The ReVision Review

Your Connection to 

Forest Plan Revision on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southwestern

Region

MB-R3-01-1
A Message from the Forest Supervisor

I

want to thank all of you for your contributions 

to forest plan revision. I really appreciate the 

investments of time and energy that each of you have 

expended to be a part of this process. 

As you may have heard, the U.S. District Court in 

northern California has ordered the Forest Service not to 

use the 2005 Planning Rule in ongoing forest planning 

processes. This means that the Forest Service has stopped 

using the 2005 Rule and is not conducting any activities 

specific to the rule. We expect guidance later this 

summer on how to go forward with revision efforts while 

complying with the court order. This will likely modify 

the timeframe of our revision schedule. As we learn more 

on how we will proceed, we will share this information 

with you. Meanwhile, we can continue to analyze your 

comments and identify the need for change in our current 

plan.

Travel management planning is not affected by this court 

order. Those efforts are underway and proceeding as 

scheduled. Please visit our Web site—www.fs.fed.us/r3/

asnf—for more information. 

Since we last met with you in January 2007, we have been 

evaluating our existing forest plan to determine which 

parts of it are still valid. We have been reviewing your 

comments and looking at current conditions and trends to 

determine if current management is moving the forests in 

the right direction. So far, our evaluations indicate a need 

to make shifts in certain parts of the forest plan. We have 

grouped these items that need to change into three broad 

topics: Ecosystem Restoration, Managed Recreation, and 

Community-Forest Interaction. 

The focus of this “ReVision Review” is to share a 

summary of this initial evaluation. I encourage you to 

review this draft and let us know your thoughts on current 

conditions and trends and items identified as needing to 

be changed. Let us know if you agree or disagree, and 

why. Your feedback will be used to help refine the scope 

of revision. Send us your comments electronically or mail 

them to us. You will find our contact information on the 

last page of this publication.

Let’s continue working together to build a vision for the 

future of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Elaine J. Zieroth

Forest Supervisor

“Caring for the Land and Serving People”

Elaine J. Zieroth, Supervisor, 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Ursus americana, commonly called black bear, on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

1
The Need for Change . . .

Introduction

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ (ASNFs) 

current forest plan was published in August 1987. Some 

of the 1987 direction needs to be updated to reflect new 

laws, policies, regulations, and scientific information. 

Additional plan direction needs to be changed to better 

respond to the issues, concerns, and desires of the everincreasing numbers of forest visitors. Other areas of the 

current plan are still adequate and timely; that direction 

will be carried forward into the revised plan.

What follows is a draft summary of forest plan direction 

that, through analysis, is not sufficient to address the 

challenges the forests face today, some 20 years after 

the plan was originally published. As you read this draft 

summary, you will see that numerous topics in the current 

forest plan have been identified as needing to be changed. 

However, they may not 

all be addressed during 

this revision effort. The 

responsible official, our 

forest supervisor, will 

consider the findings of 

this analysis, plus your 

comments and input, to 

define which need for 

change items to address 

during revision.

This summary is 

organized into three broad topics: Ecosystem Restoration, 

Managed Recreation, and Community-Forest Interaction. 

These topics were identified from the forests’ resource 

conditions and trends evaluations, existing plan direction, 

and public input.

The Challenges of 

Managing National Forest Lands

The main challenges of administering more than 2 million 

acres of National Forest System lands for the citizens 

of the United States include identifying, managing, 

and monitoring the health and status of the physical 

resources (e.g. soil, water, air) that create the environment 

in which the vegetation and animals live and interact, 

while balancing the many human uses of the forest (e.g. 

camping, firewood gathering, logging, quest for solitude). 

People are part of the equation, but if human uses 

dominate and adversely affect the environment, the forests 

will no longer provide for human and ecological needs.

This need for change examines the social, economic, 

and ecological conditions and trends in and around the 

ASNFs and identifies where the current forest plan 

does not provide adequate 

guidance for the present and 

future. The goal of forest 

plan revision is to provide 

management direction 

and guidance so that the 

social, economic, and 

ecological demands on the 

resources can be sustained in 

perpetuity without causing 

irreversible or irretrievable 

damages or losses to 

the forests. The social, 

economic, and ecological systems are interrelated and 

need to be considered together, just as humans need to be 

included in the ecosystem context.

