

likely adjacent uplands for its extended hibernation period.

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat: Endangered

The closest known location for the lesser long-nosed bat, a long distance migrant, is in the 

Pinaleno Mountains about 30 air miles from the forests’ southern boundary. This species is not 

known to be present in Arizona in the winter, but pregnant females give birth and raise young in 

southern Arizona during late April to July. The lesser long-nosed bat forages on nectar and pollen 

of columnar cacti in the spring; while in the summer and fall it forages on agave nectar (this diet 

of nectar enables it to be essentially independent of free water). This species roosts in caves, mine 

holes, and sometimes old structures. Threats to the species include loss of agave forage plants 

through fires or grazing of agave flowering stalks, which are highly palatable to livestock. 

While not known to occur, lesser long-nosed bats could be present on the lower elevations of the 

forests during the summer below the Mogollon Rim given the potential for warming climates. 

This east-central portion of Arizona includes the East Eagle Creek, Blue River, and San Francisco 

River watersheds on the Clifton and Alpine Ranger Districts. Here, two PNVTs could potentially

provide suitable foraging habitat: semi-desert grassland (106,952 acres) and Madrean pine-oak 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

woodland (394,927 acres). In addition, this area contains some old structures, mine adits, and 

shallow caves. There is a 90-day finding that downlisting the lesser long-nosed bat to threatened 

status is warranted by pending.

Sensitive Species Existing Condition and Habitat 

Existing abundance and distribution (F ranking) of the 53 sensitive species is shown in table 71

above; most are F1, F2, or F3. This is because sensitive species, by definition (Forest Service 

Manual 2670.32), are those for which there may be a viability concern. 

The amount (acreage) of habitat for each sensitive species that is provided by PNVT(s) is found 

in affected environment of the “Vegetation” section (table 23) so is not reiterated here. The 

existing condition or the quality of that habitat is described in terms of departure from PNVT 

desired conditions is also found in affected environment of the “Vegetation” section. The general 

condition of habitat elements associated with sensitive species is found in table 67 above. There 

are few extensive forestwide surveys for sensitive species; surveys are instead conducted on a 

project- or district-level basis. For this analysis, all PNVTs and habitat elements for sensitive 

species are considered occupied or potentially occupied. For more information, see the “Wildlife 

Specialist Report – Biological Evaluation” (Forest Service, 2014aa).

Management Indicator Species and Indicator Habitat Existing Conditions

In compliance with NFMA, three species are selected as management indicator species (MIS) 

because they have habitats influenced by forest management and activities. They are selected so 

that the effects of each alternative on wildlife populations can be estimated. The ponderosa pine, 

dry mixed conifer, and wet mixed conifer are forested PNVTs where substantial restoration 

efforts would take place to move habitat toward desired conditions (up to 55,000 acres per year). 

MIS selected for these two PNVTs are the northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl, 

respectively. In addition, the Great Basin grassland is another PNVT where substantial restoration 

would take place (up to 25,000 acres per year); pronghorn antelope are selected as MIS for this 

PNVT. See the “Report on the Selection of Management Indicator Species and Ecological 

Indicators” (Forest Service, 2012d) for more details on the selection process and further rationale.

Existing condition for these three indicators is described below. Much of the information is based 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 2005−2011 MIS assessment report (AZGFD, 2012) and the 

biological assessment for the Wallow Fire emergency response (Forest Service, 2011d). Suitable 

habitat noted below is considered quality habitat in that it contains the components necessary to 

support successful reproduction and young rearing.

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO)

In addition to being a threatened species under ESA, the MSO is selected as a MIS. Population 

figures for MSO on the planning unit are not available. Because MSO protected activity centers 

(PACs) represent breeding or potentially breeding pairs, the number of PACs is used as a measure 

of the population of this MIS. There are 147 MSO PACs, encompassing 93,117 acres. The 2011 

Wallow Fire affected half of the PACs (74) on the forests to varying degrees so that population 

trend is considered downward. Monitoring of PACs occurred during the 2012 field season to 

assess the fire’s impact to Mexican spotted owls and is ongoing. In 2013, the Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station began studying MSO site fidelity after large fires (e.g., 

Rodeo-Chediski and Wallow Fires).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 261

Of the various PNVTs, or portions thereof that provide MSO habitat, it is the dry mixed conifer

and wet mixed conifer PNVTs together that provide the most important MSO habitat relative to 

reproduction and viability. Therefore, both PNVTs are considered the “indicator habitat” for this 

management indicator species. Table 74 shows the acreage of indicator habitat both before and 

after the 2011 Wallow Fire. 

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

estimated change in suitable habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire

MIS Habitat Indicator 

PNVTs for MSO and 

PNVT Acreage

Proportion of Habitat with 

100% Basal Area (canopy 

cover) Loss from the 2011 

Wallow Firea

(% loss of PNVT acres)

Acreage Adjusted by the Loss 

of Total Basal Area (100% of 

canopy cover loss)b = 

Remaining Currently Suitable 

MSO Habitat

Dry Mixed Conifer

147,885 acres

34,959 acres (24%) 112,926 acres

Wet Mixed Conifer

177,995 acres

64,794 acres (36%) 113,201 acres

Total

325,021 acres

99,753 acres (31% overall) 226,127 acres

a Figures are from the 75-100% basal area loss category which reflects complete (100%) loss of all trees and canopy 

based on the RVAG mapping provided by USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center (July 18, 2011). 

b Recovery to the forest structure and age needed by MSO for breeding and nesting in such burn areas extends beyond 

the planning period and a century or more; the adjusted acreage is considered suitable MSO habitat acreage across the 

forests for the planning period.

Overall, 31 percent of the indicator habitat sustained total canopy loss (i.e., 75 to 100 percent

basal area loss) from the Wallow Fire. This has substantially reduced suitable habitat for breeding, 

nesting, and young rearing. Hence, MSO habitat trend on the forests is now considered 

downward.

Northern Goshawk (NOGO)

Population figures for NOGO on the planning unit are not available. Because NOGO postfledging areas (PFAs) represent breeding or potentially breeding pairs, nest area habitat within 

PFAs is used as a measure of the population of this MIS. There are 103 NOGO PFAs 

encompassing 67,466 acres of which approximately 18,540 acres are considered suitable nesting 

habitat based on nest stands. The 2011 Wallow Fire affected 30 of these PFAs. Approximately 

half of the acreage in these 30 PFAs had 100 percent canopy loss so that population trend on the 

forests is now considered downward. Monitoring of PFAs occurred during the 2012 field season 

to assess the fire’s impact to northern goshawks over time and is ongoing.

The ponderosa pine PNVT is the most important NOGO habitat relative to reproduction and 

viability so it is considered the “indicator habitat” for this management indicator species. Table 

75 depicts the acreage of indicator habitat both before and after the 2011 Wallow Fire.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

estimated change in habitat acres from the 2011 Wallow Fire

MIS Habitat Indicator 

PNVTs for NOGO and 

PNVT Acres on ASNFs

Proportion of NOGO Habitat

with 100% Basal Area (canopy 

cover) Loss from the 2011 

Wallow Firea

(% loss of PNVT acres)

Acreage Adjusted by the 

Loss of Total Basal Area 

(100% of canopy cover 

loss)b

Ponderosa pine

602,206 acres

32,722 acres (5%) 569,484 acres

a Figures are from the 75-100% basal area loss category which reflects complete (100%) loss of all trees and canopy 

based on the RVAG mapping provided by USFS Remote Sensing Applications Center (July 18, 2011). 

b Recovery to the forest structure and age needed by NOGO for breeding and nesting in such burn areas extends beyond 

the planning period and a century or more, the adjusted acreage is considered suitable NOGO habitat acreage across the 

forests for the planning period.

Although only 5 percent of the indicator ponderosa pine habitat sustained total canopy loss from 

the Wallow Fire, trend was considered downward pre-fire based on monitoring of PFAs from 

2006 through 2011 across the forests. This is believed to be, in part, due to drought over the last 

decade that has led to the loss of habitat conditions necessary for many NOGO prey species 

(AZGFD, 2012). Post-Wallow Fire, the trend is still considered downward based on PFA acreage 

with 100 percent canopy loss.

Pronghorn Antelope (Pronghorn)

Pronghorn are a common and persistent species on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, although limited 

in number (AZGFD, 2012). While they occur at densities less than habitat capacity, they are well 

distributed in areas across suitable habitat. Overall, population trend is considered static with 

approximately 600 to 700 pronghorn on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs portion of game management 

units 1, 3A, and 3B in the last 2 years (AZGFD, 2012). Impacts to pronghorn from the Wallow 

Fire would be determined by AZGFD surveys in 2012 and beyond.

Most pronghorn on the forests are found in the Great Basin grassland PNVT (185,523 acres). 

Although numbers are limited, pronghorn also use the semi-desert grassland yearlong. Both of 

these PNVTs have substantial acreage where invaded tree densities are currently high. The 

montane-subalpine grassland PNVT is used in the summer by pronghorn. In addition, pronghorn 

are known to travel between grassland habitats through forest and piñon-juniper woodland areas 

with lower tree densities.

Because most pronghorn spend the greatest majority of their time yearlong in the Great Basin 

grassland, this PNVT is considered the “indicator habitat” for this MIS. Under existing 

conditions, pronghorn habitat in the Great Basin grassland is highly departed from desired 

conditions. Quality of habitat has been reduced by loss of extensive stands of desirable perennial 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and by encroachment by trees (primarily piñon and juniper). In 

addition, about two-thirds of the Great Basin grassland has been converted to a woodland type 

(“Vegetation Specialist Report,” Forest Service, 2014t). Given that pronghorn use some open 

wooded areas, it is estimated that, overall, about half of the Great Basin grassland acreage is 

today unsuitable pronghorn habitat, leaving about 92,762 acres as currently suitable “indicator 

habitat” for this management indicator species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 263

Fire can also benefit grasslands by removing encroaching trees and improving herbaceous 

production in healthy grasslands. The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire and the 2011 Wallow Fire 

burned portions of the Great Basin grassland. However, limited acreage in both fires burned at an 

intensity to kill trees and restore habitat. The long-term trend in condition of grasslands in 

meeting the herbaceous needs of this species is dependent in part on the amount and timing of 

restocking burned areas with livestock post-fire and subsequent woody species regeneration 

(Belsky and Blumenthal, 1997; Forest Service, 2008f).

Over the last 10 years, tree removal projects have been initiated to begin to restore the Great 

Basin grassland across the north side of the forests (approximately 5,000 acres total completed to 

date). Although only affecting a small portion of this large PNVT, tree removal by project and 

wildfire, along with rest from livestock use post Rodeo-Chediski Fire, has taken place. In 

addition, about 200 miles of unneeded fence line has been removed on the forests during the last 

10 to 15 years (mostly in grasslands), and roughly 300 miles of fence line has been modified or 

rebuilt to wildlife passage standards. While not all of this affects the over 700 miles of fence line 

in pronghorn grassland habitats, it does benefit pronghorn in areas where they encounter fences 

outside of grasslands. Hence, the trend for this pronghorn habitat indicator is currently considered 

on a low trajectory upward. 

Migratory Birds and Important Bird Areas

Migratory Birds

Executive Order 13186 (2001) and a 2008 memorandum of understanding between the USDA 

Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service provide direction to conserve migratory birds, 

restore or enhance habitat, and consider them in the planning process. The number of migratory 

birds on the forests is unknown; however, the White Mountain Audubon Chapter, local birders, 

and monitoring conducted as part of the White Mountain Stewardship have detected many 

species that use habitats on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for part of the year.

In selecting representative species for the analysis, Forest Service regional direction is to consider 

priority species of concern from Arizona’s “Partners in Flight Conservation Plan” (Latta et al., 

1999) and important bird areas (IBAs). Also used was the “Birds of Conservation Concern, 

Regions 16 and 34” (USFWS, 2008). Table 76 lists representative neotropical migratory birds and 

the PNVTs where they may be found while on the forests; it also lists threats to habitat. PNVT 

habitat acres are found in affected environment of the “Vegetation” section so are not reiterated 

here. The “Wildlife Specialist Report - Migratory Birds, Eagles, and Important Bird Areas”

(Forest Service, 2014y) contains more information.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

threats

Neotropical Migrant Habitat Habitat Threats

Golden-crowned 

kinglet 

Regulis satrapa Spruce-fir (often with 

aspen)

Loss of or too open canopies

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides 

tridactylus

Spruce-fir Substantial snag removal or loss

Olive-side flycatcher Contopus borealis Mixed conifer (often with 

aspen)

Loss of or too open canopies

Purple martin Progne subis Ponderosa pine Substantial snag and/or large tree

removal or loss

Grace’s warbler Dendroica 

graciae

Ponderosa pine (often with 

aspen)

Loss of large Gambel oak 

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus Ponderosa pine with oak Substantial snag, large tree and 

dense canopy removal or loss

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus

Piñon-juniper woodland Stress to or loss of mature piñon

trees

Black-throated gray 

warbler 

Dendroica 

nigrescens

Piñon-juniper woodland Stress to or loss of mature piñon

trees

Virginia’s warbler Vermivora 

virginiae

Interior chaparral Widespread fire through 

chaparral

Gray flycatcher Empidonax 

wrightii

Great Basin and semidesert grasslandsGrazing that does not leave 

vigorous, tall herbaceous ground 

cover

Savannah sparrow Passerculus 

sandwichensis

Montane/subalpine 

grassland

Grazing that does not leave 

vigorous, tall herbaceous ground 

cover

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei Montane willow riparian 

forest

Browsing that reduces height, 

depth, and vigor of willows

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Mixed broadleaf riparian 

forest

Grazing or browsing that opens 

up dense riparian thickets 

increasing the threat of cowbird 

parasitism

Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus Large trees and/or dense 

canopies across PNVTs

Grazing or browsing that 

removes sprouts and young 

riparian woody vegetation

Little current forestwide information is available for these species. According to the forests’ 

2005−2011 MIS assessment report (AZGFD, 2012), yellow-breasted chat populations in the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are currently considered to be stable, but likely lower than potential. At 

the mid-point of a long-term study of songbird densities within the White Mountain Stewardship 

Project area, there is an estimated average of five Grace’s warblers per 100 acres in untreated 

ponderosa pine that has a Gambel oak component (Sitko and Hurteau, 2010). Because migratory 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 265

bird numbers can be influenced by many factors associated with their neotropical wintering 

grounds, habitat provided on the forests is the focus of the analysis. 

Important Bird Areas (IBAs)

While not contributing to viability directly, the National Audubon Society’s Important Bird Area 

Program encourages inventory, research, and education with the objective of ensuring bird 

conservation in important habitats. IBAs impose neither management requirement nor legal 

obligation on NFS lands. Three IBAs are located in part on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

• Upper Little Colorado River IBA — This IBA includes 44,086 acres on the forests 

encompassing the Little Colorado River and its three main tributaries (west, east, and 

south), extending north to include the AZGFD’s Becker Lake and Wenima wildlife areas. 

This IBA was identified in 2004 and recognized by the State Audubon science committee 

in 2008. It is known for harboring species of conservation concern and species in 

rare/unique riparian habitats. These include southwestern willow flycatcher, Mexican 

spotted owl, northern goshawk, gray catbird, MacGillivray’s warbler, and wintering bald 

eagles.

• Blue and San Francisco Rivers IBA — This IBA includes 108,576 acres on the forests 

encompassing approximately 40 miles of the Blue River, 10 miles of the Campbell Blue 

Creek, 5 miles of the KP Creek, and over 20 miles of the San Francisco River. Federal 

land within this IBA was identified in 2004 but it is not yet finalized by the State 

Audubon science committee. As of 2004, surveys have documented 216 bird species 

including Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, purple martin, 

juniper titmouse, yellow-breasted chat, common black-hawk, various flycatchers, and 

bald eagles.

• Mogollon Rim Snowmelt Draws IBA — This IBA includes 29,426 acres on the forests 

encompassing Leonard Canyon and Willow Creek; it extends westward to include 

additional acreage on the Coconino NF. This IBA was identified in 2010 but it is not yet 

finalized by the State Audubon science committee. Because of Mogollon Rim induced 

high moisture patterns, vegetation communities are more representative of high elevation 

forest types with associated species including Mexican spotted owl, olive-side flycatcher, 

and red-faced warbler. For over 25 years, a U.S. Geological Survey study of climate 

change impact to bird and plant communities has been conducted in the area of this IBA 

(Martin and Maron, 2012).

Bald and Golden Eagles

The bald eagle was delisted from threatened status across the State in 2010. Both the bald eagle 

and golden eagle are Regional Forester sensitive species and, with its abundant water, both occur 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Single and small groups of bald eagles are found on the forests during the fall through spring. 

They are seen foraging at reservoirs and larger rivers for fish and waterfowl. They also forage on 

hunter-loss game and roadkills along highways. There are two long-term nesting pairs of bald 

eagles located at Luna and Crescent Lakes. In addition, bald eagle nesting has occurred on the 

forests in the vicinity of Woods Canyon Lake, Greer Lakes, and Show Low Lake.

A major impact to nesting bald eagles is nearby heavy recreation use. All nest sites are near 

developed fishing, boating, or camping areas. In order to limit disturbance during the especially 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

sensitive breeding and nesting period, the forests issue special closure orders that prohibit entry 

into bald eagle nest areas. Another factor in the success of breeding eagles has been the forests’ 

long-term partnership with the Arizona Bald Eagle Nestwatcher Program. Nestwatcher vigilance 

and actions have helped promote eaglet fledgling success and have, thereby, contributed 

substantially to viability and the delisting of this species in Arizona.

While golden eagles occasionally nest on the forests, they are most often migrants observed 

during the fall through spring seasons feeding on carrion, small mammals, birds, and snakes. The 

attraction of this eagle and the bald eagle to roadkill and hunter loss makes both species 

vulnerable to collisions with vehicles and lead poisoning (one known case east of Luna Lake in

2002). Like other raptors and large birds, power line electrocution can occasionally occur, with 

the uncommon risk of igniting a wildfire. 

Direction for management of golden and bald eagles is found in the Bald and Golden Eagle Act

with its most recent amendment (2009), and the 2008 MOU noted above between the Forest 

Service and USFWS. Under the Eagle Act, the forests must determine if any management or 

action would result in “take” which includes “disturbance.” In addition to immediate impacts, 

Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 107, 31133) implementing the act amendment, notes that 

disturbance:

also covers impacts that result from human-caused alterations initiated around a 

previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s 

return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or 

substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding or sheltering habits and causes, or 

is likely to cause a loss of productivity or nest abandonment.

In these cases, a Federal permit for programmatic take of eagles or their nests is required.

Highly Interactive Forest Planning Species

The needs of far ranging species and their influence across large landscapes were an issue raised 

by the public during scoping. Six species are identified as highly interactive species (HI under 

status in table 71). 

Highly interactive—or keystone or foundation species—are species whose absence or substantial 

reduction across the landscape leaves a functional void that, over time, can create changes leading 

to degraded or simplified ecosystems (Soulé et al., 2003). The ecological function of these 

species may take the form of altering habitat in a manner benefiting other species or in the form 

of affecting prey species, who may in turn affect habitat structure and function. In addition, for 

this analysis, species that range widely to meet their needs are also considered highly interactive 

species. Examples include the wolf and pronghorn antelope. The former can strengthen the health 

of prey herds by culling compromised animals (e.g., the old and weak) and help to keep herds

actively moving, thereby preventing overuse of prey habitat areas (Beschta and Ripple, 2011).

The latter is far ranging in order to meet seasonal needs for nutrition, fawning, and wintering 

areas (O’Gara and Yoakum, 2004).

Existing abundance and distribution (F ranking) of the six HI species is shown in table 71. 

Although considered a widespread species, existing habitat conditions for black bears have 

changed substantially due to the 2011 Wallow Fire and other large uncharacteristic wildfires with 

the loss of dense, low cover (critical to habitat carrying capacity and protection from other bears). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 267

High debris and water flows after these fires washed out beaver ponds and associated habitat. 

While mountain lion are a secure species, prey species such as deer and elk are utilizing habitat in 

an entirely different manner after so much acreage was affected by the Wallow Fire. For existing 

condition information on the other three HI species (Mexican wolf, Gunnison’s prairie dog, and 

pronghorn antelope), see the previous ESA, sensitive, and MIS sections, respectively. 

Habitat Security and Connectivity and Wildlife Quiet Areas

Habitat security and connectivity along with the amount of wildlife quiet areas was an issue 

raised by public scoping. Initially, wildlife quiet areas (WQAs) alone, which are currently 

implemented via forest special order, were considered for habitat security and connectivity.

There are currently eight WQAs on the forests. There are three other areas, also in place by 

special order, that provide many of the benefits of WQAs, so these are additionally considered.

Together these total less than 3 percent of the forests. Table 77 lists these along with the primary 

species associated with each.

Although these areas do not allow the use of motorized vehicles, they do not preclude hunting, 

other recreation activities, or periodic mechanized forest management activities. WQAs do not

exclude motorized vehicles for emergency or activities authorized by permit such as public 

utilities, private water transmission lines, maintenance of developments, and livestock grazing.

While existing WQAs have successfully provided secure habitat refugia and species site fidelity 

across the planning unit to date, there are large expanses without WQAs (up to 50 miles between 

them) on the Sitgreaves side of the forests. More background on WQAs is found in the “Wildlife 

Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2014bb). 

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

Name Ranger District Acres Note Species

WQAs Currently Under Special Order

Beaver Turkey 

Ridge

Black Mesa 3,295 Long-term WQA big game 

Hulsey Bench Alpine 3,469 Long-term WQA deer, elk, turkey, black bear, 

MSO, NOGO

Middle 

Mountain

Alpine 3,629 Long-term WQA deer, elk, turkey, pronghorn

antelope, NOGO

Open Draw Alpine 2,499 Long-term WQA elk, deer, turkey 

St. Peters Dome Springerville 5,850 Long-term WQA black bear, dusky grouse, 

wolves, other high elevation 

species

Upper Coyote Alpine 829 Long-term WQA elk, turkey, deer, black bear 

(especially young rearing)

Willow 

Springs-Horse 

Trap

Black Mesa 8,690 Long-term WQA big game
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Name Ranger District Acres Note Species

Woolhouse Lakeside 17,245 Long-term WQA Pronghorn antelope, elk (winter 

range) 

Subtotal 45,506

Other Areas Currently Functioning Similar to WQAs

Carr Lake Black Mesa 2,196 Currently within 

the larger Rim 

Lakes Recreation 

Area 

big game, MSO

Palomino Black Mesa 8,407 Currently within 

the larger Rim 

Lakes Recreation 

Area 

big game, MSO

Hidden Lake Springerville 3,227 deer, elk, black bear, NOGO

Subtotal 13,830

Total Acres Functioning as WQA 59,336

Safe passage among habitat areas is also important for species viability. In 2004, the AZGFD 

initiated a collaborative effort to proactively address wildlife connectivity with Arizona forests 

participating, including the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The objective of this effort is to facilitate 

wildlife movement, mitigate or remove barriers, and provide for or preserve known travel 

corridors. This is in response to increasing development of private lands, new and upgraded 

roadways, and increased fencing for livestock. An AZGFD report will be published that identifies 

linkages (common wildlife travel corridors) and barriers across Apache and Navajo Counties so 

that land managers can incorporate wildlife connectivity needs into project-level activities, as 

well as provide for both public and animal safety. This effort contributes to species viability 

across the forests. 

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Wildlife and Rare Plants

This section evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on wildlife and 

plants of implementing four plan alternatives. As previously noted, “wildlife” is inclusive of all 

terrestrial and aquatic animal species (including invertebrates) and plants. For potential 

environmental consequences to fish species, see the “Fisheries” section. 

Alternative Differences, Similarities, and Outcomes

See the “Fisheries” section where alternatives are compared in the section under this same 

heading. Species viability and the consequences of plan implementation and activities are 

discussed in the following sections and, for non-fish species, include habitat and management 

effect findings. Also included are the consequences related to wildlife habitat security and 

connectivity. As noted under the “Fisheries” section, the analysis is based on high treatment 

objectives in order to capture all possible consequences
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 269

Non-fish Species Viability

As previously noted, the approach to assess species viability was twofold. Plan decisions (desired 

conditions and objectives) formed the initial or coarse filter step. Where these did not fully meet 

the needs of species, the fine filter step was included. It involved the development of additional 

plan decisions (standards and guidelines) that more fully addressed species needs or addressed 

short-term impacts from plan implementation (e.g., management or activities).

Alternative outcomes consist of viability risk ratings (based, in part, on the likelihood of habitat 

limitation) and management effect ratings. The number of viability risk ratings and the number of 

management effect ratings, by habitat element, are used to compare relative “viability 

effectiveness” among alternatives (i.e., the lower the alternative’s number of viability risk and 

management effect ratings for a species’ associated habitat element(s), the more effective the 

alternative is for that species’ viability). Therefore, environmental consequences for the 95 nonfish FPS, by alternative, are primarily expressed as having more or less “viability effectiveness” 

even though all alternatives provide species viability in compliance with NFMA. Viability risk 

and management effect ratings are also used to compare viability effectiveness consequences by 

alternative for ESA, sensitive, and other non-fish FPS.

Habitat and Management Effect Findings

The likelihood of habitat limitation, based on the estimate of future habitat abundance and 

distribution for each alternative, which is later coupled with species F ranking, is shown in table 

78. The number of ratings for the three likelihood of limitation categories is summarized by 

PNVTs in order to provide an overall comparison of alternatives. Categories for the likelihood of 

limitation are described in table 64. These categories are low, moderate, and high (not to be 

confused with later viability risk rating categories). The lower the tally (number) of likelihood of 

limitation of low (L) ratings, the more effective the alternative is for that species’ viability.

The management effect is the overall expected outcome of alternative implementation in terms of 

species viability. The expected management effect outcomes for each alternative are the result of 

alternative objectives and maintenance of or movement toward desired conditions (suitable 

habitat). These are also shown in table 78 and are based, as noted, on high acre treatment 

objectives. The number of ratings for the three management effect categories is summarized by 

PNVT in order to provide an overall comparison of alternatives. Management effect categories 

are 1, 2, and 3. The lower the tally (number) of likelihood of management effect ratings for a 

species’ associated habitat, the more effective the alternative is for that species’ viability.

The management effect and the likelihood of limitation values displayed in this table each cover 

the 15-year planning period. Table 79 shows movement toward desired conditions for all the 

alternatives at the 15-year period and movement toward desired conditions at 50 years.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

15 years

PNVT A B C D

Ponderosa Pine Forest

Likelihood of limitationa L L L L

Management effectb 2 1 1 1

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest

Likelihood of limitationc M L L L

Management effect 2 1 1 1

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest

Likelihood of limitation c M L L L

Management effect 2 1 1 1

Spruce-Fir Forest

Likelihood of limitationc M M M M

Management effect 2 2 2 1

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland

Likelihood of limitation M L L L

Management effect 2 1 2 1

Montane/Subalpine Grassland

Likelihood of limitation M L M L

Management effect 3 1 3 1

Great Basin Grassland

Likelihood of limitation H L H L

Management effect 3 1 3 1

Semi-Desert Grassland

Likelihood of limitation H L H L

Management effect 3 1 3 1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 271

PNVT A B C D 

Tally of Likelihood of Habitat Limitation for 

PNVTs by Alternative 

L - low or no likelihood of habitat limitation: 0 7 4 7

M - moderate or some likelihood of habitat 

limitation:

5 1 2 1

H - high probability of habitat limitation: 3 0 2 0

Tally of Management Effects for PNVTs by 

Alternative 

1 - greatest relative improvement: 0 7 3 8

2 - intermediate relative improvement: 5 1 2 0

3 - least to no improvement: 3 0 3 0

Table rating descriptions or other information:

a Likelihood of limitation: H = high probability that habitat will be limiting; M = moderate or habitat has a likelihood of 

some limitation; L = low or habitat will not likely be limiting.

b Management effect: 1 = greatest relative improvement in suitable habitat through management and activities; 2 = 

intermediate relative improvement; 3 = least to no relative improvement. 

c While dry mixed conifer, wet mixed conifer, and spruce-fir are still common across the forests, the 2011 Wallow Fire 

reduced suitable habitat by 24, 36 and 35 percent respectively; hence likelihood of limitation is increased one class.

Table 79 shows the movement toward desired conditions for the modeled PNVTs upon which the 

overall alternative management effect was based in the table above. Change in departure can be 

seen by comparing existing departure from desired conditions to departure at 15 and 50 years. 

The latter is a projection of trend in desired conditions should the alternatives continue to be 

implemented that long. However, NFMA directs plans to be revised every 10 to 15 years.

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

PNVT and Percent 

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

Ponderosa Pine Forest 15 year 65 58 52 61

Current Departure = 77 50 year 65 46 48 54

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 15 year 57 53 49 56

Current Departure = 67 50 year 57 43 44 45

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 15 year 49 52 56† 50

Current Departure = 54 50 year 49 41 59† 49

Spruce-Fir Forest 15 year 68† 64† 63† 64†

Current Departure = 59 50 year 68†† 61†† 60†† 60††
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

PNVT and Percent 

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

Forested PNVTs 15 year 61 56 52 58

Current Departure = 71 50 year 61 49 50 52

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 15 year 59 41 50 28

Current Departure = 61 50 year 59 30 40 19

Woodland PNVTsa 15 year 45 33 38 25

Current Departure = 49 50 year 45 25 35 16

Great Basin Grassland 15 year 63 9 63 8

Current Departure = 67 50 year 63 22 68† 16

Semi-Desert Grassland 15 year 89† 66 84† 66

Current Departure = 79 50 year 89†† 52 94†† 52

Great Basin Grassland 

and Semi-Desert Grasslandb

15 year 71† 30 71† 29

Current Departure = 71 50 year 71†† 33 78†† 29

a Includes the piñon-juniper woodland (no species with viability concerns were identified for this PNVT).

b Montane/Subalpine Grasslands PNVT was not modeled nor were any of the Riparian PNVTs although three habitat 

elements came out of the model: snags, coarse woody debris, and acres of large/old trees.

† Indicates where improvement toward desired conditions does not occur from current departure to year 15.

†† Indicates where improvement toward desired conditions does not occur from current to year 50.

All alternatives show an improvement in (reduced departure from) desired conditions at 15 years 

except in the spruce-fir forest PNVT. At 50 years, trend is static under alternative A for all 

PNVTs while it improves or continues to move toward desired conditions for all alternatives in 

all PNVTs with the exception of those noted by †† above. One reason for this is that alternatives 

A and C treat limited acreage within Great Basin and semi-desert grasslands to restore it to 

grassland conditions from woody species encroachment. For more explanation, see the 

“Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014t) and the “Forest Health Specialist Report”

(Forest Service, 2014h).

Habitat Ecological Indicators (EIs)

Aspen and riparian EIs are considered in the viability risk ratings for associated species based on 

treatment objectives and methods in the forested PNVTs. As such, they contribute to viability and 

the relative effectiveness of viability among alternatives. For more information on how ecological 

indicators were developed and evaluated see the Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability (Forest 

Service, 2014bb).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 273

Aspen EI 

Alternatives compared: Direction under the 1987 plan (alternative A or the no action 

alternative) includes clearcutting to convert to aspen from a mixture of aspen with ponderosa pine 

or mixed conifer, providing big game, nongame, and upland game habitat in aspen, managing 

livestock to protect aspen regeneration, and retaining an area’s visual classification where aspen 

contribute substantially to visual quality. 

The no action and action alternatives would have the desired condition to retain aspen on the 

landscape at the desired (minimum) level of 50,000 acres during the planning period. Aspen 

would be maintained above that level under all alternatives during the 15-year planning period.

See appendix G for standards and guidelines related to aspen within the four forested PNVTs.

The amount and condition of aspen would also be affected by actions outside of Forest Service 

control, presenting additional risk. Two primary examples of aspen loss not related to forest 

management and activities include wild ungulate browsing of aspen seedlings and saplings and 

disease (sudden aspen decline or SAD). As an identified plan EI, aspen would be monitored 

across the forests during the planning period to determine movement toward desired conditions

and whether adaptive management is needed. During monitoring, browsing and disease would be 

recorded as well as impacts from forests management and activities. 

Regarding actions outside of the forests’ control, alternative A would provide the greatest buffer 

against browsing and disease risks, retaining 71,076 acres of aspen across the forests; while 

alternatives B, C, and D would have similar buffer levels (68,204 acres, 65,796 acres, 65,517 

acres, respectively). Hence, this ecological indicator would be maintained on the landscape for all 

alternatives, providing habitat and viability effectiveness for species such as those needing dense 

canopies or down woody debris (e.g., red-faced warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler).

Riparian EI

Alternatives compared: Riparian areas constitute management area 3 under the 1987 plan. 

Direction includes consideration of grazing utilization standard levels to achieve “fisheries and 

T&E objectives” and to recover both physical and biological systems, identification of recreation 

carrying capacity, control of wildlife use where affecting riparian condition, and certain levels 

(minimums of 60 to 80 percent) of natural shade over water, streambank stability, and woody 

riparian age class distribution.

Because there are no objectives for treatments under alternative A, all riparian PNVTs are 

estimated to move away from desired conditions (see the “Riparian” section). In addition, 

alternative A would not result in substantial improvement in watersheds that are at risk or 

impaired (see the “Water Resources” section). Alternatives B, C, and D would move toward 

desired conditions based on riparian and road treatment objectives (see table 3), although less so 

for alternative C because there are road only treatments (no riparian restoration treatments).

Alternatives B, C, and D would maintain or restore the riparian forested PNVTs (mixed 

broadleaf deciduous, cotton-willow, and montane willow riparian forests) toward desired riparian 

conditions consisting of, on the landscape scale, (1) natural ecological disturbances (e.g., 

flooding, scouring) that promote a diverse plant structure consisting of herbaceous, shrub, and 

tree species of all ages and size classes necessary for the recruitment of riparian-dependent 

species and (2) riparian-wetland conditions that maintain water-related processes (e.g., 

hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic) and that also maintain the physical and biological community 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

characteristics, functions, and processes. See appendix G for standards and guidelines related to 

riparian areas and riparian forests. 

The amount and condition of riparian forests would also be affected by actions outside of Forest 

Service control, specifically wild ungulate use (primarily elk and, in places, unauthorized 

livestock (feral horse) use). As an identified plan EI, riparian forests would be monitored during 

the planning period to determine if this plant community is moving toward desired conditions and 

whether adaptive management is needed to move toward or maintain desired conditions. During 

monitoring, use by other species would be recorded as well as impacts from forests management 

and activities.

Non-fish Species Viability 

Species-Habitat Viability Findings (All FPS)

These findings include all non-fish forest planning species or FPS (ESA, sensitive, highly 

interactive, and other FPS). For more details, see the Wildlife Specialist Report (Forest Service, 

2012bb).

The viability risk rating (VRR) outcomes for each species based on combining the species F 

ranking and their associated habitat(s)’ likelihood of limitation are shown in table 80. In a few 

instances, the viability risk rating is adjusted as noted in the table. Risk ratings of low and 

moderate are assumed to pose little risk to viability so are not considered (see assumptions). 

Hence, only moderately high, high, and very high viability risk ratings are those given additional 

consideration.

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

relationship by alternative at 15 years

FPS (forest planning 

species)

PNVT and/or habitat element VRR 

Alt. A

VRR 

Alt. B

VRR 

Alt. C

VRR 

Alt. D

Mammals

pronghorn antelope 

GBG

MSG 

M

M

L

L

M

L

L

L

Mexican wolf habitat connectivity MH M MH L

beaver large trees (riparian forested PNVTs) L L L L

southern red-backed vole ample litter and woody debris 

(WMCF, SFF)

M MH MH M

Townsend’s big-eared bat caves L L L M

Gunnison’s prairie dogb GBG

MSG 

H

H

M

M

H

MH

M

M

spotted bat cliffs L L L M

greater western mastiff bat large trees (MBDRF)

cliffs

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

M
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 275

FPS (forest planning 

species)

PNVT and/or habitat element VRR 

Alt. A

VRR 

Alt. B

VRR 

Alt. C

VRR 

Alt. D

Allen’s big-eared bat large snags (MBDRF)

cliffs

M

L

MH

L

MH

L

M

M

western red bat ample debris & litter (MBDRF) MH MH H MH

ocelotb dense, low vegetation & cover 

(MBDRF)

MH M M L

lesser long-nosed batb SDG L L M MH

long-tailed vole mosaic of conditions (MSG) MH M M M

Arizona montane vole healthy riparian conditions (CWRF, 

MWRF) 

M L M L

Mogollon vole wet meadow (PPF) M M MH M

Arizona myotis bat 

PPF

DMCF

M

M

L

L

M

M

L

L

mule deer MPOW (winter habitat) M L L L

jaguarb habitat connectivity M L M L

Springerville pocket mouse mosaic of conditions (GBG) MH L MH L

mountain lion habitat connectivity M L M L

Abert’s squirrel PPF L L L L

Arizona gray squirrel large trees (MBDRF) M M M M

Merriam’s shrew wet meadow (PPF, DMCF) MH M M M

dwarf shrew mosaic of conditions (MSG) MH L M L

water shrew 

water quality (CWRF, MWRF)

healthy riparian conditions (CWRF, 

MWRF)

L

MH

L

M

L

MH

M

M

White Mountains ground 

squirrel 

mosaic of conditions (MSG)

mosaic of conditions (GBG)

MH

MH

L

L

M

MH

L

L

White Mountains 

chipmunk 

ample ground veg, litter (WMCF, 

SFF)

MH M M L

red squirrel 

DMCF

WMCF

SFF

M

M

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

black bear

dense low-mid canopy, woody debris 

(DMCF)

WMCF

SFF

habitat connectivity

M

MH

MH

MH

M

L

L

MH

MH

M

M

L

M

L

L

L
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

FPS (forest planning 

species)

PNVT and/or habitat element VRR 

Alt. A

VRR 

Alt. B

VRR 

Alt. C

VRR 

Alt. D

New Mexico meadow 

jumping mouse 

H riparian conditions (riparian 

forested PNVTs)

MH M MH M

Birds

northern goshawk 

PPF

DMCF

WMCF

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

western burrowing owl mosaic of conditions (GBG) H M MH M

juniper titmouse MPOW M L L L

zone-tailed hawk PPF M L L L

common black-hawk large trees (MBDRF) L L M L

red-faced warbler 

dense, low vegetation & litter 

(DMCF)

WMCF 

MH

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

Swainson’s thrush ample litter and woody debris 

(WMCF, SFF)

M MH MH M

evening grosbeak dense canopies (riparian forested 

PNVTs)

M L M L

yellow-billed cuckoo large trees, dense canopies (riparian 

forested PNVTs)

M M M L

Montezuma quail mosaic of conditions (GBG)

mosaic of conditions (SDG)

MH

MH

L

M

MH

MH

L

L

dusky blue grouse large down woody (WMCF, SFF) M MH MH M

Grace’s warbler PPF L L L L

gray catbird dense low-mid canopy (riparian 

forested PNVTs)

M L M L

southwestern willow 

flycatcher

dense low-mid canopy (MWRF) 

healthy riparian conditions (MWRF) 

MH

MH

M

M

M

MH

L

M

peregrine falcon

cliffs

healthy riparian conditions (riparian 

forested PNVTs)

L

M

L

L

L

M

M

L

bald eagle water quality (CWRF, MBDRF)

large trees (all forests) 

L

M

L

M

L

MH

M

M

Lincoln’s sparrow healthy riparian conditions (MWRF) MH M MH M

MacGillivray’s warbler dense low-mid canopy (riparian 

forested PNVTs) 

MH M M L
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 277

FPS (forest planning 

species)

PNVT and/or habitat element VRR 

Alt. A

VRR 

Alt. B

VRR 

Alt. C

VRR 

Alt. D

flammulated owl 

PPF

DMCF

M

M

L

L

L

M

L

L

savannah sparrow MSG M L M L

Mexican spotted owl 

DMCF

WMCF

MPOW 

PPF where Gambel oak present

H

H

MH

MH

M

M

M

M

MH

MH

M

M

M

M

M

L

gray vireo MPOW M M M M

Reptiles/Amphibians

Arizona toad water quality (MBDRF) L L L M

Chiricahua leopard frog water quality M M M MH

northern leopard frog water quality M M M MH

lowland leopard frog water quality L L L M

northern Mexican 

gartersnake 

water quality

healthy riparian conditions 

L

MH

L

M

L

MH

M

M

narrow-headed gartersnake water quality

healthy riparian conditions 

L

MH

L

M

L

MH

M

M

Invertebrates

plateau giant tiger beetle SDG H MH H M

false ameletus mayfly water quality L L L M

California floater water quality M M M MH

Mosely caddisfly water quality M M M MH

Ferris’ copper butterfly wet swale (MSG)

WCRA

MH

MH

M

M

M

M

M

M

Alberta arctic butterfly MSG MH L M L

Arizona snaketail 

dragonfly

water quality L L M M

four-spotted skipperling 

butterfly

wet meadow or shaded opening (PPF) M M MH M

White Mountains water 

penny beetle 

water quality L L M M

Three Forks springsnail water quality MH MH MH MH

nitocris fritillary butterfly wet swales (MSG)

WCRA

MH

MH

M

L

M

M

M

L
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

FPS (forest planning 

species)

PNVT and/or habitat element VRR 

Alt. A

VRR 

Alt. B

VRR 

Alt. C

VRR 

Alt. D

nokomis fritillary butterfly wet swales (MSG)

WCRA

MH

MH

M

L

M

M

M

L

Plants

Bigelow’s onion 

MPOW

SDG 

M

M

L

M

M

M

L

L

Goodding’s onion cool microclimate (DMCF) L M MH M

Greene milkweed mosaic of conditions (MPOW)

mosaic of conditions (GBG)

H

H

M

M

MH

H

M

M

crenulate moonwort SFF M M M M

White Mountains 

paintbrush

WMCF (meadows)

SFF (meadows) 

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

Mexican hemlock parsley cool microclimate (MPOW) L M MH M

yellow lady’s slipperc (WMCF, SFF-collection) — — — —

Arizona sneezeweed wet meadow (PPF) H MH MH MH

Arizona sunflower mosaic of conditions (GBG)

mosiac of treatment (SDG)

M

M

L

L

M

M

L

L

Eastwood alumroot canyon slopes L L L M

Arizona alumroot canyon slopes L L L M

wood nymph 

WMCF

SFF 

L

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

heathleaf (bittercress) 

ragwort 

shaded forest opening (WMCF, SFF) L L M L

superb penstemon mosaic of conditions (SDG) L L L M

yellow Jacob’s-ladderc (WMCF, SFF-collection)c — — — —

Davidson’s cliff carrot cliffs, canyon slopes L L L M

Parish alkali grass wet alkali swales (GBG) MH M M M

Blumer’s dock water quality

healthy riparian conditions (MWRF)

L

M

L

L

L

M

M

L

Arizona willow healthy riparian conditions (MWRF) MH M M M

Bebb willow healthy riparian conditions (MWRF) MH L M L

hooded lady’s tressesc (WMCF, SFF-collection) — — — —

splachnoid dung moss MSG L L L M
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 279

FPS (forest planning 

species)

PNVT and/or habitat element VRR 

Alt. A

VRR 

Alt. B

VRR 

Alt. C

VRR 

Alt. D

Mogollon clover wet meadow, shaded forest opening 

(PPF) 

M M MH M

Oak Creek triteleia shaded forest opening (PPF) M M MH M

carnivorous bladderwort water quality L L M M

Table rating descriptions or other information:

a Viability risk ratings are VH = very high; H = high; and MH = moderately high. Ratings of moderate (M) to low (L) 

are not considered to be of consequence for species viability (see the assumptions).

b Although not known on the planning unit, the viability risk rating is determined as if present to avoid overestimating 

their F? ranking. 

c Plant collection, not the PNVT or habitat element, is the risk for these species.

Table 81 lists the species where viability risk ratings are L or M across all alternatives within all 

their habitat components. These species include most, but not all, of the coarse filter species (see 

table 66). These ratings indicate that forest management and activities are expected to result in 

effects no more substantial than normal ecosystem fluctuations, thus posing no risk to viability; 

therefore, viability is assured for the following species. These 36 species are not further analyzed 

except more information is provided in following sections for those that are ESA or sensitive 

species.

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

PNVT - coarse filter FPS (forest planning species)

Ponderosa Pine Forest (PPF) Abert’s squirrel, Arizona myotis bat, northern goshawk, zone-tailed

hawk, Grace’s warbler, flammulated owl, four-spotted skipperling

butterfly

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest (DMCF) Arizona myotis bat, red squirrel, northern goshawk, flammulated owl

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest (WMCF) red squirrel, northern goshawk, White Mountains paintbrush,

heathleaf ragwort

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland (MPOW) mule deer, juniper titmouse

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands (MSG) pronghorn antelope, savannah sparrow, splachnoid dung moss

Great Basin Grassland (GBG) pronghorn antelope

Semi-Desert Grassland (SDG) superb penstemon, Arizona sunflower

All PNVTs Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, Arizona montane vole,

Eastwood alumroot, Arizona alumroot, Davidson’s cliff carrot

All Riparian PNVTs Greater western mastiff bat, Arizona gray squirrel, common blackhawk, evening grosbeak, yellow-billed cuckoo, gray catbird,

peregrine falcon, Arizona toad, lowland leopard frog, false ameletus

mayfly, Arizona snaketail dragonfly, Blumer’s dock, carnivorous 

bladderwort
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Species-Habitat Relationships Across Habitats

While all alternatives provide for the needs of species, they do so at different levels of viability 

effectiveness. In order to compare how effectively each alternative addresses species needs, table 

82 sums the viability risk ratings from table 80 by PNVTs for each alternative. Within each 

habitat element, the alternative with the least viability effectiveness is noted by dashes (- -). The 

lower the number of viability risk ratings, the more effective the alternative is in providing for 

viability. As previously noted, fine filter standards and guidelines are developed to help address 

viability effectiveness beyond PNVTs as needed.

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

by habitat element(s) for each alternative (subtotals and totals)

Habitat Elements Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Ponderosa Pine Forest 3 0 -5- 0

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest -4- 0 2 0

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 3 3 -4- 0

Spruce-Fir Forest 2 2 2 2

Subtotal number of viability risk ratings across Forested 

PNVTs

12 5 13 2

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland -3- 1 -3- 2

Subtotal number of viability risk ratings across Forested 

and Woodland PNVTs 

15 6 16 4

Montane/Subalpine Grassland -8- 0 1 0

Great Basin Grassland -7- 0 6 0

Semi-desert Grassland -2- 1 1 1

Subtotal number of viability risk ratings across Grassland 

PNVTs

17 1 8 1

All Riparian PNVTs -14- 2 8 1

Total number of viability risk ratings across all PNVTs 46 9 32 6

Of the seven individual PNVTs and the grouped riparian PNVTs above, alternative A has the 

least overall viability effectiveness among these PNVTs, followed by alternative C. Alternative 

D, followed by alternative B, has the greatest viability effectiveness among these PNVTS. 

However, few species occur across all PNVTs so comparison of ratings is most relevant by 

PNVT.

Species-Habitat Relationships by Species Groups

While all alternatives provide species viability, they do so at different levels of effectiveness. In 

order to compare how effectively each alternative addresses species needs, table 82 sums the 

viability risk ratings from table 80 by species groups for each alternative. The lower the number 

of viability risk ratings, the more effective the alternative is in providing for viability. As noted
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 281

above, fine filter standards and guidelines are developed to help address viability effectiveness as 

well.

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

by FPS group for each alternative

Viability Risk Ratings Comparing

Alternative Viability Effectiveness Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

ESA species 9 1 5 3

Sensitive speciesa 27 4 21 4

Remaining FPSb 10 3 9 1

Total 46 7 35 7

a Includes ESA candidate species. 

b Includes highly interactive species not in another category but does not include MIS.

Overall, alternatives B and D provide the greatest viability effectiveness as compared to 

alternative C, followed by alternative A. This relationship holds for ESA and sensitive FPS as a 

group and for the remaining FPS. However, as previously noted, few species occur across all 

PNVTs so comparison of ratings is most relevant by PNVT.

Endangered Species Act Species and Critical Habitat

Overall Consequences to All ESA Species

All ESA species are forest planning species (FPS). Viability risk ratings for ESA species as FPS 

are previously included in table 80. The management effect, as a reflection of plan objectives for 

each alternative, is previously shown in table 78 which includes those habitats needed by ESA 

species. 

Sections of the plan that contain plan decisions (components) relative to ESA species at the 

coarse and fine filter levels are indicated in table 84. These are followed by a comparison of the 

relative overall viability effectiveness of the alternatives for ESA species. Some key plan 

components that help meet the needs of ESA species are discussed in more detail in the following 

individual species discussions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

coarse and fine filter levels

Plan 

Decisions Desired Conditions Objectives Standards Guidelines

Coarse filter plan 

decisions that 

provide viability 

for: 

All ESA Species

Overall Ecosystem 

Health

Water Resources

Aquatic Habitat and 

Species

All PNVTs

Riparian Areas

All Forested PNVTs

Ponderosa Pine

Dry Mixed Conifer

Wet Mixed Conifer

Spruce-Fir

Madrean Pine-Oak

Wildlife and Rare Plants

Overall Recreation

Opportunities

Dispersed Recreation

Developed Recreation

Livestock Grazing

Heber Wild Horse 

Territory Management 

Area

Wildlife Quiet Area

Management Area

Natural Landscape

Management Area

Recommended Research 

Natural Area

Management Area

Ecosystem Health

Water Resources

Soil 

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species

Riparian Areas

All Forested 

PNVTs

All Woodland 

PNVTs

Grasslands

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants 

Invasive Species

Dispersed 

Recreation

Lands

Water Uses
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 283

Plan 

Decisions Desired Conditions Objectives Standards Guidelines

Fine filter plan 

decisions in 

addition to the 

coarse filter plan 

decisions above 

that provide 

viability for: 

All ESA Species

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species

Invasive Species

Forest Products

Livestock Grazing

Special Uses

Water Uses

Water Resources

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species

All PNVTs

Riparian Areas

All Forested 

PNVTs

Ponderosa Pine 

Forests

Dry Mixed 

Conifer Forests

Madrean PineOak Woodland

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants

Invasive Species

Overall 

Recreation 

Opportunities

Dispersed 

Recreation

Motorized 

Opportunities

Nonmotorized 

Opportunities

Special Uses, 

Energy Corridor

Management Area

Overall Alternative Comparisons for ESA species

All alternatives, to varying degrees, help reduce risks to species and their habitat thereby

improving viability for ESA species as well. Plan implementation under alternatives B, C, and D

(less so for alternative A) would move habitat toward desired conditions over the long term and 

plan components would help to minimize potential short-term plan implementation impacts from 

to ESA species and their critical habitat. Overall, based on tables 78 and 80, alternatives B and 

D have the greatest viability effectiveness for ESA species and their habitat, as compared to 

alternative C, followed by alternative A (also see table 83). For more information, see the 

individual species sections below. 

ESA Determinations for All Alternatives

Two biological assessments (BAs) address effects of forest plans to ESA species in accordance 

with Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act. Determination of effects for the continued 

implementation of the 1987 Apache-Sitgreaves NFs land and resource management plan are 

found in the April 6, 2011 BA (Forest Service, 2011a). These findings are shown in table 85 (nonfish ESA species) and represent the determination of effects to 2011 species and critical habitat
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

should alternative A, the 1987 forest plan, continue to be implemented. Findings for ESA fish 

species are found in table 18. 

Note that since the 2011 BA and since the publication of the DEIS for forest plan revision, there 

have been changes in some non-fish species’ listing status under the ESA and some new species 

and critical habitat have been added or proposed. These changes are addressed in the May 29, 

2014, biological assessment (Forest Service, 2014cc) that analyzes implementation of alternative 

B for plan revision. The determination of effects for species and critical habitat listed in 2014 and 

BA findings are also shown in table 85. This BA was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for formal consultation on May 29, 2014. 

Note that it is assumed that implementation of alternatives C and D would result in similar 

determinations as alternative B, although the level of effects to ESA species would likely be 

different. However, alternatives C and D are not analyzed in a biological assessment.

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

Species

Status 2011

(species 

followed by

critical habitat)

2011 BA findings

(alternative A)

a

Status 2014

(species

followed by

critical habitat)

2014 BA

Finding

(alternative B)

Mexican wolf Experimental,

nonessential (ENE)

-- 

Not likely to jeopardize

-- 

Experimental,

nonessential (ENE)

-- 

Not likely to

jeopardize

-- 

Mexican

spotted owl

Threatened

Critical habitat

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

Threatened

Critical habitat

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

Southwestern 

willow

flycatcher

Threatened

Critical habitat

b

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

Threatened

Critical habitat

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

Chiricahua 

leopard frog

Threatened

Proposed critical

habitatc

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

May affect, likely to

adversely affect, when

listed

Threatened

Critical habitat

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

Three Forks

springsnail

Candidate

d

-- 

Not likely to jeopardize

(may affect, likely to

adversely affect, if

listed)

-- 

Endangered

Critical habitat

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

Narrowheaded

gartersnake

Not listed

-- 

-- 

-- 

Threatened

Proposed critical

habitat

May affect, likely to

adversely affect

Not likely to

adversely modify

(may affect, likely

to adversely affect,

if listed)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 285

Species

Status 2011

(species 

followed by 

critical habitat)

2011 BA findings

(alternative A)a

Status 2014

(species

followed by 

critical habitat)

2014 BA 

Finding

(alternative B)

Northern 

Mexican 

gartersnake

Not listed

--- 

--- 

--- 

Threatened

Proposed critical 

habitat

May affect, likely to 

adversely affect

Not likely to 

adversely modify 

(may affect, likely 

to adversely affect, 

if listed)

Western 

yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Not listed

--- 

--- 

--- 

Proposed threatened

Proposed critical 

habitat

Not likely to 

jeopardize (may 

affect, likely to 

adversely affect, if 

listed)

Not likely to 

adversely modify 

(may affect, likely 

to adversely affect, 

if listed) 

New Mexican 

meadow 

jumping 

mouse

Not listed

--- 

--- 

--- 

Endangered

Proposed critical 

habitat

May affect, likely to 

adversely affect

Not likely to 

adversely modify 

(may affect, likely 

to adversely affect, 

if listed)

Lesser longnosed batEndangered

--- 

No effect 

--- 

Endangerede 

--- 

No effect

--- 

a Determinations based on 2011 status unless otherwise noted. 

b Critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher was designated Jan. 3, 2013. 

c Critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog was designated Mar. 20, 2012. 

d Three Forks springsnail was listed Endangered and critical habitat was designated Apr. 17, 2012. 

e The 2011 BA and 2012 BO did not address the lesser long-nosed bat for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs; however, for 

forest plan revision, this species is included as a FPS, see below.

Alternative Consequences by Individual ESA Species

ESA determinations of effects as well as comparison of alternatives for individual ESA species 

follow. Where applicable, determination of effects to their proposed or designated critical habitat 

is included. Alternatives B, C, and D are considered the action alternatives. For more details 

about alternative A and associated ESA species and critical habitat, see the April 6, 2011 BA 

(Forest Service, 2011a) and the biological and conference opinion (BO/CO) for the continued 

implementation of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs land and resource management plan (USFWS, 

2012a). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Mexican Spotted Owl: Threatened with Critical Habitat 

Alternative A: See table 85 and the 2011 BA (Forest Service, 2011a) and the 2012 BO/CO 

(USFWS, 2012a), as noted above.

Alternatives B, C, and D: The action alternatives provide objectives, desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines favorable for the Mexican spotted owl and its critical habitat. Some 

examples of key plan components that address the needs of this species include the following: 

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

species. 

• Desired Condition: Uncharacteristic fire behavior is minimal or absent on the landscape. 

• Desired Condition: Old or large trees, multistoried canopies, large coarse woody debris, 

and snags provide the structure, function, and associated vegetation composition as 

appropriate for each forested and woodland PNVT. 

• Desired Condition: Herbaceous vegetation amount and structure (e.g., plant density, 

height, litter, seed heads) provides habitat to support wildlife and prey species. 

• Desired Condition: Some isolated infestations of mistletoe provide for a diversity of 

habitat components (e.g., food, nesting, cover) for a variety of species such as owls, 

squirrels, and some birds and insects. 

• Desired Condition: Some large patches in the Madrean pine-oak woodland are closed 

canopy, have multiple age classes, large trees, and old growth-like characteristics (e.g., 

numerous snags, large coarse woody debris) in order to provide for wildlife such as 

Mexican spotted owl and black bear that need denser habitat. 

• Desired Condition: Where it naturally occurs, Gambel oak is present with all age classes 

represented. It is reproducing to maintain or expand its presence on capable sites across 

the landscape. Large Gambel oak snags are typically 10 inches or larger in diameter and 

are well distributed. 

• Desired Condition: Snags and coarse woody debris are well distributed throughout the 

landscape. Snags are typically 18 inches in diameter or greater and average 3 per acre. 

• Standard: Permits which authorize the collection of forest products shall include permit 

provisions to ensure the needs of wildlife, which depend upon those forest products, will 

continue to be met (e.g., cone and mushroom collection and the overwinter forage needs 

of squirrels).

• Standard: Motorized vehicle travel shall be managed to occur only on the designated 

system of NFS roads and motorized trails and designated motorized areas.

• Guideline: 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). 

• Guideline: Where Mexican spotted owls are found nesting in canyons or on north slopes 

within Madrean pine-oak woodland, adjacent treatments should be modified to meet the 

needs of foraging owls.

• Guideline: 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. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 287

• Guideline: Where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late seral 

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

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

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

uncharacteristic wildfire). (Note that this guideline applies to alternatives A, B, and D,

but not to alternative C.)

• Guideline: Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to reduce conflicts 

with wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions.

• Guideline: Activities occurring within federally listed species habitat should apply habitat 

management direction and species protection measures from recovery plans.

In addition to the alternative C exception noted above, differences among alternatives relate 

primarily to differences in treatment objectives and overall management effect. All of the 

alternatives have forested PNVT restoration objectives (table 3) that would help improve habitat 

for Mexican spotted owl. All alternatives use both thinning and wildland fire treatments and all 

have an emphasis for treatment in the dry mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forested PNVTs 

which would include some restoration treatments in owl ponderosa pine-oak habitats. Table 86

shows treatment acres that were modeled by alternative.

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

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

Ponderosa Pine 10,721 23,249 35,842 31,901

Dry Mixed Conifer 601 7,150 11,150 9,501

Wet Mixed Conifer 542 6,132 9,432 7,066

Spruce-Fira 16 750 1,111 1,000

Total annual modeled acreage treated 11,880 37,281 57,535 49,468

a Note that the spruce-fir PNVT on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs meets the definition of “mixed conifer” in the 2012 

MSO Recovery Plan.

Besides the overall alternative comparisons of above, comparisons of individual forested PNVTs 

providing habitat are included for the Mexican spotted owl. For the ponderosa pine forest PNVT, 

movement toward desired conditions is greatest under alternative C, followed by alternatives D, 

then B, and A. For the dry mixed conifer forest PNVT, the order is the same for alternatives C 

and A, but alternatives D and B are reversed. For the wet mixed conifer forested PNVT, 

movement toward desired conditions is greatest under alternative A, followed by alternatives D, 

then B and C. Under all alternatives, the spruce-fir forest PNVT initially moves further away 

from desired conditions over the 15-year planning period; however, less than 3 percent of owl

protected habitat within PACs is composed of this PNVT and trend changes toward desired 

conditions by year 50).

Desired conditions and objectives included for alternative B would help improve owl habitat by 

promoting the restoration of PNVTs, natural fire regimes, and riparian restricted habitat, and by 

incorporating recovery actions and strategies for federally listed species. While standards and 

guidelines help reduce short-term plan implementation impacts, not all potential negative effects 

(e.g., disturbance) from plan implementation would be precluded. As such, the biological 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

assessment (Forest Service, 2014cc) determined that alternative B may affect and is likely to 

adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl.

Plan components help provide for primary constituent elements of critical habitat such as large 

trees and snags, large woody debris, and herbaceous plant cover and seeds for prey. However, the 

extent to which standards and guidelines reduce or eliminate impacts cannot be considered 

insignificant or discountable. As such, the biological assessment determined that alternative B 

may affect and is likely adversely affect Mexican spotted owl critical habitat.

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced overall precipitation (Forest Service, 2010b). This has the 

potential to move the lower elevational limits of dry mixed conifer, wet mixed conifer, and 

spruce-fir forests upward, thereby reducing suitable Mexican spotted owl habitat across the 

forests. The White Mountain Apache Reservation and the San Carlos Indian Reservation have 

timber programs that could cumulatively affect the owl and its critical habitat, although details of 

those programs are unknown. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: Endangered with Critical Habitat

Alternative A: See above.

Alternatives B, C, and D: The action alternatives provide objectives, desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines favorable for the southwestern willow flycatcher and its critical habitat. 

Some examples of key plan components that address the needs of this species include the 

following: 

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

species. 

• Desired Condition: Habitat and ecological conditions are capable of providing for selfsustaining populations of native, riparian dependent plant and animal species. 

• Desired Condition: Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species that support a 

wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive plant and 

animal species.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation and soil conditions above the floodplain protect 

downstream water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitat. 

• Standard: 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.

• Standard: Aerial retardant drops should avoid threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate, or identified sensitive species and waterways.

• Standard: 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.

• Guideline: Ground-disturbing projects (including prescribed fire) which may degrade 

long term riparian conditions should be avoided.

• Guideline: Critical areas [e.g., riparian areas] should be managed to address the inherent 

or unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts. 

• Guideline: Constraints (e.g., maximum limit to which water level can be drawn down or 

minimum distance from a connected river, stream, wetland, or groundwater-dependent 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 289

ecosystem) should be established for new groundwater pumping sites permitted on NFS 

lands in order to protect the character and function of water resources.

• Guideline: Dispersed campsites should not be located on or adjacent to archaeological 

sites or sensitive wildlife areas.

• Guideline: Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to reduce conflicts 

with wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions.

• Guideline: Activities occurring within federally listed species habitat should apply habitat 

management direction and species protection measures from recovery plans.

Besides the overall alternative comparisons above, comparison of PNVTs providing habitat are 

included for the Southwestern willow flycatcher. For both the montane willow and mixed 

broadleaf deciduous riparian forest PNVTs, movement toward desired conditions is greatest under 

alternatives B and D, and least under alternatives A and C.

Desired conditions and objectives included for alternative B would help improve flycatcher 

habitat by promoting restoration of upland PNVTs, watersheds, and riparian vegetation, and by 

incorporating recovery actions and strategies for federally listed species. While standards and 

guidelines help reduce short-term plan implementation impacts, not all potential negative effects 

(e.g., disturbance, reduced flows) would be precluded. As such, the biological assessment 

determined that alternative B may affect and is likely to adversely affect the Southwestern 

willow flycatcher.

