United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

MB-R3-01-8

December 2013

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 

Show Low South Land 

Exchange

Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, 

and Prescott National Forests
Cover Photo: Show Low South Federal Parcel

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Printed on recycled paper – December 2013
Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Show Low South Land Exchange

Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Prescott National Forests, Arizona

Lead Agency: U.S. Forest Service

Responsible Official: Forest Supervisor

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

30 South Chiricahua Drive

P.O. Box 640

Springerville, AZ 85938

For Information Contact: Randall Chavez, Recreation & Lands Staff

Lakeside Ranger District

2022 W. White Mtn. Blvd.

Lakeside, AZ, 85929

Phone: (928) 368-2106

Email: rchavez02@fs.fed.us

Abstract: First American Title Insurance Company, as Trustee, and not personally, under Trust 

No. 8667; for the benefit of SL Land Exchange, LLC has proposed a land exchange with the 

United States Forest Service in Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, Navajo, and Yavapai counties, 

Arizona. The proposed exchange includes several geographically separate land parcels located on 

three individual national forests: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs), Coconino 

National Forest (CNF), and Prescott National Forest (PNF). The proposal to exchange lands in 

the national forest boundary responds to the Forest Service’s need for consolidation of Federal 

land ownership patterns. Non-Federal lands within national forests that are included in this 

exchange proposal contain special features and habitats such as critical species habitat and 

perennial waters. These lands are currently subject to development that could diminish those 

values and support activities that would be incompatible with the surrounding national forest 

character. The non-Federal lands currently contribute to the undesirable ownership pattern and are 

classified as desirable for acquisition.

The proposed exchange involves approximately 1,028 acres of Federal lands for approximately 

1,558 acres of non-Federal lands. There are 13 parcels total: 9 non-Federal parcels to be conveyed 

into Federal ownership; and 4 Federal parcels to be conveyed to non-Federal ownership. The 

majority of acreage being exchanged is within the ASNFs; therefore, the ASNFs have been 

established as the lead agency overseeing the environmental impact statement (EIS) process. This 

final EIS (FEIS) also analyzes the no action alternative, in which no land exchange would occur. 

This FEIS evaluates the potential social and environmental impacts of the proposed action and the 

no action alternative on the following resource areas: land use; recreation and public access; 

socioeconomics; environmental justice; plants; fish and wildlife; grazing; prime and unique 

farmlands; wetlands and flood plains; water quality, rights, and claims; cultural resources; mineral 

resources; roads; fire and fuels; and hazardous materials.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange i

Executive Summary

First American Title Insurance Company, a California Corporation, as Trustee, and not personally, 

under Trust No. 8667; for the benefit of SL Land Exchange, LLC (SLL), an Arizona Limited 

Liability Company has proposed the following exchange of lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves, 

Coconino, and Prescott National Forests. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs) will 

serve as the lead for this land exchange.

The proposed land exchange consists of 1,028 acres of Federal National Forest System (NFS)

lands in the ASNFs, and Coconino National Forest (CNF) in exchange for 1,558 acres of nonFederal lands (lands currently held in private ownership) in the Prescott National Forest (PNF), 

CNF, and ASNFs. The affected Federal lands for this proposal are located within four individual 

parcels within the Lakeside and Alpine Ranger Districts (RDs) of the ASNFs and within the Red 

Rock RD of the CNF. The corresponding non-Federal (private) lands consist of nine individual 

parcels located within the Alpine, Black Mesa, Lakeside, and Clifton RDs of the ASNFs; the 

Mogollon Rim and Red Rock RDs of the CNF; and the Verde RD of the PNF.

The proposal to exchange lands in the ASNFs responds to the USFS’s need for consolidation of 

Federal land ownership patterns. Non-Federal lands within national forests that are included in 

this exchange proposal contain special features and habitats such as critical species habitats and 

perennial waters. These lands are subject to future development that could diminish those values 

and support activities that would be incompatible with the surrounding national forest character.

The non-Federal lands currently contribute to the undesirable ownership pattern and are classified 

as desirable for acquisition in the ASNFs plan (USDA 1987a). The Federal lands in the exchange 

consists of four separate parcels located within the boundaries of the ASNFs and CNF and are 

located in Management Area (MA) 1, described as forested land located outside of special 

management areas; MA 2, described as woodland; and MA 10 in the grassland and piñon-juniper 

vegetation type found above the Mogollon Rim in CNF. The ASNFs plan (1987a) also states 

Federal lands considered for exchange will generally meet one or more of the following criteria: 

(1) lands needed to meet the needs of expanding communities; (2) isolated tracts or scattered 

parcels that cannot be efficiently managed; (3) provide for consolidation of the public lands; (4) 

to improve management or benefit specific resources; and (5) to meet overriding public needs.

The proposed land exchange would meet forest plan direction by benefiting specific resources 

(acquisition of lands with perennial waters and critical species habitat) and meeting specific 

criteria such as meeting needs of expanding communities and consolidating ownership patterns. 

The responsible official will determine if the proposed exchange is in the best interest of the 

public. The Federal lands, if conveyed, would be subject to development. 

A formal offer to exchange lands was first submitted by SL Land Exchange, LLC, to the acting 

ASNFs supervisor on January 15, 2004 and amended on January 25, 2008. The agreement to 

initiate (ATI) the exchange was authorized by the lead delegated Forest Supervisor of the ASNFs

on March 19, 2010.

The EIS scoping process was initiated on April 28, 2009, with publication in the Federal Register 

of the notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS. The scoping process resulted in identifying public

concerns, key issues, and previously unknown potential environmental effects of the proposed 

action. The main issue identified during the EIS scoping process was the potential adverse social 

and economic impacts (including a possible decrease in the availability of recreational lands) due 

to possible development on the Federal lands (if exchanged). The measures developed to address 

this key issue include a qualitative discussion of the impacts of potential development to social 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange iii
and economic attributes that were raised as concerns, including potential loss of recreational 

opportunities if the Federal lands leave Federal ownership and are subject to future development.

A reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action, including the no action alternative, was

considered during the environmental analysis. Alternatives considered in detail include the 

proposed action and no action. A more detailed description of these alternatives and other 

alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study is included in chapter 2 of this 

document.

Appendices C and D have been added to this FEIS to address comments received on the DEIS. 

Major Conclusions Include the Following: The proposed land exchange would result in Federal

acquisition of 1,558 acres in the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF and conveyance of 1,028 acres of land in 

the ASNFs and CNF. The Forest Service would receive a net gain of 530 acres of land in this 

exchange. The areas that would be obtained by the USFS as a result of this exchange contain vital 

species habitat for federally listed native wildlife including the loach minnow, Chiricahua leopard 

frog, Little Colorado spinedace, Mexican spotted owl, Apache trout, Gila chub, and southwestern 

willow flycatcher. If the exchange occurs, development would be precluded on the non-Federal 

lands proposed for exchange.

The conveyed Federal lands would be subject to future development. The reasonable and 

foreseeable use of these parcels include an expanded waste water treatment facility on the City of 

Show Low 70-acre parcel; a mixed use, low density residential development on the 

approximately 948-acre Show Low South parcel; and a single rural residential area on the 

approximately 8-acre Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel. No further development is 

anticipated on the Sierra Blanca 2-acre adjustment parcel. This projection is based upon the stated 

intent of the proponent and the history of development by the proponent on Federal lands that 

were conveyed in a prior exchange in the area. Development on the conveyed Federal lands, if an 

exchange occurs, could result in impacts to upland ponderosa pine, grassland, and juniper habitat.

Riparian habitat, aquatic habitat, and wetland habitat found on Show Low Creek and its 

associated watershed could also be impacted because these habitats exist on the Federal lands 

proposed for exchange. Future uses or development on the lands conveyed out of Federal

ownership would become subject to all applicable laws, regulations, and zoning authorities of 

state and local governing bodies. If development on the conveyed lands were to occur, minimal 

impacts to riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats would be expected.

If the no action alternative is selected, 1,028 acres of the Federal lands would continue to be 

managed by the Forest Service. The 1,558 acres of non-Federal lands, which include special 

features such as critical species habitat and perennial waters including Juan Miller Creek, 

Boneyard Creek, Wet Beaver Creek, Red Tank Draw, Brookbank Canyon, and Beaver Creek, 

would remain subject to future development. 

.

iv FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... iii

Document Structure ......................................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action.................................................................... xi

Chapter 2: Comparison of Alternatives...................................................................... xi

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ....................... xi

Chapter 4: List of Preparers........................................................................................ xi

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination................................................................. xi

Chapter 6: References................................................................................................. xi

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need........................................................................................................1

Background...................................................................................................................1

Proposed Action............................................................................................................2

Purpose and Need.........................................................................................................5

Objectives.....................................................................................................................5

Existing Condition........................................................................................................5

Desired Condition.........................................................................................................8

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations.....................................................9

Forest Plan Consistency .............................................................................................11

Connected Actions......................................................................................................12

Scope of Analysis and Decision Framework..............................................................12

Public Involvement.....................................................................................................12

Tribal Consultation.....................................................................................................13

Issues ..........................................................................................................................14

Changes Between Draft and Final EIS.......................................................................16

Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives......................................................................................19

Introduction ................................................................................................................19

The Valuation Process ................................................................................................19

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study ..................................20

Require Deed Restrictions for Inholdings..................................................................20

Alternatives Considered in Detail ..............................................................................21

Connected Actions......................................................................................................26

Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................26

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ..................................31

Introduction ................................................................................................................31

Land Use.....................................................................................................................33

Recreation and Public Access.....................................................................................47

Socioeconomics..........................................................................................................50

Environmental Justice ................................................................................................57

Plants, Fish, and Wildlife............................................................................................59

Grazing .......................................................................................................................79

Prime and Unique Farmlands.....................................................................................80

Wetlands and Flood Plains .........................................................................................81

Water Quality, Rights, and Claims .............................................................................84

Cultural Resources......................................................................................................87

Mineral Resources......................................................................................................90

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange v
Roads..........................................................................................................................91

Fire and Fuels.............................................................................................................93

Hazardous Materials...................................................................................................95

Chapter 4. List of Preparers........................................................................................................97

Preparers and Contributors.........................................................................................97

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination................................................................................99

Agencies and Persons Consulted................................................................................99

Chapter 6. References................................................................................................................101

Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Land..................103

Appendix B. Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................121

Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary 123

Overview ..................................................................................................................123

Comment and Response Process..............................................................................123

Contents....................................................................................................................125

Land Use...................................................................................................................127

Recreation and Public Access...................................................................................128

Socioeconomics........................................................................................................131

Purpose and Need.....................................................................................................134

Plants Fish and Wildlife............................................................................................135

Wetlands and Grazing...............................................................................................139

Water Quality, Rights, and Claims ...........................................................................140

Visual Quality and Soundscapes ..............................................................................140

Roads........................................................................................................................141

Alternatives...............................................................................................................142

Administrative Impacts ............................................................................................150

Forest Service Policy................................................................................................151

Appendix D. Federal and State Agency Comment Letters for Draft EIS.............................155

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of proposed action ...........................................................................................2

Table 2. Federally listed or protected species with potential habitat on the non-Federal parcels..6

Table 3. List of perennial creeks and streams within the non-Federal parcels...............................7

Table 4. Federally protected or candidate species with potential habitat on the Federal parcels...8

Table 5. Legal descriptions of non-Federal lands to be conveyed to Federal ownership.............21

Table 6. Legal descriptions of Federal lands to be conveyed to non-Federal ownership.............24

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives ............................................................................................26

Table 8. Summary of the socioeconomic composition for the City of Show Low and the 

town of Camp Verde (according to the 2005–2009 American Community Survey).....51

Table 9. Federal parcels zoning and estimated tax rates under the proposed action....................55

Table 10. Non-Federal parcels zoning and tax rates......................................................................56

Table 11. Threatened and endangered species with potential habitat in the Federal parcels.........60

Table 12. Summary of Forest Service sensitive species with potential habitat on 

the Federal parcels by acres per potential natural vegetation type (PNVT)...................64

vi FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Table 13. MIS within forest land management areas, MIS habitat components, forest 

trends, and acres analyzed in the Show Low South Land Exchange analysis area........72

Table 14. Summary of ASNFs MIS forestwide habitat acreages and net 

change in acreage resulting from the proposed action alternative .................................74

Table 15. Migratory bird species listed by PIF and BCC with potential habitat in the Federal 

lands...............................................................................................................................76

List of Figures

Figure 1. Non-Federal and Federal parcels to be exchanged on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests................................................................................3

Figure 2. Non-Federal and Federal parcels to be exchanged on the 

Coconino and Prescott National Forests..........................................................................4

Figure 3. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

expansion of the City of Show Low waste water treatment facility ..............................37

Figure 4. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the Show Low South parcel .................................................................38

Figure 5. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the Juan Miller parcel...........................................................................41

Figure 6. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the Leonard Canyon parcel ..................................................................42

Figure 7. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the Railroad parcels..............................................................................43

Figure 8. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the Soda Springs Ranch parcel.............................................................44

Figure 9. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the Sponseller Ranch parcel.................................................................45

Figure 10. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the Sprucedale parcel ...........................................................................46

Figure 11. A topographic map of Buena Vista Trail ......................................................................48

Acronyms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADOC Arizona Department of Commerce

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department 

ANF Apache National Forest 

ASNFs Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

ASTM American Society for Testing Materials

ATI Agreement to initiate

BA&E Biological assessment and evaluation

BCC Birds of conservation concern 

BMP Best management practices

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange vii
BO Biological opinion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CNF Coconino National Forest

DEIS Draft environmental impact statement 

EIS Environmental impact statement

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FEIS Final environmental impact statement 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FR Federal Register 

FS Forest Service 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

G&SRM Gila and Salt River Meridian

GIS Geographic Information System

GLO General Land Office

IBA Important bird areas

ID Interdisciplinary 

LRMP Land and resources management plan

MA Management area

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MIS Management indicator species 

MOA Memorandum of agreement

MSO Mexican spotted owl 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFS National Forest System 

NFSR National Forest System road

NFST National Forest System trail

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOA Notice of availability 

NOI Notice of intent 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

PIF Arizona Partners in Flight 

PILT Payment in lieu of taxes

PNF Prescott National Forest

PNVT Potential natural vegetation type

viii FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
RD Ranger district

REC Recognized environmental condition

ROD Record of decision 

ROW Right-of-way

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SNF Sitgreaves National Forest 

SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions 

SLL SL Land Exchange, LLC

T&E Threatened and endangered

TES Terrestrial ecosystem survey 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange ix

Document Structure

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (USFS) has prepared this 

final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) 42 United States Code §§ 4321-4370d, as implemented by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500–1508,

and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. This document is organized as follows:

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action

This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, details how the 

USFS informed the public of the proposal, and summarizes how the public responded. 

This chapter describes the purpose and need for action, the Federal proposed action, the 

decision framework, and the issues that arose during scoping.

Chapter 2: Comparison of Alternatives 

This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action and the 

no action alternative, as well as alternatives considered but ultimately dismissed. This 

discussion also includes possible mitigation measures and a summary table of the 

environmental consequences associated with the alternatives.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and 

the no action alternative. Within each section, the affected environment is described

followed by the effects of the proposed action and the no action alternative, which

provides a baseline for comparison with the proposed action.

Chapter 4: List of Preparers

This section provides a list of preparers, members of the ID team, and other Forest 

Service contributors to the completion of the FEIS.

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

This section provides a list of agencies, municipalities, organizations, and individuals

consulted during development of the FEIS.

Chapter 6: References

This chapter contains literature cited and references used in preparation of the FEIS.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, is available 

in the project record, located at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs) Supervisor’s

Office, 30 South Chiricahua Drive, Springerville, Arizona 85938. The FEIS is also available for 

public review at this location and on the ASNFs Web site at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/asnf/landmanagement/projects.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange xi

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Background 

This land exchange was proposed by SL Land Exchange, LLC (SLL), in January 2004, amended 

in January 2008, and formally accepted by the ASNFs in February 2008. During this time period, 

discussions continued relative to specific parcels that were deemed favorable to be acquired by 

the USFS as well as Federal land parcels that were available to be transferred into private 

ownership.

The USFS is considering this proposal under the authorities of the General Exchange Act of 

March 1922 (42 Stat. 465, as amended; 74 Stat. 205; 16 U.S.C. 485, 486, 7 U.S.C. 2201), the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 1976 (43 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1782, October 

21, 1976, as amended 1978, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990–1992, 1994 and 1996), and the Federal Land 

Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 1086; 43 U.S.C. 1716).

This proposed project includes several geographically separate land parcels located on three 

individual national forests: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs), Coconino National 

Forest (CNF), and Prescott National Forest (PNF). Maps and photographs depicting the Federal 

and non-Federal parcels are included in Appendix A. Each national forest has developed a forest 

land and resource management plan (forest plan), adopted in 1986 (PNF) and 1987 (ASNFs and 

CNF). The forest plans set forth broad programmatic direction for management of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands. Where appropriate, this document tiers to the forest plan FEIS and record of 

decision (ROD) for each of the three forests.

The Wallow Fire

On May 29, 2011, a human-caused wildfire was ignited on the ASNFs. The Wallow Fire burned 

more than 538,000 acres in Apache, Greenlee, Graham, and Navajo counties, Arizona. The 

wildfire destroyed 68 residences and outbuildings and impacted lands and resources on 504,500 

acres of the ASNFs (USDA 2011). Over 58 percent of the total area burned at a moderate to high 

severity, resulting in loss of >50 percent of forest basal area (USDA 2011). Additional tree 

mortality is anticipated over the next 3 years, resulting from root and cambium damage and insect 

and disease infestations. The ASNFs have a history of implementing restoration based fire and 

fuels treatments, which have proven effective at safeguarding local communities and reducing the 

fire severity in treated areas. These mechanical and prescribed fire treatments are ongoing and are 

expected to continue in areas unaffected by the wildfire. Efforts of regeneration and reforestation 

are planned for areas affected by the wildfire.

Two of the nine non-Federal parcels (Sierra Blanca Ranch and Sprucedale parcels) and one 

Federal parcel (Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel) were burned by the Wallow Fire. These 

parcels were visited post fire to determine the potential impacts of the fire and assess the 

feasibility of continuation of the land exchange. Given that these parcels are mostly comprised of 

grasslands, meadows, and forest edge, the effects of the fire were minimal on these parcels. The 

fire burned through at a low intensity in these areas, providing nutrient cycling for grasses already 

in the area. The parcels will likely benefit from the fire in future growing seasons with high 

quality regrowth. With no major long-term damage or negative impacts to any of the parcels in 

question, the land exchange will continue on its current trajectory without any additional analysis 

related to the wildfire needed. 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 1
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Proposed Action

The proposal would exchange approximately 1,028 acres of Federal lands for approximately 

1,558 acres of non-Federal land within the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF (figures 1 and 2). A total of 13 

parcels would be exchanged: 9 non-Federal parcels to be conveyed into Federal ownership and 4

Federal to be conveyed to non-Federal ownership. The majority of acreage being exchanged is 

within the ASNFs; therefore, the ASNFs was established as the lead agency overseeing the EIS 

process. The public, other agencies, and local entities such as the White Mountain Trail System 

organization TRACKS, along with the SLL and the City of Show Low were involved in 

developing alternatives and mitigation measures, specifically regarding relocation of the Buena 

Vista Trailhead #637 to ensure continued public access to the trail. A brief overview of the 

components proposed for the land exchange and other related actions is provided in Table 1.

The non-Federal and Federal lands are located within Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, Navajo, and 

Yavapai counties, Arizona.

Table 1. Summary of proposed action

Parcel Name Acreage Forest 

Non-Federal Lands to be Acquired by USFS

Alder Peak 160 *ANF

Juan Miller 120 *ANF

Railroad 22 *SNF

Sierra Blanca Ranch 156 *ANF

Sponseller Ranch 118 *SNF

Sprucedale 70 *ANF

Leonard Canyon (632 acres on ASNFs and 8 acres on CNF) 640 *SNF/CNF

Soda Springs Ranch 157 CNF

Cherry 117 PNF

Total for Non-Federal Lands 1,558

Federal Lands to be Conveyed Into Private Ownership

Show Low South 948 *SNF

City of Show Low 70 *SNF

Sierra Blanca Ranch Adjustment 2 *ANF

Soda Springs Ranch Adjustment 8 CNF

Total for Federal Lands 1,028

Other Actions

Relocate part of Buena Vista Trail #637 (located on the Show Low South federal 

parcel) and construct a new trailhead on federal land

NA *SNF

NFSR 249A Road Easement (Sierra Blanca Ranch Parcel) NA *ANF

*To better define the location of parcels for land exchange purposes the ASNFs is split into ANF (Apache National 

Forest) and SNF (Sigreaves National Forest) in this table rather than listed as the two forests are managed, together as 

ASNFs. The ANF and SNF are separately designated national forests simply combined under one unit of management.

2 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Figure 1. Non-Federal and Federal parcels to be exchanged on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 3
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Figure 2. Non-Federal and Federal parcels to be exchanged on the 

Coconino and Prescott National Forests

4 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need

The proposal to exchange lands in the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF responds to the Forest Service’s 

need for consolidation of Federal land ownership patterns and the need to enhance management 

of the public’s natural resources. The forests needs to acquire lands that (1) protect habitat for 

several threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; (2) facilitate public access to Federal lands; 

(3) improve wetlands, flood plains, and riparian areas; (4) decrease the complexity of maintaining 

property boundaries; and (5) improve the efficiency of resource management by focusing the 

forests’ funding and staff on consolidated land.

The non-Federal lands offered in this exchange meet several of the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF forest 

plans’ (USDA 1986; 1987a; 1987b) criteria for acquisition. These criteria include the following:

(1) provide for consolidation of public lands; (2) reduce property and boundary line maintenance 

through the reduction of intermingled ownerships; (3) assure continued public access to NFS 

lands through acquisition of necessary public road rights-of-way; (4) acquire private lands with 

development potential adjacent to designated natural areas; (5) improve management or benefit 

specific resources and research needs; and (6) increase total wetland and floodplain acreage.

Objectives

The USFS has the responsibility to manage NFS lands for appropriate multiple public uses. There 

is a need to meet forest plan goals and objectives, including making adjustments in land 

ownership that serves the public interest and is consistent with land management planning 

objectives. The purpose of the proposed action is to meet the following USFS objectives:

1. Acquisition of non-Federal lands within existing NFS boundaries that contain habitat for 

federally listed and protected species and aquatic and riparian habitats associated with 

streams and creeks (see tables 2 and 3, below).

2. Elimination of landline boundaries and controlling corners between NFS lands and 

private lands.

3. Acquisition of non-Federal lands within existing NFS boundaries that would contribute to 

consolidation of public land ownership, reduce the likelihood of trespass on or 

degradation of NFS lands, and facilitate fire and resource management.

The proposed exchange includes several non-Federal parcels with valuable wildlife habitat 

including perennial water and riparian habitat. The proposed exchange would eliminate 20 miles 

of landline boundaries and 22 controlling corners between NFS lands and private lands. 

For the exchange to take place, both parties of the exchange must agree on the total package. The 

non-Federal trustee First American Title Insurance Company, under Trust 8667, for the benefit of 

SLL, agrees the exchange satisfies the SLL’s requirements for consolidating their real estate.

Additional discussion of the purpose and need for the proposed action is discussed below in terms 

of existing conditions, desired conditions, and the conformance of the proposed action to the 

respective forest plans.

Existing Condition 

Due to the size and number of parcels being exchanged, the parcels will be described in two 

separate categories: “non-Federal lands” and “Federal lands.” Non-Federal lands are private lands 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 5
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

that are proposed for acquisition into the NFS, and Federal lands are those proposed for private 

acquisition.

Non-Federal Lands

The non-Federal lands consist of nine separate parcels totaling approximately 1,558 acres located 

within the boundaries of the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF (see appendix A for parcel maps and 

photographs of non-Federal lands). Privately owned parcels that are partially or completely 

surrounded by NFS lands are often referred to as “inholdings,” and make management of

surrounding landscapes by NFS lands administration difficult. The presence of inholdings often 

increases costs associated with resource management and protection, including fire suppression.

Inholdings may cause fragmentation of wildlife habitat and limit wildlife access to dependable 

water sources. Demand for undeveloped inholdings for rural residential and/or subdivision 

development continues to increase. This type of development may result in negative impacts to 

resources on adjacent NFS lands and in general prevent a unified approach to forest management.

Once inholdings have been developed, they are rarely available for future acquisition by the 

USFS.

Non-Federal lands within the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF that are included in this exchange proposal 

contain potential habitat for numerous federally listed and protected species (table 2; AGFD 

2010) and valuable perennial waters (table 3). These lands are currently subject to development 

that could diminish those values and support activities that would be incompatible with the 

surrounding NFS land character. At the present time, the non-Federal lands contribute to the 

undesirable ownership pattern depicted in the parcels maps in Appendix A and are classified as 

desirable for acquisition. These inholdings increase land management complexity because of the 

miles of common, or shared, landline boundaries that add to administrative costs and increase the 

potential for encroachments on NFS lands.

Table 2. Federally listed or protected species with potential habitat on the 

non-Federal parcels 

Parcel Name Species Status Forest 

Alder Peak 

(160 acres)

Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ANF

Loach minnow Endangered with critical habitat

Mexican gray wolf (10J area) Nonessential experimental population

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate 

Cherry (117 acres) No Federally Listed Species PNF

Juan Miller

(120 acres)

Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ANF

Mexican gray wolf (10J area) Nonessential experimental population

Leonard Canyon 

(640 acres)

Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act SNF

Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened with critical habitat as of 

3/20/2012 (77 FR 16324)

Little Colorado spinedace Threatened with critical habitat

Mexican spotted owl Threatened with critical habitat

Railroad (22 acres) Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act SNF

Sierra Blanca Ranch 

(156 acres)

Apache trout Threatened ANF

Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

6 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Parcel Name Species Status Forest 

Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened with critical habitat

Loach minnow Endangered with critical habitat as of 

2/23/2012 (77 FR 10810 10932)

Mexican gray wolf (10J area) Nonessential experimental population

Mexican spotted owl Threatened with critical habitat

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Candidate

Three forks springsnail Endangered with critical habitat

Soda Springs Ranch 

(157 acres)

Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act CNF

Gila chub Endangered with critical habitat

Roundtail chub Candidate

Southwestern willow flycatcher Endangered

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate 

Sponseller (118 acres) No Federally Listed Species SNF

Sprucedale

(70 acres)

Apache trout Threatened ANF

Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Mexican spotted owl Threatened with critical habitat

Mexican gray wolf (10J area) Nonessential experimental population

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Candidate

Roundtail chub Candidate

Table 3. List of perennial creeks and streams within the non-Federal parcels

Parcel Name Creek/Stream Approximate Length (miles) Forest Location

Juan Miller Juan Miller Creek 0.25 ANF

Sierra Blanca Ranch Boneyard Creek 0.64 ANF

Soda Springs Ranch Wet Beaver Creek 0.17 CNF

Red Tank Draw 0.29

Sponseller Ranch Brookbank Canyon 1.27 SNF

Sprucedale Beaver Creek 0.52 ANF

Federal Lands

The Federal lands consist of four separate parcels totaling approximately 1,028 acres located 

within the boundaries of the ASNFs and CNF (see appendix A for parcel maps of Federal lands). 

Federal land resource objectives for the parcels located within the boundary of the ASNFs are 

based upon existing management area (MA) designation as presented in the 1987 ASNFs forest 

plan (USDA 1987a). The Federal parcels on the ASNFs are located in MA 1 and MA 2. MA 1 is 

described as forested land located outside of special management areas. Management emphasis 

includes a combination of multiple uses including: sustained yield of timber and firewood 

production, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, watershed, and dispersed recreation. MA 2 is 

described as woodland. Management emphasis includes firewood production, wildlife habitat,

watershed condition, and livestock grazing.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 7
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Federal land resource objectives for the parcel located within the boundary of the CNF, Soda 

Springs Ranch adjustment parcel, as presented in the 1987 CNF forest plan (USDA 1987b) is 

based upon MA 10 in the grassland and sparse piñon-juniper vegetation type above the Mogollon 

Rim. Management emphasis includes range management, watershed condition, and wildlife 

habitat.

Show Low Creek, located within the City of Show Low parcel, is the only perennial water within 

the four Federal parcels. Approximately 0.16-miles of Show Low Creek flows through the 

southwest corner of the City of Show Low parcel. Potential habitat for federally listed and 

protected species within the Federal parcels is shown in table 4 (AGFD 2010).

Table 4. Federally protected or candidate species with potential habitat on 

the Federal parcels 

Parcel Name Species Status Forest 

City of Show Low Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act SNF

Little Colorado Spinedace Threatened

Show Low South Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act SNF

Sierra Blanca 

Ranch Adjustment

Bald eagle (winter population) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ANF

Mexican gray wolf (10J area) Nonessential experimental population

Mexican spotted owl Threatened

Soda Springs 

Ranch Adjustment

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate CNF

Desired Condition 

Non-Federal Lands

The desired condition is for fewer private inholdings to exist on the ASNFs, PNF, and CNF.

Lands containing perennial waters that are valuable as habitat for federally listed species would 

be acquired. Multiple benefits would be expected with the addition of the offered non-Federal 

lands to the NFS. These would include the acquisition of potential habitat for the federally listed

species shown in table 2 and acquisition of aquatic and riparian habitats associated with the 

creeks, streams, and rivers listed in table 3. Additional management benefits would include a 

reduction in complex ownership patterns that would consolidate public land ownership; 

elimination of numerous miles of landline boundaries and controlling corners that would 

contribute to management efficiency; and elimination of any possible future 

subdivision/residential development on these remote private inholdings within the boundaries of 

the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF.

The non-Federal properties to be acquired would contribute to the preservation of resource values 

for wildlife habitat and, in a few instances, riparian habitat. When the proposed land exchange is 

completed, each non-Federal parcel would be incorporated into the adjacent land MA on the 

national forest in which it is located. Certain parcels identified for exchange into Federal 

ownership may be located within multiple MAs and may be classified into multiple MAs once the 

proposed exchange is completed. All of the non-Federal parcels are within the proclaimed 

boundaries of NFS lands within Arizona. The acquisition of all the parcels would contribute to the 

management efficiency of NFS lands.

8 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

As previously mentioned, the non-Federal lands offered in this exchange meet several of their 

respective forest plans’ criteria for acquisition. These criteria include the following: (1) provide 

for consolidation of public lands; (2) reduce property and boundary line maintenance through the 

reduction of intermingled ownerships; (3) assure continued public access to NFS lands through 

acquisition of necessary public road rights-of-way; (4) acquire private lands with development 

potential adjacent to designated natural areas; (5) improve management or benefit specific 

resources and research needs; and (6) increase total wetland and flood plain acreage.

Exchange of 1,558 acres of non-Federal lands for 1,028 acres of Federal lands would result in a 

net gain of 530 acres of Federal lands into the NFS.

Federal Lands

Conveyance of the Federal lands to SLL would result in more functional and consolidated private 

land holdings more suitable for development. The NFS lands being considered for exchange in 

the Show Low South Land Exchange meet several of the criteria for conveyance contained within 

the ASNFs and CNF forest plans. Specifically, these criteria include the following: forest 

management efficiency; lands needed to meet the needs of expanding communities; consolidation 

of the public lands; improved management of benefit specific resources; resolution of trespass 

issues; and meeting overriding public needs. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

The analysis of exchanging land between federal and non-federal entities must comply with 

numerous statutory requirements, including the following acts:

National Forest Management Act

The proposed land exchange has been found to be consistent with the management direction, 

goals and objectives of the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF forest plans and is in the public interest (36

CFR 254.3(b)(2)). The non-Federal lands meet the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF forest plans Standards 

and Guidelines that identifies them as desirable for acquisition, and the Federal lands as available

for conveyance under land exchange authorities.

When acquired, the non-Federal lands will be incorporated into the Management Areas in which 

they are located (36 CFR 254.3(f)). Management objectives for the parcels would be the same as 

surrounding federal lands, unless otherwise changed by future amendment of the ASNFs, CNF, or 

PNF forest plans. No site-specific forest plan amendment is required.

National Environmental Policy Act

The proposed land exchange has been considered in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 USC §4321-4347). NEPA provisions have been followed as 

required under 40 CFR 1500. This FEIS complies with the intent and requirements of NEPA and

analyzes a range of reasonable alternatives, including the “no action” alternative. It also discloses 

the expected impacts of each alternative, and discusses the identified issues and concerns. 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 9
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Endangered Species Act

The proposed land exchange has been considered in compliance with the environmental 

conservation law of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 7 USC §136, 16 USC §1531). 

The ESA was implemented to protect endangered and threatened species from extinction. This

FEIS complies with the requirements, plans, permits, agreements and species protection/listing 

statuses of the ESA. The FEIS identifies all issues and concerns related to any threatened or 

endangered species that could be affected by the Show Low South Land Exchange, analyzes 

reasonable alternatives including the “no action” alternative, and discloses the expected impacts 

of each alternative. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The proposed land exchange has been considered in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act of 1918 (MBTA, 16 USC §§ 703-712). The MBTA is an agreement enacted between the 

United States and Great Britain that provides protection for migratory bird species. This FEIS 

complies with the laws outlined in the MBTA that provide protection for migratory birds in the 

United States. The Show Low South Land Exchange FEIS highlights any concerns related to 

migratory birds and analyzes the impacts of all reasonable alternatives (including the “no action” 

alternative) in relation to the MBTA. 

Executive Order 11990 Wetlands

The proposed land exchange has been considered in compliance with EO11990, which requires 

Federal agencies to provide leadership and to take action to minimize the destruction, loss or 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands in carrying out agency responsibilities for acquiring, managing, and disposing of 

Federal lands and facilities. The FEIS analyzes effects on wetlands for all alternatives.

Executive Order 11988 Floodplains

The proposed land exchange has been considered in compliance with EO11988, which requires

Federal agencies to provide leadership and action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out agency responsibilities for acquiring, 

managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities. The FEIS analyzes effects on floodplains. 

National Historic Preservation Act

The land exchange has been considered in compliance with the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA; Public Law 89-665, 16 USC §470 et seq.). The NHPA is a 

legislative law that preserves and protects historical and archaeological sites in the United States. 

The law requires all Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings 

(actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or eligible for the 

National Register. The law initiated the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National 

Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices. The Show Low South Land 

Exchange FEIS complies with the legislation of the NHPA. The FEIS discloses the expected 

impacts to historic and archaeological sites in the area and analyzes the impacts of all reasonable 

alternatives (including the “no action alternative”) in relation to the NHPA.

10 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

This FEIS is consistent with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as amended 

(ARPA) (16 U.S.C. 470aa et. seq.). ARPA establishes a permit process for the excavation or 

removal of any archeological resources from on Federal lands. If a permit issued may result in 

harm to, disturbance to, or destruction of, any religious or cultural site, as determined by the 

Federal land manager, the Federal land manager shall notify any federally recognized Tribe which 

may consider the site as having religious or cultural importance. This law also establishes 

criminal and civil penalties for illegally excavating, removing, damaging, or defacing any 

archeological resources on Federal lands. It further establishes provisions for the confidentiality 

of archeological resources on public lands. Any necessary permits required by ARPA would be 

acquired and issued for this project.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

This FEIS is consistent with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 1996). The law protects and preserves for American Indians their inherent 

right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, 

Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use, and 

possession of sacred objects and the freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

This FEIS complies with the AIRFA. Throughout the NEPA process the ASNFs consulted with 

American Indian tribes that are associated with the federal lands included in the alternatives that 

could leave federal ownership. No access issues or traditionally used lands were identified by the 

tribes with the parcels considered in this analysis. The analyzed alternatives will not affect the 

right of American Indians to access federals lands used to express and exercise ceremonial and 

traditional rites.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

This FEIS is consistent with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

(NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001). The law provides a process for Federal agencies to return Native 

American human remains, funerary objects and sacred objects to the ancestors and appropriate 

Native American tribe. The law also includes provisions for the intentional excavation and 

unanticipated discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and Tribal lands. Human 

remains are not expected to be discovered at the archaeological sites analyzed in this document. . 