Plan components help provide for primary constituent elements of critical habitat such as dense 

riparian thickets and associated watered floodplains for insect prey. However, the extent to which 

standards and guidelines reduce or eliminate plan implementation impacts cannot be considered 

insignificant or discountable. As such, the biological assessment determined that alternative B 

may affect and is likely to adversely affect Southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. 

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation, with the potential to reduce water in riparian 

zones (Forest Service, 2010b) and, thereby, possibly reducing riparian nesting habitat for the 

southwestern willow flycatcher. All three nesting sites and much of the critical habitat for this 

species are adjacent to or surrounded by private land. Increased housing and other development 

with associated wells could reduce the groundwater table in the Greer and Alpine areas which 

could lower streamflows and reduce the wetted portion of the floodplain that supports the 

extensive willow stands and insect prey used by nesting flycatchers. In addition, elk management 

and numbers which have and can impact the development of tall, extensive willow.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo: Proposed Threatened Habitat

Alternative A: See above.

Alternatives B, C, and D: The action alternatives provide objectives, desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines favorable for the western yellow-billed cuckoo. Some key examples of 

plan components that address the needs of this species include the following: 

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed species.

Desired Condition: Habitat and ecological conditions are capable of providing for selfsustaining populations of native, riparian dependent plant and animal species. 

• Desired Condition: Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species that support a wide 

range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive plant and animal species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Desired Condition: Vegetation and soil conditions above the floodplain protect downstream 

water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitat. 

• Desired Conditions: Livestock grazing is in balance with available forage (i.e., grazing and 

browsing by authorized livestock, wild horses, and wildlife do not exceed available forage 

production within established use levels). 

• Standard: 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

• Standard: 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.

• Standard: 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. 

• Guideline: Aerial retardant drops should avoid threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate, or identified sensitive species and waterways.

• Guideline: Ground-disturbing projects (including prescribed fire) which may degrade long 

term riparian conditions should be avoided.

• Guideline: Critical areas [e.g., riparian areas] should be managed to address the inherent or 

unique site factors, conditions, values, or potential conflicts associated with them.

• Guideline: To prevent resource damage (e.g., stream banks) 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).

• Guideline: Streambed and floodplain alteration or removal of material should not occur if it 

prevents attainment of riparian, channel morphology, or streambank desired conditions.

• Guideline: 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).

• Guideline: Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to reduce conflicts 

with wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions.

Besides the overall alternative comparisons above, comparison of PNVTs providing habitat are 

included for the western yellow-billed cuckoo. For both the mixed broadleaf deciduous and 

cottonwood-willow forested riparian PNVTs, movement toward desired conditions is greatest 

under alternatives B and D, and least under alternatives A and C.

Desired conditions and objectives included for alternative B would help improve habitat for the 

cuckoo by promoting restoration of upland PNVTs, natural fire regimes, and watersheds that 

influence the health of riparian areas, and direct restoration within riparian areas. The biological 

assessment determined that alternative B would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of 

the western yellow-billed cuckoo in its current proposed status. However, standards and 

guidelines would not preclude all short-term plan implementation impacts (e.g., road 

maintenance, livestock grazing). As such, the biological assessment also determined that plan 

implementation under alternative B may affect and is likely to adversely affect the western 

yellow-billed cuckoo, if listed.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 291

Plan components help provide for primary constituent elements of proposed critical habitat in 

riparian and floodplain areas such as dynamic river flow conditions that support well developed 

riparian woody species with dense canopies with an adequate prey base in large (200 acre) and 

wide (325 feet) patches. The biological assessment determined that alternative B would not 

likely result in adverse modification of proposed critical habitat for the cuckoo. However, 

standards and guidelines would not preclude all short-term plan implementation impacts. As such, 

the biological assessment also determined that plan implementation under alternative B may 

affect and is likely to adversely affect critical habitat, if listed, for the western yellow-billed 

cuckoo.

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation, consequently reducing water and the riparian 

vegetation that needed by the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Forest Service, 2010b). There is one 

large parcel of private land along the San Francisco River and many private land parcels along 

Eagle Creek. Activities on these private lands include water impoundment, diversion, livestock 

grazing, roads, home sites, and livestock handling facilities.

Chiricahua Leopard Frog: Threatened with Critical Habitat

Alternative A: See above.

Alternatives B, C, and D:

The action alternatives provide objectives, desired conditions, standards, and guidelines favorable 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog and its critical habitat. Some key examples of key plan 

components that address the needs of this species include the following: 

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

species. 

• Desired Condition: Water quality meets the needs of desirable aquatic species such as the 

California floater, northern and Chiricahua leopard frog, and invertebrates that support 

fish populations.

• Desired Condition: Ecological conditions for habitat quality, distribution, and abundance 

contribute to self-sustaining populations of native and desirable nonnative plants and 

animals that are healthy, well distributed, connected, and genetically diverse. Conditions 

provide for the life history, distribution, and natural population fluctuations of the species 

within the capability of the landscape.

• Desired Condition: Riparian obligate species within wet meadows, along stream banks, 

and active floodplains provide sufficient vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation 

and litter cover) to protect and enrich soils, trap sediment, mitigate flood energy, stabilize 

stream banks, and provide for wildlife and plant needs.

• Standard: 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.

• Standard: 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. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Standard: 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.

• Guideline: Aerial retardant drops should avoid threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate, or identified sensitive species and waterways.

• Guideline: Ground-disturbing projects (including prescribed fire) which may degrade 

long term riparian conditions should be avoided. 

• Guideline: 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. 

• Guideline: 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.

• Guideline: Dispersed campsites should not be located on or adjacent to archaeological 

sites or sensitive wildlife areas.

• Guideline: Activities occurring within federally listed species habitat should apply habitat 

management direction and species protection measures from recovery plans.

Other plan decisions would also help provide for the needs of the Chiricahua leopard frog. The 

recommended Three Forks Research Natural Area would afford additional protection by 

precluding the impacts from livestock grazing, timber production, new motorized roads, trails, 

and temporary roads in the Three Forks area where the species has occurred. The recommended 

Lower Campbell Blue research natural area would also afford the same protection to locations of 

the frog in Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks. 

Besides the overall alternative comparisons above, comparison of PNVTs providing habitat are 

included for the Chiricahua leopard frog. For both the wetland/cienega riparian PNVT and the 

montane willow riparian forest PNVT, movement toward desired conditions is greatest under 

alternatives B and D, and least under alternatives A and C.

Desired conditions and objectives included for alternative B would help improve habitat for the 

frog by promoting restoration of upland PNVTs, watershed and riparian areas, and by

incorporating recovery actions and strategies for federally listed species. While standards and 

guidelines would help reduce short-term plan implementation impacts, not all potential negative 

effects (e.g., water quality, loud noises during breeding) would be precluded. As such, the 

biological assessment determined that alternative B may affect and is likely to adversely affect

the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Plan components help provide for primary constituent elements of critical habitat in riparian and 

adjacent upland areas such as fresh water, emergent/submerged vegetation, root masses, and 

suitable dispersal corridors. However, the extent to which standards and guidelines reduce or 

eliminate plan implementation impacts cannot be considered insignificant or discountable. As 

such, the biological assessment determined that alternative B may affect and is likely to 

adversely affect critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog.

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation, consequently reducing water in riparian zones 

(Forest Service, 2010b) and potentially reducing the aquatic habitat needed by the Chiricahua 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 293

leopard frog. There is one 5-acre private land parcel in upper Campbell Blue Creek that has an 

older house, although the site could be further developed. There is another 86-acre property 

below occupied and critical habitat on lower Campbell Blue Creek although no activities on or 

associated with this private land are known to be affecting occupied frog habitat upstream of this 

private land. Spring and summer elk use impacts riparian conditions in the Three Forks area 

(wallowing) and two tanks (bank trampling) where the frog has been stocked. In addition, elk and 

deer utilize Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks as general movement corridors between 

spring/summer and fall/winter habitat.

Narrow-headed Gartersnake: Threatened with Proposed Critical Habitat

Northern Mexican Gartersnake: Threatened with Proposed Critical Habitat

Alternative A: See above.

Alternatives B, C, and D: The action alternatives provide objectives, desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines favorable for the narrow-headed and northern Mexican gartersnakes and 

their proposed critical habitat. Some key examples of plan components that address the needs of 

these species include the following: 

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

species.

• Desired Condition: Ecological conditions for habitat quality, distribution, and abundance 

contribute to self-sustaining populations of native and desirable nonnative plants and 

animals that are healthy, well distributed, connected, and genetically diverse. Conditions 

provide for the life history, distribution, and natural population fluctuations of the species 

within the capability of the landscape.

• Desired Condition: Riparian obligate species within wet meadows, along stream banks, 

and active floodplains provide sufficient vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation 

and litter cover) to protect and enrich soils, trap sediment, mitigate flood energy, stabilize 

stream banks, and provide for wildlife and plant needs.

• Standard: 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.

• Standard: 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.

• Guideline: Aerial retardant drops should avoid threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate, or identified sensitive species and waterways.

• Guideline: Ground-disturbing projects (including prescribed fire) which may degrade 

long term riparian conditions should be avoided.

• Guideline: Critical areas [e.g., riparian area] should be managed to address the inherent or 

unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts.

• Guideline: To prevent resource damage (e.g., stream banks) 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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Guideline: 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.

• Guideline: Roads and motorized trails should be designed and located so as to not impede 

terrestrial and aquatic species movement and connectivity.

• Guideline: Streambed and floodplain alteration or removal of material should not occur if 

it prevents attainment of riparian, channel morphology, or streambank desired conditions.

• Guideline: 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.

• Guideline: Dispersed campsites should not be located on or adjacent to archaeological 

sites or sensitive wildlife areas.

Besides the overall alternative comparisons above, comparisons of PNVTs providing habitat are 

included for the narrow-headed and northern Mexican gartersnake. For the mixed broadleaf 

deciduous, cottonwood-willow and montane willow riparian forested PNVTs, movement toward 

desired conditions is greatest under alternatives B and D, and least under alternatives A and C.

Desired conditions and objectives included for alternative B would help improve habitat for 

these two gartersnakes by promoting restoration of restoration of upland and riparian PNVTs, 

watersheds, and soils. While standards and guidelines would help reduce short-term plan 

implementation impacts, not all potential negative effects (e.g., sediment or grazing) would be 

precluded. As such the biological assessment determined that alternative B may affect and is 

likely to adversely affect the narrow-headed and northern Mexican gartersnakes. 

Plan components help provide for primary constituent elements of proposed critical habitat in 

riparian and floodplain areas such as unregulated water flows, complexity (rocks, logs, debris) 

within adequate terrestrial space extending to 600 feet (182.9 meters) to either side of bankfull 

stage), and an amphibian and native, non-spiny fish prey base. The biological assessment 

determined that alternative B would not likely result in adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat for these two gartersnakes. However, standards and guidelines would not preclude 

all short-term plan implementation impacts. As such, the biological assessment also determined 

that plan implementation under alternative B may affect and is likely to adversely affect

critical habitat, if listed, for the narrow-headed and northern Mexican gartersnake.

Three Forks Springsnail: Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Alternative A: See above.

Alternatives B, C, and D: The action alternatives provide objectives, desired conditions, 

standards, or guidelines favorable for the Three Forks springsnail and its critical habitat. Some 

examples of key plan components that address the needs of this species include the following: 

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

species.

• Desired Condition: Vegetation and soil condition above the floodplain contribute to 

downstream water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitat. 

• Desired Condition: Habitat and ecological conditions are capable of providing for selfsustaining populations of native, riparian dependent plant and animal species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 295

• Standard: 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.

• Standard: Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential for 

introduction of new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or 

terrestrial nonnative populations.

• Standard: 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.

• Guideline: Aerial retardant drops should avoid threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate, or identified sensitive species and waterways.

• Guideline: Ground-disturbing projects (including prescribed fire) which may degrade 

long term riparian conditions should be avoided.

• Guideline: Constraints (e.g., maximum limit to which water level can be drawn down or 

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.

• Guideline: 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.

• Guideline: Rare, unique habitats (e.g., talus slopes, cliffs, canyon slopes, caves, fens, 

bogs, sinkholes) should be protected.

Other plan decisions would also help provide for the needs of the Three Forks springsnail. The 

recommended Three Forks Research Natural Area would afford additional protection by 

precluding livestock grazing, timber production, new motorized roads, trails, and temporary roads

in the Three Forks area where the snail has occurred. This would include the canyon reaches of 

North and East Forks Black River and Boneyard Creek drainages where the snail is found.

Besides the overall alternative comparisons above, comparison of PNVTs providing habitat are 

included for the Three Forks springsnail. For both the wetland/cienega riparian PNVT and the 

montane will riparian forest PNVT, movement toward desired conditions is greatest under 

alternatives B and D, and least under alternatives A and C. 

Desired conditions and objectives included for alternative B would help improve habitat for the 

snail by promoting restoration of watershed and riparian areas, and by incorporating recovery 

actions and strategies for federally listed species. While standards and guidelines would help 

reduce short-term plan implementation impacts, not all potential negative effects (e.g. water 

quality, vegetation trampling) would be precluded. As such, the biological assessment determined 

that alternative B may affect and is likely to adversely affect the Three Forks springsnail.

Plan components help provide for primary constituent elements of critical habitat such as needed 

spring runs and substrates, and limited presence of predators. However, the extent to which 

standards and guidelines reduce or eliminate plan implementation impacts cannot be considered 

insignificant or discountable. As such, the biological assessment determined that alternative B 

may affect and is likely to adversely affect critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail. 

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation, possibly reducing water in riparian zones (Forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Service, 2010b) and result in the loss of spring-runs needed by the Three Forks springsnail. 

However, the unique springs that support this species may also be impacted by groundwater

pumping. There is one well located on private land adjacent to Boneyard Bog and upstream of the 

occupied springsnail sites along Boneyard Creek. In addition, elk wallowing and trampling is 

common at Three Forks and Boneyard Bog in the spring and early summer.

Mexican Wolf: Experimental, Nonessential Population

Alternative A: See above.

Alternatives B, C, and D:

The action alternatives provide objectives, desired conditions, standards, or guidelines favorable 

for the Mexican wolf. Some examples of key plan components that address the needs of this 

species include the following:

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

species. 

• 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.

• 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.

• Desired Condition: Herbaceous vegetation amount and structure (e.g., plant density, 

height, litter, seed heads) provides habitat to support wildlife and prey species. 

• Desired Condition: Vegetation conditions provide hiding and thermal cover in contiguous 

blocks for wildlife. Native plant species are present in all age (size/canopy) classes and 

are healthy, reproducing, and persisting. 

• Standard: 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.

• Standard: Motorized vehicle travel shall be managed to occur only on the designated 

system of NFS roads and motorized trails and designated motorized areas.

• Guideline: Firelines, helispots, and fire camps should be located to avoid disturbance to 

critical species and impacts to cultural resources.

• Guideline: Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to reduce conflicts 

with wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions.

• Guideline: Restoration methods, such as thinning or prescribed fire, should leave a 

mosaic of untreated areas within the larger treated project area to retain or allow 

recolonization of treated areas by plants, small mammals, and insects (e.g., long-tailed 

voles, fritillary butterflies).

• Guideline: Forage, browse, and cover needs of wildlife, authorized livestock, and wild 

horses should be managed in balance with available forage so that plants providing these 

needs remain at or move toward a healthy, persistent condition

• Guideline: Activities occurring within federally listed species habitat should apply habitat 

management objectives and species protection measures from recovery plans.

Other plan decisions would help provide for the Mexican wolf. Management areas where 

motorized vehicle use is restricted or prohibited reduce the wolf’s exposure to loss from vehicles 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 297

or illegal activities. Management areas providing more secure habitat for the wolf and its prey 

include wildlife quiet areas, wilderness, recommended wilderness, and the primitive area. 

Regardless of the overall alternative comparisons above, wolves are not PNVT habitat specialists.

Relative to disturbance to wolves or their prey or harm to wolves, alternative D would provide 

the greatest amount of secure habitat for the Mexican wolf, followed by alternative B, then 

alternative C, and finally alternative A.

Desired conditions and objectives included in alternative B would help improve habitat for 

species that provide wolf prey and would help benefit wolves by incorporating recovery actions 

and strategies for federally listed species. Standards and guidelines would help to reduce shortterm plan implementation impacts (e.g., disturbance). As such, the biological assessment 

determined that alternative B would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of this 

experimental, non-essential population of Mexican wolves.

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation (Forest Service, 2010b). The changes could 

potentially affect wolf prey populations, although how substantially is not known at this time. 

Factors outside Forest Service control that may affect Mexican wolves include AZGFD objectives 

for elk and deer populations in game management units across the forests.

New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse: Endangered with Proposed Critical Habitat

Alternative A: See above.

Alternatives B, C, and D: The action alternatives provide objectives, desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines favorable for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Some 

examples of key plan components addressing the needs of this species and its critical habitat 

include the following: 

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

species.

• Desired Condition: Ecological conditions for habitat quality, distribution, and abundance 

contribute to self-sustaining populations of native and desirable nonnative plants and 

animals that are healthy, well distributed, connected, and genetically diverse. Conditions 

provide for the life history, distribution, and natural population fluctuations of the species 

within the capability of the landscape.

• Desired Condition: Habitat and ecological conditions are capable of providing for selfsustaining populations of native, riparian dependent plant and animal species. 

• Desired Condition: Riparian obligate species within wet meadows, along stream banks, 

and active floodplains provide sufficient vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation 

and litter cover) to protect and enrich soils, trap sediment, mitigate flood energy, stabilize 

stream banks, and provide for wildlife and plant needs.

• Standard: Aerial retardant drops should avoid threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate, or identified sensitive species and waterways.

• Standard: 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.

• Standard: 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Standard: Motorized vehicle travel shall be managed to occur only on the designated 

system of NFS roads and motorized trails and designated motorized areas

• Guideline: Critical areas [e.g., riparian areas] should be managed to address the inherent 

or unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts.

• Guideline: 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.

• Guideline: Ground-disturbing projects (including prescribed fire) which may degrade 

long term riparian conditions should be avoided.

• Guideline: Roads and motorized trails should be designed and located so as to not impede 

terrestrial and aquatic species movement and connectivity.

• Guideline: Streambed and floodplain alteration or removal of material should not occur if 

it prevents attainment of riparian, channel morphology, or streambank desired conditions.

• Guideline: Dispersed campsites should not be located on or adjacent to archaeological 

sites or sensitive wildlife areas. 

• Guideline: Activities occurring within federally listed species habitat should apply habitat 

management objectives and species protection measures from recovery plans.

Besides the overall alternative comparisons above, comparison of PNVTs providing habitat are 

included for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. For both the montane willow and 

cottonwood-willow riparian forested PNVTs, movement toward desired conditions is greatest

under alternatives B and D, and least under alternatives A and C.

Desired conditions and objectives included for alternative B would help improve mouse habitat 

by promoting restoration of upland and riparian PNVTs and watersheds, and by incorporating 

recovery actions and strategies for federally listed species. While standards and guidelines help 

reduce short-term plan implementation impacts, not all potential negative effects (e.g. roads, 

scouring floods) would be precluded. As such, the biological assessment determined that 

alternative B may affect and is likely to adversely affect the New Mexico meadow jumping 

mouse.

Plan components help provide for proposed primary constituent elements of critical habitat such 

as flowing water, saturated soils, tall stubble height of vegetation, sufficient space or length of 

riparian areas, and floodplains and adjacent uplands extending to 100 meters (330 feet) from 

bankfull water’s edge. The biological assessment determined that alternative B would not likely 

result in adverse modification of proposed critical habitat for the mouse. However, standards 

and guidelines would not preclude all short-term plan implementation impacts. As such, the 

biological assessment also determined that plan implementation under alternative B may affect 

and is likely to adversely affect critical habitat, if listed, for the New Mexico meadow jumping 

mice. 

Climate and cumulative effects: Research predicts that as climate changes, water inputs are 

expected to decline due to reduced precipitation, consequently reducing water in riparian zones 

(Forest Service, 2010b) and potentially reducing the riparian and saturated soil habitat needed by 

the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. There is one 5-acre private land parcel in upper 

Campbell Blue Creek that has an older house, although the site could be further developed. 

Habitat for the mouse occurs within or adjacent to private land on Nutrioso and Campbell Blue 

Creeks and on the San Francisco River in the Alpine Valley. Private land impacts include home 

site, livestock grazing and facilities, wells, and septic systems.

Lesser Long-nosed Bat: Endangered 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 299

Alternative A: See above.

Alternatives B, C, and D: The action alternatives provide objectives, desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines favorable for the lesser long-nosed bat. Some key plan components 

addressing the needs of this species include the following:

• Desired Condition: Habitat conditions contribute to the recovery of federally listed 

species. 

• Standard: 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.

• Guideline: 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 cover. 

• Guideline: 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. 

• Guideline: 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). 

• Guideline: 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).

Besides the overall alternative comparisons above, comparisons of individual PNVTs providing 

habitat for lesser long-nosed bat are included. For the semi-desert grassland PNVT, movement 

toward desired conditions is greatest for alternatives B and D, and least under alternatives A and 

C. For the Madrean pine-oak woodland PNVT, movement toward desired conditions is greatest 

under alternative D, followed by alternatives B and C, with the least under alternative A.

Standards and guidelines would help to reduce short-term plan implementation impacts (e.g., 

burning, grazing); however, the bat is not known or expected to occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs at this time. As such, the biological assessment determined that alternative B would have no 

effect on the lesser long-nosed bat.

Climate and cumulative effects: Research potentially warmer and drier conditions(Forest 

Service, 2010b). This may result in an expansion of the semi-desert grassland and Madrean pineoak woodland on the forests and associated food plants for species such as the lesser long-nosed 

bat. On the other hand, potential expansion of the Freeport-McMoRan open-pit mine near 

Morenci would remove habitat acres currently providing foraging plants that could potentially be 

used by this species. The lesser long-nosed bat may be cumulatively impacted by livestock 

grazing, wildland fire and other activities on State and private lands in the southern half of 

Arizona. 

Sensitive Species

Sensitive species are designated because of concerns about trends in population or habitat 

capability (Forest Service Manual 2670.5). As previously noted, all alternatives provide species 

viability to varying levels of effectiveness. The viability discussion for the 53 Regional Forester 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

sensitive species identified as forest planning species is organized by coarse filter PNVTs and fine 

filter habitat elements to facilitate alternative comparison. Determinations are made for sensitive 

species relative to impacts to individuals and potential trend toward Federal listing (Forest 

Service Handbook 2670.32). 

Viability risk ratings for sensitive species as FPS are included in table 80. The management 

effect, as a reflection of plan objectives for each alternative, is shown for the habitats associated 

with sensitive species in table 77. Sections of the plan that contain plan components (decisions) 

relative to sensitive species at the coarse and fine filter are shown in table 87 below. Some key 

plan components (decisions) that help meet the needs of sensitive species are noted in the 

following species across habitat discussions.

For more information, appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met 

by various plan components (decisions). In addition, the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” 

contains a complete list of plan decisions relative to sensitive species (e.g., desired conditions, 

standards, guidelines). The “Draft Biological Evaluation” (Forest Service, 2014aa) contains more 

detail on analysis of sensitive species.

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

the coarse and fine filter levels

Viability/Plan Decision Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Coarse filter plan decisions that 

provide viability for: 

All Sensitive Species

Riparian Areas, All PNVTs,

Ponderosa Pine, Dry Mixed 

Conifer, Wet Mixed Conifer,

Piñon-Juniper, Madrean PineOak, Grasslands, Interior

Chaparral

Fine filter plan decisions in

addition to the coarse filter plan 

decisions above that provide

viability for: 

Ponderosa Pine Forest Sensitive 

Species: Mogollon vole,

Merriam’s shrew, four-spotted

skipperling butterfly, Arizona

sneezeweed, Mogollon clover

Ponderosa Pine,

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest

Sensitive Species: Goodding’s

onion, Merriam’s shrew

Dry Mixed

Conifer, Wildlife

and Rare Plants

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest

Sensitive Species: White

Mountains chipmunk, southern 

red-backed vole

Soil, Wildlife and

Rare Plants

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 

Sensitive Species: Greene 

milkweed

All PNVTs,

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 301

Viability/Plan Decision Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 

Sensitive Species: Ferris’ copper 

butterfly, nitocris and nakomis 

fritillary butterflies, dwarf shrew, 

long-tailed vole, White Mountains 

ground squirrel

All PNVTs, 

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants

Great Basin Grassland Sensitive 

Species: Springerville pocket 

mouse, White Mountains ground 

squirrel, Greene milkweed, Parish 

alkali grass

All PNVTs, 

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants

High Water Quality Sensitive 

Species: water shrew, bald eagle, 

northern leopard frog, northern 

Mexican gartersnake, narrowheaded gartersnake, California 

floater

Water Resources, 

Riparian Areas, 

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants, Wild Horse 

TerritoryManagem

ent Area

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species 

(Healthy Riparian Conditions): 

Water shrew, New Mexico 

meadow jumping mouse, northern 

Mexican gartersnake, narrowheaded gartersnake, Arizona 

willow, Bebb willow

Dispersed 

Recreation

Water Resources, 

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species, 

Riparian Areas, 

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants, Livestock 

Grazing

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species 

(Large Trees/Snags, Dense 

Canopies): Allen’s big-eared bat, 

bald eagle

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species 

(Dense Low-Mid Canopy with 

Ample Ground Litter): western red 

bat

Dispersed 

Recreation

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants, Motorized 

Opportunities

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species 

(Permanent Wet Meadow-Like 

Areas): Ferris’ copper butterfly, 

nitocris fritillary butterfly, 

nokomis fritillary butterfly

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants

Consequences to Coarse Filter Species

Sensitive Species Across All Habitats

The following 24 sensitive species (from table 80) have essentially no risk to viability from any 

of the alternatives because desired conditions for their associated PNVT would meet their needs. 

Modeling has shown all alternatives move habitat toward those conditions at 15 years regardless 

of alternative management effect. In addition, most alternatives continue toward desired 

conditions at 50 years (alternative C is the primary exception, see table 79).

While there may be some impact to individuals from implementation of any of the plan 

alternatives, there would be no trend toward Federal listing for the following sensitive species 

during the planning period under all alternatives: 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, greater western mastiff bat, Arizona 

montane vole, Arizona gray squirrel, red squirrel, northern goshawk, zone-tailed 

hawk, common black-hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, gray catbird, peregrine falcon, 

gray vireo, Arizona toad, lowland leopard frog, Arizona snaketail dragonfly, 

White Mountains paintbrush, Arizona sunflower, Eastwood alumroot, Arizona 

alumroot, heathleaf ragwort, Davidson’s cliff carrot, Blumer’s dock, and 

carnivorous bladderwort. 

Consequences to Fine Filter Species

Viability for the remaining 29 sensitive species is provided by fine filter habitat elements with 

consideration for alternative management effect. For the analysis, fine filter sensitive species 

discussed below are grouped by PNVTs and by habitat elements. 

In order to compare the viability effectiveness among alternatives, the viability risk rating (VRR) 

outcomes for each species (table 80) are combined with the overall PNVT management effect 

(ME) outcomes in terms of how the alternative’s objectives move habitat toward desired 

conditions (table 79). This involves converting viability risk values and management effect values 

into a common descriptor so they can be combined. 

Management effects (ME) outcomes are converted and shown in the following PNVT tables: ME 

of 1 as “+++”; ME 2 as “++”; and ME 3 as “+.” See table 65 for descriptions of each 

management effect.

Viability risk rating outcomes (VRR) are converted and described in table 88 below. VRRs of L 

or M are shown in the following PNVT tables as “+++” because risks are considered no more 

substantial than normal ecosystem fluctuations, therefore providing for viability. The VRR of MH 

is expressed in the tables below as “++” because this rating is best in terms of providing for 

viability effectiveness as compared to the VRR of H which is expressed as “+” (based on the 

analysis, there is no rating of VH). The above viability risk ratings and how they relate to viability 

are shown in table 88 below.

Table 88. Viability risk ratings described and converted

Risk Levels Species Persistence Viability

Levels of

Viability

Effectiveness

Normal ecosystem

fluctuations →

Species able to adjust and

persistence → Yes (Natural)

VRRs of L and M → Species able to adjust and

persistence because risk is

similar to normal

ecosystem fluctuations → Yes → L or M = +++
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 303

Risk Levels Species Persistence Viability

Levels of

Viability 

Effectiveness

VRRs of MH, H, VH → Species persists based on 

fine filter guidelines → Yes (alternatives providing 

viability at various effectiveness 

levels for comparison of 

alternatives) → Viability 

effectiveness:

MH = ++ best 

H = + next best 

VH = (no 

occurrences)

All plan components relevant to sensitive species are listed in the “Wildlife Specialist Report –

Biological Evaluation.” In addition, appendix G lists all standards and guidelines addressing 

sensitive and other wildlife species needs. 

Ponderosa Pine Forest PNVT Sensitive Species

Mogollon vole, Merriam’s shrew, four-spotted 

skipperling butterfly, Arizona sneezeweed, Mogollon clover

These sensitive species have a fine filter habitat need of sometimes shaded or often wet meadows

or forest openings. These conditions provide insect and invertebrate prey for the vole and shrew, 

moister conditions for nectaring for the butterfly, and cooler growing conditions for the two 

plants. Desired conditions for this PNVT address openings and meadows; however, additional 

plan components are included to ensure their needs are met: 

• Ponderosa Pine Guideline – 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 onequarter acre) shaded 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.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species.

Table 89 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

have the greatest viability effectiveness for these ponderosa pine forest species, followed by 

alternative C, then alternative A. 

Individuals of these five species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives, 

which may be more likely under alternative A with its lower overall viability effectiveness (13) 

as compared to the action alternatives (21, 16, 21 respectively for alternatives B, C, and D).

However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing. This is because 

alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see 

the “Vegetation” section) and the guidelines above additionally provide for these species’ needs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Table 89. Viability effectiveness for ponderosa pine forest sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with 

Ponderosa Pine Forest

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

Fine filter - Mogollon vole + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Merriam’s shrew + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Four-spotted skipperling butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Arizona sneezeweed + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Mogollon clover + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s 13 21 16 21

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest PNVT Sensitive Species

Goodding’s onion, Merriam’s shrew

Goodding’s onion has a fine filter habitat need for cool forested, understory microclimate sites (it 

is rhizomatous and grows in clusters under trees). Because desired conditions for forest structure 

and density are similar to ponderosa pine forest (more open canopies), the following guideline is 

included to ensure its more shaded needs are met:

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – 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).

Merriam’s shrew has a fine filter habitat need for wet meadows and forest openings which 

provide the terrestrial insects, worms and other invertebrates the shrew preys upon. Because 

desired conditions for forest structure and density are similar to ponderosa pine forest (more open 

canopies), the following guidelines are included to ensure its needs are met:

• Dry Mixed Conifer Guideline – 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 onequarter acre) shaded 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.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species.

Table 90 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

provide the greatest viability effectiveness for these dry mixed conifer forest sensitive species, 

followed by alternative C, then alternative A.

Individuals of these two dry mixed conifer forest sensitive species may be impacted by 

implementation of any of the alternatives, which may be more likely under alternative A.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 305

However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing. This is because 

alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see 

the “Vegetation” section) and the guidelines above additionally provide for these species’ needs. 

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

Sensitive FPS 

Associated with

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest

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

Fine filter - Goodding’s onion + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Merriam’s shrew + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME

7 9 8 9

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Spruce-Fir Forest PNVTs Sensitive Species

White Mountains chipmunk, southern red-backed vole

These two sensitive species need ample litter and down debris (logs). Decaying logs provide 

fungi that both species feed upon, while litter provides insects, invertebrates, and cover for the 

vole. Guidelines that contribute to these needs follow: 

• Soil Guideline – Coarse woody debris retention and/or creation should be used as needed 

to help retain long-term soil productivity. 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – 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. 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species. 

Table 91 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives (identical for both PNVTs).

Alternative D would provide the greatest viability effectiveness for wet mixed conifer forest 

sensitive species as compared to alternatives A, B, and C, but all are similar. Individuals of these 

two species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives. However, none of the 

alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing. This is because alternative objectives 

(see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions in wet mixed conifer forest 

(see the “Vegetation” section) and the guidelines above additionally provide for these species’ 

needs. 

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

species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest

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

Fine filter - White Mountains chipmunk + + + + + + + + + + +
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Sensitive FPS

Associated with

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest

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

Fine filter - Southern red-backed vole + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + +a + + +a + + +a

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME

7 8 8 9

a ME for spruce-fir forest under alternatives B, C, and D is like alternative A, i.e., ++ ; however, it does not change the 

relative viability effectiveness of the alternatives.

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland PNVT Sensitive Species 

Greene milkweed

This rare species can be impacted by fire and livestock use so providing a fine filter habitat need 

for adjacent untreated areas helps ensure conditions free of these risks are available in some 

locations across the landscape of this PNVT. The following guidelines are included to ensure its 

needs are met:

• All PNVTs Guideline – 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). 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – 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. 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species. 

Table 92 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

have the greatest viability effectiveness, followed by alternative C, then alternative A. 

Individuals of this species may be impacted by implementation of the alternatives which may be 

more likely under alternatives A and C as compared to alternatives B and D. However, none of 

the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing. This is because alternative 

objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see the 

“Vegetation” section) and the guidelines above provides for these species’ needs.

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

Sensitive FPS 

Associated with Madrean pine-oak 

woodland

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

Fine filter - Greene milkweed + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

2 6 4 6 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 307

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands PNVT Sensitive Species

Ferris’ copper butterfly, nitocris and nokomis fritillary butterflies, 

dwarf shrew, long-tailed vole, White Mountains ground squirrel 

The sensitive butterfly species utilize seasonally wetted swales which provide nectaring plants 

and damp sites for minerals. 

The three mammals do not move great distances and the squirrel nests underground. These areas 

provide small invertebrate prey for the shrew and seeds and plant material for the vole and ground 

squirrel. Providing a fine filter habitat need for adjacent untreated areas helps ensure conditions 

are available in some locations across the landscape of this PNVT for these species. 

The following plan components are included to ensure that all these species needs are met: 

• All PNVTs Guideline – 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). 

• All PNVTs Guideline – 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. 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline– 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. 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species. 

Table 93 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B, C, and D would 

have the greatest viability effectiveness for these montane/subalpine grasslands sensitive species 

as compared to alternative A. 

Individuals of these species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives which 

may be more likely under alternative A. However, none of the alternatives would lead to a 

trend toward Federal listing because viability has been provided by each alternative. This is 

because alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired 

conditions (see the “Vegetation” section) and the guidelines above additionally provide for these 

species’ needs.

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

Sensitive FPS 

Associated with MSG Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

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

Fine Filter - Ferris’ copper butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine Filter - Nitocris fritillary butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine Filter - Nakomis fritillary butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine Filter - Dwarf shrew + + + + + + + + + + +
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Sensitive FPS 

Associated with MSG Viability Effectiveness (coarse and fine filter)

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

Fine Filter - Long-tailed vole + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine Filter - White Mountains ground 

squirrel + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s 

Coupled with ME 13 21 20 21

Great Basin Grassland PNVT Sensitive Species

Springerville pocket mouse, White Mountains 

ground squirrel, Greene milkweed, Parish alkali grass 

The two small mammals do not move great distances. These areas provide forage in plants and 

roots for the vole and squirrel. The milkweed can be impacted by fire and livestock use; the grass 

is highly localized on alkali wet meadows or drainages. Providing a fine filter habitat need for 

adjacent untreated areas helps ensure conditions for both plants are available in some locations 

across the landscape of this PNVT. The following guidelines are included to ensure needs of these 

species are met: 

• All PNVTs Guideline – 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). 

• All PNVTs Guideline – 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. 

• Wildlife Guideline – 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. 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – 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. 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species. 

Table 94 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

provide the greatest viability effectiveness followed by alternatives C and A. 

Individuals of these three species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives 

which may be more likely under alternative A. However, none of the alternatives would lead to 

a trend toward Federal listing because viability has been provided by each alternative. This is 

because alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 309

conditions (see the “Vegetation” section) and the guidelines above additionally provide for these 

species’ needs.

Table 94. Viability effectiveness for Great Basin grassland sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with Great Basin 

grassland

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

Fine filter - Springerville pocket mouse + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - White Mountains ground 

squirrel

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Parish alkali grass + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

7 12 10 12

Semi-Desert Grassland PNVT Sensitive Species

There are no sensitive species within the semi-desert grassland that have additional fine filter 

habitat needs.

High Water Quality Sensitive Species

Water shrew, bald eagle, northern leopard frog, northern 

Mexican gartersnake, narrow-headed gartersnake, California floater

All of these sensitive species are found within the various riparian PNVTs and require high water 

quality. High water quality is necessary for their breathing and/or feeding and reproduction—for 

either themselves or their prey. Because these species occur across PNVTs, desired conditions 

from other resource areas that contribute to their viability as well as fine filter standards and 

guidelines are listed below:

• Water Resources Desired Condition – Water quality, stream channel stability, and aquatic 

habitats retain their inherent resilience to natural and other disturbances.

• Water Resources Desired Condition – Vegetation and soil conditions above the 

floodplain protect downstream water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitat.

• Water Resources Desired Condition – Water quality meets the needs of desirable aquatic 

species such as the California floater, northern and Chiricahua leopard frogs, and 

invertebrates that support fish populations.

• Aquatic Habitat and Species Desired Condition – Streamflows, habitat, and water quality 

support native aquatic and riparian dependent species and habitat.

• Water Resources Guideline – 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 

shall not result in leaks.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Water Resources Guideline – Streams, stream banks, 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.

• Riparian Area Guideline – 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.

• Riparian Area Guideline – Equipment should be fueled or serviced outside of riparian 

areas to prevent spills that could impair water quality or harm aquatic species.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species.

Table 95 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternative B would provide the 

greatest viability effectiveness for these high water quality sensitive species as compared to 

alternatives A, C, and D which are similar. 

Individuals of these species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives. 

However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing because viability 

has been provided by each alternative. This is because alternative objectives (table 3) are

expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see the “Vegetation” section) and the 

guidelines above additionally provide for these species’ needs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 311

Table 95. Viability effectiveness for high water quality sensitive species

Sensitive FPS associated with high 

water quality Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine filter - Water shrew + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Bald eagle + + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Northern leopard frog + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Northern Mexican gartnersnake + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Narrow-headed gartersnake + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - California floater + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

18 21 19 18

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species (Healthy Riparian Conditions)

Water shrew, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, northern 

Mexican gartersnake, narrow-headed gartersnake, Arizona willow, Bebb willow

All of these sensitive animals forage and hunt within the riparian zone. All require tall, dense, 

untrampled vegetation for cover; the shrew and mouse for hiding cover from predators and the 

snakes for hunting cover and prey habitat. The willows need saturated, uncompacted soils, and 

protection from ungulate grazing in the spring and early summer. The following guidelines, 

standard, and objective help provide for their needs:

• Riparian Areas Objective – Annually, work with partners to reduce animal damage to 

native willows and other riparian species on an average of 5 miles of riparian habitat 

(alternatives B, C, and D).

• Water Resources Guideline – Streams, stream banks, 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.

• Aquatic Habitat and Species Guideline – Sufficient water should be left in streams to 

provide for aquatic species and riparian vegetation.

• Riparian Areas Guideline – Ground-disturbing projects (including prescribed fire) which 

may degrade long-term riparian conditions should be avoided.

• Riparian Areas Guideline – Active grazing allotments should be managed to maintain or 

improve to desired riparian conditions.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species.

• Dispersed Recreation Standard – 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.

• Livestock Grazing Guideline – Critical areas (e.g., riparian areas) should be managed to 

address the inherent or unique site factors, condition, values, or potential conflicts.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Livestock Grazing Guideline – 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.

• Livestock Grazing Guideline – To prevent resource damage (e.g., stream banks) 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).

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Measures (e.g., fencing, planting/translocation, 

research) should be implemented to help ensure regional forester identified sensitive 

species do not trend toward Federal listing.

Table 96 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D would 

provide the greatest viability effectiveness as compared to alternatives A and C. This is because 

of differences in treatment objectives. Restoration objectives for desired riparian composition, 

structure, and function are only on an “opportunity basis” under alternatives A and C. 

Treatments to restore desired conditions under alternatives B and C range from 200 to 600 acres 

per year. In addition, alternative A would not include working with partners to reduce animal 

damage to native riparian species. 

Table 96. Viability effectiveness for healthy riparian sensitive species

Sensitive FPS 

Associated with High Water Quality Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Fine filter - Water shrew + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - NM meadow jumping mouse + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Northern Mexican gartnersnake + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Narrow-headed gartersnake + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Arizona willow + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Bebb willow + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

14 21 16 21

Individuals of these species may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives. 

However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing because viability 

has been provided by each alternative. This is because alternative objectives (see table 3) are

expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see the “Vegetation” section) and the above 

guidelines and other plan components additionally provide for these species’ needs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 313

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species (Large Trees/Snags, Dense Canopies)

Allen’s big-eared bat, bald eagle

Maternity colonies of Allen’s big-eared bats are found in boulder piles, crevices, and beneath the 

bark of large ponderosa pine snags. The bald eagle has a habitat need for tall, healthy, and strong 

trees to build nests in. These may be riparian trees like cottonwood or forested PNVT trees near 

water. Bald eagles have nested in a very large ponderosa pine near Luna Lake since 1993 and in 

large Douglas-fir trees near Crescent Lake since 2007. Breeding, incubating, and young rearing 

eagles are especially sensitive to disturbance. Desired conditions from different PNVTs that 

contribute to their viability as well as fine filter guidelines are listed: 

• All PNVTs Desired Condition – Old or large trees, multistoried canopies, large coarse 

woody debris, and snags provide the structure, function, and associated vegetation 

composition as appropriate for each forested and woodland PNVT. 

• Riparian Areas Desired Condition – Vegetation is structurally diverse, often dense, 

providing for high bird species diversity and abundance, especially neotropical migratory 

birds. It includes large trees and snags in the cottonwood-willow and mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian forests to support species such as beaver, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald 

eagle, Arizona gray squirrel, and various bat species. 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – 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. 

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species. 

Table 97 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternative D provides 

somewhat greater viability effectiveness, followed by alternatives A and B, then alternative C. 

Individual Allen’s big-eared bats may be impacted by implementation of any of the alternatives. 

Individual bald eagles could not be impacted by implementation of any alternative unless a permit 

for limited, non-purposeful take of bald eagles (and golden eagles) is issued by the USFWS. 

Table 97. Viability effectiveness for large tree sensitive species

Sensitive FPS 

Associated with High Water Quality

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

Fine filter - Allen’s big-eared bat + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - Bald eagle + + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME

8 8 7 9

However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend toward Federal listing for these two

sensitive species because viability has been provided by each alternative. This is because 

alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see 

the “Vegetation” section), and the guidelines above additionally provide for these species’ needs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species (Dense 

Low-Mid Canopy with Ample Ground Litter)

Western red bat

The western red bat is the only sensitive species in this category. On the forests, it is associated 

primarily with the MBDRF, needing dense canopy for roosting. It is thought this bat burrows into 

leaf litter or dense grass during hibernation. Desired conditions from other resource areas that 

contribute to the viability of this species as well as fine filter standards and guidelines are listed

below:

• All PNVTs Desired Condition – Old or large trees, multistoried canopies, large coarse 

woody debris, and snags provide the structure, function, and associated vegetation 

composition as appropriate for each forested and woodland PNVT.

• Riparian Areas Desired Condition – Natural ecological disturbances (e.g., flooding, 

scouring) promote a diverse plant structure consisting of herbaceous, shrub, and tree 

species of all ages and size classes necessary for the recruitment of riparian dependent 

species.

• Riparian Areas Desired Condition – Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species 

that support a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive 

plant and animal species.

• Riparian Areas Desired Condition – Active grazing allotments should be managed to 

maintain or improve to desired riparian conditions.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species.

• Dispersed Recreation Standard – 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.

• Motorized Opportunities Guideline – 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.

Table 98 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. All alternatives have nearly the 

same viability effectiveness, with alternative C providing slightly less viability effectiveness. 

Individual red bats may be impacted by any alternative. However, none of the alternatives

would lead to a trend toward Federal listing because viability has been provided by each 

alternative. This is because alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat 

toward desired conditions (see the “Vegetation” section), and the above guidelines and other plan 

components additionally provide for these species’ needs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 315

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

sensitive species

Sensitive FPS

Associated with High Water 

Quality

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

Fine filter - Western red bat + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

4 4 3 4

Unique Habitat Sensitive Species (Permanent Wet Meadow-Like Areas)

Ferris’ copper butterfly, nitocris fritillary butterfly, nokomis fritillary butterfly 

These sensitive butterfly species have a need for permanent wet meadow areas within forested 

areas or in WCRAs. These provide nectaring plants and damp sites for minerals. These areas also 

contain larval host plants: a species of dock or sorrel (genus Rumex) for Ferris’ copper butterfly 

and violets (genus Viola) for the fritillary butterflies. Drying of these areas from, for instance, 

stock tank building or soil compaction results in habitat loss. Desired conditions that contribute to 

the viability of this species as well as fine filter guidelines are listed below:

• All PNVTs Guideline – 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).

• Riparian Areas Desired Condition – Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species 

that support a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive 

plant and animal species.

• Riparian Areas Desired Condition – Active grazing allotments should be managed to 

maintain or improve to desired riparian conditions (e.g., hydrologic function).

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – 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.

• Wildlife and Rare Plants Guideline – Management and activities should not contribute to 

a trend toward the Federal listing of a species.

Table 99 compares the viability effectiveness of the alternatives. Alternatives B and D provide 

the greatest viability effectiveness as compared to alternatives A and C. Individual butterflies 

may be impacted by any alternative. However, none of the alternatives would lead to a trend 

toward Federal listing because viability has been provided by each alternative. This is because 

alternative objectives (see table 3) are expected to move habitat toward desired conditions (see 

the “Vegetation” section), and the above guidelines and other plan components additionally 

provide for these species’ needs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

Sensitive FPS

Associated with High Water 

Quality

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

Fine filter - Ferris’ copper butterfly + + + + + + +

Fine filter - nitocris fritillary butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Fine filter - nokomis fritillary butterfly + + + + + + + + + + +

Coarse filter - ME + + + + + + + + + +

Total effectiveness +’s

Coupled with ME 

8 11 9 11

Highly Interactive Species

Identified highly interactive species are those species that alter habitat in a manner benefitting 

other species or in the form of affecting prey species, who in turn affect habitat structure and 

function, or those species that range widely to meet their needs. On the forests, these are 

pronghorn antelope, Mexican wolf, beaver, Gunnison’s prairie dog (although not currently known 

on the forests), mountain lion, and black bear. All are forest planning species (FPS).

Viability risk ratings for highly interactive species as FPS are included in table 80. The 

management effect, as a reflection of plan objectives for each alternative, is shown for the 

habitats associated with highly interactive species in table 78. Sections of the plan that contain 

plan decisions (components) that benefit these species at the coarse and fine filter are indicated in 

table 100.

Appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by various plan 

components. The” Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2014bb) contains more 

detail on analysis of highly interactive species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 317

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

species at the coarse and fine filter levels

Viability/Plan Decision Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Coarse filter plan decisions that 

provide viability for: 

All Highly Interactive Species

Pronghorn Antelope

Mexican Wolf

Beaver 

Prairie Dog

Black Bear

Mountain Lion

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog 

Overall Ecosystem Health, 

Water Resources, All 

PNVTs, Riparian Areas, 

Ponderosa Pine, Dry Mixed 

Conifer, Wet Mixed 

Conifer Aspen, Madrean 

Pine-Oak, Grasslands, 

Piñon-Juniper, Wildlife and 

Rare Plants, Overall 

Recreation Opportunities, 

Wildlife Quiet 

AreaManagement Area

Fine filter plan decisions in 

addition to the coarse filter plan 

decisions above that provide 

viability for: 

Beaver 

Prairie Dog

Black Bear

Mountain Lion

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog 

Riparian Areas, All 

PNVTs , All Forested 

PNVTs, Ponderosa Pine, 

Dry Mixed Conifer,

Wildlife and Rare Plants

Following are some key plan components (decisions) that help meet the needs of highly 

interactive species in general and individually:

All Highly Interactive Species

• 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: Vegetative connectivity provides for species dispersal, genetic 

exchange, and daily and seasonal movements across multiple spatial scales. 

• Guideline: 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. 

• Desired Condition: Recreation use does not negatively affect wildlife habitat and 

populations. Negative interactions between people and wildlife are minimized. 

• Guideline: Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to reduce conflicts 

with wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions. 

• Desired Condition: WQAs provide semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities, 

including relatively quiet recreation opportunities close to or adjacent to intensively used 

areas (without vehicles less exposure to harm).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Beaver

• Desired Condition: Streamflows provide connectivity among fish populations and 

provide unobstructed routes critical for fulfilling needs of aquatic, riparian dependent, 

and many upland species of plants and animals. 

• Desired Condition: Ponding and channel characteristics provide habitat, water depth, 

water duration, and the temperatures necessary for maintaining populations of ripariandependent species and for their dispersal. 

• Guideline: Active grazing allotments should be managed to maintain or improve to 

desired riparian conditions.

Prairie Dog 

• Desired Condition: Average herbaceous vegetation heights vary by grassland PNVT and 

yearly weather conditions. Ungrazed herbaceous vegetation heights range from 7 to 

29 inches in Great Basin grasslands, 7 to 26 inches in montane/subalpine grasslands, and 

10 to 32 inches in semi-desert grasslands. 

• Desired Condition: Wildlife are free from harassment and from disturbance at a scale that 

impacts vital functions (e.g., breeding, rearing young) that could affect persistence of the 

species.

Black Bear 

• Desired Condition: Vegetation conditions provide hiding and thermal cover in contiguous 

blocks for wildlife. Native plant species are present in all age classes and are healthy, 

reproducing, and persisting. 

• Guideline: Hiding cover, approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover should be 

provided where needed by wildlife. 

• Desired Condition: Some large patches in the Madrean pine-oak woodland are closed 

canopy, have multiple age classes, large trees, and old growth-like characteristics (e.g., 

numerous snags, large coarse woody debris) in order to provide for wildlife such as 

Mexican spotted owl and black bear that need denser habitat. 

• Guideline: 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).

Mountain Lion 

• Desired Condition: Herbaceous vegetation amount and structure (e.g., plant density, 

height, litter, seed heads) provides habitat to support wildlife and prey species. 

• Guideline: 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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 319

Black Bear or Mountain Lion 

• Guideline: 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.

(provides low cover for hiding or stalking)

• Desired Condition: Snags and coarse woody debris are well distributed throughout the 

landscape. The number of snags and logs and amount of coarse woody debris varies by 

seral state ranging from 8 to more than 16 tons per acre. (provides low cover for hiding or 

stalking)

• Desired Condition: Aspen may compose 10 to 100 percent of the area depending on 

disturbance (e.g., fire, insects, silvicultural treatments), in multistoried patches. (provides 

low cover for hiding or stalking) 

In addition to the above plan components, management areas such as wildlife quiet areas (see the 

following section) provide for the needs of these species. The viability of highly interactive 

species is, therefore, well provided for under all alternatives.

Other Planning Species

The following 30 forest planning species (FPS) are not discussed in the above groups of species 

(ESA, sensitive, and highly interactive). Their viability by alternative and as a group is found in 

table 80 and table 83, respectively. 

The management effect, as a reflection of plan objectives for each alternative, is shown for the 

habitats associated with these other FPS in table 78. Sections of the plan that contain plan 

decisions (components) that benefit these species at the coarse and fine filter are indicated in table 

101. In addition, appendix G contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by 

various plan components. The “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2014bb) 

contains more detail on analysis of these other FPS. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

the coarse and fine filter levels

Viability/Plan Decision Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

Coarse filter plan decisions 

that provide viability for: 

Arizona myotis bat

mule deer

Abert’s squirrel

red squirrel

juniper titmouse

evening grosbeak

dusky blue grouse

flammulated owl

savannah sparrow

Bigelow’s onion

wood nymph

superb penstemon

splachnoid dung moss

crenulate moonwort

Overall Ecosystem 

Health. All PNVTs, 

Wildlife and Rare 

Plants 

Fine filter plan decisions in 

addition to the coarse filter 

plan decisions above that 

provide viability for: 

red-faced warbler

Swainson’s thrush

Montezuma quail

Grace’s warbler

Lincoln’s sparrow

MacGillivray’s warbler

plateau giant tiger beetle

false ameletus mayfly

Mosely caddisfly

Alberta arctic butterfly

White Mountains water penny 

beetle

Mexican hemlock parsley

yellow Jacob’s-ladder

hooded lady’s tresses

Oak Creek triteleia

carnivorous bladderwort

Aquatic Habitat 

and Species, 

Grasslands, 

Invasive Species, 

Water Uses, 

Dispersed 

Recreation, 

Motorized 

Opportunities, 

Forest Products, 

Special Uses

Water Resources, Aquatic 

Habitat and Species, All 

PNVTs, Riparian Areas, 

Aspen, Wildlife and Rare 

Plants, Invasive Species, 

Motorized Opportunities, 

Nonmotorized 

Opportunities, Forest 

Products, Livestock 

Grazing, Special Uses,

Energy Corridor

Management Area, 

Research Natural Area

Management Area, 

Recommended Research 

Natural Area Management 

Area

Other Factors of Viability Concern

Other identified factors of concern for viability of certain FPS are addressed by fine filter 

standards and guidelines. Table 102 contains some key plan components (decisions) addressing 

these concerns.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 321

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

Other Factors 

of Concern 

FPS Addressed by Fine Filter Standard or Guideline 

Collection or loss 

from 

management 

nitocris fritillary 

butterfly, nokomis 

fritillary butterfly, 

yellow lady’s 

slipper, hooded 

lady’s tresses

When new water diversions are created or existing water diversions 

are reanalyzed, measures should be taken to prevent entrapment of 

fish and aquatic organisms. 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. Pesticide use 

should minimize impacts on nontarget plants and animals.

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). Permits issued for forest products should 

include stipulations to protect resources. 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. Research special use authorizations 

should limit impacts to sensitive resources, unique features, and 

species.

The use of underground utilities should be favored to avoid 

potential conflicts with resources (e.g., scenic integrity, wildlife, 

wildfire, heritage). 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.

Nest parasitism southwestern 

willow flycatcher, 

Grace’s warbler 

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.

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 bigeared bat, spotted 

bat, western red 

bat, Arizona toad, 

Chiricahua leopard 

frog, northern 

leopard frog, 

lowland leopard 

frog

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. 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).

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., whitenose syndrome).

Entrapment FPS that are small 

mammals, bats, 

and young of other 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Other Factors 

of Concern 

FPS Addressed by Fine Filter Standard or Guideline 

species should be taken to prevent entrapment of fish and aquatic 

organisms. 

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. During maintenance of existing 

watering facilities, escape ramps that are ineffective or missing 

should be replaced.

Substantial 

predation or 

competition from 

invasive species

pronghorn 

antelope, Three 

Forks springsnail 

Vegetation treatments shall include measures to reduce the potential 

for introduction of invasive plants and animals and damage from 

nonnative insects and diseases. 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. 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.

Noxious plants and nonnative invasive species monitoring and 

control shall be included in contracts, permits, and agreements. 

Management should focus on operation and maintenance, safety, 

aesthetics, and control of noxious weeds and nonnative invasive 

species. 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)

Cool and/or dense vegetation cover should be provided for species 

needing these habitat components (for hiding)... Hiding cover, 

approach cover (by waters), and travel corridor cover should be 

provided where needed by wildlife. Developed and dispersed 

recreation sites and other authorized activities should not be located 

in places that prevent wildlife or livestock access to available water. 

Recreation use does not negatively affect wildlife habitat and 

populations. Negative interactions between people and wildlife are 

minimized. 

Firelines, helispots, and fire camps should be located to avoid 

disturbance to critical species and impacts to cultural resources. 

Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to 

reduce conflicts with wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions. 

Prairie dog controls should not be authorized except when 

consistent with approved State of Arizona Gunnison’s prairie dog 

conservation strategies.

Food and other items that attract wildlife should be managed to 

prevent reliance on humans and to reduce human-wildlife conflicts. 

Where trash facilities are provided, they shall be bear resistant. 

Dispersed campsites should not be located on or adjacent to 

archaeological sites or sensitive wildlife areas.

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. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 323

An additional guideline addresses some of these concerns: “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.” In summary, 

although some of these factors of concern are not entirely under Forest Service control, the above 

plan components help provide for viability of these identified FPS species under all alternatives. 

Management Indicator Species, 

Migratory Birds, and Eagle Consequences

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

As previously noted, the role of management indicator species (MIS) and the basis for their 

selection is to estimate the effects of each forest plan alternative on identified species. These 

species are selected for alternative comparison (and for later monitoring) in order to assess the 

effects of management on their populations and the populations of other species with similar 

habitat needs which they may represent. See the “Report on the Selection of Management 

Indicator Species and Ecological Indicators” (Forest Service, 2012d) for information about the 

merits of Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, and pronghorn antelope as MIS and 

background on the MIS selection process.

Comparison of the consequences of alternative A and the action alternatives (B, C, and D) are 

discussed for the three management indicator species follows. All plan components relevant for 

MIS species are listed in the “Wildlife Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2014bb) In 

addition, appendix G lists all standards and guidelines that address MIS and other wildlife species 

needs. Standards and guidelines along with objectives form the basis for the determination of 

consequences for MIS for each alternative. Table 103 below compares the management effect for 

the indicator habitats of the three MIS by alternative.

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

MIS and Habitat Management Effecta

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

Mexican Spotted Owl

Dry mixed conifer 2 1 1 1 

Wet mixed conifer 2 1 1 1 

Northern Goshawk

Ponderosa pine 2 1 1 1 

Pronghorn Antelope

Great Basin grassland 3 1 3 1 

Table rating description or other information:

a Management effect: 1 = greatest relative improvement in suitable habitat through management and activities; 2 = 

intermediate relative improvement; 3 = least to no relative improvement.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Mexican Spotted Owl (Dry Mixed Conifer and Wet Mixed Conifer PNVTs)

Alternative A: The Mexican spotted owl (MSO), is identified as a MIS for management area 1 

(forested lands) of the 1987 plan. It includes woodlands, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer31, aspen, 

and spruce-fir. The management emphasis is for multiple uses including timber production,

wildland fire, wildlife habitat, grazing, watershed, and dispersed recreation. Some direction in the

1987 plan for management area 1 includes protection of stands from insect and disease beyond 

endemic levels; manage for a minimum of 20 percent of the area to provide vertical diversity, a 

minimum of 30 percent to provide horizontal diversity; allocate no less than 20 percent of each 

forested ecosystem to old growth that flows across the landscape over time; use pre-European 

settlement information to develop prescriptions; provide from 1.8 to 2.8 snags per acre; provide a 

minimum of two logs per acre 12 inches or larger; and manage livestock to protect aspen 

regeneration treatments. Table 72 notes the acreage of MSO dry mixed conifer and wet mixed 

conifer indicator habitat and the amount that is currently suitable post-Wallow Fire.

Alternatives B, C, and D: These alternatives all provide desired conditions, standards, or 

guidelines favorable for the Mexican spotted owl and its indicator habitat (i.e., dry mixed conifer 

and wet mixed conifer forests). Key examples are found in the ESA section above so are not 

reiterated here. 

Alternatives compared: For the Mexican spotted owl, differences among alternatives relate 

primarily to differences in treatment objectives and overall management effect. Plan 

implementation objectives for forested PNVTs are found in table 3. The maximum restoration of 

forested acreage per year to occur in any of the four forested PNVTs is, by alternative:

alternative A 17,000 acres; alternative B 35,000 acres; alternative C 55,000 acres; and

alternative D 50,000 acres. 

The habitat quality or suitability of MSO indicator would vary from existing conditions based on 

reduced departure from (i.e., movement toward) desired conditions in these indicator PNVTs by 

alternative. Based on modeling, alternatives B and D are intermediate in improvement of habitat 

quality for these two PNVTs. Dry mixed conifer forests have the greatest habitat improvement 

under alternative C, while wet mixed conifer forests have the greatest habitat improvement 

under alternative A. Because of these mixed outcomes, the overall habitat quality for MSO is 

considered similar under plan implementation for all alternatives. 

As previously noted, there was substantial loss of acreage in MSO breeding and critical habitat 

from the 2011 Wallow Fire. Total number of breeding MSO pairs is, therefore, likely down after 

the fire, but population trend is expected to stabilize over the 15-year planning period because 

forest treatments under all alternatives would incorporate “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery 

Plan” (USFWS, 1995). direction, including provisions for primary constituent elements of 

habitat. 

Northern Goshawk (Ponderosa Pine PNVT)

Alternative A: The Northern goshawk is identified as an MIS for management area 1 (forested 

lands), of the 1987 plan. It includes woodlands, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, aspen, and 

spruce-fir. The management emphasis includes timber production and wildland fire, wildlife 

 31 This includes both dry mixed conifer and wet mixed conifer forests which would be indicator habitat for MSO as a 

management indicator species under the action alternatives (B, C, and D).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 325

habitat, grazing, watershed, and dispersed recreation. See the previous MSO section for some of 

the direction in the 1987 plan for management area 1 which encompasses ponderosa pine, the 

indicator habitat for this MIS. Table 75 notes the acreage of NOGO ponderosa pine indicator 

habitat and the amount that is currently suitability post-Wallow Fire.

Alternatives B, C, and D: These alternatives all provide desired conditions, standards, or 

guidelines favorable for the northern goshawk and its habitat. Key examples include the 

following: 

• Desired Condition: Northern goshawk post-fledging family areas (PFAs) may contain 10 

to 20 percent higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups than northern goshawk

foraging areas and the surrounding forest. 

• Desired Condition: Northern goshawk nest areas have forest conditions that are multiaged and dominated by large trees with relatively denser canopies than the surrounding 

forest. 

• Guideline: 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 (NW to 

NE) aspects. Nest areas should be 25 to 30 acres each in size. 

• Guideline: Northern goshawk post-fledging family areas (PFAs) of approximately 420 

acres in size should be designated around the nest sites. 

• Guideline: Active raptor nests should be protected from treatments and disturbance 

during the nesting season to provide for successful reproduction. Specifically for northern 

goshawk nest areas, human presence should be minimized during nesting season of 

March 1 through September 30.

• Desired Condition: Diverse vegetation structure, species composition, densities, and seral 

states provide quality habitat for native and desirable nonnative plant and animal species 

throughout their life cycle and at multiple spatial scales. Landscapes provide for the full 

range of ecosystem diversity at multiple scales, including habitats for those species 

associated with late seral states and old growth forests. 