A NAGPRA plan of action was developed as part of an MOA (appendix A of the MOA) in 

consultation with the tribes culturally associated with the archaeological sites located on some of 

the federal parcels considered for exchange in case of inadvertent discovery of human remains. 

Implementation of the MOA would be required for the proposed action.

Forest Plan Consistency

This analysis is consistent with the management direction, goals, and objectives of the ASNFs, 

CNF, and PNF forest plans and is in the public interest (36 CFR 254.3(b)(2)). The non-Federal 

lands analyzed for exchange meet the forest plan standards and guidelines that identify them as 

desirable for acquisition (ASNFs Forest Plan, p. 101; CNF Forest Plan, p. 84; PNF Forest Plan

1986, p. 57) and the Federal lands the forest plan standards and guidelines that identify them as 

available for conveyance under land exchange authorities (ASNFs Forest Plan, p. 100; CNF 

Forest Plan, p. 86; PNF Forest Plan, p. 56).

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 11
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Connected Actions 

Following the exchange and prior to the finalization of development plans, the project proponent 

would assist the Forest Service in relocating the portion of the Buena Vista Trail #637 from the 

Federal exchange Show Low South parcel to Federal lands not part of the exchange. A second

trailhead would be designed and developed near the east end of the Federal exchange parcel. This 

would be done when the road system is built for the development (see figure 11).

With regard to the Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel, a private road easement application would be 

evaluated which would grant the private landowner access on the existing National Forest System 

Road (NFSR) 249A currently unauthorized. Concurrently with the establishment of that 

easement, a previously recorded private road easement for NFSR 249V lying southwesterly 

authorized by the ASNFs under FLPMA authority, (October 21, 1976), issued to GOC, LLC 

would be terminated.

Scope of Analysis and Decision Framework 

The forest supervisor of the ASNFs will be the deciding official to determine if the land exchange 

should take place as described in the proposed action. The decision would include the proposed 

action, connected actions, mitigation, and monitoring. The forest supervisor may decide to 

modify the proposed action or choose the no action alternative.

Public Involvement

Public involvement for the proposed Show Low South Land Exchange was initiated on April 28, 

2009, with publication of the notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the proposed Show Low 

Land Exchange in the Federal Register. The project was placed on the “Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

Schedule of Proposed Actions” (SOPA) on April 2, 2009, and published quarterly thereafter.

Scoping for the DEIS included a land exchange notice publication and notice of public open

house in the White Mountain Independent (36 CFR 254.8); direct mailing of an “interested party” 

letter to over 160 county, state, and congressional delegations and other potentially interested 

agencies, individuals, and organizations; and one public open house held on April 28, 2009, to 

provide information about the proposed exchange and solicit comments on the proposed action. A 

total of 36 comments were received during the scoping period.

A letter was sent to those who submitted scoping comments and other interested stakeholders 

notifying them that the DEIS was available for public comment on the ASNFs Web site. Notice 

of availability of the document was sent to other Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, 

and State and local governments. The official notice of availability (NOA) of the DEIS was 

published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2012. A legal notice for public comment on the 

DEIS was also published in the White Mountain Independent newspaper on November 9, 2012.

The DEIS was made available for public review at the Lakeside Ranger District, 2022 West 

White Mountain Blvd., Lakeside, Arizona 85929, and on the ASNFs Web site. Hard copies of the 

DEIS were made available upon request. The official 45-day DEIS public review period began on 

November 3, 2012 and ended on December 17, 2012. Twenty five letters were received from 

which 71 comments (via e-mails or letters) were noted from federal, state, and local agencies;

private organizations; and the general public. In accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, all comments received were reviewed and considered in the FEIS. Appendix C is a 

summary of comments received and the Forest Service’s response.

12 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Tribal Consultation

In compliance with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended; Executive 

Orders 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), 13084 and 13174 (Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments) the ASNFs identified the tribes that are associated with the lands that 

are part of the proposed action and initiated government to government consultation. The tribal 

governments that were consulted are as follows: Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, the Ramah Chapter 

of the Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe.

These tribes were informed and consulted about the proposed land exchange in April 2009 as part 

of the NEPA process. Two tribes provided written responses in May 2009: the Hopi Tribe and the 

Navajo Nation. The Hopi Tribe commented that they wished to be provided with copies of the 

cultural resources survey report and any proposed treatment (mitigation) plan if prehistoric 

cultural sites are located within the Federal parcels that would be adversely impacted. The Navajo 

Nation commented that they have no concerns with the land exchange as it is not expected to 

impact any traditional cultural properties important to the Navajo Nation and provided they are 

notified under NAGPRA should any sites, objects, or human remains be discovered.

In August 2010, an additional consultation letter was sent by the ASNFs to the Hopi Tribe and 

Pueblo of Zuni requesting concurrence on the reported archaeological findings, and both tribes 

were asked to contact the Forest if they wished to participate in developing a mitigation plan and 

a memorandum of agreement (MOA) regarding the treatment of affected sites. The Hopi Tribe 

responded by letter in August 2010, and the Pueblo of Zuni later responded by phone/email. The 

tribes concurred with the eligibility of the documented sites, including those to be affected by the 

proposed land development. The Hopi recommended that the lands with the prehistoric sites be 

withdrawn from the Show Low South parcel, but in subsequent meetings agreed to the exchange 

provided mitigation measures set forth in an MOA were carried out. The Hopi specifically 

indicated that they would defer to the State Historic Preservation Office and interested parties 

regarding the MOA but requested that consultation continue with them, including participation in 

the development and implementation of a mitigation plan.

The cultural program manager/tribal liaison of the ASNFs attended an administrative meeting 

with the Hopi Tribe’s Cultural Preservation Office on January 12, 2011 to discuss the proposed 

land exchange, among other topics. At the meeting the cultural program manager/tribal liaison 

discussed with the Hopi that if the Sorest Service withdrew the lands with the archaeological sites 

within the Show Low South parcel the land exchange would not be viable. The sites are not 

located in an area that can be excluded from the parcel without changing the parcel size and 

potential land value. The Hopi Tribe agreed to consult on a treatment plan for mitigating adverse 

impacts to two identified prehistoric sites. The draft treatment plan was sent to the Hopi Cultural 

Preservation Office and the Zuni Cultural and Historic Preservation Office for review in April 

2011. The Hopi responded by letter in April, reiterating what they had stated at the January 2011 

meeting. They also requested consideration of a rock art panel at Site AR-03-01-07-1031 to be 

left in place and not disturbed. The request was taken to the project proponent who expressed in a 

January 30, 2012 email a willingness to preserve the rock art boulder. This cooperative 

preservation option has been included within the project’s treatment plan.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 13
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

The ASNFs submitted a revised treatment plan, draft MOA, and draft Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) plan to the Hopi Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni with an 

accompanying letter on October 3, 2012. The cultural program manager of the ASNFs attended 

another administrative meeting with the Hopi Tribe on October 17, 2012 to discuss the submitted 

treatment plan and draft NAGPRA plan. Revisions were suggested to both documents, 

particularly the NAGPRA plan, and it was indicated at the meeting that the Pueblo of Zuni would 

also need to be provided an opportunity to comment on the revised documents. The Hopi Tribe 

followed up the meeting with a November 13, 2012 letter summarizing their consultation to date 

and requesting continued consultation (with the Pueblo of Zuni) on the proposed treatment and 

NAGPRA Plan of Action. The ASNFs incorporated the comments submitted by email from the 

Hopi CPO and Zuni THPO into the NAGPRA plan. 

The ASNFs submitted a revised NAGPRA Plan of Action to the Hopi and Zuni tribes via email 

on December 7, 2012. The Hopi Tribe and the Pueblo of Zuni were invited to be signatories of the 

MOA. The Hopi Tribe has deferred to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer regarding 

the MOA and is not a signatory of the MOA. The Zuni THPO indicated that the Pueblo of Zuni 

would like to be a concurring signatory to the MOA. 

Issues 

The ASNFs analyzed all comments received to identify issues, which are defined as cause-effect 

relationships directly or indirectly resulting from implementation of the proposed action. The 

issues defined as within the scope of the project, and directly or indirectly resulting from 

proposed action implementation, were used to develop the alternatives. Other comments

eliminated from detailed study were identified as those (1) outside the scope of the proposed 

action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, forest plan, or other higher level decision; (3) 

irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual 

evidence. 

The CEQ NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7: “...identify and eliminate 

from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior 

environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” The following issues were used to develop alternatives 

and focus the analysis for this project. All comments and the forests’ response to these comments 

are located in the project record and Appendices C and D.

Issue 1: Trails/Access/Recreation 

Concern: Land exchange would remove access to Buena Vista Trail #637.

Response: To maintain access and recreational opportunities, the proposed action alternative 

would relocate a segment of Trail #637 on Forest Service lands to the south of the existing route

and build a second trailhead near the east end of the Federal exchange parcel.

Unit of Measure: Approximate length and difficulty of the proposed re-route of the trail as 

compared to the existing trail. Discussed in chapter 3, the “Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences, Recreation and Public Access” section.

14 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Issue 2: Future Development of Lands

Including Density and Type of Development

Concern: Land exchange would reroute additional traffic through Sierra Pines neighborhood.

Response: The Sierra Pines neighborhood would experience increased traffic as a result of the 

proposed action alternative; however, since the direction of the resulting traffic is not known, it is 

not possible to predict the precise impact. To prevent all new traffic from being funneled through 

a single neighborhood, preliminary development plans would call for multiple entrances into the

conveyed Show Low South parcel to be constructed.

Unit of Measure: Number of entrances (4) into the Show Low South parcel, as guided by the 

City of Show Low building codes and regulations. Discussed further in chapter 3, the “Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences, Roads” section.

Issue 3: Land Values/Use/Character

Concern: Residents in the Sierra Pines neighborhood raised the concern that additional

development within the community of Show Low would add to the oversupply of available 

housing and may affect land values. The land exchange would also reduce forest access and 

existing recreational opportunities that give Show Low its distinctive mountain forest community 

character.

Response: In consideration of the present economy and general oversupply of housing, the land 

within the Show Low South parcel would likely remain vacant until development would be a 

profitable enterprise. Development on the Show Low South parcel would not take place until the 

demand exists for new residences. When development becomes economically feasible on the 

Show Low South parcel, development is not expected to negatively affect land values of adjacent 

landowners. The Show Low South parcel would be zoned similarly to the Sierra Pines 

neighborhood, no high density residential development would occur, and no mobile homes would 

be constructed. If land values of nearby landowners change, it would likely be from other factors 

related to the housing market.

The proposed action alternative would not eliminate forest access or recreational opportunities, 

though it would require residents of the Sierra Pines neighborhood to travel a greater distance to 

reach ASNFs land. If the land exchange occurs, the proponent working within the City of Show 

Low development processes would utilize reasonable setbacks and other measures to help 

minimize impacts to the mountain forest character of the area.

Unit of Measure: There is no definitive unit of measure that can accurately predict how a 

proposed development would affect adjacent land values. For forest access concerns, distance to 

access the ASNFs for the residences in the northern half of the Sierra Pines subdivision would 

increase by approximately 1 mile. Discussed further in chapter 3, the “Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences, Recreation and Public Access” section.

Issue 4: Wildlife Use and Migration Routes

Concern: Land exchange could impact migration routes, habitat, and water availability for 

wildlife on the City of Show Low and Show Low South parcels.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 15
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Response: Under the proposed action alternative, the City of Show Low parcel, except for the 

expansion area of the waste water treatment facility, would remain undeveloped, allowing for the 

continued use of habitat, water availability, and migration routes for wildlife. The Show Low 

South parcel would be developed as a low density and mixed use residential area and would 

maintain treed areas and open habitat available for wildlife use and migration. Additionally, 

ASNFs lands would be located immediately adjacent to the west and south of the Show Low 

South parcel.

The proposed action may result in loss of habitat for wildlife species on the parcels going out of 

forest ownership if parcels are developed following the land exchange; however, the lands 

coming into forest ownership are of greater acreage and the land exchange would result in a net 

gain of high value wildlife habitat.

Unit of Measure: Acres maintained as open space within the City of Show Low parcel. Lot size 

on the Show Low South parcel. Discussed further in chapter 3, the “Affected Environment and

Environmental Consequences, Plants and Wildlife, Management Indicator Species (MIS)” 

section.

Issue 5: Noise and General Pollution

Concern: Development of the Federal parcels would increase tree removal, noise, and pollution.

Response: Upon transfer to private ownership, there would be an anticipated increase in tree 

removal and local noise pollution on the City of Show Low, Show Low South, and Soda Springs 

Ranch Adjustment parcels. However, the land exchange would consolidate development and 

involve a net gain of 530 acres for the Forest Service. The lands gained by the Forest Service 

would come under Federal protection and management, and no further development would occur.

Unit of Measure: Noise and other forms of pollution would adhere to local codes and 

regulations.

Additional issues and concerns were brought up during the DEIS 45-day comment period. All 

comments and the forests’ response to these comments are located in appendix C.

Changes Between Draft and Final EIS

In preparing the FEIS, public, agency and tribal government comments were assessed and 

considered both individually and collectively. Some of the public’s input led the Forest Service to 

respond by improving, modifying, or making factual corrections to the final document. 

Specifically, the Forest Service made the following changes based on comments on the DEIS.

• Minor edits, changes in text formatting and slight modifications to the document structure 

were completed throughout the FEIS to impart clarification of information previously 

presented.

• In Chapter 1 under Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations the Archaeological 

Resource Protection Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act were added. 

16 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

• Additional information was provided in Chapter 1 under Tribal Consultation. 

• A description of the valuation process of land parcels was added to Chapter 2. 

• In Chapter 2, under Environmental Justice, information was provided clarifying that no 

direct or indirect impacts to access or use of federal lands for American Indian 

ceremonial or traditional rites is expected. Under cultural resources, effects were 

clarified. 

• In Chapter 3, under Unavoidable Adverse Effects and Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources, impacts to cultural resources were clarified. 

• In Chapter 3, under Land Use, a section was added describing the development process 

for the City of Show Low Planning and Zoning. 

• In Chapter 3, under Land Use, a clarification on the presence of encumbrances on federal 

parcels was provided. 

• In Chapter 3, under Recreation and Public Access/Environmental 

Consequences/Alternative 1, a further detailed description of the re-route to the Buena 

Vista Trail was provided. 

• In Chapter 3, under Socioeconomics, a section was added to discuss the history of land 

adjustments and property values in the City of Show Low. 

• In Chapter 3, under Socioeconomics/Environmental Consequences/Alternative 1/Federal 

Parcels, a discussion was added on the impacts to property values. 

• In Chapter 3, under Plants, Fish, and Wildlife, additional detail was provided on 

conceptual designs for the wastewater treatment plant on the City of Show Low Parcel.

• In Chapter 3, under Cultural Resources, clarification was provided about the sites on 

federal land and expected effects to the sites. 

• In Chapter 5 a list of tribal governments and offices consulted was added. 

• Photographs of all parcels were added to Appendix A.

• A summary of public comments on the DEIS and Forest Service responses was added as 

Appendix C.

• Federal and state agency letters received during the DEIS comment period were added as 

Appendix D.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 17

Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Show Low South Land 

Exchange proposal on the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF. The alternatives are presented in comparative 

form, defining the differences between the alternatives and providing a clear basis for analysis by 

the decision maker and the public.

The Valuation Process

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716, 1717; FSM 

5430.12) requires that land exchanges must be conducted with United States citizens, must be 

within the same state, must be equal or nearly equal on both sides of a land exchange as 

determined by an agency-approved appraisal, and can be subject to cash equalization within set 

limits if values are slightly unequal. Appraisals are not part of the environmental analysis for a 

project. The purpose of an appraisal is to estimate the market value of the defined estate for the 

defined properties as of the date of value.

The Forest Service has established its appraisal organization separate from the Line and other 

staff organizations within the agency. The purpose of this segregation is to assure that appraisals 

result in unbiased opinions of value. This minimizes any influence that Line or other staff officers 

could otherwise have in determining appraised values. More importantly, it alleviates any 

appearance of influence by those people who are directly involved with negotiating, processing, 

or approving transactions.

An agency staff appraiser or a private contract appraiser may prepare appraisals used in Federal 

transactions. Private contract appraisers may work under contract from the agency or the 

nonfederal party, in either case appraisal instruction will be developed for the appraiser of record 

by the Forest Service. Appraiser(s) must demonstrate through education and work experience that 

they are qualified for the assignment. Appraisers’ experience and expertise are matched with the 

assignment. Appraisers preparing reports for Forest Service land exchanges must be State 

Certified General appraisers and have successful experience with providing approved narrative 

appraisal reports for Federal or State land management agencies within the past three years. The 

FS Review Appraiser assigned to the case (that must be knowledgeable in the subject market 

area) then reviews the reports. An appraiser not meeting the minimum qualifications would not be 

considered for the assignment. This process helps assure that a professional job is completed 

pursuant to Federal and State rules and regulations for all properties, irrespective of their 

ownership.

Federal regulations in Forest Service Manual 5430 require that appraisals used in land exchanges 

be reviewed by qualified review appraisers. The Forest Service has delegated authority to approve 

appraisal reports to qualified review appraisers.

The appraisal process for land exchanges is done in the following sequence: First, a Forest 

Service field office (working on behalf of the authorized officer) and the non-Federal party agree 

to the estate to be conveyed. This, along with other items such as assignment of costs, is agreed to 

formally in an Agreement to Initiate. The field office prepares a “Request for Appraisal Services” 

that identifies the purpose of the appraisal, legal description of the property to be appraised, the 

estate to be appraised, current information concerning title to the property, and any other pertinent 

information concerning the property. Based upon that request, a review appraiser is assigned to 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 19
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

the project. The review appraiser prepares written appraisal instructions for the properties 

involved. Those written instructions include requirements that the appraisal report be prepared as 

a complete, self-contained appraisal report and in conformance with Uniform Appraisal Standards 

for Federal Land Acquisitions (Interagency Land Acquisition Conference 2000), the Uniform 

Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (Appraisal Standards Board 2008), and within the 

specifications of the project. A pre-work meeting is then held with the review appraiser, 

appraiser, and representatives from both the Forest Service and the non-Federal party to the 

proposed land exchange to discuss the written instructions and clarify any questions that may 

arise. The appraiser then prepares the report, which is reviewed and approved by the qualified 

review appraiser.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study

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

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

proposed action provide suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need.

Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of consideration for land exchanges 

or may already be addressed in the alternatives considered in detail.

The range of alternatives considered in a discretionary land exchange is limited by the exchange 

process itself. A balanced exchange package is arrived at by a series of proposals and counter 

proposals until both the non-Federal and Federal parties agree on an acceptable configuration of 

parcels. Once both parties agree upon an acceptable allocation of lands, the USFS proposes to go 

forward with an analysis of the proposed action. The exchange proposal analyzed in this 

document reflects lands mutually agreed upon by the non-Federal landowner and the USFS. The 

Federal lands, if not already classified as base-for-exchange, would be reclassified when it has 

been determined they meet required criteria as identified in the forest plans and a decision has 

been made to exchange the selected lands.

Sale of Private Lands to the Forest Service for Acquisition Purposes 

Other means of acquiring the non-Federal lands were considered but eliminated from further

study. The sale of non-Federal lands to the USFS is an alternative to a land exchange; however, 

funds to purchase these privately owned parcels are presently not available and it appears funds 

for land purchases will continue to be limited. Even if funds were available, the land exchange 

proponent has made the non-Federal lands available to the USFS on the basis of exchange only.

Require Deed Restrictions for Inholdings 

Some scoping comments suggested that deed restrictions be used to control potential future 

development on the Federal lands once conveyed into private ownership. The purpose of a deed 

restriction should be to limit use or development on the Federal lands after conveyance as a 

means of addressing environmental concerns. A deed restriction alternative on the Federal lands 

was considered but eliminated from further study because no environmental concerns exist that 

require the reservation of rights by the United States (36 CFR 254.3(h)). In addition, any potential 

future development on the exchanged Federal lands would be subject to all laws and regulations 

of the State of Arizona and zoning ordinances, including subdivision development requirements

of Apache, Navajo, and Yavapai counties, as applicable. The relevant laws, regulations, and 

20 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

zoning ordinances contain adequate measures to assure the conveyed Federal lands, adjacent 

private land, and remaining adjacent NFS lands are not adversely affected. Changes in zoning 

typically require public review and comment at the county or city level. Protection of the Federal 

lands through deed restriction is not necessary, as the intended use of the conveyed land would 

not substantially conflict with the established management objectives on the adjacent NFS lands.

Deed restrictions are not required in order to fulfill the purpose and need. Restrictions, if 

imposed, also would lessen the value of the federal parcels during appraisal and would require 

continued Federal administration or oversight of the lands exchanged out of Federal ownership. A 

principle objective of the exchange is to reduce federal administrative requirements over such 

parcels. The USFS has long taken the position that zoning and regulation of uses on private land 

are within the responsibility of state and local governments. Deed restrictions are not to be 

considered unless there is a need to protect the public interest where state or local regulations are 

not adequate. “Except as authorized by law, order, or regulation, Forest Service policies, 

practices, and procedures shall avoid regulating private property use” (USDA 2003).

“Reservations and restrictions should not be used to address a social or political issue” (USDA 

1995; Chapter 33.41c).

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

Exchange approximately 1,558 acres of non-Federal land for approximately 1,028 acres of 

Federal land, including connected actions. Maps and photographs depicting individual Federal 

and non-Federal parcels are included in appendix A. Forest Service databases would be updated 

to reflect these changes (e.g., GIS layers, INFRA database, cultural database, NRIS, etc.)

Detailed Description of Federal and Non-Federal Lands Proposed for Exchange

Non-Federal Lands to be Conveyed into Federal Ownership: 1,558 acres

The non-Federal lands are located in Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, Navajo, and Yavapai counties, 

Arizona. Many of the parcels are surrounded by Federal land. Table 5 presents legal descriptions 

and acreages of each of the non-Federal parcels proposed for exchange followed by descriptions 

of each parcel.

Table 5. Legal descriptions of non-Federal lands to be conveyed to Federal 

ownership

Parcel Name Section Township Range Approximate 

Acreage

Inholdings within Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Alpine Ranger District

Sierra Blanca Ranch Parcel 27 & 34 6N 29E 156

Sprucedale Parcel A portion of Tract B 

of HES 482

41⁄2N

(unsurveyed)

29E 70

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 21
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

Parcel Name Section Township Range Approximate 

Acreage

Clifton Ranger District

Alder Peak Parcel HES 231 1S

(unsurveyed)

30E 160

Juan Miller Parcel 10 2S 29E 120

Black Mesa Ranger District

Leonard Canyon Parcel (also within CNF) 15 14N 12E 8

Sponseller Ranch Parcel 27 and 34 13N 16E 118

Lakeside Ranger District

Railroad Parcels 21, 28, & 33 11N 20E 22

Inholdings Within Coconino National Forest

Mogollon Rim Ranger District

Leonard Canyon Parcel (also within 

ASNFs) 15 14N 12E 632

Red Rock Ranger District

Soda Springs Ranch Parcel 31 & 32 15N 6E 157

Inholdings Within Prescott National Forest

Verde Ranger District

Cherry Parcels Mineral Survey 

Fractions 939, 940, 

941, 942, 1226, & 

1227

5, 6, 9, 10, & 15

14N 3E 117

Total Acreage of Non-Federal Lands to be Conveyed 1,558

Alder Peak Parcel (160 acres): This private parcel is surrounded by the Clifton Ranger District, 

Apache National Forest, and located within unsurveyed Township 1 South, Range 30 East, 

G&SRM. The Alder Peak parcel is approximately 22 miles north of Clifton, Arizona. Elevations 

on the property range from approximately 6,000 to 6,400 feet above mean sea level (amsl). A 

minor drainage flows south to north into Burns Tank located near the central-western section of 

the parcel. This tract is rural with an open meadow and a small water body. Vegetation on the 

parcel is primarily ponderosa pine and alligator juniper with a variety of low-lying shrubs and 

grasses. 

Cherry Parcels (117 acres): The Cherry parcels (which are comprised of three separate parcels) 

are located on private inholdings surrounded by the Verde Ranger District, PNF. The Cherry 

Parcels are located approximately 8 miles south of Cottonwood, Arizona. The three parcels 

(Cross Cut/Gulch Parcel; Ida/Gold Ring/Potomac Parcel; and Sitting Bull Parcel) are located in 

five sections of Township 14 North, Range 3 East, G&SRM. The parcel boundaries of the Cross 

Cut/Gulch Parcel and Ida/Gold Ring/Potomac Parcel are located within Sections 9, 10, and 15 

and are surrounded by Federal land. Located in Sections 5 and 6, the Sitting Bull Parcel’s 

northwest corner adjoins private land and the remaining boundaries are connected to Federal

lands. Steep surface topography exists for the Cherry Parcels. The Cherry Creek drainage crosses 

22 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

a portion of the Sitting Bull Parcel, and other minor drainages occur on the Cross Cut/Gulch 

Parcel and Ida/Gold Ring/Potomac Parcel. Vegetation within the Cherry Parcels is characterized 

by dense manzanita with occasional interspersed junipers.

Juan Miller Parcel (120 acres): This parcel is surrounded by the Clifton Ranger District, Apache 

National Forest, and located within Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 29 East, G&SRM. The 

Juan Miller Parcel is approximately 15 miles north of Clifton, Arizona. The elevation of the 

parcel ranges from 5,800 to 6,400 feet amsl. Access to the parcel is from Coronado Road (NFSR 

475), which intersects the parcel and leads to campgrounds to the east. Juan Miller Creek bisects 

the parcel, with surface topography becoming steeper to the north and south of the creek. The 

area along Juan Miller Creek is characterized by a single large sycamore and several native 

riparian vegetation species. North of Juan Miller Creek is a south-facing slope with scrub-live 

oak, agave, juniper, prickly pear, and blue grama. The area north of Juan Miller Creek drainage is 

predominantly ponderosa pine.

Leonard Canyon Parcel (640 acres): A total of 632 acres of the Leonard Canyon Parcel is 

bordered by the Mogollon Rim Ranger District, CNF, while the remaining 8 acres (that portion 

located east of Leonard Canyon) is bordered by the Black Mesa Ranger District, Sitgreaves 

National Forest. The parcel is the full Section 15, Township 14 North, Range 12 East, G&SRM

and is surrounded by Federal lands. The Leonard Canyon Parcel is approximately 14 miles 

northeast of Happy Jack, Arizona. The elevation of the parcel ranges from 6,200 to 6,860 feet 

amsl. Approximately 0.3 mile of Leonard Canyon is within this parcel. This 0.3 mile of Leonard 

Canyon is considered a perennial pool stream reach, which means it has pools of water that 

remain year-round, while water flows throughout the entire 0.3 mile of Leonard Canyon for a 

portion of the year. This perennial pool stream reach flows into East Clear Creek north of the 

parcel. General vegetation within the parcel consists of ponderosa pine, gamble oak, alligator 

juniper, and various grasses. Cacti species are present along the open areas on south-facing 

slopes. 

Railroad Parcels (22 acres): The Railroad Parcels, surrounded by the Lakeside Ranger District, 

Sitgreaves National Forest, and located within Sections 21, 28, and 33, Township 11 North, 

Range 20 East, G&SRM consist of three separate parcels of land that are approximately 100 feet 

wide. The Railroad Parcels are located approximately 1 mile east of Pinedale, Arizona. These 

three parcels of land are situated along abandoned Standard Lumber Mill, Inc., railroad grades.

Elevations on the parcels remain relatively flat at approximately 6,300 feet amsl. Mortensen Wash 

runs through the middle and southern sections, and Pine Tank is immediately adjacent to the 

southern section. Vegetation within the Railroad Parcels consists primarily of native grasses, 

various thistles, and ponderosa pine. Evidence of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire which occurred in 

2002 is present.

Sierra Blanca Ranch Parcel (156 acres): This private parcel is primarily bordered by the Alpine 

Ranger District, Apache National Forest, in Sections 27 and 34, Township 6 North, Range 29 

East, G&SRM. The southeast corner of this parcel borders private land. The Sierra Blanca Ranch 

Parcel is approximately 6.5 miles northwest of Alpine, Arizona. Elevations on the property range 

from approximately 8,430 to 8,600 feet amsl. The general vegetation is mixed conifer forests with 

grasslands and open meadows. The parcel includes a wetland area approximately 82 acres in size.

Three creeks meet within the wetland area. Boneyard Creek enters the parcel near the northeast 

corner and exits the parcel on the western boundary. Another creek (spillway from Sierra Blanca 

Lake) enters at the southern boundary and drains into Boneyard Creek. The third creek enters 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 23
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

from the northern boundary and also drains into Boneyard Creek. This parcel is currently 

encumbered by a conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy. The conservation 

easement will terminate upon acquisition of the parcel by the Forest Service.

Soda Springs Ranch Parcel (157 acres): This private parcel is partially bordered by the Red 

Rock Ranger District, CNF within Sections 31 and 32, Township 15 North, Range 6 East, 

G&SRM. The Soda Springs Ranch Parcel is approximately 7 miles northeast of Camp Verde, 

Arizona. The parcel also borders Montezuma Castle National Monument to the west and private 

land on part of the east boundary. Elevations on the parcel range from 3,575 to 3,700 feet amsl.

The prominent hydrologic features include Wet Beaver Creek and Red Tank Draw, both of which 

cross the parcel. Montezuma Well and Soda Spring are located within 1⁄4 mile of the parcel.

Sponseller Ranch Parcel (118 acres): This parcel is surrounded by the Black Mesa Ranger 

District, Sitgreaves National Forest, and is within Sections 27 and 34, Township 13 North, Range 

16 East, G&SRM. The Sponseller Ranch Parcel is approximately 3 miles northwest of Heber, 

Arizona. Elevations on the property remain relatively flat at an elevation of approximately 6,600 

feet amsl. The center of the parcel is dominated by blue grama and other grasses, while a number 

of ponderosa pine and junipers occur along the edges of the parcel. Brookbank Canyon is the 

prominent drainage and crosses the length of the parcel.

Sprucedale Parcel (70 acres): This parcel is partially bordered by the Alpine Ranger District, 

Apache National Forest, within unsurveyed Township 41⁄2 North, Range 29 East, G&SRM. The 

Sprucedale Parcel is approximately 14 miles southwest of Alpine, Arizona. The parcel borders 

ASNFs on the southwest and northwest corners and along the eastern boundary of the parcel. The 

remaining boundaries adjoin private land. Elevations on the property remain relatively flat at 

approximately 7,550 feet amsl. The prominent drainages in the area include Beaver and Horton 

Creeks, both intermittent streams. Vegetation within the parcel consists almost entirely of grasses, 

while dense ponderosa pine stands surround the area.

Federal Lands to be Conveyed into Non-Federal Ownership: 1,028 acres

The Federal lands consist of approximately 1,020 acres of land within the ASNFs and 8 acres

within the CNF. Table 6 presents legal descriptions and acreages of each of the Federal parcels 

proposed for exchange. Descriptions of the parcels follow in table 6.

Table 6. Legal descriptions of Federal lands to be conveyed to non-Federal 

ownership

Parcel Name Section Township Range Approximate

Acreage

Apache National Forest

Alpine Ranger District

Sierra Blanca Ranch Adjustment Parcel 34 6N 29E 2

Coconino National Forest

Red Rock Ranger District

Soda Springs Ranch Adjustment Parcel 32 15N 6E 8

24 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

City of Show Low Parcel (70 acres): This parcel is just north of the City of Show Low, Arizona, 

within the Lakeside Ranger District, Sitgreaves National Forest, in Section 8, Township 10 North, 

Range 22 East, G&SRM. The parcel is relatively flat at an elevation of approximately 6,300 feet 

amsl. The southern boundary of the parcel adjoins private land, while the west, north, and east 

boundaries adjoin ASNFs lands. The parcel, which remains undeveloped, contains a short 

segment of Show Low Creek in the southwest corner. The parcel’s southwest corner also extends 

over the City of Show Low’s sewage pipeline. Vegetation within this parcel consists primarily of 

juniper woodland with some gamble oak and ponderosa pines. Show Low Creek canyon contains 

riparian grasses, willows, and other vegetation.

Show Low South Parcel (948 acres): This parcel is located just south of the City of Show Low, 

Arizona, within the Lakeside Ranger District, Sitgreaves National Forest, in Sections 31 and 32 

of Township 10 North, Range 22 East, G&SRM. Elevations on the property range from 

approximately 6,550 to 6,850 feet amsl. ASNFs lands flank the west and south, while private 

lands border the north and east sides. The parcel is contiguous to urban/transitional lands, such as 

the Sierra Pines subdivision, and contains part of the Buena Vista Trail #637, which would be 

rerouted for that part of the trail to federal land following exchange. The parcel also contains two 

identified prehistoric sites, which would have effects mitigated through implementation of a 

treatment plan (see Chapter 3, Cultural Resources). The Show Low South Parcel is located within 

a vegetation transition zone between ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper habitat. Several small 

unnamed drainages cross the parcel and Lost Tank is located near the center of the parcel. 

Sierra Blanca Ranch Adjustment Parcel (2 acres): This parcel is within the Alpine Ranger 

District, Apache National Forest, in Section 34, Township 6 North, Range 29 East, G&SRM. The 

Sierra Blanca Ranch Adjustment Parcel is approximately 6.5 miles northwest of Alpine, Arizona.

Elevations on the parcel range from approximately 8,430 to 8,580 feet amsl. The parcel is 

encumbered by an existing residential structure contiguous to the retained portion of Sierra 

Blanca Ranch. The general vegetation is mixed conifer forests with grasslands and open 

meadows. The northeastern section of the property is forested, while the southwestern area is 

open grassland and meadow habitat. No hydrologic features occur within the property, though 

Lake Sierra Blanca is directly southeast of the parcel.

Soda Springs Ranch Adjustment Parcel (8 acres): This parcel is within the Red Rock Ranger 

District, CNF, in Section 32, Township 15 North, Range 6 East, G&SRM. The Soda Springs 

Ranch Adjustment Parcel is approximately 7 miles northeast of Camp Verde, Arizona. Elevations 

on the parcel range from approximately 3,580 to 3,620 feet amsl. The parcel borders private lands 

to the west and south, and CNF lands to the north and east. This area of CNF is exposed to the 

management issues associated with urban and rural boundaries. The vegetation on this parcel is 

diverse as the southern half is characterized by an open irrigated nonnative grassy field, while the 

Sitgreaves National Forest

Lakeside Ranger District

City of Show Low Parcel 8 10N 22E 70

Show Low South Parcel 31 & 32 10N 22E 948

Total Acreage of Federal Parcels to be Conveyed 1,028

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 25
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

northern section is primary desert scrub habitat. No hydrologic features are present within the 

parcel, though Wet Beaver Creek is immediately south of the parcel.

Connected Actions

Following the exchange, the trailhead to the Buena Vista Trail would be relocated, as well as a 

portion of the trail itself. Furthermore, NFSR 249A would be improved within the Sierra Blanca 

Ranch Adjustment Parcel. 

Alternative 2 - No Action 

Under alternative 2, the no action alternative, no exchange of lands would occur between the

USFS and SLL. Lands would remain in current ownership. 

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 7 compares the impacts of the alternatives to the key issues that were raised during the 

scoping process. More detail concerning the environmental consequences of the alternatives can 

be found in chapter 3 of this EIS.

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives

Ownership Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 – No Action

Land Use

Non-Federal The nine non-Federal parcels would not undergo any 

further development.

The non-Federal parcels would 

be developed as rural and lowdensity housing. 

Federal The four Federal parcels would be developed including 

expansion of the waste water treatment facility, low 

density, mixed use residential housing.

No change.

Recreation and Public Access

Non-Federal An additional 1,558 acres would become available for 

public access and use for recreation, hunting, fishing, 

camping, and other outdoor activities.

Remain private property with no 

public access or use.

Federal Approximately 1,028 acres would be removed from public 

access and recreation opportunities. The Buena Vista Trail 

and Trailhead (#637) would be relocated to the south on 

retained Forest Service lands.

No change.

Socioeconomics

Non-Federal The private land tax base would decrease by a total of 

1,558 acres as non-federal parcels are trasnferred to federal 

ownership; however, there would be corresponding 

increase in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 

funds to each county to offset the lands moving into 

Federal ownership. May also increase tourism in the area 

bringing additional revenue.

Development could increase 

base property tax values in five 

Arizona counties.

26 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

Ownership Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 – No Action

Federal The private land tax base would increase by a total of 

1,028 acres as the federal parcels are transferred to private 

ownership. The exchange is not anticipated to have a 

measurable effect on tourism for the three communities 

due to the close proximity to other Federal lands.

No change.

Environmental Justice

Non-Federal No direct or indirect impacts to minority and low-income 

populations.

Development may bring jobs to 

several rural communities. No 

adverse effects are anticipated.

Federal Development may bring jobs to several rural communities.

No direct or indirect impacts to access and use federal 

lands to express and exercise American Indian ceremonial 

or traditional rites. 

No change.

Plants, Fish, and Wildlife

Non-Federal Generally, the non-Federal parcels contain more valuable 

habitat for special status species, primarily due to the 

presence of perennial waters and riparian habitat on many 

of the parcels. Protection of species and habitat would be 

assured with Federal acquisition.

Parcels would likely be 

developed in the future reducing 

the quality and availability of 

wetland, riparian, and upland 

habitat.

Federal Federal parcels provide low quality habitat for T&E 

species, which would be offset by the acquisition of over 

1,500 acres of high quality riparian and upland habitat 

suitable for several T&E and other special status species. 

Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented 

to limit the spread of invasive plant species.

No change.

Grazing

Non-Federal A total of 1,558 acres would be added to the NFS. An 

evaluation would determine the inclusion of these parcels 

into specific allotments.

Development on the Leonard 

Canyon and Soda Springs Ranch 

parcels would remove 797 acres 

from exiting grazing leases. 

Federal A total of 1,028 acres would be removed from current 

grazing allotments.

No change.

Prime and Unique Farmlands

Non-Federal No prime and unique farmlands are known to exist. No change.

Federal No prime and unique farmlands are known to exist. No change.

Water Quality

Non-Federal A total of 1,040.26 acre-feet in annual volume of water 

rights would be conveyed to Federal ownership. No direct 

or indirect effects to water quality would occur.

Change in water quality or 

availability would be guided by 

city, county, or State of Arizona 

regulations.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 27
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

Ownership Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 – No Action

Federal A total of 0.09 acre-feet in annual volume of water rights 

would be conveyed to private ownership. Development of 

these parcels after conveyance is not expected to impact 

water quality in any way. Specifically, for the City of 

Show Low parcel, which will house the expansion of the 

city waste water treatment facility, the city will not allow 

effluent to enter Show Low Creek, maintaining the current 

water quality value. No direct or indirect effects to water 

quality are anticipated.

No change. 

Wetlands and Floodplains

Non-Federal Approximately 112.3 acres of wetlands and 167 to 170 

acres of delineated flood plains would be conveyed to 

Federal ownership. An additional ~6.5 to 62 acres of land 

that may be subject to flooding would also be conveyed.

These parcels would likely be 

developed reducing their quality 

and habitat availability to 

wildlife and other species of 

interest.

Federal Approximately 1.8 acres of wetlands and 3.7 acres of 

delineated flood plains would be conveyed to private 

ownership. An additional 0.9 acre of land that may be 

subject to flooding would also be conveyed.

No change.

Cultural Resources

Non-Federal Any future proposed actions would be subject to historic 

preservation laws.

No protection of cultural 

resources exists, except human 

burials.

Federal Direct adverse effects on three sites eligible to the NRHP.

Adverse effects would be resolved and minimized through 

mitigation measures developed. 

No change.

Mineral Resources

Non-Federal Alder Peak, Juan Miller, Leonard Canyon, Sierra Blanca 

Ranch, Soda Springs Ranch, Sponseller Ranch, and 

Sprucedale have little to no potential for mineral 

commodities. Alder Peak parcel has low to moderate 

potential for geothermal resources. Cherry parcel has little 

to no potential and is not prospectively valuable for 

leasable minerals.

Mineral estates would remain 

the same.

Federal There is little to no potential for mineral commodities.

None of the parcels are considered prospectively valuable.

Mineral estates would remain 

the same.

Roads

Non-Federal Any roads or road segments located on non-Federal parcels 

conveyed to Federal ownership would be evaluated to 

determine their inclusion in the Forest Service

transportation system.

Additional roads may be built to 

provide access to developed lots.

Federal The segments of roads located on the parcels would be 

removed from the Forest Service transportation system 

upon issuance of patent. No non-system roads would be 

affected by the land exchange. A road easement (30” wide; 

15’ from centerline) application would be evaluated on the 

Sierra Blanca Ranch Parcel on NFSR 249A to allow acces 

to the caretaker house located on the parcel after the 

exchange is finalized..

No change.

28 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 2. Comparison of Alternatives

Ownership Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 – No Action

Fire and Fuels

Non-Federal Fire and fuels management would need to be consistent 

with the respective forest plans.

Private owners would be 

responsible for implementation 

of any fire and fuel treatments 

during and following 

development.

Federal The Forest Service would be responsible for vegetation 

management within the urban interface to reduce the risk 

of wildfires from spreading from forest land to the newly 

acquired private parcels. Private owners would be 

responsbile for fire and fuel treatments on the newly

acquired private land.

No change.

Hazardous Materials

Non-Federal No hazardous material is known to exist. No change.

Federal No hazardous material is known to exist. No change.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 29

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic environments of 

the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also 

presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in chapter

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

considered and is documented in the project record. The environmental analysis focuses on 

resources identified by the ASNFs interdisciplinary resource specialists’ team (ID team) and 

through the scoping process. The resources analyzed in this chapter include land use; recreation 

and public access; socioeconomics; environmental justice; plants and wildlife; grazing; prime and 

unique farmlands; wetlands and flood plains; water quality, rights, and claims; cultural resources; 

mineral resources; roads; fire and fuels; and hazardous materials. Existing conditions for each 

parcel are described followed by a comprehensive effects analysis for the Federal parcels. The 

non-Federal parcels receive a cursory evaluation of effects with the exception of the hazardous 

materials, which require a full and thorough evaluation. An environmental effect, impact, or 

consequence is defined as a modification of or change in the existing environment brought about 

by the proposed action taken. Effects are direct, indirect, or cumulative and may be temporary 

(short term) or permanent (long term). Effects can vary by degree, ranging from only a slightly 

discernible change to a drastic alteration of the environment. Mitigation measures that could 

reduce or prevent adverse impacts identified during the impact analyses are also described.

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, to create 

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).

The proposed land exchange would not result in long-term loss of productivity of ASNFs lands 

and resources. The land exchange would result in benefits to long-term productivity through a net 

increase in NFS lands that contain higher wildlife values, an increase in recreational 

opportunities, a reduction in private inholdings, and an increase in forest management efficiency.

A description of impacts by resource can be found in this chapter.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Unavoidable adverse effects of the land exchange would be primarily to those individuals that 

utilize the ASNFs lands adjacent to their private residences for recreational purposes, particularly 

on the parcels near the City of Show Low (City of Show Low parcel and Show Low South 

parcel). These individuals would have to travel further to enjoy the recreational opportunities 

offered by ASNFs lands. Transferring lands out of federal ownership that include the three 

historic properties identified would also have unavoidable adverse effects that are irreversible; 

however, the severity of the effects identified would be minimized by adhering to mitigation 

measures that were developed and are included in this EIS. Other unavoidable impacts could 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 31
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

include impacts to recreation and public access, land use, and wildlife. A description of impacts 

expected by alternative can be found by resource area in this chapter.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

An irreversible effect is a change in a natural resource that cannot be reversed. An irreversible 

commitment of resources refers primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources such as minerals

but could also apply to an effect such as the permanent loss of a cultural resource site through 

development of an area. An irretrievable effect is a loss of production or use of a renewable 

natural resource for a period of time, but is reversible, such as the loss of soil productivity or 

wildlife habitat from the presence of a road. By definition, cultural resource sites and traditional 

cultural properties are not renewable and damage to them cannot be reversed. 

Under the proposed action, irreversible and irretrievable adverse effects that would occur to

cultural resources located on the Federal parcels would be resolved through mitigation as required 

by NHPA and implemented through the MOA developed for this project. In addition, the 

proposed action would likely result in loss of forest soil productivity and loss of habitat for 

wildlife species on the Federal parcels, if parcels are developed following the land exchange; 

however, the non-Federal parcels are of greater acreage and the land exchange would result in a 

net gain of high value wildlife habitat. While some surface waters located on Federal parcels 

would be irretrievably lost, a greater amount of surface waters would be brought into forest 

ownership. See the affected resources discussions below for each resource category analyzed. 

Other Required Disclosures 

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare final

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” As a proposed Federal project, the proposed land exchange 

decision is subject to compliance with other Federal and state laws. The following actions have 

been taken to document and ensure compliance with other laws. 

Consultation with Arizona SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP)

Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is required for the proposed land 

exchange. Concurrence regarding determinations of site eligibility for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the determination of effects was received from the SHPO 

on October 4, 2010, and is in the project record. The action alternative would have an adverse 

effect to historic properties as defined in 36 CFR 800. The Forest Service notified and consulted 

the ACHP regarding the adverse effects determination. Cultural resources located on Federal 

lands would require mitigation to resolve those adverse effects in consultation with the SHPO and 

ACHP. The ACHP chose not to participate in consultation regarding the MOA pursuant to 36 

CFR 800.6 (a)(1)(iii). A treatment plan for mitigation and a MOA have been prepared for the 

action alternative. SHPO agreed that the proposed treatment plan for mitigation would satisfy the 

legal requirements to resolve adverse effects to the historic properties. A letter of approval of the 

treatment plan from the SHPO was received on September 20, 2013, and is in the project record.

32 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is required. A biological assessment and

evaluation (BA&E) has been prepared for the proposed action. Lands going out of Federal

ownership were surveyed for federally listed species protected by the ESA. No federally listed 

threatened, endangered, or proposed species occur on the Federal parcels. No surveys for 

federally listed species were conducted on the non-Federal parcels; any listed species present on 

the non-Federal parcels would be protected by the USFS following the proposed land exchange.

Therefore, biological resources on the private lands were briefly characterized in the BA&E 

based on habitat and information available for adjacent Federal lands. Due to the fact that no 

federally listed species protected under the ESA were identified on the Federal lands, no formal or 

informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required. Biological 

resources are discussed and evaluated in the “Plants and Wildlife” section of this chapter.

Land Use

Affected Environment 

The land use evaluations disclose the “reasonable and foreseeable use” of non-Federal parcels if 

the land exchange is not executed, and the “reasonable and foreseeable use” of Federal parcels if 

the land exchange is executed and they are conveyed into private ownership. The reasonable and 

foreseeable use, as defined by 36 CFR 254 Subpart A, is established by an appraiser’s supported 

opinion of the most probable and legal use of a property, based on market evidence, as of the date 

of valuation.

City of Show Low Planning and Zoning

Most of the private property currently within the City of Show Low came into private ownership 

through land exchanges. The City of Show Low General Plan (City of Show Low 2007) includes 

areas that could become private property during future land exchanges and long-term planning 

anticipates these exchanges.

The Federal Show Low South parcel has been annexed by the City of Show Low and is included 

within the General Plan. The General Plan presumes that the exchanged property will be 

developed as one or more master planned communities, which is typically accomplished through 

a planned unit development although it can also be undertaken through traditional zoning (City of 

Show Low 2007).

The development process starts with an application for a zone change, which requires a 

neighborhood meeting and public hearings. There is a long list of requirements for this process, 

including the developer submitting a land use plan for the entire property that indicates density, 

uses, and open space for each area of the property, accompanied by a statement of design 

philosophy, setbacks (both internally and at perimeters), circulation, and traffic analysis. This 

plan must be presented at public hearings and be approved by both the Planning and Zoning 

Commission and the City Council.

After approval of the zone change application, the developer will begin the Preliminary 

Development Plan or Preliminary Plat Process, which also includes public meetings with the 

Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council prior to approval. As part of the process, 

the developer will submit more detailed plans on the portion of the property to be developed. A 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 33
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

traffic statement from a registered engineer will address the impact of new development on 

existing roads, and sewer, water, and other utilities will be analyzed including the status of 

existing capacities.

The next step is the Final Plat process, during which all plans must be reviewed and approved in 

specific detail. The Final Plat must be approved by the City Council. The developer must also 

post financial assurances in an amount that will cover all improvements before the Final Plat can 

be recorded. Once the Final Plat has been approved and recorded and all public improvements 

have been completed, the City Council accepts the subdivision.

Typically, the high initial cost of infrastructure, which must be paid by the developer, tends to 

hold back development until there is sufficient market demand for new products. Refer to project 

record item dated March 18, 2013 for an explanation of City of Show Low South parcel 

development process.

Federal Parcels

The City of Show Low parcel (70 acres; Lakeside Ranger District, SNF) is currently 

undeveloped, but encumbered by the City of Show Low’s force main sewer pipeline, which

crosses through the parcel’s southwest corner, authorized by a Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) utility easement. NFSR 9701K5 provides access to the northern 

portion of this parcel.

The Show Low South parcel (948 acres; Lakeside Ranger District, SNF) is currently 

undeveloped, but encumbered. The parcel is within the incorporated (annexed) limits of the City 

of Show Low. Recreationists utilize a number of designated forest roads that cross the Show Low 

South parcel. A segment of Buena Vista Trail #637 extends through a portion of the parcel. The 

existing trailhead near US 60 will not be impacted by the exchange since it is over one mile from 

the nearest edge of the Federal exchange parcel. Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. has an 

overhead transmission line that crosses diagonally through the parcel from the southeast to 

northwest. All facilities and lines associated with this transmission line are authorized by a master 

special use permit that includes a 20-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) that expires December 31, 

2027.

The Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel (2 acres; Alpine Ranger District, ANF) is encumbered 

by a caretaker house (guest house) with a detached shed and road (NFSR 249A). Use of the 

caretaker house is currently authorized by the ASNFs under a special use permit that covers 3.4 

acres. That portion of NFSR249A on the subject parcel is currently unauthorized. The legal 

access to the caretaker house is through the existing adjacent private ranch and across the federal 

lands by a private road easement for NFSR 249V lying southwesterly currently authorized by the 

ASNFs under FLPMA authority, (October 21, 1976), issued to GOC, LLC.

The Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel (8 acres; Red Rock Ranger District, CNF) is 

encumbered with an unauthorized telephone line, unauthorized irrigated field, access road, and

portion of a Frisbee golf course.

Non-Federal Parcels

The Alder Peak parcel (160 acres) is surrounded by the Clifton Ranger District, ANF. The parcel 

is undeveloped, unoccupied, and has no evidence of recent use.

34 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Cherry parcels consist of three separate parcels (117 acres); the Sitting Bull Parcel (the 

northwest parcel), Cross Cut and Gulch Parcel (the middle parcel), and Ida, Gold Ring, and 

Potomac Parcel (the southeast parcel). The middle and southeast parcels are completely 

surrounded by Federal land (Verde Ranger District, PNF), while the northwest parcel is partially 

bordered by the Verde Ranger District of the PNF and private land. Together, the Cherry parcels

contain six patented mineral surveys (mining claims). No other development activities are 

evident.

The Juan Miller parcel is surrounded by Federal land (120 acres; Clifton Ranger District, ANF).

NFSR 475 (Juan Miller Road) runs through the parcel and provides access to the Upper and 

Lower Juan Miller Campgrounds. No other development is present. The Upper and Lower Juan 

Miller Campgrounds are located southwest of the parcel.

The Leonard Canyon parcel (8 acres on the CNF; 632 acres on the SNF) is mostly surrounded by 

Federal land (Mogollon Rim Ranger District, CNF, on the north, west, and southern boundaries; 

Black Mesa Ranger District, SNF, on the eastern boundary). A section of private land exists 

diagonally northwest of the parcel. NFSR 137B and NFSR 137E cross the property; however, no 

other development is present. No proposed changes to the existing road status have been 

identified.

The Railroad parcels consist of three separate strips of land (total of 22 acres) that are surrounded 

by Federal land (Lakeside Ranger District, SNF). Overhead electrical lines and a service road 

follow sections of the middle and southern strips of land. NFSR 129 intersects the northern strip 

at two locations. The Railroad parcels are situated along abandoned railroad grades (railroad 

material has been removed).

The Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel (156 acres) is mostly surrounded by Federal land (Alpine Ranger 

District, ANF) except for privately owned land to the southeast. No development is present within 

the Sierra Blanca Ranch Parcel. It is currently encumbered by a conservation easement held by 

The Nature Conservancy. The legal access to the Ranch is by a private road easement for NFSR 

249V lying southwesterly authorized by the ASNFs under FLPMA authority, (October 21, 1976), 

issued to GOC, LLC.

The Soda Springs Ranch parcel (157 acres) is generally bordered by the Montezuma Castle 

National Monument to the west, CNF land to the north and south (Red Rock Ranger District, 

CNF), and private land to the east. An unmarked dirt road runs through the middle of the 

property and NFSR 121 crosses a small northern portion of the property. Arizona Public Service 

Company has an easement through the parcel. No other development is present.

The Sponseller Ranch parcel (118 acres) is surrounded by Federal land (Black Mesa Ranger 

District, SNF). Remains of the Wyrick Ranch (formally S.A. Sponseller) are evident within the 

parcel including a dilapidated structure, water derrick, and water well.

The Sprucedale parcel (70 acres) is part of a larger inholding tract of private land. The parcel is 

bordered by Federal land (Alpine Ranger District, ANF) on a small section of the eastern, 

northern, and southern boundary. No development is present.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 35
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the four Federal parcels would be transferred to private 

ownership. As such, the parcels would not be available for public use, including recreation, travel, 

timber, grazing operations, etc. The following describes the reasonable and foreseeable use of 

each of the parcels if the proposed action alternative is chosen.

The City of Show Low parcel would be directly transferred to the City of Show Low through the 

land exchange proponent. The City of Show Low parcel would house the expansion of the city’s

waste water treatment facility (see figure 3). The remainder of the parcel would remain 

undeveloped. The City of Show Low would apply a zoning designation of AR-43 (AgriculturalResidential) to the parcel.

The Show Low South parcel is currently within the municipal boundaries of the City of Show 

Low and would likely be developed as low-density residential and mixed-use residential (figure 

4). Transfer of the Show Low South parcel to private ownership would not affect the power lines

that exist on the parcel, because the master use permit would include the transfer of the easement 

within the private parcel. The segment of Buena Vista Trail #637 within the City of Show Low

parcel would be realigned. A report prepared by the Arizona Department of Water Resources 

(ADWR) concluded that the City of Show Low has sufficient water supplies which are 

continuously and legally available for 100 years after the report’s approval in the year 1999

(updated May 25, 2011). The City of Show Low would employ a zoning designation of AR-43 

(Agricultural-Residential) to the parcel.

No further development is anticipated if the Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel is transferred 

to private ownership. The special use permit for the existing caretaker house would terminate. A 

30-foot-wide private road easement (15’ from centerline) would be granted to the proponent for 

use of NFSR 249A, extending from NFSR 249 to the boundary of the Sierra Blanca Ranch 

adjustment parcel. Concurrently with the establishment of that easement, a previously recorded 

road easement that was established for the property across undisturbed NFS lands would be 

terminated.

The Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel would likely be developed as a single rural residential 

area. No effects to the Arizona Public Service Company power line would occur because it is 

outside of the parcel boundary. Transfer of the parcel to private ownership would not affect the 

access of other private parcels via NFSR 121.

Non-Federal Parcels

Upon transfer to Federal ownership, the nine non-Federal parcels would not undergo any further 

development. The parcels would be integrated into the NFS, which would allow the public to 

utilize the lands for recreation and other uses. The parcels would be managed as directed under 

respective forest plans. Because the ASNFs would acquire the Sierra Blanca Ranch Parcel, the 

conservation easement managed by The Nature Conservancy would be terminated.

36 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3. Reasonable and foreseeable use map of the federal City of Show 

Low parcel showing the planned expansion of the City of Show Low waste 

water treatment facility

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 37
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

F

igure 4. Reasonable and foreseeable use map of the federal Show Low 

South parcel showing planned development

38 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

to determine whether they would result in effects on land use when combined with the proposed 

action. The existing condition described above reflects the current land use within the project 

area. Past, present, and future projects—as listed in appendix B—cumulatively would have little 

effect on land use within the project region. Residential zoning within the City of Show Low’s

General Plan would ensure a limited amount of public land use within the immediate vicinity of 

the City of Show Low, though SNF land is open for public use in the surrounding area. The Camp 

Tatiyee Land Exchange project, which would involve a trade of Federal and private lands, would 

allow consolidation of NFS lands and provide for a children’s camp on private lands. Overall, a 

net gain of land for the NFS resulting from the Show Low South Land Exchange would result in 

no substantial cumulative impacts regarding land use.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels 

Under the no action alternative, the four Federal parcels would not be conveyed to private 

ownership and would remain within the NFS. As such, no effects to the current land use of the 

Federal parcels would occur.

Non-Federal Parcels

If the nine non-Federal parcels are not transferred to Federal ownership, the parcels would remain 

in private ownership and would likely be further developed. The parcels would not be available 

for public use. The following are the most reasonable and foreseeable uses of each of the nonFederal parcels under the no action alternative based on current zoning.

The Alder Peak parcel would likely be developed as a remote ranch or cabin site.

The Cherry parcels would likely be developed as rural residential cabin lots. Each lot would be 20 

acres or greater in size.

The Juan Miller parcel would likely be developed as five rural residential cabin lots. Each of the 5

lots would be approximately 24 acres in size (figure 5).

The Leonard Canyon parcel would be developed as a rural residential area. There would be a total 

of 45 lots that are 10 acres or greater in size (figure 6).

The Railroad parcels would be developed as rural cabin sites. There would be five tracts, each 

approximately 1 acre or more in size, within each of the three strips of land that comprise the 

Railroad Parcels (figure 7).

The Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel would continue to be managed as a conservation easement held 

by The Nature Conservancy. The most reasonable and foreseeable uses of the parcel include 

several possible scenarios: construction of one single family residence (with accessory buildings 

and structures); operation of an ecotourism, bed and breakfast; retreat center; and/or use as a 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 39
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ranch for up to 36 horses with barns and corrals (special warranty deed with reservation of 

conservation easement dated January 11, 2006).

The Soda Springs Ranch Parcel would be developed as a rural residential area. There would be a 

total of 41 lots that are 3.5 acres or greater in size (figure 8).

The Sponseller Ranch Parcel would be developed as a rural residential area. There would be a 

total of 42 lots that are 2.5 acres or greater in size (figure 9).

The Sprucedale Parcel would be developed as a rural residential area. There would be a total of 

13 lots that are 5 acres or greater in size (see figure 10).

Cumulative Effects

Under the no action alternative, the parcels would remain under their current ownership and no 

changes to public land use would occur. No cumulative effects are anticipated.

40 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 5. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the non-federal Juan Miller parcel

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 41
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 6. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the non-federal Leonard Canyon parcel

42 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 7. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the non-federal Railroad parcels

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 43
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 8. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the non-federal Soda Springs Ranch parcel

44 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 9. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the non-federal Sponseller Ranch parcel

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 45
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 10. Reasonable and foreseeable use map showing the planned 

development of the non-federal Sprucedale parcel

46 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Recreation and Public Access

Affected Environment

Federal Parcels

The Federal parcels are open to public use and offer a wide range of dispersed recreation 

opportunities, including hiking, biking, horseback riding, camping, nature viewing, hunting, allterrain vehicle use, and winter sports (e.g., cross-country skiing, sledding, snowshoeing, and 

snowmobile use).

The only established forest trail on any of the four Federal parcels is Buena Vista Trail #637

(figure 11), a portion of which is on the Show Low South Parcel. Due to the proximity of the 

Show Low South parcel to the City of Show Low to the north and a subdivision and trailer park 

to the east, the parcel is utilized by recreationists fairly frequently. The same is the case for the 

City of Show Low parcel, which is directly north of the City of Show Low and contains a portion 

of Show Low Creek.

Non-Federal Parcels

The non-Federal parcels are private property and, therefore, are not legally open to public use.

However, because many of the parcels are not fenced or identified as private land with signs, 

evidence of dispersed recreation is apparent on some of the parcels (e.g., Leonard Canyon, Juan 

Miller, and Soda Springs Ranch parcels).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the exchange would occur and the four Federal parcels 

would transfer to private ownership. Approximately 1,028 acres of NFS lands would be removed 

and be unavailable for public use and recreational activities. The forest roads extending through 

the various parcels would be removed from the NFS transportation database system and would no 

longer be available for public access. Buena Vista Trail #637 would be realigned south of its 

current location outside of the land exchange boundary. In addition, a second trailhead for the 

Buena Vista Trail would be established on NFS lands near the east end of the parcel. This would 

place it much closer to the residences of the Sierra Pines subdivision. No other established trails 

would be affected by the land exchange. 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 47
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 11. A topographic map of Buena Vista Trail

Approximately one-third of the existing Buena Vista Trail is on the Show Low South Federal 

exchange parcel. The existing trailhead near US 60 will not be impacted by the exchange because 

it is over one mile from the nearest edge of the trade parcel.

The Forest Service partners with TRACKS, a non-profit organization specializing in nonmotorized trails on the Lakeside Ranger District. TRACKS identified an acceptable re-route to 

move the portion of the trail from the exchange parcel to National Forest System lands that are 

not part of the exchange. The proposed re-route will maintain the approximate length and 

difficulty of the existing trail. The exchange proponent has agreed to support part of the cost to 

relocate the trail. This will occur after the exchange agreement has been signed but before 

development plans are finalized. In addition, the Forest Service, TRACKS, and the exchange 

proponent have agreed to design and develop a second trailhead. This would occur near the east 

end of the parcel. It would be developed as the road system is built for the proposed development 

and would likely not occur for several years. Figure 11 presents a map of the Buena Vista Trail, 

existing Trailhead #1, proposed trail re-route, and proposed Trailhead #2. Refer to project record 

item dated 10/29/2007 for Buena Vista Trail background discussions and project record e-mail 

dated 6/21/2010 for trail commitments.

The Forest Service remains responsible for the Buena Vista Trail and future approved connections 

from adjacent developments. The City of Show Low and the developer would negotiate the long48 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

term responsibility for trails located on private lands and approved during the city development 

processes.

Transfer of the Show Low South parcel to private ownership would directly affect public access 

to the ASNFs for residents in the northern half of the Sierra Pines neighborhood. If the proposed 

action alternative occurs, these Sierra Pines residents would have to travel about 1 mile south to 

access ASNFs land and the second Buena Vista Trailhead (figure 11).

Non-Federal Parcels

The proposed exchange would result in an increase of approximately 1,558 acres (net gain of 530

acres) under NFS management. The nine non-Federal parcels would be open to public use and 

dispersed recreation. Because all of the non-Federal parcels are partially or completely 

surrounded by Federal land, use of surrounding lands for recreational purposes would be 

enhanced.

In addition to the general enhancement to recreation and public access of acquiring the nonFederal parcels, there is an added benefit to the management of Montezuma Castle National 

Monument. According to the feasibility analysis conducted by the Forest Service, acquisition of 

the Soda Springs Ranch parcel (non-Federal) would result in improvements to the management of 

the adjoining Montezuma Castle National Monument in several ways. First, acquisition of this 

parcel would limit the amount of development that could potentially adversely affect the national 

monument. Acquisition of the Soda Springs Ranch parcel would also increase the total acreage of 

NFS land within the CNF that would be available for recreation, while protecting both the 

landscape and open space characteristics of this property which is directly connected to 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Finally, acquisition of the Soda Springs Ranch parcel 

would result in a reduction in management cost by eliminating greater than 2 miles of landline 

boundary, while allowing for maintenance of forest type lands that are directly adjacent to 

Montezuma Castle National Monument (USDA Forest Service Feasibility Analysis 2010).

Cumulative Effects

The following past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in appendix B 

would contribute to the direct and indirect effects to recreation and public access listed above.

• An existing road will provide access to the proposed Second Knoll Shooting Range in the 

Lakeside Ranger District, ASNFs. 

• The Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act Purchase project would result in a net loss 

of 583 acres of land administered by the ASNFs.

• The Pueblo Park Mineral Materials Pit in the Alpine Ranger District of the ASNFs would 

be developed to provide materials for road improvement in Greenlee County, resulting in 

a benefit for recreation and public access resources.

• Under the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange, there would be a decrease in NFS land on the 

ASNFs but an increase in NFS land overall with land acquired on the Coronado, Prescott, 

and Tonto National Forests.

Since under the Show Low South Land Exchange the Forest Service would acquire a net gain of 

530 acres which would be largely available to recreationists and since the Buena Vista Trail will 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 49
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

be rerouted to allow continued recreational use, no substantial negative cumulative adverse 

effects regarding recreation or public access are anticipated.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, no change would occur to the current use and management of the 

Federal parcels. Recreation and public access would remain unchanged.

Non-Federal Parcels

With no land exchange, development would likely occur on the existing non-Federal parcels.

Since the parcels are privately owned, there would be no direct impact regarding public access 

and recreation within the parcels. Once the parcels are developed, individuals using surrounding 

forest lands would experience a negative impact to overall aesthetics and their forest experience 

by the increase in casual use of the forest and increased use of access roads serving the 

developments. In conjunction with development, there would be more fencing, signage, and noise 

which may cause the public to recreate in places further away from the non-Federal parcels.

Cumulative Effects

Development of the Second Knoll Shooting Range, the Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act 

Purchase project, the Pueblo Park Mineral Materials Pit, and the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange

(see appendix B) would contribute to the direct and indirect effects to recreation and public access 

resulting from the no action alternative. Overall, there would be a general cumulative increase in 

development in the region of the ASNFs, specifically within NFS inholdings, which would 

cumulatively affect recreationists in pursuit of remote outdoor settings.

Socioeconomics

Affected Environment

This analysis of socioeconomic conditions focuses on the communities in closest proximity to the 

four Federal parcels: the City of Show Low and the town of Camp Verde. Because there is no 

U.S. Census Bureau data for the unincorporated community of Alpine, Arizona (which is near the

Sierra Blanca Ranch Adjustment Parcel), specific socioeconomic information on this community 

was limited. Socioeconomic data is summarized in table 8.

50 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 8. Summary of the socioeconomic composition for the City of Show 

Low and the town of Camp Verde (according to the 2005–2009 American 

Community Survey)

Tourism and Recreation

According to the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), tourism and recreation are 

important economic activities for the City of Show Low, town of Camp Verde, and community of 

Alpine (ADOC 2009a; ADOC 2009b; ADOC 2009c).

ADOC (ADOC 2009a) states that “tourism and recreation are the foundations of the economy of 

Show Low.” Show Low serves as the entry point for many visitors to the White Mountains and 

offers a variety of year-round recreational opportunities and points of scenic interest. Because of 

its location, Show Low also serves as a center of regional trade with southern Navajo County and 

portions of southern Apache County. The ASNFs has 58 campgrounds, trails, and pristine lakes, 

along with the scenic White Mountain and Mogollon Rim areas that are nearby for campers and 

sport fishermen. Arizona’s only covered bridge is 15 miles west of Show Low in Pinedale.

Apache, Navajo, Hopi, and Zuni Indian Reservations are also nearby. The city has an indoor 

aquatic center, eight 18-hole golf courses within 20 miles, and numerous hotel, motel, and RV 

accommodations. Boating and fishing are popular in the many lakes and streams surrounding 

Show Low. Winter activities include snow skiing at Sunrise Park Resort on the nearby White 

Mountain Apache Indian Reservation and cross-country skiing in surrounding Forest Service 

lands.

The town of Camp Verde also offers a variety of tourism and recreation opportunities.

Montezuma Castle National Monument contains some of the nation’s best preserved cliff 

dwellings and Montezuma Well features a large natural limestone sink, whose waters were used 

for a network of prehistoric irrigation canals (ADOC 2009b). Other attractions include the Fort 

Verde Historic State Park, Tuzigoot National Monument, as well as excellent hunting, fishing, 

and other recreational opportunities. Beasley Flats is operated by the Forest Service, which serves 

Race (Percent) Poverty Income

Unemployment Rate (Percent)

White

Black or African 

American

American Indian or 

Alaska Native

Asian

Pacific Islander

Some Other Race

Two or more Races

Percent Individuals 

in Poverty

Percent Families in 

Poverty

Per Capita Income 

($)

United States 74.5 12.4 0.8 4.4 0.1 5.6 2.2 13.5 9.9 27,041 7.2

State of Arizona 77.6 3.6 4.5 2.4 0.2 9.1 2.6 14.7 10.5 25,203 6.8

Show Low 87.8 2.0 5.9 0.8 0.0 1.7 1.8 16.1 11.9 20,416 5.8

Camp Verde 83.2 1.2 8.2 0.0 0.2 5.4 2.0 16.6 8.8 20,609 5.6

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 51
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

as a major starting point for Verde River trips. Cliff Castle Casino, operated by the YavapaiApache Nation, also attracts numerous visitors (ADOC 2009b). These recreational and tourism 

activities bring visitors from near and far and generate retail and service trade in the community.

ADOC states that tourism is the economic base for the Alpine community (ADOC 2009c). Alpine 

offers year-round tourism and recreation opportunities including big game hunting, fishing, 

camping, horseback riding, rock hounding, cross-country skiing, sledding, and designated areas 

for snowmobiling. Alpine’s cool summers, mountain air, and scenic beauty attract vacationers and 

retirees. Their year-round activities bring more than 50,000 people to the ASNFs annually. There 

are 11 lakes and more than 200 miles of trout streams within a 30-mile radius of Alpine (ADOC 

2009c). Developed campsites are available at Luna Lake, the Alpine Divide, and the Black and 

Blue Rivers. Luna Lake wildlife refuge is home to bald and golden eagles, swans, geese, and 

much more. Alpine’s Ranger Station has a herbarium with hundreds of area wildflowers for 

visitors to view. Local annual events include dog-sled races in January, independence celebration 

in July, Alpine Chili Cook-off in August, and campground programs supporting the local 

economy (ADOC 2009c).

Lifestyle and Cultural Values

According to the 2005–2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2009), the level

of education received by the population within the demographic group of 25 years or older in the 

City of Show Low was comparable with national statistics. For populations within the 

demographic group of 25 years or older, 84.6 percent of the U.S. population had graduated from 

high school or higher, and 27.5 percent had received a Bachelor’s degree or higher. In 

comparison, 87.2 percent of the City of Show Low’s population had graduated from high school 

or higher and 17.5 percent had gained a Bachelor’s degree or higher. There were 4,475 total 

occupied housing units in the City of Show Low. Family households made up 3,235 of this total

or 72.3 percent. The average household size was 2.55 inhabitants, while the average family size 

was 2.88.

The level of education received by the population of Camp Verde was comparable to, but slightly

lower than, national statistics. For the population of 25 years or older, 84.6 percent of the U.S. 

population has graduated from high school or higher, and 27.5 percent has received a Bachelor’s 

degree or higher. In comparison, 83 percent of the population of Camp Verde graduated from high 

school or higher, and 14.2 percent had a Bachelor’s degree or higher. There were 3,832 total 

occupied households in Camp Verde. Family households made up 2,435 of this total or 63.5

percent. The average household size was 2.77 inhabitants, while the average family size was 3.51.