• Desired Condition: Herbaceous vegetation amount and structure (e.g., plant density, 

height, litter, seed heads) provides habitat to support wildlife and prey species. 

• Desired Condition: Livestock grazing and associated activities contribute to healthy, 

diverse plant communities, satisfactory condition soils, and wildlife habitat. 

• Guideline: 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). 

• Guideline: 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.

• Desired Condition: Wildlife are free from harassment and from disturbance at a scale that 

impacts vital functions (e.g., breeding, rearing young) that could affect persistence of the 

species.

• Desired Condition: Recreation use does not negatively affect wildlife habitat and 

populations. Negative interactions between people and wildlife are minimized. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Guideline: Timing restrictions on recreation uses should be considered to reduce conflicts 

with wildlife needs or soil moisture conditions. 

• Guideline: The use of underground utilities should be favored to avoid potential conflicts 

with resources (e.g., scenic integrity, wildlife, wildfire, heritage).

• Desired Condition: WQAs provide semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities, 

including relatively quiet recreation opportunities close to or adjacent to intensively used 

areas.

Alternatives compared: For the northern goshawk, differences among alternatives relate 

primarily to differences in treatment objectives and overall management effect. Plan 

implementation objectives for forested PNVTs are found in table 3. As noted above, the 

maximum restoration of forested acreage per year to occur in any of the four forested PNVTs is, 

by alternative: alternative A 17,000 acres; alternative B 35,000 acres; alternative C 55,000 

acres; and alternative D 50,000 acres. All alternatives emphasize treatment in the ponderosa 

pine which is currently more departed from reference conditions than the other forested PNVTs. 

The habitat quality or suitability of NOGO indicator habitat would vary from existing conditions 

based on reduced departure from (i.e., movement toward) desired conditions in this indicator 

PNVT by alternative. Based on modeling, alternatives that provide the greatest to the least habitat 

improvement are alternatives C and B, followed by alternative D, then alternative A.

Based on habitat quality improvement (see the alternative objectives above), an upward

population trend for northern goshawk would be expected under all alternatives, especially for 

alternatives C and B, followed by alternative D, then alternative A. 

Pronghorn Antelope (Great Basin Grassland PNVT)

Alternative A: Pronghorn antelope, or pronghorn, are identified as a MIS for management area 4 

(grasslands) of the 1987 plan. The management emphasis for the area is visual quality and 

wildlife habitat, especially big game winter habitat. Some of the direction in the 1987 plan 

includes fencing to keep livestock from wetter areas, piping water from wet areas to less sensitive 

areas, livestock control to allow grass and forb regeneration (both cool and warm season growing 

plants), and leaving new land acquisitions in critical big game range generally unstocked.

Direction in the 1987 plan includes re-treating approximately 50,000 acres within previous 

overstory removals over a 25-year period. Actual tree removal in the Great Basin grassland

occurring over the last decade or so averages roughly 500 acres per year. 

Alternatives B, C, and D: These alternatives all provide desired conditions, standards, or 

guidelines favorable for the pronghorn antelope and its habitat. Key examples include the

following: 

• 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: Habitat configuration and availability allows wildlife populations to 

adjust their movements (e.g., seasonal migration, foraging) in response to climate change 

and promote genetic flow between wildlife populations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 327

• Desired Condition: Vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation and litter) is 

optimized to protect and enrich soils and promote water infiltration. There is a diverse 

mix of cool and warm season grass and desirable forb species. 

• Desired Condition: Native plant communities dominate the landscape.

• Desired Condition: During the critical antelope pronghorn fawning period (May through 

June), cool season grasses and forbs provide nutritional forage, while shrubs and standing 

grass growth from the previous year provide adequate hiding cover (10 to 18 inches) to 

protect fawns from predation.

• Guideline: 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.

• Desired Condition: Livestock grazing and associated activities contribute to healthy, 

diverse plant communities, satisfactory condition soils, and wildlife habitat.

• Desired Condition: Livestock grazing is in balance with available forage (i.e., grazing 

and browsing by authorized livestock, wild horses, and wildlife do not exceed established 

use levels).

• Guideline: Pronghorn antelope fence and other crossings should be installed along known 

movement corridors to prevent habitat fragmentation.

• Desired Condition: Woolhouse WQA on the Lakeside Ranger District provides high 

quality winter range for pronghorn antelope and elk within a busy and heavily used 

wildland-urban interface. 

• Desired Condition: These areas (Natural Landscape Management Area) contribute to 

ecosystem and species diversity and sustainability; serve as habitat for plants and 

animals; and offer wildlife corridors, reference areas, primitive and semi-primitive

nonmotorized recreation opportunities, and places for people seeking natural scenery and 

solitude. Grasses, forbs, shrubs, and litter are abundant and continuous to support natural 

fire regimes.

Alternatives compared: For the pronghorn, differences among alternatives relate primarily to 

differences in treatment objectives and overall management effect. Plan implementation 

objectives for grasslands are found in table 3. Alternative A would continue to restore about 

500 acres of Great Basin grassland a year as would alternative C except that it has an emphasis 

for restoring montane/subalpine grassland. Alternative B would restore up to 25,000 acres per 

year with an emphasis in the Great Basin grassland and semi-desert grassland. Alternative D

would restore up to 24,000 acres per year across all grassland PNVTs.

The quality or suitability pronghorn indicator habitat would vary greatly from existing condition 

based on the amount of grassland restoration under each alternative and the resulting reduced 

departure from (i.e., movement toward) desired conditions in this indicator PNVT. Based on 

modeling, alternatives B and D would substantially improve habitat quality, while a slight 

improvement in habitat quality would be expected under alternatives A and C. 

Based on habitat quality improvement (see the alternative objectives above), a substantial upward

population trend for pronghorn would be expected under alternatives B and D and a slight

upward population trend would be expected under alternatives A and C. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Migratory Birds and Important Bird Areas

Sections of the plan that contain plan decisions (components) that address habitat and 

management that benefit migratory birds are indicated in table 104 below. Appendix G contains a 

crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by various plan components. The “Wildlife 

Specialist Report – Migratory Birds, Eagles, and Important Bird Areas” (Forest Service, 2014y) 

contains more detail on analysis of migratory birds. 

Table 104. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions 

that address migratory birds

Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

All PNVTs 

Riparian Areas

All Forested PNVTs

Piñon-Juniper

None Ponderosa Pine

Dry Mixed Conifer

All Woodland PNVTs

Alternatives compared: Migratory birds are not specifically addressed in the 1987 plan 

(alternative A). However, all alternatives help restore and enhance migratory bird habitat. Plan 

decisions benefit migratory birds through the following:

• Desired riparian conditions include vegetation that is structurally diverse and provide for 

high bird species densities, especially neotropical migratory birds.

• Each forested type has desired conditions for needed number of snags.

• Vegetation states with denser canopies are included in desired conditions for forested 

PNVTs.

• Retention of Gambel oak is addressed in a guideline.

• Retention of groups of medium to large and old trees in the piñon-juniper woodlands is 

addressed in a guideline.

• Grassland desired conditions specify herbaceous and shrub ground cover ranges from 7 to 

32 inches in height depending on PNVT.

The forests would continue to fulfill obligations under the 2008 MOU between the Forest Service 

and USFWS regarding conservation of migratory birds, regardless of alternative. The “Wildlife 

Specialist Report – Migratory Birds, Eagles, and Important Bird Areas” (Forest Service, 2014y )

provides the environmental analysis of agency actions on migratory birds and the plan includes 

guidelines to minimize effects (e.g., “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 objective”). The plan’s management 

approach for wildlife for all alternatives is to encourage and support species research and 

inventory. The forests would also support programs like the National Audubon Society’s IBA and 

provide wildlife education for the public at events like county fairs. These plan components and 

management approaches contribute to the needs of migratory and other birds regardless of 

alternative; therefore, all alternatives would contribute to bird conservation.

Bald and Golden Eagles

Direction under the 1987 plan (alternative A) includes identification and protection of winter 

bald eagle roosts; no development, including roads, in bald eagle winter roost areas; protection of
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 329

bald eagle winter roosts with a 300-foot uncut buffer zone; and priority management of old 

growth stands adjacent to lakes and streams in potential bald eagle wintering sites. Golden eagles 

are not addressed except as under protection of raptor nest areas.

The 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Protection Act), as amended, prohibits 

anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” eagles, and 

provides criminal penalties for violation. Take includes disturbance caused by human-induced 

alterations around a nest site, whether eagles are present at the time or not. This could result in

decreased eaglet productivity or nest abandonment as a consequence of management or activities. 

Under the provisions of the 2009 amendment to the Eagle Protection Act (Federal Register (Vol. 

72, No. 107, 31133)), a permit for limited, non-purposeful take of bald eagles and golden eagles 

may be issued to allow government agencies to disturb or otherwise take eagles in the course of 

conducting lawful activities. 

Sections of the plan that contain plan decisions (components) that address habitat and 

management that benefit bald and golden eagles are indicated in table 105 below. Appendix G 

contains a crosswalk on how individual species’ needs are met by various plan components. The 

Wildlife Specialist Report – Migratory Birds, Eagles, and Important Bird Areas (Forest Service, 

2014y) contains more detail on analysis of migratory birds. 

Table 105. Sections of the plan containing plan decisions

that address bald and golden eagles

Desired Conditions Standards Guidelines

All PNVTs 

Riparian Areas

All Forested PNVTs

Piñon-Juniper 

None Ponderosa Pine

Dry Mixed Conifer

All Woodland PNVTs

Alternatives compared: The programmatic direction in the land management plan would not 

constitute “take” of eagles and it would provide for viability of all species, including bald and 

golden eagles. As such, all alternatives would be consistent with the Eagle Protection Act. 

However, site-specific implementation of plan objectives, such as construction or maintenance of 

recreation developments, could possibly impact eagles. This would be addressed on a site-specific 

basis with appropriate permitting from the USFWS, if necessary, regardless of plan alternative.

Other Consequences

Wildlife Quiet Areas (WQAs) and Habitat Security

Wildlife quiet areas (WQAs) would compose a forest management area under all alternatives

except alternative A. Each of the plan alternatives provide for a different set and acreage of 

WQAs across the forests. In providing for greater habitat security due to less human disturbance, 

especially motorized use, WQAs help contribute to species viability. 

Examination of the layout and scale of the existing WQAs across the forests’ landscape shows 

they are few and greatly spaced, especially on the Sitgreaves side of the forests. In order to 

address this, alternatives B and D would propose additional WQAs as shown in table 106.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Table 106. Proposed additional wildlife quiet areas by alternative

Additional WQAs Alt. A

(acres)

Alt. B

(acres)

Alt. C

(acres)

Alt. D

(acres)

Bear Springs — 2,831 — 2,831

Cottonwood Seep — 2,968 — 2,968

Carr Lake — -- — 2,196

Palomino — -- — 8,028

Hidden Lake — -- — 3,227

Total acres of additional WQAs 0 5,799 0 19,250

To facilitate alternative comparison, it is assumed that the eight existing WQAs would remain in 

place under alternative A through special closure order. These WQAs would become a plan 

management area (Wildlife Quite Area Management Area) under the action alternatives. The 

sizes (acreage) of WQAs including the ones additionally proposed are summarized by number 

and acreage in table 107 by alternative. 

Table 107. Number of occurrences and acres of WQA management 

areas that provide greater habitat security by alternative

Alternative Number of Occurrencesa Acres (Percent)

A 8 45,506 (2%)

B 10 50,173 (3%)

C 8 44,373 (2%)

D 12 59,379 (3%)

a Number of occurrences represents the number of individual areas assigned to the 

management area or, for alternative A, designated by special closure order.

In addition to WQAs, other management areas such as wildernesses, recommended wilderness, 

primitive area, research natural areas, recommended research natural areas, and natural 

landscapes also provide greater habitat security. The location of existing and proposed WQAs by 

alternative, along with other management areas providing greater habitat security, is shown in 

figure 51. For more details about secure habitat areas, including acreages, see the “Wildlife 

Specialist Report – Viability” (Forest Service, 2014bb).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 331

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

providing more secure habitat for each alternative
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Alternatives compared: WQAs and other secure habitat areas would provide beneficial 

environmental consequences of longevity and continuity of wildlife use. These areas would lend 

themselves to assessing the impact of broad-scale thinning and wildland fire treatments and the 

evaluation of species viability across the forests. They also respond to public input to provide for 

wildlife and habitats in a sustainable manner. Alternative D would provide the greatest amount 

of acreage in secure habitats, followed by alternative B, then alternatives A and C.

Habitat Connectivity and Linkages

The premise for WQAs and other more secure habitat management areas is that, in general, the 

closer secure habitat areas are to one another, the less species risk and more viability effectiveness 

there is. Safe linkages across the landscape are provided by a number of standard and guidelines 

that address physical obstacles to habitat connectivity. In addition, straight line distances between 

these areas are estimated as a relative indicator of habitat connectivity in order to compare the 

alternatives. table 108 displays the estimated average distance between more secure management 

areas for wildlife by alternative.

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

management areas by alternative for relative comparisons of alternatives

Alternative Aa Alternative B Alternative Ca Alternative D

Management Sitgreaves side of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

areas that 24.1 miles 12.2 miles 24.3 miles 15.3 miles

provide habitat Apache side of the Apache- Sitgreaves NFs

security 6.8 miles 5.5 miles 5.9 miles 4.3 miles

(includes Across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

WQAs) 10.1 miles 7.6 miles 9.1 miles 6.1 miles

a While both alternatives A and C have the same number of WQAs, there are differences among management areas and 

their acreages.

Alternatives compared: Standards and guidelines related to habitat connectivity and safe 

linkages are in all alternatives; hence all alternatives would provide the same viability 

effectiveness relative to fine filters. These include guidelines for fences and wildlife crossings, 

and placement of trails relative to wildlife movement. Some management areas have fewer shortterm implementation impacts (e.g., use of wildland fire in wilderness) that also contributes to 

viability effectiveness.

Based on the estimated average distances across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs between secure 

management areas from table 108, alternative D would have less viability risk and, therefore, the 

most viability effectiveness in terms of habitat connectedness and linkages. It is followed by 

alternative B. Alternatives A and C are similar and, compared to alternatives B and D, they 

have greater risk and less viability effectiveness. Should WQAs not be retained under alternative 

A by special closure order, this alternative would have even less habitat effectiveness.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 333

Climate Change

Average global temperature increases in the 20th century occurred at a rate greater than during the 

previous nine centuries (IPCC, 2007a; Karl, et al., 2009). Species composition shifts have been 

detected in studies in southeastern Arizona (Brown et al., 1997). Evidence of impacts from 

changing climate has been demonstrated on a study site near the boundary of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and Coconino NF near the Mogollon Rim. During a long-term study, Martin and 

Maron (2012) found that the abundance of deciduous trees and associated songbirds have 

declined with decreasing snowfall and associated impacts over 22 years. 

Part of the approach to address changes that can impact terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 

better help native species to persist include reducing biotic and abiotic stressors (Beschta et al., 

2012). Modifying or resetting vegetation structure toward reference (desired) conditions would 

help make Apache-Sitgreaves NFs vegetation types more resistant, resilient, functional, and better 

able to absorb disturbance and reestablish ecosystem functions while undergoing change. A 

resilient ecosystem can better withstand stress like drought, or can rebuild after a major 

disturbance like a serious storm or wildfire, without leading to a major shift in the type of 

ecosystem or the services it provides. The other part of the approach includes prescriptions for 

management use within the capability and suitability of the planning unit at a level that allows 

restoration to progress. All alternatives address capability and suitability in compliance with the 

1982 Planning Rule. 

Overall, alternatives B and D would provide for the greatest movement toward desired 

conditions; therefore, forest resources would be most able to handle climate changes within the 

planning period. Conversely, alternatives A and C would have the least movement toward 

desired conditions, so forest resources would be comparatively less able to handle climate 

changes. Based on the assumption that the closer habitats are to desired conditions, the less the 

risk to species viability, wildlife habitat, and associated species would best be able to adjust to 

climate changes under alternatives B and D. They would be comparatively less able to adjust to 

climate changes under alternatives A and C.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects cannot be precisely defined; however, the cumulative 

effect action area is defined as the extent that wildlife use habitat on the forests and on adjacent 

lands. An example would be pronghorn where the forests provide primarily summer habitat while

adjacent State and private lands provide primarily winter habitat. Although the timing and level of 

impacts from these other actions cannot be quantified, examples of possible cumulative impacts 

by types of actions follow. 

Thinning and wildland fire activities on adjacent national forest lands (Gila, Coconino, and Tonto 

NFs) or tribal lands should reduce risks on off-forest landscape which could benefit species 

whose range extends beyond the forests. Depending on proximity of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and

other activities, the short-term effects of these activities may limit refuge areas for wildlife as 

escape from project activities or from short-term loss of habitat components. It may also increase 

the level and extent of disturbance such that breeding or young rearing may be less successful 

during the years of implementation. 

Because developments like wind and solar power facilities, groundwater pumping, mining 

expansion, and urban development off-forests reduce habitat suitability, habitats on the Apache-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Sitgreaves NFs become that much more important. These developments also result in direct 

mortality of individual animals. Loss of habitat and animals could result in the decline or loss of 

certain species if the impacted off-forest habitat cannot be compensated on the forests. Highway 

improvements, unless they incorporate adequate wildlife corridors and linkages, could result in 

the decline of certain species, including loss of genetic diversity. In addition, soil and forage loss 

on some adjacent non-Forest Service lands has already resulted in declines of species, such as 

pronghorn, which also use habitats on the forests. 

Forest land exchange and AZGFD acquisitions for important wildlife lands, conservation 

agreements, and/or water rights could cumulatively provide more wildlife habitat and protect key 

habitat areas that are currently in non-Forest Service ownership. Treatment of invasive species on 

other lands should help reduce risk to species on the forests. Public education and law 

enforcement conducted by the AZGFD should help protect species and limit disturbance or 

unlawful removal, cumulatively benefitting species. Reductions in the amount of feral animal 

populations, conducted by State agencies, should cumulatively improve habitat conditions for 

wildlife on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Invasive Species

Invasive plant and animal species are a growing threat to native species, ecosystem function, and 

the quantity of forest goods and services. This section describes these threats and evaluates the 

environmental consequences of actions (e.g., road building, mechanical and wildland fire 

treatments, livestock grazing, recreation) that can contribute to the infestation and spread of 

invasive species using invasive plant species, brown-headed cowbird, and chytrid as indicators. 

The full analysis for invasive species can be found in the “Invasive Species Specialist Report”

(Forest Service, 2014k) available in the “Plan Set of Documents,” including a list of the noxious 

and invasive weeds of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and invasive plants of the Southwestern 

Region.

According to Fairweather et al. (2006), most forest insects and pathogens in the Southwest are 

naturally occurring components of ecosystems and play an important role in dynamic processes. 

However, two invasive pest species have become established on the forests: white pine blister rust 

and spruce aphid. For more information on these species, see the “Forest Health” section.

In the analysis for this resource, the following information was taken into consideration:

• The 2008 “Environmental Assessment for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

Integrated Forest-Wide Noxious or Invasive Weed Management Program” (Forest 

Service, 2008d) analyzed and approved the use of manual, biological, and chemical 

control agents (herbicides) for the treatment of noxious or invasive species.

• The “Highway Right-of-Way Mitigation for All Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Species that Occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests for ADOT’s Management 

of Noxious Weeds and Hazardous Vegetation on Public Roads on National Forest 

Systems Lands in Arizona” (Forest Service, 2005) is implemented and provides 

protections for federally listed species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 335

Affected Environment

Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction does 

or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” The Forest 

Service relies on Executive Order 13112 to provide the basis for labeling certain organisms as 

invasive. Based on this definition, the labeling of a species as “invasive” requires closely 

examining both the origin and effects of the species. The key is that the species must (1) cause, or 

be likely to cause, harm and (2) be exotic to the ecosystem it has infested before it can be 

considered for the “invasive” label. Thus, native pests are not considered “invasive,” even though 

they may cause harm. Invasive species infest both aquatic and terrestrial areas and can be 

identified within any of the following four taxonomic categories: Plants, Vertebrates, 

Invertebrates, and Pathogens. Additional information on this definition can be found in Executive 

Order 13112 (Forest Service Manual 2900).

Nonnative plants and animals that do, or have the potential to, cause ecological or economic harm 

are also classified as invasive species. Invasive species can be terrestrial or aquatic. On the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, numerous invasive species pose risks to native species and ecosystem 

function and to the production of forest goods and services. 

Management of invasive species is needed across all vegetation types on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs. There is an array of tools (e.g., chemical, biological, mechanical, cultural) to help managers 

control or eradicate these species. 

Although there is current management emphasis to manage invasive species, the 1987 plan does 

not provide direction related to the issue of invasive species. To address terrestrial invasive plants, 

managers have implemented an integrated forestwide noxious or invasive weed management 

program. Even though complete eradication of invasive species is not always possible, aggressive 

treatment of existing populations and prevention of new infestations or populations is important 

to protect native ecosystem diversity.

Invasive Plants

Invasive plants, of which there are nearly 50 species (White, 2008 and 2011), are currently found 

on at least 30,000 acres of the forests. For example, musk thistle and Siberian elm have spread 

along roadways; bull thistle and oxeye daisy have become established in numerous meadows and 

wetlands; cheatgrass and red brome are well established in grasslands and woodlands; and salt 

cedar has become common along many streams.

Invasive plants are species that grow and spread rapidly, replacing desired plants. Invasive plants 

generally pose one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, 

poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host for serious insects or disease, and are new to or 

uncommon to the U.S. or parts thereof. 

Invasive Animals

The most vulnerable species are those tied to aquatic systems, including riparian habitats. 

Nonnative fish species, along with the American bullfrog and crayfish, impact all native fish, 

amphibian, reptile, macroinvertebrate, and plant species in those systems. American bullfrog and 

crayfish have contributed to the listing of seven native fish species and the Chiricahua leopard 

frog (Marshall et al., 2006; Robinson et al., 2006). They also contributed to the recent 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

classification of the Mexican gartersnake as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act, and are largely responsible for the decline in narrow-headed gartersnake populations. An 

additional threat to the Chiricahua leopard frog is an introduced fungal skin disease, 

chytridiomycosis (chytrid) fungus, which is killing frogs and toads worldwide.

Two avian species, brown-headed cowbirds and European starlings, are considered to be invasive 

and cause problems for several bird species. Competition for nest sites, nest parasitism, brood 

parasitism, and predation are problems associated with these two bird species (Forest Service, 

2008e). Linz et al. (2007) suggest that European starlings may spread infectious diseases that 

sicken humans and livestock, costing nearly $800 million in health treatment costs and conclude 

that European starlings conceivably have contributed to the decline of native cavity-nesting birds 

by taking their nesting sites.

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.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Under all alternatives, there would a risk of infestation and spread of invasive plants and 

animals. Invasive plants compete with crops; poison or injure livestock, wildlife, and people; 

reduce forage for wildlife and livestock; change natural fire regimes; and reduce recreation 

enjoyment because of thorns and allergies. They also have a significant environmental advantage 

over native plant species because they are free of natural enemies. Invasive plants pose an 

increasing threat to native ecosystems. Prevention and direct control methods are needed to stress 

or remove invasive plants from native plant communities. Invasive infestation may have impacts 

on forest long-term productivity. 

Invasive animals can alter native habitats and contribute to the extinction of native species 

through predation, introduction of pathogens, or competition for resources (e.g., food, habitat). 

Alteration of habitat by animals can facilitate the invasion of other nonnative species.

The 1987 plan (alternative A) did not address invasive species, although law, regulations, and 

policy guide current management to contain, control, and eradicate invasive species. The action 

alternatives, however, contain direction to contain, control, or eradicate invasive species. These 

alternatives also would provide objectives to treat 500 to 3,500 acres and at least 2 stream miles 

annually. The action alternatives, based on a more aggressive strategy for treating invasive 

species, would reduce the risk of infestation and spread more than alternative A. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 337

Motorized Routes

Roads can serve as a key indicator for the risk of invasive plant species spread. Vehicles driven 

through populations of invasive plants often pick up seeds or other plant parts and transport these 

items to previously uninfected areas (Trunkle and Fay, 1991). Chytrid fungus which survives in 

wet or muddy environments could be carried inadvertently in mud clinging to vehicles and 

transported to previously uninfested areas. According to Petit (no date), almost everything 

humans do in manipulating the environment is beneficial to brown-headed cowbirds. Removing 

or cutting into the forest for roads or timber harvesting, for example, can improve the habitat for 

brown-headed cowbirds by creating grassy foraging areas, open perch sites for surveying hosts, 

and more access to host species in edge or open forest habitats. Table 116 (see the 

“Infrastructure” section) displays the amount of the forests that are suitable for future 

consideration of new roads. It is based on management area direction.

The acres available for consideration of new motorized areas, NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, 

and temporary roads range from 1,095,135 to 1,696,497 acres. This level of suitable acres 

indicates the risk of new road and trail development, thus the potential additive risk of invasive 

plant species, chytrid fungus, and brown-headed cowbird spread. Alternative C would produce 

the most risk, followed by alternatives A, B, and D.

Mechanical and Wildland Fire Treatments

Table 109 lists the average annual acres of mechanical treatments by alternative. The associated 

ground disturbance increases the potential risk for invasive plant species, chytrid fungus, and 

brown-headed cowbird spread. Alternative C would produce the greatest risk, followed by 

alternatives B, D, and A with the least risk. 

Areas where ground-disturbing activities take place can serve as an indicator for the risk of 

invasive plant species and chytrid fungus spread and establishment. Logging equipment driven 

through populations of invasive plants can pick up seeds and/or chytrid fungus infected mud and 

transport them to previously uninfested areas (Trunkle and Fay, 1991). Areas of disturbed and 

exposed soil are ideal locations for the establishment of invasive plants. Logging debris and slash 

disposal also produces disturbed sites with little or no native ground cover that could provide 

locations for the establishment of new infestations of invasive plants. Roadside water collection 

locations are also ideal locations for the establishment of chytrid. Mechanical treatments could 

improve the habitat for brown-headed cowbirds by creating grassy foraging areas, open perch 

sites for surveying hosts, and more access to host species in edge or open forest habitats. 

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

Treatment Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

Mechanical 12,182 19,591 23,997 15,954

Wildland Fire 6,844 28,930 12,857 48,927

Table 109 also indicates the risk of exposing soil through wildland fire activities, thus the 

potential additive risk of invasive plant species establishment and spread. Alternative D would 

produce the greatest risk, followed by alternatives B, C, and A with the least risk.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Areas where wildland fire activities take place can also serve as an indicator for the risk of 

invasive plant species establishment and spread. Areas of disturbed and exposed soil produced by 

fire are ideal locations for the establishment of invasive plants. 

In addition, all alternatives would have potential effects from treatments used to mitigate 

damage caused by uncharacteristic wildfire. Burned areas may require some form of treatment to 

minimize flooding and soil loss. Primarily these treatments consist of mulching (covering the 

ground with some form of straw) and seeding. Both the introduction of straw and seed pose risk 

for the spread and establishment of invasive weeds. All alternatives would require the use of 

certified weed-free straw and seeds and, as a result, present the same potential level of risk. 

Livestock Grazing

All alternatives would provide for the continuation of livestock grazing on the forests and focus 

on balancing livestock grazing with available forage. As a result, all alternatives would present 

the same potential level of risk for chytrid, brown-headed cowbird, and invasive plant spread.

Livestock grazing takes place on 92 grazing allotments covering approximately 1.7 million acres. 

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2003), chytrid could conceivably be 

spread by cattle carrying mud on their hooves and moving among Chiricahua leopard frog 

habitat. The disease could also be spread by ranch hands working at an infected tank or aquatic 

site and spreading the fungus to another site by mud or water clinging to wheel-wells, tires, 

shovels, boots, or other equipment. 

Livestock enhance feeding opportunities for brown-headed cowbirds by reducing grass height 

and increasing food availability in the form of invertebrates, body parasites, insects, and seeds 

(Goguen and Mathews, 2001). Widespread livestock grazing, agriculture, irrigation, and human 

development have probably all facilitated the range expansion of brown-headed cowbirds 

(Rothstein, 1994). There is no data that indicates the trend in brown-headed cowbird population 

levels on the forests. However, current levels of brown-headed cowbirds are negatively affecting 

the endangered southwestern willow flycatchers, and effects may not be limited to parasitism per 

se and may be more severe than indicated by parasitism rates alone (Arcese and Smith, 1999; 

Woodward and Stoleson, 2002).

Grazing contributes to the risk of invasive plant infestation and spread. Grazing and trampling 

cause (1) the removal of native plants, clearing vegetation, (2) destruction of soil crust and 

preparation of weed seedbeds through hoof action by establishing openings and uncovering soil,

and (3) the transport and dispersal of seeds from one area to another (Parks et al., 2005). All of 

these actions favor the establishment and spread of invasive plants; current levels of infestations 

are not expected to be reduced by livestock grazing.

Recreation

Aquatic-based recreation has the potential to spread chytrid in much the same way as other 

vehicular use, as well as fishing, boating, walking, and playing in streams and ponds. All 

alternatives would provide for the continuation of recreation on the forests and, as a result, 

present the same potential level of risk for chytrid spread.

Alternative A would allow motorized cross-country travel throughout the forests and there would 

be greater potential for plant species and chytrid fungus to spread because of vehicular use and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 339

the potential for ground disturbance. The action alternatives would restrict motorized vehicle 

travel to only designated roads, trails, and areas and would limit opportunities to spread invasive 

species.

Climate Change

There may be environmental consequences as a result of climate change. The forests may be 

more vulnerable to invasive species, including insects, plants, fungi, and vertebrates. Ecosystem 

change may arise from large scale high severity wildfires that lead to colonization of invasive 

species (Joyce et al., 2006). Disturbance may reset and rejuvenate some ecosystems in some 

cases, and cause enduring change in others. For example, climate change may favor the spread of 

invasive, nonnative grasses into arid lands where the native vegetation is too sparse to carry a fire. 

When these areas burn, they typically convert to nonnative monocultures and the native 

vegetation is lost (Ryan et al., 2008). The need to treat invasive species may likely become more 

critical to maintaining desired conditions for healthy plant and animal communities under a 

changing climate. The state of knowledge needed to address climate change at the forest scale is 

still evolving. All alternatives would direct managers to contain, control, and eradicate invasive 

species and would use adaptive management to adjust to changing conditions.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Since there is expected to be continued growth in urban areas in and around the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, it is reasonably foreseeable that the growth and expansion of invasive species on 

surrounding lands would continue and could threaten to extend onto NFS lands. Management 

under all alternatives focuses on containment, control, and eradication of invasive species. These 

efforts, in combination with similar efforts of other agencies and landowner groups (AZGFD, 

ADOT, and the cooperative weed management area), would have a positive effect toward 

controlling infestation and spread from and onto surrounding lands.

Recreation

This section describes the existing recreation opportunities on the forests and recreation user 

trends. It examines (1) the changes in recreation opportunities by alternative using Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) mapping, (2) changes in the amount of land suitable for future 

consideration of motorized and nonmotorized recreation by alternative, and (3) the environmental 

consequences of allowing or not allowing motorized cross-country travel. ROS descriptions can 

be found in the “Glossary.” Methodology can be found in the “Recreation Specialist Report”

(Forest Service, 2014o) in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• Recreation demand on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is tied to population changes in the 

major metropolitan areas of Arizona since approximately 70 percent of the forests’ 

Arizona visitors are from the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas (Kocis et al., 2002).

• It is anticipated and assumed that recreation use across all alternatives would continue to 

increase at rates similar to those documented across the Nation. As such, the capacity for 

recreation resources would ultimately be limited by the quality of the recreation 

opportunity. Since demands and use are expected to increase, additional analysis may be 

warranted at some point in the future.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• The recreation use data in this report is from the 2001 National Visitor Use Monitoring

(NVUM) survey. An additional survey was conducted in 2007, but the survey sample 

size was deemed too small to be statistically accurate.

• Visitors to the forests have different preferences for their recreation setting and the 

activities in which they want to participate. These differences and preferences range from 

highly intensive uses that have lasting effects on resources to benign uses barely 

discernible on the ground. Recognizing the differences in user preferences, the primary 

goal of managing outdoor recreation is to provide an environment or opportunity in 

which visitors can have a satisfying experience, while protecting the natural and cultural 

resources integral to that experience. Because user preferences are so diverse, it is 

assumed that not all user preferences can be accommodated on every acre of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs.

• All projects implemented on the forests will require a site-specific assessment of their 

potential impacts to natural resources and recreation opportunities and settings. The 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes and plan suitability will guide the design 

and implementation of management activities. 

• None of the alternatives has specific objectives to construct new motorized or 

nonmotorized trails or to designate new motorized use areas during the life of the plan. 

Proposals would be considered through project-level planning. The environmental 

consequences of new motorized or nonmotorized trails or motorized use areas would be 

identified and analyzed at the project level.

• Any new recreation development and maintenance of existing recreation facilities and 

trails will be constrained by future budgets and may be affected by changing Forest 

Service and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs priorities.

• Following the finalization of the revised plan, the public motorized travel management 

plan will be completed and the motorized vehicle use map (MVUM) will be printed. 

These documents will implement the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR § 212) and 

prohibit motorized cross-country use except where designated or authorized.

Affected Environment

Overall Recreation Opportunities

Recreation use has increased steadily throughout the history of the national forests. Over the past 

few decades, the growth in recreation in the Nation has been extraordinary. For example, 

participation in camping increased from about 13 million people in 1960 to almost 58 million 

people in 1994/1995 (Cordell et al., 2004). Between 2000 and 2007, the total number of 

recreation activity days increased approximately 25 percent (Cordell et al., 2008a). The activities 

of viewing and photographing birds, day hiking, backpacking, off-highway motor vehicle (OHV) 

driving, walking outdoors, and canoeing/kayaking have seen the greatest growth in the last two

decades (Cordell et al., 2009). A survey conducted in 2006 identified the top five outdoor 

recreation activities that Arizonans participate in: (1) play a sport: baseball, football, soccer; (2) 

on your feet activity: hike, backpack, jog; (3) drive for pleasure, sightseeing; (4) ride a bicycle, 

mountain bike, or horse; and (5) visit a park or natural or cultural feature (Arizona State Parks, 

2007).

In Arizona, where more than 42 percent of the land base is managed by Federal agencies for 

public use, the population increased about tenfold since 1940 to more than 5 million people in 

2000. In 2005, the State’s population had increased to more than 6 million. The proportion of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 341

Arizonans living in urban areas has changed. In 1900, less than 20 percent of the State’s 

population lived in an urban setting; in 2000, more than 88 percent of Arizona residents lived in 

urban settings. The makeup of the State’s population is expected to change with an increasing 

proportion of elderly and a decreasing number of children under the age of 18. The demographic 

makeup of Arizona is becoming more diverse; although predominantly white, the second largest 

segment is Hispanic. 

The forests receive approximately 2 million visitors per year; 93 percent are from Arizona (Forest 

Service, 2006). Approximately 70 percent of the Arizona visitors are from the Phoenix and 

Tucson metropolitan areas, 19 percent are from counties that make up the forests (Apache, 

Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo), and 4 percent are from counties adjoining the forests (Graham 

and Gila) (Kocis et al., 2002). The majority of all forest visitors are male (approximately 

73 percent) and predominantly white (estimated 89 percent). Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino visitors 

make up approximately 8 percent of total visits, while Native American and Asian users each 

compose only about 0.8 percent of visits. About 21 percent of users are under the age of 16, while 

relatively few visitors are between 16 and 30 or over 70 years old. An estimated 63 percent of 

visitors are between the ages of 31 and 70 (Kocis et al., 2002).

The forests’ visitors, including those that view wildlife, hunt, and fish, contribute significantly to 

the economic well-being of the surrounding areas. The forests’ contribution to the local economy 

from the recreation and wildlife economic contribution areas is approximately 69 percent of the 

local jobs and 68 percent of the local labor income (Forest Service, 2009a). Additional social and 

economic information can be found in the “Socioeconomic Resources” section, the Economic and 

Social Sustainability Assessment (Forest Service, 2009a), and the Socioeconomic Resources 

Report (Forest Service, 2014c).

Nearly all forest visitors, regardless of their reasons for visiting the forests, use the motorized 

transportation system to reach their destination. Visitors to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs access the 

forests on a variety of State and Federal Highways. U.S. Highway (U.S.) 60 and State Highways 

(SHs) 87 and 260 are the primary routes from the Phoenix metropolitan area. SHs 77, 277, and 

377 and U.S. 180 and 191 provide access from Interstate 40 to the north. Access from New 

Mexico to the east is via U.S. 60 and 180. U.S. 191 traverses the entire length of the Apache NF 

from north to south. SH 260 crosses the forests from the Mogollon Rim to Eagar (see figure 1).

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs offer a wide array of dispersed, developed, motorized, and 

nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Visitors come to the forests to engage in a variety of 

activities (table 110). The primary recreation activities are “relaxing and escaping the heat,” 

fishing, hiking, OHV use, viewing natural features and wildlife, camping, driving for pleasure, 

picnicking, and large group gatherings. Other activities, including boating and hunting, occur on 

the forests. A majority of these activities occurs in the ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, and dry 

mixed conifer forests, which make up approximately 46 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Visitors use the forests as a place to stay overnight more than any other forest in the National 

Forest System (Stynes and White, 2005). Outfitters and guides, under permit by the Forest 

Service, operate on the forests and provide services to the recreating public.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

NFs’ recreation visitors (Kocis et al., 2002)

Activity Percent 

Participationa

Percent Who Indicated 

as Primary Activity

General-relaxing, escaping noise and heat 84.2 41.3

Viewing natural features (scenery) on NFS lands 79.3 3.5

Viewing wildlife on NFS lands 73.5 1.0

Hiking or walking 62.2 8.7

Driving for pleasure on roads 53.3 3.2

Fishing–all types 50.5 19.6

Picnicking and day gatherings in developed sites 47.8 1.5

Camping in developed sites 35.7 7.2

Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, etc. 27.6 0.2

Primitive camping 19.4 3.3

Visiting nature center or visitor information services 18.3 0.5

Resorts and cabins on NFS lands 13.7 0.0

Bicycling, including mountain bikes 11.5 0.3

Off-highway vehicle travel 11.3 4.0

Visiting historic and prehistoric sites 11.0 0.1

Other nonmotorized activities (swimming, sports) 6.9 0.9

Motorized water travel (boats, jet skis) 6.8 0.2

Nonmotorized water travel (canoe, raft) 6.4 0.0

Nature study 4.8 0.0

Backpacking and camping in unroaded areas 4.0 0.1

Horseback riding 3.4 0.4

Hunting–all types 3.0 1.3

Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other) 1.1 0.0

Downhill skiing or snowboarding 0.1 0

Snowmobile travel 0 0

Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 0 0

a More than one activity could be checked.

The forests are known for their back-country opportunities including Mount Baldy, Escudilla, and 

Bear Wallow Wilderness areas, the Blue Range Primitive Area, and over 300,000 acres of 

inventoried roadless areas.

Visitors are drawn to the abundant water on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, a unique feature in the 

arid Southwest. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have over 30 lakes and reservoirs and more than 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 343

1,000 miles of rivers and perennial streams, more than can be found on any other southwestern 

national forest.

Over 35 percent of Arizonans participate in outdoor winter recreation activities (Arizona State 

Parks, 2007). The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are a destination for winter activities including snow 

play, snowmobiling, ice fishing, cross-country skiing, and sledding. In 2001, it was estimated that 

0.1 percent of forest visitors used designated snowmobile routes and 1.5 percent used snow play 

areas during their visits (Kocis et al., 2002). Availability of winter recreation fluctuates from year

to year, depending on weather and associated snow levels.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Recreation opportunities on the forests are identified and managed through the recreation 

opportunity spectrum (ROS). A recreation opportunity is defined as “the availability of a real 

choice for a user to participate in a preferred activity in a preferred setting, in order to realize 

desired experiences” (Forest Service, 1982). ROS is a method used to categorize, evaluate, and 

monitor settings and opportunities based on the natural, managerial, and social environments. Six 

ROS classes currently apply to NFS lands: primitive (P), semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM), 

semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), rural (R), and Urban (U) (Forest Service, 

1982). These classes are described in the “Glossary.”

An ROS inventory is helpful in establishing baseline condition for recreation settings. It is a 

management tool used in forest and other broad-scale planning. ROS can be used to show the 

general effects of alternatives to recreation settings and opportunities over broad classes (Forest 

Service, 2009a). Figure 52 shows a generalization of the spectrum and its components.

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

Another way to look at ROS is through the differences in the types of activities and facilities 

visitors can expect to find in each of the settings. For example, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riding 

would be an appropriate activity in SPM through R ROS classes, but it would not be consistent 

with P or SPNM settings. Activities such as horseback riding or hiking may be acceptable in all 

ROS classes, but the trails available could vary greatly with the ROS class. Paved trails would not 

be found toward the “P” end of the spectrum, but they could be common at the more developed 

end.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation is where visitors are spread over relatively large areas, especially in the 

ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, and dry mixed conifer forests on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Some examples of dispersed recreation are hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, sightseeing, driving 

for pleasure, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, wildlife viewing, and picnicking. Where 

facilities (e.g., trailheads, fishing sites, scenic overlooks) are provided, access and protection of 

the environment are the focus rather than the comfort or convenience of visitors. Visitors to the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs participate in a variety of dispersed recreation activities. There are over 

150 dispersed recreation facilities on the forests.

Developed Recreation

Developed recreation refers to areas where the Forest Service provides facilities for concentrated 

public use. There are over 120 developed recreation sites on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (see table 

111). There are 58 developed campgrounds, offering single family, multifamily, and large group 

campsites. Over 35 percent of forest visitors use developed campgrounds (Kocis et al., 2002). 

Concessionaires, under contract to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, operate most of the developed 

campgrounds. Other developed recreation opportunities include picnic areas, boating ramps, and 

visitor centers. The forests also partner with Arizona State Parks, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, and the City of Show Low to operate Fools Hollow Lake.

Table 111. Types and numbers of developed recreation sites on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Forest Service, 2011b)

Developed Recreation Site Type Number of Sites

Boating Site 22

Cabin 1

Campground (Single Family) 51

Campground (Group) 7

Day Use Area 7

Dump Station 2

Horse Camp 1

Interpretive sites, including two visitor centers 13

Organization Site 4

Picnic Site (Single Family) 12

Picnic Site (Group) 1

Forest managers are challenged to maintain existing recreation facilities while providing for 

human health and safety and protecting the natural resources in the light of declining budgets. In 

2007, the forests completed a recreation facility analysis to present the tasks needed over the next 

5 years to bring the forests’ developed recreation facilities into alignment with the financial 

resources available to operate and maintain them to standard. A $2 million backlog of deferred 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 345

recreation facility maintenance32 was identified (Forest Service, 2007a). Recently, American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act funded projects have helped to reduce this maintenance backlog.

Nonmotorized Recreation

Nonmotorized recreation activities include hiking, mountain bike riding, horseback riding, 

wildlife viewing, picnicking, hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, and snow play. Approximately 64 percent of Arizonans use nonmotorized trails; 

while 58 percent use them for the majority of their recreation trail time (Arizona State Parks, 

2009). There are approximately 1,000 miles of nonmotorized trails designated for hiking, 

horseback riding, mountain biking, and cross-country skiing on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

There are also over 3,000 miles of roads closed to motor vehicle use on the forests available for 

nonmotorized recreation.

Motorized Recreation

Motorized recreation involves the use of highway legal vehicles, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs and UTVs), and snowmobiles. Around 2,900 miles of roads and trails are open for public 

or administrative motorized use (see the “Infrastructure” section for more information). Summers, 

holidays, and hunting seasons generally have the highest volumes of motor vehicle traffic. 

Approximately 80 percent of the forests’ land is currently open for motorized cross-country use 

(Forest Service, 2010c).

The number of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) used in Arizona has risen dramatically. Almost 

500,000 households within the State have at least one OHV. Furthermore, as many as 30,000 new 

ATVs and motorcycles are purchased annually (Forest Service, 2008a; Arizona State Parks, 

2009).

In December 2005, the Forest Service issued regulations at the national level, known as the 

Travel Management Rule (TMR). The TMR was developed in response to the increasing effects 

of OHV recreation and the potential for OHV use to adversely affect forest and grassland 

resources. One of the primary purposes of the TMR is to designate roads, trails, and areas where 

motorized vehicle use can occur and to eliminate motorized cross-country travel on all national 

forests. The designation of specific routes, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs will not be considered during the plan revision process. It will be 

addressed in separate analysis through future project-level decisionmaking, including 

implementation of the TMR.

Special Designations

There are several areas identified to protect their unique qualities that also provide recreation 

opportunities. These special designations on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs include scenic byways, 

national recreation trails, wilderness, primitive area, and eligible and suitable wild and scenic 

rivers. Scenic byways and national recreation trails are discussed below. Information on 

wilderness and primitive areas and eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers can be found in 

their respective sections.

 32 Deferred maintenance is the postponing of repairs or maintenance due to the lack of financial resources, which results 

in a decline of the condition or value.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Scenic Byways

Three scenic byways (figure 53) pass through the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: Coronado Trail 

National Scenic Byway, From the Desert to Tall Pines Scenic Road, and White Mountain Scenic 

Road.

In September 2005, the 120-mile Coronado Trail National Scenic Byway, which follows U.S. 

191, was designated by the Federal Highway Administration. This route had been a national 

forest byway and Arizona State scenic byway since 1989, and traverses the Clifton, Alpine, and 

Springerville Ranger Districts. The byway winds its way from the town of Clifton, to the top of 

the Mogollon Rim, and through the communities of Alpine and Nutrioso. Vegetation types change 

with altitude, starting with the Sonoran Desert at the southern end, spruce-fir forest on the 

Mogollon Rim, and piñon-juniper woodlands at the northern end. There are spectacular views of 

mountains and rugged country along the entire byway.

The From the Desert to Tall Pines Scenic Road has been a national forest scenic road and Arizona 

State scenic byway since 1996. Approximately 3 miles (Navajo County Road 512) of this 67-mile 

scenic road are on the Black Mesa Ranger District. Ponderosa pine forests line this portion of the 

scenic road from the Mogollon Rim to SH 260.

The 123-mile White Mountain Scenic Road has been an Arizona State scenic byway since 1992 

and a national forest byway since 1989. This byway is partially located on the Springerville 

Ranger District and includes SHs 260, 261, 273, and 373. This byway crosses much of the high 

elevation grasslands on the forests. These rolling plains are interrupted by forested knolls. Mount 

Baldy provides a backdrop for the byway.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 347

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

NFs

National Recreation Trails

The forests have four national recreation trails (NRTs): Blue Ridge, General George Crook, 

Eagle, and Escudilla (figure 52); all were administratively designated in 1979. NRTs provide a 

variety of outdoor recreation opportunities and are accessible from urban areas.

The Blue Ridge NRT (Trail 107), located on the Lakeside Ranger District, is approximately 

9 miles long. The trail climbs the west side of Blue Ridge Mountain (7,650 feet in elevation) 

through a mixture of pines, junipers, and many varieties of wildflowers. The mountain itself is a 

volcanic remnant and provides scenic panoramas from the summit.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Fifty-eight miles of the 114-mile long General George Crook NRT (Trail 140) are located in the 

Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts. The trail is part of the route used by General George 

Crook to deliver supplies to outposts including Fort McDowell, Fort Verde, Camp Reno, Fort 

Apache, and Camp San Carlos. This route became one of the first major roads in Arizona and was 

used for decades as a supply and communications route. The original blazes can still be seen on 

the ponderosa pines lining the trail, as well as occasional traces of homesteads. The trail is 

popular with equestrians, mountain bikers, and hikers.

Eagle NRT (Trail 79), located on the Clifton Ranger District, is approximately 28 miles long. The 

northern end of the trail begins on the Mogollon Rim at about 9,000 feet elevation and descends 

over 4,000 feet through a variety of vegetation types (mixed conifer to riparian) to its southern 

trailhead adjacent to Eagle Creek Road. The trail traverses several canyons, each with its own 

unique scenery and vegetation.

Escudilla NRT (Trail 308), located on the Alpine Ranger District, is approximately 3 miles long. 

The trail ascends Arizona’s third highest mountain and is located within Escudilla Wilderness. 

The trail designation predates the wilderness designation. Forest Service policy discourages 

national recreation trails in designated wilderness (Forest Service Manual 2353.51 (3)).

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Recreation Opportunities

The effect of the changing recreation emphasis by alternative is reflected in the ROS classes. The 

major ROS emphases in all alternatives are for RN, SPM, and SPNM recreation opportunities. 

Maps of the ROS by alternative can be found in appendix J.

The ROS class acreages for each alternative are summarized in table 112 and shown in figure 54. 

The U class, although used in alternative A, is not appropriate on NFS lands because it 

represents settings usually found in cities and towns. There are no U acres in the action 

alternatives. Roaded modified (RM) recreation opportunities, shown in the action alternatives, 

are found mainly along a segment of Forest Road 300 on the Sitgreaves NF and reflect the 

designated dispersed camping and more highly managed recreation opportunities found there.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 349

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

ROS Class Alt. A Acres

(percent)

Alt. B Acres

(percent)

Alt. C Acres

(percent)

Alt. D Acres

(percent)

Urban

(U)

104

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

Rural

(R)

32,853

(2%)

42,530

(2%)

43,333

(2%)

41,058

(2%)

Roaded Modified 

(RM)

0

(0%)

9,682

(<1%)

9,682

(<1%)

7,149

(<1%)

Roaded Natural 

(RN)

686,435

(34%)

603,887

(30%)

645,056

(32%)

539,491

(27%)

Semiprimitive Motorized 

(SPM)

614,520

(31%)

575,572

(29%)

662,116

(33%)

527,725

(26%)

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 

(SPNM)

452,486

(22%)

487,747

(24%)

422,932

(21%)

279,050

(14%)

Primitive 

(P)

228,954

(11%)

295,934

(14%)

232,233

(12%)

620,879

(31%)

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

Figure 54. Acres by ROS class by alternative
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Alternatives A and C would provide the most acres available for motorized recreation 

opportunities (R through SPM). Alternative B would provide a mix of recreation opportunities, 

with more nonmotorized recreation opportunities (SPNM and P) than alternatives A and C. 

Alternative D would provide the most nonmotorized recreation opportunities (P and SPNM), 

while maintaining over 1 million acres (over half of the forests) in RN and SPM.

Most SPNM acres in alternatives A, B, and C are found on the Clifton Ranger District or are 

located elsewhere on the forests and are generally not accessible to motorized recreation. In 

alternative D, many of these SPNM acres across the forests are recommended for wilderness and 

would provide P recreation opportunities.

It is expected that as the recreation emphasis changes with each alternative, the type of user 

attracted to the forests would change or current users may move to other areas where their desired 

recreation opportunities are available. In alternative A, there is a mix of motorized, 

nonmotorized, developed, and dispersed recreation opportunities. This mix would continue into 

alternative B. However, motorized cross-country travel would not be allowed in any of the 

action alternatives. With a greater emphasis on motorized and developed recreation 

opportunities in alternative C, there could be a shift toward users who prefer motorized 

recreation activities and/or developed recreation. There would also be decreases in nonmotorized

and dispersed recreation opportunities that could displace users to other areas or result in fewer 

users who prefer those types of recreation. Alternative D, with a greater emphasis on 

nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities, may attract those who prefer nonmotorized

and/or dispersed recreation activities, while not encouraging those with motorized/developed 

preferences. In alternatives C and D, users may be displaced and may look to recreate in other 

locations off the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs or may “stay home” (Kocis et al., 2002).

Effects of Management Activities on Recreation 

In all alternatives, management activities, especially mechanical vegetation treatments, may 

affect recreation users by displacing them from the treated areas. Displacement could affect both 

developed and dispersed users. For developed recreation, there could be a short-term closure of a 

campground, displacing users to other developed sites or long-term displacement if the developed 

site character is no longer what a recreationist desires. For example, thinning trees in a 

campground may reduce vegetative screening between campsites, which may affect a sense of 

privacy. 

For dispersed recreation, short-term displacement could result from the presence of logging 

equipment or slash piles prior to and shortly after burning. Longer term dispersed displacement 

could result from changes to a dispersed campsite or use area. For example, an area would 

generally be more open and a campsite may be visible if within sight of a road. The loss of 

vegetative screening between a dispersed campsite and a main road (maintenance level 3 or 4) 

would probably result in increases in dust and noise and decreases in privacy. 

Prescribed fires and wildfires would also displace recreation users. However, this displacement 

could be of an intermediate length, because users may not return to an area for several months 

after burning or until some vegetation has regrown.

Mechanical vegetation treatments and the use of wildland fire would displace both motorized and 

nonmotorized recreation users. Areas where these treatments are occurring may be closed for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 351

public safety or have limited access. Displacements would be similar to those described above. 

The length of displacement would vary by treatment type, amount of slash and debris piles, 

vegetation regrowth after prescribed fire, and scenic quality.

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs during the high use summer season occurs 

mostly in the ponderosa pine, wet mixed conifer, and dry mixed conifer forests, which are the 

primary emphasis for vegetation treatments. Because the majority of the proposed vegetation 

treatments would occur in areas used for dispersed recreation, dispersed recreationists, especially 

campers, would be affected more than developed recreation users. On an average annual acres 

treated basis (table 113), dispersed users would be displaced the most under alternatives C and 

D and the least under alternative A. However, long-term displacement effects would be greater 

under alternative C because of the higher proportion of mechanical treatments.

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

conifer, and dry mixed conifer forested PNVTs by alternative

PNVT Treatment Alt. A

Acres

Alt. B

Acres

Alt. C

Acres

Alt. D

Acres

Ponderosa Pine Mechanical 7,119 6,289 13,341 5,434

Wildland Fire 3,150 6,300 5,614 12,679

Wet Mixed 

Conifer Mechanical 2,147 1,900 4,023 1,640

Wildland Fire 950 1,900 1,725 3,824

Dry Mixed 

Conifer Mechanical 1,808 1,584 3,388 1,380

Wildland Fire 800 1,663 1,525 3,381

Total Mechanical 11,074 9,773 20,752 8,454

Wildland Fire 4,900 9,863 8,864 19,884

Grand Total Mechanical

and Wildland Fire 15,974 19,636 29,616 28,338

It is not anticipated that winter recreation users would be displaced because treatments generally 

occur during non-winter months, the short-term slash and burn piles may be covered by snow, 

and winter users usually stay in overnight facilities off the forests. Thinned areas may attract 

winter recreationists because of the openness.

Developed Recreation

All alternatives would provide a wide range of recreation opportunities across the ApacheSitgreaves NFs; however, the emphasis varies by alternative. All alternatives emphasize the 

maintenance of existing recreation infrastructure or facilities. Alternative A identifies 1,665 acres 

as a management area for developed recreation sites; these acres are not mapped. The action 

alternatives would include the High Use Developed Recreation Area (HUDRA) Management 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Area (16,549 acres) (see management area map in appendix J). This management area contains 

areas with high levels of recreation use and concentrated use areas where facilities have been 

constructed to accommodate large numbers of people (e.g., Big Lake Recreation Area). These 

areas are large enough to allow for construction of additional facilities.

Alternative A would emphasize developed recreation with the addition of new facilities. 

Alternative B proposes a balance of motorized and nonmotorized opportunities, with the possible 

construction of dispersed facilities, such as trails and interpretive sites. Alternative C would 

place a greater emphasis on motorized recreation and developed facilities. Motorized recreation 

opportunities would be improved with the development of trails and interpretive sites. New 

developed recreation facilities could be constructed in the HUDRA Management Area. 

Alternative D would focus on nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities that require 

minimal facilities. Under all alternatives, any new recreation facility would be further considered 

in site-specific, project-level analyses that would consider other resources, including, but not 

limited to, soil, vegetation, water, cultural resources, and wildlife.

Alternatives A and C would provide the most opportunities for developed and/or motorized 

recreation, while alternative D would provide the least. Alternative B would provide moderate 

opportunities for developed and/or motorized recreation.

Although maintenance of the existing recreation infrastructure and reduction of the deferred 

maintenance backlog (by 10 percent within the planning period) are components of all 

alternatives, there are different consequences by alternative. This hinges on the assumption that 

funding for recreation facilities and their maintenance does not vary by alternative. Under 

alternatives A and C, it would be difficult to achieve the deferred maintenance objective because 

alternative A focuses on the development of new facilities and alternative C emphasizes 

developing new facilities and/or enhancing existing facilities in the HUDRA Management Area. 

If funds are spent on new and/or enhanced facilities, then maintenance of existing facilities could 

be further deferred. Alternative B should meet the deferred maintenance backlog objective 

because new facility development would be limited. Alternative D would also meet the objective 

with its minimal new construction emphasis.

Nonmotorized Recreation

Future Consideration of New Nonmotorized and Mechanized Recreation

There would be no effects to nonmotorized recreation in all alternatives because the entire 

forests are suitable for nonmotorized travel. Also, approximately 85 percent of the forests are 

suitable for future consideration of mechanized travel (e.g., mountain bikes) in all alternatives. 

Alternative A could provide the most mechanized travel opportunities; while alternatives B, C, 

and D could provide fewer (3 percent less) opportunities.

Acres suitable for nonmotorized recreation are shown in table 114. Alternative A is based on 

management area direction in the 1987 plan. The action alternatives are based on suitability 

criteria found in chapter 4 of the proposed plan. The suitable acres in the action alternatives vary 

because of the different allocations of land to management areas (table 2) and management area 

direction. Mechanized and nonmotorized suitability would be further refined in site-specific, 

project-level analyses that would consider other resources including, but not limited to, soil, 

riparian, water, cultural resources, and wildlife.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 353

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

by alternative

Travel Type Alt. A Acres

(percent)

Alt. B Acres

(percent)

Alt. C Acres

(percent)

Alt. D Acres

(percent)

Mechanized 1,748,869

(87%)

1,688,649

(84%)

1,696,532

(84%)

1,705,034

(85%)

Nonmotorized 2,015,352

(100%)

2,015,352

(100%)

2,015,352

(100%)

2,015,352

(100%)

Motorized Recreation

Future Consideration of New Motorized Areas and Trails

Under all alternatives, over half of the forests could be suitable for future consideration of new 

motorized areas and trails. The most land that could be suitable occurs in alternatives A and C, 

followed by alternative B; while the least that could be suitable is in alternative D. Alternatives 

with more suitable acres could provide additional forest access for motorized users that, in turn, 

could discourage nonmotorized use in those areas. Should new motorized areas and trails be 

implemented, site-specific effects to resources could occur, but they should be mitigated through 

the use of standards, guidelines, and best management practices (BMPs).

Acres suitable for future consideration of new motorized recreation development by alternative 

are summarized in table 115. Alternative A is based on management area direction in the 1987 

plan. The action alternatives are based on suitability criteria found in chapter 4 of the proposed 

plan, which defines whether or not a management area is suitable for future consideration of a 

variety of motorized uses. The motorized use suitability would be further refined during projectlevel analyses that would consider other resources, including, but not limited to, soil, riparian, 

water, cultural resources, and wildlife. See the “Infrastructure” section for a discussion of new 

motorized roads. 

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

trails by alternative

Category

Alt. A Acres

(percent)

Alt. B Acres

(percent)

Alt. C Acres

(percent)

Alt. D Acres

(percent)

New Motorized Areas 1,423,242

(71%)

1,243,316

(62%)

1,572,507

(78%)

1,095,135

(54%)

New Motorized Trails 1,444,430

(72%)

1,273,822

(63%)

1,619,298

(80%)

1,123,081

(56%)

Motorized Cross-country Travel

Alternative A would continue to allow motorized cross-country travel. Environmental 

consequences of continuing this use are described below. 

Increased motorized cross-country travel from a growing user population would result in more 

resource damage, more conflicts with other forest users, safety concerns, higher noise levels, 

additional user-created routes, and new dispersed camping locations, especially in or near riparian 

areas. Nonmotorized visitors could be displaced by noise and conflicts with motorized hunters 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

and recreationists to other parts of the forests and to areas that are closed to motorized crosscountry travel.

Unmanaged motorized cross-country travel has the potential to adversely affect scenic quality 

through resource damage (e.g., vegetation crushing, soil erosion). This is especially important in 

locations where physical impacts should be subordinate to the natural landscape. Unauthorized 

routes would continue to be used and their numbers could rise with increasing recreational use of 

the forests. Because unauthorized use is not managed and is likely to increase, the overall scenic 

quality would decline.

Motorized cross-country travel would increase the potential for erosion, reduce soil productivity 

due to compaction and erosion, destroy vegetative cover and natural ground litter, damage 

riparian areas, increase sediment in streams and water bodies, and change surface flow. Crosscountry motorized travel also destroys biological soil crusts. Streambank damage could occur at 

vehicle crossings and along streams in recreation areas. Surface water quality could be reduced 

from sedimentation, increased turbidity, introduction of motor vehicle fluids from spills and 

leaks, and direct contact of vehicles with streams and water bodies.

Resource damage could occur in all vegetation types, especially riparian areas, and may damage 

or kill individual rare plants. Motorized cross-country travel has the potential to transport 

nonnative, invasive plant species seeds throughout the forests, thereby greatly expanding the 

extent of their occurrence.

Motorized cross-country travel expands access to areas and may result in wildlife mortality (e.g.,

illegal shooting, vehicular collision); influence wildlife behavior, survival, reproduction, and 

distribution of species; and alter habitats.

Growing motorized cross-country use increases the potential impacts to streams and fish from 

erosion and sedimentation. This use directly damages riparian and aquatic habitats and fish life 

stages when their mobility is limited. These uses indirectly affect downstream habitat primarily 

through increased sediment and decreased water quality.

Unrestricted motorized access to remote sites increases the potential for vandalism, including 

illegal excavation (looting), damage or destruction to standing architecture or rock art, and 

collection of surface artifacts. Motorized use may remove vegetation that protects and covers

archaeological materials. When cultural materials are exposed, the more decorative artifacts and 

collectable historic objects may disappear through illegal collecting.

The action alternatives would eliminate motorized cross-country travel. Motorized travel would 

be limited to NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, and designated motorized areas. Certain vehicles 

and uses are exempted from the suitability determination per Executive Order 11644 (e.g., 

vehicles used for emergency purposes, vehicles allowed by permit or contract). Eliminating 

motorized cross-country travel would have beneficial effects to soils, water, vegetation, fish, 

wildlife, and cultural resources by removing some of the negative consequences listed above. 

Additional environmental consequences are described below.

Motor vehicle use would only be allowed on roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized use. 

This would make it easier for forest users to understand where they can travel with motor 

vehicles. Not having motor vehicles on unauthorized user-created routes would reduce safety 

concerns.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 355

There could be some displacement of motor vehicle users to lands outside the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs where motorized cross-country travel may be allowed. Additional impacts to scenic integrity 

from motorized cross-country travel would be prevented. Unauthorized routes would revegetate 

and scenic integrity would improve.

Plants and their habitats would benefit from reduced disturbance. The potential to spread 

nonnative, invasive plant species seeds across the forests would be reduced. By reducing where 

motor vehicles are allowed, rare plant habitat quality would improve by minimizing vehicular 

crushing and invasive plant introductions.

Erosion and sediment transport would be reduced as disturbed areas revegetate. Less sediment 

would reduce maintenance needs of road related structures (culverts) and improve downstream 

aquatic habitats. Better watershed conditions would reduce peak flows and promote better 

infiltration and groundwater recharge.

Less motorized access may reduce disturbance, mortality (e.g., fewer collisions), and habitat 

fragmentation and modification, and it may improve habitat security and quality. Potential 

impacts and disturbance to fish species, riparian and aquatic habitats, and hydrologic conditions 

would be reduced.

The potential to disturb cultural resources would be reduced because fewer lands would be open 

to motor vehicle use, resulting in a beneficial effect to cultural resources. The adverse effects to 

remote cultural sites from motorized cross-country travel would be reduced and, in some areas, 

stopped.

In all alternatives, motorized travel would be limited to a system of designated roads, trails, and 

areas after the completion of travel management planning process to implement the Travel 

Management Rule. 

Special Designations

No new scenic byways or national recreation trails (NRTs) are proposed in any alternative. The 

current scenic byways and NRTs would continue to be managed to protect the values for which 

they were designated. There would be no effects from removing the NRT designation from 

Escudilla Trail, as proposed in the action alternatives, because it is within a designated 

wilderness. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area for recreation is the Coconino NF, the Tusayan and Williams 

Districts on the Kaibab NF, the Payson and Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts on the Tonto NF 

(Forest Service, 2010i), and other Federal and State managed lands within a 20-mile radius of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This large area was selected because of ongoing and proposed activities 

on neighboring national forests (i.e., Four Forest Restoration Initiative), adjacent State lands (i.e., 

recreation permits, types of recreation limited), and neighboring American Indian reservations 

(i.e., recreation permits, types of recreation limited).

Under the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI), up to 50,000 acres across four national 

forests in Arizona (Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto) may be thinned and/or 

prescribed burned per year for 20 years, primarily in ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

forests, a total of 1 million acres. As previously discussed, much of the summer recreation on 

national forest lands occurs in these forested PNVTs. Because of the extent of the proposed 

activities, in addition to other ongoing vegetation treatments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in all 

alternatives, there would be cumulative effects to recreation. Recreation users of the forests, 

especially dispersed users, could be displaced to areas beyond the national forests in Arizona, to 

forest lands in other states, or to lands managed by other agencies. It is also possible that forest 

users may choose to no longer recreate beyond their home area (Kocis et al., 2002). This could 

result in losses in revenues to communities within or adjacent to the four national forests involved 

with 4FRI.

In all alternatives, cumulative effects to recreation could also result from other agencies’ 

management of their lands. In particular, permits are required for recreational use of surrounding 

American Indian reservations and State trust lands. A fee is charged for the permit and only 

limited recreation activities are allowed. The fee and the limitations on types of recreation could 

both negatively and positively affect recreation use on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Those 

recreation users unwilling or unable to pay a fee would use the forests rather than reservation or 

State lands. Also, those users whose preferred activities are not allowed on adjoining lands would 

select to visit the forests. Conversely, those users seeking a different recreation opportunity would 

pay the fee to visit the lands surrounding the forests. For example, a camper wishing a dispersed 

recreation opportunity without the presence of ATVs may opt to pay for and visit the Fort Apache 

Indian Reservation, because the White Mountain Apache Tribe does not allow the use of ATVs on 

their lands.

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 2014–2018 Five-Year Transportation 

Facilities Construction Program lists projects on or in the vicinity of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

These planned projects consist of pavement rehabilitation, shoulder widening, and other heavy 

maintenance activities. None of these projects would increase or decrease access to the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. In all alternatives, these road improvements could facilitate increases in forest 

visitors since the driving times from the urban areas of Phoenix and Tucson would decrease. As 

use increases, compliance with regulations could become a greater challenge as recreation 

participants often compete for limited space and resources. Especially vulnerable are semiprimitive and primitive settings, which emphasize solitude, challenge, risk, unmodified natural 

environments, and minimal encounters and/or signs of other users. 

See the “Socioeconomic Resources” section for additional cumulative environmental 

consequences.

Infrastructure

This section summarizes the existing transportation system on the forests. It also describes the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ owned administrative facilities. It displays the potential environmental 

consequences that may result from implementing the four alternatives. Motorized trails are 

addressed in the “Recreation” section. The full analysis for this section can be found in the 

“Infrastructure Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014j) available in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”

The criteria for comparing alternatives includes a discussion of how plan direction varies to 

address riparian-related resource damage, how motorized cross-country travel is managed, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 357

the amount (acres) of land suitable for new motorized route construction. Assumptions and key 

policies used in the analysis include the following: 

• None of the alternatives has specific objectives, during the life of the plan, to construct 

new motorized routes and/or designate new motorized areas. Proposals for new 

development and the associated environmental effects will be considered through projectlevel planning.

• New motorized routes would not be constructed in designated wilderness areas, the Blue 

Range Primitive Area, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), and other areas considered not 

suitable for new motorized route construction. 

• The land shown as suitable for future consideration of new motorized routes or motorized 

areas does not reflect site-specific resource concerns (e.g., slope, soils, cultural resources) 

that will be addressed in project-level analysis.

• Generally, the current road maintenance levels are not expected to change over the life of 

the plan. There may be some exceptions, for example the portion of Forest Road 300 

from State Highway 60 to State Highway 260. It currently ranges in maintenance levels 

of 2 through 3. As funding allows, this section of road would be managed at maintenance 

level 3 for consistency in maintenance activities, signing, and vehicle use.

• NFS roads no longer needed for current or future use will be decommissioned by recontouring, ripping, and seeding as appropriate and will be analyzed on a project-level

basis. 

Affected Environment 

Motorized Routes

The transportation system on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs consists of roads and trails that provide 

people with access to public lands and private inholdings. Motorized travel on the forests has 

evolved over time. Historically, the road system on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs was constructed 

for commodity access, primarily timber harvest, livestock production, mining, and administration. 

Some roads were alternate routes that connected small communities and some were used to 

access points of interest or areas used for specific activities, such as hunting and camping. While 

the transportation system continues to provide access for administration of the forests, the 

majority of use today comes from public recreation and forests products extraction. 

The motorized transportation system comprises 765 miles of roads open only to highway legal 

vehicles (maintenance level 3 through 5), 2,067 miles of roads open to all motorized vehicles 

(maintenance level 2), 3,372 miles of roads closed to all motorized vehicles (maintenance level 

1), and 156 miles of trails open to motorized vehicles less than 50 inches wide. The miles of open 

motorized transportation system includes roads with access restricted on a seasonal basis for 

public safety and to minimize resource damage.

Additional travel ways exist that are not part of the NFS road network and are considered 

unauthorized routes. An inventory has not been completed, but it is estimated that there are 

hundreds of miles of unauthorized routes. These unauthorized routes include unplanned, 

abandoned travel ways; user-created routes; and roads that were once under permit or other 

authorization and were not decommissioned upon termination of the authorization. Travel ways in 

this category are awaiting management evaluation as to whether or not to include them as part of 

the transportation system or to decommission. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Over the last few decades, funding has been insufficient to maintain all NFS roads and NFS 

motorized trails to appropriate standards to meet the road and trail management objective levels. 

Generally, the funding received has been focused on maintenance of higher standard roads that 

serve multiple-access needs. There is currently a backlog of road maintenance referred to as 

“deferred maintenance” or tasks that are the cumulative total of all annual maintenance tasks not 

accomplished as needed or scheduled. Maintenance items include, but are not limited to, 

surfacing, drainage and drainage structures, and closure structures. Deferred maintenance on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs road system has accumulated to over $50 million. 

Generally, new road construction may occur when access to a particular resource or private 

inholding is needed. These roads may be permanent, if intended for long-term use, or they may be 

temporary and then removed. Any adjustments to the road network would be made, as necessary, 

during project-level planning.

Less than 10 miles of new NFS road construction has occurred over the past 5 years. It has been 

limited to relocation of poorly located roads (e.g., near riparian areas, wet meadows) and 

developed campground construction. Temporary roads have been used for forest products 

extraction where a permanent road is not needed for future access. 

The use of motorized vehicles for recreation activities has increased dramatically in recent years 

(Arizona State Parks, 2007). Advances in the performance and the technology of off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs) have increased 

the demand for additional motorized recreation trails (i.e., motorized routes less than 50 inches 

wide), specifically connectors between routes to create loops. 

Approximately 1,480,000 acres (about 70 percent) of the forests are currently open to motorized 

cross-country travel. The three designated wilderness areas and the Blue Range Primitive Area

are closed to motorized cross-country travel.

Administrative Facilities

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ administrative facilities consist of one air tanker base to support 

wildfire suppression, five ranger district offices, quarters for seasonal employees and crews, 

warehouses, barns, residential housing, engine bays, storage facilities, and associated water and 

wastewater systems. Over the past several years, management emphasis has been to reduce the 

square footage of administrative facilities and still meet the needs of the forests. A facility master 

plan was completed in 1994 with subsequent annual updates. The facility master plan guides 

acquisition, maintenance, and disposal of facilities. It identifies facility needs and guides 

decisions regarding proposed and existing facilities.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Motorized Routes 

In alternative A, management of the motorized transportation system would be guided by 

direction in the 1987 plan, which was driven primarily by timber harvesting. There are no specific 

objectives that would address motorized routes that may be adding sediment to streams or causing 

riparian related resource damage.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 359

All of the action alternatives would contain direction for roads and motorized trails that include 

specific objectives within the planning period to remove unauthorized routes and close 

maintenance level 1 roads in riparian areas. These alternatives would also include specific 

objectives within the planning period to close, re-contour, and/or revegetate unauthorized routes 

and maintenance level 1 roads that directly add sediment to streams or cause damage to riparian 

systems. As a result of these actions, there would be fewer roads, trails, and unauthorized routes 

that directly add sediment to streams, damage riparian vegetation, erode stream banks, cause 

gullies, and/or compact floodplain soils. 

In alternative A, motorized cross-country travel is allowed in most areas. It would be expected 

that with increasing populations, motorized cross-country travel would increase resulting in 

mixed user conflicts and creation of even more miles of unauthorized routes. Maintenance and 

deferred maintenance costs would increase as additional miles of unauthorized routes need to be 

removed or reconstructed according to best management practices (BMPs) to reduce resource 

damage and design standards for user safety.

All of the action alternatives would prohibit motorized cross-country travel, except where 

authorized. Exceptions include emergency vehicles, snowmobiles, and permitted uses (e.g., 

livestock grazing, firewood permits). Eliminating motorized cross-country travel except where 

authorized would make current funding used to mitigate resource damage from unauthorized 

routes available for existing NFS road maintenance. Motorized vehicle use would only be 

allowed on roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized use, making it less complicated for 

forest users to understand where they can travel with motorized vehicles and lessening the 

conflicts between motorized use and nonmotorized use. 

Table 116 summarizes the acres suitable for the future consideration of new motorized areas, NFS 

roads, NFS motorized trails, and temporary roads. This classification does not imply that 

construction of motorized routes would occur. This table is based on criteria found in the 

motorized uses suitability section in chapter 4 of the proposed plan for the action alternatives. 

There is no clear direction for new motorized development in alternative A, suitability is based 

on management area emphasis. 

Alternative C would provide the greatest amount of acreage suitable for future consideration of 

new motorized areas, NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, and temporary roads, followed by 

alternatives A, B, and D. Alternatives with higher suitable acres could provide additional forest 

access for motorized users which, in turn, could discourage nonmotorized use in those areas. If 

new motorized road or trail construction occurred, maintenance and deferred maintenance costs 

would increase.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

temporary roadsa

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

New Motorized Areas 1,423,242

(71%)

1,243,316

(62%)

1,572,507

(78%)

1,095,135

(54%)

NFS Road Construction 1,444,430

(72%)

1,276,291

(63%)

1,621,771

(80%)

1,125,553

(56%)

NFS Motorized Trails <50” Construction 1,444,430

(72%)

1,273,822

(63%)

1,619,298

(80%)

1,123,081

(56%)

Temporary Road Construction 1,448,434

(72%)

1,405,288

(70%)

1,696,497

(84%)

1,233,645

(61%)

a

This table does not imply or propose these activities or level of development would occur but is a measurable way of 

showing the differences in the alternatives.

Both mechanical and wildland fire treatments are planned in all alternatives. At the average 

planned treatment objective level, alternatives C and B, respectively, would rely on more 

mechanical treatments to move toward desired condition, followed by alternative D then A. 

Mechanical treatments may require more reconstruction (e.g., curve widening, hardened drainage 

crossings) of roads to accommodate the design needs of the critical vehicle to perform mechanical 

treatment than fire treatments would require. Mechanical treatments may also require more 

construction of temporary roads during the treatment period to access the treatment areas than fire 

treatments. This may result in mechanical treatments having a higher cost per acre due to 

motorized access costs. Effects of roads, including temporary roads, are discussed in the affected 

resource sections including, but not limited to, soil, water, and air.

Activities, such as NFS road maintenance, relocation, and construction of new motorized use 

areas, NFS motorized trails and NFS roads, should not have an impact on long-term productivity 

because they would be accomplished using BMPs. Additionally, they should result in conditions 

that minimize resource impacts while providing needed access to the forests.

Administrative Facilities

The management of the administrative facilities on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would not change 

under any alternative. The facility master plan would be reviewed and updated annually as 

necessary to reflect management needs. Funding would be prioritized to accomplish critical 

health and safety maintenance and deferred maintenance items.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The bounds of analysis are the adjoining national forests, the counties encompassing the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, and the Arizona State highways (SH) and the designated forest highways that 

access and traverse the forests.

The Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) is a landscape-scale restoration project to reduce the 

threat of high intensity, potentially destructive fires on the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, 

and Tonto NFs. This project could impact the forests’ transportation system because of the need to 

access the eastern side of the Coconino NF for treatments and/or removal of biomass. In all 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 361

alternatives, use of these roads would result in increased traffic and a need for more frequent 

road maintenance. The increase in traffic and the different types of vehicles could require 

improvement of the road to accommodate these activities safely. 

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 2014–2018 Five-Year Transportation 

Facilities Construction Program lists projects on or in the vicinity of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Planned projects consist of pavement rehabilitation, shoulder widening, and other heavy 

maintenance activities. None of these projects would increase or decrease access to the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. However, in all alternatives, these road improvements could facilitate increases 

in forest visitors as the driving times to the forests from the urban areas of Phoenix and Tucson 

would decrease as a result of these improvements. This potential increase of forest visitors using 

the forest motorized transportation system could result in more frequent road maintenance needs. 

There are seven NFS roads designated as forest highways in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. In the 

fall of 2011, the forests submitted two of these roads for funding from the Federal Highways 

Administration to reconstruct. The reconstruction work would include new drainage structures, 

road widening, possible realignment of small segments, and paving. The reconstruction of these 

roads would not increase or decrease access to the forests lands. In all alternatives, completion 

of these projects would eliminate deferred maintenance on these routes and turn over 

maintenance responsibility to ADOT, freeing up funding to be used on other NFS roads. 

Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers

This section describes the rivers currently eligible or suitable for designation into the National 

Wild and Scenic River System. It also describes the potential environmental consequences on the 

wild and scenic river resource that may result with the adoption of a revised land management 

plan. The full analysis for eligible wild and scenic rivers can be found in the “Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014w) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The number and miles of eligible and suitable rivers do not vary by alternative; however, the 

management areas which the rivers overlay may change by alternative. Rivers are classified as 

wild, scenic, or recreational.

• Wild rivers: Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally 

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

waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

• Scenic rivers: Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

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

places by roads.

• Recreational rivers: Those rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by road or 

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

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• All identified river segments and associated corridors are managed in conformance with 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 82.5 - Interim Management of Eligible or 

Suitable Rivers.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• The 2011 Wallow Fire affected all or portions of 12 eligible and suitable wild and scenic 

rivers. The outstandingly remarkable values for these rivers were reviewed with a focus 

on the long-term assessment of eligibility because of the changed conditions. This review 

found the outstandingly remarkable values for each river are still valid and will remain 

valid into the future (Forest Service, 2012a).

Affected Environment

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs do not have any designated wild and scenic rivers. However, the 

forests currently have both eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers (figure 55).

Eligible Rivers

There are approximately 339 miles of 23 rivers (table 117) eligible to be included in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There are 172 miles classified as wild, 66 miles classified as 

scenic, and 101 miles classified as recreational. These rivers are located in all ranger districts 

except Lakeside. 

Eligible rivers are managed to retain their status until a suitability determination has been made 

whether to recommend their inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 363

Table 117. Eligible wild and scenic rivers by river classification

River Name Wild 

(miles)

Scenic 

(miles)

Recreational 

(miles)

Total

(miles)

Bear Wallow Creek 3.7 — 0.9 4.6

Black River 18.3 0.5 — 18.8

Campbell Blue Creeka 4.1 — 8.0 12.1

Coal Creeka 9.6 0.6 7.7 17.9

Dix Creek — 3.3 — 3.3

Eagle Creek — — 19.5 19.5

East Clear Creekb — 21.2 — 21.2

East Eagle Creek 7.5 3.5 3.5 14.5

East Fork Black River 3.3 1.2 8.2 12.7

East Fork Little Colorado River — 9.3 — 9.3

Fish Creek — 9.9 0.6 10.5

Little Blue Creek 18.4 — — 18.4

Leonard Canyonc — — 23.6 23.6

North Fork East Fork Black River 12.7 1.0 — 13.7

Pigeon Creek 4.8 — 10.3 15.1

San Francisco River 9.0 — 15.0 24.0

Sardine Creek 8.9 — — 8.9

South Fork Little Colorado River — 7.3 — 7.3

Turkey Creek 9.1 — — 9.1

West Fork Black River 8.6 3.0 — 11.6

West Fork Little Colorado River 6.4 — 1.7 8.1

Willow Creek 18.9 — — 18.9

Woods Canyon - Chevelon Creek 28.4 5.3 2.4 36.1

Total miles 171.7 66.1 101.4 339.2

a

Also located on the Gila NF. Total miles shown.

b

Also located on the Coconino NF. A portion of this river is the boundary between the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the 

Coconino NF. Miles shown are the common boundary.

c

Also located on the Coconino NF. Miles shown are the common boundary between the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and 

the Coconino NF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

NFs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 365

Suitable Rivers

Suitable rivers include portions of the Blue River and KP Creek (table 118). These rivers were 

found to be suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System through a 

separate environmental analysis (Forest Service, 2010d). Suitable rivers are managed to maintain 

their conditions and values until congressional action is taken.

Table 118. Suitable wild and scenic rivers by river classification

River Name Wild 

(miles)

Scenic 

(miles)

Recreational

(miles)

Total

(miles)

Blue River 23.3 4.2 — 27.5

KP Creek 11.3 — — 11.3

Total miles 34.6 4.2 0.0 38.8

River Corridors and Management Areas

A river corridor includes all NFS lands within one-quarter mile of each side of the eligible or 

suitable river. On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, there are 97,215 acres of eligible or suitable river 

corridors. These river corridors are found in most management areas across the forests; they do 

not occur in Developed Recreation Sites, Escudilla Demonstration Area, and Escudilla 

Wilderness Management Areas.

Portions of the eligible West Fork and East Fork Little Colorado Rivers are located within Mount 

Baldy Wilderness Management Area. All of the eligible Bear Wallow Creek is within Bear 

Wallow Wilderness Management Area. There are no eligible or suitable rivers in Escudilla 

Wilderness Management Area. A portion of the suitable Blue River and most of KP Creek are 

within the Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions Management Area.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Eligible and suitable river segments and their corridors would be managed to maintain the 

outstanding values and qualities that made them eligible or suitable for designation in all 

alternatives in accordance with Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 82.5 - Interim 

Management of Eligible or Suitable Rivers. The presence of these river corridors may act to 

increase public interest and awareness of river resources, especially in the generally arid 

Southwest. Also, as populations increase and more people visit the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the 

value of managing these areas in their relatively natural condition would increase.

Effects of Eligibility, Suitability, and Classification

The presence of an eligible or suitable river constrains the type and manner of projects and 

activities that may be conducted within the river corridor. Three constraints apply to activities in 

all eligible and suitable river corridors: (1) the protection of the free flowing river character, 

(2) the protection of the identified outstandingly remarkable values, and (3) the maintenance of 

the river classification (wild, scenic, or recreational) unless a completed suitability study 

recommends a less restrictive classification. The overall effect of these constraints is to protect, 

maintain, and possibly enhance the values for which the river segments were found eligible or 

suitable.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Application of the management guidelines33 found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 

82.5 - Interim Management of Eligible or Suitable Rivers could also constrain the management of 

other resources within the river corridor, thereby minimizing the effects of activities on the 

outstandingly remarkable values. These guidelines vary by river classification with the most 

restrictions on wild river corridors and the least on recreational river corridors. Although some 

activities may be limited or restricted, river characteristics and outstandingly remarkable values 

would be maintained, protected, and potentially enhanced.

For example, a proposed mechanical vegetation treatment in a wild river corridor would not be 

allowed, but a proposed prescribed burn in the same area could be allowed as long as the 

identified outstandingly remarkable values are protected. The effects of mechanical vegetation 

treatments and prescribed burning are described in other sections throughout the FEIS.

Effects of Management Activities 

Under all alternatives, management activities outside the eligible and suitable river corridors 

should not affect the outstandingly remarkable values because projects and activities would be 

subject to standards, guidelines, and best management practices (BMPs).

Effects of Management Areas

Eligible and suitable river corridors overlay a number of management areas across the 

alternatives. Because the interim management guidelines by wild and scenic river classification 

do not always match the management area direction, river corridors are managed by the more 

restrictive management area or river corridor direction, especially with regard to identified 

outstandingly remarkable values. The least restrictive management areas are Forest Land 

Management Area in alternative A and General Forest Management Area in the action 

alternatives; while Wilderness is the most restrictive management area in all alternatives. Table 

119 and table 120 summarize the river corridor acreages by alternative, management area, and 

wild and scenic river classification (more detailed information can be found in the “Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Specialist Report,” Forest Service, 2014w) Alternative A management areas 

generally do not correspond to the management areas in the action alternatives.

There is a general rule that the more restrictive management applies when there is a difference 

between wild and scenic river management and the management area(s) over which a river 

corridor lays. The location of a river corridor may affect its management if the management area 

it overlays has more restrictive management. Because some management areas change by 

alternative, a river corridor in the Natural Landscape Management Area in one alternative could 

be in the General Forest Management Area in another. 

For example, under alternative D, 21,040 acres of scenic and recreational river corridors would 

be managed under the more restrictive Recommended Wilderness Management Area. 

Recommended wilderness management of scenic and recreational rivers areas would provide 

greater protection to the river characteristics and outstandingly remarkable values through 

unsuitability for motorized vehicle use, unsuitability for timber production, and very high scenic 

 33 These guidelines are specific to water resources projects, hydroelectric power, minerals, transportation system, utility 

proposals, recreation development, motorized travel, wildlife and fish projects, vegetation management, and domestic 

livestock grazing.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 367

integrity. This would restrict some activities that are allowable in scenic or recreational river

corridors (e.g., construction of new roads, mechanical vegetation management). Conversely, a 

wild river located in the General Forest Management Area in the action alternatives (e.g., 

Segment 2 of West Fork Black River) would be managed according to wild river guidance, not 

General Forest Management Area direction.

Regardless of which management area eligible and suitable rivers overlay, the river 

characteristics and outstandingly remarkable values would be protected through application of the 

interim management guidelines. For example, approximately two-thirds of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

NFs eligible and suitable rivers with fish populations and/or habitat have these outstandingly 

remarkable values34. Management of wild and scenic rivers would provide additional protection 

for the fish populations and habitat. For example, construction of a dam on any river 

classification would be prohibited, which would maintain the fish habitat. Also as discussed 

above, a recreational or scenic river classification would provide greater protection for a fish 

outstandingly remarkable value when the river corridor overlays a General Forest or CommunityForest Intermix Management Area because of the requirement to protect outstandingly 

remarkable values.

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

Management Area Wild Scenic Recreational

Forest Land 8,133 6,933 4,707

Woodland 13,895 3,229 10,880

Riparian 4,724 1,189 3,498

Grasslands 1,314 1,390 297

Developed Recreation Sites (not mapped) 0 0 0

Mount Baldy Wilderness 1,283 635 8

Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions 12,344 0 0

Escudilla Demonstration Area 0 0 0

Research Natural Area 5 148 0

Water 2 25 0

Bear Wallow Wilderness 977 0 286

Escudilla Wilderness 0 0 0

Black River (Mainstem) 4,127 174 102

West Fork Black River 4,415 325 1,792

Chevelon Canyon 5,245 1,125 450

East and West Forks Little Colorado River 558 358 209

Sandrock 1,329 1,103 0

Total Acres 58,351 16,634 22,229

 34 Rivers with fish populations and/or habitat outstandingly remarkable value(s): Chevelon Creek, East Fork Little 

Colorado River, Bear Wallow Creek, Black River, West Fork Black River, East Fork Black River, North Fork East 

Fork Black River, Fish Creek, Campbell Blue Creek, Blue River, KP Creek, San Francisco River, Coal Creek, Dix 

Creek, Eagle Creek, and East Eagle Creek.
368

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Table 120. River corridor acres by wild and scenic river classification and management area for the action alternatives (alternatives B, 

C, and D)

Management Areaa Wild Scenic Recreational

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

General Forest 13,360 37,091 7,887 8,056 14,920 5,612 8,579 20,488 8,409

Community-Forest Intermix 37 37 37 0 0 0 0 0 0

High Use Developed 

Recreation Area

124 124 124 0 0 0 0 0 0

Energy Corridor 0 0 0 38 38 38 0 0 0

Wildlife Quiet Area 492 492 795 0 0 421 17 17 17

Natural Landscape 27,466 3,735 118 6,864 0 46 13,294 1,387 1,417

Recommended Research 

Natural Area

2,268 2,268 1,675 886 886 747 43 43 32

Research Natural Area 0 0 0 155 155 155 0 0 0

Recommended Wilderness 0 0 33,111 0 0 8,981 2 0 12,059

Primitive Area 12,344 12,344 12,344 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wilderness 2,260 2,260 2,260 635 635 635 294 294 294

Total Acresb 58,351 58,351 58,351 16,634 16,634 16,635 22,229 22,229 22,228

a Wild Horse Territory is not listed because there are no wild and scenic rivers in the management area.

b Minor acre differences are due to rounding.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 369

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area for this analysis includes the watersheds of eligible and suitable rivers on adjacent 

national forests (Gila and Coconino NFs). This discussion is pertinent to all alternatives. There 

would be no cumulative environmental consequences to the suitable rivers on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs because they arise and are completely within the forests boundary. Most of the 

eligible rivers arise and are completely within the forests boundary. There would be beneficial 

cumulative effects to Leonard Canyon and East Clear Creek because the river corridors on the 

Coconino NF would be managed to maintain the free flowing river character and to protect the 

outstandingly remarkable values. This would also be the case for the Campbell Blue Creek and 

Coal Creek river corridors on the Gila NF.

The San Francisco River arises on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs west of Alpine, AZ, but flows 

through the Gila NF and private lands before reentering the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The upper 

San Francisco River from its headwaters through the Gila NF is not an eligible or suitable wild 

and scenic river. Only one San Francisco River tributary, Whitewater Creek, on the Gila NF is an

eligible wild and scenic river. There could be negative cumulative environmental consequences to 

the downstream eligible San Francisco River segment from vegetation treatments, wildland fire

activities, and livestock grazing upstream on the Gila NF, but their extent is not known and they 

are not quantifiable. However, as with activities proposed for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, 

activities on the Gila NF would be subject to standards, guidelines, and BMPs. The greatest 

potential for negative consequences to the eligible San Francisco River would be from unplanned 

events that could affect the fish species and wildlife species and habitat outstandingly remarkable 

values (e.g., increased sedimentation, post-fire flooding).

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are a Forest Service administrative designation. The full 

analysis for IRAs can be found in the “Wilderness Resources and Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014x) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

There are nine roadless area characteristics identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule (RACR). Roadless area characteristics are resources or features that are often present in or 

characterize roadless areas:

• High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; 

• Sources of public drinking water; 

• Diversity of plant and animal communities;

• Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for 

those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land;

• Primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of 

dispersed recreation;

• Reference landscapes;

• Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;

• Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and

• Other locally identified unique characteristics.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The roadless area characteristics are used to evaluate the effects of the alternatives to the IRAs. 

An IRA may or may not have all characteristics.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions and policies used include the following:

• Activities in IRAs under alternatives A, B, and D would be consistent with the 2001 

RACR to maintain their roadless characteristics.

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

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

this analysis was initiated, the Forest Service included consideration of no IRAs and no 

IRA management in alternative C in response to public comments that requested full 

multiple-use of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs IRA lands. NEPA does allow the consideration of 

alternatives that may not be legal but address public concerns (40 CFR 1502.14(c)). 

During the analysis process, the roadless area conservation rule was upheld in federal 

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

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

• IRA lands that were affected by the 2011 Wallow Fire retain their roadless character.

Affected Environment

There are 17 IRAs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (figure 56, figure 57, and table 121). These 

areas total approximately 322,000 acres. In general, these lands include rough, broken terrain 

with steep-sided canyons and are located in low population areas. The forests’ IRAs are the result 

of Forest Service rulemaking and environmental analysis (Forest Service, 2000) that was 

conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000s. IRAs are not a management area, but they overlay a 

variety of management areas.

The vegetation and other resources in the Bear Wallow, Salt House, Black River Canyon, 

Centerfire, Campbell Blue, Mother Hubbard, and Escudilla Mountain IRAs were affected by the 

2011 Wallow Fire. However, the IRAs retain their roadless character.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 371

Table 121. Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs)

Inventoried Roadless Area Acres Ranger District

Leonard Canyon 3,069 Black Mesa

Chevelon Canyon 5,569 Black Mesa

Escudilla Mountaina 885 Alpine

Mother Hubbardb 2,177 Alpine

Campbell Blue 7,003 Alpine

Nolanb 6,780 Alpine

Centerfire 13,130 Alpine

Bear Wallowa 878 Alpine

Black River Canyon 11,813 Alpine

Hot Air 31,703 Clifton

Salt Housea 21,842 Clifton

Painted Bluffs 43,105 Clifton

Lower San Francisco 59,308 Clifton

Pipestem 34,592 Clifton

Hells Holeb 15,512 Clifton

Mitchell Peak 35,392 Clifton

Sunset 28,946 Clifton

Pipestem/Lower San Francisco 152 Clifton

Total Acres 321,856

a Only IRA acres outside designated wilderness are listed. IRA acres in Bear Wallow, 

Escudilla Mountain, and Salt House IRAs that were designated as wilderness in 1984 

are not shown.

b Adjacent IRA lands are found on the Gila NF in New Mexico. Only ApacheSitgreaves NFs acres are shown.
372 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 56. Map of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 373

Figure 57. Map of inventoried roadless areas IRAs – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Roadless areas were identified during the 1979 RARE II process, an extensive inventory of NFS 

lands areas. On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 designated most, 

but not all, of the Escudilla Mountain and Bear Wallow IRAs as wilderness. The remaining 

roadless lands were released to multiple-use management until revision of the land management 

plan, at which time they would be reevaluated for wilderness potential.

Because there were no roadless areas during development of the 1987 plan, there are no specific 

goals or objectives relating to them. Between 1985 and 2000, numerous surface disturbing and 

vegetation removal activities occurred on Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands that had previously been 

identified as roadless. When the roadless lands were reconsidered in the 2000 Roadless Area 

Conservation FEIS, there was no adjustment of boundaries to reflect these activities. At this time, 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are unable to adjust IRA boundaries to remove those portions which 

no longer have roadless characteristics.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

There would be no changes to the roadless character of IRAs in alternatives A, B, and D. IRAs 

would be managed under the 2001 RACR and plan direction (primarily the Natural Landscape

Management Area), which would maintain the roadless characteristics, if present.

Alternative C would consider forest management without IRAs. Most of these lands would be 

part of the General Forest (286,590 acres) and Energy Corridor (40 acres) Management Areas. 

Management activities, including timber harvest, other mechanical vegetation treatments, and 

road construction and reconstruction, could occur in these areas which could affect their roadless 

characteristics. Because of the terrain in these areas, timber harvest and road construction are not 

anticipated, but the following consequences to roadless characteristics could happen should 

management activities occur.

The remainder of the non-IRA lands in alternative C would be in the Natural Landscape 

(31,813 acres), Recommended Wilderness (885 acres), and Recommended Research Natural Area

(1,968 acres) Management Areas. Management area direction for these 34,666 acres would 

maintain the roadless characteristics, if present.

In some cases the presence of eligible and suitable river corridors across these lands could 

provide some protection of roadless characteristics. For example, a wild river corridor would 

continue to provide primitive recreation opportunities, maintain high to very high scenic integrity, 

and protect threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species habitats. Also the 

presence of a river corridor may restrict some activities (see the “Eligible and Suitable Wild and 

Scenic Rivers” section) that could affect roadless characteristics.

Soil/Watersheds/Air

Under alternative C, there could be greater effects to air, soil, and watershed resources (as 

described in the “Air,” “Soil,” and “Watershed” sections) because this alternative proposes the 

highest amounts of mechanical vegetation treatments and associated road use and emphasizes 

motorized recreation. Improvement of watershed conditions in these areas would be limited 

because they do not occur near communities or contain harvestable timber. Dust from mechanical 

treatments and recreation activities would potentially be greatest. Alternative C poses the most 

risk of soil compaction and ground cover removal.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 375

Public Drinking Water

There are no municipal watersheds on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. However, rivers on the forests 

contribute to water supplies for the metropolitan areas in southern Arizona. Effects to these rivers 

are described above. Alternative C would have the greatest potential for increasing sediment 

from roads because of the higher proportion of mechanical treatments/harvest as well as an 

emphasis on motorized recreation opportunities (see the “Water Resources” section).

Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities

Alternative C would have the greatest potential to fragment ecosystems, including wildlife 

habitats, and to introduce and spread nonnative invasive species from road construction, road 

reconstruction, and timber harvesting activities. As human-caused fragmentation increases, the 

amount of core wildlife habitat decreases. Habitat fragmentation also decreases habitat 

connectivity and affects wildlife movement, isolating some species and increasing the risk of 

local extirpations or extinctions (see the “Wildlife and Rare Plants” section).

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive Species

Habitats and Species Dependent on Large, Undisturbed Areas of Land

Threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species habitats in all alternatives

would be managed according to Endangered Species Act and Regional Forester direction (see the 

“Wildlife Specialist Report - Viability,” (Forest Service, 2014bb) and “Fisheries Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2014g).

Primitive and Semi-primitive Recreation Opportunities

IRAs under alternatives A, B, and D would be managed for primitive and semi-primitive

recreation opportunities, except where adjacent to roads open to highway legal vehicles (roaded 

natural recreation opportunities). Under alternative C the lands would be managed for wider 

variety of recreation opportunities (see the “Recreation” section). Roaded natural and semiprimitive motorized recreation opportunities could increase, while primitive and semi-primitive

nonmotorized recreation opportunities could decrease.

Reference Landscapes

Three recommended research natural areas (RNAs) in alternative C that could serve as reference 

landscapes all or partially overlap the non-IRA lands. These recommended RNAs would be 

protected and maintained in a natural condition for the purpose of conducting non-manipulative

research and for fostering education. They would be managed for nonmotorized access (see the 

“Research Natural Area” section). So, these reference landscapes would continue to be protected 

in alternative C.

High Scenic Quality

IRAs in alternatives A, B, and D would be managed for high to very high scenic integrity. Under 

alternative C, these lands would be managed for moderate, high, and very high scenic integrity 

(see the “Scenic Resources” section). Depending on location, the scenic quality of some of these 

lands could be reduced by management activities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Traditional Cultural Properties/Sacred Sites

Protection of traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and sacred sites would continue under 

alternative C through the elimination of cross-country motorized travel. Further protection 

would continue with the suitability determinations for some lands special uses and motorized uses 

found in chapter 4 of the proposed plan (see the “American Indian Rights and Interests” section).

Local Unique Characteristics

No local unique characteristics have been identified for the IRAs.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area includes the adjoining federally managed lands, including 

the Coconino and Gila NFs. There would be no cumulative environmental consequences under all 

alternatives because the roadless characteristics of the IRAs would be maintained by terrain and 

limited timber harvest potential.

Wilderness Resources

Wilderness resources include designated wilderness, the Blue Range Primitive Area and 

presidential additions, and recommended wilderness. The full analysis for wilderness resources 

can be found in the “Wilderness Resources and Inventoried Roadless Areas Specialist Report”

(Forest Service, 2014x) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The presence of each of the above areas, along with the existing condition, is analyzed. The only 

wilderness resource that changes by alternative is recommended wilderness. Therefore, the 

majority of analysis is directed toward the programmatic environmental consequences of the 

Recommended Wilderness Management Area.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions and policies used include the following:

• All designated wilderness is managed according to the Wilderness Act, 36 CFR § 293, 

applicable Forest Service manuals and handbooks, and the land management plan.

• The entire Blue Range Primitive Area (including the Blue Road corridor) and the 1971 

presidential additions to the primitive area are managed according to 36 CFR § 293.17, 

applicable Forest Service manuals and handbooks, and the land management plan.

• The Hells Hole, Nolan, and Mother Hubbard potential wilderness areas (a total of 

26,023 acres) would be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics until a 

decision is made in the revised Gila NF land management plan as to whether or not to 

recommend these areas for wilderness designation. They are included in the Natural 

Landscape Management Area in alternatives B, C, and D.

• Livestock management in the wilderness and primitive areas is in conformance with the 

Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Forest Service Manual 2320 - Wilderness 

Management. 2323.22 - Exhibit 01, Congressional Grazing Guidelines).

• Any area that is recommended for wilderness (Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area) through the planning process is a preliminary administrative recommendation that 

would receive further review, including applicable NEPA analysis, and possible 

modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, and the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 377

President of the United States. Congress has reserved the authority to make final 

decisions on wilderness designation.

• Designated wilderness, the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential additions, and 

potential wilderness that were affected by the 2011 Wallow Fire retain their wilderness 

character.

Affected Environment

Designated Wilderness

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs include three designated wilderness areas: Mount Baldy, Escudilla, 

and Bear Wallow (table 122 and figure 58), totaling 23,233 acres. Wilderness areas are managed 

according to the Wilderness Act of 1964, which protects their wilderness values. Wilderness areas 

provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

They also provide wildlife habitat and a variety of natural resource and social values. Motorized 

equipment and mechanical transport are prohibited in wilderness. Livestock grazing is allowed in 

wilderness areas, unless specifically excluded by the law designating the area. The laws listed 

below do not restrict grazing in any of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs wilderness areas.

Table 122. Apache-Sitgreaves NFs wilderness areas

Wilderness Designated Law No. Acres Ranger District

Mount Baldy 1970 PL 91-504 6,842 Springerville

Escudilla 1984 PL 98-406 5,157 Alpine

Bear Wallow 1984 PL 98-406 11,234 Alpine

Mount Baldy Wilderness

Mount Baldy Wilderness was designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System 

in 1970. It lies on the eastern slope of Mount Baldy. Elevations range from 9,000 feet to 

11,400 feet above sea level. Mount Baldy is an extinct volcano and has experienced three distinct 

periods of glaciation. The peak’s summit is on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation.

There are three developed trails, totaling 18 miles, in Mount Baldy Wilderness. This trail system 

is heavily used by day hikers from mid-May through late September, with the heaviest use on 

weekends and holidays. Trail encounters with other hikers and equestrians are common. Annual 

trail maintenance consists of removing fallen trees and cutting brush. Two trailheads provide 

access to Mount Baldy Wilderness.

The majority of Mount Baldy Wilderness is spruce-fir forest with blue spruce, Engelmann spruce, 

white fir, and corkbark fir. The remaining forested areas are wet mixed conifer and dry mixed 

conifer forests, including the above species, Douglas-fir, Southwestern white pine, and ponderosa

pine. A defoliator (e.g., loopers, spruce aphids) infestation has killed a portion of the spruce 

forest. Tree composition varies with elevation, but Douglas-fir and blue spruce are the principal 

species. Aspen is interspersed throughout the forests. The remainder of the area is 

montane/subalpine grasslands and wetland/cienega riparian areas along the upper Little Colorado 

River drainages. The East and West Forks of the Little Colorado River are perennial through this 

wilderness and provide habitat for the threatened Apache trout. The wilderness boundary is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

defined by the forests’ boundary with the Fort Apache Indian Reservation and partially by fences 

on the east.

Figure 58. Map of existing wilderness and primitive areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 379

Escudilla Wilderness

Escudilla Wilderness encompasses the top and sides of Escudilla Mountain. It includes several 

high elevation meadows that contain relatively rare plant associations. Potential natural 

vegetation types (PNVTs) in the wilderness include spruce-fir forest, wet mixed conifer forest, 

montane/subalpine grasslands, wetland/cienega riparian areas, and ponderosa pine forest. In 

addition, there is a large aspen component on Escudilla Mountain. The vegetation, trails, and 

other resources in Escudilla Wilderness were affected by the 2011 Wallow Fire. However, the 

area retains its wilderness character.

Notable landmarks in or just outside the wilderness include Profanity Ridge, Terry Flat, Toolbox 

Draw, and the Punchbowl. There are two trails, totaling about 6 miles, in this wilderness. The 

main trail (Escudilla National Recreation Trail) receives heavy day use during the summer and 

fall. Government Trail connects with the main trail part way to the top but starts at a different 

trailhead and receives less use. The wilderness boundary is generally not discernible on the 

ground because it occurs at mid-slope on the mountain.

Bear Wallow Wilderness

Bear Wallow Wilderness is known for its canyon, large old conifers, and fall aspen colors. Bear 

Wallow Creek is perennial, providing habitat for the threatened Apache trout. Wildlife is abundant 

throughout the area. There are five trails, totaling 20 miles, in Bear Wallow Wilderness that 

provide access into and within this area. There are four trailheads, three along the north boundary 

and one on the south. The wilderness boundary is generally defined by roads and the forests’ 

boundary. The vegetation, trails, and other resources in Bear Wallow Wilderness were affected by 

the 2011 Wallow Fire. However, the area retains its wilderness character.

PNVTs in Bear Wallow Wilderness include wet mixed conifer forest, ponderosa pine forest, 

Madrean pine-oak woodland, dry mixed conifer forest, spruce-fir forest, montane willow riparian 

forest, and wetland/cienega riparian areas.

Wilderness Uses

The 2002 National Visitor Use Monitoring program estimated 32,000 visits to the three 

wilderness areas (Forest Service, 2006). Of those visitors, 81 percent were male, 19 percent were 

female, 92 percent were white, and more than 63 percent were between 31 and 60 years of age. 

Most wilderness visitors were from the southern Arizona metropolitan areas (Phoenix and 

Tucson) or the local area. The average length of stay was 4.6 hours, indicative of the high amount 

of day-use the areas receive. Less than 1 percent of those interviewed used the services of a 

commercial guide (Kocis et al., 2002).

Wilderness visitors felt there were few people there. Overall, wilderness visitors were satisfied 

with their visit to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The only categories, possibly related to the 

wilderness experience, where visitor satisfaction could be improved were condition of the natural 

environment and signing adequacy. It is not known if these concerns were specifically for the 

wilderness areas or for the forests in general.

There is no permit system in place for managing visitor access to the wilderness areas. However, 

Mount Baldy Wilderness has group size limits of 6 people per party for overnight camping and 

12 people per party for day-use hiking and horseback riding. These group size limits were set to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

maintain the desired condition of opportunities for solitude and semi-primitive recreation. 

Maximum group size limits for Escudilla and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas are 25 people and/or 

35 horses. The 1987 plan does not allow pack stock grazing in wilderness.

An inventory of wilderness campsites and noxious weeds was conducted in 2012. Twenty-three

campsites and one patch of noxious weeds were found in Mount Baldy Wilderness. Almost all of 

these campsites are along the two main trails, East Baldy and West Baldy. A small patch of musk 

thistle was found near West Baldy Trail. No campsites or noxious weeds were found in Escudilla 

Wilderness. Twenty-three campsites and no noxious weeds were found in Bear Wallow 

Wilderness. Almost all of these campsites are along Bear Wallow Creek.

Authorized livestock grazing has not occurred recently in any of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

wilderness areas. Livestock grazing in Mount Baldy Wilderness has not occurred since 1992, 

when an agreement between the Forest Service and the livestock permittee was implemented to 

avoid listing of the Arizona willow under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Greer 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP) decision (dated March 23, 1999) removed grazing from 

Mount Baldy Wilderness. Removal was based on Arizona willow protection, limited forage 

availability, and conflicts with recreation and riparian resource values. The South Escudilla AMP 

decision (dated February 13, 2001) removed grazing from Escudilla Wilderness. Removal was 

based on limited forage and water availability, dense timber, conflicts with recreation users, 

presence of wild ungulates and predators, and limited access and ability to manage and gather 

livestock. The KP Summer Pasture, which includes Bear Wallow Wilderness, was waived back to 

the Forest Service in November 2001. The limited amount of forage has not been reallocated.

Wilderness Management Concerns

All three wilderness areas have motorized and mechanized vehicle trespass issues. The greatest 

problems occur in Mount Baldy Wilderness. Even though Mount Baldy Wilderness boundaries 

are signed and fenced, motorized vehicle trespass often occurs along the southeast boundary from 

the Burro Mountain area, snowmobiles trespass along the eastern boundary during the winter, and 

mountain bikes and ATV tracks are occasionally found on the trails. Occasionally, ATVs and 

mountain bikes trespass in Escudilla Wilderness. ATVs regularly trespass into Bear Wallow 

Wilderness from Rose Spring Trailhead.

The Fort Apache Indian Reservation abuts Mount Baldy Wilderness on its northwest, southwest, 

and south boundaries. These adjacent reservation lands are closed to all public entry. This often 

causes confusion and conflict because Baldy Peak, the highest point, is on reservation lands and 

only a very small portion of Mount Baldy, the ridge that includes Baldy Peak, is on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs/reservation boundary is poorly signed so many 

travelers do not recognize the boundary. One-quarter mile of East Baldy Trail, near the Mount 

Baldy summit, was relocated to discourage hikers and equestrians from continuing onto the 

reservation.

Livestock from the reservation trespass into Mount Baldy Wilderness annually and often remain 

there until they return home on their own.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 381

Blue Range Primitive Area and Presidential Additions

The Blue Range Primitive Area (179,153 acres) is the only remaining primitive area in the 

National Forest System and is located on the Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts (figure 57). It 

was administratively designated by the Forest Service (L-20 regulations) as a primitive area on 

June 21, 1933, to preserve its wilderness qualities.

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

the Blue Range Wilderness in Arizona and New Mexico. The President forwarded the 

recommendation to Congress, who eventually acted on a portion of the recommendation. In 1980, 

Congress designated, and the President signed into law (P.L. 96-550), the Blue Range Wilderness 

in New Mexico. The Arizona portion of the 1971 presidential recommendation included 

20,031 acres outside and along the west primitive area boundary (total of 166,591 acres). 

Congress has not acted on the Forest Service and presidential recommendation for the Blue 

Range Wilderness in Arizona, and the 1971 recommendation remains in place. The 1987 plan 

recognizes this in Management Area 8, Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions.

The entire Blue Range Primitive Area and the presidential recommendation additions 

(199,505 acres) have been managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. The area is 

managed like wilderness, except that it is open to mineral prospecting and mineral development 

(Forest Service Manual 2320.3(11)). The Blue Range Primitive Area, including the portions that 

were excluded from the 1971 presidential recommendation (32,911 acres), was reevaluated as 

part of the potential wilderness evaluation process and was found to have wilderness 

characteristics (Potential Wilderness Evaluation Reports PW-03-01-068 and PW-03-01-069).

The Blue Range Primitive Area includes deep, rugged canyons separated by steep, timbered 

ridges. The Mogollon Rim bisects the area and provides dramatic topographic features. 

Elevations range from 4,500 feet in the southern portion to 9,100 feet along the rim. This rapid 

change in elevation results in interesting and unique ecological associations. Unusual and 

spectacular rock formations highlight the scenery.

The wide variety of PNVTs reflects the area’s topography. PNVTs include Madrean pine-oak 

woodland, ponderosa pine forest, wet mixed conifer forest, spruce-fir forest, ponderosa pine 

forest, dry mixed conifer forest, interior chaparral, semi-desert grassland, mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian forest, piñon-juniper woodland, cottonwood-willow riparian forest, and 

wetland/cienega riparian areas. Fire has been allowed to play a natural role in the primitive area 

ecosystem. In the last 20 years, approximately 40 percent of the Blue Range Primitive Area has 

burned in wildfires. The vegetation, trails, and other resources in approximately one quarter of the 

Blue Range Primitive Area were affected by the 2011 Wallow Fire. However, the area retains its 

wilderness character.

The area is important in the distribution of wildlife species. It lies on both north-south and eastwest migration corridors. Numerous threatened, endangered, candidate, and Regional Forester

designated sensitive species are found in the area. 

There are approximately 290 miles of nonmotorized trails throughout the area; this number has 

not changed since 1984. Presently, some trails may not be passable because their maintenance has 

been deferred or they have been damaged by wildfire or flooding. In some locations, especially in 

the Hannagan Meadow area, increased visitor use has created a need for more trail maintenance. 

Many trails in the Blue Range Primitive Area are located in drainages and along creeks; some 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

resource damage may be occurring in these locations. Access for the Blue River Trail was 

recently improved with the acquisition of an Arizona Game and Fish Department easement 

through private property and construction of a new trailhead.

Visitor use in 1984 for the Blue Range Primitive Area was estimated at 7,000 recreation visitor 

days. Most of this use occurred during the fall hunting seasons. At that time, it was felt that the 

quality of the wilderness experience was not impaired and user expectations were met. There are 

no current use figures for the Blue Range, but over the last 10 years, Forest Service personnel 

have noticed increasing summer use. There is no permit system in place for managing visitor 

access to the primitive area. However, maximum group size is set at 25 people and/or 35 horses. 

The 1987 plan does not allow pack stock grazing in wilderness or the primitive area.

Potential Wilderness

Apache-Sitgreaves NFS lands were inventoried, as part of the plan revision process, to determine 

if any of the lands outside of designated wilderness areas contain wilderness characteristics. Fiftyfive areas were initially identified that met the criteria of not containing forest or permanently 

authorized roads and being at least 5,000 acres or, if less than 5,000 acres, are adjacent to an 

existing wilderness or primitive area. Each of these areas was assigned an ID number (e.g., PW03-01-xxx). Next, portions of the areas which had been logged or treated, had developed 

recreation sites, or included power lines were excluded. In some cases, an area was split by a 

power line resulting in two areas, each at least 5,000 acres. One of the split areas retained the 

original ID number and the second was assigned a new ID number. Twelve additional areas were 

created thusly. Next, the R3 criteria for roaded areas, fingers, and extrusions were applied to 

exclude areas that do not meet the purpose of considering an area for wilderness potential. If at 

any time during the inventory process an area was reduced to less than 5,000 acres, it was 

excluded from further consideration unless it was adjacent to an existing wilderness or primitive 

area or could be effectively managed as a separate unit; 26 areas were excluded. The ID numbers 

of these 26 areas were not reassigned to new areas, so they do not appear in table 123. Finally, the 

inventory areas were screened to determine if they met the statutory definition of wilderness as 

outlined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act35. Seven areas were found to not meet the 

definition. Thirty-four inventory areas were found to meet the size and lack of roads criteria and 

the statutory definition of wilderness. Additional information on the inventory process can be 

found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, Section 71 and the R3 Potential 

Wilderness Inventory Process document (Forest Service, 2007b). Information on all inventoried 

areas can be found in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

Next, in-depth evaluations of wilderness capability, availability, and need were completed for the 

34 areas. Two additional evaluations were completed for the 1971 Blue Range Wilderness 

presidential recommendation in Arizona and for the portions of the Blue Range Primitive Area

that were not recommended for wilderness, bringing to 36 the total number of areas evaluated. Of 

these, one entire area (PW-03-01-012) did not meet the capability criteria and was dropped from 

further consideration. Another area (PW-03-01-069, exclusion 1a) did not meet the capability 

criteria, so boundary adjustments were made to retain the polygons that did meet the criteria. 

 35 An area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable and (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 383

Three areas in the vicinity of Escudilla Mountain were also evaluated because all or portions of 

the areas are included in the action alternatives. 

A total of 714,938 acres in 38 areas (table 123, figure 59, and figure 60) were found to have 

wilderness potential. Additional information on the evaluation process and individual area 

evaluations can be found in the “Plan Set of Documents” and on the forests’ Web 

site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/asnf/. 

Table 123. Areas with wilderness potential

ID Number Potential Wilderness Acres Ranger District

PW-03-01-001 Leonard Canyona 22,406 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-003 West Chevelon Canyon 9,493 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-005 Chevelon Canyon 9,421 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-006 Wildcat Canyon South 6,972 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-011 Black Canyon 4,913 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-021 Mount Baldy Wilderness Addition North 992 Springerville

PW-03-01-022 Mount Baldy Wilderness Addition South 1,031 Springerville

PW-03-01-029 Escudilla Wilderness Addition Northeast 1,161 Alpine

PW-03-01-035 Escudilla Wilderness Addition Southeast 6,039 Alpine

PW-03-01-040 Mother Hubbard 2,656 Alpine

PW-03-01-041 Campbell Blue 9,445 Alpine

PW-03-01-042 Nolan 7,842 Alpine

PW-03-01-043 Blue Range Primitive Area Addition North 4,184 Alpine

PW-03-01-044 Horton-Willow 6,503 Alpine

PW-03-01-046 Black River Canyon East 11,327 Alpine

PW-03-01-047 Black River Canyon West 5,718 Alpine

PW-03-01-049 Hot Air/Salt House 76,129 Clifton/Alpine

PW-03-01-050 Sheep Wash 7,965 Clifton

PW-03-01-051 Painted Bluffs 44,107 Clifton

PW-03-01-052 West Blue/San Franciscob 160,016 Clifton/Alpine

PW-03-01-053 Cold Spring Mountain 17,541 Clifton

PW-03-01-054 Hells Hole 15,524 Clifton
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

ID Number Potential Wilderness Acres Ranger District

PW-03-01-055 Blue Range Primitive Area Addition Southeast 1,255 Clifton

PW-03-01-056 Chevelon Canyon North 6,673 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-057 Coal Creek 5,698 Clifton

PW-03-01-058 Big Lue Mountains 5,222 Clifton

PW-03-01-060 Centerfirec 15,269 Alpine

PW-03-01-062 Chevelon Lake 6,585 Black Mesa

PW-03-01-063 Milk Creek 5,387 Alpine

PW-03-01-064 Bear Wallow Wilderness Addition Northwest 172 Alpine

PW-03-01-065 Escudilla Wilderness Addition West 484 Alpine

PW-03-01-066 Bear Wallow Wilderness Addition Southeast 1,207 Alpine

PW-03-01-067 Sunset 30,366 Clifton

PW-03-01-068 BRW Presidential Recommendation 166,393 Alpine/Clifton

PW-03-01-069 BRWPRd exclusion 1b 4,504 Alpine

BRWPR exclusion 2a 1,037 Alpine

BRWPR exclusion 2b 6,958 Clifton

BRWPR exclusion 3 4,665 Clifton

BRWPR exclusion 4 10,404 Clifton

BRWPR exclusion 5 2,804 Alpine

PW-03-01-070 Escudilla North 377 Alpine

PW-03-01-071 Hulsey 2,926 Alpine

PW-03-01-072 South Escudilla Mountain 5,167 Alpine

Total Acres 714,938

a includes 2,981 acres on the Coconino NF

b includes 3,577 acres on the Gila NF

c includes 30 acres on the Gila NF

d Blue Range Wilderness Presidential Recommendation

There is considerable overlap between inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) and areas with 

wilderness potential. When the forests’ lands were inventoried for wilderness potential during the 

plan revision process, portions of some IRAs were found to not have wilderness characteristics 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 385

(e.g., naturalness was affected by timber harvesting or road construction) or additional adjacent 

acreage was found to have wilderness characteristics. So, potential wilderness acres may not be 

the same as the IRA acres for an area with the same name (i.e., the acreage for Chevelon Canyon 

IRA (5,569 acres from table 121) is not the same as Chevelon Canyon potential wilderness 

(9,421 acres from table 123). Also, two or more IRAs may have been included in one potential 

wilderness.
386

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management PlanIS

Figure 59. Map of potential wilderness areas – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 387

Figure 60. Map of potential wilderness areas – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Designated Wilderness

Bear Wallow, Escudilla, and Mount Baldy Wilderness areas would continue to be managed to 

protect and maintain their wilderness characteristics in all alternatives. The development and 

implementation of wilderness management plans for each area would further protect the areas and 

could enhance the recreation opportunities of wilderness users. In all alternatives, wilderness 

management concerns (livestock and vehicle trespass and boundary identification) would 

continue to be addressed at the project-level.

Alternative A would retain the existing group size limits for all wilderness areas as described in 

the affected environment section. Many existing wilderness campsites are located along streams 

and in sensitive riparian areas. The current group size limits could result in damage to campsites 

from even short-term use and are not conducive to providing opportunities for solitude. Also, 

groups using these areas have been smaller than the current limits.

The action alternatives would modify the group size limits for the Escudilla and Bear Wallow 

Wilderness areas. Group size would be reduced to 12 persons and/or 15 head of stock for hiking 

and riding groups. These new group size limits are compatible with “Leave No Trace®”

principles. The new group size would reduce the potential for resource damage at campsites, in 

meadows and riparian areas, and along trails and would enhance opportunities for solitude for all 

wilderness users. The action alternatives would keep the current group size limits for Mount 

Baldy Wilderness.

Blue Range Primitive Area and Presidential Additions

This analysis is limited to the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential additions. The 

wilderness recommendations here are in addition to those analyzed in the “Recommended 

Wilderness” section below.

The entire Blue Range Primitive Area would continue to be managed to protect and maintain its 

wilderness characteristics in all alternatives. Alternative A would retain the existing group size 

limits for the Area. Many existing primitive area campsites are located along streams and in 

sensitive riparian areas. The current group size limits could result in damage to campsites from 

even short-term use and are not conducive to providing opportunities for solitude. Also, groups 

using the Blue Range Primitive Area have been smaller than the current limits.

The action alternatives would modify group size limits for the Blue Range Primitive Area. 

Group size would be reduced to 12 persons and/or 15 head of stock for hiking and riding groups. 

This new group size limit is compatible with “Leave No Trace®” principles. The new group size 

would reduce the potential for resource damage at campsites, in meadows and riparian areas, and 

along trails and would enhance opportunities for solitude for primitive area users.

Alternatives A, B, and C do not recommend the Blue Range Primitive Area for wilderness.

There would be no effects, because these lands are managed as primitive area.

The Blue Range Primitive Area wilderness recommendation in alternative D (196,868 acres) 

would be approximately 30,000 acres over the 1971 presidential recommendation. These 

additional acres within the existing primitive area boundary were reevaluated during the plan 

revision process and were found to have wilderness characteristics, a reflection of management of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 389

these lands as primitive area for the last 40 years. Recommending these additional acres would 

maintain manageability of the Blue Range Primitive Area and would add eight underrepresented 

ecosystems to wilderness in the Southwestern Region.

Recommended Wilderness

This analysis does not include the portions of the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential 

additions that are recommended for wilderness. They are analyzed separately above.

Any area recommended for wilderness is assigned to the Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area (see management area maps in appendix J). Mechanized travel would not be allowed in 

recommended wilderness in alternatives B and C; however, it would be allowed in alternative 

D. Those lands not recommended for wilderness will be managed according to Forest Service or 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan guidance for the management area or special area (e.g., RNA, 

eligible wild and scenic river) in which they occur. Table 124 shows the acreages recommended 

for wilderness in the four alternatives.

No lands are recommended for wilderness in alternative A. It does not contribute to meeting the 

regional need for additional wilderness near population centers or the addition of 

underrepresented landforms and ecosystem types in wilderness in the Southwestern Region. 

Some of the existing boundaries of the Escudilla, Bear Wallow, and Mount Baldy Wilderness 

areas would continue to be difficult to identify on the ground. 

Table 124. Acres recommended for wilderness by alternativea

Alt. A (acres) Alt. B (acres) Alt. C (acres) Alt. D (acres)

0 7,074 6,982 491,302b

a This table does not include the acres of the Blue Range Primitive Area and presidential additions that are 

recommended for wilderness.

b Includes 2,981 acres on the Coconino NF and 3,607 acres on the Gila NF.

Alternative B includes approximately 7,074 acres of Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area (figure 88 in appendix J) as additions to Escudilla and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas. These 

additions would improve manageability because the wilderness boundaries would be more 

identifiable by the public and Forest Service employees. There is some local public support for 

enlarging Escudilla Wilderness.

Additional areas are not recommended for wilderness under alternative B because of the need to 

use mechanical treatments to restore ecosystems and reduce divergence of the forests’ potential 

natural vegetation types (PNVTs) from desired conditions and to provide forest products for local 

and regional industry and personal use. Additional wilderness is also not recommended to allow 

for the mix of recreation opportunities that alternative B proposes. 

Most of the areas identified as potential wilderness, but not recommended for wilderness, would 

be managed under Natural Landscape Management Area direction, which would help maintain 

wilderness characteristics. Areas not in the Natural Landscape Management Area and within 

inventoried roadless areas would be managed consistent with the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (RACR), which would help maintain roadless characteristics.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

This recommendation could increase the wilderness acreage on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and

would improve boundary recognition of two wilderness areas. It would contribute to meeting 

regional needs because the lands contain seven ecosystems that are underrepresented in 

wilderness in the Southwestern Region. (Information on underrepresented landforms and 

ecosystems can be found in the “Wilderness Evaluation Reports” in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”) Alternative B would address some public desire for more wilderness by 

recommending 7,074 acres for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The potential wilderness areas recommended for wilderness include most of Escudilla Wilderness

Additions Southeast and Northwest (6,422 acres), most of Escudilla North (363 acres), a small 

portion of Hulsey (28 acres), a portion of Bear Wallow Wilderness Addition Southeast (88 acres), 

and all of Bear Wallow Wilderness Addition Northwest (172 acres). The Escudilla Wilderness 

Additions are slightly smaller than the potential wilderness areas to address manageability 

concerns on Terry Flat and along two roads. Also, an area in the southwest corner, south of Bob 

Thomas Creek where the road prism of a decommissioned road is still very evident, was not 

recommended. The additions to Escudilla Wilderness would more than double the size of the 

wilderness and would extend the north, east, and south wilderness boundary to identifiable 

features on the ground, including Forest Road (FR) 275. The only portions of Bear Wallow 

Wilderness Addition Southeast included in alternative B are two small parcels between the 

southeastern wilderness boundary and FR 54; these additions would improve manageability. 