Community Infrastructure

According to the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC 2009a), the City of Show Low has a 

broad range of community facilities including a library, bowling alley, one 18-hole golf course, a

27-hole golf course, several lighted racquetball and tennis courts, an exercise fitness course, 

soccer fields, and movie theaters. Other facilities available include an indoor aquatic center pool, 

lighted softball and baseball fields, handball and basketball courts, and picnic areas. The City of 

Show Low has a full range of educational institutions including elementary, middle, and high 

schools, a community college, and a technical school. The city has six banks, several hotels, a fire 

department, police department, and a regional medical center. Show Low Regional Airport has 

two paved runways, a paved taxiway, self-service fuel facilities, and a terminal. Show Low has 

52 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

access to all utility services, including electricity, natural gas, telephone, internet, cable, water, 

and sewer.

Community facilities within Camp Verde include a library, museum, recreation center, tennis 

court, several softball and football fields, a skateboard park, horse arena, community swimming 

pool, and 18 acres of park land and picnic areas along the Verde River (ADOC 2009b). Camp 

Verde has educational facilities consisting of elementary, middle, and high schools. This town has 

three banks, a fire department, a town marshal, and one health care facility. The town of Camp 

Verde has two privately owned airstrips and multiple hotel options. Camp Verde has access to all 

utilities.

The community of Alpine also offers a broad range of community facilities (ADOC 2009c), 

including a library, country club, and golf course. Alpine has a winter sports recreation area with 

maintained cross-country ski trails and designated snowmobiling and sledding areas. Alpine also 

has a county owned public library, a public elementary school, two banks, a volunteer fire 

department, a Sheriff’s office, and lodging facilities. The community has access to electricity, 

propane, telephone, internet, water, and sewer services.

Property Taxes

The Forest Service makes payment to counties with respect to Federal lands under three statutes 

known as the Twenty-Five Percent Fund, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act, and the 

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. The Twenty-Five Percent 

Fund of May 23, 1908, provides for counties to receive 25 percent of the gross receipts and 

revenues from timber sales and other income generating activities on Federal lands. The PILT Act 

of 1976 authorizes payments to counties based on the number of acres of “entitlement lands” 

within the county. For purposes of this discussion, entitlement lands are NFS lands. The Secure 

Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 stabilizes payments for fiscal 

years 2001 through 2006 (extended through 2011) to counties that received a 25-percent payment 

during fiscal years 1986 through 1999 to provide funding for schools and roads that supplements 

other available funds. Non-Federal landowners make payments to counties in the form of 

property taxes.

City of Show Low Land Adjustments and Property Values

The Forest Service reviewed the history of land adjustments within the incorporated limits of the 

City of Show Low. The city first incorporated in 1953 and has continued expanding in the area 

through a number of annexations. The Forest Service reviewed the land base through the 2007 

annexation. The 2011 annexation was not considered in the review because no private land was 

located in that annexation and the Show Low South land exchange was developed during the 

period 2004-2008. Refer to project record item dated 3/6/2013 for a map of City of Show Low

annexation history. The Show Low South parcel is on National Forest System land annexed by 

the city in 1982. Refer to project record item dated 12/24/1982 for the City of Show Low

Ordinance #165 (annexation action).

During the past 125 years (since 1888), land transferred from the Federal estate to private 

ownership in four ways: sale of public land (2/18/1898); railroad grant (2/24/1908); Homestead 

Act cases (1888 thru 1937); and land exchanges (1929 thru 2007). Approximately 13,589 acres 

were transferred as follows: 320 acres (2.3%) by 1898 sales; 3,098 acres (22.8%) by railroad 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 53
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

grant; 3,080 acres (22.7%) by Homestead Act cases; and 7,038 acres (51.8%) by land exchanges. 

An additional 52.46 acres were transferred to the City of Show Low for a city park in 1984. 

Since Show Low incorporated in 1953, an estimated 6,005 acres have transferred from the 

Federal estate to the city. Of that total, an estimated 5,953 acres or 99.1% were transferred by 

land exchanges. Refer to project record item dated March 17, 2013 for a review of Forest Service 

land adjustments near Show Low over time.

Show Low and its residents have benefitted from the availability of lands from the Federal 

government specifically through land exchanges with the Forest Service. The city has effectively 

integrated these lands to accommodate an increased population and expanded developments. This 

is accomplished through city planning, zoning, and development processes which are governed 

by State law and local regulations.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action, the Federal parcels would be transferred to private ownership and the 

lands would no longer be available for public use (with the exception of Buena Vista Trail within 

the Show Low South parcel). The primary socioeconomic impact would be in the form of 

recreational effects. These impacts would be largely confined to social effects of impeding forest 

use rather than substantial economic impact. Residents and tourists who wish to recreate on the 

Federal parcels would be forced to travel to other areas of the ASNFs, PNF, and CNF. With vast 

amounts of forest land available to the public in close proximity to these four parcels, effects are 

not considered adverse.

It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed action alternative would have a 

measurable effect on tourism for the three communities (Show Low, Camp Verde, and Alpine) in 

close proximity to the Federal parcels.

The private land tax base for Apache (2 acres), Navajo (1,018 acres), and Yavapai (8 acres) 

counties would apply to the exchanged federal 1,028 acres. Based on information provided by 

Navajo County and estimated tax rates from Apache and Yavapai counties, tax revenues would 

increase by over a million dollars among the three counties altogether as a result of the proposed 

action (table 9). However, there would be an associated decrease in the PILT and Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 funds to each county due to the lands 

moving out of Federal ownership. It is difficult to quantify the decrease in these revenue sources 

because of the patchy nature of their implementation; however, they generate less revenue than 

private land tax; therefore, the proposed action is anticipated to provide an overall net increase in 

revenue for all three counties, in particular Navajo County.

54 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 9. Federal parcels zoning and estimated tax rates under the proposed 

action

Parcel Name County Zoning 

Designation Acres Estimate Per Acre

Taxes 

(estimated)

City of Show Low1 Navajo City AR-43 70.00 $1,000.00 $70,000

Show Low South1 Navajo City GA-5 948.48 $1,000.00 $948,480

Sierra Blanca Apache Ag. Gen 2.14 $41.84 $89.53

Soda Springs Yavapai RCU-2A 7.50 $22.62 $169.65

Total $1,018,739.18

1 Data Provided by Darlene Fraley, Navajo County Tax Assessor, September 22, 2011.

While property values have declined across the nation due to general economic conditions, there 

is no evidence that past land exchanges have negatively impacted property values.

If, in the future, all of the Federal land that would be exchanged was placed on the market at the 

same time, one might expect an effect on local land values, in particular, the adjacent private 

properties. The likelihood that the entire acreage would go on the market at the same time is very 

unlikely, as a proposed subdivision of this size, once planned and approved by the City of Show 

Low, is usually developed in phases.

There are several lots immediately adjacent to National Forest lands that would no longer be 

adjacent to National Forest System lands if the exchange occurs and whose property values could 

be affected. The amount of value foregone to individual owners of adjacent lots would be difficult 

to predict. Individual lot values can vary dependent upon numerous factors, including, but not 

limited to, terrain features, available access, vegetative conditions, quality of neighboring 

development, buyer preference (i.e. lot locations such as corner lots), type and square footage of 

development, age of construction, level of improvement, and other factors.

At the time of initial sale of lots within Sierra Pines development, a disclosure was made within 

the purchase contracts that the adjacent National Forest System lands were subject to being traded 

into private ownership via land exchange(s) with the Forest Service (refer to project record item 

dated 1/31/2005).

Non-Federal Parcels

Socioeconomic effects on the non-Federal parcels would be largely confined to social effects 

rather than substantial economic impacts. However, for non-Federal parcels, recreational effects 

would be beneficial. With a net gain of approximately 530 acres throughout the three forests, 

more land would be available to the public for recreational purposes.

The private land tax base for Apache (155 acres), Coconino (640 acres), Greenlee (350 acres), 

Navajo (140 acres), and Yavapai (273 acres) counties would decrease by a total of 1,558 acres; 

however, there would be a corresponding increase in the PILT and Secure Rural Schools and 

Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 funds to each county to offset the lands moving into 

Federal ownership.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 55
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Currently, tax revenues generated through private ownership of the non-Federal parcels contribute 

a total of $16,409.74 to the tax base divided among five counties (table 10). Each county assesses 

the tax rate based on parcel size and current zoning of the land. Under the proposed action, 

Apache County would see a reduction in tax revenue of $6,526.28; Coconino County would see a 

reduction in tax revenue of $15.78; Greenlee County would have a reduction in tax revenue of 

$2,272.20; Navajo County would have a reduction in tax revenue of $4,044.08; and Yavapai 

County would see a reduction in tax revenue of $3,551.40.

Table 10. Non-Federal parcels zoning and tax rates

Parcel Name County Parcel Number(s) Zoning Designation 2011 Taxes

Alder Peak Greenlee 200-09-001 RU-36 $4.12

Cherry Yavapai 403-01-003 RCU-2A Exempt

Cherry Yavapai 403-02-003 RCU-2A Exempt

Cherry Yavapai 403-02-004 RCU-2A Exempt

Cherry Yavapai 403-02-004, 005A, 005B RCU-2A Exempt

Juan Miller Greenlee 200-25-001 RU-36 $24.14

Leonard Canyon Coconino 403-13-006F General $15.78

Railroad Navajo 205-19-014 Ag. Gen. $237.10

Sierra Blanca Apache 101-40-001A Ag. Gen. $4,122.14

Sierra Blanca Apache 101-40-002A Ag. Gen. $2,404.14

Soda Springs Yavapai 405-30-001A & 001B RCU-2A $3,551.40

Sponseller Navajo 201-02-001A Special Development $3,322.72

Sponseller Navajo 201-02-001B Special Development $222.74

Sponseller Navajo 201-02-001C Special Development $261.52

Sprucedale Greenlee 100-02-004E RU-36 $2,243.94

Total $16,409.74

Cumulative Effects

As depicted in tables 9 and 10, Navajo County would have an estimated annual net gain of tax 

revenues close to $1,000,000 as a result of the proposed action alternative, while the other four 

counties would have negligible decreases in tax revenue. A number of other projects that may 

result in cumulative effects are listed in appendix B, which could have economic impacts on the 

five counties. However, these changes in economic impacts are immeasurable while planning is 

in progress, and the full impacts can only be measured after implementation. No substantial 

negative cumulative impacts regarding socioeconomic issues are expected.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct or indirect impacts to socioeconomic conditions on the Federal parcels 

as a result of the no action alternative. On the non-Federal parcels, development would likely 

occur, which would likely add to the counties’ (Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, Navajo, and 

Yavapai) real estate property tax base.

56 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect negative impacts to socioeconomics resulting from the no action 

alternative, no negative cumulative impacts would occur.

Environmental Justice

Affected Environment

Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Federal agencies are required to ensure that no 

person is excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under 

any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance on the grounds of race, color, 

religion, national origin, sex, age, or handicap. In addition, Executive Order 12898, Federal 

Actions to address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, signed by 

President Clinton on February 11, 1994, requires Federal agencies to identify and address as 

appropriate as part of project planning and decision making and as an integral component of the 

NEPA process, the occurrence of disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and 

low-income populations. The demographic composition of the project region for the Federal 

parcels was analyzed using data from the 2005–2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009). Information specific to the City of Show Low (nearest community to the City of 

Show Low parcel and Show Low South parcel) and town of Camp Verde (nearest community to 

Soda Springs Ranch Adjustment Parcel) was queried which provided demographic data including 

racial, ethnic, elderly, disabled, low income, and female head of household population 

demographics within the project area. There is no U.S. Census Bureau data for the unincorporated 

community of Alpine, Arizona (nearest community to Sierra Blanca Ranch Adjustment Parcel). 

The demographic characteristics of the population located near the City of Show Low and the 

town of Camp Verde were reviewed to evaluate whether protected populations would be 

disproportionately affected by the proposed project. Protected populations include people of a 

minority race; of Hispanic ethnicity; older than 16 years of age who are either work disabled, 

have self-care limitations, or have a mobility disability; members of households below poverty 

level; people 60 years of age and older; and/or are females who maintain a household with no 

spouse present while living with one or more people related to her by birth, marriage, or adoption.

Minority racial populations, as defined by the Federal Census, include the following racial 

categories: African American, American Indian/Eskimo and Aleut (Native American), Asian and 

Pacific Islander, and “other race.” In the census, the category “Hispanic” is not a racial category, 

but is instead an ethnicity. Therefore, the category “Hispanic” was used for all Hispanics 

(regardless of race) even for those who identified themselves as “White.”

Employment and Income

According to the 2005–2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2009), the 

unemployment rate in Show Low was 5.8 percent and in Camp Verde was 5.6 percent, which 

compares to the State of Arizona (6.8 percent) and United States (7.2 percent). The percent of 

individuals in poverty in Show Low (16.1 percent) and Camp Verde (16.6 percent) is higher than 

both the State of Arizona (14.7 percent) and United States (13.5 percent), while the percent of 

families in poverty is higher in Show Low (11.9 percent) but lower in Camp Verde (8.8 percent) 

when compared to family poverty levels in Arizona (10.5 percent) and the United States (9.9

percent). The per capita income between 2005 and 2009 in Show Low was $20,416 and in Camp 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 57
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Verde was $20,609 (see table 8), while the median household income in Show Low was $41,611 

and in Camp Verde was $41,750.

Demographic Trends

According to the 2005–2009 American Community Survey, the total population of Show Low 

was 11,420 inhabitants. The City of Show Low has seen a 127.4 percent increase in population 

since 1990 and a 48.4 percent increase in population since the year 2000 (ADC 2009a). The 

majority of this population was Caucasian, though American Indians made up a relatively large 

percentage of the minority population in comparison to the rest of the United States (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009). Table 8 shows the race distribution of the population in the study area. Males made 

up 50.7 percent of Show Low’s population, while females consisted of 49.3 percent of the 

population. The median age of the City of Show Low was 36.3 years, while 73 percent of the 

population was 18 years or older and 16.3 percent was 65 years or older.

The town of Camp Verde had a population of 10,670 people according to the 2005–2009 

American Community Survey. This population includes a 70.9 percent increase from the recorded 

1990 population and a 12.9 percent increase from the recorded 2000 population (ADC 2009b).

The majority of this population was Caucasian, though American Indians made up a relatively 

large percentage of the minority population in comparison to the rest of the United States (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2009). Males made up 50.5 percent of Camp Verde’s population, while females 

consisted of 49.5 percent of the population. The median age of the town of Camp Verde was 43 

years, while 76.2 percent of the population was 18 years or older and 20.1 percent was 65 years 

or older.

According to the 2005–2009 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2009), female 

head of household percentages (11.8 percent for Show Low; 9.4 percent for Camp Verde) are

relatively comparable to the corresponding averages for the State of Arizona (11.7 percent) and 

United States (12.4 percent). The percentage of those whose age is 60 years and over (22.1

percent for Show Low; 26.1 percent for Camp Verde) is considerably higher than the 

corresponding averages for the State of Arizona (17.6 percent) and the United States (17.4

percent). Disabled populations were not reported for Show Low or Camp Verde.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the proposed action alternative, the four Federal parcels would be conveyed to private 

ownership and nine non-Federal parcels conveyed to Forest Service ownership. Through this land 

exchange, there would be no negative direct or indirect impacts to minority and low-income 

populations or other persons based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or handicap. 

Development of the City of Show Low and Show Low South parcels may contribute to the local 

economy and create jobs that could indirectly benefit local minority and low-income populations 

through employment.

Cumulative Effects

Given that there are no negative direct or indirect impacts regarding environmental justice 

associated with the proposed action alternative, no cumulative negative effects would occur.

58 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, the land exchange would not occur and current ownership would 

be maintained. There would be no direct or indirect impacts to minority and low-income 

populations or other persons based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or handicap 

as a result of this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect impacts associated with the no action alternative; therefore, no 

cumulative effects would occur.

Plants, Fish, and Wildlife

The ASNFs completed a BA&E (biological assessment and evaluation), which focused on the 

Federal parcels involved in the proposed land exchange (EnviroSystems 2011a). The BA&E 

evaluated impacts to federally protected species listed as threatened and endangered (T&E) under 

the Endangered Species Act; Forest Service sensitive species, management indicator species 

(MIS) listed by the ASNFs, CNF, and PNF; and migratory birds protected under the Migratory 

Birds Treaty Act (MBTA) as a result of implementing the proposed action alternative. The BA&E 

did not analyze effects to plants and wildlife as a result of the no action alternative because no 

change would occur to Federal parcels. A summary of the BA&E results are presented below.

The Forest Service consulted on the 11 land and resource management plans (LRMPs) for all 

national forests and grasslands in the Southwestern Region, and a final biological and conference 

opinion (LRMP BO) was issued on June 10, 2005. In order to address a number of issues 

concerning the LRMP BO, the Forest Service reinitiated Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 

7 consultation with the USFWS in May 2010. Consultation was completed on April 30, 2012,

with individual biological opinions for each forest in the Southwestern Region. The new ASNFs 

LRMP BO (ASNFs LRMP BO, 2012) will henceforth be utilized. It is the current direction of the 

Southwestern Region to conduct a consistency check to determine whether an amendment to a 

LRMP would be consistent with the requirements of the ASNFs LRMP BO. A LRMP amendment 

is considered to be consistent with the ASNFs LRMP BO if it: (1) results in effects (to species 

and/or designated critical habitat) that were analyzed in the BO; (2) does not result in exceeding 

the amount of take issued in the BO; (3) meets the assumptions stated in the BO; and (4) would 

result in continuing to implement the terms and conditions of the BO. Based on a review of the 

ASNFs LRMP BO in relation to proposed project activities, implementation of any of the 

alternatives proposed would be consistent with the new Apache-Sitgreaves LRMP biological 

opinion and no amendment to the LRMP would be necessary.

Threatened and Endangered Species Affected Environment

As part of the BA&E, biological surveys were performed on each of the four Federal parcels. 

Habitat was not analyzed in detail on non-Federal parcels for suitability. A total of four federally 

listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species (table 11) were identified as having 

potential habitat within the Federal lands which is designated critical habitat for Mexican spotted 

owl and suitable habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo, Mexican gray wolf, and Little 

Colorado spinedace. Federal status protecting several species analyzed in the FEIS and 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 59
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

supporting documents were updated to reflect designation of critical habitat for Chiricahua 

Leopard frogs on March 20, 2012, and designation of critical habitat for Loach minnow on 

February 23, 2012. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of threatened, endangered, proposed, 

and candidate species (last updated November13, 2013) was reviewed again in December 2013 to 

identify any species status or listing changes since the last list review. No changes were noted, 

and analysis remained up-to-date for the four species listed in Table 11 (USFWS 2013).

Table 11. Threatened and endangered species with potential habitat in the 

Federal parcels

Common Name Scientific 

Name Preferred Habitat Description USFWS Status Parcel

Birds

Mexican spotted 

owl (designated 

critical habitat)

Strix 

occidentalis 

lucida

Nests in canyons and dense forests 

with multi-layered structure of mixed 

conifer or ponderosa pine/gambel oak; 

seemingly prefers sites with cool 

microclimates.

Threatened Sierra 

Blanca 

Ranch 

Adjustment

Western yellowbilled cuckooCoccyzus 

americanus

In Arizona, streamside cottonwood, 

willow groves, and larger mesquite 

bosques for migrating and breeding 

preferred. 

Candidate Soda Springs 

Ranch 

Adjustment

Mammals

Mexican gray 

wolf (10-j area)

Canis lupus 

baileyi

Found in a variety of habitats as long 

as the habitat is adequate to support 

sufficient prey populations such as elk 

and deer.

Nonessential 

experimental 

population

Sierra 

Blanca 

Ranch 

Adjustment

Fish

Little Colorado 

spinedace

Lepidomeda 

vittata

Most common in slow to moderate 

water currents, over fine gravel 

bottoms.

Threatened City of 

Show Low

Designated Critical Habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl

Designated critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) occurs on the Sierra Blanca Ranch 

adjustment parcel (2 acres). This parcel does not contain all of the primary constituent elements 

necessary to support nesting and roosting habitat needs of the MSO. None of the other Federal 

parcels contain suitable habitat for the MSO. Though not designated as critical habitat, 2 years of 

MSO surveys were completed on the Show Low South parcel and a 1⁄2-mile buffer surrounding 

the parcel boundary as requested by the district biologist. No MSO were found during the 

surveys, and the areas were found to not have the primary constituent elements necessary for 

MSO.

Three of the non-Federal parcels are located within areas mapped as MSO critical habitat, 

including the Leonard Canyon parcel (640 acres), Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel (156 acres), and 

Sprucedale parcel (70 acres). However, 50 CFR Part 17, “Final Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the Mexican Spotted Owl” (USDOI 2004) states that private lands are not included by definition 

in the designation of critical habitat; private lands are not considered essential to the conservation 

of the MSO.

60 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo

The Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel (8 acres) may provide habitat characteristics for 

foraging yellow-billed cuckoos, but there is no riparian vegetation that would provide suitable 

nesting habitat. None of the other three Federal parcels proposed in the land exchange contain 

habitat characteristics suitable for this species.

One non-Federal parcel (Soda Springs Ranch parcel) provides approximately 10 acres of potential 

habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo. The Soda Springs Ranch parcel has portions of Wet 

Beaver Creek (0.17 mile) and Red Tank Draw (0.29 mile), both of which contain flowing water.

Wet Beaver Creek has a well-developed cottonwood gallery overstory with a shrubby riparian 

understory that would provide high quality foraging and nesting habitat for this species.

Mexican Gray Wolf

On January 12, 1998, the USFWS published an ESA section 10(j) rule on the Mexican gray wolf 

that provided for designation of specific populations of listed species in the United States as 

“experimental populations.” Under 10(j), a population of a listed species reestablished outside its 

current range but within its probable historic range may be designated as an experimental 

population. Nonessential experimental populations located outside of national wildlife refuges or 

national park lands are treated as if they are proposed for listing. The reintroduced Mexican gray 

wolf population has been designated a nonessential experimental population, providing for 

greater management flexibility. There are no documented occurrences of this species on any of 

the federal parcels proposed for exchange.

The Federal Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel (approximately 2 acres) occurs within the 

Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area and is, therefore, considered to have potential habitat for the 

Mexican gray wolf. The following non-Federal parcels are also located within the Blue Range 

Wolf Recovery Area: Alder Peak (160 acres), Juan Miller (120 acres), Sierra Blanca Ranch (156 

acres), and Sprucedale (70 acres).

Little Colorado Spinedace

The Little Colorado spinedace was designated as threatened with critical habitat (September 16, 

1987) by the FWS. Based on a species 5-year review by the FWS, Little Colorado spinedace is 

recommended for reclassifying to endangered status primarily due to dewatering of habitat and 

interactions with nonnative fish and crayfish (USFWS 2008). The species is currently not present 

in the area of Show Low Creek. Spinedace may have been present historically in area streams 

including upper Brown Creek, Show Low Creek, Porter Creek, and Billy Creek. These drainages 

will be considered as potential or suitable habitat for the species. Critical habitat is not present in 

the area.

The City of Show Low parcel (70 acres) contains approximately 0.16 miles of Show Low Creek 

which provides potential habitat for the Little Colorado spinedace. No other Federal or nonFederal parcel provides habitat for this species.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 61
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Threatened and Endangered Species Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the proposed action alternative, the four Federal parcels would be conveyed to private 

ownership and nine non-Federal parcels conveyed to Forest Service ownership. 

Designated Critical Habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl

As discussed above, the only Federal parcel that contains MSO critical habitat is the Sierra 

Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel. This parcel does not contain the canopy cover or snag 

requirements to support MSO or its necessary prey abundance level. Additionally, if this parcel is 

conveyed to private ownership, it would be covered under a conservation easement administered 

by The Nature Conservancy, protecting the area from future development. The three non-Federal 

parcels located within areas mapped as MSO critical habitat (i.e. Leonard Canyon parcel, Sierra 

Blanca Ranch parcel, and Sprucedale parcel) would be transferred to Federal ownership and 

would not undergo future development. The project would have a beneficial effect to MSO 

critical habitat in the net gain of approximately 606 acres.

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo

The CNF would exchange marginal foraging habitat for the western-yellow billed cuckoo within 

the Federal Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel for high quality foraging and nesting habitat 

within the non-Federal Soda Springs Ranch parcel. This would be a beneficial effect to the 

western yellow-billed cuckoo in the net gain of approximately 10 acres of high quality habitat.

Mexican Gray Wolf

The only Federal parcel that contains habitat for the Mexican gray wolf is the Sierra Blanca 

Ranch adjustment parcel. If this parcel is conveyed to private ownership, it would be covered 

under a conservation easement administered by The Nature Conservancy, protecting the area from 

future development. The four non-Federal parcels located within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery 

Area would be conveyed to Federal ownership, increasing the current protection and potential 

availability of habitat to wolves in the area by a net gain of approximately 503 acres. The project 

would not affect the Mexican gray wolf nonessential experimental population.

Little Colorado Spinedace

The ASNFs would lose approximately 0.16 miles of Show Low Creek through the land exchange. 

This stretch of Show Low Creek does provide potential habitat for the species but no known 

population currently exists in that location. Potential indirect effects from development after the 

land exchange to this species’ habitat would be minimal. Proposed expansion of the City of Show 

Low waste water treatment facility will only occur on the upland area of the parcel, away from 

potential habitat for the Little Colorado spinedace. Show Low Creek would be maintained as 

open space as designated by the deed restriction imposed on the property by the City of Show 

Low to conserve and protect the area along Show Low Creek. This easement would thereby 

maintain any and all potential habitat for the spinedace even under non-Federal ownership.

Cumulative Effects

With only beneficial direct or indirect effects through the gain of potential habitat in the land 

exchange to any T&E species, no detrimental cumulative effects would occur.

62 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, the Federal parcels would remain under Federal ownership, no 

development would occur, and T&E species would continue to receive protection. The nonFederal parcels, however, would likely be developed as provided by the reasonable foreseeable 

use document (with the exception of the Sierra Blanca Ranch Parcel), and T&E species and their 

habitat, if present, could be impacted.

Mexican Spotted Owl

As stated above, the Leonard Canyon parcel, Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel, and Sprucedale parcel 

are located within areas mapped as critical habitat for the MSO. However, according to 50 CFR 

Part 17, “Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl” (USDOI 1994), 

private lands are not included by definition in the designation of critical habitat; private lands are 

not considered essential to the conservation of the MSO. With this conclusion, no effects to MSO 

critical habitat would occur.

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo

The only non-Federal parcel with suitable habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo is the 

Soda Springs Ranch parcel. Wet Beaver Creek has a well-developed cottonwood gallery 

overstory with a shrubby riparian understory that could provide high quality foraging and nesting 

habitat for this species. Under the no action alternative, the land exchange would not occur; 

leaving the Soda Springs Ranch parcel in private ownership and that would likely be developed 

as rural residential lots approximately 3.5+ acres in size. While an indirect effect of the land 

exchange, potential habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo would likely be negatively 

affected as a result of this type of development.

Mexican Gray Wolf

There are four non-Federal parcels located within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area: Alder 

Peak parcel, Juan Miller parcel, Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel, and Sprucedale parcel. With the 

exception of the Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel, these lands would likely undergo varying degrees of 

development. These lands are considered suitable hunting and denning habitat for the Mexican 

gray wolf and would likely be degraded by indirect effects of development. The Mexican gray 

wolf would likely avoid these private developments.

Little Colorado Spinedace

The only parcel that has potential habitat for this species is the City of Show Low parcel. Under 

the no action alternative, this parcel would remain under Federal ownership and no change to 

potential habitat would occur.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects to the MSO or its critical habitat or Little Colorado spinedace 

habitat, no cumulative effects would occur.

Present and foreseeable future actions resulting from development of non-Federal parcels may

cumulatively affect the western yellow-billed cuckoo and Mexican gray wolves. Any projects that 

include development and noise (i.e. Second Knoll Shooting Range and the Pueblo Park Mineral 

Materials Pit projects) could affect the habitat used by Mexican gray wolf. Wildfires can reduce 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 63
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

or degrade habitat quality. Given the scale of these potential developments relative to the larger

scale of existing habitat, no adverse cumulative effects to T&E species would occur.

Forest Service Sensitive Species Affected Environment

Within the biological assessment and evaluation (EnviroSystems 2011a), a total of 36 Forest 

Service sensitive species (not including T&E species that are analyzed in the section above) were 

identified as having potential habitat within the four Federal parcels (table 12). These species 

were originally identified from the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (USDA 2007). A new 

Regional Forester’s sensitive species list was released in 2013 and was reviewed in December 

2013 to identify any species status or listing changes since the review of the 2007 list. No changes 

in analysis were determined; the analysis remained up-to-date for the species listed in Table 12 

(USDA 2013). Forest Service sensitive species were analyzed in detail in the BA&E 

(EnviroSystems 2011a) for Federal parcels only. For a list of potential species on non-Federal 

parcels, please see appendix A of the BA&E (EnviroSystems 2011a).

Table 12. Summary of Forest Service sensitive species with potential 

habitat on the Federal parcels by acres per potential natural vegetation type 

(PNVT)

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Preferred Habitat 

Description

Potential Natural 

Vegetation Type

Acres on 

Federal 

Parcels 

Proposed 

for 

Exchange

Parcel1

Amphibians

Arizona toad Bufo 

microscaphus

Rocky streams in canyons and 

flood plains in pine-oak belt 

and also in lower deserts.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

3.02 1/4

Lowland 

leopard frog

Rana 

yavapaiensis

Inhabits aquatic systems in 

desert grasslands to piñonjuniper. They are habitat 

generalists and breed in a 

variety of natural and 

manmade aquatic systems. 

Natural systems include 

rivers, permanent streams, and 

permanent pools in 

intermittent streams, beaver 

ponds, cienegas, and springs.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

2.47 1

Northern 

leopard frog

Rana pipiens Permanent waters with rooted 

aquatic vegetation, also 

frequents ponds, canals, 

marshes, springs, and streams.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

2.47 1

Birds

64 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Preferred Habitat 

Description

Potential Natural 

Vegetation Type

Acres on 

Federal 

Parcels 

Proposed 

for 

Exchange

Parcel1

Abert’s 

towhee

Pipilo aberti Inhabits riparian corridors in 

the Sonoran Deserts of 

Arizona. Often found in 

cottonwood and willow 

woodlands, with dense shrubs, 

along desert streams and 

rivers.

Desert 

Communities, SemiDesert Grassland

7.02 4

American 

peregrine 

falcon

Falco 

peregrinus 

anatum

Nests in sheer, steep cliffs; 

preys on birds in woodlands, 

riparian areas, and other 

habitats with abundant prey 

near nest site.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, PinyonJuniper Woodland, 

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas, 

Semi-Desert 

Grassland 

69.41 1

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Nests in large trees or cliffs 

near water with abundant 

prey. Mainly feeds on fish but 

will also feed on waterfowl, 

small mammals, and carrion.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian, PinyonJuniper Woodland, 

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, 

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas 

1,014.89 1/2/3

Gray catbird Dumetella 

carolinensis

They are associated with the 

ponderosa pine forest found in 

the deserts of the Southwest; 

piñon-juniper forests 

distributed throughout the 

semiarid Western U.S., 

usually on dry, shallow, rocky 

soils of mesas, benches, and 

canyon walls; and nonforest 

habitats found in river, 

riparian woodlands, and 

subalpine marshes.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, PinyonJuniper Woodland, 

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

69.41 1

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior Found in desert scrub, mixed 

juniper, or piñon pine and oak 

scrub associations, and 

chaparral, in hot, arid 

mountains and high plains 

scrubland.

Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland

63.00 1/2

Northern 

goshawk

Accipiter 

gentilis

Ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer forests; some riparian 

habitats.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, CottonwoodWillow Riparian 

Forest

947.46 1/2/3

Invertebrates

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 65
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Preferred Habitat 

Description

Potential Natural 

Vegetation Type

Acres on 

Federal 

Parcels 

Proposed 

for 

Exchange

Parcel1

California 

floater

Anodonta 

californiensis

Shallow areas, less than 2 m. 

deep in unpolluted lakes, 

reservoirs, and perennial 

streams in mud or sand with 

juveniles found in loose sand.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest

2.47 1

Ferris’

copper

Lycaena 

ferrisi

Meadows and cienegas near 

the food plant Rumex 

hymeospalus.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

3.02 1/3

Four spotted 

skipperling

Piruna 

polingii

Moist meadows and 

streamsides in mountains of 

Arizona and New Mexico.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

3.02 1/3/4

Fish

Bluehead 

sucker

Catostomus 

discobolus 

discobolus

When water is clear, they stay 

in deep pools and eddies 

during the day then move into 

shallow riffles, tributary 

mouths, shorelines, or other 

hard bottomed sites to feed at 

night. When water is turbid,

they occupy shallow areas 

throughout the day.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest

2.47 1

Little 

Colorado 

sucker

Catostomus 

spp. 3

Small to medium creeks in 

pools with abundant cover.

Occasionally in riffles. 

Endemic in the Little 

Colorado River and north 

flowing tributaries.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest

2.47 1

Roundtail 

chub

Gila robusta Occupy mid-elevation streams 

and rivers where typical adult 

habitat consists of pools up to 

6.6 feet deep adjacent to 

riffles and runs. 

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest

2.47 1

Mammals

Allen’s 

lappetbrowed bat 

Idionycteris 

phyllotis

Found in ponderosa pine, 

piñon-juniper, Mexican 

woodland, white fir, and 

mohave desert scrub 

vegetative communities.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, Desert 

Communities

949.62 1/2/3/

4

Arizona 

montane vole 

Microtus 

montanus 

arizonensis

In Arizona they seem to prefer 

dense damp to wet grassy 

areas at high (alpine like) 

elevations. They make 

runways through the tall grass. 

Often found in marshy areas 

or near streams.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, CottonwoodWillow Riparian 

Forest, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

950.48 1/2/3

66 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Preferred Habitat 

Description

Potential Natural 

Vegetation Type

Acres on 

Federal 

Parcels 

Proposed 

for 

Exchange

Parcel1

Long-tailed 

vole

Microtus 

longicaudus

Inhabits meadows, grassy 

valleys, grassy clearings in 

forests, sagebrush flats, and 

rocky slopes in or near 

coniferous forests.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, 

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

949.42 1/2/3

Merriam’s 

shrew

Sorex 

merriami 

leucogenys

Inhabits cool, grassy places, 

often in association with the 

Mexican vole and near

coniferous forests.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, PinyonJuniper Woodland, 

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands

1,011.87 1/2/3

Navajo 

Mogollon 

vole

Microtus 

mogollonensis 

navaho

Occupies dense thickets of 

shrubs and dry, grassy areas 

adjacent to ponderosa pine 

forests.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, PinyonJuniper Woodland, 

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands

1,011.87 1/2/3

Pale 

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens

Found over desert scrub and 

in shelters in desertmountains, oak-woodland, 

piñon-juniper, or coniferous 

forests.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, PinyonJuniper Woodland

1,010.46 1/2/3/4

Plains harvest 

mouse

Reithrodonto

mys montanus

This species occurs in open 

grassy areas, including 

cultivated fields, prairie, and 

grazed grasslands with their 

diet consisting of insects, 

seeds, and herbs.

Semi-Desert 

Grassland

4.86 4

Southern redbacked voleClethrionomy

s gapperi

Found in ponderosa pine or 

spruce-fir forests where rocks 

or rocky slopes are present.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest

949.72 1/2/3

Springerville 

silky pocket 

mouse

Perognathus 

flavus 

goodpasteri

Found in the plains-like short 

grassland which is 

interspersed with volcanic 

rock or in areas of shortgrass, 

boulders, and tumbleweeds. 

Also found in prairies of 

sandy, gravelly, or rocky areas 

with sparse vegetation of 

various grasses and forbs.