These additions would supplement the existing biological diversity and naturalness and would 

enhance the outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation found 

in Escudilla and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas.

This recommendation includes about 380 acres that would require additional action before 

designation, including decommissioning 2.3 miles of engineered timber sale roads and reducing 

signs of past timber treatments (approximately 278 acres).

Alternative C includes approximately 6,982 acres of Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area (figure 90 in appendix J) as an addition to Escudilla Wilderness. This addition would 

improve manageability because the wilderness boundary would be more identifiable by the public 

and Forest Service employees. There is some local public support for enlarging Escudilla 

Wilderness.

Additional potential wilderness areas are not recommended for wilderness under alternative C

because of the alternative emphasis on providing forest products for local and regional industry 

and personal use. To accomplish this, mechanical treatments are the primary method to restore 

ecosystems and reduce divergence of the forests’ PNVTs from desired conditions. Additional 

wilderness is also not recommended to allow for the alternative C emphasis on motorized and 

developed recreation opportunities.

Several areas identified as potential wilderness, but not recommended for wilderness, would be 

managed under Natural Landscape Management Area direction, which would help maintain the 

wilderness characteristics. Other areas would be managed according to management area or 

special area direction, which may or may not maintain wilderness characteristics. The additions to 

Bear Wallow Wilderness were not included in this alternative to reflect public concerns.

This recommendation could increase the wilderness acreage on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and

would improve boundary recognition of one wilderness area. It would contribute to meeting 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 391

regional needs because the lands contain six ecosystems that are underrepresented in wilderness 

in the Southwestern Region.

The potential wilderness areas recommended for wilderness include Escudilla Wilderness 

Additions Southeast and Northwest (6,663 acres), a portion of Escudilla North (291 acres), and a 

small portion of Hulsey (28 acres). The Escudilla Wilderness Additions are slightly smaller than 

the potential wilderness areas because an area in the southwest corner, south of Bob Thomas 

Creek where the road prism of a decommissioned road is still very evident, was not 

recommended. The additions to Escudilla Wilderness would more than double the size of the 

wilderness and would extend the north, east, and south wilderness boundary to identifiable 

features on the ground, including FR 275. These additions would supplement the existing 

biological diversity and naturalness and would enhance the outstanding opportunities for solitude 

and primitive and unconfined recreation found in Escudilla Wilderness.

This recommendation would include about 320 acres that would require additional action before 

designation, including decommissioning 1.2 miles of engineered timber sale roads and reducing 

signs of past timber treatments (approximately 270 acres).

Alternative D includes 491,302 acres of recommended wilderness (figures 91 and 92 in appendix 

J). This includes most of the potential wilderness acreage; it does not include the Hells Hole, 

Nolan, and Mother Hubbard potential wilderness areas (decisions on these areas are deferred until 

the Gila NF completes plan revision), small areas to accommodate other management areas (e.g.,

Energy Corridor Management Area) and the Phelps Cabin Research Natural Area, because it 

already has a special designation. The above acres include 2,981 acres on the Coconino NF and 

3,607 acres on the Gila NF (The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs took the lead on evaluating and 

recommending these areas because they are contiguous to larger recommended areas on the 

forests).

Alternative D includes additions to all three wilderness areas on the forests and the Blue Range 

Primitive Area. These additions would improve manageability because the boundaries would be 

more identifiable by the public and Forest Service employees. Boundary recognition of Escudilla 

and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas would be improved as described under alternative B. 

Identification of the Mount Baldy Wilderness boundary would be improved as much of the east 

boundary would be near State Highway 273. The additions would supplement the existing 

biodiversity and naturalness and would enhance the outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation found in the three wilderness areas and the Blue Range 

Primitive Area. This alternative responds to local and regional support for additional wilderness 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Alternative D’s emphasis on wildland fire as the primary treatment to restore ecosystems and 

reduce divergence of the forests’ PNVTs from desired conditions is compatible with this 

wilderness recommendation. The additional recommended wilderness supports the alternative D

emphasis on nonmotorized and dispersed recreation opportunities.

This recommendation would contribute to meeting the regional need for additional wilderness 

because of the proximity of several recommended areas in the western and southern portions of 

the forests to the population centers of Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson. The recommended 

wilderness would add lands containing 3 underrepresented landforms and 10 underrepresented 

ecosystems to the wilderness system in the Southwestern Region. Inclusion of this alternative in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

the FEIS provides a range of recommended wilderness to be analyzed. The responsible official 

could choose from the areas analyzed in alternative D to develop a new recommended 

wilderness alternative for the FEIS.

This recommendation includes about 8,471 acres in the Escudilla Mountain area that would 

require additional action before designation, including decommissioning 36.4 miles of engineered 

timber sale roads and reducing signs of past timber treatments (approximately 3,300 acres).

Environmental Consequences of Wilderness Recommendation

A detailed evaluation of environmental consequences, including a listing of overall effects of 

wilderness and non-wilderness recommendations can be found in the “Wilderness Resources and 

Inventoried Roadless Areas Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014x).

Wilderness Characteristics

Wilderness characteristics are naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation, and special features and values. Recommending an area with these 

characteristics for wilderness would protect them. The amount of recommended wilderness varies 

by alternative. Alternative D would protect the most wilderness characteristics, while 

alternative A would protect the least. Alternatives B and C would protect slightly more than 

alternative A.

Alternative D would provide the most opportunities for a wilderness experience through the 

increased acreage recommended for wilderness. Because of the increased opportunities for a 

wilderness experience under this alternative, the greatest opportunity exists to reduce pressure 

and crowding in wilderness. By distributing wilderness use across more wilderness areas, the 

ability to protect wilderness characteristics also increases. Alternative A does not propose any 

additional wilderness acreage and would not disperse wilderness use on the forests. Under 

alternatives B and C, dispersal of wilderness use would be small because of the nominal 

increase in wilderness and because these alternatives do not add new stand-alone areas. However, 

alternatives B and C would provide more primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities than 

alternative A but much less than alternative D.

Non-wilderness Values

Motorized, Mechanized, and Developed Recreation

Recommended wilderness could affect the location and amount of future recreation developments 

and facilities, including motorized use areas and trails. Alternative D would provide the least 

opportunity for future recreation development, while alternative A would provide the most 

because more land would be available for these uses. Alternatives B and C would provide 

slightly fewer motorized and developed recreation opportunities than alternative A. Also, those 

desiring motorized recreation opportunities would be displaced to other appropriate management 

areas across the forests. This may cause added pressure and increased potential for crowding in 

those management areas. Alternative D would have the most potential for motorized 

displacement, followed by alternatives B, C, and A, in order of displacement potential.

Mechanized recreation or mechanical transport (e.g., mountain biking) would not be affected in 

alternative A, because no lands are recommended for wilderness. Alternatives B and C would 

not allow mechanized travel in recommended wilderness, which would slightly decrease the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 393

amount of the forests available for mechanized recreation, but there should be no effects to 

mechanized recreation because there are no NFS trails in the Recommended Wilderness 

Management Area. Alternative D would also not affect mechanized recreation, because 

mechanized travel would be allowed in the Recommended Wilderness Management Area.

Wildlife Species/Populations/Management Needs

Recommended wilderness would provide greater protection for wildlife and wildlife habitats

because of reduced disturbance from motorized vehicle use. Alternative D, with the most 

recommended wilderness, would provide the most protection, while alternative A would provide 

the least. Alternatives B and C would provide slightly more protection than alternative A.

Water Use

There would be no effects to water use under all alternatives.

Livestock Operations

There would be no effects to livestock operations under all alternatives.

Vegetation Management

Recommended wilderness would affect the ability to mechanically treat vegetation to restore 

ecosystems and reduce fuel loading. The ability to use wildland fire as a vegetation treatment 

would not be restricted under all alternatives. Alternative D, with the most recommended 

wilderness, would place the most restrictions on where mechanical treatments may be conducted; 

while alternative A would have the most lands available for mechanical treatment. Alternatives 

B and C would have slightly less land available than alternative A.

Minerals

Recommended wilderness would not be withdrawn from mineral entry and leasing under the 

action alternatives. Oil, gas, geothermal, and mineral development could be constrained by 

terms and conditions that would protect the wilderness character and provide for restoration of 

disturbed lands. A full range of mineral activities would be allowed under alternative A.

Cultural Resources

Recommended wilderness would protect cultural resources through restrictions on motorized 

vehicle use. Alternative D, with the most recommended wilderness, would protect the most 

cultural resources, while alternative A would protect the least. Alternatives B and C would 

protect slightly more cultural resources than alternative A.

Authorized and Potential Land Uses

Recommended wilderness would not affect land uses currently permitted under special use 

authorizations. However, potential land use authorizations could be restricted or limited by 

recommended wilderness management. Alternative D, with the most recommended wilderness, 

would restrict or limit land use authorizations the most, while alternative A would restrict them 

the least. Alternatives B and C would limit or restrict potential land use authorizations slightly 

more than alternative A.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Fire, Insects and Disease, Non-Federal Lands

Recommended wilderness would affect how wildland fire and insect and disease outbreaks are 

managed. Alternative D, with the most recommended wilderness, would place the most 

restrictions on responses to these events, while alternative A would have the least amount of 

restrictions. Alternatives B and C would have slightly more restrictions than alternative A.

Development of inholdings and adjacent non-Federal lands could adversely affect wilderness 

characteristics of recommended wilderness. There would be no effects under alternative A,

because no lands are recommended for wilderness. There would also be no effects under 

alternatives B and C, because there are no inholdings or non-Federal lands adjacent to 

recommended wilderness. Recommended wilderness could be affected under alternative D,

because there are numerous inholdings and adjacent parcels of non-Federal land.

Social and Economics

Alternative D would respond the most to those who desire more wilderness and the least to those 

who do not want additional wilderness. Alternatives B and C would also fulfill this desire for 

more wilderness but to a lesser extent than alternative D. Alternative A would not meet the 

desire for additional wilderness, however, it does respond to the segment of the public that desires 

no additional wilderness and favors non-wilderness uses and values, such as timber harvesting, 

road construction, and recreation development.

The economic effects of the alternatives are discussed in the “Socioeconomic Resources” section. 

The economic impact analysis does not identify recommended wilderness as a factor that affects 

this resource. The major factor that changes by alternative is the amount of wood products 

produced. This primarily reflects the mix of treatment methods; mechanical and wildland fire. 

Alternative D emphasizes using wildland fire across the forests, while mechanical treatments are 

predominant under alternative C. Planned and unplanned ignitions are acceptable in 

recommended wilderness, while mechanical treatments are not.

Management of Areas Recommended for Wilderness

Those areas recommended for wilderness would be managed under the Recommended 

Wilderness Management Area direction. The focus of this management area is to manage these 

areas to protect their wilderness characteristics pending legislation and designation and to provide 

for existing uses where compatible. The following discussion focuses on the effects of managing 

under Recommended Wilderness Management Area direction in the action alternatives because 

no areas are recommended for wilderness in alternative A.

Motorized travel would not be allowed under all alternatives. For example, the use of motor 

vehicles, motorboats, and the landing of aircraft, including helicopters, would not be allowed, 

except under special circumstances as analyzed and authorized following the use of the 

“Minimum Requirements Decision Guide” (USDA and USDOI, 2012). Recommendation of areas 

for wilderness would eliminate opportunities for motorized recreation activities and recreation 

facilities. Dispersed recreation that includes nonmotorized activities (e.g., hiking, backpacking, 

fishing, hunting, horseback riding, cross-country skiing) would be allowed under all alternatives. 

The use of motorized equipment (e.g., chain saws) would not be allowed.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 395

Mechanized travel or mechanical transport (e.g., bicycles, game carriers) in recommended 

wilderness would not be allowed under alternatives B and C. However, alternative D would 

allow mechanized travel or mechanical transport in recommended wilderness.

Wilderness designation may warrant future public use restrictions by limiting visitor use and 

distribution including setting of group size limits to preserve an area’s wilderness character. 

Currently, there are no restrictions on group size in areas recommended for wilderness.

Recommended wilderness would be managed to provide opportunities for solitude and a 

primitive or unconfined type of recreation. New facilities for user comfort would not be allowed 

in areas recommended for wilderness.

Mechanical vegetation treatments to achieve healthy forest conditions or wildlife, recreation, and 

scenic integrity objectives would not be allowed in areas recommended for wilderness. 

Vegetation treatments that include planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned (wildfire) ignitions 

could occur. 

Recommended wilderness may affect motorized users of non-wilderness under all alternatives. 

As the acres of recommended wilderness increase, acres suitable for future consideration of

motorized recreation (roads, trails, and areas) would decrease. Therefore, increasing 

recommended wilderness could increase pressure on non-wilderness lands that provide motorized 

recreation. Added pressure and subsequent crowding would also increase because of growing 

demand.

There would be no effects to mechanized users of recommended wilderness because there are no 

NFS trails in the areas recommended under alternatives B and C. Mechanized travel would be 

allowed on NFS trails in recommended wilderness under alternative D. However, mechanized 

travel has the potential to affect solitude, increase trail maintenance needs, and could be difficult 

to remove the use in any area should wilderness designation occur.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area includes the adjoining federally managed lands: Coconino, 

Gila, and Tonto NFs and BLM Safford Field Office. There are three areas (Mother Hubbard, 

Nolan, and Hells Hole) that straddle the Gila NF/Apache-Sitgreaves NFs boundary. The ApacheSitgreaves NFs has evaluated the Arizona portions of these areas and has found that each has 

wilderness characteristics. However, any decisions on these areas have been deferred until the 

New Mexico portions of these areas have been evaluated and recommendations have been made 

in the Gila NF plan revision process. The areas would be managed to protect their wilderness 

characteristics until a decision is made. The Gila NF is expected to initiate its plan revision effort 

in the near future. There could be an increase in lands managed to maintain and protect 

wilderness characteristics, should the Gila NF recommend the three areas on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and adjacent lands on the Gila NF for wilderness designation.

There would be no known cumulative environmental consequences to wilderness resources under 

all alternatives because there are no known foreseeable effects from activities on adjacent lands. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Research Natural Areas

This section describes the current condition and evaluates and discloses the potential 

environmental consequences for the two special areas—research natural areas (RNAs) and 

botanical areas—which may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. 

In determining the future need for RNAs, the interdisciplinary team followed the regional work 

group process “Research Natural Area Process for Forest Plan Revision Under the 1982 Planning 

Rule Provisions” (Forest Service, 2009c). Details of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ RNA evaluation 

can be found in the “Research Natural Area Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014p) available 

in the “Plan Set of Documents.” The specialist report also contains full descriptions and maps of 

each RNA. 

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• In all alternatives (because they must conform to Forest Service Manual 4063 direction), 

both designated and recommended RNAs are protected and maintained in a natural 

condition for the purpose of conducting non-manipulative research36 and for fostering 

education. RNAs are managed for nonmotorized access. Recreation use may be restricted 

or prohibited if use threatens or interferes with the objectives of the RNA. Logging and 

wood gathering activities are not permitted. Livestock grazing may occur where needed 

to establish or maintain vegetative communities. 

• In all alternatives, completion of RNA designations and establishment reports would 

depend on agency capacity (e.g., staffing, budget). Implementation of establishment 

reports and management plans should provide additional emphasis toward meeting the 

desired conditions of the RNAs. Until designation, recommended RNAs would be 

managed to protect and maintain a natural condition.

• Following approval of the plan, further evaluation and a NEPA environmental assessment 

would be completed for each recommended RNA. If approved by the regional forester, 

with concurrence of the station director, the plan would then be amended to recognize 

these areas as designated RNAs.

• Recommended RNAs would be designated within 5 years of the plan’s record of decision 

or a plan amendment would be completed to return the land area to other management.

Affected Environment

Research natural areas (RNAs) are considered special areas by the Forest Service. RNAs are part 

of a national network of natural areas designated in perpetuity for research and education and/or 

to maintain biological diversity on NFS lands. RNAs are principally for non-manipulative

research, observation, and study. They also may assist in implementing provisions of special acts, 

such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the monitoring provisions of the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (Forest Service Manual 4063).

RNAs are defined (Forest Service Manual 4063.05) as,

 36 However, if necessary to further research, RNAs can be used for manipulative research purposes to help quantify and 

understand ecosystem processes and to improve forest management practices.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 397

[P]hysical or biological units in which current natural conditions are maintained insofar as 

possible. These conditions are ordinarily achieved by allowing natural physical and biological 

processes to prevail without human intervention. However, under unusual circumstances, 

deliberate manipulation may be utilized to maintain the unique feature that the RNA was 

established to protect.

The objectives (Forest Service Manual 4063.02) of establishing RNAs are to:

• Maintain a wide spectrum of high quality representative areas that represent the major 

forms of variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, and other vegetation 

types, and natural landscapes that have scientific interest and importance that, in 

combination, form a national network of ecological areas for research, education, and 

maintenance of biological diversity.

• Preserve and maintain genetic diversity, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species.

• Protect against human-caused environmental disruptions.

• Serve as reference areas for the study of natural ecological processes including 

disturbance.

• Provide onsite and extension educational activities.

• Serve as baseline areas for measuring long-term ecological changes.

• Serve as control areas for comparing results from manipulative research.

• Monitor effects of resource management techniques and practices.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs currently have one designated RNA, Phelps Cabin, and one 

designated botanical area, Phelps Cabin Botanical Area. The 1987 plan recommended four RNAs: 

Thomas Creek, Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground (see table 125 below).

During the plan revision process, an evaluation (Forest Service, 2014p) was conducted to 

determine the need for existing or additional RNAs. The primary criterion for determining need 

was the lack of ecological representation in the RNA system regionwide. In addition to the 

designated RNA and the RNAs recommended in the 1987 plan, four other areas were also 

evaluated: Three Forks, Lower Campbell Blue, Corduroy, and Sandrock.

Table 125 displays the results of the evaluation. In order to better contribute to the regionwide 

need for RNAs, it is recommended that the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (1) retain the existing Phelps 

Cabin RNA and add the Phelps Botanical Area to the RNA, (2) withdraw three currently 

recommended RNAs (Escudilla Mountain, Hayground, and Wildcat), (3) continue to recommend 

the Thomas Creek RNA, and (4) recommend four new RNAs (Three Forks, Lower Campbell 

Blue, Sandrock, and Corduroy).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

recommended or withdrawn

Name Status

Size

(aprx.

acres)

RFa

PJWb

PPFc

SDGd

WCRAe

Recommend 

or Withdraw

Phelps 

Cabin

Existing 

designated 

RNA

290f X X Recommend, with addition of the 

Phelps Botanical Area

Escudilla 

Mountain

Recommended 

in the 1987 

plan

960 X Withdraw, spruce-fir forest and 

montane/subalpine grasslands are 

already well-represented in the 

region. The area is within 

Escudilla Wilderness.

Thomas 

Creek

Recommended 

in the 1987 

plan

550 Recommend, although this area 

does not contribute to the regional 

need, it is a control area for 

watershed research.

Wildcat Recommended 

in the 1987 

plan

530 X X X Withdraw, this area no longer 

provides undisturbed old growth 

piñon-juniper.

Hayground Recommended 

in the 1987 

plan

400 X X Withdraw, ecological 

representation found in other 

designated and recommended 

RNAs.

Three 

Forks

Evaluated 

during plan 

revision

2,900 X X X Recommend, this area also 

contains unique aquatic habitat 

(fens) and wildlife species.

Lower 

Campbell 

Blue

Evaluated 

during plan 

revision

580 X X Recommend, this area also 

contains springs and perennial 

creeks.

Sandrock Evaluated 

during plan 

revision

530 X Recommend, small portion of the 

area was set aside in the 1987 plan 

to aid watershed recovery.

Corduroy Evaluated 

during plan 

revision

3,350 X X Recommend, this area also 

contains aspen.

a Riparian Forest

b Piñon-Juniper Woodland

c Ponderosa Pine Forest

d Semi-Desert Grassland

e Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas

f

Approximately 120 acres of this RNA are located in Mount Baldy Wilderness
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 399

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Alternative A would continue current management with one designated RNA (Phelps Cabin) and 

four recommended RNAs (Thomas Creek, Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground). The 

Phelps Botanical Area would continue to be managed as a separate special area. Alternative A 

would not contribute to the regional need for additional RNAs with the recommendation of 

Wildcat because it fulfills the regional need for riparian forest, piñon-juniper woodland, and 

ponderosa pine forest (see figure 61).

Alternatives B and C would combine the Phelps Cabin RNA and the Phelps Botanical Area into 

one special area, the Phelps Cabin RNA. This would increase the existing designated RNA by 

approximately 100 acres. These alternatives would also recommend five RNAs (Thomas Creek, 

Three Forks, Lower Campbell Blue, Sandrock, and Corduroy). In addition, these alternatives 

would also recommend withdrawing the existing RNA recommendations for Escudilla Mountain, 

Wildcat, and Hayground. These alternatives contribute to the regional need for additional RNAs 

by providing representation in four ecological types (see figure 62 and table 126).

Alternative D would combine the Phelps Cabin RNA and the Phelps Botanical Area into one 

special area, the Phelps Cabin RNA. This would increase the existing designated RNA by 

approximately 100 acres. This alternative also recommends two RNAs (Corduroy and Three 

Forks). The other areas (Thomas Creek, Lower Campbell Blue, and Sandrock) are located in the 

Recommended Wilderness Management Area where there is no need for RNA designation. In 

addition, this alternative would also recommend withdrawing the existing RNA recommendations 

for Escudilla Mountain, Wildcat, and Hayground. This alternative contributes to the regional need 

for additional RNAs by providing representation in three ecological types (see figure 63 and table 

126). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

alternative A
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 401

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

alternatives B and C
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

alternative D
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 403

Alternatives B, C, and D, because they have the greatest number and acreage of RNAs, would 

have the most beneficial cumulative consequences to other resources such as water, riparian 

areas, and species habitat because of the non-manipulative management emphasis in these areas.

All of the alternatives would contribute areas to the regional network of RNAs if the 

recommended RNAs are selected and designated. The action alternatives would add ecological 

representation to the system, with alternatives B and C providing the greatest contribution. 

While alternative A would have the fewest acres managed in RNAs, all alternatives would 

allocate less than 1 percent of the forests as RNAs (see table 126).

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

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

Number of Designated RNAs 1 1 1 1

Number of Recommended RNAs 4 5 5 2

Acres in Designated and Recommended RNAsa 2,549 8,075 8,075 6,218

Percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFsb in Designated and 

Recommended RNAs

< 1% < 1% < 1% < 1%

a Based on management area acreage

b Total forests acreage is over 2.1 million

RNAs, because of their non-manipulative management emphasis, contribute to achieving many of 

the proposed plan’s desired conditions, in particular those that call for restoration of natural 

ecological processes and opportunities for research and study.

Extractive (minerals, oil and gas) or ground-disturbing activities (timber management, road 

maintenance) could occur in the vicinity of RNAs. Such activities could lead to environmental 

consequences such as riparian impacts within RNAs from upstream activity; however, the 

consequences would be minor because Forest Service actions would conform to plan standards 

and guidelines for protecting water resources and riparian areas. 

Although grazing is allowed in RNAs, there should be limited consequences to livestock grazing 

because only one of the RNAs is permitted for livestock grazing (Thomas Creek RNA). See table 

127.

Grazing by wildlife, especially elk, could impact the Phelps Cabin, Wildcat, Hayground, Three 

Forks, Lower Campbell Blue, and Corduroy RNAs by altering the amount and composition of 

key vegetative components, such as willow and aspen. However, implementation of the plan 

guideline to use management measures (e.g., fencing) to protect unique features should minimize 

the impact.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Table 127. Status of grazing allotments containing recommended RNAs

Recommended RNA Livestock Grazing Status

Sandrock Located within the Sandrock Allotment which was closed to grazing in 1987 and is 

not allocated under a grazing permit.

Lower Campbell Blue Located within the Lower Campbell Blue Allotment which was waived back to the 

Forest Service in 2001 is under nonuse, and is not allocated under a grazing permit.

Corduroy Located within the Hannagan Allotment which was waived back to the Forest 

Service in 2001 is under nonuse, and is not allocated under a grazing permit.

Three Forks Located within the Black River Allotment which was waived back to the Forest 

Service in 2002 is under nonuse, and is not allocated under a grazing permit.

Thomas Creek Located within the West Thomas pasture of the Foote Creek Allotment where 

livestock grazing only occurs after August 31 for Mexican spotted owl habitat 

recovery and to protect RNA values.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative environmental consequences analysis area is the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, Arizona 

and New Mexico National Forest System lands, and the regional network of RNAs. It is 

reasonably foreseeable that the other Arizona and New Mexico national forests would 

recommend new RNAs during their plan revision efforts. With the addition of RNAs 

recommended in all alternatives, this may result in more areas recommended than are actually 

needed in the regional RNA system and may trigger a need to withdraw areas recommended in 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs plan.

Because the RNAs are located within the interior of the forests, activities occurring off-forests 

should have no or extremely limited impacts. Establishment of RNAs on the forests should 

contribute to the vegetation communities within the existing RNAs system and provide a 

potential scientific basis for climate change research. The forests’ RNAs would also be 

complementary to those on the Gila, Coconino, Coronado, and Tonto NFs, as well as those within 

the Bureau of Land Management. 

Scenic Resources

This section describes the affected environment and evaluates and discloses the potential 

environmental consequences to scenic resources. The criteria for evaluating the potential level of 

alteration to the landscape are measured by acres of each scenic integrity level (SIL) by 

alternative and a qualitative discussion of the potential effects to scenic resources from 

management activities. As part of the plan revision process, the Forest Service completed a new 

scenic inventory of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in 2009. For more information, see the “Scenic 

Resources Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014r) in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• When a decision is made on the land management plan, the scenic integrity levels (SILs) 

would become the scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) and would be used to manage the 

scenic resources over the planning period. This analysis looks at the SILs by alternative 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 405

to determine the effects to scenic resources as variations in management activities and 

management areas occur.

• SIOs, at the project level, set the acceptable level of alteration to the characteristic 

landscape, based on the importance of the landscape. Mitigation measures will be 

developed and applied at the project level.

• In May and June of 2011, the Wallow Fire burned over 538,000 acres on the Apache NF 

and adjoining ownerships. Many trees in the forested areas were killed; while others are 

likely to die. Flooding and increased erosion have occurred and will continue for several 

years. Aspen regeneration is expected across much of the burned area, which may result 

in more widespread fall color displays. The Wallow Fire does not change the proposed 

scenic integrity levels (and objectives) because they are tied to management areas and 

resource features.

Affected Environment

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs contain some of the most scenic landscapes in the State of Arizona, 

ranging from rugged canyons to rolling hills and grasslands to conifer forests. Scenic resources 

contribute to visitor satisfaction and enjoyment of the forests. Popular visitor activities include 

viewing natural features, landscapes, and wildlife (Kocis et al., 2002).

Existing Landscapes

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lie within the White Mountains-San Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim

Ecoregion (see figure 44). This ecoregion section is located on the Colorado Plateau in central 

and east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico. Geomorphic processes active in this 

section involve recent volcanism including basaltic lava flows, cinder cone eruptions, and 

volcanic ash. Major landforms include mountains, plains, plateaus, and hills. Elevations on the 

forests range from 3,600 feet to over 11,000 feet.

Precipitation ranges from 20 inches to over 32 inches annually, with more than half of the 

precipitation falling during the winter. Winters are cold with the growing season ranging from 

less than 50 days to 110 days.

Plant communities vary with ponderosa pine and Gambel oak on warm and dry sites; white fir 

and Douglas-fir on cool, moist sites; and Engelmann spruce, blue spruce, and subalpine fir or 

corkbark fir on the coldest, wettest sites.

Historically, fires occurred naturally in ponderosa pine forests about every 2 to 17 years, but they 

currently occur less frequently because of fire suppression and other management activities. This 

has led to thicker forests and increased fuel loads, resulting in a less resilient ecosystem and an 

increased risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. Current land uses include a wide variety of recreation 

activities, grazing, and fuels reduction.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs can generally be divided into three landscapes: high plateau, volcanic 

highlands, and below the Mogollon Rim. The Mogollon Rim, a 2,000-foot escarpment, is a 

dominant feature across the forests (see figure 64).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

High Plateau

Most of the Sitgreaves NF is included in the High Plateau. This broad, rolling landscape extends 

from Leonard Canyon on the west to the Show Low area on the east and extends north from the 

Mogollon Rim. Large stands of ponderosa pine, mixed conifers, and aspen cover the southern 

portion of this area, while piñon-juniper woodlands and grasslands blanket the northern band. 

This elevated plain provides spectacular vistas, both north and south, especially along Forest 

Road (FR) 300 and State Highway (SH) 260. This rolling landscape is dissected by rugged, steepwalled sandstone and limestone canyons that drain north to the Little Colorado River. There are 

essentially no roads in the canyons; however, a road network covers the uplands and provides 

access for motorized and nonmotorized recreation. 

Developed recreation opportunities are plentiful, especially in the Woods Canyon Lake, Willow 

Springs Lake, and Fool Hollow Lake areas. An abundance of snow in the winter months provides 

opportunities for snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. This area is a favorite of 

both summer and winter recreationists because it is less than 2 hours from the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. Outside the developed recreation areas, the landscape has been, and continues 

to be, a favorite spot for traditional activities such as camping, hunting, fishing, and firewood and 

piñon nut gathering. SH 260 is the primary east-west transportation corridor, while SHs 77, 277, 

and 377 provide access to the north and U.S. Highway (US) 60 provides access to the south and 

east. Two major energy corridors cross this landscape. Most of the area south of SH 260 was 

burned during the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire and is currently in a state of transition with remnant 

burned snags and new vegetative growth. The towns of Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside, near 

the eastern edge, are the residential, commercial, and tourist hub of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Most forest visitors to the eastern portion of this landscape participate in day-use recreation 

activities and return to their urban accommodations at night.

Volcanic Uplands

East of Show Low, the landscape transitions into the Volcanic Uplands with volcanic peaks, 

basalt flows, cinder cones, and vast high-elevation grasslands. This landscape continues east to 

the New Mexico State line and south to the Mogollon Rim. High mountains and river canyons are 

prominent features of the landscape. Vegetation includes piñon-juniper woodlands, grasslands, 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests, aspen, lush riparian areas, and the forests’ largest

concentration of spruce-fir forest. The headwaters of several major Arizona rivers, including the 

Little Colorado, Black, Blue, and San Francisco, are found in this landscape. Mount Baldy and 

Escudilla Mountain dominate the landscape in the northern portion of this area. 

Two scenic byways, the Coronado Trail National Scenic Byway and the White Mountain Scenic 

Road, provide motorized corridors for viewing vegetation, wildlife, and landforms that combine 

to provide some of the most spectacular scenery on the forests. Viewing fall colors and wildlife, 

such as elk and eagles, are major activities. Residents of the communities of Alpine, Eagar, Greer, 

Nutrioso, and Springerville consider this area their backyard and participate in traditional 

activities such as hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering. 

Recreationists participate in an array of activities such as camping, hiking, biking, OHV riding, 

cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. Developed campgrounds and dispersed camp areas are 

destinations for many visitors who seek relief from hot desert temperatures. All three wilderness 

areas on the forests can be found here: Bear Wallow, Escudilla, and Mount Baldy. Water is a 

primary draw for recreationists with popular sites including Big Lake, Lee Valley Reservoir, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 407

the East and West Forks of the Black River. Most of this landscape was burned during the 2011 

Wallow Fire; the forested lands are in a state of transition with burned snags and new vegetative 

growth. SH 260 and US 60 are the primary east-west transportation corridors, US 180 and 191 

provide access to the north, southeast, and south.

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

Below the Mogollon Rim

Below the Mogollon Rim, the landscape is drier and harsher with more rugged topographic 

features. Elevations range from 9,200 feet on the Mogollon Rim to 3,600 feet on the San 

Francisco River. Unique rock formations, steep canyons, mesas, and broad valleys characterize 

the landscape. Vegetation changes with elevation, ranging from ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

forests on the Mogollon Rim through pine-oak woodlands and chaparral to semi-desert grasslands 

in the south. Riparian forests are found along the major rivers and creeks. Wildlife viewing 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

abounds with opportunities to see bighorn sheep, coatimundi, and rare birds such as peregrine 

falcon, wintering bald eagles, and common black-hawks. 

There are few roads in this area, but nonmotorized trails are plentiful. Most recreationists enjoy 

dispersed activities such as camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, birding, and OHV riding. 

Most of the Blue Range Primitive Area is in this landscape. The Blue River, San Francisco River, 

and Eagle Creek are the major waterways. This landscape contains extensive archaeological 

remnants of the Mogollon culture, the native people that lived here thousands of years ago. 

Present day residents have strong ties to the land and use the forest in traditional ways including 

ranching and guiding big game hunts. Portions of the upper Blue River drainage were burned 

during the 2011 Wallow Fire; the forested lands are in a state of transition with burned snags and 

new vegetative growth. US 191 is the primary north-south transportation corridor; while SH 78 

provides access to US 191 from the east.

Current Management

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs currently manage scenic resources with the Visual Management 

System (VMS), which was adopted by the Forest Service in 1974. This system was used to derive 

visual quality objectives (VQO) for all lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. VQOs are based 

on three factors: (1) the variation of a landscape; (2) the level of concern visitors have for scenic 

quality while viewing the landscape from certain areas or routes; and (3) the distance viewers are 

from the landscape or a feature on the landscape, such as a road (Forest Service, 1974).

Management direction is provided in the 1987 plan for the five VQOs, ranging from allowing 

almost no change to the landscape to allowing many types of changes. VQO acres are shown in 

table 129. The five VQOs are preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, and 

maximum modification.

• Preservation (P): Provides for ecological changes only.

• Retention (R): Management activities are generally not evident to the casual visitor.

• Partial retention (PR): In general, management activities may be evident but must be 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

• Modification (M): Management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but 

they must at the same time utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture. 

Man’s activities should appear as natural occurrences when viewed from foreground or 

middle ground.

• Maximum modification (MM): Management activities may dominate the characteristic 

landscape, but they should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as background. 

When viewed as foreground or middle ground, they may not appear to completely borrow 

from naturally established form, line, color, or texture. Alterations may also be out of 

scale or contain detail which is incongruent with natural occurrences as seen in 

foreground or middle ground.

Future Management

The Forest Service updated the Visual Management System at the national level to the Scenery 

Management System (SMS) (Forest Service, 1995). SMS incorporates computerized mapping 

technology and applies elements and objectives at the project-level to incorporate the existing and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 409

desired landscape character. SMS is also adaptive and responds to changing ecological 

conditions.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs will transition to SMS upon completion of the plan revision process. 

Table 128 shows the relationship between visual quality objectives (VQOs) and scenic integrity 

objectives (SIOs) used in SMS.

Table 128. Crosswalk between Visual Management System and Scenery Management 

System

VQO from VMS Degree of Landscape 

Alteration SIO from SMS

Preservation (P) Unaltered Very High (VH)

Retention (R) Appears Unaltered High (H)

Partial Retention (PR) Slightly Altered Moderate (M)

Modification (M) Moderately Altered Low (L)

Maximum Modification (MM) Heavily Altered Very Low (VL)

The SILs (pre-decision)/SIOs (post-decision) are described below, ranging from allowing almost 

no change to the landscape to allowing many types of changes:

• Very High (VH): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “is intact” 

with only minute, if any, deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place 

is expressed at the highest possible level.

• High (H): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears intact.” 

Deviations may be present, but they must repeat form, line, color, texture, and pattern 

common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not 

evident.

• Moderate (M): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears 

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

character being viewed.

• Low (L): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears moderately 

altered.” Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed, but 

they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural 

openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles outside the landscape being 

viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being 

viewed, but compatible or complimentary to the character within.

• Very Low (VL): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears 

heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They 

may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of 

natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside the 

landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the 

natural terrain (landforms) so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and 

structures do not dominate the composition.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

The SIL acreages for the alternatives are summarized in table 129 and shown in figure 65. More 

detailed descriptions of how the SILs vary by alternative, including how they vary by 

management area, can be found in the “Scenic Resources Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2014r) in the “Plan Set of Documents.” Acres for alternative A are based on the 1987 plan VQO 

acres. 

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

SIL

Alt. Aa

VQO Acres

(percent)

Alt. B

Acres

(percent)

Alt. C

Acres

(percent)

Alt. D

Acres

(percent)

Very High 210,769

(11%)

305,047

(15%)

303,723

(15%)

748,716

(37%)

High 490,464

(25%)

786,773

(39%)

676,394

(34%)

444,302

(22%)

Moderate 835,979

(42%)

920,648

(46%)

1,032,351

(51%)

819,449

(41%)

Low 405,470

(20%)

394

(<1%)

394

(<1%)

393

(<1%)

Very Low 35,008

(2%)

2,490

(<1%)

2,490

(<1%)

2,492

(<1%)

Total 1,977,690 2,015,352 2,015,351 2,015,351

a Alternative A acres are those presented in the 1987 plan. These acres do not include any changes in land tenure (NFS 

lands acquired or disposed of) or in mapping techniques.

Figure 65. Percent of scenic integrity level by alternative

As shown above, alternative A would have a range of SILs with an emphasis on moderate scenic 

integrity. Alternative B would have more emphasis on moderate to high scenic integrity; while 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 411

alternative C would focus on moderate scenic integrity, with some emphasis on high scenic 

integrity. Alternative D would emphasize moderate and very high scenic integrity. The SILs 

would become SIOs in the final plan. 

Continuation of the use of the Visual Management System (VMS) and visual quality objectives 

(VQOs) in alternative A would be contrary to current Forest Service policy. VMS is not an 

adaptive system and does not respond to changing ecological conditions as SMS does. Overall, 

scenic resources would be maintained at a lower scenic integrity than the action alternatives

because of the greater acreage in the very low, low, and moderate SILs. The forests would convert 

to SMS under alternative A.

All projects implemented on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs require a site-specific assessment of the 

potential effects on scenic resources. All SIOs are applied at the project-level. If needed, they may 

be refined at this level. The action alternatives would reflect a greater emphasis on scenic 

integrity, with fewer acres in the low and very low SILs. There would be minimal change in 

acreage for the low and very low SILs between the action alternatives. Because the low and very 

low SILs would not vary by action alternative, the following discussion focuses on the 

moderate, high, and very high SILs.

Alternative A would manage scenic resources under a mix of SILs with an emphasis on low, 

moderate, and high scenic integrity. In general, the forests would be managed for naturalappearing landscapes. However, this alternative would allow the most landscape alterations or 

deviations.

Alternative B would manage scenic resources under a mix of SILs with an emphasis on 

moderate to high scenic integrity. In general, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would be managed for 

natural appearing, intact landscapes with the exception of the Energy Corridor Management Area. 

Minor landscape alterations would be allowed except on the very high SIL acres. Comparable 

acres are managed for very high SIL under alternatives B and C. Slightly more land would be 

managed under the high SIL in alternative B than in alternative C. Slightly less land would be 

managed under the moderate SIL than in alternative C. 

Alternative C would manage scenic resources under a mix of SILs with an emphasis on 

moderate scenic integrity. In general, the forests would be managed for natural appearing, intact 

landscapes, but it would allow slightly more landscape alterations or deviations than in 

alternative B. A majority of the acres would be managed under the moderate SIL. Less acreage 

in the very high SIL reflects the alternative’s emphasis on mechanical vegetation treatments and 

developed/motorized recreation. 

Alternative D would manage scenic resources under a mix of SILs with an emphasis on very 

high and moderate scenic integrity. This reflects the emphasis on managing more intact 

landscapes and the increased acreage of lands in the Recommended Wilderness Management 

Area. Less acreage in the high and moderate SILs also reflects the alternative’s emphasis on 

primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities and the use of wildland fire as a vegetation 

management tool. 

General Effects of Activities on Scenic Resources

Management activities affect scenic resources by altering the appearance of what is seen in the 

landscape. Short-term scenic effects from management activities are usually considered in terms 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

of degree of visual contrast with existing or adjacent conditions. The scenic landscape can be 

changed over the long term or cumulatively by the alteration of the visual character. Management 

actions which result in visual alterations inconsistent with the assigned SIO, even with mitigation, 

could impact scenic resources. Management actions on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs that have the 

greatest potential to affect scenic resources are vegetation management (including timber harvest 

and insect and disease control), energy corridor rights-of-way, prescribed fire, and wilderness 

recommendations. Other management activities that could affect the scenic resources are fire 

suppression, recreation facilities, and wildlife habitat management, but these are expected to be 

site specific and similar under all alternatives. 

Vegetation and Fuels Management

Under all alternatives, the short-term effects related to vegetation and fuels management 

activities may decrease scenic integrity. However, long-term effects should increase scenic 

integrity by restoring ecosystem functions. Short-term negative effects to scenic resources would 

be the greatest under alternative C, which would treat more acres mechanically and potentially 

reconstruct more road miles than would alternatives A, B, or D.

Vegetation and fuels management have a high potential to alter the landscape and affect the scenic 

resource. Activities typically reduce scenic integrity in the short term because of the associated 

slash prior to prescribed fire, stumps, and landing and road construction. In the long term, 

treatment activities may maintain or enhance scenic integrity, scenic stability, and the ability to 

resist insects, disease, and uncharacteristic wildfire. Consequently, treated areas may appear 

moderately to highly altered for longer periods of time, depending upon the treatment and 

mitigation measures implemented.

Under all alternatives, the short-term effects of some activities may reduce the scenic quality 

(e.g., piles of fuels from mechanical treatments prior to prescribed fire). However, in the long 

term, scenic quality in all alternatives would be improved as progress is made toward reducing 

the potential for stand-replacing crown fires and moving vegetation toward desired conditions 

(e.g., a mosaic of structural states with openings for ponderosa pine forests) which highlight 

intact landscapes, high biological diversity, and resiliency to natural disturbances.

Under all alternatives, treatments would include thinning, cutting, and wildland fire in most of 

the PNVTs (table 130). Selective tree cutting could enhance scenic resources in the long term, 

because it may result in more open park-like groves of trees, enhance structural and species 

diversity, improve spatial distribution, create vistas, reduce susceptibility to high severity

wildfire, and restore meadows and grasslands. Aspen cutting may result in openings with shortterm negative elements (including stumps, slash, crushed trees, landings, disturbed soil and 

ground vegetation, and roads). In the longer term, these openings should regenerate into highly 

valued stands of aspen.

Fuels reduction efforts (e.g., mechanized thinning) may result in short-term decreases in scenic 

quality because of cut vegetation, slash, and disturbed soils. Planning for scenic elements and 

adherence to design criteria would minimize short-term impacts and reap long-term benefits, 

thereby meeting scenic integrity objectives. Fuels reduction activities should result in more 

resilient forest conditions, which should be better able to resist uncharacteristic wildfires.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 413

Management efforts to control insect infestations and diseases that include removal of infected 

trees and buffer areas often appear as clearcutting to forest visitors. These impacts can occur in 

areas of high scenic value (e.g., along scenic routes) and may reduce scenic quality.

Table 130. Average annual acres of vegetation treatments by alternative

Treatment Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

Mechanical 12,182 19,591 23,997 15,954

Wildland Fire 6,844 28,930 12,857 48,927

Total 19,026 48,521 36,854 64,881

Energy Corridors

Energy corridor rights-of-way (ROW) have a high potential to affect scenic resources for a long 

duration. Cleared ROWs and utility structures contrast and may be incongruent with existing 

landscapes. Cleared ROWs generally contrast highly with the surrounding landscape. All 

alternatives would have similar effects from energy corridors ROWs.

Fire

All alternatives would propose wildland fire for multiple objectives. Drifting smoke, blackened 

vegetation, and charred tree trunks would be the primary effects to scenic resources. Blackened 

vegetation usually lasts a short time, but charred trees may be evident for many years. Lowintensity wildfire and prescribed fire have the potential to alter the appearance of the planning 

area, but they could help restore or enhance scenic integrity and ecological conditions. For 

example, repeated prescribed fire over time in ponderosa pine forests produces the desired 

condition of stands with open understories which allow views farther into the landscape. 

Conversely, uncharacteristic wildfires may alter scenic integrity and result in additional effects to 

scenic resources from fire suppression (e.g., fire line construction) or post-fire salvage logging 

(e.g., road construction or reconstruction).

The general effects of wildland fire would be the same under all alternatives. Each alternative 

would vary in the acreage that could be treated with wildland fire (see table 130 above). Overall, 

based on the average treatment objective, alternative D would apply wildland fire to the most 

acres, followed by alternatives B, C, and A with fewer acres treated, respectively. In addition, 

alternatives D and B would use more moderate and/or high severity fire to restore acres than 

alternatives C and A. This would result in more trees killed by fire and could alter the 

appearance of treated areas.

Wilderness

Management of designated wilderness and maintenance of wilderness characteristics in the 

Primitive Area and Recommended Wilderness Management Areas would result in landscapes that 

appear natural, are intact, and are unmodified by management activities because these lands are 

managed for very high scenic integrity. Vegetation and fuels management activities would be 

limited to the use of wildland fire. The effects to scenic resources from wildland fire are discussed 

above.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Alternative D would have the most acres in Wilderness, Primitive Area, and Recommended 

Wilderness Management Areas that would be managed for very high SIL and would provide the 

greatest scenic resource protection and maintenance. Alternatives A, B, and C would have the 

fewest acres in these management areas (very high SIL) and would provide overall lower levels 

of scenic resource protection.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area for scenic resources is all Federal, State, and tribal lands 

within a 20-mile radius of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This area was selected because of ongoing 

and proposed activities on neighboring national forests (i.e., Four Forest Restoration Initiative), 

adjacent State and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands (i.e., renewable energy 

development, energy corridor developments, juniper treatments); and neighboring American 

Indian reservations (i.e., vegetation treatments).

Mechanical vegetation treatments are planned or proposed for much of the land within the 

cumulative effects analysis area. This, combined with the planned or proposed treatments on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs in all alternatives, could result in cumulative effects to scenic resources. 

More of the landscape, in the short term, would appear to be moderately to slightly altered until 

the longer term scenic integrity objective is achieved. Also, differing scenic objectives by the 

managing agencies may result in contrasting landscapes, especially near or along administrative 

boundaries. For example, one agency may prefer a forested landscape with regularly spaced trees, 

while another may favor trees in groups or clumps with openings between them.

Renewable energy and energy corridor developments are of particular concern along and north of 

the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and within and adjacent to existing energy corridors. These would be 

more permanent modifications to the landscape. Should solar panel arrays and additional wind 

farms be developed, there may be dramatic changes to the existing landscape from the physical 

structures. These types of energy developments would also require additional transmission lines 

to connect to existing energy corridors and could result in the creation of new energy corridors or 

expansion of existing energy corridors. The discussion of potential environmental consequences 

associated with energy corridors can be found in the “Lands and Special Uses” section.

Lands and Special Uses

This section compares how each alternative varies in its emphasis of meeting the demands for 

natural resources, addressing community expansion needs, and preserving open space by 

providing opportunities for land adjustments. It also compares the availability of special use 

authorizations for public services and benefits.

This section provides a qualitative comparison describing how the alternatives would use land 

adjustments to address community expansion and natural resource management needs. It also 

compares how the alternatives address management of property boundaries and the issue of 

encroachment. The section further describes how the alternatives would allow for special use 

authorizations and quantifies the lands that are suitable for certain uses, including energy 

corridors/energy development and communications sites. See the “Minerals and Energy” section 

for information about mineral and energy potential. The full analysis for lands and special uses 

can be found in the “Lands Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014l) available in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 415

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• The Forest Service has the personnel and funding capacity to screen, process, and 

manage special uses and land exchanges.

• Community and public needs for services will continue.

• The population of Arizona will continue to grow and be dependent on electricity. 

Consumers will continue to demand reliable electricity. The economy will fluctuate over 

time and influence the rate of energy corridor development.

Affected Environment

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

region of Arizona. Many communities adjoin the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs; while others are 

completely surrounded by the forests. Because of this close proximity, many communities and 

private landowners are affected by forest management decisions and, in turn, they affect forest 

management.

Many communities are completely surrounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and, therefore, are 

limited in the ability to expand. Forest managers face many challenges associated with growing 

communities within and adjacent to the forests. As these communities and areas grow, the forests 

may be approached with continued requests to use Federal lands for special uses or to exchange 

Federal lands for private.

Land Ownership

The acquisition and disposal of National Forest System (NFS) lands are designed to consolidate 

interest and management of the Federal estate to enhance public benefit and to consolidate the 

management and ownership of Federal, State, and private lands within the proclaimed boundary 

of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The establishment of rights-of-way is needed to create 

accessibility to both public and private lands within the proclaimed boundary of the forests (see 

figure 66 and figure 67).

There are currently 2,111,167 acres (table 131) within the proclaimed boundary of the forests, 

including 2,018,14837 of NFS land. NFS land acreage within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs has 

increased by 17,757 acres through land exchanges, purchases, and donation since 1987 (table 

132). Land exchanges have been the principal means of ownership adjustment for the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, with approximately 17,540 acres acquired and 4,462 acres conveyed to non-NFS 

ownership since 1987. Many of these land exchanges have involved the transfer of NFS lands 

outside the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to other ownership; while the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

acquired non-NFS lands.

Purchase and donation have played very minor roles in the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ land 

acquisition program with 215 acres acquired through purchase and the donation for the Alpine 

Ranger Station (1.59 acres). The primary objective of any acquisition continues to be protection 

of the environment and improved management of natural resources. Lands acquired are included 

 37 Acres are from table 4 in the National Forest System Land Area Report (2011c) and include only lands in Arizona. 

They differ from the GIS acres used in this analysis because of differences in mapping techniques.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

in the NFS and generally enhance ecological health and public recreation opportunities on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Conveyance of land from the Forest Service to local governments occasionally occurs in the 

vicinity of urban areas for school or local community purposes. Since 1987, 81 acres have been 

conveyed to local governments.

Table 131. Land ownership within the 

boundaries of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Land Ownership Acres

National Forest System (NFS) 2,018,148

Other (non-NFS) 93,019

Total 2,111,167

Table 132. Land ownership adjustments on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs since 1987

Type of Adjustment Acres

Land exchanges (acquired) 17,540

Land exchanges (conveyed to private) 4,462

Townsite (conveyed to local government) 81

Purchase/donation (conveyed from private) 215

Over the last several years, owners of private land surrounded by or adjacent to NFS lands have 

subdivided and sold property as recreation land or home sites. There are areas within the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, particularly near the urban-forests interface, that may be better suited for private 

uses because administration is costly to the Forest Service due to the complexity of the adjoining 

and surrounding land ownership pattern or the permitted use on them. Conversely, some nonFederal (i.e., State, county, private, other) lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are of a 

national forest character, and acquisition would reduce ecosystem fragmentation, improve 

landscape-level management, and eliminate the need to encumber surrounding NFS lands with 

special use authorizations for roads and utilities.

Since appropriations for lands and interests in land purchases have always been limited and 

competitive, the donation of non-Federal lands is infrequent, and the authority to sell NFS lands 

is rare and limited, land exchange continues to be the primary method used for land adjustments 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

The time required to complete land exchanges has increased in response to legal and 

administrative requirements, thereby increasing costs. With reduced funding, fewer land 

exchanges can be pursued. Proponents of discretionary land exchanges are required to pay for 

most, if not all, costs associated with a proposal. Some residents in local communities have 

voiced opposition to future conveyance of adjacent Federal lands. 
Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 417

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 66. Map of land ownership – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Figure 67. Map of land ownership – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 419

Property Boundary Location and Encroachments

The primary purpose of conducting land surveys is to ensure Forest Service activities do not 

intrude on non-Federal lands and that trespass upon national forests can be prevented and 

controlled. Most land surveys on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs were originally done in the late 

1800s and early 1900s. Some of these original surveys were proven to be of poor quality. 

Approximately 365 miles of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ boundaries have been located since 1987. 

Land subdivision and development is increasing the need for accurate and reliable surveys. 

Numerous conflicts between past surveys have occurred, leading to an unknown number of 

unauthorized occupancy and use violations on national forest lands. Identification of property 

boundaries is an increasing expense to resource programs, especially fuels treatments. 

Increasingly, additional expenditures would be necessary in order to fully utilize national forest 

resources and to prevent claims against the Federal government. Although land acquisition 

eliminates the need for posting land line location (i.e., survey boundary) in some areas, many 

miles of property boundary still need to be surveyed and posted.

Property boundary location involves all activities necessary to identify the boundaries of NFS 

lands, including the search for survey corners, surveying and marking of land lines, and 

maintenance of the same. Marking and posting boundaries identifies or locates NFS lands for 

public use and enjoyment and prevents and controls trespass upon the forests. 

More frequent inspections and maintenance of property boundaries in areas where residential 

developments share common boundaries with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs continue to be a major 

component of forest management. Inspection and maintenance of forest boundaries in areas that 

abut private lands have not kept up with the increases in private land development.

Addressing encroachments on NFS lands contributes to protecting natural resources. 

Considerable effort may be required to resolve these trespasses upon NFS lands. Most involve 

simple actions to remove temporary occupancies or activities; while some permanent 

improvements require other solutions. When discovered, a qualifying innocent trespass is 

resolved using the Small Tracts Act (16 USC 521c-i). Since 1987, 12 Small Tracts Act cases, 

involving 36 acres, have been resolved on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Non-qualifying 

encroachments and unauthorized trespass are resolved through appropriate means, which may 

include issuance of a special use permit or removal from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Special Uses

Occupancy and use of NFS lands for public and private purposes through the issuance of special 

use authorizations and easements continues to be allowed, where the use is consistent with natural 

resource management goals. Occupancy is defined as taking possession of NFS land and use of 

the same. Special use authorizations (i.e., special use permits) are used to authorize occupancy 

and use of NFS lands by Federal, State, and local agencies; private industry; and individuals. 

Several different public laws regulate activities under special use authorizations. The Organic Act 

of 1897 and the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 authorize the 

majority of the uses. The Occupancy Permits Act of March 4, 1915, authorizes use and occupancy 

of NFS land. Special use permits also authorize services (e.g., outfitters, guides) that support the 

Forest Service mission and meet the needs of the public. Permits are a partnership between the 

Forest Service and private businesses and individuals to provide services and facilities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The demand for the use and occupancy of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs continues to grow, making 

permit issuance and administration a challenge as staff review and process new and existing 

authorizations for many uses every year. The NFS land adjacent to private lands is greatly 

influenced by adjacent landowner or community uses and objectives. In some areas, human 

activities have altered the natural appearance of these landscapes with the presence of the sights 

and sounds of people and motorized transportation. Some private lands adjacent to the forests are 

undergoing residential development. 

More people are living close to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, and there has been a major increase 

in development on land adjoining and/or surrounded by the forests. Demands related to this 

growth include access to the forests, utility corridors, roads, and recreation services. In addition, 

many urban residents from Phoenix, Tucson, El Paso, and Albuquerque have second homes or 

recreation residence leases or live in retirement communities surrounded by or adjacent to the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, and they request access/utilities to support their property. Residents from 

the large urban areas are some of the primary clients for recreation special use permit holders, 

such as hunting outfitters and guides. Lands managers are challenged to provide goods, services, 

and access that populations demand, while meeting a variety of user expectations and desires. The 

type of requests and proposals for use and occupancy of NFS lands would continue to evolve with 

technology and imagination.

The expansion of many communities is limited because they are surrounded by the forests and 

other public lands such as State and Bureau of Land Management. State agencies, counties, local 

cities and towns, public utilities, and other service providers regularly request use and occupancy 

of NFS lands to meet needs on non-NFS land. Proponents are asked to exhaust use of lands other 

than national forest before occupancy of NFS lands is considered. Authorized occupancy often 

encumbers NFS lands which, in turn, affects management decisions and actions.

In 2011, there were over 450 existing rights-of-way and special use permits for a variety of uses 

on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (table 133). A majority of these are categorized as lands permits 

(versus recreation permits). As the communities in and around the forests continue to expand, 

State agencies, counties, local cities and towns, public utilities, and others regularly request new 

authorizations or amendments to existing authorizations. Increased requests have been received 

for private access roads across NFS land as residential development has occurred on adjacent 

private lands. 

Table 133. Number and type of special use permits issued on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs as of April 2011

Special Use Number of Permits

Recreation

Non-Commercial Group Use 8

Outfitter/Guide 47

Recreation Residence 25

Recreation Use 18

Lands

Agricultural Use 2
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 421

Special Use Number of Permits

Cemetery 2 

Communication Leases – Broadcast/Non-Broadcast 54

Communication Leases –Facility Managers 3 

Construction Camps 4 

Electric Transmission and Distribution 9 

Federal Aid Highway Rights-of-Way 8 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act Easement 20

Federal Land Policy and Management Act Permit 30

Fence 1 

Forest Roads and Trails Act Easement 63

Irrigation Water Ditch 10

Manufacturing 2 

Mineral Development 11

Mineral Exploration 4 

Natural Gas Line 1 

Research 33

Reservoir – Dam 16

Sanitary System 12

School 1 

Sign 1 

Storage 4 

Stream Gauging Station 1 

Water Conveyance 15

Water Storage Tank 6 

Water Transmission 36

Weir 2 

Well, Spring, or Windmill 11

Wildlife Water Supply 14

Total 454
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Energy Corridors and Developments

Energy corridors are a major contribution of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to meeting national 

energy demands. Energy corridors (e.g., above or belowground electric transmission line, gas 

pipeline) are linear strips of land identified for the present or future location of a utility right-ofway. Other energy developments include the infrastructure associated with the provision or 

transport of energy (e.g., dams, biomass power generation, wind turbines, solar panels). As 

population trends increase and electricity consumers demand more reliable power, the demand for 

energy corridors would increase. Energy corridors extend beyond the boundaries of the ApacheSitgreaves NFs and are part of the greater western U.S. power grid. There are no energy 

developments on the forests.

Currently, there are three high-voltage energy corridors located on the forests. Two corridors 

traverse the Sitgreaves NF, one containing 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines (26 miles) and 

one containing 345 kV transmission lines (27.8 miles). These are operated by Arizona Public 

Service and Salt River Project, respectively. One 345 kV transmission line, operated by Tucson 

Electric Power, crosses 12.2 miles of the Clifton Ranger District on the Apache NF. Local 

distribution and low voltage transmission lines (up to 230 kV) are not considered to be energy 

corridors.

Existing energy corridors are managed according to approved management plans. Energy 

corridors are generally not managed to provide recreation opportunities. They are managed for 

very low scenic integrity where vegetation and structural changes may attract attention and 

dominate the landscape when viewed from nearby.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Energy, and the Interior to designate energy transport corridors for oil, gas, and hydrogen 

pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities on Federal lands in portions of 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. One corridor has been designated for future transmission facilities 

across the Sitgreaves NF. It was identified in January 2009, by the Secretary of Agriculture’s 

Record of Decision (ROD) for the Designation of Section 368 Energy Corridors on National 

Forest System Land in 10 Western States. The 27.8 mile-long corridor across the forests has a 

width of 3,500 feet and is multimodal (i.e., pipelines and electricity transmission facilities). The 

existence of this corridor does not authorize any projects, does not mandate that future rights-ofway locate in the corridors, or preclude the Forest Service from denying a project or requiring 

design revisions. Following site-specific environmental analysis, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

would expedite, as possible, processing of applications to construct energy-related infrastructure 

(pipelines, transmission and distribution facilities) within the designated energy corridor.

Communications Sites

There are 34 communications sites on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Twenty-six of the sites are low 

power and for administrative use—supporting internal Forest Service communications. Eight are 

commercial sites authorized under a communications site lease. Generally, the leases are longterm commitments of 30 years. Seven of the commercial sites are low power. Porter Mountain 

communications site is a high power site broadcasting FM radio.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 423

Communications sites provide a variety of services to the general public. Facilities at these sites 

provide communication for State, county, and city municipalities, and forest administration, 

including radio antennas, microwave backbones, and wireless services.

Leases are issued to facility owners or managers who may rent space to other users. Associated 

infrastructure includes roads, power transmission lines, and telephone optic fibers. Lease holders 

typically need year-round access to service equipment. A list of communications sites is located 

in appendix C of the proposed plan.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Land Ownership

The potential and opportunity for land exchanges is not expected to vary by alternative. Across all 

alternatives, through the cooperation with other landowners, the forests would emphasize 

contiguous land ownership and access patterns through consolidation that benefit the private 

landowner, public, and natural resources. The opportunities for right-of-way acquisition would 

not change by alternative.

Alternative A would provide criteria and list specific areas for acquisition or exchange which 

narrows opportunities to work with local communities in addressing their expansion needs and 

public access to Federal land. Some areas identified for acquisition are no longer relevant. 

The action alternatives would identify criteria for acquisitions or exchanges without listing 

specific areas; this would allow the forests to be flexible and to make determinations based on the 

current needs of both the forests and local communities. There would be management emphasis 

to work with local communities to understand their community expansion needs, preserve open 

space and water, and retain access to NFS lands. 

The action alternatives would encourage cooperation with counties or local communities to 

identify lands to be excluded from consideration of future land exchanges. 

In all alternatives, land adjustments (e.g., exchanges, purchases) would consolidate the NFS land 

base, reduce administrative problems and costs, improve management efficiency for both NFS 

lands and intermingled private and State lands, enhance public access and use, and support 

resource management objectives.

Property Boundary Location and Encroachment

Alternative A would provide program direction for maintaining property boundary locations and 

managing encroachment and trespass on NFS lands.

The action alternatives would provide direction to maintain the forests’ boundary by annual 

survey and posting of the property boundary and would provide specific targets for trespass case 

resolution. Annual survey and boundary posting objectives would be based on available staffing 

and funding. Carrying out the objectives would lessen boundary location errors by both the Forest 

Service employees and community developers. This would also reduce trespass cases.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Special Uses

Alternative A would provide limited direction to respond to or work with adjacent land owners 

to address their demands. At the time the 1987 plan was written, the population of eastern Arizona 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 1995) was increasing but not at the current rate. Cities, towns, and 

communities were not pushing the limits of private or municipal (county) lands and, therefore, 

not realizing the limitations of available non-Federal land.

The action alternatives would recognize the influence of communities on NFS lands and the 

demand for authorized uses of NFS land. These alternatives would provide standards and 

guidelines based on meeting desired conditions. The alternatives would manage access from nonNFS development and subdivisions and provide common entry points available to both residents 

and the general public.

All alternatives would allow the authorization of occupancy and use of NFS land based on 

public need when services or uses cannot be met on private or other Federal lands. The issuance 

and administration of special use authorizations would continue to the level allowed by staffing, 

as directed by policy, law, regulations, and direction. Forest managers would pursue cost recovery 

to increase the efficiency and quality of services associated with authorizations for occupancy and 

use of NFS lands.

Authorization of non-Forest Service use on NFS lands may have adverse environmental 

consequences on some resources (e.g., construction of authorized facilities such as a 

communications site tower) in the short term and long term. Short-term environmental 

consequences may include increased human activity such as motorized traffic, noise from 

construction equipment, temporary roads, and ground disturbance during exploration activities 

and construction of the authorized facilities.

Long-term environmental consequences may include operation and maintenance of the authorized 

facilities over the life of the facility. Operation and maintenance activities may include increased 

human activity and noise, motorized vehicle traffic, or additional ground disturbance. 

Determination and implementation of mitigation measures and design may lessen environmental 

consequences.

Over the long term, the greater public and communities should benefit from services that are not 

provided on non-Federal lands. Authorizations that are a long-term commitment (more than 

5 years) and permit some type of construction or ground disturbance or alter the landscape would 

encumber NFS lands for the term of the authorizations and most likely for the foreseeable future. 

Few authorized constructed features are fully removed or the landscape is not fully rehabilitated.

Energy Corridors and Development

Alternative A would identify existing energy (utility) corridors and provide limited criteria for 

authorizing new energy corridors. The action alternatives would identify the existing energy 

corridors in the Energy Corridor Management Area and provide suitability criteria for 

establishing new energy corridors or other energy developments. Suitability is based primarily on 

management area type and can be found in chapter 4 of the proposed plan. Differences among the 

action alternatives are based on the acreage of land that could be available for new energy 

corridors and energy developments (infrastructure) (table 134).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 425

Table 134. Acres suitable for future consideration of new 

energy corridors or energy developments by alternative

Alternative Suitable Acres 

(Percent)

Not Suitable Acres 

(Percent)

A NA NA

B 889,701

(44%)

1,125,651

(56%)

C 1,007,492

(50%)

1,007,860

(50%)

D 784,420

(39%)

1,230,932

(61%)

Alternative C would have the most acres suitable for new energy corridors or other energy 

developments; while alternative B would have slightly less. Alternative D would have the least 

of the action alternatives, which reflects the greater acreage in the Recommended Wilderness 

Management Area. Resources on lands suitable for new energy corridors or developments could 

be affected if proposals are received and authorized. For example, wildlife could be displaced and 

their habitats altered. Cultural resources could also be affected by construction, maintenance, and 

operation of energy corridors and developments through disturbance of sites and increased human 

use of areas. However, energy corridors or developments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs could 

contribute to national energy needs. Conversely, lands not suitable for new energy corridors or 

developments would limit potential effects to wildlife, cultural resources, and other resources 

from these activities. There are no plans to add additional energy corridors or developments. New 

corridors or developments would be considered on a case-by-case basis and only after the 

appropriate environmental analysis.

Although not mapped as a separate management area, there is one corridor (see the “Affected 

Environment” section previously) on the Sitgreaves NF that has been designated for future 

transmission facilities in all alternatives. Applications for transmission lines and distribution 

facilities in this corridor would be priority for processing. If authorized, there would be similar 

environmental consequences to those listed above.

Communications Sites

Communications site administration and authorization would continue under all alternatives. 

Consideration of new sites is limited to existing locations in alternative A, which would not 

allow for further expansion or development of new sites in areas that are now being considered by 

communication providers as new technology is being developed. The action alternatives would 

emphasize locating new sites in existing locations but would also provide suitability guidance 

when consideration of non-NFS lands is exhausted. The acres of land suitable for new 

communications sites vary by alternative (table 135). There are no plans to add additional 

communications sites. New sites would be considered on a case-by-case basis and only after the 

appropriate environmental analysis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Table 135. Acres and percent of Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

suitable for future consideration of new communications sites

Alternative Suitable Acres 

(Percent)

Not Suitable Acres 

(Percent)

A NA NA

B 894,301

(44%)

1,121,051

(56%)

C 1,120,092

(56%)

895,260

(44%)

D 789,019

(39%)

1,226,333

(61%)

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative environmental consequences are spatially bounded by an area larger than the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs proclaimed boundary, generally the area immediately adjacent to the 

forests. Influences on occupancy and use of NFS lands, within the planning period, come from 

outside of the immediate area. Energy corridors are typically linked in to the western U.S. 

electrical grid. Land parcels included in adjustment packages are usually outside of the forests’ 

boundary. Communications site and transportation system service areas may include northern and 

eastern Arizona or the entire State. 

Under all alternatives, additional transmission lines across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would 

add cumulative environmental consequences by influencing management activities; such as a 

need for fuels reduction adjacent to the transmission lines, possible wildlife habitat fragmentation, 

or a change in the scenic integrity objective.

The Centennial West Clean Line would deliver 3,500 megawatts of renewable energy from 

northeastern New Mexico to communities in southern California and other areas in the West. The 

clean energy would be transported via an approximately 900-mile overhead, high-voltage direct 

current transmission line. The transmission line route has not yet been determined, but it could 

cross the northern portion of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Clean Line Energy Partners, 2011). 

Wind power is emerging in Arizona as a viable, stably priced, and local renewable electricity 

source. The Dry Lake wind plant, located near Snowflake, Arizona, is the first utility-scale project 

to be built in Arizona. The 63 megawatt project went online in August 2009, sending power to the 

electric grid. Several other projects are underway and are in various stages of the development 

process that could result in requests for additional transmission lines across the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. Under all alternatives, options would be limited for placement of new energy 

corridors and developments on the forests; this could result in proponents pursuing placement on 

other lands.

Cultural Resources

This section provides an overview of the affected environment and an assessment of the potential 

impacts each alternative could have to cultural resources on the forests. The potential acres 

treated within each potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) and the boundary of each 

management area was used to establish the area of potential effects to cultural resources. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 427

The cultural setting, site types, site distribution, survey information, and public outreach, 

interpretation, and education can be found in the “Cultural Resources Specialist Report” (Forest 

Service, 2014e) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• Wildland fire could occur across all NFS lands.

• Management response to a wildfire would be based on direction in the land management 

plan. Effects to cultural resources would be considered when determining the objectives 

and management response to a wildfire.

• Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as 

amended; 16 USC §470), adverse effects to cultural resources include a variety of criteria 

affecting the potential eligibility of cultural resources for inclusion on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Specifically, effects may be deemed adverse according to the 

following:

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or 

indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the 

property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would 

diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all 

qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may 

have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s 

eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance or be cumulative.

• Prior to making a project-level decision that is subject to NHPA, the forests would 

complete cultural resource surveys to locate and evaluate sites for the National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP) and analyze the effects of the proposed use or activity in 

compliance with the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic 

Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation 

Officer and Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer and Texas State Historic 

Preservation Officer and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation and United States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service Region 3 (Southwestern Region programmatic agreement) (Forest Service, 

2003). Following the identification and recording of cultural resources, mitigation 

measures appropriate to the proposed undertaking would be implemented. Such measures 

would most likely include avoidance of cultural resources by redesigning the project 

boundaries, modifying construction plans, or excluding site areas from treatments. In 

cases where specific activities would constitute an adverse effect and avoidance could not 

be accomplished, the adverse effects would be resolved in accordance with 36 CFR §800.

Affected Environment

Cultural resources represent the tangible and intangible evidence of human behavior and past 

human occupation. Cultural resources may consist of archaeological sites, historic-age buildings 

and structures, and traditional use areas and cultural places important to a group’s traditional 

beliefs, religion, or cultural practices. These types of resources are finite and nonrenewable with 

few exceptions. The lands of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs contain a long and diverse cultural 

record that begins approximately 12,000 years ago. Remnants of past and current human 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

activities and events can be found throughout the forests that reflect continuous use by Native 

peoples and the exploration, settlement, and management by Euro-American cultures. Based on 

current inventory surveys, it is estimated that over 100,000 cultural resource sites are located on 

the forests. At present, over 6,900 archaeological sites are recorded in the forests’ inventory and 

site files. Many of these sites are eligible for listing on the NRHP. The heritage program of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is responsible for the management of cultural resources for the benefit of 

the public through preservation, pubic use, and research.

Archaeological Site Types and Distribution

Cultural resources on the forests indicate a long and enduring human presence beginning in the 

Late Paleoindian (9500 to 6500 B. C.) period. Although most of the lands on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs have not been surveyed for cultural resources, over 6,900 archaeological sites 

have been identified within the boundaries of the forests (see figure 68). The archaeological sites 

associated with this human presence on the forests ranges in size and function. There are 13 

primary prehistoric site types (table 136) and several historic site types associated with 8 

categories of historic activities (table 137).

The majority of sites in the forests are found between 6,000 and 7,000 feet in elevation. Very few 

sites are found below 6,000 feet and above 8,000 feet. Corresponding to the 6,000- to 8,000-foot 

elevations, sites predominantly fall into either the woodlands (38 percent) or the ponderosa pine 

forests (35 percent). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 429

Table 136. Archaeological prehistoric site typesa

Type Description

Low-Density 

Artifact Scatters

Low-density artifact scatters consist of few artifacts spread over a large area (1 artifact 

per 10 m2). These scatters often do not meet the accepted definition for sites and usually 

lack the potential to provide significant information.

Lithic Scatters Lithic scatters are artifact scatters containing only flaked and/or ground stone artifacts. 

Ceramic Scatters 

(a.k.a. sherd scatters)

Ceramic scatters contain only ceramic sherds and are the results of activities that require 

the use of ceramic vessels such as carrying water or storage. 

Artifact Scatters Artifact scatters contain both lithic and ceramic artifacts. These scatters can be the result 

of activities that require both lithic and ceramic artifacts at resource procurement sites, 

habitation sites with either ephemeral or buried structures, or by the reuse of sites by 

individuals with different artifact types at their disposal.

Petroglyphs and 

Pictographs

Petroglyphs and pictographs are created images found on rock faces, often on rock 

outcroppings or in rock shelters. Petroglyphs are images pecked, incised, or carved into 

the rock’s surface, while pictographs are painted images. 

Water Control 

Devices

Water control devices such as check dams, grids, and terraces are designed to control the 

flow of water and/or facilitate the retention of soil moisture for agriculture. These 

features may or may not be associated with permanent or semipermanent habitation sites 

or fields.

Shrines Shrines are usually small circular or rectangular structures, often occurring at high 

elevation. Artifacts, such as beads or ceramics, are sometimes associated with these 

features.

Rock Shelters Rock shelters are natural occurring cavities or overhangs in rock formations that were 

used by people primarily for habitation. Many rock shelters were used by groups or 

individuals of several cultural periods and have multiple, successive layers of occupation. 

Rock shelter sites are a primary source of perishable artifacts such as basketry and 

textiles normally absent from open air sites.

Pithouse Sites Pithouse sites are habitation sites that predominantly date prior to A.D. 1000 and may 

consist of a single pithouse structure or multiple pithouses organized as a village. 

Pithouse sites range in size, depth, and construction, but they are all structures dug into 

the ground with a superstructure of wood branches and/or beams and dirt or adobe walls. 

Pueblo Sites Pueblo sites are habitation sites constructed of aboveground masonry that dominate the 

settlement system after A.D. 1000. Three different types of sites are categorized under the 

label “pueblo sites”: field houses commonly evidenced as a boulder pile over a small 

area; U-shaped structures with one or two rooms; and pueblos (roomblocks) with four 

walls consisting of two or more rooms. 

Great Kivas Great kivas are large circular ceremonial structures commonly evidenced on the surface 

as a circular depression. Great kiva sites may contain this feature type singly or can be 

associated with a larger pueblo site.

Compounds Compounds are walled enclosures measuring up to 100 m2. The function of these sites is 

unclear, but they often have a very different artifact assemblage from neighboring sites

Defensive Sites Defensive sites are characterized by defensive walls and locations with restricted access 

such as a hilltop.

a Plog, 1981a, 1981b
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Table 137. Historic-age activities and possible site typesa

Historic Period Activity 

or Context Site Types

Protohistoric (Apache, Yavapai, 

Navajo) occupation 

Temporary camps

Fields

Ramadas/shades 

Sweat lodges

Storage pits

Processing pits

Military Forts

Camps

Trails 

Battlefields

Blazed trees

Roads

Settlements Houses

Outhouses

Barns

Graveyards

Corrals

Public buildings

Trading posts

Farming Homesteads

Fields

Irrigation

Fence lines

Sheepherding Sheep crossings

Temporary camps

Sheep dipping vats 

Sweat houses

Water troughs

Ranching Ranch houses

Barns

Corrals

Outhouses 

Temporary camps

Line Shacks

Fence lines

Lumbering (a.k.a. Timber 

harvesting/Logging)

Camps

Landings

Railroad beds 

Sawmills

Forest Service and CCC Cabins

Fire towers

Roads 

Ranger stations

Camps

a Plog, 1981a
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 431

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

(adapted from Donaldson, n.d.)

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Lands Surveyed for Archaeological Sites

Most of the lands on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have not been surveyed for cultural resources. 

As of 2011, approximately 1,092,000 acres of the forests have been sample surveyed, of which 

386,100 acres have been intensively surveyed for cultural resources resulting in the identification 

of over 6,900 sites. Priorities for comprehensive archaeological surveys include the woodland 

PNVTs, Chevelon Canyon area, Blue Range Primitive Area, and the San Francisco and Eagle 

Creek River corridors. Table 138 shows the percent of each PNVT that has been intensively 

surveyed. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

PNVT

PNVT NFS

Acres

NFS 

Acres 

Surveyed

Percent of 

PNVT 

Intensively 

surveyed

Identified 

Sites in 

PNVT

Number of 

Surveyed 

Acres per 1 

Site

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian 

Forest

15,876 3,272 20% 207 96

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 147,885 24,538 17% 103 430

Great Basin Grassland 185,523 44,769 24% 1,147 60

Interior Chaparral 55,981 1,165 2% 24 83

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland 394,927 13,631 3% 347 76

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous 

Riparian Forest

9,657 607 6% 74 38

Montane Willow Riparian 

Forest

4,808 1,494 31% 37 55

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 51,559 7,482 15% 252 241

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 222,166 61,246 28% 2,571 31

Ponderosa Pine Forest 602,206 194,767 32% 2,594 85

Semi-desert Grassland 106,952 5,132 5% 120 98

Spruce-Fir Forest 17,667 278 2% 5 Unknown

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 177,995 23,981 13% 66 959

Wetland/Cienega Riparian 

Areas

17,900 2,947 16% 55 Unknown

Totals 2,011,102 385,309 19% * **

*Total number of recorded archaeological sites in table does not match total number referenced in text. If sites are 

located near the boundary of a PNVT, their spatial area may overlay multiple PNVTs resulting in double counting the 

site when selecting sites in the GIS Cultural Site data layer by PNVT. The data provides relative counts to see 

differences between PNVTs. The total number of acres surveyed only includes GIS Cultural Survey data for 

complete/intensive surveys for lands in current Federal ownership. Linear, point, and sample survey areas in the GIS 

Cultural Survey layer include acres that are completely surveyed but the data was excluded from this analysis because 

specific spatial data is missing. Total number of sites in PNVT includes sites that were not within complete survey 

areas.

**Total number of surveyed acres per site is based on sites located within complete survey areas.

National Register Status of Cultural Resources

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or National Register) is the official list of 

historic properties recognized by the Federal government as especially worthy of preservation on 

the forests for their national, state, or local significance. At present, over 6,900 archaeological 

sites are recorded. Of those, a minimum of 1,201 sites have been determined eligible for the 

NRHP. Approximately 170 sites have been determined not eligible for the NRHP. The eligibility 

status of the remaining sites is unevaluated. According to the R3 programmatic agreement and 

Forest Service policy, all unevaluated sites are treated as eligible until they are formally 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 433

determined eligible or not eligible for the NRHP. At present, 10 properties are listed on the 

NRHP. The following properties or areas are recommended as a priority for nomination to the 

NRHP (table 139).

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

to the National Register of Historic Places

Properties Listed on the 

National Register

Priority Properties for Nomination to the 

National Register

PS Knoll Lookout

Bear Mountain Lookout

Lake Mountain Lookout

Los Burros Ranger Station

Deer Springs Lookout

Promontory Butte Lookout

Pinedale Ranger Station

Water Canyon Administrative Site

Butterfly Lodgea

Bailey Ruin

Rudd Creek Rock Art Multiple Property Listing

Roundy Crossing

Black Canyon Rock Shelter

General Crook Trail/Road

Prison Point Great Kiva site

Foote Creek Canyon Complex

Blue River Drainage Multiple Property Listing

Eagle Creek Drainage Multiple Property Listing

Double Circle Ranch District

Historic XXX Ranch

Silver Creek Archaeological District (Pottery Hill, Cline Point, 

Hough’s Great Kiva, Cothrun’s Great Kiva)

Logging railroads of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

High elevation ceremonial sites

a Under private ownership

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs)

Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are defined in National Register Bulletin 38 as properties 

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

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

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

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

the National Register of Historic Places. With regard to the forests, TCPs are most often 

associated with American Indian cultures. Nine American Indian tribes have ancestral ties to 

lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Forest Service consultations with appropriate members 

of each tribe can identify the tribe’s historic and present day uses of the forests. See the

“American Indian Rights and Interests” section for more details.

Five American Indian tribes represented by nine tribal governments are known to have ancestral 

ties and/or traditional use areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs based on current and past 

consultation: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, San 

Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and the Ramah Chapter House of the Navajo Nation. Forest 

Service consultations with appropriate members of each tribe can identify the tribe’s historic and 

present-day uses of the forests. See the “American Indian Rights and Interests” section for more 

details.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The lands, resources, and the archaeological sites within the forests are considered traditionally 

significant to all affiliated tribes and, in some cases, certain resources or areas are considered 

sacred to a specific tribe(s). Each group has their own history, traditions, and relationship to the 

land and to other groups. Traditional use of the forests and its resources by the tribes dates back 

several generations and, for some groups, many centuries.

Known traditional use areas and cultural places located within the forests include, but are not 

limited to spruce forests, mountains, cinder cones, springs, caves, trails, and shrines. Among the 

better known TCPs and sacred sites or areas known to have been used and/or continue to be used 

for traditional cultural purposes that have been identified in ethnographic reports, archaeological 

reports, professional papers, and through project-level tribal consultations include, but are not 

limited to, Escudilla Mountain, Mount Baldy, Greens Peak, Rose Peak, Gobbler Peak, St. Peters 

Dome, Burro Mountain, Antelope Mountain, Pole Knoll, Flume Mountain SU Knoll, Head of 

Chevelon Canyon, Chevelon Butte, areas near Aspen Lake, numerous springs, caves, and the 

Little Colorado River. In some cases there are multiple areas used for collection of resources or 

religious ceremonies on or within the vicinity of the topographic feature. Many other areas 

located on the forests are used for traditional cultural purposes, but they have not been 

specifically identified. Additional areas may be identified through project or permit specific tribal 

consultation. Therefore, the inventory of known TCPs, sacred sites, and areas used for traditional 

cultural purposes is subject to change; the list provided here is not comprehensive.

Many of the shrine locations have been adversely impacted by management actions or vandalism 

(looting) that occurred prior to passing the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966. For example, Greens Peak shrine was destroyed by the construction of 

a fire lookout tower. Rose Peak shrine was severely impacted by the lookout complex. Harris 

Cave and Bear Cave were looted at the turn of the century. Bead Spring shrine was looted by 

vandals and damaged by forest management activities. Escudilla Mountain has been impacted by 

construction of a road and a fire lookout tower. Big Springs has been damaged from recreation 

and water development. Coon Spring was capped and developed for a city water source.

Many of the shrines have been disturbed or severely damaged which has reduced their potential 

to yield significant scientific data. Although aspects of their physical integrity have been altered 

or no longer exist, these locations may still be eligible for the NRHP and have been identified by 

the tribes as still important in maintaining the traditions and beliefs of their community.

No additional impacts to TCPs from ground disturbance have occurred within Mount Baldy and 

Bear Wallow Wilderness areas since these areas were designated in 1970 and 1984, respectively.

Current Condition of Archaeological Sites 

Past practices, including Forest Service management activities, public resource procurement, 

recreation use, and natural processes have impacted cultural resources. Multiple uses and 

activities on the forests that have resulted in the most impacts to cultural resources include 

infrastructure, livestock grazing, fire, timber and vegetation management, recreation activities, 

looting and vandalism, and land adjustments (see table 140). A more in-depth description of past 

effects can be found in the “Cultural Resources Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014e) in the 

“Plan Set of Documents.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 435

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

Type of Activity Effects Number of Sites 

Impacteda

Infrastructure (most roads 

constructed for timber 

harvesting)

Displacement, alteration, damage, and destruction 

of features and artifacts. Compaction.Erosion.

785

(of which 626 sites 

impacted from NFS 

roads)

Livestock Grazing Disturbance by cattle or sheep.

Trampling, crushing, compaction.

Alteration, damage, and destruction to features. 

Erosion.

123

(of which 8 sites 

damaged from tank and 

pipeline construction)

Fire and Fire-Suppression 

Activities

Destruction, alteration, and damage to features 

and artifacts. Refiring, melting, spalling. Erosion.

696

Timber Harvesting (saw 

timber, pulpwood, firewood)

Displacement, alteration, damage, and destruction 

to features and artifacts. Removal of artifacts. 

Erosion.

263

Piñon-Juniper Treatments

(pushing and chaining)

Displacement, alteration, damage, and destruction 

to features and artifacts. Exposure of features and 

artifacts. Erosion.

75

Recreation Activities Unintentional vandalism (e.g., clearing features 

and artifacts from area for camping, reuse of 

features and masonry for camping activities). 

44

Looting and Vandalism Displacement, alteration, damage, and destruction 

of features and artifacts. Removal of artifacts.

225

Lands Transfer to non-Federal ownership. Removal of 

artifacts, systematic excavation of cultural 

materials and features.

56

a The actual number of impacted sites caused from timber harvesting, piñon-juniper treatments, and looting is higher. 

The total number of sites impacted in the table only represents a review of 1,908 records and the available site 

condition data for records in the forests INFRA database.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Treatments that would restore vegetation types to their desired conditions and natural fire regimes 

would decrease the potential for adverse effects to cultural resources from uncharacteristic high 

intensity and high severity fires. These treatments would also lead to the restoration of natural 

processes and the landscape which, in turn, have the potential to restore the historic setting and 

cultural landscapes of the forests. 

Ground-disturbing activities (includes mechanical activities) are the dominant cause of potential 

adverse impacts to cultural resources in all alternatives. The potential types of effects to cultural 

resources from the proposed treatments in all alternatives would be the same. Differences, 

however, may be found among the alternatives regarding the numbers of cultural resources that 

would be potentially impacted by the treatments. All the alternatives propose treatments that 

result in restoring ecosystem health. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

National Register Sites and TCPs

The 1987 plan (alternative A) has not been amended to reflect the 1992 requirements and 

amendments to the NHPA. The 1992 amendments clarified Section 110 language terms, and 

required each Federal agency to establish a historic preservation program. The program must 

provide for the identification and protection of the agency’s historic properties; ensure that such 

properties are maintained and managed with due consideration for preservation of their historic 

values; and contain procedures to implement Section 106, which must be consistent with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations. The 1987 plan also does not 

address requirements of the Native American Graves Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), 

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Order 13175 Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and Executive Order 13287 Preserve America. 

The focus of management and guidelines for forest resources within the 1987 plan (alternative 

A) were developed prior to the passage or issuance of these statutes which has led to more 

impacts to historic properties. Emphasis is on use of timber and multiple-use activities that 

incorporate the location of archaeological sites and TCPs that may not be compatible with those 

uses. The action alternatives have incorporated the passage of these statues and issuance of 

executive orders providing for increased consideration and management to preserve historic 

properties for their historic and cultural values.

Under all alternatives, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would continue to fulfill their responsibilities 

to conduct non-project related inventory surveys and nominate sites eligible to the NRHP to 

protect and preserve cultural resources per Section 110 of NHPA, Executive Order 11593, and 

Section 14 of Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA). Internal and outside 

funding sources, researchers, partners, and volunteers would be sought to assist in research and 

preservation projects. Public outreach and interpretation would continue to be provided through 

heritage programs, projects, and interpretive materials. The identification, evaluation, and 

analysis of the effects from proposed actions to cultural resources eligible, nominated, or listed on 

the NRHP would be completed to meet the requirements of Section 106 of NHPA.

Although most of the following discussion regarding impacts focuses on effects to archaeological 

sites, traditional use areas accessed for the collection of traditional materials may also be 

impacted. See the “American Indian Rights and Interests” section for other environmental 

consequences associated with TCPs and sacred sites.

Infrastructure

In all alternatives, infrastructure would be maintained. The 1987 plan (alternative A) only 

specifies that the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would comply with NHPA. NHPA requires that adverse 

impacts are resolved which usually results in the excavation and recovery of the significant and 

scientific information. Since alternative A does not provide suitability standards and guidelines 

for infrastructure (e.g., roads, communications sites) that address cultural resources and TCPs, 

more TCPs have been adversely impacted over the life of the plan. The action alternatives

would result in less potential for adverse effects to cultural resources. Standards and guidelines 

provide direction for areas (e.g., high site density, on TCPs and sacred sites) not suitable for new 

infrastructure (e.g., permanent roads, communications sites, power lines). This would increase the 

potential of the forests to meet the desired conditions for cultural resources by reducing the types 

of proposed actions that may adversely affect those resources in those locations and reduce the 

potential of causing additional impacts to TCPs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 437

Livestock Grazing

In all alternatives, livestock grazing would continue. Site-specific actions and the level of 

permitted use would be determined at the time of the project-level decision. Potential effects from 

grazing would be the same for all alternatives since there would be no change by alternative in 

the allotments available for livestock grazing. It is recognized that cultural resources have been 

subjected to grazing for over a hundred years, at levels much higher than current grazing 

practices, and that some degree of impacts may have already occurred. Livestock grazing can 

negatively impact sites by trampling, artifact breakage, soil compaction, soil removal, toppling 

masonry walls, and other types of damage to features as livestock walk through a site. Grazing 

can indirectly impact sites through loss of ground cover which, in turn, leads to erosion. 

Sites sensitive to grazing impacts include, but are not limited to, ruins with free-standing walls, 

historic structures, and TCPs. In locations where cattle are likely to be attracted to or congregate, 

rock shelters and rock art sites may also be sensitive sites. The effects on cultural resources would 

be analyzed by allotment at the project-level. The forests would follow appendix J of the R3 

programmatic agreement for rangeland management to meet Section 106 responsibilities. The 

protocol defines the procedures by which cultural resources (listed, eligible, and unevaluated 

sites) would be considered in planning and conducting rangeland management activities.

Fire

Non-mechanized treatments include planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned ignitions (wildfire) 

to address vegetation conditions. In the past, frequent low-intensity fires occurred across the 

forests. Generally, low-intensity fires have not adversely impacted prehistoric sites that are not 

fire sensitive or composed of combustible material. Conversely, most historic sites are either 

combustible or include combustible cultural material. 

Under all alternatives, the use of wildland fire could result in adverse impacts including historic 

sites completely burning down; prehistoric rock structures spalling apart from exposure to very 

high temperatures; ceramic material re-firing; obsidian artifacts melting (caused by high-intensity 

fire);site features undergoing accelerated erosion because of hydrophobic soils (caused from high 

intensity and long duration fires); cultural features and structures being displaced or damaged by 

killed trees falling and uprooting the ground surface; creation of burned stump holes that result in 

erosion; and cultural materials being exposed to increased erosion and the potential for theft 

because of vegetation removal from the ground surface. 

Suppression responses may adversely affect cultural resources by altering and/or damaging the 

cultural materials by construction of hand and mechanical control lines that remove, crush, and or 

displace cultural materials and features. Large and small fire camps may cause effects similar to 

camping (see following impacts from recreation effects). Some fire retardants may permanently 

stain the cultural materials. 

The use of wildland fire as a management tool for vegetation treatments would have the most 

potential to affect cultural resources in alternative D. Alternative D would have the potential to 

result in a higher amount of acres in the ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper PNVTs affected by 

mixed severity and high severity (stand replacing) fire to meet desired conditions. Since it 

emphasizes natural processes (fire), this alternative would have a higher potential for temporary, 

indirect impacts from erosion and vandalism caused from exposure of cultural materials and 

features by burning off the vegetation. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Alternative B would have the next highest potential for mixed severity and stand replacement 

fire. Mixed severity fire effects do not directly equate to sites being permanently altered and 

damaged. For many sites, the effects from mixed severity fires depend on the site type and the 

temperature and duration of heat on the ground surface. Alternative B would affect more acres

by mixed and high severity fire treatments than alternative C, potentially resulting in a higher 

number of cultural resources that could be adversely affected. Alternative A would have the least 

potential for wildland fire treatments to result in high severity that could adversely affect cultural 

resources. See table 141 below.

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

Low Severity Mixed Severity High Severity

Alternative Low High Low High Low High

Aa 5,038 5,038 1,513 1,513 293 293

B 837 5,859 12,035 35,181 864 2,379

C 566 5,566 2,426 15,737 130 1,284

D 1,748 11,653 15,800 62,905 1,080 3,765

a Based on the past 25-year average of wildland fire treatments. No breakdown of burn type available, however, the 

vast majority (95%) is estimated to be low severity.

Traditional cultural areas used for collecting forest and mineral resources could be affected by the 

temporary closure of areas from wildfires and treatments. Many of the traditionally used plants 

respond to fire by increasing productivity. Alternatives D and B propose the most acres treated 

by wildland fire and would potentially increase the long-term productivity of traditionally used 

forest resources and availability of those resources across the landscape. Access to visiting 

cultural resources (archaeological sites and TCPs) could be affected in the short term during 

implementation of prescribed burn treatments. 

Conducting prescribed burns has the potential to restore the natural and cultural landscape and the 

natural fire regime, reducing the potential for permanent adverse effects from high intensity, high 

severity fires. Mechanized treatments (see the section below on “Vegetation Management”) has 

similar benefits to cultural resources as wildland fire treatments because they would reduce the 

potential for permanent adverse effects from fire, but these treatments have the highest potential 

for long-term indirect effects from erosion caused from intensive ground disturbance near sites. 

Also, slash from mechanized treatments is often piled burned, resulting in more locations with 

hydrophobic soils and increasing erosion to sites if the piles were located near sites. 

Vegetation Management

Mechanical treatments refer to a variety of possible tools to meet objectives. These include, but 

are not limited to, hand thinning by chain saws; feller-bunchers to cut trees and lop slash; 

skidders to move material to landings; bulldozers to push and pile trees and slash; heavy 

equipment to topple trees over by chaining; and other specialized heavy equipment that can be 

driven over the ground surface to cut, chop, grind, crush, and lop trees and shrubs. Vegetation is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 439

mechanically cleared from areas (landings) approximately 1⁄4 to 1 acre in size with an average of 

one landing every 20 acres to assist in removing and accessing materials. For a majority of the 

treatments, the existing road system would be used and maintained with minor reconstruction and 

maintenance. Some temporary roads may be constructed. Some of the major forest system roads 

and highways that would be used for access and transportation are historic linear properties that 

could be or have been determined eligible for the State or National Register of Historic Places 

(e.g., Forest Road 300, State Highways 77 and 260, U.S. Highway 191). 

Under all alternatives, mechanical treatments to remove timber could damage or destroy sites 

through the removal, displacement, breakage, or destruction of cultural materials, features, and 

structures. Activities that have the potential to result in adverse impacts include, but are not 

limited to construction of hauling roads and landings, movement of heavy equipment across the 

ground surface, pushing and crushing and piling harvest material and slash on or across the 

ground surface, skidding of trees and indirect impacts from overharvesting, which can lead to 

erosion, and cutting and the removal of historic features (i.e., aspen dendroglyphs, blazed trees, 

culturally modified/peeled trees). 

Alternatives that propose to treat more acres in PNVTs that have a higher density of sites have a 

higher potential for effects (as listed above). Alternative A would have the least amount of 

potential effects. Alternative C would have a higher potential for impacts from grounddisturbing treatments than alternatives B or D (table 142). 

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

impacted

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

Mechanical

Acres Sites MechanicalAcres Sites MechanicalAcres Sites Mechanical Acres Sites 

12,182 115 19,591 260 23,997 256 15,954 224

Management of cultural resources would have the most effect on mechanized treatments in 

alternative C, based on the average number of acres proposed for mechanized treatment for 

PNVTs with the most sites and the average estimated cost per acre for cultural resource 

inventories. Alternative C would potentially result in the highest cost to the government to 

complete the potential compliance for cultural resources. The next highest costs would be for 

alternative B, followed by alternatives D and A. Table 143 displays the estimated annual 

average cost to complete 100 percent survey in planned mechanical treatment areas with the 

highest site density (ponderosa pine forest, Madrean pine-oak and piñon-juniper woodlands, and 

Great Basin grassland).

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

mechanical treatment areas by alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

$243,570 $468,560 $479,220 $372,390
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Recreation Activities

Alternative A (1987 plan) would have the most potential to adversely affect cultural resources 

since the 1987 plan does not provide standards, guidelines, and suitability for motorized and 

nonmotorized recreation that address cultural resources. This has resulted in more cultural 

resources being adversely affected over the life of the plan. Alternative A would continue to 

allow motorized cross-country travel. Unrestricted motorized access to remote sites increases the 

potential for vandalism, including illegal excavation (looting), damage or destruction to standing 

architecture or rock art, and collection of surface artifacts. Motorized use may remove vegetation 

that protects and covers archaeological materials. When cultural materials are exposed, the more 

decorative artifacts and collectable historic objects may disappear through illegal collecting. 

Alternative A would have the least potential to meet the desired conditions for cultural resources.

The action alternatives would result in less potential for adverse effects to cultural resources and 

have a higher potential to move the forests toward the desired conditions for cultural resources. 

Standards, guidelines, and suitability in the action alternatives would provide direction for areas 

(e.g., high site density, on TCPs and sacred sites) where certain activities (e.g., nonmotorized, 

mechanized, motorized travel) would not be suitable. These alternatives would eliminate 

motorized cross-country travel. The potential to disturb cultural resources would be reduced 

because fewer lands would be open to motor vehicle use, resulting in a beneficial effect to 

cultural resources. The adverse effects to remote cultural sites from motorized cross-country 

travel would be reduced and, in some areas, stopped. These action alternatives would also place 

a greater emphasis on the provision of recreation opportunities. This may result in more 

developed interpretive sites and development of interpretive cultural resource brochures for 

routes and trails. Alternative C, because of the emphasis on developed recreation, would provide 

the most potential to restore, stabilize, and preserve historic facilities that could be used for public 

use. For example, historic facilities could be restored and maintained as part of the cabin rental 

program.

Alternative D would recommend the most acres for wilderness. It would provide the most 

potential to benefit cultural resources. Protection of wilderness values indirectly protects cultural 

resources by eliminating certain management activities that have the potential to adversely affect 

cultural resources (e.g., mechanized treatments and uses, construction of roads and facilities). 

Alternatives B and C would have the next highest potential to benefit cultural resources. Areas 

recommended for wilderness in both of these alternatives contain cultural resources that are 

significant at the national level. Managing these areas for wilderness values would have the 

highest potential to protect these resources and keep them generally free from adverse effects. 

These alternatives would have the potential to reduce the amount of projects that involve ground 

disturbance, which would result in reducing the amount of inventory surveys in these areas that 

would be conducted to identify and evaluate sites for the NRHP. Alternative A would not 

recommend additional wilderness.

Looting and Vandalism

Alternatives B and C, which propose the most acres for mechanized treatments in PNVTs with a 

higher density of sites, would have the most potential to increase incidents and damage from 

looting and vandalism. More incidents of looting are found in areas where there is more human 

activity and accessibility to sites. There would be less risk associated with looting and vandalism 

in alternatives A and D.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 441

Lands

All alternatives would have the same potential to impact cultural resources from land 

adjustments. Land adjustments have the potential to adversely affect the use and characteristics of 

cultural resources. Conveying cultural resources that are eligible or listed on the National Register 

out of Federal ownership is an adverse effect. The resources would no longer be protected and 

managed under Federal laws and regulations and Forest Service policy. 

Exchanges of Federal lands may affect and/or prevent the access and use of traditional cultural 

properties (TCP) by American Indian tribes. Once the lands are transferred out of Federal 

ownership, the tribes would not be guaranteed the same rights of access and use of the TCP or 

area for traditional purposes. Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and Forest Service 

policy regarding American Indian rights and interests would no longer apply. 

Land adjustments may also potentially have a positive effect on cultural resources. Cultural 

resources on acquired private lands would come under protection of Federal laws and 

management. Acquired private lands, including TCPs that were previously inaccessible to tribes, 

would be accessible for traditional proposes. No specific areas for acquisition or exchange are 

proposed. Site-specific analysis would be completed at the time a proposal is under consideration.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Federal, State, and tribal lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs compose the cumulative 

effects analysis area for cultural resources. Many recorded sites on the forests are at least 

regionally significant and some are nationally significant. This regional or national importance of 

some sites within the forests reinforces the need for protecting significant local cultural resources 

that may be affected from cumulative impacts of management activities within the forests and 

region.

Current and previous Forest Service management activities, recreation, general public uses, and 

natural processes have impacted cultural resources. Multiple archaeological sites would be 

adversely affected by the improvement and realignment work on U.S. Highway 60 Silverking to 

Superior. Improvement to SR 77 may have additional adverse effects to prehistoric archaeological 

sites. Several land exchanges that involve forest lands (including transfer out of NFS ownership) 

may lead to adverse effects to multiple archaeological sites and one known TCP. Most of these 

sites would require data recovery (excavation) to resolve adverse effects. Data recovery involves 

the scientific recovery of significant information through destructive methods The Coconino and 

Kaibab NFs have completed a draft environmental impact statement for the Four Forest 

Restoration Initiative (4FRI). The proposed action involves landscape-scale vegetation treatments 

using mechanized vegetation removal and wildland fire. This proposed action is expected to 

result in no adverse effects to cultural resources and reduce the potential for permanent adverse 

effects from uncharacteristic high intensity and high severity fires. Inventory surveys that would 

be conducted for 4FRI would result in recording archaeological sites and TCPs and allow for 

better management of cultural resources and increasing scientific knowledge. Passports in Time 

(PIT) projects are being conducted. Under all alternatives, implementation of the proposed 

treatments for 4FRI and future Apache-Sitgreaves NFs vegetation treatments would result in a 

beneficial cumulative impact to cultural resources by increasing the amount of acres surveyed for 

cultural resources and reducing the potential adverse effects from uncharacteristic wildfires.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

American Indian Rights and Interests

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act declares that the policies of the U.S. shall preserve 

and protect the American Indian’s freedom to practice their religion. This includes the right to 

have access to religious sites, to use and retain sacred objects, and to conduct ceremonials and 

practice traditional rites on the forests. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the 

government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden 

results from a rule of general applicability, except when the government demonstrates that 

application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. 

This section includes a review of the current conditions and an assessment of the potential 

impacts each alternative could have on tribal access and use of the forests. The area of potential 

effect includes the lands and resources of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and the potential effect to 

tribal resources and/or rights within lands adjacent to the forests. The full analysis for American 

Indian rights and interests can be found in the “American Indian Rights and Interests Specialist 

Report” (Forest Service, 2014b) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

To determine how the alternatives would affect the use and access to religious sites (1) an 

inventory of the known traditional cultural properties (TCPs) and sacred sites were identified 

through known and accessible ethnographic reports, archaeological reports, and tribal 

consultation responses; (2) a review of past and current accommodations to tribes to access and 

use TCPs, sacred sites, and resources for ceremonial purposes was completed; and (3) a review of 

known existing tribal rights was conducted to determine how the alternatives could potentially 

affect tribal rights.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• Members of American Indian tribes would continue to access, use, and/or conduct 

religious pilgrimages and ceremonies at known TCPs and sacred sites and collect forest 

and botanical resources.

• The lands and resources of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs used by American Indian tribes 

for traditional cultural purposes and traditional use will not be used for commercial use.

• Prior to making a project-level decision that is subject to National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), the forests will consult tribes to identify TCPs and sacred sites, evaluate 

TCPs for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and analyze the effects of the 

proposed use or activity in compliance with the First Amended Programmatic Agreement 

Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic 

Preservation Officer and Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer and Texas State 

Historic Preservation Officer and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer, and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Region 3 (Southwestern Region programmatic agreement) (Forest Service, 

2003) and/or memorandum of understandings with tribes. Following the identification 

and recording of TCPs, mitigation measures appropriate to the proposed undertaking will 

be implemented. Measures will be determined through consultation. Most likely they will 

include avoidance by redesigning the project boundaries and/or changing the time/season 

of when the project is implemented. In cases where specific activities would constitute an 

adverse effect and avoidance cannot be accomplished, the adverse effects will be 

resolved in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 443

Affected Environment

Five American Indian tribes represented by nine separate tribal governments have cultural ties to 

lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Forest Service consultations with appropriate members 

of each tribe can identify the tribe’s historic and present day traditional uses and sacred sites of 

the area. The lands, resources, and the archaeological sites within the forests are considered 

traditionally significant to all affiliated tribes and, in some cases, certain resources or areas are 

considered sacred to one or more. TCPs may be eligible to the NRHP because of their association 

with cultural practices and beliefs rooted in history and their importance in maintaining the 

cultural identity of ongoing American Indian communities. The following five American Indian 

tribes are known to have ties to the forests: Hopi, Navajo, Western Apache (San Carlos, Tonto, 

and White Mountain), Yavapai, and Zuni.

Each group has their own history, traditions, and relationship to the land and to other groups. 

Traditional use of forest lands and their resources by the tribes dates back several generations 

and, for some groups, many centuries. The tribes are discussed in alphabetical order.

Hopi

The Hopi are a northern Uto-Aztecan-speaking people that reside in 12 villages on 3 mesas along 

the southern border of the larger Black Mesa in northeastern Arizona. The traditional Hopi land 

(Tutsqwa) covers an area far greater than the current reservation. It extends west to the Middle 

Verde River Valley, to the Bill Williams Mountains, and to the Grand Canyon (Senior, 2005). 

Traditional Hopi migration histories extend well beyond this heartland, however, and the Hopi 

used resources, trails, and maintained trading relationships well beyond the boundaries of 

Tutsqwa (Ferguson and Dongoske, 1994). Origin stories suggest that the current Hopi are a 

combination of peoples (clans) who arrived at the current Hopi villages from many directions. 

According to Hopi traditions, migration paths from their emergence ranged west to California, 

south to Mexico and east to the Rio Grande Valley. There was also a series of migrations from the 

San Juan region to the Black Mesa area of Arizona. Eventually, these migrations took the Hopi 

ancestors across the Southwest until they arrived at their place on the Hopi Mesas (Courlander, 

1971). Through previous project consultations the Hopi have identified 13 clans as being 

associated with Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: Badger, Sand, Corn, Tobacco, Water, Sun, Parrot, 

Katisina, Crow, Lizard, Butterfly, Bear, and Eagle. 

Hopi traditions of preservation and protection of sacred sites and subsistence-gathering areas are 

important and vital to the Hopi way of life. Many archaeological sites affiliated with the Cibola 

Anasazi and Mogollon archaeological cultures are located on the forests. The Hopi claim 

affiliation to these cultural groups. Preservation of archaeological sites is a key religious value to 

the Hopi. Each of the places that the Hopi ancestors stopped during their migration is considered 

TCPs by the contemporary Hopi and is remembered in their songs and stories. Because Hopi 

religion has its foundation in the emergence and migration stories, and because archaeological 

sites are interpreted by the Hopi as a part of this foundation, archaeological materials throughout 

Arizona are very important to the Hopi (Senior, 2003). The Hopi homeland and traditional use 

area encompasses the west half of the Black Mesa Ranger District. The Hopi homeland includes 

shrines, sacred natural features, eagle trapping locations, and regions where salt is collected 

(Ellis, 1974). The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs were also part of the Hopi hunting and plant collection 

area. The Hopi have traditionally gathered spruce boughs, snakes, eagles, tobacco (Nicotiana 

attenuata, Nicotiana trigonophylla), Indian tea (Theleperma megapotamicum), grasses, and other 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

natural resources within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The Hopi have noted that they shared lands 

with the Zuni in historic and pre-contact times (Senior, 2005). At present, the Hopi have 

identified Chevelon Butte and Chevelon Cliffs as sacred sites and archaeological sites as TCPs. 

Navajo (Din’e)

The boundary of the traditional Navajo homeland is symbolized by their four sacred mountains, 

although the aboriginal use area extends beyond these markers. The sacred mountains are Blanca 

Peak (Sis Naajinii) near Alamosa, Colorado; Mount Taylor (Tsoo Dzil) near Grants, New Mexico; 

the San Francisco Peaks (Dook’o’oosliid) near Flagstaff, Arizona; and the La Plata Mountains 

(Dibe Ntasaa) near Durango, Colorado (BOR, 1995). The Navajo are one of the Apachean tribes 

who are linguistically tied to the Southern Athapaskans who migrated from the north into the 

American Southwest between A.D. 1000 and 1500. They were a nomadic hunting and gathering 

people who lived in small, scattered bands. They raided and traded with the Spanish and Pueblo 

peoples (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). Historical accounts support that the Navajo were established 

in northeastern Arizona in the 1600s. By the mid-1800s they were practicing a lifestyle of farming 

and grazing livestock, in addition to their nomadic methods of subsistence. 

Very little physical evidence of the Navajo presence has been recorded on the forests. 

Historically, the Navajo are known to have traded with the Yavapai; traditional routes may be 

present on the forests. During the Fort Sumner period, the Navajo were living (hiding out) in 

Chevelon Canyon, in the vicinity of Potato Wash, and Escudilla Mountain (Senior, 2005). The 

earliest physical evidence of Navajo use of the area dates from the 1920s and 1930s when 

Navajos were employed in the timber industry. The Navajo have identified Escudilla Mountain, 

Chevelon Butte, and the Little Colorado River as sacred places (Vannette and Fearey, 1981; 

Senior, 2005). The Navajo also consider any remaining sweat lodges on the forests to be TCPs. 

All springs and natural water sources are significant places and especially valued by the Navajo 

(Senior, 2005). 

Western Apache (Indé) 

The Western Apache comprise the Cibeque, the San Carlos, the Tonto (Dil zhéé), and the White 

Mountain Apache tribes. The Western Apache territory is bounded on the east by the Pinaleno 

Mountains, on the south by the Salt River, along the north by the upper Verde Valley and 

Flagstaff, and along the west by the Mazatzal Mountains. Linguistically, the Western Apache 

(Indé) are tied to Southern Athapaskan speakers who migrated from the north and arrived in the 

American Southwest between A.D. 1000 and 1500 (as summarized by Basso, 1983 and Perry, 

1991). Traditional creation beliefs of the Indé, however, are firmly rooted in the mountains of the 

Southwest (Sine, 1988 as quoted in Hilpert, 1996). Important Indé ceremonial beings, who 

figured prominently in their creation stories, the Gán (also Gaan), are associated with 

Southwestern mountains, peaks, and especially caves where they gain access to the spirit world 

under the mountains. The Western Apache identify the essence of Indé culture and virtue with 

mountains and their traditional lands, and this is most often associated with morals of stories tied 

to specific named places (Basso, 1996 and 1997; Hilpert, 1996).

Originally, the Western Apache practiced a nomadic hunting and gathering way of life. By the 

1600s they had also adopted farming in the spring and summer and a seasonal cycle of food 

gathering (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). After the introduction and contact with Spanish livestock 

and horses, the Apaches adapted their way of life to include raiding the Spanish and other tribes 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 445

for livestock and food. The traditional nomadic way of life of the Western Apache was 

exterminated when the current reservations were established in 1874 after the Western Indian 

wars with the U.S. government. Only the White Mountain Apache were located in a portion of 

their traditional homeland and were near the sacred mountains which are the deepest sources of 

Apache identity and culture (Grahame and Sisk, 2002). Since many of the Apachean artifacts 

were made of perishable materials, they are rare and most date to historic times. Apachean sites 

have been recorded on the forests. The forests are encompassed within the traditional subsistence 

use area of the Western Apache. Plants and trees traditionally used by the Apache include, but are 

not limited to, mescal agave (Agave parryi), yucca, piñon nuts, acorns (Emory oak), bear grass, 

aspen, reeds, and cattails. Mount Baldy and Escudilla Mountain have been identified as specific 

Apache sacred places on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Yavapai

Yavapai have stated that their people have been here in Arizona since time immemorial and that 

they were the first true Arizonans. The boundary of the of the Yavapai territory ranged from the 

San Francisco Peaks, to the area occupied by the modern communities of Williams and Ash Fork,

to the area north of the Santa Maria and Bill Williams Rivers; it then continued west to the 

mountains and sometimes the lowlands along the Colorado River as far south as Yuma, then south 

along the Gila River to the Pinal Mountains, and then east along Tonto Creek up thorough the 

Superstition Mountains to the Mogollon Rim (Khera and Mariella, 1983, p. 38). Linguistically,

the Yavapai are part of the Upland Yuman language, which the Hualapai and Havasupai are the 

other two other major dialects. Some researchers believe the Yavapai were part of the Yuman 

migration from the West into Arizona after A.D. 1100; while others believe the Yavapai are the 

descendants of the southern Sinagua people. The Yavapai primarily practiced a seasonal hunting 

and gathering lifestyle and some agriculture (Khera and Mariella, 1983). Historically, they are 

known to have traded with the Apache, Navajo, and Hopi. Traditional trading routes may be 

located within the forests. The Yavapai had a closer relationship with the Western Apache and 

some intermarriage took place. Plants and animals that were traditionally hunted and gathered by 

the Yavapai are found within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Presently the Yavapai have not 

specifically identified areas or places of traditional and/or of religious significance on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (Senior, 2005).

Zuni

The Zuni reservation is in west-central New Mexico and eastern Arizona, with the population and 

cultural center at Zuni Pueblo in New Mexico. The Zuni traditional homeland encompasses an 

area stretching from the Grand Canyon and San Francisco Peaks in Arizona, to the Abajo 

Mountains in Utah and Colorado, to the Sandia Mountains near Albuquerque, New Mexico, and 

the Mogollon, Gallo, and Tularosa Mountains in New Mexico (NAU and SWCA, 1996). 

Zuni origin stories relate how the Zuni people were created in the Fourth World and emerged into 

the Fifth World (this world) from a location in a side canyon along the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon. From there, the people began their migrations, stopping at numerous places along the 

way (NAU and SWCA, 1996). During this time the people split into four groups. One group 

headed north to Chaco Canyon, a second group went northeast up the Zuni River, a third 

southeast toward the White Mountains, and the fourth group went south, never to be heard from 

again. The first three groups rejoined at Halona:Iti-wana, the Middle Place, today known as Zuni 

Pueblo (Ferguson, 2007). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

During their migrations through most of Arizona and New Mexico, the Zuni established many 

homes, camps, trails, shrines, and burial grounds. The Zuni claim cultural affiliations with the 

archaeological sites identified with the Cibola Anasazi and Mogollon archaeological cultures 

located on the forests. Zunis claim affiliation to these cultural groups. To the Zuni, these 

migration-related sites are imbued with life and spiritual forces that continue to be important to 

the Zuni people through their religion. 

The Zuni consider their traditional homeland to be all the places that their ancestors traveled to 

and visited. Each of the places that the Zuni ancestors stopped during their migration is 

considered sacred by the contemporary Zuni and are remembered in their prayers and still visited 

by the Zuni people. Shrines are actively maintained by a select group of Zuni. As of 1846 the 

Zuni had placed war god shrines along the Mogollon Rim to protect the Zuni area. A Zuni watch 

tower on the rim was located in the late 1800s near the town of Springerville (Senior, 2005). The 

Mogollon Rim was a natural boundary between the Zuni and the Apache. Trails used by the Zunis 

also hold religious importance and are cared for through blessings and prayers. The forests are 

encompassed within the Zuni traditional mineral, hunting, and religious use areas and are within 

the Zuni traditional homeland. The Zuni are known to have collected spruce pollen and aspen 

wood for religious purposes and numerous other plants for subsistence and medicinal use. 

Numerous Zuni TCPs and sacred sites are located on the forests; including Escudilla Mountain, 

Mount Baldy, and springs (Zuni Cultural Advisory Team, 2011; Ferguson, 2007, 1981, and 1980; 

Senior, 2005).

Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites

As discussed above there are known TCPs and sacred sites located within the forests. A TCP and 

a sacred site are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. A TCP must meet the definition 

and criteria for the NRHP, where as a sacred site is identified by the tribe as defined in Executive 

Order 13007 and does not need to meet the definition and criteria for the NRHP. American Indian 

tribes do not make a distinction between the two. Laws and executive orders define the two 

separately which results in differences in how land management agencies are required to consider 

their effects and resolve those effects from management actions. 

TCPs and sacred sites include, but are not limited to, spruce forests, mountains, cinder cones, 

springs, caves, trails, and shrines. These places are used for activities that include, but are not 

limited to, collection of plants, boughs, aspen trees, teepee poles, pigments, feathers, pollen, 

hunting, religious pilgrimages, accessing springs, and making special offerings. These places are 

ethnographically important to tribal values and are inseparable from their cultures. Multiple areas 

are used for collection of resources or religious ceremonies on or within the vicinity of the 

topographic feature. Many other areas located on the forests are used for traditional cultural 

purposes but have not been specifically identified. See the “Cultural Resources” section for a 

listing of known TCPs and a description of past impacts to TCPs and sacred sites.

Tribal Rights

The Supreme Court has recognized that when American Indian reservations were established, the 

Federal government reserved enough water necessary to make the reservations livable. 

Reservations for tribes culturally affiliated with the forests were created by executive orders. 

Several water resources are located on and across the forests that are connected to tribal water 

rights. The San Carlos Apache Nation has existing senior water rights to the Salt River Basin that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 447

includes the Salt, Gila, and Black Rivers. The Pueblo of Zuni has existing surface and 

underground water rights to the Little Colorado River. The Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe claim 

water rights to the Little Colorado River. Their water rights would be determined by the Little 

Colorado River Adjudication negotiation settlement. The Little Colorado River Adjudication 

involves the Lower and Upper Little Colorado River and Silver Creek. The San Carlos Apache 

Tribe and Tonto Apache Tribe claim water rights to the Gila River tributaries which have not been 

resolved. 

Water quality and rights are under the legal jurisdiction of the State of Arizona. Forest 

management has not impacted tribal water rights. Additional information on water use trends and 

water rights can be found in the “Water” section.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs consult with nine different tribal governments and one chapter of the 

Navajo Nation that have a cultural affiliation to the area (see the “Cultural Resources” section). 

At present, tribes have not identified concerns or issues that the proposed plan and alternatives 

would result in adverse impacts to known and unidentified TCPs and sacred sites or the use of 

those locations. The tribes have expressed interest on the affects to wildlife (eagles), effects of 

land adjustments and mining, and the need to prevent additional adverse impacts from activities 

to TCPs and sacred sites. Some tribes may not reveal specific locations of traditional use of 

sacred sites to non-practitioners because of cultural restrictions and/or religious beliefs unless that 

location is at risk of being adversely impacted by project activities. Government-to-government 

consultation about projects and activities would continue between the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and 

the tribes. If tribal consultation results in identification of additional, currently unknown, 

traditional uses and traditional cultural properties, impacts to those areas would be considered 

during project-specific environmental assessments.

Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites

The 1987 plan (alternative A) has not been amended to reflect the 1992 requirements and 

amendments to the NHPA. The 1992 amendment Section 101(d)(6) states that properties of 

traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe may be determined eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register. It also states a Federal agency shall consult with any Indian 

tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to these properties. Also, the 1987 plan has 

not been amended to address the requirements of the Native American Graves Repatriation Act of 

1990 (NAGPRA), Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Order 13175 

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal governments nor the 2008 Farm Bill. In all of 

the action alternatives, the plan would incorporate the passage of these statues and issuance of 

executive orders.

Alternative A only specifies that the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would comply with the NHPA. 

NHPA requires that adverse impacts to eligible or listed cultural resources are resolved which 

usually results in the excavation and recovery of the significant and scientific information. Sacred 

sites inherently do not possess physical scientific information that can be resolved or recovered 

prior to being adversely impacted. Since the 1987 plan does not provide suitability standards and 

guidelines that address TCPs or sacred sites, TCPs and sacred sites have been adversely impacted 

over the life of the plan. Activities that limit or change the use and access of traditionally used 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

resources, TCPs, or sacred sites would have adverse effects by altering or removing a specific 

traditionally used resource or impacts the process and/or continuation of the ceremonial rite.

Actions that have or may alter or damage the physical integrity of a location, setting, or resource 

for traditional purposes include, but are not limited to recreation improvements installed adjacent 

to a “shrine” that changes the setting and increases public visitation and vandalism (e.g., 

collecting artifact offerings, moving stones, constructed improvements); communication and 

lookout facilities constructed within the TCPs or sacred site that alters, damages or destroys the 

physically constructed features; creating visual and physical intrusions (i.e., communication 

tower) that alters, damages, or destroys the attributes of the place that are necessary for the 

traditional religious use or cultural purposes; recreation special use permits to allow uses of 

TCPs/sacred sites that may conflict with the traditional use (e.g., tribal members go to conduct a 

ceremony at the same time a permitted group of people and motorized vehicles are parked and 

using the TCP/sacred site, thus changing the setting and privacy necessary to conduct the 

ceremony); and constructing, rerouting or decommissioning trails (motorized and nonmotorized), 

roads and highways that alters, damages, or destroys the traditional access and use of 

TCPs/sacred sites. 

Motorized cross-country travel would be allowed across the forests except for areas where it is 

prohibited or not authorized (e.g., wilderness, wildlife quiet areas). This may result in adverse 

effects to TCPs/sacred sites in areas not restricted from motorized cross-country use. The 

associated sound and physical disturbance could alter, damage, or destroy the use of a TCP/sacred 

site. Unrestricted motorized access to remote TCPs/sacred sites would increase the potential for 

vandalism, including illegal excavation (looting), damage or destruction to standing architecture 

(shrines) or rock art, and collection of surface artifacts (offerings, beads, turquoise, pottery). 

Motorized use may remove vegetation that protects and covers the cultural materials. When 

cultural materials are exposed, the more decorative artifacts and collectable historic objects may 

disappear through illegal collecting. Nonmotorized trails that are constructed or converted from 

roads that are located on or adjacent to TCPs/sacred sites have the same potential to physically 

affect the use of TCPs/sacred sites by increasing the potential for vandalism and collecting 

offerings.

The action alternatives would result in less potential of adverse effects. Standards, guidelines, 

and suitability would provide direction that certain areas with TCPs or sacred sites are not 

suitable for new infrastructure (e.g., permanent roads, communications sites, power lines) and 

recreation activities (i.e., motorized travel). This would increase the potential of the forests to 

meet the desired conditions for American Indian Rights and Interests by reducing the type of 

projects and activities that may adversely affect those resources in those locations and reduce the 

potential of causing additional impacts to TCPs and sacred sites. These alternatives would 

eliminate motorized cross-country travel. The potential to disturb TCPs/sacred sites would be 

reduced because fewer lands would be open to motor vehicle use, resulting in a beneficial effect 

to TCPs/sacred sites. The adverse effects (see above) to remote TCPs/sacred sites from motorized 

cross-country travel would be reduced and, in some areas, stopped. The management direction in 

the action alternatives for suitable and unsuitable uses in areas with TCPs/sacred sites would not 

completely eliminate the potential effect to TCPs/sacred sites. If a future proposed projectspecific action was located in an unsuitable area or is an unsuitable activity, the forest plan could 

be amended at the time of the analysis and a decision to authorize that project action could occur. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 449

Alternative D would recommend the most acres for wilderness. This alternative would provide 

the most potential to benefit TCPs and sacred sites. Protection of wilderness values indirectly 

protects use of TCPs/sacred sites by eliminating certain management activities that have the 

potential to adversely affect them (e.g., mechanized treatments and uses, construction of roads 

and facilities). Mount Baldy and Escudilla Mountain are both in designated wilderness areas. 

Alternatives B and C would have the next highest potential to benefit TCPs/sacred sites because 

areas recommended for wilderness in both of these alternatives contain TCPs that could also be 

sacred sites. Managing these areas for wilderness values would have the highest potential to 

protect these resources and keep them generally free from adverse effects. Alternative A would 

not recommend additional wilderness.

Tribal Rights

The proposed treatments in all alternatives would provide for sustainability and improvement of 

wildlife habitat. The alternatives are not expected to reduce or limit the long-term availability and 

use of traditionally used wildlife. The tribes have not identified any concerns that the proposed 

treatments would affect their access and use of traditionally used forest products and minerals. 

The alternatives do not propose treatments that would reduce surface waters or pumping of 

groundwater. Special use permits that would affect surface waters and pumping of groundwater

that could affect tribal water rights would be analyzed at the project-level prior to a decision.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis area consists of lands that include American Indian TCPs and 

sacred sites within the State of Arizona that are associated with tribes culturally affiliated with the 

lands of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Tribes view TCPs and sacred sites that are part of their traditions as interconnected 

places/features of the religious and traditional landscape. Effects to these places or features may 

directly or indirectly affect the access and use by the tribes to conduct ceremonial and/or 

traditional practices of other sacred sites or TCPs that are part of their traditions. Current and 

previous Forest Service management activities, public resource procurement and recreation use, 

and natural processes have impacted TCPs and sacred sites. At present, there are several known 

activities, projects, or planned projects and/or plans located on lands that have or would adversely 

affect TCPs and sacred sites.

Recently, the Coconino NF has approved snow making and the expansion of the infrastructure of 

the existing Snowbowl Ski Area. This action has been determined to have a significant adverse 

effect to the San Francisco Peaks as a TCP and a sacred site. Congress is considering a land 

exchange proposal to transfer lands on the Tonto NF that includes Oak Flat, Gaan Canyon, and 

Apache Leap to Resolution Copper Company. The Tonto NF has also recently approved 

exploratory mining in these areas. Oak Flat, Gaan Canyon, and Apache Leap are sacred sites of 

the Western Apache. A land exchange would have an adverse effect to these sacred sites. The San 

Carlos Apache are opposed to the exploratory drilling. The Apache have stated that mining in 

these locations would have an adverse effect to these places. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is 

considering a proposed action to sell a tract of land that includes a TCP associated with the Zuni 

and Hopi. The specific location has been recently identified by the White Mountain Apache as a 

sacred place. Existing permitted activities or facilities that are located on TCPs and or sacred sites 

on the national forests within Arizona are expected to continue.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The Hopi Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni have verbally stated to the ApacheSitgreaves NFs during consultation meetings and through letters to the Secretary of Agriculture 

that the Forest Service is incrementally damaging or destroying TCPs and sacred sites that are 

important and vital to maintain the physical and spiritual survival of the tribes. Sacred sites are 

interconnected and are part of the spiritual and traditional landscape. Although alternative A and 

the action alternatives are not expected to have a cumulative adverse impact to American Rights 

and Interests, potential mining activities, congressional actions, and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

authorized land adjustments could have the potential to contribute to cumulative adverse effects. 