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands

1.41 3

Spotted bat Euderma 

maculatum

Found in desert to subalpine 

meadows, including desert

scrub, piñon-juniper, 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer 

forest, canyon bottoms, rims 

of cliffs, riparian areas, fields, 

and open pasture.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, PinyonJuniper Woodland, 

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest, 

Montane/Subalpine 

Grasslands

1,014.34 1/2/3

Plants

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 67
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Preferred Habitat 

Description

Potential Natural 

Vegetation Type

Acres on 

Federal 

Parcels 

Proposed 

for 

Exchange

Parcel1

Arizona alum 

root

Heuchera 

glomerulata

Found on shaded rocky 

slopes, in humus soil near 

seeps, streams and riparian 

areas.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest

2.47 1

Arizona 

sneezeweed

Helenium 

arizonicum

Seasonally wet meadows in 

ponderosa pine forests at 

elevations ranging from 6,000

to 8,000 feet amsl.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest

947.46 1/2/3

Arizona 

willow

Salix 

arizonica

High elevation wet meadows, 

streamsides, and cienegas.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest

2.47 1

Bebb’s 

willow 

Salix 

bebbiana

Coniferous forests along 

streams, springs, and lakes.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest

2.47 1

Blumer’s 

dock

Rumex 

orthoneurus

Mid- to high-elevation 

wetlands with moist, organic 

soil adjacent to perennial 

springs or streams in canyons 

or meadow situations.

Wetland/Cienega 0.55 3

Davidson’s 

cliff carrot

Pteryxia 

davidsonii

Occurs on sheer cliffs (north 

facing) and in rocky, damp, 

drainages and mountainsides, 

in piñon-juniper woodland 

and lower montane coniferous 

forest.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, PinyonJuniper Woodland

1,010.46 1/2/3

Heathleaf 

wild 

buckwheat

Eriogonum 

ericifolium 

var.

ericifolium

Dry, gravelly to rocky slopes 

of lacustrine, in mixed 

grasslands, chaparral, and 

oak-woodlands.

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, Semi-Desert 

Grassland

952.32 1/2/3/4

Hualapai 

milkwort

Polygala 

rusbyi

Desert grassland and juniper 

woodland on sandy flats and 

limestone bedrock, rock, 

gravel, and silt.

Semi-Desert 

Grassland, Desert 

Communities

7.02 4

Ripley wild 

buckwheat

Erigonum 

ripleyi

Found in lakebeds on well 

drained, powdery soils 

derived from limestone, 

sandstone, or volcanic tuffs 

and ashes.

Semi-Desert 

Grassland, Desert 

Communities

7.02 4

Tonto Basin 

agave

Agave 

delamateri

Usually found atop benches, 

at edges of slopes, and on 

open hilly slopes in desert 

scrub, overlooking major 

drainages and perennial 

streams. Occasionally found 

in chaparral or junipergrassland.

Semi-Desert 

Grassland, Desert 

Communities

7.02 4

68 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Preferred Habitat 

Description

Potential Natural 

Vegetation Type

Acres on 

Federal 

Parcels 

Proposed 

for 

Exchange

Parcel1

Reptiles

Mexican 

gartersnake

Thamnophis 

eques 

megalops

Most abundant in densely 

vegetated habitat surrounding 

cienegas, cienega-streams, 

and stock tanks, and in or near 

water along streams in valley 

floors and generally open 

areas, but not in steep 

mountain canyon stream 

habitat. 

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

3.02 1/3

Narrowheaded 

gartersnake

Thamnophis 

rufipunctatus

Found in piñyon-juniper and 

pine-oak woodland into 

ponderosa pine forest; in 

permanently flowing streams, 

sometimes sheltered by 

broadleaf deciduous trees. 

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest, PinyonJuniper Woodland, 

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian Forest, 

Wetland/Cienega 

Riparian Areas

1,013.48 1/2/3

Reticulate 

Gila monster

Heloderma 

suspectum 

suspectum

Inhabits shrubby, grassy, and 

succulent desert, in canyon 

bottoms or arroyos with 

permanent or intermittent 

streams where it digs burrows 

or uses those of other animals.

Semi-Desert 

Grassland, Desert 

Communities

7.02 4

1 Parcels: 1 = City of Show Low; 2 = Show Low South; 3 = Sierra Blanca Ranch Adjustment; 4 = Soda Springs Ranch 

Adjustment.

Forest Service Sensitive Species Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the proposed action alternative, the four Federal parcels would be conveyed to private 

ownership and nine non-Federal parcels conveyed to Forest Service ownership. No negative 

effects would occur to Forest Service sensitive species located on the Sierra Blanca Ranch 

adjustment parcel because after conveyance, this parcel would be protected from further 

development by a conservation easement administered by The Nature Conservancy.

There will be no change to suitable or potential habitat for Forest Service sensitive species as a 

direct result of the land exchange. Habitat for Forest Service sensitive species on the City of 

Show Low parcel, Show Low South parcel, and Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel would 

likely see a reduction in habitat quality or loss of available habitat as an indirect effect of the land 

exchange and as a result of development activities, based on the reasonable and foreseeable use of 

these parcels.

Potential indirect effects from development after the land exchange to Forest Service sensitive 

species that occur on the City of Show Low Parcel would be minimal. Proposed expansion of the 

City of Show Low wastewater treatment facility will only occur on the upland area of the parcel, 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 69
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

away from the potential habitat of Forest Service sensitive species. Show Low Creek would be 

maintained as open space as designated by the deed restriction imposed on the property by the 

City of Show Low to conserve and protect the area along Show Low Creek. This easement would 

thereby maintain any and all habitat for Forest Service sensitive species even under non-Federal 

ownership.

The City of Show Low and Show Low South parcels were surveyed for northern goshawks at the 

request of the district biologist, using the Forest Service recommended survey protocol (Joy et al. 

1994). A goshawk nest was found in the Show Low South parcel during the surveys, less than 1⁄2

miles from the previously known nest location. This nesting pair of goshawks may be impacted 

by the land exchange indirectly through any subsequent development of the parcel. Abandonment 

of this nest may result if development proceeds as anticipated. Goshawks are known to nest near 

residential areas, so the pair may return to the area following completion of construction.

Overall, the land exchange would result in a net gain of 530 acres of suitable habitat for Forest 

Service sensitive species. Based on habitat characteristics surrounding non-Federal parcels and 

species identified to potentially occur within the vicinity by the AGFD online review tool, the 

nine non-Federal parcels also contain habitat for Forest Service sensitive species. Generally, the 

non-Federal parcels contain more valuable habitat for special status species, primarily due to the 

presence of perennial waters and riparian habitat on many of the parcels. The proposed action 

alternative would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability for any Forest Service 

sensitive species (EnviroSystems 2011a). For a more detailed species-by-species analysis, please 

see the BA&E (EnviroSystems 2011a).

Cumulative Effects

The Timber Mesa-Vernon restoration project will likely improve habitat for Forest Service 

sensitive species. This project will also provide alternative nesting and foraging habitat for the 

goshawk pair that may be indirectly displaced by the land exchange. Given the close proximity of 

these areas, no cumulative effects to any Forest Service sensitive species will occur.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, the Federal parcels would remain under Federal ownership. No 

development would occur, and Forest Service sensitive species would continue to receive 

protection. Plants and wildlife located on the non-Federal parcels that are considered sensitive by 

the Forest Service would not receive further protection as the parcels would continue to be owned 

privately. Development would likely occur on the majority of non-Federal parcels, and potential 

habitat for Forest Service sensitive species outside Federal ownership would likely be degraded 

or removed.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects to Forest Service sensitive species on Federal lands, no 

cumulative effects would occur.

70 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management Indicator Species Affected Environment

Under the National Forest Management Act (§ 36 CFR 219.19), the Forest Service is required to 

manage wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species. 

To do this, the Forest Service must identify MIS for each MA within each national forest. These 

species are selected because they are representative of a vegetation community, and their longterm population changes serve as a gauge for the overall health of the ecosystem. MIS for the 

ASNFs and CNF were identified in their respective forest plans (USDA 1987a; USDA 1987b).

MIS for this project were evaluated based on the MAs located within the Federal parcels. On the 

ASNFs, the Federal parcels lay within the Forested MA1 and the Woodland MA2 areas. On the 

CNF, the Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel is within the Verde Valley MA (MA 11). Table 13

lists the MIS with suitable habitat in the Federal parcels for each MA in the project area, their 

indicator habitat, and their forest-wide habitat and population trends. The MIS listed for the Verde 

Valley MA did not have suitable habitat in the Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel, therefore, it 

was excluded from further analysis. Forest-wide population trends were updated to reflect current 

status based on the final MIS report released in June 2012. While some forest-wide population 

trends had changed from the finalized BA&E (EnviroSystems 2011a) for several species, it did 

not affect the determination of how the proposed action would affect MIS populations or habitat 

trends. An addendum to the BA&E dated October 23, 2012, was prepared which presents the 

most recent MIS forest-wide trend data for the ASNFs and CNF.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 71
72 DEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange

Table 13. MIS within forest land management areas, MIS habitat components, forest trends, and acres 

analyzed in the Show Low South Land Exchange analysis area 

MIS by Forest 

Management 

Area

Habitat Component Indicated Forest-wide 

Habitat 

Trend*

Forest-wide 

Population 

Trend*

Acres of Habitat 

Forest-wide Acres to be 

Analyzed in 

Project Area

Parcel

ASNFs Coconino NF ASNFs Coconino 

NF

Hairy 

woodpecker 

Snags (all types) Snag component of 

ponderosa pine, 

mixed conifer, and 

spruce-fir

Upward Stable 712,366 900,426 947.46 1/2/3

Red-naped 

sapsucker

Snags (aspen) Late seral and snag 

component of aspen

Stable Stable 800,000 4,487 0 Not 

applicable

Northern 

goshawk

Late Succession 

(ponderosa pine)

Late seral ponderosa 

pine

Stable to 

Declining

Declining 1,682,492 807,424 947.46 1/2/3

Merriam’s 

turkey

Late Succession Late seral ponderosa 

pine

Stable Stable 936,663 807,424 951.89 1/2/3

Pygmy 

nuthatch

Late Succession 

(ponderosa pine)

Late seral ponderosa 

pine

Declining Stable 569,890 807,424 947.46 1/2/3

Mexican 

spotted owl 

Late Succession Late seral mixed 

conifer and sprucefir

Declining Declining 649,069 93,002 0 Not 

applicable

Rocky 

Mountain elk 

Early Succession Early seral

ponderosa pine, 

mixed conifer, and 

spruce-fir

Increasing Stable to 

Declining

1,690,439 900,426 951.89 1/2/3

Mule deer Early Succession Early seral aspen 

and pinyon-juniper

Increasing Stable to 

Increasing

1,769,299 606,316 1,010.46 1/3

Abert’s 

squirrel 

Early Succession 

(ponderosa pine)

Early Seral 

ponderosa pine

Stable to 

Declining

Stable 746,902 807,424 947.46 1/2/3

Red squirrel Late Succession 

(spruce/mixed 

conifer)

Late seral mixed 

conifer and sprucefir

Declining Stable to 

Declining

203,347 93,002 0 Not 

applicable
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

1 Parcels: 1 = City of Show Low; 2 = Show Low South; 3 = Sierra Blanca Ranch Adjustment; 4 = Soda Springs Ranch Adjustment.

Juniper (Plain) 

titmouse

Snags Late seral and snag 

component of 

pinyon-juniper

Stable to 

Increasing

Stable 784,532 601,829 63.00 1

Pronghorn 

antelope

Early Succession Early and late seral 

grasslands

Increasing Stable 479,867 266,049 6.27 4

Lincoln 

sparrow

High Elevation 

Riparian

Late seral, high 

elevation riparian 

(>7,000 feet)

Stable Stable 10,101 557 0 Not 

applicable

Yellowbreasted chatLow Elevation 

Riparian

Late seral, low 

elevation riparian 

(<7,000 feet)

Stable Stable 10,101 4,579 0 Not 

applicable

Lucy’s warbler Low Elevation 

Riparian

Late seral, low 

elevation riparian 

(<7,000 feet)

Stable Stable 10,101 4,579 0 Not 

applicable

Cinnamon teal Wetlands Wetlands/aquatics Stable to 

Declining

Stable to 

Declining

29,430 1,140 0.55 3

Aquatic 

macroinvertebrates

Riparian Not designated as 

MIS on Coconino 

NF

Declining Declining 48,730-

wetland 

cienega

3,279-open 

water

Not 

designated 

as MIS on 

Coconino 

NF

3.02 1/3
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management Indicator Species Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the proposed action alternative, the four Federal parcels would be conveyed to private 

ownership and nine non-Federal parcels conveyed to Forest Service ownership. Each MIS was 

evaluated to determine the absolute value of potential habitat in acres the land exchange would 

remove for parcels that would be conveyed by the Forest Service, and the value of potential 

habitat in acres the land exchange would contribute for parcels being acquired by the Forest 

Service (EnviroSystems 2011a). This evaluation also included the net change in acreage and the 

percentage of the area to the total area of habitat available on the forests (table 14).

Table 14. Summary of ASNFs MIS forest-wide habitat acreages and net 

change in acreage resulting from the proposed action alternative

MIS Common 

Name

Current 

Forestwide 

Habitat 

(Total 

Acres)

Area Conveyed 

by Forest 

Service Under 

Proposed 

Action in Acres 

(Percent of 

Total)

Area Acquired 

by Forest 

Service Under 

Proposed 

Action in 

Acres (Percent

of Total)

Net Change 

in Acres 

(Percent of 

Total)

Parcel

Abert's squirrel 746,902 947 (0.13%) 866 (0.12%) - 81 (0.01%) 1/2/3

Elk (Rocky 

Mountain)

1,690,43

9

952 (0.06%) 1,246 (0.07%) + 294 (0.02%) 1/2/3

Hairy woodpecker 712,366 947 (0.13%) 866 (0.45%) - 81 (0.01%) 1/2/3

Juniper titmouse 784,532 63(<0.1%) 380 (0.05%) - 317 (0.04%) 1

Mule deer 1,769,29

9

1,010 (0.06%) 1,246 (0.07%) + 236 (0.01%) 1/3

Northern goshawk 1,682,49

2

947 (0.06%) 1,246 (0.07%) + 299 (0.02%) 1/2/3

Pygmy nuthatch 569,890 947 (0.17%) 866 (0.16%) - 81 (0.01%) 1/2/3

Wild turkey 

(Merriam’s turkey)

936,663 952 (0.10%) 866 (0.09%) - 86 (<0.01%) 1/2/3

Cinnamon teal 29,430 0.55 (<0.01%) 3.11 (0.01%) + 2.56 

(<0.01%)

3

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates

52,009 3 (<0.01%) 621 (0.01%) + 618 (0.12%) 1/3

1 Parcels: 1 = City of Show Low; 2 = Show Low South; 3 = Sierra Blanca Ranch Adjustment; 4 = Soda Springs Ranch 

Adjustment.

As depicted in table 14, the proposed action alternative would result in a minor change in net 

habitat acreages for all MIS with habitat in the project area. The proposed action alternative 

would lead to no change to forest-wide habitat or population trends for any MIS.

As for wildlife designated as MIS on the City of Show Low parcel, some habitat would be lost as 

part of the waste water treatment plant expansion. The shape of the 70-acre parcel, approximately 

one-half mile long south to north, would provide the odor buffer as required by Arizona 

74 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Department of Environmental Quality/Environmental Protection Agency standards. The new 

waste water treatment facility would be built near the north end of the parcel furthest from private 

land. The remainder of the parcel would remain undeveloped, except for a road accessing the 

treatment facility, and available to wildlife use and migration. Show Low Creek would be 

maintained as open space as designated by the deed restriction imposed on the property by the 

City of Show Low to conserve and protect the area along Show Low Creek. This easement would 

thereby maintain any and all habitat for MIS even under non-Federal ownership. On the Show 

Low South parcel, the land would be developed within City of Show Low development processes 

to utilize reasonable setbacks and other measures to minimize impacts to the mountain forest 

character of the area. Treed areas and open space would remain for wildlife use and movement.

Parcels acquired through the land exchange would likely be assigned to neighboring management 

areas and, therefore, MIS requirements pending additional review by the appropriate forests.

Cumulative Effects

With no negative direct or indirect effects to MIS as a result of the land exchange, no cumulative 

effects would occur.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no changes in land ownership would occur; therefore, no direct or 

indirect effects to MIS would occur. Consistency with the forest plan would be the same as 

described above. Upon review of information provided in the updated MIS report (AGFD 2012) 

and the consistency statements in the BA&E, it was found that consistency with the forest plan 

goals and objectives for all MIS and their habitat would be maintained, and that forest-wide 

population and habitat trends would not change with the no-action alternative.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects to MIS, no cumulative effects would occur.

Migratory Birds Affected Environment

On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186, placing emphasis on the 

conservation of migratory birds. No Forest Service regional or forest-level policies have been 

developed to provide guidance on how to incorporate migratory birds into a NEPA analysis. The

Southwestern Region of the Forest Service currently analyzes impacts to migratory birds by 

addressing the effects to important bird areas (IBAs); important overwintering areas; and 

migratory birds listed by Arizona Partners in Flight (PIF) and birds of conservation concern

(BCC).

IBAs are listed on the Audubon Society’s Web site (NAS 2012). There are no IBAs located 

adjacent to the Federal parcels’ boundaries. The Upper Little Colorado River Watershed IBA is 

more than 15 miles from the Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel and more than 25 miles from 

the City of Show Low parcel and Show Low South parcel. The Blue River Complex IBA is more 

than 30 miles from the Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel. Lastly, the Lower Oak Creek IBA 

is approximately 10 miles from the Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 75
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

A total of 23 migratory bird species have been identified as potentially occurring within the 

Federal lands by PIF and BCC (table 15). The following table includes all priority bird species

with potential habitat listed by PIF for the mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper, Sonoran 

desert scrub, and low elevation riparian habitats (Latta et al. 1999) and species listed by BCC for 

the Colorado Plateau and the Sierra Madre Occidental biological conservation regions (USDOI 

2008).

Table 15. Migratory bird species listed by PIF and BCC with potential 

habitat in the Federal lands

Species Habitat Vegetation Structure

American 

bittern

Marshlands and very wet meadows Rarely seen away from dense reeds, rushes, cordgrass, 

cattails, and other emergent vegetation.

Bendire’s 

thrasher

Desert habitats with cholla cactus, 

creosote bush and yucca, and in 

juniper woodland

Commonly found in areas of tall vegetation.

Black-chinned 

sparrow

Chaparral in rocky, rugged 

landscapes

Habitats characterized by sagebrush, greasewood, 

chamise, mesquite, cactus, and other arid scrub plants.

Black-throated 

gray warbler

Mostly piñon, also commonly 

occurs in Madrean oak/pine-oak in 

southeastern Arizona with shrub 

component

In taller and denser piñon-juniper woodland, usually 

nest 2–15 feet high, low to mid-story nester, prefers 

relatively heavy conifer cover, forages most often in 

piñon.

Cactus 

ferruginous 

pygmy-owl

Sonoran riparian deciduous 

woodland

Occurs in streamside cottonwoods and willows and 

adjacent mesquite bosques, usually with saguaros on 

nearby slopes.

Cassin’s finch Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer Breeds in open coniferous forest at high elevations, and 

winters in similar habitat at lower elevations.

Common 

black-hawk

Sycamore, cottonwood (mature), 

gallery riparian trees

Large, tall trees, prefers groves of trees rather than 

single trees.

Cordilleran 

Flycatcher

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, maple, 

oak, aspen

Dense canopy closure, middle to late successional.

Flammulated 

owl

Dry coniferous forests, composed of 

pine, mixed conifer species, oak, or 

aspen

Found primarily in mixed conifer, pine, and pine-oak 

habitats, but they also occur locally in woodlands of 

piñon-juniper, oak, and cypress.

Golden eagle Piñon-juniper woodlands Usually found in open country, in prairies, arctic and 

alpine tundra, open wooded country and barren areas, 

especially in hilly or mountainous regions.

Grace’s 

warbler

Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer Found high in the treetops of mature pines from 

Nevada to Nicaragua.

Gray flycatcher Piñon pine and/or juniper, with an 

open overstory of ponderosa

Larger stands of piñon-juniper with open understory, 

some areas with sagebrush, nest height 2–9 feet, may 

need some ground cover to support insect populations 

for foraging; larger, taller stands of sagebrush and 

greasewood.

Gray vireo Piñon-juniper with broad-leafed 

shrubs, Utah serviceberry, 

singleleaf ash

Open, avoiding stands greater than 112 trees per acre, 

usually nest and forage at 2–8 feet.

Juniper 

titmouse

Piñon-juniper woodlands, may use 

riparian habitat if adjacent to piñonjuniper

Taller piñon and juniper trees.

76 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Species Habitat Vegetation Structure

Lewis’s 

woodpecker

Ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and 

riparian

Favors open forest, ranging from low elevation riparian 

areas to high elevation pine forests and burned areas.

Lucy’s warbler Mesquite, willow, cottonwood, 

secondary cavity nester

Dense mid-story in elevations up to 6,500 feet amsl.

Olive warbler Mixed pine-oak woodlands Breeds in open montane pine forests at high elevations.

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir Multilevel, mature forest, fairly open canopy, 

“clumpiness,” dead branches for foraging, live mature 

pines for nesting, snags important.

Phainopepla Desert, riparian woodlands, and 

chaparral

Nests in shallow, woven cups of twigs placed on a tree 

limb or fork, or in a clump of mistletoe.

Pinyon jay Breeds in piñon and ponderosa pine 

usually in piñon-juniper where 

piñon is dominant 

Over 85 percent of nests found in bottom half of 

canopy, commonly in extensive stands of piñon-juniper 

with open physiognomy, may increase as mid-story

and understory decrease.

Purple martin Ponderosa pine Open canopy, open mid-story cover, open understory 

cover, high snag density.

Red-faced 

warbler

Maple, oak, sycamore, willow (and 

associated conifers)

Mid-story important, dense preferred, but not 

necessarily tied to dense understory.

Southwestern 

willow 

flycatcher

Nesting substrate variable: box 

elder, tamarisk, willow, Russian 

olive, alder

Dense mid-story and understory.

Migratory Birds Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the proposed action alternative, the four Federal parcels would be conveyed to private 

ownership and nine non-Federal parcels conveyed to Forest Service ownership. There are no 

identified or potential IBAs within the project boundaries that would be affected by the land 

exchange. There are also no important overwintering areas within the project boundaries, so none 

would be affected.

Each of the four Federal parcels provide habitat for a subset of the listed migratory birds in table 

13. The City of Show Low parcel provides several acres of riparian habitat, a rare habitat type in 

the arid forests and woodlands of Arizona. While this parcel is slated for development with the 

expansion of the city’s waste water treatment facility, development is planned for the upland area 

of the parcel away from the riparian zone. The riparian area of the City of Show Low parcel is 

expected to remain undeveloped as open space and, therefore, maintain currently available habitat 

for these species. The Show Low South parcel is expected to be developed as low density rural

residential with some mixed-use areas. Development of this parcel would likely reduce the 

available habitat for migratory birds, but with low density residential designs anticipated within 

the City of Show Low development processes, a minimum level of habitat would likely remain.

The Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel currently has a small cabin and several outbuildings 

that would be covered under a conservation easement administered by The Nature Conservancy 

as part of a larger private land tract and would preclude future development of this parcel. Any 

habitat currently available for migratory birds would remain available after the land exchange.

The Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel is expected to be developed as 2-acre lots in a low

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 77
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

density rural residential area. Development of this parcel would likely reduce the available habitat 

for migratory birds, but with 2-acre lots planned for this area, a minimum level of habitat would

likely remain. No significant effects would occur to range-wide populations of migratory bird 

species because the proposed action would not affect the suitability of migratory bird habitats and 

would not result in intentional take. Unintentional take may occur in the project area to some 

migratory bird species, but will not be detrimental to the range-wide population of the species.

Cumulative Effects

If the exchange occurs, development on the Federal parcels would result in a small loss of upland 

ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper woodland habitat for migratory birds. Since these are the most 

common habitat types on the ASNFs, most of the projects listed in appendix B have the potential 

to cumulatively impact migratory bird habitat. Wildfires (past and future), timber harvest, and 

vegetation clearing for developments (i.e. Second Knoll Shooting Range, a new Lakeside district 

office, and Pueblo Park Mineral Materials Pit) would potentially remove trees and understory

vegetation. Residential zoning on approximately 5,500 acres of land in Show Low as designated 

in the City of Show Low General Plan (City of Show Low 2007) would all involve tree removal.

Wildland-urban interface projects, as wells as other vegetation thinning and management 

activities, would alter vegetation density and composition within general habitat for migratory 

birds. While all of these projects could cumulatively impact migratory birds, vast quantities of

close proximity upland ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper woodland habitats within the ASNFs

would make the impact minor to range-wide habitats and populations.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, habitat for migratory birds located on the non-Federal parcels 

could be damaged or removed by development activities. Suitable habitat within the Federal 

parcels would remain protected.

Cumulative Effects

The ASNFs has many projects proposed on the forest (listed in appendix B), which have the 

potential to cumulatively impact migratory bird habitat. Wildfires (past and future), timber 

harvest, and vegetation clearing for developments (i.e. Second Knoll Shooting Range, a new 

Lakeside district office, and Pueblo Park Mineral Materials Pit) would potentially remove trees 

and understory vegetation. Residential zoning on approximately 5,500 acres of land in Show Low 

as designated in the City of Show Low General Plan (City of Show Low 2007) would all involve 

tree removal. Wildland-urban interface projects, as wells as other vegetation thinning and 

management activities, would alter vegetation density and composition within general habitat for 

migratory birds. However, while all of these projects could cumulatively impact migratory birds, 

vast quantities of close proximity upland ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper woodland habitats 

within the ASNFs would make the impact minor to range-wide habitats and populations. With no 

additional direct or indirect effects to migratory birds on Federal lands under the no action 

alternative, no cumulative effects would occur.

78 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Grazing

Affected Environment

Federal Parcels

Livestock grazing occurs within each of the four Federal parcels. The City of Show Low parcel 

(Lakeside Ranger District, SNF) lies within the Show Low allotment. The Show Low South 

parcel (Lakeside Ranger District, SNF) lies within the McNeil allotment. The Sierra Blanca 

Ranch adjustment parcel (Alpine Ranger District, ANF) lies within the Boneyard allotment. The 

Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel (Red Rock Ranger District, CNF) lies within the Beaver 

Creek allotment.

Non-Federal Parcels

There are grazing leases on two of the non-Federal parcels: the Leonard Canyon parcel and Soda 

Springs Ranch parcel. The grazing lessee on the Leonard Canyon parcel is Bar T Bar Ranch, Inc., 

and the grazing lessee on the Soda Springs Ranch parcel is Bar D Cattle Company, LLC. Grazing 

does not currently occur on any of the other non-Federal parcels.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the four Federal parcels would be conveyed to private 

ownership and the Forest Service would no longer assign livestock capacity to that property. The 

current grazing permittees would no longer be able to graze livestock within the parcels, though 

grazing would still be authorized in the remainder of the allotments. The land exchange would not 

affect the number of livestock authorized with any of the allotments. The City of Show Low

parcel lies within the Show Low allotment; however, the loss of 70 acres would be a minor loss of 

grazing capacity and would not have an effect on the grazing capacity of the allotment. The Show 

Low South parcel lies within the Railroad allotment. This will be the allotment with the largest 

loss of acreage—948.48 acres—however, the pasture within this allotment that would be lost is 

currently not grazed and, therefore, no adverse effects to the grazing management or rangeland 

resource are expected from this exchange. The Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel would 

reduce the Boneyard allotment, an active allotment, by 2 acres. This reduction would not have an 

effect on the grazing capacity. The Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel would reduce the 

Beaver Creek allotment by only 7.5 acres; therefore, no adverse effects to grazing management 

are expected.

Sec. 402(g) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that a two-year 

notification be provided to permit holders in which significant changes to grazing permits may 

take place. Permit holders were notified of the proposed action in November 2001. The proposed 

action alternative would not conflict with the requirements of Sec. 402 (g) of FLPMA.

Non-Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the exchange would occur and the existing grazing leases 

on the Leonard Canyon parcel and Soda Springs Ranch parcel would terminate. The grazing 

lessee on the Leonard Canyon parcel is the same permittee on the adjacent Federal land and may 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 79
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

be able to continue to graze livestock on the exchanged parcel though this would be considered in 

a separate environmental analysis following the exchange. The grazing lessee on the Soda 

Springs Ranch parcel would not be affected because they did not have access to the non-Federal

parcel being conveyed to Federal ownership. The non-Federal parcels would be evaluated by the 

Forest Service for potential inclusion in any surrounding grazing allotments. However, the 

evaluation and resultant decision on inclusion in a grazing allotment would not be accomplished 

as part of this land exchange decision. A decision regarding future grazing use would be made as 

part of the allotment management planning process which considers impacts on vegetation, soil 

and watershed productivity, and wildlife habitat. Management options to be considered would 

include fencing all or part of the parcels to protect watershed and soil productivity.

Cumulative Effects

There are no known actions that, in conjunction with the proposed action alternative, would result 

in substantial impacts to grazing. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

considered for cumulative effects to grazing include the Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act 

Purchase project and the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the exchange would not occur, and the Federal parcels would 

continue to be grazed under the existing term grazing permits. No direct or indirect effects to 

grazing would occur.

Non-Federal Parcels

Since the non-Federal parcels would not be transferred to Federal ownership, they would not be 

considered for inclusion in a Forest Service grazing allotment. Existing grazing leases would not 

be terminated on the Leonard Canyon parcel and Soda Springs Ranch parcel. No direct or indirect 

effects to grazing would occur.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects to grazing, no cumulative effects would occur.

Prime and Unique Farmlands

Affected Environment

Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), Federal agencies are directed to identify and 

take into account the adverse effects of Federal programs on the preservation of farmland, to 

consider appropriate alternative actions which could lessen adverse effects, and to assure that 

such Federal programs are, to the extent practicable, compatible with state or local government 

programs and policies to protect farmland. FPPA guidelines developed by the Department of 

Agriculture apply to farmland classified as prime or unique, or of state or local importance.

Farmland subject to FPPA does not have to be currently used for cropland.

80 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the four Federal parcels would be conveyed to private 

ownership. There are no areas within the four Federal parcels that are designated as prime and 

unique farmlands (NRCS Web Soil Survey 2010). There would be no direct or indirect effects to 

prime and unique farmlands.

Non-Federal Parcels

There are no areas within the nine non-Federal parcels that are designated as prime and unique 

farmlands. There would be no direct or indirect effects to prime and unique farmlands.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects to prime and unique farmlands, no cumulative effects would 

occur.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the exchange would not occur, and the Federal parcels would 

continue to be managed under the current forest plans. No direct or indirect effects to prime and 

unique farmlands would occur.

Non-Federal Parcels

Since the non-Federal parcels would not be transferred to Federal ownership, they would not be 

considered for inclusion in the NFS. No direct or indirect effects to prime and unique farmlands

would occur.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects to prime and unique farmlands, no cumulative effects would

occur. 

Wetlands and Flood Plains

Affected Environment

A water resources report was conducted for the proposed exchange (exhibit C of the feasibility 

analysis, project record item dated 2/10/2012). Information from this report is summarized below.

Federal Parcels

The City of Show Low parcel contains 1.5 acres of potential wetlands and 3.1 acres of flood 

plains with an additional 0.9 acres adjacent to the ephemeral channel. These wetlands and flood 

plains are associated with the areas surrounding Show Low Creek.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 81
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Show Low South parcel contains no wetlands or flood plains. This parcel does have eight 

separate channels from ephemeral streams crossing the parcel that may be subject to seasonal 

flooding and/or isolated precipitation events.

The Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel contains 0.3 acres of potential wetlands and 0.4 acres

of delineated flood plains. At the time of the field survey, there was no standing water present in 

the meadow.

The Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel contains no acres of wetlands and approximately 0.2 

acres of flood plains. This acreage is currently in a cultivated meadow (turf field) and does not 

contain a stream course.

Non-Federal Parcels

The Alder Peak parcel contains no acres of delineated wetlands and flood plains. There are 1.5 

acres adjacent to Burns Tank and a narrow channel below the tank that may be subject to seasonal 

flooding and/or isolated precipitation events.

The Cherry parcels contain no acres of wetlands and flood plains. The water resources report 

states that the Cherry parcels “are on decomposed granite parent material, dominated by chaparral 

vegetation. All are on side slopes with no indication of channels, a high water table, or springs.”

These factors were confirmed by a field visit.

The Juan Miller parcel contains less than 2.5 acres of wetlands with no acres delineated as flood 

plains. However, there are approximately 5 acres adjacent to Juan Miller Creek that may be 

subject to seasonal flooding and/or isolated precipitation events.

The Leonard Canyon parcel contains no acres of natural wetlands and approximately 3 to 4 acres 

of flood plains. The flood plain acres are associated with the perennial pool stream reach within 

Leonard Canyon.

The Railroad parcels contain no acres of wetlands and 6 to 7.7 acres of delineated flood plains.

The flood plain areas are associated with Mortensen Wash.

The Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel contains 82.8 acres of wetlands and 82 acres of delineated flood 

plains. These acres are associated with the wet meadow surrounding the confluence of several 

small creeks on the parcel.

The Soda Springs Ranch parcel contains no acres of natural wetlands and approximately 19 acres 

of flood plains. A total of 16 of the flood plain acres are associated with Wet Beaver Creek, while 

the remaining 3 acres are associated with the flood plain of Red Tank Draw.

The Sponseller Ranch Parcel contains no acres of wetlands and delineated flood plains. An 

additional 0 to 56 acres are adjacent to Brookbank Canyon and may be subject to flooding. 

The Sprucedale Parcel contains 27 acres of wetlands and 57 acres of delineated flood plains.

These wetlands and flood plains are associated with Beaver and Horton Creeks.

82 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the proposed action alternative, the Forest Service would receive a net gain of 

approximately 110.5 acres of wetlands and between 163 and 166 acres of flood plains. There 

would also be an additional 5.6 to 61 acres of land conveyed that may be subject to flooding. This 

net gain would also add to the acreage of available riparian habitat within Forest Service 

management and protection.

Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the exchange would occur and the four Federal parcels 

would be conveyed to private ownership. Approximately 1.8 acres of wetlands and 3.7 acres of 

delineated flood plains would be conveyed to private ownership. An additional 0.9 acres of land 

that may be subject to flooding would also be conveyed. These wetlands and flood plains and any 

associated riparian habitat would no longer be managed by the Forest Service or be provided the 

protection of Federal ownership. The area surrounding Show Low Creek would remain open 

space by the City of Show Low and, therefore, would retain its natural flow and riparian habitat 

availability to wildlife and other species of interest.

Non-Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the exchange would occur and the nine non-Federal 

parcels would be conveyed to Federal ownership. Approximately 112.3 acres of wetlands and 167 

to 170 acres of delineated flood plains would be conveyed to the USFS. An additional 

approximately 6.5 to 62 acres of land that may be subject to flooding would also be conveyed.

These wetlands and flood plains and any associated riparian habitat would then be managed by 

the Forest Service and be provided the additional protection of Federal ownership.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects with regards to wetlands and flood plains are discussed in a general qualitative

manner due to the scale of the analysis area. A number of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions have the potential to impact wetlands and flood plains:

• The proposed Second Knoll Shooting Range and associated access roads in the Lakeside 

Ranger District of the ASNFs;

• The Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act Purchase project, which would result in a 

net loss of 583 acres of land administered by the SNF;

• Timber Mesa – Vernon Wildland-Urban Interface Project;

• The Pueblo Park Mineral Materials Pit in the Alpine Ranger District of ASNFs;

• The Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange on the Sitgreaves, Coronado, Prescott, and Tonto 

national forests;

• Wildfires;

• Timber harvesting; and

• Residential development as addressed in the City of Show Low General Plan.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 83
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

While these projects could potentially affect wetlands, projects on NFS lands are managed to 

mitigate impacts to wetlands. The proposed action alternative would have a net gain of 110.5 

acres of wetlands and between 163 and 166 acres of flood plains. The proposed action alternative

when combined with present and foreseeable future actions would not result in any measurable 

changes to wetlands or flood plains.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the exchange would not occur, and the Federal parcels would 

continue to be managed under the current respective forest plans. No direct or indirect effects to 

wetlands or flood plains would occur.

Non-Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the non-Federal parcels would not be transferred to Federal 

ownership, and they would not be considered for inclusion in the NFS. These lands would likely 

be developed, which could negatively affect wetlands and flood plains and potentially remove 

any associated riparian habitat.