Forest Products

This section provides an estimate of lands suitable for timber production, cutting levels in relation 

to long-term sustained yield capacity (LTSYC), and allowable sale quantity (ASQ) volume for the 

next five decades. The wood products volumes that could be removed from lands both suitable 

and not suitable for timber production are estimated. It also examines how the plan alternatives 

contribute to local communities through the availability of wood and tree products. The full 

analysis, including all assumptions and methodology, for this resource can be found in the “Forest 

Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014i) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

The wood products that could be removed from ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, wet mixed 

conifer, and spruce-fir forests; piñon-juniper woodland; and Great Basin grassland potential 

natural vegetation types (PNVTs) are considered.

In the analysis for this resource, key assumptions and methodology include the following:

• Wood products volumes potentially available from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are 

byproducts of restoration treatments that will move vegetation toward desired conditions. 

Management of all PNVTs would be needed to meet desired conditions.

• The 1987 plan mapped forest and woodlands using an outdated cover type classification, 

based on the visibly dominant tree or plant species at the time of mapping. This updated 

analysis uses PNVTs, which may not be the currently dominant vegetation. For example, 

what appears to be wet mixed conifer forest (infrequent fire type) may actually be dry 

mixed conifer (frequent fire type) where shade-tolerant species have become established 

in the absence of frequent fires.

• Restoration volume estimates were derived from cutting green trees in the vegetation 

modeling (VDDT model). See the “Vegetation” section and appendix B for information 

about the VDDT model and PNVTs. Volume estimates for fire-killed trees are not 

provided by the model.

• Appropriate cutting methods and other treatment types will vary by site-specific 

objectives and existing condition. Decisions about treatment methods will be made at the 

project-level.

• Markets will exist for all cut materials. At least 5 percent of cut materials may remain on 

the ground as broken logs, limbs, and/or debris left for soil stability, productivity, and 

wildlife needs. About 95 percent of the cut materials would be offered for removal.

• Increasing public and small market demands for firewood and small salvage sales of 

sawlogs, posts, poles, novelty woods, and/or pulp volumes will be similar under all 

alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 451

• Christmas trees, wildlings, seed cones, novelty woods, and other tree products will be 

available to meet public demand. Amounts will be the same under all alternatives.

• Prescribed fire (planned ignition) as a silvicultural tool will only be used in accordance 

with prescriptions from an approved burn plan designed to meet land management plan 

desired conditions.

• Low severity fire (both planned and unplanned ignitions) on suitable timberlands will be 

used to reduce ground fuels and remove slash and would be used to maintain or move 

toward desired conditions (i.e., the age class distributions desired for uneven-aged 

structure, regulated forest, and sustained volume yields).

• The use of wildland fire (e.g., moderate and high severity burns, planned and unplanned 

ignitions) as a thinning tool on suitable timberlands may occur when necessary to meet 

resource objectives. Moderate and/or high severity fire may not achieve the age class 

distributions desired for uneven-aged structure, regulated forest, and sustained volume 

yields.

• At this time, no suitable timberland acres burned in the 2011 Wallow Fire are expected to 

require reclassification as non-suitable due to permanently reduced soil site productivity. 

• Currently deforested acres would not need thinning during this planning period.

Affected Environment

Past forest growth and mortality, previous management, and disturbance patterns have produced 

the current forest tree species composition, sizes, densities, and conditions, which affect the 

species and volumes of wood and other tree products available for cutting treatments now and in 

the future.

Across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, the annual gross forest growth and net forest growth (gross 

growth minus mortality) have far exceeded cutting levels. The annual gross growth in ApacheSitgreaves NFs ponderosa pine forests has been as much as 12 times the annual mortality 

(excluding mortality from uncharacteristic wildfire); Douglas-fir stands growth has been at least 8 

times mortality (Rogers, 2003). The total of mortality and cutting levels is far below gross growth 

rates for trees inventoried in Arizona national forests (O’Brien, 2002). In other words, cutting 

rates have been far less than net growth rates.

In the past 30 years, an average of 720 cubic feet (CF) of wood volume per acre has been added 

as surplus net growth, in addition to the desired sustainable volume. This surplus needs to be 

removed each entry to maintain desired conditions. Youtz and Vandendriesche (2012) suggest that 

a return cutting entry of 30 years is needed on average using the group selection system for 

uneven-aged management to maintain a regulated sustainable forest that meets desired conditions. 

Every three decades without treatment adds to the backlog of overgrowth. On the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, several acres of suitable forest land have not been thinned in over 40 years, 

resulting in surplus of over 1,000 CF on these lands. Unthinned lands suffer from conditions 

which contribute to the departure from desired conditions. These areas are at risk of stand 

mortality due to weakened tree vigor, disease intensification and spread, epidemic insect attacks, 

and/or uncharacteristic wildfire.

Normal disturbance regimes (primarily characteristic wildfire) which previously acted as natural 

thinning agents have been altered, giving rise to overgrown conditions. Abnormal disturbances 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

(e.g., uncharacteristic wildfire, unprecedented insect/disease outbreaks) have produced 

undesirable stand-replacement conditions across large areas (Forest Service, 2008a; Lynch et al., 

2010). Noticeable (non-fire) losses of large/old trees have been observed in all forested PNVTs, 

especially due to competition in overgrown stands. Overgrowth reduces individual tree growth, 

vigor, and the ability to endure bark beetle attacks and drought years (Covington et al. 1997; 

Friederici, 2003). 

Two very different existing condition categories now occur across the forested PNVTs of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (see table 144 below): 

• Forested/Overgrown – Approximately 71 percent of the current forested PNVTs have 

tree stocking and growth levels which require some degree of tree thinning to restore 

and/or maintain desired conditions. Without additional severe disturbances accelerating 

immediate and complete tree mortality, these areas can contribute industrial cutting 

volumes in the first decade and beyond. 

• Deforested/Early Development – Conversely, an average of 29 percent of the current 

forested PNVT vegetation structural states are now temporarily in deforested states 

(22 percent) or early developmental states (7 percent) that require reforestation and 

growth for restoration to desired conditions. This condition is primarily attributed to the 

2011 Wallow Fire, the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire, and other fires that caused tree 

mortality exceeding or eliminating net growth. These areas cannot provide industrial 

cutting volumes in the next one to three decades.

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

development condition

Forest

PNVT

Forested/

Overgrown Acres

(Percent)

Deforested/

Early Development Acres

(Percent)

Ponderosa Pine 475,743

(79%)

126,463

(21%)

Dry Mixed Conifer 100,562

(68%)

47,323

(32%)

Wet Mixed Conifer 89,005

(50%)

88,998

(50%)

Spruce-Fir 8,127

(46%)

9,540

(54%)

Total 673,437

(71%)

272,316

(29%)

On the forested/overgrown lands, net growth is expected to outpace natural (non-fire) mortality; 

regular thinning (prescribed cutting and/or wildland fire) would be necessary to reduce 

overgrowth, develop desired uneven-aged forest structure, and/or to prevent growth stagnation 

and movement away from desired conditions. Where moderate-severity fire has occurred on these 

lands, natural mortality levels are expected to remain high for approximately the next 6 years, due 

to fire-related tree stress, sudden exposure to weather extremes, weakened roots, greater exposure 

to lightning and/or prevailing winds, and greater susceptibility to insect/disease attack. Once 

surviving trees have stabilized, they are expected to need thinning for maintenance of desired 

forested conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 453

The deforested lands (approximately 203,378 acres) can be further divided into three categories:

• Lands which can be expected to successfully regenerate native tree species naturally 

(approximately 54 percent or 110,629 acres) at low management cost. This is about

12 percent of all forested PNVTs. 

• Lands which would need tree planting to restore forest cover (approximately 19 percent 

or 37,695 acres) at high management cost. This is about 4 percent of all forested PNVTs.

• Lands likely to convert to long-term grass/forb/shrub/rock cover rather than return to tree 

cover (approximately 27 percent or 55,054 acres) at the expense of lost forest/timber 

production acres (Roccaforte et al., 2012; ERI, 2011; Savage and Mast, 2005; Alexander,

1974; Jones, 1974). This is approximately 6 percent of all forested PNVTs. Tree planting 

can help mitigate this condition by accelerating post-fire succession back to tree cover.

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production

Timber production is defined as the purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of 

regulated crops of trees for cutting into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or 

consumer use. Timber production does not include firewood or products harvested from 

unsuitable lands. 

Lands are identified as suitable or not suitable for timber production (suitable and non-suitable

timberlands) during the plan revision process. Appendix B details the steps used in the suitability 

determination. The first step of the suitability determination is to identify the lands that are 

tentatively suitable for timber production.

Table 145 displays the criteria used to identify lands as tentatively suitable timberlands. The 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have approximately 808,000 acres considered tentatively suitable.

Suitable timberland does not dictate tree cutting. It means that all cutting treatments done on 

suitable lands would be limited by the ASQ volume (see the following section on “Allowable 

Sale Quantity”). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

Criteria Acres Total Acres

TOTAL Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 2,110,196

Non-NFS Land 94,844

Total NFS Lands 2,015,352

Nonforest Lands 1,039,258

Areas not defined as forest landa 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

Forested lands withdrawn from timber productionb 87,190

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 corridors or areas classified as wild 23,085

Irreversible resource damage likely 23,952

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

Inadequate restocking 56,584

Low reforestation potential based on soil properties 56,584

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 808,368c

a Forest land is defined as having greater that 10 percent overstory canopy cover at stand maturity.

b Some categories overlap areas already withdrawn in nonforest lands.

c The tentatively suitable lands in alternative A equal 807,289 acres. There are more acres in research natural area 

(1,882 acres).

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ)

The allowable sale quantity volume control concept enacted by law (National Forest Management 

Act of 1976) was intended to prevent excessive tree losses due to overcutting beyond sustainable 

forest levels on suitable timberlands. The ASQ is the quantity of timber that may be sold from 

suitable timberland within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs for a time period specified by the plan. 

ASQ volume is expressed as the average annual allowable sale quantity. For timber resource 

planning purposes, the allowable sale quantity applies to each decade during the planning horizon 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 455

period and includes only chargeable volume38. ASQ volume does not include firewood or other 

nonindustrial wood.

ASQ volume estimates only include chargeable volumes of industrial wood39. The ASQ 

calculation includes estimated green tree cutting volumes from the VDDT model which vary by 

alternative; extra small sales and permits sold for live and/or dead poles; and miscellaneous 

salvage timber. Small sales, permits, and miscellaneous salvage are considered to be a constant 

addition across all alternatives.

ASQ volume and a timber base sale schedule were published with the 1987 plan. They were 

specific and prescriptive. The original ASQ volume of 119 million board feet (MMBF) was 

subsequently reduced to an interim ASQ of 99 MMBF (198,000 CCF40) of sawtimber per year 

through forest plan amendment one. The ASQ volume for alternative A, the no action 

alternative, has been recalculated in this analysis for consistency across all alternatives and is 

based on current vegetation conditions.

Ongoing monitoring would evaluate cutting levels compared to the ASQ. The suitable timberland 

classification would be updated as conditions change.

Long-Term Sustained-Yield Capacity

Long-term sustained yield (LTSY) is the calculated annual volume of wood per acre that can be 

harvested from suitable timberlands, which does not exceed annual net growth volume per acre 

after desired conditions have been met for multiple resource objectives. A weighted average 

LTSY has been calculated as 24 cubic feet (CF) per acre per year for all Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ 

forested PNVTs in suitable timberlands based on current and regional data (Youtz and 

Vandendriesche, 2012). This is slightly higher than the 20 CF per acre per year capacity identified 

in the 1987 plan. 

LTSY multiplied by the total suitable timberland acreage determines the long-term sustainedyield capacity (LTSYC). This concept is one means of measuring forest sustainability, consistent 

with ecological desired conditions (see “Appendix B Timber Calculations”). Ideally, ASQ volume 

should equal or fall just short of the LTSYC once desired conditions are met. After desired 

conditions are achieved, management on suitable timberlands should be consistent with the 

LTSYC level (no cutting departure above the LTSYC); annual cutting levels would not exceed 

annual net growth rates. On suitable timberland acres, the LTSYC is a way to further incorporate 

the social and economic desired condition of providing a long-term, dependable source of wood 

products, while maintaining desired multiple-use objectives.

To comply with 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 

 38 Chargeable volume of industrial wood is from tree species that are saleable as sawtimber logs, pulpwood bolts, poles, 

or other roundwood sections (excluding firewood) based on regional utilization standards and cut from suitable 

timberlands.

39 Industrial timber species (5 inches diameter and greater) include ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, southwestern 

white pine, blue spruce, Engelmann spruce, and corkbark fir.

40 CCF = 100 cubic feet.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

timberlands cannot decline from one decade to the next. More explanation of non-declining ASQ 

can be found in Appendix B. 

Wood and Tree Products Availability

Wood products can be provided from both suitable and non-suitable timberlands. The most 

common wood products (e.g., industrial41 and nonindustrial42, live and dead wood) on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs include sales and permits for the following:

• Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, white fir, blue spruce, Engelmann 

spruce, and corkbark fir

○ Sawtimber and house logs (9 inches or greater in diameter)

○ Pulpwood or roundwood (5 to 8.9 inches in diameter)

○ Poles, posts, vigas, latillas, rails

○ Laminated beams

○ Paneling and trim molding

○ Firewood

○ Biomass (chips)

○ Furniture

• Piñon and all juniper species

○ Poles, posts, vigas, latillas, rails

○ Firewood

○ Biomass

○ Furniture and novelty wood

• Aspen, Gambel-oak, and other oak species

○ Firewood

○ Furniture and novelty wood

○ Poles, posts, rails

○ Interior paneling

○ Evaporative cooler pad excelsior

○ Livestock bedding

 41 The less than 5-inch diameter size materials, including tops and limbs from timber species may be 

utilized as non-ASQ biomass.

42 Nonindustrial (non-ASQ) species include aspen, junipers, piñon, Chihuahuan pine, oaks, and any 

industrial species cut from nonsuitable timberlands. Wood cut as nonindustrial may be used as firewood

and/or biomass.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 457

Christmas trees, live seedling/wildling transplants, green seed cones for nurseries, green boughs 

for holiday decorations and wreaths, and piñon nuts are also available.

Within the life of the 1987 plan, annual harvest volumes have varied from 5,000 to 100,000 board 

feet (MBF) with annual treatment acreages ranging from 2,500 to 30,000 averaging 9,400 acres 

(Forest Service, 2008a). Acreages treated under the White Mountain Stewardship project (2004 to 

2014) are slightly higher at approximately 12,000 acres per year.

With implementation of the 1987 plan, vegetation management on forested lands emphasized 

even-aged cutting methods: seed cuts, final overstory removals, intermediate thinnings, and a few 

clearcuts/seedling plantations. Sanitation/salvage cuts have also been used. Most vegetation 

management was accomplished through timber sales that focused on cutting trees over 9 inches in

diameter (or over 12 inch diameter in some cases). Multiproduct sales (sales which offer both 

sawtimber and pulp sizes) targeted trees in the 5- to 9-inch class as well as larger trees, but the 

lack of markets for the smaller sizes resulted in many projects not being completed.

When the 1987 plan was amended in 1996 to address Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, 

and old growth, it initiated direction to emphasize uneven-aged cutting methods (e.g., group 

selection, individual tree selection). Implementation was met with varying degrees of success, 

due to various factors. Only thinning of marketable size trees (usually 9-inch diameter and larger) 

was successfully implemented. Thus many acres became further overgrown with trees under 9 

inches in diameter, which can act as understory ladder fuels.

Uncharacteristic wildfires in the early 2000s highlighted the need for fuels reduction projects. 

Treatment of all vegetation types, regardless of timberland suitability, became a priority near 

communities, private lands, and developed recreation areas. The treatment emphasis on removing 

understory ladder fuels led a diameter cap (an upper cutting size limit) as the way to focus on 

removing the overabundant, small diameter trees.

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 fostered the development of community wildfire 

protection plans that incorporated programmatic and widespread use of diameter caps (limiting 

cuts to smaller diameter trees) (Logan Simpson Design, 2004, 2004a, and 2005) across the 

forests. Meanwhile, the Stewardship End Result Contracting Projects statute (16 U.S.C. 2104) 

opened a new era of cutting small trees to reduce wildfire hazards under 10-year long stewardship 

service contracts. On the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, this meant that most wood volume was no 

longer removed through timber sales. Service contractors were paid under the White Mountain 

Stewardship Project to remove wood volume; a strategy used to reduce fuels near communities 

until local small tree markets are established and small tree wood values offset treatment costs.

Even-aged cutting methods and diameter caps have resulted in a longer timeframe to produce 

uneven-aged forests and woodlands. In areas where even-aged management or removal of small 

diameter trees has occurred, the next treatment (cutting entry) may be limited to large trees (16 

inch and greater diameter) (Triepke et al., 2011). Stand-replacement fire results in essentially 

even-aged regeneration areas for at least 60 years after new tree establishment. In all cases, 

subsequent entries could provide variable harvest volumes and product types, while conversion 

from even-aged to uneven-aged structure proceeds over time.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

All alternatives would propose various mixtures of three basic vegetation treatments during the 

planning period to move toward desired conditions. These include the following:

• Tree cutting on some forested/overgrown areas, followed by low severity fire to reduce 

ground fuels;

• Moderate and/or high severity fire to thin other forested/overgrown areas and reduce 

ground fuels;

• Tree planting on some deforested areas.

All three treatment types indirectly impact the amount and availability of sustainable wood 

products. The number of total annual cutting and wildland fire treatment acreages by alternative 

in table 146 below (regardless of timber suitability classification) was analyzed. 

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

non-suitable timberlands, by alternative

High Low Average

Alt. Cutting 

Treatment

Wildland 

Fire 

Treatment

Cutting 

Treatment

Wildland 

Fire 

Treatment

Cutting 

Treatment

Wildland 

Fire 

Treatment

Total 

Cutting 

and 

Fire

A — — — — 12,182 6,844 19,026

B 30,327 43,771 8,852 14,087 19,591 28,930 48,521

C 42,651 22,586 5,342 3,124 23,997 12,857 36,854

D 25,440 78,772 6,465 19,079 15,954 48,927 64,881

Suitable Timberlands

Timberland suitability was determined for each alternative. The original 1987 plan suitability 

classification did not follow the criteria and classification outlined below. In order to compare the 

alternatives, alternative A was recalculated using the same process as the action alternatives. 

The suitability criteria can be found in chapter 4 of the proposed plan. In addition to these criteria, 

other considerations (e.g., timber production cost efficiency) were used to further eliminate acres 

from suitability classification. See appendix B for a more detailed description of the suitability 

determination.

Results of the suitability determinations are provided in the following table. Alternative A would 

have the most acres suitable for timber production, followed by alternatives C and B. 

Alternative D would have no suitable acres due to the design and objectives of this alternative 

(e.g., primarily wildland fire treatments, high acreage recommended for wilderness).

Suitable timberland maps for alternatives A, B, and C are shown below. Alternative D would 

have no suitable timberlands (see figure 69 through figure 74).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 459

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

Classification Alt. A Acres Alt. B Acres Alt. C Acres Alt. D Acres

Lands Tentatively Suitable for 

Timber Production

807,289 808,368 808,368 808,368

Lands where Management Area 

Direction Precludes Timber Production

12,258 65,497 27,321 145,118

Lands where Management Objectives 

Limit Timber Harvest

30,159 76,537 91,067 663,250

Lands that are Not Economically Cost 

Efficient

0 69,590 85,234 NA

Lands Not Appropriate for Timber 

Production

42,417 211,624 203,622 808,368

Lands Suitable for Timber

Production

764,872 596,744 604,746 0

Lands Not Suitable for Timber 

Production

1,250,480 1,418,608 1,410,606 2,015,352

Alternative A would provide the most suitable timberland acres; while alternative C would 

provide slightly more suitable timberland acres than alternative B. Steep slopes (over 40 percent) 

were included in the 1987 plan (alternative A) as suitable timberlands for cable harvest. 

Alternatives B and C would not include any steep slopes because these areas are not 

economically feasible to harvest. Spruce-fir forest was classified as non-suitable because the 

majority of it is located in withdrawn lands, is not cost efficient, and/or is located in MSO 

protected habitat as defined in the MSO recovery plan (USFWS, 2012b).

Alternative A would have the most acres managed for long-term sustained yield of wood 

products. Alternatives C and B would have fewer acres managed for long-term sustained yield 

of wood products. 

In alternatives A, B, and C, use of moderate and/or high severity fire for tree thinning and

density reduction, especially across large areas of suitable timberland, would increase the risk that 

those acres could not become regulated with the balanced and sustainable progression of age 

classes needed to ensure non-declining even-flow43 of future harvest volumes.

Alternative D would have no suitable timber acres because wildland fire would be the primary 

tool to thin the majority of acres. After the few mechanical acres are cut, they would be 

maintained primarily using prescribed fire. This alternative would not provide a sustained yield of 

harvest volumes on a regulated, non-declining even-flow basis for the long term. This does not 

mean that no volume would be available to supply markets. It only means that industrial volumes 

of traditional sawtimber and pulpwood would not be ensured for long-term sustained yield. See 

the “Total Wood Products” section below. In addition, alternative D allocates the most land to 

the Recommended Wilderness Management Area which would preclude timber harvest.

 43 Nondeclining even flow is a policy governing the volume of timber removed from a national forest, which states that 

the volume planned for removal in each succeeding decade equals or exceeds that volume planned for removal in the 

previous decade.
460

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic DEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 69. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 461

Figure 70. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative A – Apache NF
462 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 71. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 463

Figure 72. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative B – Apache NF
464 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 73. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 465

Figure 74. Map of land suitable for timber production, alternative C – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) 

ASQ is expressed as an annual average of industrial wood cutting volumes from suitable 

timberlands to meet multiple-resource objectives. Table 148 displays the ASQ volume estimates 

for the first decade needed to implement restoration treatments and to meet public demand for 

sawtimber, pulp, and pole sales.

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

thousand)

Cutting Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Objective Level Average High Low High Low High Low

Annual Range of ASQ, 

in CCF

NA 122,000 26,000 268,000 39,000 0 0

Annual Average ASQ, 

in CCF

73,000 74,000 74,000 153,000 153,000 0 0

Alternatives A, B, and C would have different ASQs because they were based on the expected 

level of cutting treatments on suitable timberlands (table 149). In some years acres cut would not 

reach the high treatment objective level, but could fluctuate between the low and high levels. 

Alternative D would have no ASQ volume because there are no suitable timberlands. 

ASQ volume for alternative B would be 122,000 CCF per year as the maximum allowable sale 

quantity from suitable timberlands. Under alternative C, it would be 268,000 CCF maximum for

any given year. For comparison, the highest total harvest in recent years occurred in 2011 and was 

approximately 103,000 CCF.

Consequences of implementing the alternatives are that alternative C would offer the most ASQ 

volume of traditional sawtimber and pulpwood offerings for sale to the markets that may desire 

these products.

Alternative A would offer less ASQ volume than alternatives B and C because it does not have 

a high treatment objective. This amount or some higher amount could become the replacement 

ASQ for the 1987 plan if there had been no other need for change to revise the plan (see chapter 

1).

Suitable timberland acres are capable of producing greater annual harvest volumes than those 

shown in the above table. However, use of wildland fire under alternatives A, B, and C would 

reduce available green harvest volumes because varied amounts of moderate and/or high severity 

fire would be used to intentionally thin the forests.

Alternative B would reduce the most green volume because it proposes to use more moderate 

and/or high severity fire to thin trees on forested lands, including some suitable timberlands,

during the planning period. Alternative C would use less moderate and/or high severity fire on 

suitable lands to thin trees, resulting in more green volume available for cutting and industrial 

wood. Alternative A would reduce the least green volume, because it uses the least moderate 

and/or high severity fire.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 467

Trees intentionally killed by wildland fire treatments may or may not be salvaged. Salvage of 

such trees would require removal within approximately 3 to 4 years post-burn, before wood 

borers and other decay agents reduce the amount of solid wood fiber and market utility. Under all 

alternatives, unanticipated large-scale salvage volume (e.g., wildfire kill, blow down, 

insect/disease mortality) does not count toward the ASQ per the National Forest Management 

Act.

Long-Term Sustained-Yield Capacity

The LTSY level of 24 CF per acre per year becomes a baseline for comparison of estimated wood 

product outputs (volumes) by alternative. The LTSYC for alternative A is approximately 

184,000 CCF, alternative B is 143,000 CCF, and alternative C is 145,000 CCF. See table 149. 

Under all alternatives, except alternative D, planned, scheduled entries of tree cutting on 

suitable timberlands would be necessary to move the forests toward an uneven-aged (regulated) 

balance of age classes and then to maintain the desired condition.

Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity in 

Relation to Estimated Industrial Harvest Volumes

As each alternative has different amounts of suitable timberlands, the LTSYC varies accordingly. 

Table 149 displays the annual ASQ volumes based on the high cutting treatment level for decades 

1 to 5, compared to the LTSYC for each alternative.

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

the nearest thousand)

Annual Higha

Cutting

Treatment

Volumes in CCF

Alternative A

Annually Cuts

10,041 acresb of 

764,872 acres of

Suitable 

Timberland

LTSYC = 

184,000

Alternative B

Annually Cuts

14,037 acres of

596,743 acres of

Suitable 

Timberland

LTSYC = 143,000

Alternative C

Annually Cuts

31,893 acres of

604,746 acres of

Suitable 

Timberland

LTSYC = 

145,000

Alternative D

Annually Cuts

only on 

Nonsuitable

Timberland

LTSYC = 0

ASQ Decade 1 73,000 122,000 268,000 0

ASQ Decade 2 73,000 122,000 202,000 0

ASQ Decade 3 73,000 123,000 183,000 0

ASQ Decade 4 73,000 125,000 178,000 0

ASQ Decade 5 73,000 126,000 178,000 0

a Alternative A only has an average.

b Acres are based on the estimated cutting treatments modeled for ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, and wet mixed 

conifer forests on suitable lands only.

As shown above, when cut at the highest treatment objective levels modeled, alternatives A and 

B volumes would not decline and would remain below the LTSYC. By cutting at a relatively level 

trend across all five decades, alternative A would fail to reduce any backlog of overgrowth by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

barely keeping up with new growth each decade. Alternative B would make more progress than 

alternative A, but would not reach the LTSYC by decade 5.

In contrast, the high objective ASQ volumes for alternative C would decline while exceeding the 

LTSYC in a departure situation. Alternative C would reduce the most overgrowth backlog in the 

first three decades and would continue to remove more backlog in decade 4 until leveling off in 

decade 5.

Any departure (exceedance) level of cutting above the LTSYC, such as seen in alternative C, 

especially in the early planning decades, is justifiable because of the following:

• Current age class distributions are skewed and do not represent desired conditions. Many 

acres are even-aged. Some age classes are missing. Much of the forests have too many 

small to medium diameter trees that act as ladder fuels and compete with larger trees.

• High tree mortality could continue because of uncharacteristic wildfires, abnormal insect 

outbreaks, elevated disease levels, new disease arrivals, and accelerated tree stress and 

deaths from competition.

• Several small tree-based industries have developed to utilize saplings and smaller 

diameter trees. New jobs have been created or have returned to Apache and Navajo 

Counties. Since 2009, rising market demands have allowed local operators to treat all 

acres offered, almost as fast as the forests can make them available. Limiting the ability 

to cut surplus tree volume growth above the LTSYC level could have some degree of 

adversely impact local communities.

• Multiple resource objectives would be best met by balancing forest wood volume growth 

rates with removal of forest wood volumes. This would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic 

wildfires and other extreme or long-lasting disturbances. Those uncharacteristic events do 

not contribute to the desired condition of restoring ecosystems to benefit watershed/soils 

stability, riparian habitats and aquatic organisms, wildlife and fish habitats, ground 

vegetation and herbaceous cover, range production, water and oxygen cycles, and 

recreation opportunities, as well as economics and the human environment.

In a regulated (sustainable) forest, annual cut equals annual net growth, so that the forest never 

becomes overgrown or stagnant. Alternatives A and B, because they produce harvest volumes 

below the LTSYC, would result in overgrown forests more susceptible to uncharacteristic 

disturbances (e.g., high severity wildfire, insect/disease outbreaks). These undesired events could 

deforest additional acreages. Alternative C, because it produces volumes above the LTSYC, 

would contribute to reducing overgrowth and offering better opportunities to maintain forest 

lands at a sustainable level for at least the first four decades.

Non-declining even flow of harvest volume from one decade to the next is not expected under 

alternative C until desired conditions are met. By the 5th decade, none of the alternatives

would treat enough acres fast enough to reach desired conditions because the alternatives were 

realistically designed to reflect anticipated budgets and workforce capabilities. Because volumes 

were not modeled beyond the 5th decade, it is not possible to predict when the ASQ volumes 

might meet the LTSYC. 

Because alternatives A and B cut below the LTSYC, the forest would remain threatened by high 

mortality losses to uncharacteristic disturbance events. At some point alternative C would need 

to align with the LTSYC (i.e., regulated forest) to prevent overcutting. VDDT modeling indicates 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 469

that after 50 years of treatments the forested PNVTs would not fully reach desired vegetation 

conditions. Review of all VDDT model run vegetation outcomes and trends for all alternatives

indicate that changes in management strategy would likely be needed following the planning 

period (see the “Vegetation” section and “Vegetation Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014t)).

For example, unlike alternatives A and C, modeling indicates that alternative B’s restoration 

strategy would need to change after this planning period to steadily increase cutting treatments in 

decades 2 through 5 on closed canopy acres and shift to emphasizing low severity prescribed fire, 

in order to sustain a non-declining even flow of ASQ volumes. It is assumed that continued 

restoration treatments toward desired conditions on suitable timberlands beyond decade 5 would 

eventually increase ASQ levels closer to the LTSYC.

Cuts under alternative D are not comparable because no suitable timberlands are present.

Total Wood Products

Trees cut from non-suitable lands can also provide wood and tree products for local markets. The 

proposed plan (chapter 4) displays the criteria where tree cutting is an appropriate activity for 

meeting desired conditions, including lands not designated as suitable timberlands.

Cuts from non-suitable lands may be a one-time entry, such as removing encroaching trees from 

grassland. Subsequent cuts may not be needed if desired conditions can be maintained with 

wildland fire. PNVTs with stump resprouting species (e.g., alligator juniper, oak species) may

need additional cuts (or other tree control methods) that would produce less wood volume than 

the first entry.

The total annual mechanical treatment (cutting) acres by alternative for all PNVTs (regardless of 

timber suitability classification) are displayed in table 146. Table 150 below compares estimated 

wood product volumes for the 1st decade of plan implementation by alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

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

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

Treatment Acres Average High Low High Low High Low

Industrial Speciesa (5 

inch DBH and greater) in 

CCF

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

Firewoodb (nontimber 

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

Total of all wood 

products, all (CCF)

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

Total of all wood 

products (CCF) based 

on average treatment 

acres

205,218 262,579 262,579 415,629 415,629 117,744 117,744

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

small sales and permits (miscellaneous live and dead wildfire salvage, road and recreation site hazard trees, pulp, and 

poles).

b Firewood for all alternatives is different live trees modeled for restoration cutting plus permit sales for dead/down 

firewood and posts.

c 1 CCF = 3.5 tons. Source: R3 Measurements Specialist, based on R3 weight scale study conducted locally.

Alternative C would provide the highest average wood products volume for the 1st decade, 

followed by alternatives B, A, and D. However, the action alternatives would provide more 

average volume from non-suitable timberlands in the 1st decade than alternative A.

Under all alternatives, if plan desired conditions are met and maintained by the cutting practices 

used, the non-suitable timberland acres should provide long-term sustainable tree cover. 

However, these lands would not be subject to the ASQ volume or LTSYC controls.

Not included in the volume estimates are the dead tree volumes from moderate and/or high 

severity wildland fire (both planned and unplanned ignitions). If salvage volumes of fire-killed 

trees were included, alternatives A, B, and D could approach alternative C for total wood 

products available for at least the first few decades. However, this fire salvage would have to be 

harvested within approximately 3 to 4 years post-burn before decay agents destroy its wood fiber 

integrity.

Alternative A relies on tree cutting as the primary tool to thin the forest, with prescribed fire used 

as a secondary, slash cleanup tool. This approach is slow and costly. Currently, it is uneconomical 

to move raw cut materials more than 70 miles. Raw wood values are so low that little cut volume 

is sold. Currently, the Forest Service pays local operators to cut and remove the volumes from the 

White Mountain Stewardship projects. Where it is uneconomical to move raw wood, a portion of 

the cut volume may be left and would be disposed of at additional cost to the government. As 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 471

displayed in the previous table, alternative A would provide far less volume to support large, 

landscape-scale restoration efforts like the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI, see the 

cumulative effects section), than would the high and average treatment objective levels of 

alternatives C or B. Yet, alternative A would provide more volume if these two alternatives 

were to consistently be implemented at their low objective levels.

The action alternatives would rely on wildland fire as a primary tool to thin more of the forest 

(kill trees) than alternative A. Thus, in some burned areas, there may be less green wood and 

more dead and fire-charred wood available as a harvestable byproduct, provided enough woody 

material is left onsite for ecological needs such as soils stability, site productivity, and wildlife 

habitat.

Alternative B would fall in between the cutting levels of alternatives C and D, due to the blend 

of treatment methods (see table 180 in appendix B) and acreages proposed. It employs a tree 

cutting and wildland fire strategy that restores more acres faster toward desired conditions than 

alternative A. It would not reach a regulated supply of sustainable timber as fast as alternative 

C, but would do so faster than alternative A and would be more sustainable than alternative D. 

Decreased suitable timberland acreage enables increased non-suitable lands to be treated with 

wildland fire-only, reducing the high costs associated with mechanized thinning, so more acres 

can be treated annually under alternative D.

Alternative C emphasizes a mix of more cutting treatments designed for optimum commercial 

timber species volume production (maximized growth and harvest) on suitable timber acres. It

should produce more total wood volumes than would be harvested in the other alternatives.

Alternative C’s high objective cutting level would produce the most total wood volume to 

support large, landscape-scale restoration efforts like 4FRI. However, in the 1st decade this 

alternative’s low objective cutting level would produce less total volume than either the high or 

low objective level of alternative B. This is because alternative C is focused on treating mostly 

suitable timberlands, while alternative B spends the 1st decade focusing on restoring grasslands 

and other non-suitable lands that can provide high volumes of non-ASQ wood products in 

addition to the ASQ volume.

Alternative D would provide the least wood volume for meeting social and economic desired 

conditions for local and regional markets and related jobs. It would produce the least wood 

product volumes, due to its emphasis on wildland fire as the primary treatment method, as well as 

a 16-inch diameter cap imposed on those acres that are mechanically thinned or cut. After one 

cutting entry, those mechanical acres would be maintained by regular intervals of planned and 

unplanned ignitions. Long-term consequences of continuing understory burning beneath an 

unthinned overstory may not meet desired conditions. An overabundance of large trees could 

eventually result in a generational gap that lacks younger trees to replace older trees over time 

(Triepke et al., 2011; Abella et al., 2006).

No long-term supply of wood volume could come from grassland acres once they are restored by 

cutting and maintained by wildland fire (a one-time harvest entry). Alternatives B and D would 

rely more heavily on firewood and biomass cut from grasslands than alternative A. Alternative 

C would rely the least on firewood and biomass cut from grasslands and other non-suitable

timberlands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Use of moderate and/or high severity fire combined with diameter caps as thinning tools used 

most heavily in alternatives D and A44 would not ensure removal of undesired cone-producing 

species over 16 inches in diameter, thus perpetuating a species mix that is not well adapted to the 

site (Triepke et al., 2011). These two management methods are less certain to selectively leave the 

tree sizes, species, and arrangements desired for a truly sustainable uneven-aged structure and 

predictable wood volume production in more challenging climate conditions. Failure to restore all 

forests and woodlands to their desired species composition, size distribution, and spatial 

arrangement makes them more vulnerable to climate shifts or other uncharacteristic disturbances. 

Alternatives C and B would not use 16-inch diameter caps. Alternative A would use fewer 

diameter caps than alternative D. Therefore, alternatives C and B would provide more control 

over tree species composition on mechanically treated acres. 

Under all alternatives, restoration and maintenance of green tree thinning could be reduced if 

large salvage sales of fire-killed trees dominate the forests’ workload for the next 10 years. This 

could elevate the risk of losing more acres to uncharacteristic disturbances. Under all 

alternatives, too much emphasis to salvage dead trees would detract from treating the 

overgrowth backlog that threatens remaining green forest acres.

Forested/Overgrown Lands

Under all alternatives, 71 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs’ forested PNVTs in the 

forested/overgrown category, regardless of suitability classification, would still have an 

imbalance of annual net growth far outpacing cutting levels (Rogers, 2003). Table 151 displays 

the minimum number of years needed to treat all the forested/overgrown lands (approximately 

673,000 acres) once. Cutting and wildland fire treatments on suitable and non-suitable timberland 

acres are included.

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

alternative

a

Treatments include cutting andwildland fire, but not planting.

Annual thinning treatment percentages in all alternatives would affect a minor amount (less than 

5 percent) of the forested PNVTs each year, with nature managing the rest. Without wildland fire 

as a thinning tool, treatment rates for all alternatives would be slower. Restoration rates could be 

too slow and costly without the use of wildland fire treatments, in addition to cutting, as a 

thinning tool to increase treated acres. Those untreated areas would still have trees that continue 

 44 Alternative A (1987 plan) does not specify a 16-inch diameter cap. However, this diameter cap has been used as a 

treatment in recent and current vegetation management.

Alternative

Total Annual 

Thinninga

Treatments

(acres)

Percent of 

Forested/Overgrown 

Lands

Thinned Annually

Years Required to Thin 

All 

Forested/Overgrown 

Lands

A 16,182 2.4 42

B 20,037 3.0 34

C 30,220 4.5 23

D 28,914 4.3 24
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 473

to grow and die, are affected by insects and diseases, and possibly burned or affected by other 

disturbance processes.

With less than 5 percent of lands treated annually, strategic placement on the landscape of those 

few treatments becomes far more important. In alternative B cutting would be prioritized in 

areas identified in community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) and priority watersheds with

large acreages of untreated ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests. The areas in Navajo 

and western Apache Counties are nearer to rail lines and centralized markets, with the potential 

for greater success of being implemented as wood product transportation costs increase. 

Alternative C would emphasize treatments on suitable timberlands, the Community-Forest 

Intermix Management Area, and other lands that can contribute wood products. The suitable 

timberlands may or may not be near rail lines or centralized markets. Alternatives A and D

would emphasize mechanized treatments around communities and in the Community-Forest 

Intermix Management Area (a subset of CWPPs), many of which have already been treated and 

now only require follow-up maintenance thinning that may produce less total wood volume in 

subsequent entries.

Alternative C would accomplish treatments the fastest, requiring 23 years to complete the 

needed thinning, followed by alternatives D, B, and A, respectively. Alternatives A, B, and C

use a mix of cutting on some acres with wildland fire on other acres. Alternatives C and D

treatment rates would permit more timely return entry intervals for maintenance of restored 

desired conditions on the most acres.

In contrast, alternative D would accomplish treatments in 24 years by using wildland fire as the 

primary tree thinning tool. All cuts done under alternative D would use diameter caps for large 

tree retention emphasis, which would slow progress toward or move those acres away from many 

desired conditions (Triepke, 2011; Abella et al., 2006). This is not evident in the VDDT model 

results for alternative D because the benefits of wildland fire on so many acres overshadow the 

negative cutting results.

For timeframes of thinning and wildland fire return treatment cycles analyzed for suitable and 

non-suitable timberlands, see the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 2014i).

Deforested/Early Development Lands

Once adequate quantities of green seed have been collected for each native tree species, planting 

activities could begin on deforested lands. Cone collection may take about 3 to 10 years, 

depending on each species, but would be the same for all alternatives.

Alternative C would plant the most acres, especially on suitable timberlands in order to return 

them into timber production as soon as possible. This rate is at the extreme high end of current 

workforce capabilities. Alternative B would plant at a rate consistent with current workforce 

capability and would focus on reforesting a mix of both suitable and unsuitable lands for 

ecological recovery emphasis, including some Mexican spotted owl habitat. 

Alternative A would plant at the lower end of current workforce capacity, focusing primarily on 

sites near private lands and along highly visible roadways. Alternative D would emphasize 

letting natural processes dominate so the vast majority of acres needing reforestation would 

regenerate naturally. The few acres planted would be near private lands and in some Mexican 

spotted owl habitat identified for accelerated recovery.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

At the planting rates modeled (see the “Forest Products Specialist Report,” Forest Service, 2014i), 

alternative A would plant an average of 880 acres a year, treating all deforested acres proposed 

for artificial reforestation within 43 years. Alternative B would plant an average of 1,623 acres a 

year, treating all deforested acres proposed for artificial reforestation within 23 years. Alternative 

C would plant an average of 2,066 acres a year, treating all deforested acres proposed for 

artificial reforestation within 18 years. Alternative D would plant an average of 413 acres a year, 

treating all deforested acres proposed for artificial reforestation within 91 years. 

Under all alternatives, rates of natural conifer regeneration would be the same. Regeneration 

occurrence and survival depend upon local site conditions and climate over time. Under all 

alternatives, early development forest lands would need time to grow with periodic 

precommercial thinning occurring to maintain vigor and facilitate growth into larger size classes. 

Protection from excessive animal, insect/disease, and fire treatment damage would be necessary.

Climate Change Considerations

Climate change and its impacts on forests would likely affect market incentives for investment in 

biomass technology and wood-conservation techniques. The market for wood products in the 

U.S. is highly dependent on the acreage, location, and species composition of forests; supplies of 

wood; technological changes in production and use of wood; availability of wood substitutes; 

demand for wood products; and international competition. Rising atmospheric CO2 would 

increase forest productivity and carbon storage in forests if sufficient water and nutrients were 

available. Any increased carbon storage would be in live vegetation. However, in the Southwest 

and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, as discussed above, overall production may be limited by decreases

in available water. While increases in wildfire may decrease some available wood supply, 

treatment of wildland-urban interface and restoration of the fire-adapted ecosystems on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and elsewhere may increase the overall availability of small diameter 

timber and related wood products (Joyce et al., 2001).

All alternatives could promote a future sustainable supply of various wood products by moving 

forested and woodland PNVTs toward desired conditions, which should make these lands more 

resilient to climate change. By implementing treatments that can reduce losses to drought, 

insect/disease outbreaks, and high severity wildfires, the alternatives would rank as follows from 

fastest to slowest restoration rates: alternative C, followed by alternatives D, B, and A.

Multiple socioeconomic impacts often follow drought and severe insect outbreaks. Timber

production, manufacturing, and markets may not be able to process large numbers of killed trees. 

Where insect outbreaks occur, the public often perceives an increased fire risk and less than 

scenic vistas (Ryan et al., 2008). These factors could drive future public policy.

As increasing tree mortality rates are already underway in relation to these very same climaterelated factors, wood markets may be asked to take more dead and charred wood than their 

enterprises can utilize. Alternative D, followed by alternatives B, C, and A would create more 

intentionally fire-killed volume in addition to dead trees already being offered for salvage.

Salvaging and converting biomass into boards, firewood, and other wood products (as a 

byproduct of forest restoration) could help reduce carbon loss from wildland fire. Another 

consideration may be to use biomass for bioenergy production. Bioenergy production can be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 475

carbon neutral and could replace the fossil fuels in generators. Mobile generation facilities could 

provide power to schools, hospitals, and command centers in the event of an emergency. 

If new markets for forest biomass to generate heat and electricity in place of fossil fuels should 

develop locally or regionally, then traditional “nonindustrial” wood species and sizes could 

become more of an “industrial” demand. This trend is already underway. Alternatives offering the 

most dependable supply of wood volume from both suitable and non-suitable timberlands would 

provide the most flexibility to meet changing market demands are from greatest to least: 

alternative C, B, A, and then D. 

Forest and woodland restoration treatments under all alternatives could have positive and 

negative effects on the land’s ability, within those treated acres, to sequester carbon from the 

atmosphere. Scientific literature on the role of forests and forest management in carbon storage

versus carbon emissions indicates that many complex variables and tradeoffs must be considered. 

In general, according to Ryan et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2013; North and Hurteau, 2011; Hurteau 

et al., 2010; North et al., 2009; Hurteau and North, 2009; Finkral and Evans, 2008; and Dore et 

al., 2010, treatments that prevent deforestation, reforest severely burned forests, retain the 

majority of large trees, retain soil organic reserves, increase health and growth rates of existing 

forests and herbaceous vegetation, and convert trees into durable wood products retain and 

improve carbon storage. Use of biomass energy can reduce fossil fuel carbon emissions. Exhaust 

from harvesting and industrial operations and from wildland fire treatments would cause 

immediate carbon emissions. However, these activities can reduce greater pulses of carbon 

emitted from large stand-replacement wildfires in addition to preventing large scale losses of 

forests as important carbon sinks. Well-designed restoration thinning and maintenance of tree 

groups and/or stands to sustainable levels of all tree sizes present should be an important 

treatment consideration for the site capability, species silvics, and fire regime involved (Fiedler et 

al., 2010; Dore et al., 2010; Reynolds et al., 2013; Triepke et al., 2011; Hurteau et al.. 2010; 

Covington, 2000).

Comparing the alternatives for effects to climate change would be speculative since the Forest 

Service currently does not have the ability to reliably estimate many unknown variables. All

alternatives would provide direction for projects to retain proper amounts of old growth and 

large trees/snags/logs; maintain species biodiversity within the species composition appropriate to 

each PNVT, including improved herbaceous vegetation condition; improve or maintain structural 

diversity; reduce overstocked stands to improve tree vigor, growth, and health; restore resiliency 

to uncharacteristic disturbances; and improve resiliency to climatic stressors thus improving the 

adaptive capacity of forests to climate change.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects area for this analysis of forest products is the White Mountains-San 

Francisco Peaks-Mogollon Rim Ecoregion (see figure 44). This ecoregion includes the ApacheSitgreaves NFs, most of the Coconino NF, portions of the Prescott and Tonto NFs, the southern 

end of the Kaibab NF, and all of the Gila NF and portions of the Cibola NF in New Mexico. NonForest Service land ownerships in this ecoregion include BLM-managed lands, Arizona and New 

Mexico state lands, Fort Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations in Arizona, other 

tribal lands in New Mexico, and private lands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Past, present, and foreseeable forest and woodland management actions on Federal and tribal 

lands which could contribute to cumulative effects are fire suppression and the lack of thinning 

trees less than 9 inches in diameter that have resulted in an overabundance of small trees with no 

market value. A similar situation exists on state and private lands. 

National forests and State, tribal, and private lands have been unable to institute long-term 

uneven-aged management practices designed to provide sustainable levels of wood products 

because markets for small diameter trees have not consistently existed. Management emphasis 

has focused on short-term fuels reduction at a cost to the land owner.

Wood volumes cut from State and private lands are less likely to impact the total market situation, 

as their treatments are smaller, widely scattered across the ecoregion, and less likely to provide 

long-term wood volumes. Tribes typically utilize their cut volumes in their own industries, 

although they may supply some to local markets. Therefore, the bulk of products available to 

markets comes from Federal lands.

Future forest/woodland management strategies across all other national forests within the 

ecoregion are expected to be similar to those proposed for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. They are 

revising their land management plans or intend to revise their plans in the near future. The other 

national forests and the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would use the same desired conditions for the 

forested and woodland PNVTs, with uneven-aged silviculture and the return of fire and other 

natural disturbances to their natural roles.

The largest foreseeable action is the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI), for which the 

contract was recently awarded. This project includes 2.4 million acres on four national forests 

(Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto) in northern Arizona, and focuses on restoring 

the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forested PNVTs (see figure 45). Several of its projects 

are planned within the ecoregion. The management actions associated with 4FRI projects may be 

implemented in this planning period. This initiative seeks to develop sustainable markets for 

wood products from restoring and maintaining desired conditions, which are similar across all 

four national forests involved. 

The 4FRI project could become the major instrument to implement alternatives A, B, or C

treatments on the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forest lands. It has the potential to 

become the principal market for the majority of logging operations in north and central Arizona 

during the planning period.

Alternative D can provide wood volumes during the planning period, but it would fall short of 

contributing to sustainable markets. It would treat so many more acres exclusively with wildland 

fire and would cut in several PNVTs outside the 4FRI focus. Therefore, it would limit the 

harvestable green wood volumes needed to support markets dependent upon 4FRI. 

At its high objective level, alternative C may be more suited to supply the high volume that 4FRI 

is expected to demand because the other alternatives’ cutting volumes may not be high enough. 

However, alternative B’s high and low treatment objectives would provide more wood volume to 

4FRI than alternative C’s low objective. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are not expected to provide 

all wood volume to supply this and other markets. When the maximum total annual wood 

volumes (ASQ plus non-ASQ) proposed for either alternative B or C are combined with the 

annual wood cutting volumes proposed by the Kaibab, Coconino, and Tonto NFs, the total from 

all four forests should meet estimated market demands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 477

Alternative A is not expected to provide enough volume for 4FRI because it emphasizes

mechanized treatments around communities. Most areas around communities have already been 

thinned and only require maintenance thinning during this planning period. As a result, harvesting 

may shift to other national forests for more volume, which could pull operators and contractors 

away from completing restoration work elsewhere on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

A Forest Service strategy for 4FRI is to discourage Federal payment for tree cutting and removal 

services, in favor of selling the cut trees at minimal to fair sale values. This shift in strategy could 

discourage some logging/thinning companies from fully participating and/or reduce the number 

of sales sold as transportation fuel prices rise. Fewer cutting treatment acres could result and they 

could be located closer to established markets and/or railroad lines.

Although the proposed plan (alternative B) emphasizes addressing the needs of communities at 

risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, it is not entirely consistent with the community wildfire 

protection plans (CWPPs) for Apache, Navajo, Coconino, and Greenlee Counties, which were 

published in 2004 and 2005. These CWPPs include a generic prescription to “thin from 40 to 60 

BA, with a 16-inch diameter cap” on Federal lands, which may not move project areas toward 

desired conditions. As designed, alternative C would be inconsistent with such a prescription; 

while alternative D would adopt the 16-inch diameter cap for nearly all cuts. Alternative A may

continue to use this prescription on many treatment acres. Under all alternatives, this generic 

prescription would not automatically be proposed or used at the project-level. However, the 

CWPP prescription should be considered as an alternative analyzed in detail under any project 

proposed under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

See the “Socioeconomic Resources” section for additional cumulative environmental 

consequences.

Livestock Grazing

This section describes the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives on the 

rangeland resource. It discusses the forestwide suitability of NFS lands for producing forage for 

grazing animals and examines the potential consequences on the rangeland resource. The full 

analysis for livestock grazing can be found in the “Range Specialist Report” (Forest Service, 

2014n) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.” Additional information can be found in the 

“Vegetation,” “Riparian,” and “Invasive Species” sections.

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• The land management plan sets the framework for site-specific determinations relating to 

allotment management, such as the grazing systems to meet desired conditions and the 

range developments needed to implement those systems.

• Under all alternatives, allotment-level analysis, including season of use, permitted 

livestock numbers, and forage use levels occur at the project-level.

• Pest (e.g., invasive plants) problems are evaluated during allotment planning or as issues 

arise on a site-specific basis.

• Conflict or beneficial interactions among livestock, wild free-roaming horses and burros, 

and wild animal populations are managed at the allotment/territory level.

• Vegetation treatments contribute to the amount and condition of rangelands. All 

alternatives provide direction to move rangelands toward desired conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

• Livestock grazing, under all alternatives, would be adaptively managed to balance use by 

livestock, wild horses, and wildlife, with estimated short- and long-term forage 

production and the effects of climate change.

• Under all alternatives, various activities such as dispersed recreation, firewood gathering, 

road use, OHV use, and elk grazing may affect the forage resource. The effects from 

these activities vary depending on their intensity and location. When conflicts arise from 

these uses that threaten the long-term range condition and trend, the forests would look 

for multiple-use solutions that balance uses, such as consumption by nonnative species of 

forage needed by wildlife.

Affected Environment

In the early 1900s, the Forest Service instituted a grazing permit system that required users to pay 

a fee. The forests were divided into allotments to better control livestock grazing and maintain 

rangeland productivity. Livestock grazing occurs on NFS lands that are capable and suitable and 

in every major vegetation type on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The forests currently have 

96 active grazing allotments and two sheep driveways covering approximately 1.7 million acres 

of NFS lands. Grazing on the forests helps to maintain ranching traditions, social customs, and 

local ranching operations. See the “Socioeconomic Resources” section for the jobs and labor 

income contributed to local counties from livestock grazing on NFS land.

Most of the active and vacant grazing allotments have been assessed for resource conditions and 

undergone NEPA analysis to balance permitted livestock numbers with available forage 

production and to maintain or move toward desired conditions. Management and monitoring are

being used to maintain and improve the rangeland resource. 

Vegetation Treatments 

Rangeland management is affected by the vegetation condition and ongoing vegetation treatments 

such as removal of encroaching juniper using mechanical treatments and wildland fire. For 

information on vegetation condition, see the “Vegetation” section.

In the absence of frequent fire or mechanical treatments, woodlands naturally become denser and 

trees encroach into adjacent grasslands. As junipers and piñons encroach into grasslands, they 

extract shallow groundwater and deposit leaf litter that generally suppresses herbaceous plant 

growth, thereby reducing species composition and density of the native herbaceous understory. 

The encroachment of trees into grasslands reduces ground cover and increases the amount of soil 

erosion, with the potential of a permanent loss of topsoil (Horman and Anderson, 2003). 

In severe stages of tree encroachment, the seed banks of the grasses and forbs can be lost. 

Because much of the existing, encroached grasslands have been dominated by woody species for 

the better part of a century, a seed bank of native herbaceous species may no longer exist. This is 

more the case with piñon-juniper, than in areas with overstocked or encroaching ponderosa pine, 

since the amount of topsoil lost with encroaching ponderosa pine is generally less due to higher 

quantities of protective pine needle litter and duff. The result of encroachment is a loss of forage 

and habitat quality for livestock and wildlife, with a potential permanent loss of topsoil in severe 

stages of erosion.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 479

The 1987 plan acknowledged the overstocking of juniper and the associated effects on 

herbaceous understory density and composition. The plan’s objectives were to thin juniper 

overstory and promote a return to grasslands. Over the past 20 years, many areas of grasslands 

have been treated to reduce tree encroachment.

Riparian Areas

There are approximately 48,000 acres of riparian vegetation types on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Livestock are attracted to areas with water. Cattle, if not actively managed, tend to stay in and 

graze gentle-gradient riparian areas to an extent that can interfere with attaining the desired 

vegetation and soil resource conditions. Wetlands, springs, and aspen stands, and their associated 

wildlife, can be negatively affected by the relatively higher livestock occupancy and use, if not 

controlled. Current allotment management focuses on strategies to distribute livestock use and 

impacts to prevent concentration in the riparian areas.

Invasive Plants

Noxious and invasive weeds outcompete and replace the native plant species on which grazing 

animals and the ecosystem depend. Most weeds have little to no forage value, compared to the 

native species they have replaced. A heavy infestation by one or more weed species could result 

in loss of forage for ungulates and habitat for a variety of wildlife.

The forests are not heavily infested with weeds. Most populations are small and scattered, and do 

not dominate the vegetation community as yet. Therefore, there is very little current effect on 

forage levels for livestock or wildlife from noxious or invasive weeds. 

Heber Wild Horse Territory

The Heber Wild Horse Territory (territory) on the Black Mesa Ranger District comprises 

approximately 19,700 acres. It is located in the Black Canyon area southwest of HeberOvergaard, Arizona. The territory was established in 1973, based on the location of a known band 

of horses, under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Protection Act of 1971 (the act). The 

purpose of the act is to establish territories for use by, and for, the protection of wild horses, in 

numbers harmonizing with the environment.

The 1987 plan does not contain specific goals or objectives for the territory. However, it does 

contain a standard and guideline that states “Maintain existing wild horse territory and herd.” 

Direction for its management will be contained in the site-specific “Heber Wild Horse Territory 

Management Plan,” which is currently under development and environmental analysis.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

All alternatives would provide similar guidance for managing livestock grazing and include 

balancing livestock grazing with available forage.

Lands Capable and Suitable for Livestock Grazing

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

forage for grazing animals on NFS lands be determined. Capability is the potential of an area of 

land to produce resources and supply goods and services. Capability depends upon current 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the 

application of management practices. 

The capability of the lands on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs to produce forage for grazing animals 

was determined in the 1980s during the first round of forest planning. Landscape scale conditions 

that determine capability have not changed significantly since the first evaluation.

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.

The criteria for suitability for livestock grazing would be the same in all action alternatives (see 

chapter 4 in the proposed plan). This is very similar to the existing direction (alternative A) 

under the 1987 plan. The acres suitable for livestock grazing in the action alternatives would be 

very similar. The only variation among the action alternatives corresponds to the amount of land 

allocated to the Recommended Research Natural Area Management Area which is considered not 

suitable. In alternatives B and C land would be allocated to five recommended RNAs; while 

there are only three recommended RNAs in alternative D. Table 152 identifies the acres that are 

suitable for livestock grazing by alternative (see figure 75 through figure 80).

Even though the amount of land suitable for livestock grazing varies slightly by alternative, there 

would be no anticipated impact on permitted animal unit months (AUMs) in all alternatives. The 

alternatives would continue to provide for continued availability of forage for domestic livestock 

and opportunities for ranching lifestyles consistent with the other desired conditions.

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%)

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would potentially be 

affected by other Forest Service activities, such as mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, noxious 

and invasive weed management, and special designations. Effects of these other activities are 

described in more detail below. As a result, under all alternatives, adjustments in season of 

grazing, grazing intensity, kind and class of livestock, or type of grazing system may occur after a 

site-specific analysis.

Additionally, livestock grazing may be affected by competition or conflict with other resource 

users (e.g., recreation, wildlife) or through the need to protect other resources such as soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 481

Figure 75. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 483

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 483

Figure 77. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternatives B and C – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 485

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 485

Figure 79. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative D – Sitgreaves NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Figure 80. Map of land suitable for livestock grazing, alternative D – Apache NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 487

Vegetation Treatments 

Woody Species Reduction

Table 153 displays the average planned treatment (mechanical and wildland fire) objectives in 

woodlands and grasslands on an annual basis. The action alternatives would have more average 

annual mechanical treatments than alternative A.

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

alternative

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

Average Acres Treated in Woodland 

PNVTs Per Year

2,276 9,931 6,133 17,396

Average Acres Treated in Grassland 

PNVTs Per Year

568 18,202 500 18,121

Average Yearly Total By Alternative 2,844 28,133 6,633 35,517

By removing trees in woodlands and grasslands, the resulting open canopy would promote 

understory herbaceous plant growth. The understory vegetation would benefit from reduced 

competition with trees and would increase in vigor, expand its basal and canopy cover, and 

deposit seeds that could sprout into new plants and result in improved forage conditions and 

ground cover. Seed banks in woodlands and grasslands may be lost due to erosion; this could be 

mitigated by seeding the treated areas. Alternatives D and then B would provide the greatest 

benefit to rangeland condition since the most acres are treated, followed by alternatives C and A. 

Mechanical Vegetation Treatments 

Under all alternatives, mechanical vegetation treatments would have little effect on overall 

livestock operations. In the near to mid-term, up to 20 years from treatment, mechanical 

vegetation treatments and their associated prescribed burns open up the tree canopy and allow 

more light and water for herbaceous plants to grow. This increases the available forage for 

grazing animals, improves watershed characteristics through increased ground cover, organic 

matter, and plant diversity (Bates et al., 2000). The increase in forage would improve livestock 

distribution in pastures, reduce impacts on use on other areas such as meadows, and improve 

rangeland conditions.

Follow-up treatments would be needed to maintain the reduced tree canopy. Otherwise, areas 

would revegetate with trees and lose the herbaceous component that had developed, thus reducing 

the amount of forage available for domestic livestock. For more information on overstory and 

herbaceous understory cover relationship, see the “Vegetation” section.

Thinning may restore dry springs because of the removal of live trees; trees that would otherwise 

extract shallow groundwater before it can come out in the springs. 

Mechanical treatments have the potential to introduce or encourage the spread of noxious weeds. 

Vehicles transport seeds and expose soils, and tree removal increases light availability. In some 

cases, the weed seeds may have been dormant in the soil for decades; the disturbance from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

equipment and increased sunlight encourages seed sprouting. A weed infestation could result in 

the loss of the area as a forage base for ungulates and as habitat for wildlife, insects, and native 

plants. However, the risk of weed infestation would be limited under all alternatives because 

there is direction in law, policy, and regulation to contain, control, and eradicate invasive species 

and areas would be reviewed to mitigate the potential emergence of invasive species. 

Fire

Fire removes forage available to livestock in the short term until plants regrow, usually until the 

next season. Grazing management can be affected by wildland fire and may need to be adjusted 

by changing pasture rotations, livestock numbers, or livestock season of use. 

After any prescribed burn or wildfire, the area would be evaluated for ground cover and 

condition, plant composition, infrastructure (e.g., fencing), presence of noxious and invasive 

weeds, and forage production before livestock are authorized to graze. 

Wildland fire would be planned in all alternatives; however, there is not a direct correlation 

between the amount of wildland fire and burned pastures and the need to defer livestock grazing. 

There are times following fire, based on an evaluation of resource condition, that a pasture may 

be temporarily unavailable to livestock grazing, which may in turn impact the permittee. 

In the near to mid-term, up to 20 years from treatment, wildland fire would open up the tree 

canopy and allow more light and water for herbaceous plants to increase and establish. This 

would increase available forage for grazing animals mostly in upland areas. However, this may be 

temporary, unless follow-up treatments occur that would maintain the reduced tree canopy. 

Without maintenance, it is likely that treated areas would gradually revegetate with trees and lose 

the herbaceous component that had developed.

The increased herbaceous cover may not lead to noticeable increases in authorized or permitted 

livestock AUMs because forage in upland areas is often underused when compared to the areas 

along streams and meadows, which control how long and how many livestock can graze in a 

pasture without adverse impacts to those areas.