Cumulative Effects

There are no known actions that, in conjunction with the no action alternative, would result in 

substantial impacts to wetlands or flood plains.

Water Quality, Rights, and Claims

Affected Environment

A water resources report was conducted for the proposed exchange (exhibit C of the feasibility 

analysis). This information is summarized below.

Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the Federal lands would be conveyed together with any 

and all associated and appurtenant water rights. The City of Show Low parcel does not have any 

water rights identified for conveyance. Waters that flow in the natural channel of Show Low 

Creek have been appropriated by downstream users for various beneficial uses. A report released 

on April 15, 1999 by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (project record item dated 

3/18/2011) concluded that the City of Show Low has sufficient water supplies which are 

continuously and legally available for 100 years after the report’s approval in the year 1999.

Water quality in the Show Low Creek watershed, which includes areas of both the City of Show 

Low parcel and the Show Low South parcel, is monitored by the Arizona Department of Water 

Quality and the City of Show Low and managed through the Show Low Creek Watershed 

Enhancement Partnership (2007). Water in the watershed is primarily used for municipal, 

recreational, and some agricultural and industrial purposes and is supplied mostly by snowmelt 

and Pinetop, Thompson, and Scott Springs.

84 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Show Low South parcel has a claim of right for a stock pond (Registry No. 38-010656) by 

the ASNFs. The annual volume claimed is 0.09 acre-feet, which is claimed for stock waters and 

wildlife uses. This water claim will be transferred to the non-Federal party.

The Sierra Blanca adjustment parcel has no water rights identified for conveyance.

The Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel has no water rights identified for conveyance. An 

unauthorized sprinkler-irrigated field occurs on a fraction of the parcel (0.75 recorded acres); 

however, it is not associated with any water rights.

Non-Federal Parcels

The non-Federal parcels would be conveyed together with any and all associated appurtenant 

water rights, except for the Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel, where the non-Federal water claims 

would be allocated between the conveyed and retained lands. Such water claims of record have 

yet to be adjudicated under Arizona Water Law. The Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel has a claim of 

right of use for an annual volume of 400 acre-feet (Registry No. 36-31850). Water is claimed for 

irrigation, domestic, stock water, and other uses. In addition, a Statement of Claimant, 

Adjudication File (No. 39-004950) for surface waters includes an annual volume of 250 acre-feet

for irrigation, 14 acre-feet for domestic, 250 acre-feet for stock water, 200 acre-feet for wildlife, 

and 200 acre-feet for other uses. The proponent and the Forest Service have agreed that the 

portion of the water rights conveyed with the Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel would be 80 percent of 

the claimed irrigation right, 80 percent of the claimed stock water right, 80 percent of the claimed 

wildlife right, 80 percent of the claimed other uses right, and 0 percent of the claimed domestic 

right. All claimed domestic uses (14 acre-feet per year) and 20 percent of all other claimed water 

uses (i.e. irrigation, stock water, wildlife, and other) shall remain with the retained Sierra Blanca 

Ranch parcel. 

The Alder Peak parcel has a claim of right to use for an annual volume of 84,000 gallons for stock

water use (Registry No. 36-102032). 

The Cherry parcels, Juan Miller parcel, Leonard Canyon parcel, Railroad parcels, Soda Springs 

Ranch parcel, Sponseller Ranch parcel, and Sprucedale parcel have no water rights identified for 

conveyance.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed action alternative would result in a net gain of water rights/claims of approximately 

1,030 acre-feet in annual volume.

Federal Parcels

Drought conditions from 1996 to 2005, coupled with increasing residential growth, spurred 

shortages in water supplies in the Show Low area and drew concern for water quality issues. In 

1988, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) placed Rainbow Lake on Arizona’s 

303(d) list of impaired waters due to excessive weeds, pH, and nutrient overloading. This is due 

primarily from agricultural and residential pollutants that infiltrate tributaries such as Show Low 

Creek and causes some concern for any proposed uses that could occur if the Federal parcels are 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 85
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

turned over to city zoning, which would split the land into two distinct zones; A-general and 

Industrial (Navajo County Public Works 2011). The concern is that the increase in demand for 

land and water use in the Show Low area could further accent the issues facing the watershed by 

introducing more residential and industrial uses to areas once protected by the USFS.

Under the proposed action alternative, the four Federal parcels and associated water rights (a total

of 0.09 acre-feet in annual volume) would be conveyed to private ownership. While the City of 

Show Low would expand their waste water treatment facility on the City of Show Low parcel, no 

adverse direct or indirect effects to the water quality of Show Low Creek are anticipated because 

no effluent from the treatment facility would be released into the creek. The rest of the City of 

Show Low parcel would remain undeveloped.

On the Show Low South parcel, the land would be developed as low-density residential and 

mixed-use residential. While the parcel is within the Show Low Creek watershed, there are no 

intermediate or perennial waters located on the parcel, and the only water rights proposed for 

conveyance are 0.09 acre-feet from a stock pond. With no water rights or claims conveyed on the 

Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel or Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel, no direct or 

indirect effects to water quality, rights, or claims would occur.

Non-Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the nine non-Federal parcels and associated and/or agreed 

upon water rights/claims (a total of 720 acre-feet in annual volume) would be conveyed to 

Federal ownership. Under the protection of the NFS, the parcels would not be developed and no 

adverse effects to water quality would occur.

Cumulative Effects

There are no known actions that, in conjunction with the proposed action alternative, would result 

in measurable cumulative impacts to water quality, rights, or claims. Any future land exchanges, 

including the planned Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange (see appendix B), would involve a similar 

trade of lands and any associated water rights and claims. However, as with the proposed action 

alternative (which has a net water rights gain of 1,030 acre-feet in annual volume), land 

exchanges often involve a net gain of water rights and claims. The National Wild Turkey 

Federation riparian restoration projects would benefit water quality for streams in the project area.

In general, projects on national forests are designed to minimize effects to water quality. No 

cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the exchange would not occur, and the Federal parcels would 

continue to be managed by the Forest Service. No direct or indirect effects to water quality, rights, 

or claims would occur.

Non-Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the non-Federal parcels would not be transferred to Federal 

ownership and would likely be developed. While development could affect water quality, plans 

86 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

would likely include mitigation measures to avoid major impacts to water quality. No adverse 

direct or indirect impacts to water quality, rights, or claims would likely occur.

Cumulative Effects

There are no known actions that, in conjunction with the no action alternative, would result in 

cumulative impacts to water quality, rights, or claims.

Cultural Resources

Affected Environment 

Federal Parcels

Cultural resources investigations were conducted on each of the four Federal parcels between 

April and September of 2009 (EnviroSystems 2011b and 2011c) in accordance with the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Results of these investigations, which were 

conducted at a Class III level of intensity, are summarized below.

During April 27–28, 2009, investigation of the City of Show Low parcel, which had not been 

previously surveyed for cultural resources, resulted in the identification of one previously 

unrecorded archaeological site (a historic trash scatter) and nine isolated occurrences of cultural 

material.

The Show Low South parcel was completely surveyed for cultural resources during 2 previous 

projects, and 17 sites had been recorded within (n=6) or near (n=11) the parcel. Field 

investigations were conducted April 28–29 and September 10, 2009, to verify the locations of the 

17 sites and to assess their current condition. A total of six archaeological sites were located 

within the Show Low South parcel:

• three separate artifact scatters;

• agricultural features with associated artifacts;

• a habitation structure, rock alignment, petroglyph panel, and associated artifact scatter; 

and

• a flaked stone scatter.

The Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel had not been previously surveyed for cultural

resources. During the investigation on April 27, 2009, one historic site (a historic habitation 

composed of two cabins, a water tank, and several rock and concrete pads) was identified. 

No cultural resources were identified within the Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel during a 

field investigation on April 21, 2009.

The cultural resources investigations were approved by CNF on April 25, 2011, for the Soda 

Springs Ranch adjustment parcel inventory report (EnviroSystems 2011b) and by the ASNFs with 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurrence in October 4, 2010, for the three exchange 

parcels on the ASNFs (EnviroSystems 2011c). Two of the six sites within the Show Low South 

Parcel were determined eligible to the NRHP. The remaining four sites in the parcel have been 

determined ineligible for the NRHP. One of the National Register eligible sites consists of a 

habitation structure, rock alignment, petroglyph panel, and associated artifact scatter. The other 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 87
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

eligible site is defined as an artifact scatter with ceramics, flaked stone, and ground stone 

artifacts.

No traditional cultural properties were identified within Federal parcels by the consulted Tribes.

Non-Federal Parcels

A Class I cultural resources investigation was conducted for the nine non-Federal parcels 

(EnviroSystems 2011d). The investigation included record searches for any previous 

archaeological surveys and previously recorded archaeological sites within or adjacent to the nine 

parcels, as well as an assessment of potential historic properties through examination of historic 

General Land Office (GLO) plat maps. No field surveys were conducted. 

No known or potential cultural sites were identified within the Alder Peak, Leonard Canyon, or 

Sprucedale parcels.

Within the three Cherry parcels, historic cultural resources may be present and associated with 

eight named mineral claims that make up these parcels. No previous archaeological surveys have 

been conducted, however.

For the Juan Miller parcel, no previous archaeological surveys have occurred, though GLO maps 

indicate that a portion of the historic Laney Ranch potentially lies within the parcel.

The three Railroad parcels are located along an old railroad grade, and GLO maps indicate that a 

road (called the Danish Settlement to Snowflake Road) closely followed the route of the old 

railroad grade in places. No previous archaeological surveys are known to have been conducted 

along the relevant sections of the grade.

Though no archaeological surveys have been previously conducted within the Sierra Blanca 

Ranch parcel, GLO maps indicate that a cabin may have been located on the parcel.

During an archaeological survey of a portion of the Soda Springs Ranch parcel in 1988, no 

cultural resources were identified.

The entire Sponseller Ranch parcel was surveyed for archaeological resources in 2002. The 

inventory resulted in the identification of seven archaeological sites within or partially within the 

parcel. Three of the sites are prehistoric artifact scatters, one is a prehistoric habitation, and the 

remaining three are historic sites.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

The proposed action meets the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act and Executive Order 11593. The following eight Native American tribes and one chapter 

were notified of the project: Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation, 

Pueblo of Zuni, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, 

Yavapai-Apache Tribe, and Yavapai-Prescott Tribe.

88 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

For the City of Show Low parcel, the archaeological site (trash scatter) and IOs are not 

considered under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as their data potential has been 

exhausted by the survey level recording. No further archaeological work on the City of Show 

Low parcel is required, and no direct or indirect adverse effects to cultural heritage resources 

would occur as a result of the proposed exchange.

Under the proposed action alternative, two archeological sites eligible for the NRHP would be 

adversely affected within the Show Low South parcel. A historic properties treatment plan and 

memorandum of agreement were developed to resolve and mitigate the direct and indirect 

adverse effects to these two sites. Mitigation measures in the treatment plan include mapping the 

sites, conducting surface artifact collections, and completing area and feature excavations.

The historic site identified within the Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel has also been 

determined eligible for the NRHP. The transfer of this parcel out of federal ownership would have 

an adverse direct effect to the historic site. The historic properties treatment plan and 

memorandum of agreement were developed to resolve and mitigate the direct and indirect 

adverse effect to this site. Primary mitigation measures include archival and oral data recovery. 

Since no cultural resources were identified on the Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel, no 

direct or indirect effects to cultural resources would occur, and no further archaeological work 

would be required within the Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel. 

Non-Federal Parcels

Transfer of the non-Federal lands to Federal ownership would have a beneficial effect on any 

cultural resources present. Any cultural resource sites found on the non-Federal lands would come 

under Federal management and would receive the full protection of Federal laws. No negative 

direct or indirect effects to cultural resources are anticipated as a result of these parcels being 

exchanged.

Cumulative Effects

Though natural events such as wildfires have the potential to affect cultural resources, Forest 

Service projects are designed to avoid and mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources in 

accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. As a result, the future projects listed in 

appendix B as cumulative events likely include proper mitigation and avoidance practices.

Within the Lakeside Ranger District, other planned or reasonably foreseeable activities that may 

adversely affect cultural resources are two additional land exchanges: Camp Tatiyee Land 

Exchange, and the Lakeside Ranger Station Conveyance. At present, these exchanges are 

expected to adversely affect 9 archeological sites. The adverse effects are expected to be 

mitigated through data recovery in consultation with the ACHP, Arizona SHPO, and culturally 

affiliated Tribes. However, despite data recovery, this mitigation strategy leads to a cumulative 

loss of historic properties.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 89
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the four Federal parcels would not be conveyed to private 

ownership and would remain within the NFS. As such, the Federal lands would continue to be 

managed as directed under forest plans for the respective forests (ASNFs forest plan; CNF forest 

plan). However, site 01–413 on the Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel would continue to be 

used and affected even though the site is mostly on Federal land. This site is managed under a 

conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy.

Non-Federal Parcels

Cultural resources that are located on the non-Federal lands would not receive further protection, 

with the exception of human burials which are protected under Arizona Burial Statute ARS §41–

865. If present, direct or indirect adverse effects to cultural resources could occur as a result of 

development activities.

Cumulative Effects

Under the no action alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects on cultural resources 

located on federal lands; therefore no cumulative effects on federal lands would be expected. 

Mineral Resources

Affected Environment

A mineral report (dated May 23, 2008) was prepared for the four Federal and nine non-Federal 

parcels. Conclusions of this report, which was prepared by a certified mineral examiner for 

Region 3 of the USFS, are presented below.

Federal Parcels

There is little to no potential for mineral commodities on the four Federal parcels. None of the 

parcels are considered prospectively valuable.

Non-Federal Parcels

Seven of the nine non-Federal parcels (Alder Peak, Juan Miller, Leonard Canyon, Sierra Blanca 

Ranch, Soda Springs Ranch, Sponseller Ranch, and Sprucedale) have little to no potential for 

mineral commodities. None of the parcels are considered prospectively valuable.

The Alder Peak parcel has low to moderate potential for geothermal resources. The parcel is not 

prospectively valuable for other mineral commodities and has little to no potential for these 

resources.

The Cherry parcel has little to no potential and is not prospectively valuable for leasable minerals.

The parcel has a moderate potential for locatable minerals, and low potential for salable minerals.

The mineral report was forwarded to the Bureau of Land Management and concurrence was 

received from Albuquerque, NM, on February 23, 2011.

90 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Should the land exchange be executed, neither the United States nor the private landowner would 

reserve any mineral right, royalty, or other mineral interest.

Federal Parcels

The exchange would occur, and most of the Federal parcels would be developed (no further 

development is proposed on the Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel). There would be no 

direct or indirect effects of development activities on mineral resources. Respective mineral 

resources would be conveyed along with the surface.

Non-Federal Parcels

The non-Federal parcels would be integrated into the NFS and be managed as directed under 

respective forest plans. There are no plans to further explore the moderate potential for 

geothermal resources on the Alder Peak parcel or the moderate potential for locatable minerals on 

the Cherry parcels. No effects regarding mineral resources would occur. Respective mineral 

resources would be conveyed along with the surface.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects to mineral resources, no cumulative effects would occur.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

No change would occur to current use and management of the Federal parcels. No effects 

regarding mineral resources would occur. Mineral estates would remain the same.

Non-Federal Parcels

The exchange would not take place and development would likely occur on the existing nonFederal parcels. There would be no direct or indirect effects of development activities on mineral 

resources. Mineral estates would remain the same.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects to mineral resources, no cumulative effects would occur.

Roads

Affected Environment

Federal Parcels

The City of Show Low parcel can be accessed via National Forest System Road (NFSR) 11-

9701K5, which connects to State Highway 77 just north of the City of Show Low.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 91
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Show Low South parcel is just south of the City of Show Low and can be accessed by 

several roads stemming off State Highway 260 to the east, State Highway 77 (a.k.a. Interstate 60 

and West Deuce of Clubs) to the north and west, and Mogollon Rim Road to the south. Several 

forest roads are located within the Show Low South parcel, including NFSRs 11-9039, 11-9703T, 

11-9703X, 11-9704B, 11-9704Y, 11-9600U, and 11-9727F.

The Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel, located southwest of the community of Nutrioso, 

Arizona, is accessed by NFSR 01-249V. NFSR 249V connects with NFSR 249 outside of the 

parcel, which continues east to its intersection with State Highway 180.

The Soda Springs Ranch adjustment parcel, located northeast of Camp Verde, Arizona, is south of 

NFSR 121 (a.k.a. Soda Springs Road). NFSR 121 connects with NFSR 618 (a.k.a. East Beaver 

Creek Road) which continues west and intersects with Interstate 17.

Non-Federal Parcels

Any roads or road segments located on non-Federal parcels conveyed to Federal ownership 

would be evaluated to determine their inclusion in the Forest Service transportation system.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the Federal parcels would be conveyed to private 

ownership and undergo various degrees of development. No non-NFS roads would be affected by 

the land exchange.

Within the City of Show Low parcel and Show Low South parcel, the segments of any NFS roads 

would be removed from the Forest Service transportation system upon issuance of patent.

Additional private roads would likely be needed as a result of development within the Show Low 

South Parcel (low-density residential and mixed use) and Soda Springs Ranch Adjustment Parcel 

(rural residential area). Additionally, private road construction may be needed within the City of 

Show Low parcel, where Show Low intends to expand their waste water treatment facility.

On the Show Low South parcel, new residents moving to the proposed residential development 

(zoned as low-density and mixed-use residential) would cause an increase in the immediate area’s 

traffic. Residents living within the Show Low South parcel would access their residences through 

a minimum of two proposed entrances. Some traffic may access the Show Low South property 

through the Sierra Pines subdivision, though having at least two other entrances to the property 

would help minimize increase to neighborhood access traffic.

Though no development would occur within the Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel, the 

proponent would be granted a FLPMA private road easement (30-foot-wide right-of-way) for 

NFSR 01-249A, extending from its junction with NFSR 01-249 to the boundary of the Sierra 

Blanca Ranch Adjustment Parcel. Concurrently with the establishment of that easement, a 

previously recorded road easement that was established for the property across undisturbed NFS 

lands would be terminated.

92 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Non-Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the non-Federal parcels would be transferred to Federal

ownership. Therefore, the lands would be managed under objectives set forth in the respective 

forest plans, and roads would be analyzed for potential inclusion in the NFS transportation 

system. 

Cumulative Effects

Several reasonably foreseeable future actions could cumulatively impact the NFS road system.

The Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange—which proposes to exchange Federal land on the ASNFs for 

private land on the ASNFs, Coronado, Prescott, and Tonto national forests—would potentially 

involve a similar trade of roads between the NFS and private proponent. A goal of the Pueblo 

Park Mineral Materials Pit Project is to develop a new mineral pit to provide materials for road 

improvements in Greenlee County. Also, the Second Knoll Shooting Range proposal involves 

construction of an access road to reach the planned 80-acre shooting range. Considering the 

thousands of miles of forest roads already existing within the NFS in Arizona, no measurable 

cumulative effects to roads are anticipated.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, no change would occur to the current use and management of the 

Federal parcels.

Non-Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the non-Federal parcels would undergo various degrees of 

development. As a result, a number of private roads would likely need to be constructed in order 

to provide access to prospective homeowners. Also, the non-Federal parcels are inholdings, 

privately owned parcels partially or completely surrounded by NFS lands. Residential 

development on these inholdings would increase the local population, resulting in an increased 

use of nearby Forest Service roads.

Cumulative Effects

The reasonably foreseeable future events that could cumulatively affect roads include the 

potential trade and development of roads as part of the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange; road 

improvement in Greenlee County as a result of the Pueblo Park Mineral Materials Pit Project; and 

access road construction during the Second Knoll Shooting Range Project. No adverse 

cumulative effects to roads are anticipated.

Fire and Fuels

Affected Environment

Federal Parcels

Existing levels of live and dead fuels on the Federal parcels are generally consistent with 

surrounding forest lands. There is no evidence of recent wildfires on many of the Federal parcels.

The exception is the Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel that was recently burned in the 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 93
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wallow Fire. In May and June of 2011, the Wallow Fire burned more than 550,000 acres in 

Arizona and New Mexico (for more information, see the “Wallow Fire” section in chapter 1).

Preliminary analysis of fire effects from this human-caused fire indicate a mixed severity over the 

area burned. Salvage logging and the removal of hazard trees (standing dead trees that may pose a 

threat to motorists on surrounding roads and highways) is occurring to ensure the safety of the 

public that utilize these areas. The Wallow Fire blackened the boles of trees at the Sierra Blanca 

Ranch adjustment parcel, but no buildings associated with this parcel were damaged by the fire.

Overall, the fire removed some of the live and dead surface fuels onsite, but did not burn the 

forest canopy on this parcel. Because of the low to moderate intensity of the fire at this parcel, the 

effects will likely recycle nutrients, making them available for regrowth of native grasses in the 

understory. The fire also helped expose soil, allowing regeneration of the overstory in future 

growing seasons.

Non-Federal Parcels

Similarly, fuels on the non-Federal parcels are generally consistent with surrounding forest lands.

As stated, the Wallow Fire burned more than 550,000 acres in Arizona and New Mexico (see the 

“Wallow Fire” section in chapter 1). Salvage logging and the removal of hazard trees to ensure 

the safety of the public that utilize these areas is occurring. Two parcels—Sprucedale and Sierra 

Blanca Ranch—were in the path of the wildfire and were partially burned as the fire passed 

through. After the fire was extinguished, both parcels were visited to assess any potential impact 

the fire may have had on the habitat and property value. It was evident that a recent fire had 

passed through the parcels, as both had visible scorching on the ground. However, there was no

major damage to the property. Because of the low intensity of the fire at these sites, the effects 

will likely recycle nutrients, making them available for regrowth of the native grasses in the 

understory in future growing seasons.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

The land exchange would occur, and the private owners/developers would be responsible for 

implementation of fire and fuel treatments on the acquired parcels. Firefighting capabilities would 

be provided to meet requirements of the respective counties. The Forest Service would be 

responsible for ensuring that proper vegetation management occurs within the wildland-urban 

interface to mitigate or lessen the potential of wildfires from spreading from forest land to the 

newly acquired private parcels.

Non-Federal Parcels

Management of the non-Federal parcels would become the responsibility of the USFS, and fire 

and fuels management would be consistent with the respective forest plans.

Cumulative Effects

As discussed above, the Wallow Fire burned within Sierra Blanca Ranch adjustment parcel, Sierra 

Blanca Ranch parcel, and Sprucedale parcel, removing accumulated live and dead fuels. While 

some areas burned by the Wallow Fire resulted in high severity effects such as complete tree 

94 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

mortality, the three parcels affected by the Wallow Fire were mostly grasslands or wet meadow

and, therefore, experienced low to moderate intensity surface fires that burned quickly. Additional 

wildfires are likely to occur in the reasonable foreseeable future and affect the ASNFs, CNF, and 

PNF. Future wildfires could be low intensity and ultimately prove beneficial to the overall 

ecological condition, or they could be of high severity and result in catastrophic, long-term 

effects.

Future fuels reduction and management projects (e.g., Timber Mesa – Vernon Wildland-Urban 

Interface Project) would continue to ensure that the risk of fire damage to residential properties, 

including those resulting from development within the Federal parcels proposed for exchange, is 

minimized or eliminated. No cumulative effects would occur.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Fire and fuels on and in the vicinity of the Federal parcels would not be affected by the no-action 

alternative. The Federal parcels would continue to be managed in accordance with the respective 

forest plans. No direct or indirect effects would occur as a result.

Non-Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the private owners of the non-Federal parcels would be 

responsible for implementation of any fire and fuel treatments during and following development.

Firefighting capabilities would be provided to meet requirements of the respective counties. Fire 

and fuels management in the surrounding forest lands would be the responsibility of the Forest 

Service. No direct or indirect effects with regards to fire and fuels would occur.

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect effects to fire and fuels; therefore, no cumulative effects would 

occur.

Hazardous Materials

Affected Environment

The Federal and non-Federal lands proposed for exchange have been examined in accordance 

with Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA). Phase I Environmental Site Assessments were completed for the Federal and 

non-Federal parcels. These evaluations were conducted via records searches, interviews, and site 

visits consistent with good commercial or customary practice as set forth in the American Society 

for Testing Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-05. The objective of the environmental site 

assessments was to evaluate each parcel for recognized environmental conditions (RECs) that 

indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous 

substance or petroleum product into structures on the properties or into the ground, groundwater, 

or surface water of the properties. No RECs were found to be associated with any of the parcels. 

No testing of soil, air, water, or any other matter was conducted during the environmental site

assessments.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 95
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the proposed action alternative, the Federal parcels would be conveyed to private 

ownership and likely undergo development. Expansion of waste water treatment facilities at the 

City of Show Low parcel would adhere to Navajo County and State of Arizona requirements and 

provisions for solid waste disposal in an approved landfill in order to minimize the risk of impacts 

regarding hazardous materials. All other development should abide by Federal, State of Arizona, 

and local rules and regulations to minimize risk associated with hazardous materials. Since there 

are no RECs on the Federal lands, no direct or indirect effects regarding hazardous materials are 

anticipated.

Non-Federal Parcels

Since there are no RECs on the non-Federal lands, no direct or indirect effects regarding 

hazardous materials are anticipated. Once transferred to Federal ownership, these parcels would 

be managed for public purposes under objectives of the respective forest plans.

Cumulative Effects

Since the proposed action alternative would not have direct or indirect effects with regards to

hazardous materials, no cumulative effects would occur.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, no change would occur to the current use and management of the 

Federal parcels. Since no RECs occur on the Federal lands, no direct or indirect effects to 

hazardous materials would occur.

Non-Federal Parcels

Under the no action alternative, the non-Federal lands would not be transferred to Federal

ownership. Development would likely occur on each of the nine non-Federal parcels, mainly in 

the form of residential development. Adherence to local, county, and State of Arizona 

requirements and provisions for development activities would minimize any risk of substantial 

impacts regarding hazardous materials.

Cumulative Effects

With no direct or indirect effects to hazardous materials as a result of the no action alternative, no 

cumulative effects would occur.

96 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

Preparers and Contributors

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, 

and non-Forest Service persons during development of this EIS.

EnviroSystems Management, Inc.

Stephanie Treptow Project Manager/Senior Regulatory Specialist

Keith Pohs Deputy Project Manager/Senior Environmental Scientist

Matt DeCaro NEPA Specialist

Lynn Neal Cultural Resources Manager

Sarah Hurteau Project Biologist

Kevin Rice Environmental Scientist

EnviroServices

Carol Holland NEPA Specialist

Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team

Edward Collins District Ranger, Lakeside Ranger District, ASNFs

Randall Chavez Range/Recreation and Lands Staff, Lakeside Ranger District, ASNFs

Ryan Domsalla Acting Administrative Officer, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs 

Linda Fox Realty Specialist, CNF

Stephen James Land Surveyor, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs 

James Morrison Facilities Engineer, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs

Other Forest Service Contributors

The following people prepared resources information and/or specialized technical guidance 

during the analysis.

Janie Agyagos District Wildlife Staff, Red Rock Ranger District, CNF

Bruce Buttrey Natural Resource Specialist, ASNFs (retired)

Dawnee Burson NEPA Planner, Lakeside Ranger District, ASNFs

Robert Cordts Director Lands and Minerals, Lands and Minerals Management, 

Regional Office, Southwestern Region

Tami Conner Environmental Coordinator, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs 

Paula Cote NEPA Specialist, Supervisor’s Office, CNF 

Richard Davalos District Ranger, Alpine Ranger District, ASNFs 

Rich Della Porta Realty Specialist, Supervisor’s Office, PNF

Charles Denton Wildlife Biologist, Lakeside Ranger District, ASNFs

Elizabeth Humphrey Forest Wildlife Biologist, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs 

Robert Jackson Land Surveyor, Supervisor’s Office, PNF

Chris Knopp Forest Supervisor, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs (retired)

Jim Zornes Forest Supervisor, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 97
Chapter 4. List of Preparers

Corbin Newman, Jr. Regional Forester, Regional Office, Southwestern Region

Michael Linden Regional Liaison for Minerals and Geology, Lands and Minerals 

Management, Regional Office, Southwestern Region

Joseph Sitarzewski Realty Specialist, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs (retired)

Pete Mourtsen Realty Specialist, Supervisor’s Office, CNF (retired)

Vicente Ordonez Wildlife Biologist, Springerville Ranger District, ASNFs 

Jerry Sanchez Regional Appraiser, Lands and Minerals Management, Regional 

Office, Southwestern Region

Melissa Schroeder Forest Archaeologist, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs 

Mark Schwab Certified Mineral Examiner, Tonto National Forest

David Seery Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Black Mesa Ranger District, 

ASNFs

Earl Stewart Forest Supervisor, Supervisor’s Office, CNF

Robert Taylor Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist, ASNFs (retired)

98 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination

Agencies and Persons Consulted

Jim Garrison State Historic Preservation Officer, Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Office

Dr. John Eddins Program Analyst/Archaeologist, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

Bill Jordan SL Land Exchange, LLC

Dan Reeb SL Land Exchange, LLC

Mark Reeb SL Land Exchange, LLC

City of Show Low, Arizona

Ed Muder City Manager, City of Show Low

Region 1 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Pinetop, Arizona

Dannette Weiss Habitat Specialist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Ecological Services Field Office – Arizona

Steven Spangle Field Supervisor, United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Tribal Governments and Offices

Hopi Tribe

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office 

Navajo Traditional Culture Program

Navajo Nation

White Mountain Apache Tribe

White Mountain Apache Tribe Office of Historic Preservation

San Carlos Apache Tribe

Tonto Apache Tribe

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Yavapai-Apache Tribe

Yavapai –Apache Tribe Cultural and Historic Preservation

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe Cultural Resource Program

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

Zuni Heritage & Historic Preservation Office

Pueblo of Zuni

Ramah Chapter

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 99

Chapter 6. References

ADOC (Arizona Department of Commerce). 2009a. Show Low Community Profile. Web site 

http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/show%20low.pdf. Accessed March 16, 

2011.

ADOC. 2009b. Camp Verde Community Profile. Web site 

http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/camp%20verde.pdf. Accessed March 16, 

2011.

ADOC. 2009c. Alpine Community Profile. Web site 

http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/alpine.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2011.

AGFD (Arizona Game and Fish Department). 2010. Online Environmental Review Tool. Web

site http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/. Accessed November 12, 2010.

Appraisal Standards Board. 2008. Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2012. Assessment of Management Indicator Species, 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests from 2005 to 2011 (dated June 2012). Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 118 pp.

City of Show Low. 2007. General Plan. Community Sciences Corporation, Phoenix, Arizona.

EnviroSystems (EnviroSystems Management, Inc.). 2011a. Show Low Land Exchange Biological 

Resources Specialist Report.

EnviroSystems. 2011b. Show Low Land Exchange Class III Cultural Report for the Soda Springs 

Ranch Parcel within the Show Low Land Exchange.

EnviroSystems. 2011c. Show Low Land Exchange Class III Cultural Report for the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests: Federal Lands within the Show Low Land Exchange.

EnviroSystems. 2011d. Show Low Land Exchange Class I Cultural Report for Non-Federal 

Lands included in the Show Low Land Exchange.

Interagency Land Acquisition Conference. 2000. Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 

Acquisitions.

Joy, S.M.; Reynolds, R.T.; Leslie, D.G. 1994. Northern goshawk broadcast surveys: hawk 

response variables and survey cost. Studies in Avian Biology. 16: 24-30.

Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Technical Report 

142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 331 pp. 

NAS (National Audubon Society). 2012. Important Bird Areas Program. Web site 

http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/. Accessed April 1, 2012.

NRCS. 2010. Web Soil Survey. Web site http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ Accessed May 9, 

2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Web site 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. Accessed March 9, 2011.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1986. Prescott National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Prescott National Forest.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 101
Chapter 6. References

USDA. 1987a. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan.

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

USDA. 1987b. Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, Coconino National Forest.

USDA. 2003. Land Ownership Manual. Forest Service Manual 5403.3, Private Property Rights.

Forest Service Manual National Headquarters, Washington, DC.

USDA. 2007. USFS R3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region.

USDA. 2011. Wallow Fire Rapid Assessment Team Recovery Plan. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

USDA. 2013. USFS R3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. USDOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2004. Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican 

Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register 69(168) August 31, 2004: 53182–53230.

USDOI. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. United States Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. 

Web site http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/. Accessed April 1, 2012.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Five Year Review Summary and EvaluationLittle Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Ecological Services Office, Phoenix, AZ. 29 pp

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Species List for Arizona. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southwest Region. Web site 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ES_ListSpecies.cfm. Accessed December 9, 2013.

102 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs 

of Federal and Non-Federal Land

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 103
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

104 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 105
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

106 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 107
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

108 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 109
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

110 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 111
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

112 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 113
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Figure A1. Alder Peak Non-Federal Parcel

114 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Figure A2. Juan Miller Non-Federal Parcel

Figure A3. Railroad Non-Federal Parcels

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 115
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Figure A4. Sierra Blanca Ranch Non-Federal Parcel

Figure A5. Sponseller Ranch Non-Federal Parcel

116 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Figure A6. Sprucedale Non-Federal Parcel

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 117
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Figure A7. Leonard Canyon Non-Federal Parcel

Figure A8. Soda Springs Ranch Non-Federal Parcel

Figure A9. Cherry Non-Federal Parcels

118 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Figure A10. Show Low South Federal Parcel

Figure A11. City of Show Low Federal Parcel

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 119
Appendix A. Parcel Maps and Photographs of Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Figure A12. Sierra Blanca Ranch Federal Adjustment Parcel

Figure A13. Soda Springs Ranch Federal Adjustment Parcel

120 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix B. Cumulative Effects

This cumulative effects list was based on projects listed on the current “Schedule of Proposed 

Actions for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests,” focusing on the Lakeside and Alpine RDs 

where most of the Federal lands are located, as well as recent land exchanges in the region that 

may have cumulative effects on relevant items such as property taxes (human environment).

Additionally, projects focused in the Red Rocks RD on the Coconino National Forest were also 

included in the cumulative effects analysis. The City of Show Low General Plan (City of Show 

Low 2007) was also reviewed for potential regional projects that may result in cumulative effects.

National Forests Activity Type Status Ranger District

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Lakeside District Office Conveyance EA –

Analyze NF land at the Lakeside Ranger Station 

for sale under the FS Facility Realignment and 

Enhancement Act (FSFREA, PL109-54). This also 

involves analyzing the location of a new ranger 

station. Two decisions.

Facility 

Management 

Land Ownership 

Management

Foreseeable 

Implementation 

Dec. 2012

Lakeside RD

Second Knoll Shooting Range EA – Analyze and 

develop an 80-acre shooting range including an 

existing access road. A special use permit will be 

issued to Arizona Game and Fish Department.

AGFD will partner with White Mountain Shooters 

Association for the long-term operation and 

maintenance.

Special Use 

Management

Foreseeable 

Implementation 

Dec. 2012

Lakeside RD

Timber Mesa - Vernon WUI EA – Analysis of 

39,000 acres of NF lands east of the City of Show 

Low and north of Pinetop-Lakeside for vegetation 

thinning and fuel reduction. Project borders 20–25 

miles of private lands. This includes the 

Woolhouse Wildlife Habitat Area.

Fuels 

Management

Foreseeable 

Implementation 

Sept. 2012

Lakeside RD

Woodland Lake Park Tract Town site Act 

Purchase EA – A town of Pinetop-Lakeside 

proposal for the phased purchase of 583 acres of 

Federal lands administered by the ASNFs.

Land Ownership 

Management

Foreseeable 

Implementation 

March 2013

Lakeside RD

(NWTF) Riparian restoration project (multiple 

sites) CE – Six sites across the Alpine RD would 

be protected to allow recovery of riparian 

vegetation. Historic spring boxes would be 

protected or modified at a seventh site. Project 

would enhance wildlife habitat on about 100 acres.

Wildlife, Fish, 

Rare Plants

NA Alpine RD

Pueblo Park Mineral Materials Pit EA –

Develop new mineral pit to provide materials for 

road improvements in Greenlee County.

Road 

Management 

Minerals and 

Geology

Foreseeable 

Implementation 

April 2012

Alpine RD

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange EIS – Exchange 

of private parcels in the Apache-Sitgreaves, 

Coronado, Prescott and Tonto national forests for 

Federal lands in Pinetop-Lakeside. Would provide 

land for children’s camp currently under special 

use permit and result in consolidation of isolated 

parcels on the forest.

Land Acquisition Foreseeable 

Implementation 

March 2013

Lakeside RD
Appendix B. Cumulative Effects

National Forests Activity Type Status Ranger District

Wildfire History – Sunflower Fire (2005) 385 ac., 

KP Fire (2004) 16,092 ac., KP Fire (2003) 10 ac., 

KP Fire (2001) 17 ac., Thomas Fire (2003) 10,644 

ac., Steeple Fire (2003) 6,009 ac.

Unplanned 

Ignitions

Past Forestwide

Timber Harvest Tree Removal Past Forestwide

City of Show Low General Plan 2007 –

According to the “City of Show Low General 

Plan,” current zoning has allotted approximately 

5,500–6,500 acres of land for residential zoning.

Future 

Residential 

Zoning

Foreseeable 

Implementation 

2007-2017

City of Show Low

Coconino National Forest

Cave Springs Bank Stabilization CE – Stabilize 

the banks of Oak Creek along Cave Springs 

Campground. Project would involve stabilizing a 

collapsing bank and possibly restoring a more 

natural central channel to the creek by filling in 

two constricted side channels and opening the 

middle.

Watershed 

Management

Foreseeable 

Implementation 

September 

2014

Red Rocks RD

Verde Valley Trail Planning – Establish a system 

of motorized and nonmotorized use trails in the 

area around Rim Rock, Montezuma, and 

McGuireville to provide a system of sustainable 

trails.

Watershed and

Recreation 

Management

Foreseeable 

Implementation 

February 2013

Red Rocks RD

Cornville Nonmotorized Trail System CE –

Proposal to construct nonmotorized trail 

connections between Cornville Road and the Verde 

River and SR89A and Oak Creek in the Cornville 

area.

Recreation 

Management

Foreseeable 

Implementation 

May 2013

Red Rocks RD

122 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Comment and Response Summary

Overview

This appendix presents a summary of comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and the Forest Service response to these comments. The public comment period 

began on November 3, 2012 and ended on December 17, 2012. Twenty-five letters were received 

from federal, state, and local agencies; private organizations; and the general public during the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement review, from which a total of 71 distinct comments were 

identified (Table 1). In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, all comments 

received were reviewed and evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Table C1. Comment Letters Received

No. Date First Name Organization

1 11/2/2012 Nick Lund TRACKS

2 11/6/2012 Dave Gallinger individual

3 11/7/2012 Dave Gallinger individual

4 11/7/2012 Dave Gallinger individual

5 11/7/2012 Thomas Cedarblade individual

6 11/6/2012 Dave Gallinger individual

7 11/8/2012 Dave Gallinger individual

8 11/8/2012 Dave Gallinger individual

9 11/9/2012 Dave Gallinger individual

10 11/12/2012 Dave Gallinger individual

11 11/1/2012 Conrad Loney individual

12 n/a Lee Podhajsky individual

13 11/12/2012 Kim & Ron Schmidt individual

14 12/30/2012 Ed Muder City of Show Low

15 11/14/2012 Karen & Gene Berg individual

16 11/5/2012 Dea Podhajsky individual

17 12/4/2012 Dave Gallinger individual

18 12/6/2012 Steve Adams individual

19 12/7/2012 David Dorum Arizona Game and Fish Department

20 12/13/2012 David Kwali Yavapai-Apache Nation, Chairman

21 12/12/2012 Zola M. Hamm individual

22 12/11/2012 Tony Potucek individual

23 12/17/2012 Patricia Sanderson Port Department of Interior, Office of the 

Secretary, Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance, Pacific 

Southwest Region

24 12/14/2012 Janine Blaeloch Western Lands Project

25 12/11/2012 Kathleen Martyn Goforth Environmental Review Office, EPA

Comment and Response Process

All correspondence received during the public comment period containing comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement were categorized, indexed, and recorded in a Draft 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 123
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Matrix. Correspondence addressing 

more than one topic was sub-indexed by comment. For example, one correspondence, indexed 

chronologically as #17, could have four categorized comments covering Alternatives, Land Use, 

Socioeconomics, and Recreation and Public Access indexed as 17.1, 17.2, 17.3, and 17.4 

respectively. Within this appendix, comments broken out by topic are referenced by the 

correspondence number and comment number, e.g., “Correspondence #17, Comment #1.” This 

appendix is a summary document of the comment and response matrix, which is available as part 

of the project record and contains the full text of all correspondence. 

A response has been provided for all relevant comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement received during the public comment period. Comments that were not substantive (e.g., 

declarative statements of agreement or disagreement with the proposed action) or that regarded 

issues outside of the scope of this project were reviewed and noted but did not warrant further 

agency response. Thus, not all 71 comments received have a formal response in this document. 

When applicable, multiple comments on the same topic (e.g. property values, recreation along the 

Buena Vista Trail) were grouped and received a single Forest Service response.

The following comments are grouped by overall topic as analyzed in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Forest Service responses to comments appear directly after the written 

comment(s). As previously mentioned, all original correspondence items that include all 

substantive and non-substantive comments are available in the comment response matrix as part 

of the project record

124 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Contents

Comments and Responses by Topic

Land Use...................................................................................................................C-3

Recreation and Public Access...................................................................................C-4

Socioeconomics........................................................................................................C-8

Purpose and Need...................................................................................................C-11

Plants, Fish, and Wildlife........................................................................................C-13

Wetlands and Grazing.............................................................................................C-17

Water Quality, Rights, and Claims .........................................................................C-18

Visual Quality and Soundscapes ............................................................................C-19

Roads......................................................................................................................C-19

Alternatives.............................................................................................................C-21

Administrative Impacts ..........................................................................................C-31

Forest Service Policy.............................................................................................C-32.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 125

Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Land Use

Comment(s):

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE OVERSTATES THE PROBABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 

THE NON-FEDERAL PARCELS 

The Draft EIS says (p. 36) that the "most reasonable and foreseeable uses" of the non-federal 

parcels is that the Alder Peak Parcel would likely be developed a remote ranch or cabin site; the 

Cherry Parcels would be developed as rural residential lots; the Juan Miller Parcel would likely 

be developed as five rural residential lots; the Sierra Blanca Ranch Parcel has a range of 

possibilities from a single family residence with outbuildings, an ecotourism B&B, and/or a ranch 

with up to 36 horses, barns and corrals; the Soda Springs Ranch Parcel would have 41 rural 

residential lots; Sponseller Ranch would have 42 rural residential lots; and the Sprucedale 

Parcel would also be developed as a rural residential parcel with a total of 13 lots. 

It is highly unlikely that these parcels will be developed as described anytime in the foreseeable 

future.

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #10, Comment #1]

Forest Service Response:

The Final Environmental Impact Statement discloses the effects of the Proposed Action and 

recognizes the very high wildlife habitat values associated with the non-Federal parcels (see 

pages 6-8). In addition, the Final Environmental Impact Statement discloses that if the exchange 

occurs, the possibility of development of the Non-federal parcels and associated impacts on 

wildlife and their habitats would be precluded (see pages 57-76). Though the possibility of 

development may be remote currently, it would not be precluded if the non-federal parcels were 

to remain under private ownership under the no-action alternative. Economic conditions can 

change rapidly and development may be more likely in the future.

Comment(s):

In summary, adding additional land for development and eliminating desirable recreational land 

could severely impact residents of Show Low/Navajo County and eliminate many of the reasons 

residents have chosen to live here. It sets a bad precedent that will negatively impact current and 

future land transactions when valuable Federal open space could conceivable be converted to 

other uses at the whim of a developer with no clear benefit to the trustees of these public lands.

—Steve Adams, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #18, Comment # 4]

Forest Service Response: 

As discussed throughout the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the proposed land-for-land 

exchange would result in Federal acquisition of 1,558 acres of land and conveyance of 1,028 

acres of land, a net gain of 530 acres (see pages 2-5). The Non-federal lands included in this 

exchange proposal contain special features and habitats, such as critical species habitat and 

perennial waters that greatly exceed the wildlife and habitat value of the Federal lands proposed 

for exchange.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 127
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Comment(s):

Issue 3: Land Values/Use/Character. The response is insufficient and unrealistic in proposing that 

the parcel [Show Low South parcel] will likely remain vacant until the general oversupply of 

available housing is overcome. This is no assurance or guarantee that the developer will not 

move ahead with a new housing development. Costs associated with holding such property (taxes 

and other costs related to the City of Show Lo) preclude the developer from allowing the land to 

sit idle for years.

—Tony Potucek, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #22, Comment #10]

Forest Service Response:

The Show Low South Parcel has been annexed by the City of Show Low and included within the 

city’s General Plan. The General Plan presumes that the exchanged property will be developed 

as Master Planned Communities, typically accomplished through a Planned Unit Development 

although it could also be undertaken through traditional zoning. The high initial cost of 

infrastructure, which must be paid by the developer, tends to delay development until there is 

sufficient market demand for new products. Refer to the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

pages 31-37 and project record item dated March 18, 2013 for an explanation of City of Show 

Low development process.

Recreation and Public Access

Comment(s):

Adjoining land owners and visitors alike enjoy access to recreational benefits of this contiguous 

undeveloped Federal land. There is no benefit to Show Low/Navajo County residents that would 

result from this land exchange as the land being exchanged is non-Federal land in Apache 

County. Keeping the land of Show Low South undeveloped, particularly at this current time, is 

important to reestablishing Show Low as a desirable community and will aid in stabilizing 

property values.

—Steve Adams, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence# 18, Comment #3]

Forest Service Response:

This exchange is on a broader scale in the public interest, as 1,558 acres of private parcels would 

be transferred to federal ownership, many including valuable wildlife habitat (see pages 2-8).

The comment in the comment letter that “the land being exchanged is non-Federal land in Apache 

County” is in error. The following acreages and percentages of Non-Federal lands by County in 

the exchange are as follows: Apache County (Sierra Blanca parcel), 156 acres, 10%; Coconino 

County (Leonard Canyon parcel), 640 acres, 41%; Greenlee County (Alder Peak, Juan Miller, & 

Sprucedale parcels), 350 acres, 22%; Navajo County (Sponseller Ranch & Railroad parcels), 140 

acres, 9%; and Yavapai County (Soda Springs & Cherry parcels), 274 acres, 18%.

Comment(s):

TRAILS/ACCESS/RECREATION IS INADEQUATE/INCOMPLETE. Issue 1 (EIS p. 15) raises the 

concern that the "land exchange would remove access to Buena Vista Trail #637." 

128 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

The response states that the "Proposed Action Alternative would relocate the Buena Vista

Trailhead and a segment of Trail #637 to be realigned on Forest Service lands to the south of the 

existing route." The response fails to address a number of important issues. First, the existing 

trailhead provides parking for horse trailers and the existing trail accommodates equestrian, 

hiker and mountain bike users. Will all those users be accommodated for the re-located trail? 

Next, whose responsibility is it to develop the new trail? SLL should bear all costs associated with 

the relocation of the trail. In addition, the new trail should be available for public use prior to the 

legal transfer of the exchanged parcels in order to avoid a loss of public access or a failure to 

follow through on implementing the Proposed Action Alternative. The EIS fails to address these 

concerns in any detail.

Further, the EIS (p. 23) states that "following the exchange, the project proponent would formally 

grant responsibility for the Buena Vista Trail to the City of Show Low for incorporation into the 

Community Public Urban Trail System..." Is the responsibility for developing the trail being 

delegated, or is a completed trail being added to a list of established trails? Is the developer 

proposing to administer Forest Service lands, or is the Forest Service developing the new trail 

and trailhead? Have funds been allocated? Is the Proposed Action Alternative the equivalent of 

"vaporware"?

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #7]

As a resident of the Show Low area I am concerned the proposed Show Low South Land 

Exchange would have a severely negetive impact on the recreational opportunities of residents as 

well as visitors. The proposed Show Low South area as proposed (Section 31 and 32 of T10N, 

R22E) should be excluded from the proposed land exchange in order to preserve the mountain 

biking, hiking, camping, and other recreational opportunities of that area. Additionally, I do not 

think we need more land development at this time in our area. There are plenty of subdivisions 

that currently sit practically empty of homes. What we need to do is protect the valuable resources 

we have. Many outdoor enthusiasts visit Show Low to experience the area included in the land 

exchange, including the Buena Vista Trail which would be greatly impacted by the exchange. 

Please stop or take no action on the Show Low South Land Exchange, the future of Show Low 

depends on it.

—Conrad Loney, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #11]

I recently learned of the Show Low South Land Exchange Project. I hiked parts or all of the 

Buena Vista trail two or three times a week last summer. Judging by the number of cars at the 

trailhead, it is a very popular hike. I have hiked many of the other TRACKS trails and I 

understand why the Buena Vista is popular. None of the other trails offer as many sweeping views 

of the valley as there are on this trail. When I stopped at the vistas I imagined having a house 

with these great views but I quickly realized that the beauty should be available for all not just a 

select few. 

I have encountered horsemen, bicyclists and many hikers using the trail. One of the local resorts 

had organized a hike of the Buena Vista and over 25 people participated. It would be a shame to 

deprive the public of the opportunity to use this area. 

—Lee Podhajsky, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #12, Comment #1]

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 129
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

This is an area that has not been destroyed by fire like so much of the White Mountains has in the 

past 10 years. Most people hike the areas of the White Mountains which hasn't been destroyed by 

fire. That is why having the Buena Vista trail remain is so important, it offers beautiful views and 

great hiking terrain and TALL pine trees! 

—Kim & Ron Schmidt, Goodyear, Arizona [Correspondence #13, Comment #3]

But my issue is the accessibility of the land for the use of the public. People are drawn to the 

Show Low area for its mountains and forests. The area which is being considered for exchange is 

part of a trail system which provides opportunity for people of all ages and income levels to enjoy 

the forest. It is through interaction with nature that people learn to value it and to respect the 

Earth. Thoreau wrote, "Every creature is better alive than dead, men, moose and pine tree and he 

who understands it aright, will rather preserve its life than destroy it." The parcel of NFS land 

near Show Low because of its accessibility is nature's classroom and should be retained.

—Dea Podhajsky, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #16, Comment #2]

My home is located in the Cedar Ridge Development adjacent to the Apache Sitgreaves National 

Forest. I would like to go on record in opposition of the Show Low Land Exchange which has 

been proposed and the EIS is now under review. My reasons are: The BLM land has trails which 

we walk and enjoy nature at its fullest in the beautiful forest (a plus for locating here).

—Zola M. Hamm, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #21, Comment #1]

Comments on issues in DEIS related to the Show Low South Land Exchange Parcel: Chapter 1. 

Purpose and Need for Action. Issue 1: Buena Vista Trail access. The response is insufficient and 

does not address specifically where the new Buena Vista Trailhead will be located. It does not 

mention accommodations for parking, horse trailers or handicapped, either. It is estimated that 

40% of the nine-mile Buena Vista trail will be eliminated if this proposed exchange passes, which 

was not pointed out in the DEIS....

Issue 4: Wildlife Use and Migration Routes. The proposed action is misleading. The statement, 

"ASNFs lands would be located immediate adjacent to the west and south of the Show Low South 

Parcel leads the reader to believe that a sufficient amount of NFS land is south of the proposed 

exchange land. In fact, the proposed Federal Exchange sections 31 and 32 are well within one 

mile of the Mogollon Rim and as close as 0.6 mile! Below the Mogollon Rim is totally 

undeveloped White Mountain Apache Reservation, which is not legally accessible to the general 

public. Therefore, not only is the general public losing major recreating capability on this portion 

of the Mogollon Rim, but the wildlife use and migration routes will be drastically changed and 

rerouted off from public lands and may negatively impact reservation land.

—Tony Potucek, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #22, Comments #8, #11]

Forest Service Response: 

Approximately 3 miles of the existing 9-mile-long Buena Vista Trail is on the Show Low South 

Federal exchange parcel. The existing trailhead and parking near US 60 will not be impacted by 

the exchange because it is over one mile from the nearest edge of the trade parcel; therefore all 

existing trail users would continue to be accommodated. Refer to Final Environmental Impact 

130 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Statement pages 45-47 for additional discussion on impacts to recreation and public access and 

pages 57-76 for additional discussion on impacts to wildlife.

The Forest Service partners with TRACKS, a non-profit organization specializing in nonmotorized trails on the Lakeside Ranger District. TRACKS identified an acceptable re-route to 

move the portion of the trail from the exchange parcel to National Forest System lands that are 

not part of the exchange. The proposed re-route will maintain the approximate length and 

difficulty of the existing trail. The exchange proponent has agreed to support part of the cost to 

relocate the trail. This will occur after the exchange agreement has been signed but before 

development plans are finalized. In addition, the Forest Service, TRACKS, and the exchange 

proponent have agreed to design and develop a second trailhead. Figure 11 in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement presents an accurate location of the proposed second trailhead, 

which would be far enough west to avoid proximity to private land owners and to take advantage 

of gentler terrain. A field meeting was held with the proponent’s representative, the City of Show 

Low, TRACKS, and the Forest Service at which time the location was decided upon. Final design 

is still very dependent on the transportation study and plan to be developed as part of the City of 

Show Low development process and the trailhead would likely not be built for several years. A 

separate environmental analysis for this action would be completed. Refer to Figure 11 in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement to view a map of the Buena Vista Trail, existing Trailhead 

#1, proposed trail re-route, and proposed Trailhead #2. Also refer to project record item dated 

10/29/2007 for Buena Vista Trail background discussions and project record item email dated 

6/21/2010 for trail commitments.

The Forest Service remains responsible for re-routing the Buena Vista Trail and future approved 

connections from adjacent developments. The City of Show Low and the developer would 

negotiate the long-term responsibility for trails located on private lands and approved during the 

city development processes.

Socioeconomics

Comment(s)

We also ask that the Forest Service describe in the FEIS the potential for the proposed action, 

particularly the planned expansion of the Show Low wastewater treatment facility to induce 

growth.

—Kathleen Martyn Goforth, EPA [Correspondence #25, Comment #4]

Forest Service Response: 

The expansion of the Show Low wastewater treatment facility, though adding capacity to the 

city’s wastewater treatment capabilities, would not serve as a major driver of development in 

Show Low. Other broader economic trends would be much more likely to induce growth. The 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality requires communities to invest in advanced 

treatment technologies as the population increases and the rate base allows for costs to be 

absorbed by the higher population. It is not intended to induce growth but rather respond to 

expected growth in a more environmentally responsible way. Refer to Final Environmental 

Impact Statement pages 48-55 for additional discussion.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 131
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Comment(s): 

LAND VALUES/USE/CHARACTER IS INADEQUATE - Issue 3 (EIS p. 19) "raised the concern 

that additional development within the community of Show Low would add to the oversupply of 

available housing and may affect land values. The land exchange would also reduce forest access 

and existing recreational opportunities that give Show Low its distinctive mountain forest 

community character." 

The response states that the land "would likely remain vacant until development would be a 

profitable enterprise. Development on the Show Low South Parcel would not take place until the 

demand exists for new residences. When development becomes economically feasible ... (it) is not 

expected to negatively affect land values..." 

First, this response is a speculation, that, if correct, would eliminate from possibility the 

significant downturn in land values we have witnessed since 2008 when the exchange was 

proposed. Would not the expectation that developers always act in a self-regulating manner for 

economic betterment equally apply to the neighboring developments now sitting idle, lots for sale 

and not a single home under construction? Their existence is clearly evidence to the contrary. It 

is unreasonable to expect a developer to postpone development while paying property taxes and 

other expenses for the length of time (over 10 years) for the inventory of approved plats in the 

City of Show Low to be developed. Supply and demand will cause the additional inventory to 

further drive down prices and disadvantage other developers with projects currently in work. The 

only way that the new development could be successful is if the land is a "give away" so that SLL 

has an unfair competitive advantage. 

Second, when public lands are given up, the loss is permanent. Why trade well used public lands 

for an unneeded housing development that will likely fail?

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #3]

This letter is in response to the 948 acre parcel of the South Land Exchange. 

My husband and I recently purchased the last lot available backing up to the (ASNF) ApacheSitgreaves National Forest, in the Cedar Ridge Subdivision, Lot 25, 2860 Garretts Way, 

ShowLow. Since this lot backs the ASNF the lot premium of course was higher and we were more 

than willing to pay for the privacy and tranquility it offers. There are currently (13) lots on 

Garretts Way that have homes already built on them. 

Given the economy and the fact that homes and lots are readily available in this area we see no 

need for any further distruction of trees and relocation of wildlife that live in this area. There are 

plenty of lots in the surrounding ShowLow area that have available homesites that have been 

sitting for 3 or more years empty! A good example of this is the Bison development that has roads 

and utilities in place and lots with tall pines that have been sitting empty. Not to mention a lovely 

clubhouse that opened then closed and the pool was never completed. 

I do understand the (USFS) United States Forest Service consolidation of federal land ownership 

patterns but I feel the 948 acre parcel has absolutely nothing to gain by being turned over to 

private ownership.

—Kim & Ron Schmidt, Goodyear, Arizona [Correspondence #13, Comment #1]

132 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Many property owners with proximity to this NFS land built/purchased their residences, thus 

contributing to the local Showlow economy and growth, specifically because of the chance to 

border NFS property .... my wife and I included. We left the Pinetop area to get our NFS 

bordering lot, at VERY significant cost, to "back up" to the wildlife habitat, the serenity, and the 

opportunity to take immediate advantage of hiking and the plethora of wonders of the NFS land. 

We chose Cedar Ridge, approximately 5 years ago, for multiple reasons, but in large part tied to 

the NFS land on the west side of the subdivision, where that wildlife habitat is so present/obvious, 

and even in considering that specific land's seemingly unlikely/inconvenient location for future 

development.

—Karen & Gene Berg, Queen Creek, Arizona [Correspondence #15, Comment #3]

I am also concerned about the possible severe negative impact to property values in Show 

Low/Navajo County adjoining the current land [Federal Show Low South Parcel]. Local 

residents property values benefit from this undeveloped land.

—Steve Adams, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #18, Comment #2]

I strongly feel that exchanging this land [Federal Show Low South Parcel] behind me for another 

development would further affect the value of my home. With the downturn of homes being built in 

Show Low and the economy showing absolutely no sign of improvement, I am sincerely asking 

you to NOT make this land swap. We don't need another undeveloped subdivision at our back 

door. Thank you for considering my comments.

—Zola M. Hamm, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #21, Comment #4]

Forest Service Response:

The Forest Service reviewed the history of land adjustments within the incorporated limits of the 

City of Show Low and incorporate these findings into the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(see pages 51-52). Refer to project record item dated 3/17/13 for a map of City of Show Low

annexation history.

Since Show Low incorporated in 1953, an estimated 6,005 acres have transferred from the 

Federal estate to the city. Of that total, an estimated 5,953 acres or 99.1% were transferred by 

land exchanges. Refer to project record item dated 3/17/13 for a review of Forest Service land 

adjustments near Show Low over time.

While property values have declined across the nation due to general economic conditions, there 

is no evidence that past land exchanges have negatively impacted property values. See pages 51-

55 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for further discussion on property values.

The Forest Service notes that at the time of initial sale of lots within the Sierra Pines 

development, a disclosure was made within the purchase contracts that the adjacent National 

Forest System lands were subject to exchange into private ownership. (Refer to project record 

item dated 1/31/2005).

Though there would be reduced Forest access immediately near Show Low as the two Federal 

parcels are transferred to private ownership, overall the proposed exchange would result in 

increased Forest access as the nine non-Federal parcels come into public ownership.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 133
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Comment(s)

The fact that we could, based on past history and current platted lots, add close to 10,000 people 

to the local area without using Show Low Bluffs additional “Master Planned Lots” or 20 + years 

of additional growth, again based on past history makes me question the exchange. 

Finally, the additional long term costs to the City based on the exchange area, is also, 

unreasonable.

Thomas Cedarblade, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #5, Comment #4]

Forest Service Response: 

Costs of infrastructure in new developments are borne by the developer. Though there may be 

some costs to the City of Show Low associated with a proposed development on the exchanged 

parcel, such as administrative tasks, the broader tax base and economic influx of new residents 

would in the long term benefit the city. Refer to Final Environmental Impact Statement pages 31-

32 and project record item dated 3/18/2013 for an explanation of the City of Show Low

development process.

Purpose and Need

Comment(s)

My issue is what is to be gained by expanding the borders of the city further into the coveted 

Apache Sitgreaves National Forest. Not only do we diminish the existing quality of the area by 

either removing altogether or relocating the existing trail system but also further reducing our 

accessibility to the reason for being here, the beautiful forest.

—Thomas Cedarblade, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #5, Comment #3]

There are many vacant developments in the Show Low, Lakeside and Pinetop area, this land is 

not needed for development. In conclusion I strongly recommend that the Show Low South Land 

Exchange NOT take place.

—Lee Podhajsky, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #12, Comment #3]

The general Showlow area is already highly developed in multiple areas, but NOT "built out" 

with actual homes. One only needs to look at all the empty lots, largely empty developments or 

abandoned developments throughout to see, in the economy we currently live in, it will be many, 

many years before more development is necessary in the Showlow/Lakeside/Pinetop area. With a 

real estate professional in our household with local knowledge, the situation is easily 

documented.

—Karen & Gene Berg, Queen Creek, Arizona [Correspondence #15, Comment#2]

There are already two undeveloped subdivisions (infrastructure in but NO (zero) homes built 

within a two mile radius from my home (developers both filed bankruptcy and walked away).

—Zola M. Hamm, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #21, Comment #2]

134 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Forest Service Response:

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to meet the following Forest Service objectives:

• Acquisition of the Non-Federal lands within existing National Forest boundaries that 

contain critical habitat for federally listed species and aquatic and riparian habitats.

• The elimination of 20 miles of landline and 22 controlling corners between National 

Forest and private lands.

• Acquisition of private lands within existing National Forest boundaries that would 

contribute to the blocking up of public land ownership, reduce the likelihood of trespass 

on, or damage to NFS lands, and facilitate fire and resource management.

The proposal to exchange lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Coconino National 

Forest, and Prescott National Forest responds to the Forest Service’s need for consolidation of 

Federal land ownership patterns and the need to enhance management of the public’s natural 

resources. There is a need to acquire lands that 1) protect habitat of several threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species; 2) facilitate public access to Federal lands; 3) improve 

wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas; 4) decrease the complexity of maintaining property 

boundaries; and 5) improve the efficiency of resource management by focusing the Forest 

Service’s funding and staff on consolidated ownerships. Refer to Final Environmental Impact 

Statement pages 2-9 for additional discussion.

The Federal lands in the exchange are located in Management Areas (MAs) 1 and 2 of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves Land Management Plan. The management direction for these areas states 

lands offered by the United States are needed to meet the needs of expanding communities, would 

provide for consolidation of public lands, improved management or benefit of specific resources, 

and meet overriding public needs. The intent of including this statement in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement was to disclose that the proposed exchange meets the 

requirements of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan. By including the statement, the 

Forest Service did not identify a need for expansion of the community of Show Low.

However, the National Forest parcel south of Show Low is within a portion of National Forest 

System lands annexed by the City of Show Low on December 24, 1982. Refer to project record 

item dated December 4, 1982 for City of Show Low Ordinance #165 and project record item 

dated 3/17/13 for a map of city annexation history. It is further identified in the city of Show Low 

General Plan for future residential development.

Plants Fish and Wildlife

Comment(s)

On my hikes last summer, I came across a bear taking a nap in the sun. I had the surprise of my 

life in the fall when an elk bugled not more than 100 yards from me. I can't help but wonder what 

will happen to the creatures that a housing development displaces.

—Lee Podhajsky, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #12, Comment #2]

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 135
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Forest Service Response:

Adverse impacts to plants, fish and wildlife would be mitigated. See Chapter 3 of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement on pages 57-76.

Comment(s)

When reading the (DEIS) Draft Environmental Impact Statement there was an extensive study of 

threatened and endangered species of birds and mammals on the "island" private properties the 

USFS is trying to acquire but nothing about the Black Bear, Elk and Deer that live on this 948 

acre parcel. Granted these animals are not endangered but they live there and would be affected 

by development. 

We lost 550,000 acres last year in the Wallow fire. This was some of the most beautiful area in 

Arizona and loosing 948 acres to unnecessary development is just as bad as the devastation that 

fire caused by 2 young men that were careless!

—Kim & Ron Schmidt, Goodyear, Arizona [Correspondence #13, Comment #4]

Forest Service Response:

Understanding that a significant amount of habitat for large mammals was modified in response 

to the 2011 Wallow Fire, Forest-wide population trends are listed as stable for large ‘game’ 

animals, including black bear, elk, and mule deer (refer to June 2012 Arizona Game and Fish 

Department Assessment of Management Indicator Species, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

from 2005 to 2011 [project record 127]). It is anticipated that the proposed action would not affect 

local populations of these animals. Abundant similar ponderosa pine habitat surrounds the 

proposed Show Low South parcel and is very common along the entire Mogollon Rim and in the 

White Mountains. Refer to Final Environmental Impact Statement pages 57-76 for additional 

discussion.

Refer to Chapter 1, The Wallow Fire, on page 1 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

a summary of the fire and impacts on two of the nine Non-Federal parcels (Sierra Blanca and 

Sprucedale) and one Federal parcel (Sierra Blanca Adjustment Parcel). There are no major longterm adverse impacts to any of the parcels in question.

Comment(s)

My wife and I own one of those properties in Cedar Ridge and wish to express our strong 

opposition to that exchange for the following key reasons. #1. Elk, fox, deer, bear and multiple 

bird species (to name just a few) readily inhabit that NFS area, which would be inevitably altered 

and animals displaced with private ownership/likely development. Is that not one of the key 

reasons we have NFS property ... to protect their habitat & ensure their proliferation?

—Karen & Gene Berg, Queen Creek, Arizona [Correspondence #15, Comment #1]

Forest Service Response:

Adverse impacts to plants, fish and wildlife will be mitigated. See pages 57-76 of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. As discussed throughout the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, the proposed land-for-land exchange would result in Federal acquisition of 1,558 acres 

136 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

of land and conveyance of 1,028 acres of land, a net gain of 530 acres. The Non-federal lands 

included in this exchange proposal contain special features and habitats such as critical species 

habitat and perennial waters that greatly exceed the wildlife and habitat value of the Federal lands 

proposed for exchange

Comment(s)

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) appreciates the opportunity to provide 

input on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Show Low South Land Exchange 

(DEIS) dated October, 2012. The DEIS disclosed the effects of a proposal to exchange 1,028 

acres of National Forest System (federal) lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (A-S) 

and Coconino National Forest (CNF) in exchange for 1,558 acres of lands currently held in 

private ownership within the A-S, CNF, and Prescott National Forest. 

The Department previously provided comment to the A-S, expressing support for the land 

exchange in a scoping report response letter dated May 27, 2009. At that time, parcel specific 

comments were provided. We request that those comments be included here by reference. 

The Department's support for the proposed land exchange was based on the assessment of the 

relative wildlife and wildlife recreational values of the federal lands identified for exchange 

versus the values of privately held parcels. Although the Department recognizes that the selected 

federal parcels currently provide wildlife habitat values for a variety of species, as well as 

recreational hunting opportunities, we believe that the offered private parcels provide much 

higher wildlife habitat values for an even wider variety of wildlife species, including several 

special status species, and that their wildlife recreational opportunities meet or exceed those of 

the selected federal parcels. In addition, the offered private parcels contain important perennial 

stream/river habitats with very high riparian and native species values. 

In summary, the Department supports the proposed Show Low South Land Exchange based on the 

overall benefit to wildlife resources and wildlife recreational opportunities associated with the 

exchange. We appreciate the opportunity to review the DEIS and provide comments on the 

proposal relative to wildlife resource values.

—David Dorum, Arizona Game and Fish Department [Correspondence #19]

Forest Service Response:

The Non-federal lands included in this exchange proposal contain special features and habitats 

such as critical species habitat and perennial waters that greatly exceed the wildlife and habitat 

value of the Federal lands proposed for exchange. Refer to Final Environmental Impact Statement 

pages 2-8 for additional discussion.

Comment(s)

The Nation agrees with the DEIS that the conveyance of the 157 acre Soda Springs Ranch Parcel 

would assist in preventing development of this parcel that would otherwise threaten proposed and 

designated critical habitat, candidate and endangered species. In our traditional beliefs the water 

belongs to the animals as well. The Nation also believes that the proposed action could help to 

protect certain other plants holding medicinal and cultural value to the Yavapai-Apache Nation. 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 137
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

On the other hand, the Nation is concerned regarding development in the Rimrock/McGuireville 

area in general, as such development risks further damage to the ecosystem and habitat which 

produces important plants for medicinal and cultural use by the Nation’s tribal members.

—David Kwali, Yavapai-Apache Nation [Correspondence #20, Comment #2]

Forest Service Response:

The Forest Service has no influence on development patterns in the Rimrock/McGuireville area. 

The 157-acre Soda Springs parcel in this area included as part of the exchange would remain 

undeveloped. The 8-acre federal Soda Springs parcel that would pass into private ownership 

could potentially be developed but overall potential development would be lessened considerably 

if the land exchange were to be implemented. Refer to Final Environmental Impact Statement 

pages 32-45 for additional discussion.

Comment(s)

The Department of the Interior has received and reviewed the subject document and has the 

following comments to offer.

We support the Forest Service’s Proposed Action. We agree that the foreseeable use, should the no 

action alternative be maintained, would result in the development of the area. This development 

would have detrimental impacts to proposed and designated critical habitat as well as 

endangered and candidate species.

—Patricia Sanderson Port, DOI [Correspondence #23, Comment #1

Forest Service Response:

The Non-federal lands included in this exchange proposal contain special features and habitats 

such as critical species habitat and perennial waters that greatly exceed the wildlife and habitat 

value of the Federal lands proposed for exchange. Refer to Final Environmental Impact Statement 

pages 2-8 for additional discussion

Comment(s)

We recommend that the Forest Service provide additional information in the FEIS on the 

potential impacts, including potential effects on sensitive species, wetlands, and traffic, 

associated with development of the proposed wastewater treatment facility and residential 

development.

—Kathleen Martyn Goforth, EPA [Correspondence #25, Comment #3]

Forest Service Response: 

The shape of the 70-acre parcel, approximately one-half mile long south to north, would provide 

the odor buffer as required by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality/Environmental 

Protection Agency standards. The new waste water treatment facility would be built near the 

north end of the parcel furthest from private land. The remainder of the parcel would remain 

138 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

undeveloped except for a road accessing the treatment facility. Refer to project record item dated 

9/13/2010 for background of the 70-acre parcel.

Show Low Creek would be maintained as open space through a deed restriction imposed on the 

property by the city of Show Low. This post-exchange restriction would thereby maintain any and 

all habitat for Forest Service sensitive species even under Non-Federal ownership. Refer to pages 

56-75 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

There are currently no detailed plans to develop the Show Low South parcel that could further 

inform the transportation impact analysis. Additional studies assessing impacts to traffic would be 

part of the city of Show Low planning and development process as described on pages 31-32 

(also refer to project record item dated 3/18/13). A traffic statement from a registered engineer 

addressing impact of new development on existing roads is required during the preliminary plat

process. As with other projects, these planning - zoning and sub-division design and approval 

processes would be open to the public and concerned citizens could offer input at that time 

regarding traffic or any other concern.

Wetlands and Grazing

Comment(s)

This letter constitutes the brief comments of the Western Lands Project on the proposed Show 

Low South land exchange environmental assessment. 