Wildland fire may restore dry springs because of the removal of live trees; trees that would 

otherwise extract shallow groundwater before it can come out in the springs. This effect is much 

less likely with low severity fires than with high severity fires because fewer trees are killed.

Riparian Areas

In all alternatives, the impact of livestock grazing on riparian habitat would be analyzed in sitespecific NEPA analyses, as needed. If desired conditions cannot be achieved through grazing 

management practices (e.g., herding, grazing deferment), then livestock exclosures may be 

necessary around wetlands, cienegas, and riparian areas. 

Exclosures areas would likely not be available for forage, but they would not be big enough to 

reduce stocking rates in a pasture. The need for water at exclosures would be mitigated with 

alternative water sources, such as providing lanes to the water, piping to livestock drinkers, or 

other techniques.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 489

Invasive Plants

Increased abundance of invasive weeds would reduce the quality of forage by displacing native 

species and altering nutrient and fire cycles, degrading soil structure, and decreasing the quality 

and availability of forage for livestock and wildlife (Mack et al., 2000). 

Although the 1987 plan (alternative A) provided no direction to manage invasive species, the 

forests actually began to actively manage invasive plants in the mid-1990s. All of the action 

alternatives would provide specific direction to contain, control, and eradicate invasive plant 

species. 

In all alternatives, noxious and invasive weed populations would be treated before they can 

dominate areas, and they would, therefore, not affect forage levels. However, the spread of 

invasive plants into grazing allotments could result in the temporary closure of affected 

rangelands in order to expedite treatment and eradication measures. Treatment should result in 

control of the invasive plants and improvement of the degraded rangeland.

Heber Wild Horse Territory

All alternatives would manage the territory according to the territory management plan currently 

being developed and analyzed. The only difference between alternative A and the action 

alternatives is that they would recognize the territory as a separate management area. The 

environmental consequences to the forage resource in the Heber Wild Horse Territory would be 

similar to other areas of the forests (see other parts of this “Livestock Grazing” section).

Climate Change

There may be environmental consequences associated with climate change. Warmer and drier 

conditions could result in changes in vegetation patterns (Westerling, 2006; Millar, 2007); 

decreases in overall forest productivity (Forest Service, 2008e); decreases in water availability; 

and greater vulnerability to invasive plants. These conditions would decrease forage availability 

and shorten the season for livestock grazing. Unlike alternative A, the action alternatives

provide guidance (e.g., invasive species treatments) for preventative and adaptive measures that 

respond to climate change.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area for this level of analysis includes adjacent national forests, Bureau of Land 

Management, State, tribal, and private land. It is reasonably foreseeable that livestock grazing 

would continue on these lands. Vegetative treatments (primarily wildland fire and mechanical) are 

also expected to occur on these adjacent lands. These types of treatments would increase forage 

for livestock and improve rangeland condition. All alternatives would be expected to 

cumulatively contribute to this increase in forage availability based on the planned vegetation 

treatments.

An effect associated with mechanical treatments and livestock grazing is the potential to spread 

invasive species from adjacent lands. New weed populations could occur from vehicletransported seeds and increased light availability following mechanical treatments or creation of 

seedbeds by livestock use. Livestock and wildlife can bring in weed seeds, but livestock use 

results in fewer new weed populations than those established along roads and trails by seeds 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

spread by vehicle tires, equipment tracks, and/or attached soil (Tyser and Worley, 1992; Tyser and 

Key, 1988; Gelbard and Harrison, 2003). All alternatives would contribute similarly to the 

control, treatment, and eradication of invasive plant species introduced from outside the forests.

Fires from adjacent lands can escape and spread onto the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. If they do, it 

could lead to temporary grazing exclusions and impact ranching operations by requiring the

permittee to find new forage or sell all or part of the livestock. 

See the “Socioeconomic Resources” section for additional cumulative environmental 

consequences.

Minerals and Energy

This section describes the environmental consequences of minerals and energy resources 

development from implementing the alternatives. It compares how each alternative varies in its 

emphasis of mineral and energy activities and development by comparing the amount of land that 

is or may be withdrawn from mineral entry. Information related to special use permits and energy 

corridors and developments can be found in the “Lands and Special Uses” section. The full 

analysis for minerals and energy can be found in the “Minerals and Energy Specialist Report”

(Forest Service, 2014m) available in the “Plan Set of Documents.”

In the analysis for this resource, assumptions include the following:

• The Forest Service has the personnel and funding capacity to screen, process, and 

administer mineral activities.

• The economy will fluctuate and influence mineral exploration.

• There are no known leases on the forests for the following leasable mineral resources: oil 

and gas, oil shale, coal, or geothermal. Should valid leasable mineral proposals be 

submitted, the Forest Service would respond as a cooperating agency when requested by 

the BLM, which acts as the lead agency for subsurface mineral extraction. Therefore, the 

effects to leasable minerals were not analyzed.

Affected Environment

Minerals

Individuals operating under U.S. mining laws have a statutory right (General Mining Law of 

1872) to enter NFS lands to locate and develop mineral resources. Mineral resources on federally 

owned lands are separated into three categories by statutory and regulatory direction: locatable, 

leasable, and mineral materials (salable). Mineral activity fluctuates with consumer demand and 

prices. The currently high prices (GoldPrice, 2011) for many minerals could make exploration 

and development more economical. Mineral resource activity on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs has 

historically been low. Mineral activity is presently concentrated in a few scattered areas. 

Commodity use and production have shown declines from the past. However, these forest uses 

contribute to sustaining the lifestyles and traditions of local communities.

The following sections discuss locatable and salable minerals. The potential for locatable and 

leasable minerals on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is low because of the existing geology. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 491

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals are those valuable deposits subject to exploration and development under the 

General Mining Law of 1872 (as amended). Examples of locatable minerals include, but are not 

limited to, iron, gold, copper, silver, lead, and zinc. The public has a statutory right to explore for, 

claim, and mine mineral deposits found on federally owned lands subject to U.S. mining laws. 

Through a memorandum of understanding with the BLM, the Forest Service administers most 

aspects of operation under the General Mining Law of 1872 on NFS lands. The Forest Service 

responds to future operating plans for valid locatable mineral development as they are submitted. 

Proposals for development of discoveries would likely be infrequent since there are a limited 

number of claims on the forests. A large copper deposit and open pit copper mine exist just south 

of the forests’ boundary near Morenci, Arizona.

There are three types of locatable mining claims found on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs: lode, 

placer, and mill sites. Mining claims may vary in size, but there are maximum size limits by type 

of claim (BLM, 2008):

• Lode: 1,500 feet by 600 feet or approximately 21 acres.

• Placer: 20 acres per person with a maximum of 160 acres for an association of eight or 

more persons.

• Mill site: 5 acres.

Table 154 displays the number of active mining claims on the forests.

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

2009b)

County Ranger District Placer Claims Lode Claims Mill Site Claims

Apache Springerville 1 7 0

Coconino Black Mesa 8 0 0

Greenlee Clifton 173 199 12

Navajo Lakeside/Black Mesa 34 0 0

A mining claimant on NFS lands is required by 36 CFR § 228, Part A, to file an operating plan or 

notice of intent for proposed mining activities that includes the name and address of operators, a 

sketch or map of the location, descriptions of operations, access timing, operating period, and 

environmental protection measures. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs works with claimants to assure 

that standards and guidelines in the land management plan are met. The operating plan requires 

an environmental analysis and decision before the plan is approved.

There is minimal mining activity on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Mining employment occurs on 

non-NFS lands adjacent to the forests near Clifton, Arizona.

Mineral Activity

The potential for locatable minerals on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is low because of the existing 

geology. The following minerals (table 155) may be found in the counties where the ApacheSitgreaves NFs are located: Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo in Arizona. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

Brennan, 1970)

County Ranger District Mineral

Apache Alpine/Springerville Cobaltite, Erythrite (Cobalt Bloom)

Coconino Black Mesa Manganese oxide, Dolomite

Greenlee Clifton Gold (lode, placer), Copper, Chalcocite, Sphalerite, Chalcopyrite, 

Covellite, Pyrite, Molybdenite, Cuprite, Tenorite, Pyrolusite, 

Magnetite, Fluorite, Magnesite, Smithsonite, Coronadite, Cerussite, 

Dolomite, Malachite, Azurite, Gerhardtite (Chase Creek Canyon), 

Gypsum, Chalcanthite, Melanterite, Epsomite, Goslarite, 

Brochantite, Antlerite, Alunite, Spangolite, Cyanotrichite, Crocoite, 

Libethenite, Vanadinite, Pyroxene, Tremolite, Garnet, Willemite, 

Zircon, Dioptase, Epidote, Hemimorphite, Glauconite, Serpentine, 

Kaolinite, Nontronite, Chrysocolla

Navajo Lakeside/Black Mesa Gypsum

Additional exploration for locatable minerals would most likely be limited. Active mining claims 

for locatable sandstone are located on the Lakeside Ranger District (six to eight separate 

claimants) and two separate claims on the Black Mesa Ranger District. Each claimant operates 

under an approved plan of operations. Mining claims on the Clifton Ranger District (Greenlee 

County) are generally associated with the adjacent private copper mining operations. There are no 

known abandoned mines on Apache-Sitgreaves NFs lands that would require closure. A number 

of small abandoned surface operations and test pits are scattered across the forests and are not 

regarded as hazardous.

Mineral Withdrawals

Mineral withdrawals are under the authority of the 1872 Mining Law for the purpose of limiting 

activities in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserve the area for a particular 

public purpose or program. A withdrawal is the withholding of an area from application of the 

general land laws such as prohibiting the filing of new mining claims in an area. Designated 

wilderness is withdrawn from mineral entry in the enabling legislation. The Forest Service may 

request withdrawal of areas from mineral activity if the activity might conflict with other 

management objectives. Mineral entry withdrawals are generally initiated for administrative sites, 

developed public recreation areas, and areas highly valued by the public, such as scenic corridors. 

The 1987 plan identified several management areas that may be withdrawn from mineral entry, 

but no action has been taken to withdraw those areas.

Currently, 46,604 acres or 2.3 percent of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry. These withdrawals include wilderness, the Phelps Cabin Research 

Natural Area (RNA), Phelps Cabin Botanical Area, highway corridors, reservoirs, recreation 

areas, administrative sites, and developed campgrounds.

Salable Minerals

Salable mineral (also known as common variety mineral) materials are generally low-value 

deposits of sand, clay, and stone used for building materials and road surfacing. Extracting these 

materials from NFS lands is at Forest Service discretion. The major statutes pertaining to salable 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 493

minerals are the Minerals Materials Act of 1947, Surfaces Resources Act of 1955, and the Federal 

Highways Act of 1956.

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs have lands that are potential sources of sand, gravel, landscape rock, 

cinders, and crushed rock. There are also off-forest sources to meet private needs. The demand for 

common variety mineral materials from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is currently low. Permitted 

uses are predominantly small private sales from common use pits, a multi-operator commercial 

pit, and various pits for State and county road uses, primarily for road cinders and/or gravel.

The 1987 plan does not allow permitting of mineral material activities in Management Area 14-

Black River (Mainstem), Management Area 15-West Fork Black River, Management Area 16-

Chevelon Canyon, and Management Area 17-East and West Forks Little Colorado River. Also, no 

streambed alteration or removal of mineral materials is allowed if it significantly affects ripariandependent ecosystems, channel morphology, or streambank stability.

Mineral Activity

Sales of mineral materials have varied considerably. In FY2006, 18,400 tons were sold for $9,660 

(USGS, 2006); while 38,600 tons were sold for almost $21,000 in FY2009 (Forest Service, 

2010c). Free use permits were issued for 25,300 tons in FY2006. The Forest Service uses 

materials for routine maintenance of NFS roads; some rock crushing occurs for project-specific 

needs. In FY2006, the Forest Service used almost 500,000 tons of mineral materials. These uses 

are expected to continue. There may be additional pressure for mineral materials as non-NFS 

lands adjacent to the forests are developed.

An increase in demand of common variety minerals could be expected as road construction and 

maintenance occurs on and around the forests. The demand for gravel may increase as 

campgrounds, forest roads, and county roads are improved. Increased work associated with 

Federal and State highway construction, reconstruction, and maintenance may increase the 

demand for construction materials, and the forests may be obligated to provide material under the 

Title 23, Section 317 of the Federal Highways Act.

Leasable Minerals 

There are minimal extractable (leasable) resources on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. Potential for 

geothermal development is limited as only small areas are underlain by thermal waters. A small 

coal bed is located along the forests boundary north of Pinedale, but it has not been developed. 

There are no known oil and gas resources.

There are no current leases for oil and gas, geothermal, or coal on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Energy

Solar energy potential is high and future development would be related to demand. Wind 

potential is low because of sporadic winds and the terrain (Forest Service, 2009b). There may be 

a need for additional energy corridors or developments (e.g., electric transmission lines, pipelines, 

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

Arizona and the Southwest and to provide reliable and consistent services. As communities 

expand and as non-NFS lands surrounded by NFS lands are developed, distribution lines may be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

proposed to provide electric services. Energy corridors and energy development (infrastructure) 

are discussed in the “Lands and Special Uses” section.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Minerals

Under all alternatives, decisions regarding mineral activities on the forests would align with law, 

regulation, and policy and would be consistent with plan decisions for other resource areas (e.g., 

cultural resources, wildlife).

Under all alternatives, mineral activities may have adverse environmental consequences on some 

resources in the short term and long term. Short-term environmental consequences could include 

increased human activity, such as motorized traffic, noise from construction equipment, 

temporary roads, ground disturbance during exploration activities, and construction of the 

authorized facilities.

Long-term environmental consequences could include operation and maintenance of the 

authorized facilities over the life of the facility. Operation and maintenance activities may include 

increased human activity and noise, motorized vehicle traffic, or additional ground disturbance. 

Determination and implementation of mitigation measures and design may lessen environmental 

consequences.

Over the long term, the greater public and communities should benefit from services provided by 

mineral activities. Authorizations that are for a long-term commitment (more than 5 years) and 

permit some type of construction or extractive activity or alter the landscape would encumber 

NFS lands for the terms of the authorization and most likely for the foreseeable future. Few 

authorized constructed features are fully removed or the landscape is not fully rehabilitated.

If locatable mineral extraction occurs during plan implementation, it would result in an 

irreversible commitment of the resource because it consumes nonrenewable minerals.

Locatable Minerals

Effects to locatable minerals would be limited to the different amounts of land that could be 

withdrawn from mineral entry in all alternatives. There would be no effects to existing mineral 

claims. The effects to future locatable mineral activities are described in the section below.

Mineral Withdrawals

The current areas that are withdrawn from mineral entry would be carried forward in all 

alternatives. This would equate to 46,604 acres not being available for mineral location and 

development. Because of the low mineral potential of the forests and the very small amount 

(2.3 percent) of the forests withdrawn from mineral entry, there would no effects to mining claim 

location and development.

Recommended wilderness (table 156) would be withdrawn from mineral entry if congressionally 

designated as wilderness. Recommended RNAs (table 156) may be withdrawn if they are 

administratively designated. Alternative A would have no effect on mining claim location and 

development because no additional lands would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Alternatives 

B and C would generally have little to no effect on mining claim location and development 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 495

because of the low mineral potential of the forests and the very small percentages (3 percent or 

less) of the forests that could be withdrawn. Alternative D could have the most effect on future 

locatable mineral activities because almost one quarter of the forests could be withdrawn which 

would result in less ground disturbance and fewer effects to resources.

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

Management Area

Alt. A Acres

(percent of 

forests)

Alt. B Acres

(percent of 

forests)

Alt. C Acres

(percent of 

forests)

Alt. D Acres

(percent of 

forests)

Recommended RNA 1,329a

(<1%)

7,814

(<1%)

7,814

(<1%)

5,957

(<1%)

Recommended Wilderness 0

(0%)

7,074

(<1%)

6,982

(<1%)

681,580

(34%)

Total 1,329

(<1%)

14,888

(<1%)

14,796

(<1%)

687,537

(34%)

a Acreage from the 1987 plan. Does not include recommended Escudilla RNA, because the area is within Escudilla 

Wilderness.

Salable Minerals

Alternative A would allow the development of new common variety mineral sources where 

economic considerations permit and where scenic resource objectives can be met, except in four 

identified management areas. Alternative A would have the most lands available for mineral 

material permitting. The action alternatives would limit common variety mineral activities in 

designated and recommended special areas (e.g., RNAs, wilderness, eligible and suitable wild 

and scenic rivers, national recreation trails, scenic byways) and Chevelon Canyon. Alternatives 

B and C would have less land available than alternative A. The least land would be available in 

alternative D because of the amount of land in the Recommended Wilderness Management Area. 

The effects to resources would be least in alternative D because of less ground disturbance. 

Alternatives A, B, and C would have more lands available to respond to public demand for 

mineral materials than alternative D.

Energy

There would be little to no effects to extractive energy resources in all alternatives because of 

the very limited amount of these resources on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The area for this level of analysis includes those lands adjacent to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. 

There are no known cumulative environmental consequences associated with minerals and energy 

development on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. There may be requests for transmission corridors 

due to energy development on adjacent lands. See the “Lands and Special Uses” section for a 

discussion of the potential consequences.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Socioeconomic Resources

This section provides social and economic analysis, including past and current conditions and the 

potential consequences of the four alternatives on the social and economic environment.

The earliest inhabitants of the area comprising the present-day Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and 

surrounding lands trod lightly upon the land at least 13,000 years ago. They followed the 

migrating mammoth and later the buffalo, leaving only spear points to mark their presence. As 

early as 2,000 years ago, the Ancestral Puebloans arrived and shared the White Mountains with 

the Mogollon people already there. By the time the Apache, Navajo, and Yavapai arrived in the 

1400s, the Puebloans were gone. After the mid-1500s, the Spanish continued a modest forest use, 

although they used the forests for fuel, structures, and fence posts more than the Native 

Americans did.

From 1821 to 1848, the Mogollon Rim forests were part of the Republic of Mexico. When the 

United States acquired the territory from Mexico, those lands became a part of the “public 

domain” if they were not owned by private individuals, including earlier Spanish and Mexican 

land grants. The land was opened under various laws to settlement, purchase, and use. Only after 

the American Civil War and the completion of the railroads did a great change in public land use 

begin in Arizona. Domestic enterprises like cutting timber, mining, and raising cattle were to 

become corporate enterprises with national and international markets.

The territory of Arizona urged the sale of all of the territorial timberlands at public auction in 

1879. In 1880, Congress authorized the citizens of Arizona to “fell and remove timber from the 

public domain for mining and domestic purposes.” Timber production in Arizona and New 

Mexico, estimated at 8 million board feet in 1879, rose to 22 million in 1889 and 67 million in 

1900. Cattle grazed on the forests’ open ranges in ever greater numbers, increasing from 

172,000 head in 1880 to 1.5 million by 1890. In 1891, Congress authorized the President to 

designate particular areas of forested public domain as “reserves,” to be set aside for future use. 

The reserves were, by law, completely closed to public use and there was no management or 

supervision of the land. Congress restricted the President’s authority in 1897, authorizing him to 

establish reserves only to preserve timber, protect watersheds, and provide lumber for local use.

On August 17, 1898, the Black Mesa Reserve (North and South) was established. By 1900, once 

lush grasslands could no longer support large numbers of livestock. It was becoming painfully 

clear to Southwesterners that the renewable and nonrenewable resources of the Southwest were 

being depleted. The Secretary of Agriculture announced in 1905 the transfer of the Forest 

Reserves to the Department of Agriculture, as authorized by Congress. Some 21 million acres of 

public lands, almost one-eighth of the land area of Arizona and New Mexico, were now to be 

administered by a regional subdivision of the Forest Service. The Forest Service was charged to 

maintain the permanence of national forest resources, while providing for their use. In 1907, 

Black Mesa Reserve was made a national forest with its headquarters in Show Low, Arizona. In 

1908, Theodore Roosevelt established the Sitgreaves NF from parts of the Black Mesa North 

Reserve and Tonto NF. The Apache NF was established the same year from portions of the Black 

Mesa South Reserve and other neighboring forest reserves.

Arizona’s population increased dramatically following World War II, but little changed in the 

rural communities surrounding the Apache and Sitgreaves NFs. Logging, grazing, and mining 

were important economic factors in the local communities and the forests provided employment 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 497

where few jobs were available. In 1974, the Apache NF was combined administratively with the 

Sitgreaves NF to become the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

The study areas for the economic analysis are consistent with the areas defined in the “Economic 

and Social Sustainability Assessment” (Forest Service, 2009a). Affected environment analysis 

uses all of Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties in Arizona and Catron and Grant 

Counties in New Mexico. The environmental consequences analysis uses zip code-level data to 

better capture the economic links between the forests and the surrounding communities. The 

northern sections of Apache and Navajo Counties and most of Coconino County are excluded 

from the environmental consequences analysis due to their physical distance from the forests. The 

forests’ land base lies in the Arizona counties; however, the New Mexico counties were also 

included because of use patterns and economic trade flows. Table 157 reports the number of 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs acres by county. 

Table 157. Apache-Sitgreaves NFs acres by county

County, State Acres

Apache County, AZ 493,481

Coconino County, AZ 285,693

Greenlee County, AZ 751,619

Navajo County, AZ 487,257

Catron County, NMa —

Grant County, NM —

Source: Forest Service, 2008a

a Apache NF lands in Catron County are administered by the Gila NF and are not 

considered in this analysis.

The assumptions and additional methodology used for this analysis are described in appendix B 

and the “Socioeconomic Resource Report” (Forest Service, 2014c) available in the “Plan Set of 

Documents.”

Affected Environment

The affected environment section is split into three parts: (1) population and demographics, (2) 

employment and income, and (3) environmental justice.

Population and Demographics

This section highlights population and demographic trends in the study area. Population is an 

important consideration in managing natural resources. In particular, population structure (e.g., 

size, composition, density) and population dynamics (how the structure changes over time) are 

essential to describing the consequences of forest management and planning on a social 

environment (Seesholtz et al., 2004). Population increases may lead to conflicts over land use, 

travel management, recreation activities, and values. These are conflicts that Forest Service 

managers attempt to balance when making management decisions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Population Growth

The study area counties are home to 355,064 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Table 158

displays population data for the counties, their respective states, and the Nation in 1990, 2000, 

and 2010.

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

Area 1990 2000 % Growth, 

1990-2000 2010 % Growth, 2000-2010

Apache County, AZ 61,591 69,423 12.7% 71,518 3.0%

Coconino County, AZ 96,591 116,320 20.4% 134,421 15.6%

Greenlee County, AZ 8,008 8,547 6.7% 8,437 -1.3%

Navajo County, AZ 77,658 97,470 25.5% 107,449 10.2%

Catron County, NM 2,563 3,543 38.2% 3,725 5.1%

Grant County, NM 27,676 31,002 12.0% 29,514 -4.8%

Study Area Total 274,087 326,305 19.1% 355,064 8.8%

Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 40.0% 6,392,017 24.6%

New Mexico 1,515,069 1,819,046 20.1% 2,059,179 13.2%

United States 248,709,873 281,421,906 13.2% 308,745,538 9.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010

The data reveal substantial diversity between counties. The counties range in populations from 

134,421 residents in Coconino County, AZ (which accounts for more than one-third of total study 

area population), to 3,725 in Catron County, NM. Both Coconino and Navajo Counties, AZ, have 

more than 100,000 residents; while Greenlee County, AZ, and Catron County, NM, both have 

fewer than 10,000 residents.

In addition to population size, the counties are diverse in terms of growth rates. All study area 

counties experienced population growth between 1990 and 2000. However, growth slowed 

between 2000 and 2010. Two counties (Greenlee County, AZ, and Grant County, NM) lost 

population during the latter decade. In both periods, the population growth rate in the study area 

was below the population growth rates in Arizona and New Mexico.

Rapid population growth may signal expanding economic opportunities and/or desirable 

amenities. On the other hand, slow or negative population growth may signal an aging population 

(deaths exceed births) and low net migration (or out-migration). Areas with large populations or 

rapid population growth are less likely to be acutely affected by Forest Service management, 

while areas with small populations or stagnant/negative growth are likely more vulnerable to 

Forest Service actions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 499

Population Density

Population density can serve as an indicator of a number of socioeconomic factors of interest: 

urbanization, availability of open space, socioeconomic diversity, and civic infrastructure (Horne 

and Haynes, 1999). More densely populated areas are generally more urban, diverse, and offer 

better access to infrastructure. In contrast, less densely populated areas provide more open space, 

which may offer natural amenity values to residents and visitors. Table 159 displays the number 

of people per square mile for the counties of interest.

Despite population growth in most of the counties, the number of people per square mile remains 

quite low. Every study area county is less dense than its respective state and the Nation as a 

whole. Catron County, NM, has the lowest population density, with only one person for every 

2 square miles. Even the most densely populated county (Navajo County, AZ) has many fewer 

people per square mile than either the state (Arizona) or the Nation.

These findings suggest that most of the study area is quite rural. Low population density also 

points to high levels of public ownership. In all of the Arizona counties included in the analysis, a 

minority of the land is privately owned. Navajo County, AZ, has the highest private ownership 

rate, 30 percent, but the majority of land is publicly owned (Forest Service, BLM, and State 

lands) or Indian reservation land. In Greenlee County, AZ, only 8.1 percent of the land is 

privately owned, which accounts for the low population density in the county (Arizona 

Department of Commerce, 2008).

Table 159. Population density

Area People/Square Mile

Apache County, AZ 6.4

Coconino County, AZ 7.2

Greenlee County, AZ 4.6

Navajo County, AZ 10.8

Catron County, NM 0.5

Grant County, NM 7.4

Arizona 56.3

New Mexico 17.0

United States 87.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010

Age and Gender

As with other population characteristics, the median age varies substantially between counties. 

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties (AZ) are all relatively young with median 

ages below the state and national medians. In contrast, the New Mexico counties (Catron and 

Grant) exceed the state and national median ages by nearly a decade in Grant County and almost 

20 years in Catron County. A high median age generally indicates that a relatively large number 

of retirees reside in the area. An area with a large percentage of retirees earns income primarily 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

from investments and transfer payments (e.g., dividends, Social Security), rather than salaries and 

wages (table 160).

Table 160. Median age

Area Median Age

Apache County, AZ 32.4

Coconino County, AZ 31.0

Greenlee County, AZ 34.8

Navajo County, AZ 34.7

Catron County, NM 55.8

Grant County, NM 45.9

Arizona 35.9

New Mexico 36.7

United States 37.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, table DP-1

Age data may be relevant for forest management decisions. A population’s age may affect 

community values and uses associated with National Forest System (NFS) lands. For example, 

older populations are more likely to desire easily accessible recreation opportunities.

Gender disparities in counties (i.e., deviations from a 50/50 split) may have numerous 

explanations, including (1) the significant presence of an industry that is often dominated by one 

gender (e.g., forestry or mining); (2) a large number of single-parent households; (3) a large 

retiree population, which due to differences in life expectancy, often leads to a higher 

concentration of women; and (4) a combination of the above and other unnamed factors.

Table 161 displays the gender breakdown for the study area counties, the states, and the Nation. 

Most of the counties have gender distributions similar to the national distribution. Greenlee 

County, AZ, and Catron County, NM, however, diverge from these trends. In these counties, the 

male population exceeds the female population by 3 percentage points or more.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 501

Table 161. Gender distribution

Area Females (Percent 

Total Population)

Males (Percent

Total Population)

Apache County, AZ 50.1 49.9

Coconino County, AZ 50.4 49.6

Greenlee County, AZ 47.9 52.1

Navajo County, AZ 50.0 50.0

Catron County, NM 47.7 52.3

Grant County, NM 50.9 49.1

Arizona 50.3 49.7

New Mexico 50.6 49.4

United States 50.8 49.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, table DP-1 

Educational Attainment

Educational attainment, the measure of people with at least a high school diploma or bachelor’s 

degree, is an important indicator of an area’s social and economic opportunities and its ability to 

adapt to change. Table 162 lists the percentage of the adult population with at least a high school 

diploma and a bachelor’s degree. 

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

Area High School Graduate Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

Apache County, AZ 72.1% 10.3%

Coconino County, AZ 87.0% 31.1%

Greenlee County, AZ 89.8% 13.4%

Navajo County, AZ 80.5% 14.4%

Catron County, NM 86.0% 21.3%

Grant County, NM 85.3% 24.1%

Arizona 85.0% 26.3%

New Mexico 82.7% 25.5%

United States 85.0% 27.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, table DP02

Thirty percent of Coconino County, AZ, residents have at least a bachelor’s degree, a rate that 

exceeds the rate in any other study area county, either state, and the Nation. Catron and Grant 

Counties (NM) have educational attainment rates that are comparable to state and national 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

averages. Greenlee County (AZ) has a high percentage of high school graduates, but the 

percentage of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree is approximately half of state and national 

averages. Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) have the lowest educational attainment rates in the 

study area. Both counties fall below state and national educational attainment rates.

High educational attainment rates generally exist in areas with plentiful employment 

opportunities for working-age adults with high levels of education. The presence of highly 

educated adults may be self-reinforcing: a highly educated population is a signal that an area 

provides economic and cultural opportunities, which attracts additional college educated adults to 

the area. This process leads to further economic development and job creation. In contrast, areas 

with low levels of educational attainment are less able to adapt to economic change (Florida, 

2002). Areas with lower educational attainment (i.e., Apache and Navajo Counties) are less 

resilient to change. As a result, land management actions are more likely to adversely affect social 

and economic well-being in these counties. 

Forest Visitors

Table 163 reports Apache-Sitgreaves NFs visitor activity participation. Relaxing, viewing natural 

features, viewing wildlife, hiking/walking, driving for pleasure, and fishing are activities in which 

more than half of forest visitors engage. Relaxing is the most common main activity (i.e., the 

primary purpose of the forest visit), followed by fishing, hiking/walking, and camping in 

developed sites.

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

NFs' recreation visitorsa

 

Activity Percent 

Participationb

Percent Who Indicated 

as Primary Activity

General-relaxing, escaping noise and heat 84.2 41.3

Viewing natural features (scenery) on NFS lands 79.3 3.5

Viewing wildlife on NFS lands 73.5 1.0

Hiking or walking 62.2 8.7

Driving for pleasure on roads 53.3 3.2

Fishing-all types 50.5 19.6

Picnicking and day gatherings in developed sites 47.8 1.5

Camping in developed sites 35.7 7.2

Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, etc. 27.6 0.2

Primitive camping 19.4 3.3

Visiting nature center or visitor information services 18.3 0.5

Resorts and cabins on NFS lands 13.7 0.0

Bicycling, including mountain bikes 11.5 0.3

Off-highway vehicle travel 11.3 4.0
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 503

Activity Percent 

Participationb

Percent Who Indicated 

as Primary Activity

Visiting historic and prehistoric sites 11.0 0.1

Other nonmotorized activities (swimming, sports) 6.9 0.9

Motorized water travel (boats, jet skis) 6.8 0.2

Nonmotorized water travel (canoe, raft) 6.4 0.0

Nature study 4.8 0.0

Backpacking and camping in unroaded areas 4.0 0.1

Horseback riding 3.4 0.4

Hunting-all types 3.0 1.3

Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other) 1.1 0.0

Downhill skiing or snowboarding 0.1 0

Snowmobile travel 0 0

Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 0 0

a Kocis et al., 2002

b More than one activity could be checked.

Employment and Income

The previous section assessed demographic trends in the study area relative to the state and 

national averages. This section focuses on economic conditions and trends. This discussion 

provides additional information on the social and economic environment in the study area.

Per Capita Income

Per capita income is a key indicator of the economic well-being of a county. High per capita 

income may signal greater job opportunities, highly skilled residents, greater economic resiliency, 

and well-developed infrastructure. Table 164 provides data on per capita income in 2010 for the 

counties, states, and Nation.

Coconino County, AZ, has the highest per capita income in the study area, which is consistent 

with the demographic data presented above. Coconino County has the highest proportion of 

college-educated adults (table 162) and its population grew nearly 40 percent between 1990 and 

2010 (table 158). However, all counties in the study area have lower levels of per capita income 

than their respective states and the Nation.

Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) have the lowest per capita income in the study area. Per capita 

income in Navajo County, AZ, is approximately $10,000 less than per capita income in Arizona. 

In Apache County, AZ, per capita income is less than half of statewide per capita income. Apache 

County is the 16th poorest county in the Nation, based on per capita income (Navajo County is the 

192nd poorest) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). The per capita income data, grouped with 

demographic data, suggest that many residents of Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) are socially 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

and economically vulnerable. This is discussed in greater detail in the Environmental Justice 

section.

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

Area Per Capita Income

Apache County, AZ $12,294

Coconino County, AZ $22,632

Greenlee County, AZ $21,281

Navajo County, AZ $16,745

Catron County, NM $20,895

Grant County, NM $21,164

Arizona $25,680

New Mexico $22,966

United States $27,334

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, table DP03

Per capita income considers all sources of income including wages and salary payments, transfer 

payments, investment earnings, dividends, and rents. The poorest counties likely receive much of 

their income in the form of transfer payments, such as unemployment insurance and 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments. These finding are borne out in the “NonLabor Income” and “Employment” sections that follow.

Median Earnings

Per capita income offers an incomplete picture of the economic well-being of an area. Table 165

presents data on median earnings for workers. Whereas per capita income considers all sources of 

income; median earnings includes wage and salary earnings.

When only median earnings for workers are considered, the economic conditions in Apache and 

Navajo Counties (AZ) do not seem to meaningfully diverge from the rest of the counties in the 

study area. Comparing per capita income and median earnings data for Apache and Navajo 

Counties (AZ) suggests that the residents who are employed in these counties work in similarly 

paying occupations as residents of other study area counties, but that a smaller proportion of 

residents in Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) are employed. The employment characteristics of 

individuals in these counties are addressed further in the two subsequent sections: non-labor 

income and unemployment. The higher median earnings for Greenlee County, AZ, reflect the 

wages paid by the mining industry.

Income and earnings data are incomplete without a discussion of cost of living. The topic is 

addressed further in the “Housing” section.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 505

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

Area Median Earnings for Workers

Apache County, AZ $22,541

Coconino County, AZ $22,473

Greenlee County, AZ $35,068

Navajo County, AZ $22,524

Catron County, NM $24,375

Grant County, NM $21,711

Arizona $29,573

New Mexico $25,115

United States $29,701

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, table DP03

Non-Labor Income

Table 166 displays the role of labor and non-labor income in total personal income for 2000 and 

2009. Non-labor income is any income derived from investments, dividends, rents, or transfer 

payments. In contrast, labor income is salary and wage disbursements from employment. During 

this past decade, the percentage of total income derived from non-labor sources increased in all 

considered areas.

Non-labor income is not directly tied to employment; therefore, it can be more resistant to 

economic downturns. However, as the most recent recession demonstrated, asset markets can be 

quite volatile, and non-labor income that depends on investment returns may be unstable.

An increase in non-labor income may reflect changing demographic characteristics. Older 

populations rely largely on non-labor income, including rents, dividends, and transfer payments 

(e.g., Social Security). High percentages of non-labor income likely indicate higher 

concentrations of retirees.

The finding that in 2009 Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) derive more than half of total 

personal income from non-labor sources seems incongruent with assumption that a high 

percentage of non-labor income indicates a large retiree population. As table 160 shows, both 

Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) have low median ages, below the state and national medians, 

which suggests a relatively small retiree population. However, as table 164 presents, these 

counties have low per capita income and table 167 shows that these counties also have the highest 

unemployment rates in the study area. These findings suggest that residents of these counties are 

dependent on government transfer payments (e.g., unemployment insurance) for income.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

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

2009

Area 2000

Labor %

2000

Non-Labor %

2009

Labor %

2009

Non-Labor %

Apache County, AZ 56% 44% 47% 53%

Coconino County, AZ 64% 36% 62% 38%

Greenlee County, AZ 74% 26% 61% 39%

Navajo County, AZ 58% 42% 47% 53%

Catron County, NM 46% 54% 42% 58%

Grant County, NM 55% 45% 47% 53%

Arizona 68% 32% 62% 38%

New Mexico 66% 34% 62% 38%

United States 69% 31% 64% 36%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2011

The high proportion (exceeding 50 percent) of non-labor income in Catron and Grant Counties 

(NM) is likely the result of large retiree populations. These counties have the highest median ages 

(table 160) in the study area. In these counties, non-labor income likely comes from both personal 

investments (e.g., dividends, rent) and government transfers (e.g., Social Security).

The distribution of labor and non-labor income in Coconino and Greenlee Counties (AZ) mimics 

the state and national distributions.

Unemployment

The unemployment rate provides insight into the correspondence between residents’ skills and 

employment opportunities. The “natural” rate of unemployment is said to be around 5 percent. 

This is the so-called “natural” rate because this is a level that allows for movement between jobs 

and industries, but it does not signal broad economic distress. Recently, the national 

unemployment rate has hovered between 9 and 10 percent. Table 167 provides the 2010 annual 

unemployment rate for the U.S., Arizona, New Mexico, and the study area counties.

As suggested above, the discrepancies between per capita income and median earnings in Apache 

and Navajo Counties (AZ) can be partially explained by high unemployment rates in these 

counties. Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) had the highest unemployment rates among study 

area counties, and they exceeded state and national rates. As a result, many residents in Apache 

and Navajo Counties (AZ) likely rely on unemployment insurance and other transfer programs 

targeting low-income individuals and families. The other counties have unemployment rates that 

are closer to state and national rates.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 507

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

Area Unemployment Rate

Apache County, AZ 16.4%

Coconino County, AZ 8.9%

Greenlee County, AZ 11.1%

Navajo County, AZ 15.7%

Catron County, NM 9.5%

Grant County, NM 10.9%

Arizona 10.0%

New Mexico 8.4%

United States 9.6%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011

Housing

The above comparisons of per capita income and median earnings between the study area, states, 

and the Nation are incomplete. Data on local cost of living offer additional context. Of the 

contributions to cost of living, housing costs are among the most substantial. Table 168 presents 

median home values in 2010. Except for Coconino County (AZ), the study area counties have 

relatively low home values, below state and national medians. Therefore, although income is low 

in many study area counties, they also have relatively low living costs.

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

Area Median Home Value

Apache County, AZ $80,900

Coconino County, AZ $257,700

Greenlee County, AZ $65,800

Navajo County, AZ $134,300

Catron County, NM $129,400

Grant County, NM $125,000

Arizona $215,000

New Mexico $158,400

United States $188,400

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, table DP04
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Economic Diversity

Economic diversity generally promotes stability and offers greater employment opportunities. 

Highly specialized economies (i.e., those that depend on very few industries for the bulk of 

employment and income) are prone to cyclical fluctuations and offer more limited job 

opportunities. Determining the degree of specialization in an economy is important for 

decisionmakers, particularly when the dominant industry can be affected by changes in policy. 

For Forest Service responsible officials, this is likely to be the case where the forest products 

industry or the tourism and recreation industries, for instance, are reliant on the local national 

forests.

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

Figure 81 provides a breakdown of employment by industry in the study area. Government is the 

dominant sector: approximately one-third of the area jobs are in government. Retail trade, health 

and social services, and accommodation and food services each account for at least 8 percent of 

local employment. These industries are consistent with findings discussed in the demographic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 509

section: namely, a substantial government presence due to public land management, a retiree 

population that consumes health and social services, and amenities that attract tourists who 

support the retail trade and accommodation and food services sectors.

Figure 82 provides the employment specialization index (ratio of the percent employment in each 

industry within the study area to an average percent of employment in that industry for the State 

of Arizona). Within the agriculture sector (3 percent of study area employment), commercial 

logging accounts for 35 percent of employment and 29 percent of output, while cattle ranching 

accounts for 28 percent of employment and 40 percent of output (MIG, 2009). Both of these 

activities occur on the forests.

Whereas figure 81 considers the study area in isolation, figure 82 compares industry 

concentration in the study area to the state as a whole. The numbers on the x-axis of figure 81

show the degree of specialization in the local economy. A score of one indicates that the study 

area and the state (Arizona) are equally specialized in the sector. A score above one indicates that 

the study area is more specialized in the sector than the state. A score below one indicates that the 

study area is less specialized in the sector than the state. 

As the two figures demonstrate, these two methods of data analysis suggest quite different results. 

Mining accounts for 5 percent of employment in the study area, a relatively modest figure until it 

is put in the context of the state. A resident of study area is nearly 10 times more likely to be 

employed in the mining sector compared to residents of Arizona as a whole. Similarly, although 

government employment dominates in figure 81, the study area is only somewhat specialized in 

government employment compared to the state. Across Arizona, government employment 

provides a substantial percentage of total employment. Public lands (e.g., national forests, 

national parks, BLM-managed public lands, state-owned lands), military installations, and tribal 

lands are common across the state. All of these features, in addition to the large share of state and 

local government employment, contribute to a sizable government presence in Arizona. The large 

role that government plays in the Arizona economy makes it more likely that Forest Service 

decisions would affect economic activity and well-being. Since the study area is specialized in 

economic sectors that have direct links to public lands, particularly mining and agriculture, 

forestry, fishing and hunting, Forest Service management actions may have a more pronounced 

economic influence relative to an area with smaller natural resource sectors.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Figure 82. Employment by specialization (MIG, 2009)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 511

Payments to States and Counties

As mentioned previously, the forests encompass approximately 2.1 million acres of eastern 

Arizona. The Forest Service makes payments to states and counties that contain NFS lands. These 

payments fall into two categories: Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act payments (SRSCS). Table 169 displays the payments to 

counties from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Federal agencies do not pay property taxes; therefore, PILT is distributed to counties to 

compensate for the local services that support activities on Federal lands, such as law 

enforcement and road maintenance.

SRSCS payments are intended to improve public schools, maintain infrastructure, improve the 

health of watersheds and ecosystems, protect communities, and strengthen local economies.

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

Area SRSCS (FY2009) PILT (FY2010) Total FS Payments

Apache County, AZ $1,373,662 $1,183,201 $2,556,863

Coconino County, AZ $392,119 $94,408 $486,527

Greenlee County, AZ $903,978 $625,620 $1,529,598

Navajo County, AZ $1,626,447 $274,601 $1,901,048

Total $4,296,206 $2,177,830 $6,474,036

Source: Forest Service, 2010g and DOI, 2010

Environmental Justice

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898. This order directs Federal agencies to 

focus attention on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income 

communities. The purpose of Executive Order 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and lowincome populations.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for Federal 

agency decisionmakers to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse with 

respect to minority and low-income populations and identify alternatives that would avoid or 

mitigate those impacts. Environmental justice, minority, minority population, low-income

population, and human health and environmental effects are defined in the “Glossary.”

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy 

environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has interpreted health effects with a 

broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic or 

social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities, or Indian Tribes...when those 

impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment” (CEQ, 1997).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

According to U.S. Census data reported in table 170, study area counties differ substantially in 

their racial and ethnic composition.

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

Area White

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian or 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Hispanic 

or 

Latinoa

Apache 

County, AZ

23.3% 0.2% 72.9% 0.3% 0.0% 1.3% 2.0% 5.8%

Coconino 

County, AZ

61.7% 1.2% 27.3% 1.4% 0.1% 5.2% 3.1% 13.5%

Greenlee 

County, AZ

77.2% 1.1% 2.3% 0.5% 0.1% 15.0% 3.8% 47.9%

Navajo 

County, AZ

49.3% 0.9% 43.4% 0.5% 0.1% 3.4% 2.5% 10.8%

Catron 

County, NM

89.8% 0.4% 2.7% 0.2% 0.0% 3.8% 3.1% 19.0%

Grant 

County, NM

84.9% 0.9% 1.4% 0.4% 0.1% 9.6% 2.8% 48.3%

Arizona 73.0% 4.1% 4.6% 2.8% 0.2% 11.9% 3.4% 29.6%

New 

Mexico

68.4% 2.1% 9.4% 1.4% 0.1% 15.0% 3.7% 46.3%

United 

States

72.4% 12.6% 0.9% 4.8% 0.2% 6.2% 2.9% 16.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, Table DP-1

a Hispanic or Latino ethnicity may be of any race

Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ) have very high concentrations of American Indian residents

(73 and 43 percent, respectively). The Navajo Nation and the Fort Apache Indian Reservation are 

in both counties. The Hopi Indian reservation is in Coconino and Navajo Counties (AZ). 

Coconino County, AZ, also has a relatively large percentage (27 percent) of American Indian 

residents, resulting from the five reservations that exist in the county. Forty-three percent of the 

land in the study area is Native American land (Forest Service, 2009a). Grant County, NM, and 

Greenlee County, AZ, have higher percentages (48 percent in each county) of Hispanic/Latino 

residents than Arizona (30 percent), New Mexico (46 percent), and the Nation (16 percent).

Table 171 lists the poverty rates for the counties, states, and Nation. Apache and Navajo Counties 

(AZ) have the highest percentage of residents living in poverty. As with much of the other social 

and economic data presented for these counties, this finding suggests that Apache and Navajo 

Counties may be particularly vulnerable to changes that could affect livelihoods.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 513

Apart from Apache and Navajo Counties (AZ), the study area counties have poverty rates that are 

roughly consistent with state and national rates. As of 2009, Apache County, AZ, has the 35th

highest poverty rate in the Nation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

Table 171. Percent of persons living in poverty

Area Poverty Rate

Apache County, AZ 34.4%

Coconino County, AZ 18.6%

Greenlee County, AZ 13.5%

Navajo County, AZ 24.4%

Catron County, NM 15.3%

Grant County, NM 14.8%

Arizona 15.3%

New Mexico 18.4%

United States 13.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, table DP03

Based on the minority status and poverty data presented above, Apache and Navajo Counties 

(AZ) appear most at risk for environmental justice issues. However, even in counties with 

relatively small minority populations and low poverty rates, disproportionate impacts to 

vulnerable groups may occur. The impact analysis considers the potential for Forest Service 

management actions to adversely affect all area residents, with a particular attention to any 

potential disproportionate impacts on minority and/or low-income residents.

Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Economic Impact Analysis

Economic impact analysis estimates the employment and labor income consequences of forest 

management actions. Table 172 provides employment estimates by alternative. Table 173

provides labor income estimates by alternative. These tables are referenced in the alternativespecific descriptions of economic impacts.

Data on use levels under each alternative were collected from the forests’ resource specialists. In 

most instances, the precise change is unknown. Therefore, the changes are based on the 

professional expertise of the forests’ resource specialists (1982 Planning Rule, 219.12(g)). 

Regional economic impacts 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 are not conducive to developing some opportunities, the 

economic impact would be different than estimated here.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Wood products jobs, labor income, revenues, and present net value (table 172, table 173, table 

175, and table 176) are shown as ranges for alternatives B, C, and D because low and high 

mechanical treatment acres were modeled (see table 3, chapter 2). Mechanical vegetation 

treatment acres also vary by alternative theme (most acres cut in alternative C, followed by 

alternatives B, D, and A). Alternatives A and B use a mix of mechanical and wildland fire to 

accomplish restoration treatments, while alternative C emphasizes mechanical treatments and 

alternative D uses primarily wildland fire treatments. Acres that are mechanically treated (cut) 

result in wood products that could be offered to individuals and local and regional markets (see 

table 150 for wood product volumes) and would affect the number of jobs created, labor income 

created, and NFS program expenditures and revenues.

Across many program areas, the employment estimates do not vary substantially between 

alternatives. Changes in forest product removal drive most of the expected difference in 

employment between alternatives, with alternative C offering the highest expected wood 

products-related employment.

Although recreation management emphasis varies between alternatives, none of the alternatives

is expected to change the economic impact of recreation. The alternatives may change how and 

where people choose to recreate (e.g., an increase in one type of activity and a decrease in

another) but none of the changes are expected to lead to a net economic change. However, 

changes in recreation management emphasis may have social consequences that are not captured 

in employment and income data. The possible social consequences are discussed later in this 

document.

Table 172. Employment by program area by alternative

Program Area Number of Jobs Contributed

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

Recreation 2,939 2,939 2,939 2,939

Grazing 120 120 120 120

Minerals 0 0 0 0

Wood Products 287 113–511 164–1,113 60–198

Payments to States 

and Counties

58 58 58 58

FS Expenditures 364 364 364 364

Total 3,768 3,594 – 3,992 3,645 – 4,594 3,541 – 3,679

Source: IMPLAN, 2009

As with the employment estimates, labor income is not expected to differ substantially between 

alternatives. Most of the difference is driven by wood products-related labor income, which is 

estimated to be highest under alternative C due to greater volumes of forest product removal. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 515

Table 173. Labor income by program area by alternative

Labor Income Contributed

Program Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Recreation $86,629,000 $86,629,000 $86,629,000 $86,629,000

Grazing $1,296,000 $1,296,000 $1,296,000 $1,296,000

Minerals $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $19,000

Wood Products $9,562,000 $3,757,000 -

$17,010,000

$5,454,000 -

$37,035,000

$2,011,000 -

$6,597,000

Payments to States and 

Counties

$2,588,000 $2,588,000 $2,588,000 $2,588,000

FS Expenditures $17,520,000 $17,520,000 $17,520,000 $17,520,000

Total $117,614,000 $111,809,000 -

$125,062,000

$113,506,000 -

$145,087,000

$110,063,000 -

$114,649,000

Source: IMPLAN, 2009

Alternatives A and B would support approximately the same employment and income in the 

local economy. Alternative C would support the highest levels of Forest Service related 

employment and income in the local economy. Alternative D would support the lowest levels of 

employment and income in the local economy. 

Financial Efficiency Analysis

Financial efficiency analysis compares forest expenditures and revenues throughout the life of a 

land management plan. Present net value (PNV) is used as an indicator of financial efficiency and 

presents one tool to be used in conjunction with many other factors in the decisionmaking 

process. PNV combines benefits and costs that occur at different times and discounts them into a 

sum. A positive PNV indicates that the alternative produces more than one dollar of value 

(revenues) for each dollar spent (expenditures). Financial efficiency analysis is not intended to be 

a comprehensive analysis that incorporates monetary expressions of all benefits and costs. Many

of the values associated with natural resource management are best handled apart from, but in 

conjunction with, a more limited financial efficiency framework. 

Table 174 presents annual forest expenditures, by program area. These figures are based on 

average expenditures over the three fiscal years (FY2007 to FY2009). Only the wood products 

expenditures are expected to vary in alternatives C and D because of the greater and lesser, 

respectively, amounts of mechanical vegetation treatments proposed.

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

Program Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Grazing $470,000 $470,000 $470,000 $470,000

Recreation $1,371,000 $1,371,000 $1,371,000 $1,371,000

Minerals $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000

Wood Products $1,335,000 $1,335,000 $1,602,000 $1,068,000
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

Table 175 shows annual forest revenues by program area. Where available, these figures are 

based on average revenues over three fiscal years (FY2007 to FY2009). When 3 years of data 

were unavailable, the most recent year has been used. The wood products estimates are based on 

average inflation adjusted wood products values per CCF. Grazing and mineral revenues are not 

expected to vary by alternative; there are no foreseeable changes. The only factor that could 

change grazing revenue is if the charge per HM or AUM is increased or decreased; however, that 

figure is set at the national level and is beyond the control of the Forest Service. Recreation 

revenues are not expected to change because most of this money is associated with recreation 

special use permits. The large campgrounds on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are under permit to 

concessionaires, with fees generally offset by maintenance of and improvements to the facilities. 

The wood products revenue figures are based on the outputs from the vegetation modeling. 

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

Program 

Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Grazing $175,500 $175,500 $175,500 $175,500

Recreation $152,049 $152,049 $152,049 $152,049

Minerals $15,963 $15,963 $15,963 $15,963

Wood Products $722,382 $260,999 - 

$1,255,757

$380,434 - 

$2,689,133

$143,017 - 

$791,053

Table 176 lists present net value (PNV) by program area and alternative. PNV is the difference 

between program revenues (benefits) and program expenditures (costs). The annual expenditures 

presented in table 174 were summed over 15 years using a 4 percent discount rate (so that one 

dollar today is valued higher than 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 presented in table 175. 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 present net value. The higher the present net value, the more 

financially efficient the alternative. For example, alternative B has a total PNV of approximately 

negative $20 million which is higher than the negative $27 million in alternative A. 

The range of values in the PNV (table 176) in the action alternatives reflects the range between 

the high and low mechanical treatment objectives. Alternative A is based on the average 

mechanical treatment objective.

The differences in PNVs between alternatives arise primarily from changes in the expected 

volume of forest product removal from the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (table 150). The wood 

products-related revenues and expenditures vary by alternative because of the different vegetation 

treatment acres.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 517

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

Program Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Grazing ($3,568,865) ($3,568,865) ($3,568,865) ($3,568,865)

Recreation ($14,771,720) ($14,771,720) ($14,771,720) ($14,771,720)

Minerals ($1,078,985) ($1,078,985) ($1,078,985) ($1,078,985)

Wood Products ($7,423,943) ($13,015,166) –

($960,299)

($14,803,410) −

$13,174,304

($11,209,304) –

($3,356,152)

Total PNV ($26,843,513) ($32,434,737) – 

($20,379,869)

($30,987,371) – 

($3,009,657)

($33,628,874) – 

($22,775,722)

Source: QuickSilver Version 6, 2010

a Figures in parentheses indicate a negative number.

The expected value (average) PNV of alternative A would be approximately equivalent to the 

PNV of alternative B. Therefore, these alternatives are expected to be similar in financial 

efficiency. The potential PNV range of alternative C would be much greater than the range of 

PNVs under the other alternatives due to the large difference between high and low treatment 

objectives. The expected value PNV of alternative C would be the highest (most financially 

efficient) of any considered alternative. The expected value PNV of alternatives A, B, and D is 

approximately equivalent. 

Social Consequences

Area residents and visitors attach numerous values to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. For some, NFS 

lands provide economic opportunities in rural communities. To others, the forests are valued for 

leisure. This binary classification ignores the nuances of peoples’ values. Furthermore, many 

individuals are likely to rely on the forests for both economic opportunities and leisure pursuits. 

The “Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment” (Forest Service, 2009a) identified social 

values associated with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, including (1) preservation of open space; (2) 

protection of ecosystem service and other forest-related amenity values; (3) economic 

opportunities from both commodity and non-commodity sources; (4) accessible and varied 

outdoor recreation opportunities; and (5) traditional tribal uses, such as gathering boughs and 

visiting sacred sites. Wood products management and lands recommended for wilderness are the 

main sources of potential social and economic consequences between alternatives.

As the “Affected Environment” section describes, the study area has very low population density, 

relatively low earnings and income, high dependence on transfer payments, and an economy 

dominated by government employment. These factors suggest that Forest Service decisions, and 

other Federal actions, may have a substantial effect on social and economic well-being in the 

study area. The range of employment and labor income consequences (presented in table 164 and 

table 165) do not differ dramatically; based on the ranges, it is possible that the action 

alternatives would provide equivalent levels of employment and income. However, alternative 

C has the highest expected values of employment and income. For individuals who primarily 

value the forests for economic opportunities, alternative C is likely to be favored. Alternative A
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

is expected to provide the second-highest levels of employment and labor income to the local 

economy, followed by alternative B and then alternative D.

Individuals who value resource protection above resource use are likely to derive benefit from the 

recommendation of additional lands for wilderness, regardless of intention to recreate in 

wilderness. Under current management (alternative A), approximately 1.5 percent of visits to the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are to designated wilderness (Forest Service, 2001). Although wilderness 

visits account for a relatively small percentage of total visits, wilderness also has non-recreation 

values, such as ecosystem services. Alternative D is expected to appeal to people and groups 

who seek additional primitive recreation opportunities and/or the protection of forest resources. 

Alternatives A, B, and C are less likely to be favored among individuals who primarily value 

resource protection and wilderness recreation opportunities.

Recreation management emphasis varies between alternatives. While the economic impact 

analysis finds no change resulting from recreation management emphasis changes, social 

consequences are expected. Alternative C emphasizes motorized and developed recreation 

opportunities, and therefore is likely to provide the most value to individuals who participate in 

motorized recreation activities. There would also be decreases in nonmotorized and dispersed 

recreation opportunities that could displace users to other areas or result in fewer users who prefer 

those types of recreation. Alternative D, with a greater emphasis on nonmotorized and dispersed 

recreation opportunities, may attract those who prefer nonmotorized and/or dispersed recreation 

activities, while not encouraging those with motorized/developed preferences. Therefore, 

recreation management emphasis would lead to distributional consequences related to visitor 

satisfaction and quality of life related to forest leisure activities.

Alternatives B and C would increase vegetation treatment. Increases in prescribed burns would 

create the potential for social consequences related to smoke emissions. Language barriers make 

communicating about prescribed burn plans more difficult, which can reduce the ability of 

individuals to engage in behaviors to avoid smoke. Nonnative English speakers and recent 

immigrants may be unable to understand or know where to find information about planned 

prescribed burns or other Forest Service activities that may affect their communities. Individuals 

who are sensitive to smoke, children, the elderly, asthmatics, and those with illnesses, would be 

most affected by the increase in smoke from prescribed burns.

The environmental justice analysis finds that the study area has large percentages of American 

Indian and Hispanic/Latino residents as well as high poverty rates. These findings raise the 

likelihood of observing disproportionate adverse effects to low income and/or minority residents. 

However, analysis of the decisions to be made under the alternatives finds no environmental 

justice consequences. Since all alternatives would continue to support similar levels of 

employment and income, none of the decisions is expected to exacerbate the poverty rate or 

disproportionately worsen the economic well-being of low-income individuals. Under all 

alternatives, American Indian residents would be able to gather forest products and visit sacred 

sites. None of the alternatives is expected to disproportionately adversely impact racial and/or 

ethnic minority individuals.

Recreation

Approximately 2.1 million visitors recreate on the forests annually. These visitors support 

approximately 2,939 (full- and part-time) jobs and $86.6 million in labor income in the local 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 519

economy on an average annual basis. None of the decisions to be made in all alternatives is 

expected to change the economic impact of recreation. The social impact of recreation, including 

consumer surplus (the value of recreation above what is paid for the experience), is discussed 

above. The number of recreation visits is expected to increase by 3 percent annually as a result of 

outside factors. The management decisions to be made may affect the recreation opportunities. 

Recreation participation may change as a result of population growth, demographic change, and 

recreation preferences (e.g., a growth in OHV use). None of these trends is expected to be 

affected by Forest Service management decisions.

Minerals

Stone, sand, and gravel are removed from the forests. The quantities removed are not expected to 

differ between all alternatives. Since most of the firms that extract stone, sand, and gravel exist 

outside of the IMPLAN study area (ADMMR, 2007), the extraction of minerals from the forests 

is not expected to support employment and income in the local economy. However, these 

activities would have economic impacts outside of the study area.

Grazing

Under all alternatives, grazing would support approximately 120 jobs and $1.3 million in labor 

income, annually. However, these figures assume that available animal unit months (AUMs) are 

fully utilized. Based on current use levels, approximately 66 jobs and $713,000 in labor income 

are supported by grazing on the forests. 

The benefit to permittees of public forage, below the market price, is approximately $994,500. 

The average private land grazing fee per AUM in Arizona is $9, compared to the $1.35 public 

land grazing fee (USDA NASS, 2011). If the forests’ grazing permittees had to replace their 

public land forage with private land forage, the annual cost of grazing would be $1,170,000 

(130,000 AUMs at $9 per AUM). With Forest Service forage, permittees pay $175,500 

(130,000 AUMs at $1.35 per AUM). Therefore, the economic benefit to ranchers is not fully 

captured in the employment and labor income figures presented above. However, the surplus to 

the ranchers can also be seen as a cost to providers of private forage. 

Wood Products

The number of jobs and labor income supported by the availability of forest products can be 

found in table 164 and table 165. Alternative C would provide the highest number of wood 

products jobs and income, followed by alternatives B and A. Alternative D would provide the 

smallest number of wood products jobs and income.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The geographic scope for the social and economic cumulative environmental consequences 

analysis is the six-county region45 identified in the affected environment section. This analysis 

considers how past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on lands throughout the 

region may interact under all alternatives to affect the social and economic environment. The 

social and economic analysis of all alternatives is unique among the resources and uses in that 

 45 Apache, Navajo, Coconino, and Greenlee Counties in Arizona and Catron and Grant Counties in New Mexico.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

the effects occur primarily off the forests. In this way, the indirect effects described above are 

cumulative in nature; they evaluate the effects of all alternatives both on and off the ApacheSitgreaves NFs. However, the indirect effects analysis does not address how actions taken on 

adjacent lands affect the social and economic consequences of all alternatives.

All alternatives emphasize ecosystem restoration. Current and proposed activities on adjacent 

NFS lands also emphasize ecosystem restoration. The scale of the proposed treatments (on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and adjacent lands) is expected to draw new forest product harvesting 

and processing firms to the region. The wood products and ecosystem restoration estimates 

presented in the environmental consequences section are based on a static model of the economy. 

However, if additional firms locate in the area because of regionwide restoration efforts, the local 

economic impact of activities under all alternatives would increase.

The recreation-related effects identified in the social and economic environmental consequences 

section may be influenced by trends and activities that occur off the forests. In fiscal year 2010, 

Arizona State Parks closed 13 of its 28 parks. Although most of these parks have reopened, a 

number are open on a reduced schedule. Lyman Lake, the only state park in Apache County and 

30 miles north of the forests, is open on a reduced schedule through local partnerships. 

Furthermore, the possibility of future closures remains because of ongoing budget uncertainty. 

The reduction of recreation opportunities in local state parks may slightly increase demand for 

recreation on the forests. All alternatives support diverse recreational opportunities on the 

forests. Increased recreation use of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs would lead to a slightly higher 

economic impact than predicted in the indirect effects discussion. However, other adjacent lands 

(BLM, NPS, other NFS lands, and undeveloped state lands) continue to provide recreation 

opportunities.

Under all alternatives, portions of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs may provide a corridor to support 

reasonably foreseeable alternative energy development in the region. This could facilitate 

alternative energy development in the region, which would support local area employment.

Other Required Disclosures

The regulations for implementing NEPA at 40 CFR § 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent 

possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and 

integrated with ... other environmental review laws and executive orders.” As a proposed Federal 

project, the proposed plan decisions are subject to compliance with other Federal and State laws. 

Throughout the development of the proposed plan, there has been collaboration and cooperation 

with various State and Federal agencies. The following actions have been taken to document and 

ensure compliance with laws that require consultation and/or concurrence with other Federal 

agencies.

• Endangered Species Act, Section 7: Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, regarding federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species and 

designated and proposed critical habitat, is in progress. Biological assessments (BAs) for 

fisheries and wildlife have been prepared for the preferred alternative and submitted to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consultation according to the ESA. 

• National Historic Preservation Act: Consultation with the Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been conducted as mandated by Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. The Southwestern Region also subscribes to a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 521

programmatic agreement with SHPO for ways in which consultation can be conducted. 

The various appendices of the programmatic agreement are particularly directed to 

Southwestern Region projects and issues.