Western Lands Project is a non-profit, membership organization conducting research, outreach, 

and advocacy for responsible federal land exchange policy. We also scrutinize a broad range of 

projects that propose to sell, give away, or relinquish public control of public lands.

We commend the Forest Service for doing a thorough job of analyzing and disclosing the 

foreseeable developments that could occur on the non-federal lands were they to remain in 

private hands. Over the last 15 years, our organization uniformly asked the Forest Service 

(nationwide) to include that information so that the public could better understand whether lands 

to be acquired were truly likely to be developed or exploited, and understand whether acquisition 

really was critical. There have been cases where the private proponent simply bought up scattered 

inholdings that had no development potential and used them as trade stock.

Finally, in recent years, this is becoming a central part of the land exchange analysis. We 

appreciate this change.

Based on the surrounding ownership patterns, environmental characteristics, and other attributes 

of the federal and non-federal land, this exchange does not appear to be counter to the public 

interest. 

However, there is one issue that concerns us. Given that several of the parcels that would be 

brought into federal ownership contain wetlands, the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

should specify on which if any of the parcels livestock grazing would be permitted, and include a 

proposal for fencing or other means of protecting these areas from damage. We suggest that 

livestock grazing should be eliminated altogether on the parcels. The draft EIS states that these 

issues will be dealt with in the future through the permitting process for the grazing allotments, 

however, we strongly urge you to bring this issue into the land exchange action. To ensure that the 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 139
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

trade benefits the public by bringing these sensitive areas into public ownership, there should be 

an upfront plan to protect them. We look forward to seeing this in the final document.

—Janine Blaeloch, Western Lands Project [Correspondence #24]

Forest Service Response:

The private inholdings that are to be transferred into Federal ownership and are within an existing 

grazing allotment are typically, but not automatically, incorporated into the allotment. Additional 

analysis would be required, per Forest Service Manual 1950: Environmental Policy and 

Procedures, as to whether the inholdings would become part of the adjacent allotment. This 

analysis would address resource management goals for the newly acquired lands, and would 

consider grazing, no grazing, exclosures surrounding riparian habitat, and other management 

actions. Refer to Final Environmental Impact Statement pages 77-78 for additional discussion.

Water Quality, Rights, and Claims

Comment(s)

Further, development of the Rimrock/McGuireville area threatens the flows of Beaver Creek and 

the water levels of Montezuma Well where new wells are installed to support develo9pment. 

Montezuma Well is a religious place of profound significance for members of the Yavapai-Apache 

Nation and its health and vitality is extremely important to our Nation. Therefore, to the extent the 

Soda Springs Ranch Adjustment Parcel is added to other fee-owned lands of the Soda Springs 

Ranch to support larger scale development that would impact these resources, the Nation would 

be opposed to such action. 

—David Kwali, Yavapai-Apache Nation [Correspondence #20, Comment #3]

Forest Service Response

The Soda Springs parcels (157 acres of Non-Federal and eight acres of Federal lands) were 

assembled as part of a package. The acquisition of the 157 acres required the transfer of eight 

acres. Without the eight acres, the acquisition of the 157 acres would not be possible. 

Development on the acquired 157 acres would be precluded under Forest Service management, 

though development could occur on the exchanged 8-acre adjustment parcel. Overall under the 

proposed exchange, most of the acreage of the Soda Springs Ranch would not be available for 

development as compared to the existing condition where the entire parcel is available for 

development. Though there may be impacts to the monument’s viewshed and soundscape if 

development were to occur, currently this is speculation, and compared to potential development 

on another 157 acres effects would be considerably less if the proposed exchange were to be 

implemented. Refer to Final Environmental Impact Statement pages 85-88 for additional 

discussion.

Visual Quality and Soundscapes

Comment(s)

Furthermore, development of this area would have adverse effect on the surrounding viewshed 

and soundscape at Montezuma Well.

140 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

—Patricia Sanderson Port, Department of Interior [Correspondence #23, Comment #2]

Development of the 8 acre Soda Springs Ranch Adjustment Parcel is of concern. Additional 

residential development throughout the privately held Soda Springs parcel would potentially 

impact the Monument’s viewshed and natural soundscape.

—Patricia Sanderson Port, Department of Interior [Correspondence #23, Comment #4]

Forest Service Response:

The Soda Springs parcels (157 acres of Non-Federal and eight acres of Federal lands) were 

assembled as part of a package. The acquisition of the 157 acres required the transfer of eight 

acres. Without the eight acres, the acquisition of the 157 acres would not be possible. 

Development on the acquired 157 acres would be precluded under Forest Service management, 

though development could occur on the exchanged 8-acre adjustment parcel. Overall under the 

proposed exchange, most of the acreage of the Soda Springs Ranch would not be available for 

development as compared to the existing condition where the entire parcel is available for 

development. Though there may be impacts to the monument’s viewshed and soundscape if 

development were to occur, currently this is speculation, and compared to potential development 

on another 157 acres effects would be considerably less if the proposed exchange were to be 

implemented.

Roads

Comment(s)

ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC IMPACT IS LACKING - Issue 2 (EIS p. 15) raises the concern that the 

"land exchange would reroute additional traffic through Sierra Pines neighborhood." 

The response states that “the Sierra Pines neighborhood would experience increased traffic ..., 

however since the direction of the resulting traffic is not known, it is not possible to predict the 

precise impact." The response adds that "multiple entrances ... would be constructed" and 

provides a unit of measure as the "number of entrances (4) into the Show Low South Parcel, as 

guided by City of Show Low building codes and regulations." 

The response dismisses any actual analysis of traffic impacts "since the direction of the resulting 

traffic is not known." It would indeed be unusual for residents to enter the development and never 

leave it. Would not traffic be increased in both directions on any existing roads servicing the 

proposed development? An actual analysis should be performed to address the public concern 

raised by increased traffic, and a quantified estimate of change in traffic density on existing roads 

should be provided. 

Additionally, the EIS (p. 85) appears to provide contradictory information: "Residents living 

within the Show Low South Parcel would access their residences through a minimum of two 

proposed entrances." What will the number of entrances into the proposed development be? The 

map of the Show Low South Parcel (EIS p. 34) should be revised to show the existing 

developments bordering the parcel and the roads into the parcel. Lacking that information, it is 

very difficult to address the issue of increased traffic. Also, the neighborhoods other than Sierra 

Pines that are affected should be identified.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 141
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #8]

Forest Service Response:

The current proposed designs for development of the exchanged parcel are very preliminary and 

general, including only potential low density residential and mixed use zones and possible new 

entrances and roads. As plans for the parcel develop in the future, and if they include a 

subdivision or subdivisions, the city of Show Low planning and zoning department would work 

with the proponent in developing appropriate plans (see pages 31-32 of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and project record item dated 3/18/13). A traffic statement from a registered 

engineer addressing impact of new development on existing roads is required during the 

preliminary plat process. As with other projects, these planning - zoning and sub-division design 

and approval processes would be open to the public and concerned citizens could offer input at 

that time regarding traffic or any other concern

Comment(s)

Issue 2: Future Development of Lands Including Density and Type of Development. The response 

is insufficient in proposing multiple entrances into the development for the benefit of the Sierra 

Pines neighborhood. Other communities /neighborhoods like Cedar Ridge, The Pines, etc., will 

be impacted as well.

—Tony Potucek, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #22, Comment #9]

Forest Service Response:

See Figure 4 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and discussion on pages 36-37, which 

presents reasonable and foreseeable use of the federal Show Low South parcel including early 

conceptual planned development.

Alternatives

Comment(s)

Comments on the DEIS Alternatives: The draft EIS is flawed in that all alternatives have not been 

considered and there is considerable speculation within it. Of substantial importance is the fact 

that nowhere in the draft EIS is a discussion or alternative made for the loss of a portion of the 

Mogollon Rim, a historic and well known feature separating the Colorado Plateau and the Basin 

and Range province in the south. The Mogollon Rim region is an impressive geologic, geographic 

and climatic divide reaching elevations of 2380 meters (7800 feet)(R. Scarborough, 1989, 

Cenozoic Erosion and Sedimentation in Arizona, in Geologic Evolution of Arizona, J.P. Jenney 

and S.J. Reynolds, eds., p 515). The northwest trend of the Rim is most likely a function of erosion 

produced by both the northwestward regional strike of the Paleozoic-age strata and the northsouth and northwest orientations of faults south of the rim (ibid. p. 522). Well known and popular 

grand vistas with over 1500 feet of vertical relief dominate the geography along US highways 

260, eventually reducing to a ridge several hundred feet in height going eastward. Near Pinetop, 

the eastern scarp of the Rim is buried by later geological recent volcanic flows which form the 

White Mountains. Any encroachment, loss and proposed development on the Mogollon Rim must 

be addressed and the lack of any discussion or alternative whatsoever by the USFS, who is 

charged with taking care of the American public lands and beauty, is very disturbing. While not 

142 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

as impressive as natural wonders like the Grand Canyon, it is very well known and popular as a 

destination for the public and recreating on and around it is invaluable to local businesses 

located along the landmark. Nowhere on the Mogollon Rim are there any developments or homes 

except in the Pinetop area, where it is flattened by geologic forces. Any further development 

westward along the Mogollon Rim must be stopped and not allowed, period.

—Tony Potucek, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #22, Comment #12]

Forest Service Response

The proposal does not involve any part of the Mogollon Rim. The high forested plateau through 

the Show Low area is a gradual ridge that merely differentiates the drainage north into the Little 

Colorado River watershed and the drainage south into the Salt River watershed. The area lacks 

the vertical relief and grand vistas common to the Mogollon Rim in the Payson and Sedona areas 

to the west. The ridge varies from one-half mile to one mile south of the south boundary of the 

Federal parcel to be traded. Refer to the Show Low South parcel in appendix A and Figure 4, page 

36, of the Final Environmental Impact Statement to view the topography of the area

Comment(s)

Similarly, what in the administrative record substantiates the options described in the draft EIS? 

Specifically, it now seems preposterous to project that clusters of semi-custom homes will be 

developed on outlying strips of railroad right-of-way when a whole development site of improved 

treed lots sits vacant across the street from Sierra Pines. The proposed highest and best uses of 

the private land to be exchanged for Forest Service land seems completely unrealistic, given 

current and foreseeable market conditions.

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #17, Comment #2]

Forest Service Response

The Railroad parcels identified in this proposal consist of three separate parcels on the Sitgreaves 

National Forest east of Pinedale, Arizona. Refer to appendix A of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the detailed location. While it seems “preposterous” or “completely unrealistic” that 

homes would be developed on strips of railroad right-of-way, four owners of another railroad 

strip are planning to do just that. The strip is south of the southernmost parcel as shown in on the 

Railroads parcel map in appendix A and is between Forest Road 143 and the Brown (Hopper) 

Ranch. The owners were unwilling to sell the land to the exchange proponents because of their 

desire to develop it. Refer to Final Environmental Impact Statement pages 31-45 for additional 

discussion. Also refer to project record item dated 10/29/2007, specifically the 10/4/2006 daily 

notes.

Comment(s)

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCELS IS INADEQUATE - Table 5 (EIS p. 19) and subsequent 

paragraphs give general descriptions, but not the legal descriptions that the Table's title calls for. 

The legal descriptions should include the Book, Map and Parcel Number for the Non-Federal 

lands. That would allow fuller public review of the proposal by enabling cross-checking of public 

records such as the Apache County records for the subject parcels.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 143
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #2]

Forest Service Response

Figure 1 on page 3 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement is a general location map of the 

Non-Federal and Federal parcels to be exchanged on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 

Figure 2 on page 4 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement is a general location map of the 

Non-Federal and Federal parcels to be exchanged on the Coconino and Prescott National Forests. 

Table 5 on page 21 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement presents the legal descriptions of 

Non-Federal lands to be conveyed to federal ownership. Appendix A of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement has detailed maps and photographs of Non-Federal and Federal parcels 

involved in the exchange. Figure 1, Figure 2, Table 5, and appendix A provide adequate details of 

the parcel locations.

Comment(s)

Accordingly, the valuation of these properties is likely to be highly overestimated, along with the 

environmental impacts of the no action alternative. The EIS should add another alternative for 

analysis, that the Non-Federal parcels remain privately held, but with little or no development 

than their current state. This alternative is much more likely given current economic conditions. A 

valuation of the properties should also be done for this alternative and the environmental impacts 

should be re-assessed as well. The two no-action alternatives would be extensive new 

development (as currently drafted) and as-is usage. These two alternatives would bound the 

valuations and environmental impacts. A weighted analysis between the two alternatives, 

conducted on a parcel-by parcel basis and taking into account local economic conditions and 

outlooks could then be performed.

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #10, Comment #2]

Under the listed No Action Alternative, the probability of non-Federal parcels is grossly proposed 

and exaggerated, considering the dismal state of the current 2012 real estate and property 

development situation. Most informed estimates predict that the economy is years away from a 

viable recovery of property values and further development of remote parcels, let alone 

community growth and development. This Alternative is flawed. Additionally, an alternative that 

the privately owned parcels remain as such is required.

—Tony Potucek, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #22, Comments # 14

Forest Service Response

The Forest Service has already considered the alternative described, the no-action alternative, in 

which the non-Federal parcels would remain in private ownership. Given current economic 

conditions these parcels would likely remain undeveloped for several years. However, this 

alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need for the project and if the non-Federal parcels 

were to remain in private ownership the only way to preclude development would be to purchase 

conservation easements on these properties, an expensive proposition and with fewer benefits to 

the public than the proposed exchange.

A description of the valuation process was added to the Final Environmental Impact Statement on 

pages 19-20. Early in the land exchange process, values of lands to be acquired and lands to be 

144 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

traded must be within 25%. However, the values must be equal when the exchange agreement is 

approved. The appraisal to determine final valuation must be reviewed by a FS Review Appraiser. 

It must be approved by the approving official at the same time as the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Record of Decision is approved. The appraised values are valid for 1 year or less. The 

values can be made equal by using the following measures: cash equalization, dropping land to be 

traded, dropping land to be acquired, or a combination of the above.

Comment(s)

PARCELS BEING EXCHANGED NOT OF EQUAL VALUE - After reviewing the Draft EIS for 

the Show Low South land exchange, I question whether the parcels being exchanged are of equal 

or near equal value. The maximum cash adjustment on an exchange is 25%, as I understand it. 

The formal offer for the exchange dates to January 25, 2008 after being initially proposed 

January 2004. The EIS states that "the proposed land exchange consists of 1,028 acres of Federal 

lands ... in exchange for 1,558 acres of Non-Federal lands..." (EIS p. 1) From the dates of the 

proposal to the current time, home and land values have fluctuated wildly, and not equally in 

different areas. For example, "during the last year, Apache County home values have fallen by 

23.5%, while Show Low home values have fallen by 6.8%." (Zillow website 11/6/12) The 1,558 

acres of Non-Federal lands are all or mostly in Apache County, while the 1,028 acres of Federal 

lands are all or mostly in the vicinity of Show Low in Navajo County.

The validity of any appraisal of value of the subject lands done around the time of the formal 

proposal in 2008 is highly questionable. In addition, "two of the nine Non-Federal parcels and 

one Federal parcel were burned by the Wallow Fire. (EIS p. 6) The fair market value of the 

affected parcels would be affected by the Wallow fire, also invalidating any appraisal done 

previously. It is absurd to say that "with no major long-term damage or negative impacts to any 

of the parcels in question, the land exchange will continue on its current trajectory without any 

additional analysis related to the wildfire." (EIS p. 6) In fact, this statement highlights a bias in 

the EIS to minimize or whitewash obvious impacts and get on with business as usual. The review 

process for the proposal should re-visit the valuation and if the variance in value between the 

traded lands exceeds 25%, then the proposed exchange should be cancelled

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #6]

I am writing in opposition to the proposed land exchange. The National Forest Service motto is 

Caring for Land and Serving People. Having read the information on the proposed land swap it 

is my belief that no action on the Show Low South Land Exchange Project is the course which 

will address both parts of that motto.

There are many issues related to the proposed exchange that are troubling. These include the 

legal definition, the inequality of land values between the parcels to be exchanged, the issue of 

over-development, and self-interest by the party wishing to exchange the land

—Dea Podhajsky, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #16, Comment #1]

Based on our conversation, there is currently an appraisal in process which will be done in about 

a month, after which you will respond to my FOIA request. After thinking about that for a bit, 

some additional thoughts and questions come to mine. 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 145
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

As I mentioned on the phone, I spoke to someone in the Albuquerque office in 2009 (as I recall) 

who was doing an appraisal. What happened to that appraisal? Was it ever finished? If not, how 

did the draft EIS come up with the acreages being considered for the Show Low South land 

exchange? 

What in the administrative record documents the developer's willingness to consider a 150 yard 

buffer zone with existing neighborhoods? By the way, a willingness to "consider" a buffer zone 

seems too weak an approach; a deed restriction would protect the public interest much better. 

Otherwise, the developer could later put in a next "phase" of construction and say, "oh well, I 

considered a buffer zone."

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #17, Comment #1]

After reviewing the Draft EIS I feel it would be important to review, under the current economic 

conditions, the exchange value of the parcels relative to being of equal or near equal value. The 

initial proposal from 2008, initially proposed in Jan. 2004 does not reflect current time, home and 

land values and the exchange properties are from different areas.

—Steve Adams, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #18, Comment #1]

From reading the draft EIS, land values have fluctuated significantly in different areas you are 

considering in the land exchange. The value on homes in Apache County as fallen by 23.5% while 

Show Low homes have fallen by 6.8%. On your EIS most of the Non-Federal land is in Apache 

County and most of the Federal land is in Navajo County near Show Low. I believe your 

appraisal of value does NOT reflect these changes and this subject should be reviewed prior to 

issuing a decision on this project.

—Zola M. Hamm, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #21, Comment #3]

Net gain of acreage to the USFS is a moot point because the value of Federal lands containing 

Rim acreage most likely exceeds the value of non-Federal lands. Land value appraisals are 

obsolete and out of date (2008)—no recent (post-recession appraisals have been conducted by 

independent appraisers. As an example, Sierra Pine homeowners lost 40% of their land and home 

value and developments all around Show Low remain undeveloped, showing signs of blight and 

lack of care....

Fire damage has been downplayed in the draft EIS. The fact remains it IS a big deal and should 

not be dismissed as inconsequential and viewed as a positive by providing valuable nutrient 

cycling as it relates to soil amenities, etc. Two non-Federal parcels are in fact damaged by fire 

and are included in the trade (Sierra Blanca Ranch and Sprucedale) and these parcels need a 

new and current appraisal....

Working in communication with other respondents to this DEIS, it is noted that the Administrative 

Record is not readily available for review, nor are there any recent valuations of the proposed 

exchange properties. Complete review of the DEIS is incomplete without having the capability to 

obtain such information and threatens the very validity of the DEIS as a complete document.

—Tony Potucek, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #22, Comments #3, #7, #15]

146 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Forest Service Response

The law requires that land values be equal or nearly equal on both sides of the exchange, as 

determined by an agency-approved appraisal. Cash equalization is permissible within set limits if 

values are slightly unequal. Appraisals are not part of the environmental analysis for a project. 

The purpose of an appraisal is to estimate the market value of the defined estate for the defined 

properties as of the date of value. Final values for this proposed exchange, if completed, will be 

disclosed in the Record of Decision.

The Forest Service has established its appraisal organization separate from the Line and other 

staff organizations within the agency. The purpose of this segregation is to assure that appraisals 

result in unbiased opinions of value. This minimizes any influence that Line or other staff officers 

could otherwise have in determining appraised values. More importantly, it alleviates any 

appearance of influence by those people who are directly involved with negotiating, processing, 

or approving transactions.

An agency staff appraiser or a private contract appraiser may prepare appraisals used in Federal 

transactions. Private contract appraisers may work under contract from the agency or the 

nonfederal party. In all cases, the appraiser(s) must demonstrate through education and work 

experience that they are qualified for the assignment. Appraisers’ experience and expertise are 

matched with the assignment. Appraisers preparing reports for Forest Service land exchanges 

must be State Certified General appraisers, hold a current professional designation from a sponsor 

organization of the Appraisal Foundation (which requires education, experience, examination, 

and code of ethics), and have successful experience with providing approved narrative appraisal 

reports for Federal or State land management agencies within the past three years. The FS Review 

Appraiser assigned to the case (that must be knowledgeable in the subject market area) then 

reviews the reports. An appraiser not meeting the minimum qualifications would not be 

considered for the assignment. This process helps assure that a professional job is completed 

pursuant to Federal and State rules and regulations for all properties, irrespective of their 

ownership.

Federal regulations require that appraisals used in land exchanges be reviewed by qualified 

review appraisers. The Forest Service has delegated authority to approve appraisal reports to 

qualified review appraisers.

The appraisal process for land exchanges is done in the following sequence: First, a Forest 

Service field office (working on behalf of the authorized officer) and the non-Federal party agree 

to the estate to be conveyed. This, along with other items such as assignment of costs, is agreed to 

formally in an Agreement to Initiate. The field office prepares a “Request for Appraisal Services” 

that identifies the purpose of the appraisal, legal description of the property to be appraised, the 

estate to be appraised, current information concerning title to the property, and any other pertinent 

information concerning the property. Based upon that request, a review appraiser is assigned to 

the project. The review appraiser prepares written appraisal instructions for the properties 

involved. Those written instructions include requirements that the appraisal report be prepared as 

a complete, self-contained appraisal report and in conformance with Uniform appraisal Standards 

for Federal Land Acquisitions, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal) Practices, and 

within the specifications of the project. A pre-work meeting is then held with the review 

appraiser, appraiser, and representatives from both the Forest Service and the non-Federal party to 

the proposed land exchange to discuss the written instructions and clarify any questions that may 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 147
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

arise. The appraiser then prepares the report, which is reviewed and approved by the qualified 

review appraiser.

The Valuation Process was added to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Refer to pages 

19-20. Early in the land exchange process, values of land to be acquired and land to be 

exchanged must be within 25%. However, the values must be equal when the exchange 

agreement is approved. The appraisal to determine valuation must be reviewed by Forest Service 

Review Appraiser. It must be approved by the approving official at the time the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision is approved. The appraised values are valid 

for 1 year or less. The values can be made equal by the following measures: cash equalization, 

dropping land to be traded, dropping land to be acquired, or a combination of the above.

The comment that “Non-Federal lands are all or mostly in Apache County” is in error. The 

following acreages and percentage of Non-Federal lands by County in the exchange follows: 

Apache County (Sierra Blanca parcel), 156 acres, 10%; Coconino County (Leonard Canyon 

parcel), 640 acres, 41%; Greenlee County (Alder Peak, Juan Miller, & Sprucedale parcels), 350 

acres, 22%; Navajo County (Sponseller Ranch & Railroad parcels), 140 acres, 9%; and Yavapai 

County (Soda Springs & Cherry parcels), 274 acres, 18%.

Comment(s)

BUFFER ZONE DEFINITION AND COMMITMENT - In response to issues raised by the public, 

the land exchange "proponent is considering a 400-foot buffer between the existing 

neighborhoods (e.g. Sierra Pines) and the planned development to help minimize impacts to the 

mountain forest character of the area." (EIS p. 16) The relevant maps in the EIS should be 

updated to show the buffer zone and it should be made a condition for approval of the proposed 

exchange. It should also include the neighborhoods along the Eastern border of the Show Low 

South parcel: Pine Oaks, Cedar Ridge, The Pines, and Timberland, among others. Also, the buffer 

zone along the Eastern border of the parcel should connect to an additional Sierra Pines buffer 

on the Northern parcel margin and include direct access to the trailhead of re-located Buena 

Vista Trail.

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #4, Comment #1]

The EIS (p.18) dismisses in depth consideration of a deed restriction saying it "was considered 

but eliminated from further study because no environmental concerns exist that require the 

reservation of rights by the United States." 

Elsewhere, the EIS (p. 16) discusses "a 400-foot buffer between the existing neighborhoods... and 

the planned development to help minimize impacts to the mountain forest character of the area." 

Is that not an environmental concern to the public that could be safeguarded by a deed 

restriction? How else does the Forest Service propose to make sure that this mitigation measure 

described in the EIS is implemented? 

Additionally, the smoke and mirrors discussion about local zoning and regulating private 

property use (EIS p. 19) misses the point that NEPA requires a full consideration of the project 

alternatives. Please see the following extract from a previous land exchange appeal affirming that 

applies, in particular, to deed restrictions:

File Code: 1570-1(L) Date: March 27, 2002

148 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Route To:

Subject: Appeal Reviewing Officer Recommendations, Appeal No. 02-13-00-0001

To: Appeal Deciding Officer, Gloria Manning

Deed Restriction/Protective Covenant. In particular, I find the Forest Service failed to consider 

sufficiently a deed restriction/protective covenant alternative in the EA of the proposed 

action. While the EA did consider this type of alternative, it indicates that no restrictive covenant 

or easement is warranted to comply with legal requirements or meet Forest Plan objectives. EA, 

at II-5. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, in Muckleshoot Indian 

Tribe v. United States Forest Service, 177 F. 3rd 800 (9th Circuit, 1999), a case involving another 

land exchange, held that a deed restriction is more consistent with the Forest Service’s basic 

policy objectives and must be fully analyzed. While I find that the facts in the Muckleshoot case 

differ substantially from those in this exchange and is not determinative of this appeal, the Forest 

Service does need to consider the deed restriction/protective covenant alternative more than it did 

with regard to the asserted needs behind the exchange.

The draft EIS should be re-done with full consideration for deed restrictions as an alternative.

—Dave Gallinger, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #9, Comment #1]

FAILURE TO INCLUDE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The DEIS (p. 18) eliminated a deed restriction from consideration there were no environmental 

concerns. However, on page 16, the DEIS discusses buffer zones. This is contradictory and a flaw 

is considered alternatives. Deed restrictions must be considered as an Alternative.

—Tony Potucek [Correspondence #22, Comment #13]

Forest Service Response

The Forest Service would not require a deed restriction be placed on the parcel or for the 

proponent to create a “buffer zone” as part of the land exchange agreement, as these may lower 

the value of the Federal parcel to be exchanged resulting in a less favorable exchange for the 

agency. There are no environmental concerns to warrant this and the long-term enforcement of a 

“buffer zone” is problematic once the parcel is exchanged into private ownership. In addition, the 

possible set aside of a buffer zone is under Navajo County and City of Show Low control; it is 

not a federal issue (see pages 20-21 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement). As plans for 

the parcel develop in the future, and if they include a subdivision or subdivisions, county and city 

planning and zoning departments would work with the proponent in developing appropriate 

plans, which may or may not include a buffer zone. As with other projects, this planning and 

zoning process would be open to the public and concerned citizens could offer input at that time

Comment(s)

If the need to acquire other small parcels in other areas of National forest has to be done could 

you please look into trading another area?

—Kim & Ron Schmidt [Correspondence #13, Comment #2]

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 149
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

I'm writing this with hope that there is other property in Arizona that could affect less people that 

this S L Land Exchange LLC, aka: Bill Jordan, Dan Reeb and Mark Reeb could exchange and 

develop. Given the status of available already subdivided parcels of property in the ShowLow 

area that remain unbuilt on and have been since 2008, I see no need to turn this piece of ASNF 

into another development that could sit for 10 to 20 years!

—Kim & Ron Schmidt [Correspondence #13, Comment #5]

While we understand nothing is guaranteed with NFS land these, days, we clearly would hope 

that the consideration of the "Showlow South Land Exchange" does NOT move forward ... and 

rather the highest priorities of preserving NFS lands are valued way beyond that of private entity 

financial gain and unnecessary development ... for development's sake. 

We have to believe that the "private entity" seeking this exchange would far better serve the 

general public, the community, the state of Arizona, and even National interests by purchasing 

one of the multiple bankrupt or largely incomplete developments so obvious in Show Low (and/or 

surrounding communities) rather than be allowed ownership of this thriving, forested area to 

start more. Or certainly, with the numerous acres of "in proximity" NFS land already devastated 

with the loss of trees/wildlife to the Rodeo-Chedeski fire in recent years ... would that not be a 

better trade of largely bare/already wildlife effected national land than this prospering, natural 

area. We certainly hope and want to trust that a National agency like the NFS has the resources 

and interests in mind to negotiate swaps/exchanges that are "win-win", which this clearly is not 

on many fronts. 

We appreciate your thorough consideration of this vital matter & look forward to resolution of the 

proposed exchange in favor of RETAINING this NFS parcel as National Forest Service property.

—Karen & Gene Berg [Correspondence #15, Comment #4]

Forest Service Response

Extensive study and input by the public has guided development of alternatives for this land 

exchange. Please see page 20 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a discussion of 

alternatives considered but dismissed from further analysis. Comment noted. As discussed 

throughout the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the proposed land-for-land exchange 

would result in Federal acquisition of 1558 acres of land and conveyance of 1028 acres of land, a 

net gain of 530 acres. The non-federal lands included in this exchange proposal contain special 

features and habitats such as critical species habitat and perennial waters that greatly exceed the 

wildlife and habitat value of the Federal lands proposed for exchange.

Administrative Impacts

Comment(s)

In-holdings may increase administrative costs and increase encroachments on NFS lands, but the 

offered parcels are only a few of the many such existing in-holding parcels which will remain in 

private hands. These administrative costs will likely not be reduced by any significant amount and 

encroachment potential will not be eliminated. ——Cherry Parcels - 117 acres: Over 20 private 

parcels (Patented, privately owned mining claims?) remain in the shown map area and 

150 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

acquisition of the 5 parcels will not significantly reduce administrative costs or encroachment 

potential.

——Leonard Canyon Parcel-640 acres: While one square mile is proposed in the exchange, 

another square mile sits contiguous to the Parcel which will remain in private hands. Acquisition 

of the parcel will not significantly reduce administrative costs or encroachment potential. 

——Railroad parcels-22 acres: there are hundreds of acres remaining in private hands and 

acquisition of what appears to be an old railroad bed will not reduce administrative costs or 

encroachment potential.

——Sierra Blanca Ranch parcel-156 acres: within the mapped area in the draft EIS, 13 prime 

acres on the side of a mountain and adjacent to Lake Sierra Blanca, which will still allow for 

encroachment and continued administrative costs. In addition, this parcel is partially burned 

resulting in less value and a new appraisal is required to evaluate current value. The draft EIS 

points out the potential for wetlands and floodplains and admittedly are currently dry. Changing 

climatic conditions renders this desired potential to be a slim to none possibility of occurring; 

consequently added value for this should not be considered. 

——Sprucedale parcel-70 acres: this parcel is partially bounded by private land of much greater 

size and acquisition of the parcel will not significantly reduce administrative costs or 

encroachment potential. In addition, this parcel is partially burned resulting in less value and a 

new appraisal is required to evaluate current value.

Sponseller Ranch-118 acres: this parcel is within one mile of large acreages of private land and 

acquisition of the 5 parcels will not significantly reduce administrative costs or encroachment 

potential.

—Tony Potucek, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #22, Comments # 4, #5, #6]

Forest Service Response:

While acquisition of these parcels does not eliminate all of the administrative or boundary 

maintenance issues, it would reduce those costs. Conveyance of all four associated Federal 

parcels and nine Non-federal parcels would result in an overall reduction of approximately 22 

property control-corners and 20 miles of property landline boundary located between National 

Forest System land and adjacent Non-federal lands. Refer to Final Environmental Impact 

Statement pages 8-9 for additional discussion and to project record item dated 3/19/2010, 

Feasibility Analysis

Forest Service Policy

Comment(s)

The Abstract and Executive Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Show Low 

South Land Exchange (DEIS) place heavy emphasis on receiving a net gain of land in favor of the 

US Forest Service (USFS) and their need for consolidation of Federal land ownership patterns. 

In fact, as stated in the Abstract (p. i) "The proposal to exchange lands in the national forest 

boundary responds to the Forest Services' need for consolidation of federal land ownership 

patterns" Furthermore, the DEIS state (p. 11) that in-holdings increase land management 

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 151
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

complexity "because of the miles of common, or shared landline boundaries that add to 

administrative costs and increases the potential for encroachments on NFS lands."

The above statements set the tone for why the DEIS proposal exists and what's important to the 

USFS national forests involved (Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Prescott). My comments on 

this DEIS follow in more detail, but what is noteworthy is that the DEIS contradicts the USDA 

Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2007-2012. The Plan states their Forest Service Values: 

- Cares for the Nation's forest and grassland ecosystems. 

- Values the varied skills and contributions of a diverse workforce. 

- Strives for accountability by every employee for the efficient management of the capital 

resources he or she uses. 

- Is responsive to national and local interests. 

- Is focused on the needs of future generations. 

Further to this Strategic Plan, the Goals are listed as: 

Goal 1. Restore, Sustain, and Enhance the Nation's Forests and Grasslands. 

Goal 2. Provided and Sustain Benefits to the American People. 

Goal 3. Conserve Open Space. 

Goal 4. Sustain and Enhance Outdoor Recreation Opportunities. 

Goal 5. Maintain Basic Management Capabilities of the Forest Service. 

Goal 6. Engage Urban America with Forest Service Programs. 

Goal 7. Provide Science-Based Applications and Tools for Sustainable Natural Resources 

Management. 

The disconnect between the Strategic Plan and the DEIS is that the American Public is giving up 

lands on the Mogollon Rim which is not consistent with the plan, and alternatives in the DEIS are 

flawed. Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the Forest Service, summed up the mission of the Forest 

Service Long ago: "To provide the greatest Amount of good for the greatest amount of people in 

the long run." The DEIS does not live up to their first Chief's guidance. Contradictions to the 

USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2007=2012. Under Goal 3--Conserve Open Space 

(USDA Objective 6.3), the desire outcome of the Plan is to maintain the environmental, social, 

and economic benefits of forests and grasslands by reducing and mitigating their conversion to 

other uses. Objective 3.1 associated with Goal 3 states: Protect forests and grasslands from 

conversion to other uses. The Performance Measure is acres of environmentally important forests 

and grasslands protected from conversion. The Means and Strategies for accomplishing Goal 3 

is, among other items, to coordinate national forest plan revisions with local and land-use plans 

to minimize the impacts of new and existing developments on NFS resources and management 

activities. Another contradiction in the DEIS to the Strategic Plan is found under Goal 6 of the 

Strategic Plan--Engage Urban America with Forest Service Programs. The Strategic Plan's 

152 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment and Response Summary

Means and Strategies for accomplishing Goal 6 is, among other things, to continue urban forest 

inventory and analysis to monitor the health and benefits of ecological and social services of 

urban forests and more effectively manage these complex landscapes. These contradictions are 

enormous when compared to the value of giving away a National resource—part of the Mogollon 

Rim involved in the South Show Low Land Exchange.

—Tony Potucek, Show Low, Arizona [Correspondence #22, Comments #1, #2]

Forest Service Response:

As discussed throughout the Final Environmental Impact Statement including pages 2-8, the 

proposed land-for-land exchange would result in Federal acquisition of 1,558 acres of land and 

conveyance of 1,028 acres of land, a net gain of 530 acres. The Non-federal lands included in this 

exchange proposal contain special features and habitats such as critical species habitat and 

perennial waters that greatly exceed the wildlife and habitat value of the Federal lands proposed 

for exchange. The acquisition of the Non-federal lands and incorporation of them into the 

National Forest System would preclude any development.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 153

Appendix D. Federal and State Agency 

Comment Letters for Draft EIS

Letters received from federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; and tribes have been 

attached in this appendix as directed in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 20, Section 

25.1.

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange 155
Appendix D. Federal and State Agency Comment Letters for Draft EIS

154 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix D. Federal and State Agency Comment Letters for Draft EIS

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange D-155
Appendix D. Federal and State Agency Comment Letters for Draft EIS

156 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix D. Federal and State Agency Comment Letters for Draft EIS

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange D-157
Appendix D. Federal and State Agency Comment Letters for Draft EIS

158 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange
Appendix D. Federal and State Agency Comment Letters for Draft EIS

FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange D-159
Appendix D. Federal and State Agency Comment Letters for Draft EIS

160 FEIS for the Show Low South Land Exchange