Three Potential Revision 

Topics Identified:

Ecosystem Restoration

Managed Recreation

Community-Forest Interaction

2
Congress established the Forest Service in 1905 to 

provide quality water and timber for the Nation’s 

benefit. Over the years, public desires and needs 

from national forests and grasslands have changed and 

grown. Congress responded by directing the Forest 

Service to manage the national forests for additional 

multiple uses and benefits and for the sustained yield 

of renewable resources, such as water, forage, wildlife, 

wood, and recreation. Multiple use means managing 

resources under the best combination of uses to benefit the 

American people, while ensuring the productivity of the 

land and protecting the quality of the environment.

When the forest plan was written in 1987, management 

emphasized the production of goods and services, such 

as timber sales and grazing permits. In the mid-1990s 

the Forest Service began to emphasize ecosystem 

management, focusing on the long-term sustainability of 

forest ecosystems.

Prior to the 1850s, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

ecosystems were resilient systems that provided a variety 

of vegetation—in terms of age and composition—across 

the landscape, and were home to a diversity of plant and 

animal species. Events such as disease, climatic change, 

and fires were natural components of this functioning 

ecosystem.

Human activities, coupled with natural disturbances, have 

changed the ecological character of the ASNFs. In 2003, 

the Chief of the USDA Forest Service identified fire and 

fuels, invasive species, and loss of open space as three of 

the four threats to the health of the Nation’s forests.

Current Conditions and Trends

Some of the key findings identified during the evaluation 

of the ASNFs’ current conditions follow.

Physical Resources 

• Overall, water quality is considered to be good 

to excellent. However, there are several streams 

and water bodies that currently exceed state and 

national water quality standards and are classified as 

impaired.

• The forests yield approximately 385,000 acre feet 

of water per year. For comparison purposes, this is 

less than 20 percent of the water Phoenix uses in one 

year.

• Approximately one-third of the forests’ soils, 

primarily those associated with lower elevation 

grasslands and woodlands, are considered to be in 

unsatisfactory condition.

• There are two geologic formations on the forests that 

are prone to landslides. Management considerations 

for these areas were not identified in the current 

forest plan.

• Forestwide air quality is considered to be good. 

Forest management actions, such as prescribed 

burning, contribute to air pollution, but are of limited 

duration and intensity.

Revision Topic 1: Ecosystem Restoration

Erosion along Rudd Creek near Springerville, 1957

3
Biological Resources

• Fourteen vegetation types occur on the ASNFs in 

forests, woodlands, grasslands, chaparral, water, and 

riparian areas. All but one of these vegetation types 

(interior chaparral) vary, sometimes substantially 

in composition and structure, from what they were 

historically (see graph below).

• Ponderosa pine forest, the most widespread forest 

vegetation type on the ASNFs, is the most unlike 

its historic conditions. Historically, ponderosa pine 

stands were open and park-like with large diameter 

trees and were maintained by frequent surface 

fires. Today, this forest type is mostly dense groups 

of smaller diameter trees that are prone to standreplacing crown fires.

• The three grassland vegetation types differ 

considerably from historic conditions. Woody 

species have and continue to invade these areas. 

Some grassland areas are now considered nonrestorable because the site characteristics, such as 

soil conditions and vegetation types, have changed.

• Riparian vegetation types are unique habitats in eastcentral Arizona. Although they comprise less than 2 

percent of the forests, over 50 percent of this habitat 

within the larger analysis area occurs on the ASNFs. 

• The forests provide over 2,500 miles of riparian 

habitat; 26 percent is considered to be in good 

condition.

Ecosystem Restoration . . . continued

94

39

42

74

33

68

80

60

4

28

42

na na na

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ponderosa Pine

Mixed Conifer with

Aspen

Spruce-Fir

Madrean Pine-Oak

Piñon-Juniper

Great BasinSemi-desert

Montane-Subalpine

Interior

Wetland/Cienega

Mixed Broadleaf

Deciduous

Montane Willow

Cottonwood-Willow

Water

Forests Woodlands Grasslands Chaparral Riparian Areas/Forests

Potential Natural Vegetation Type

Percent Dissimilarity to Historic Range of Variability

Graph illustrating the amount of divergence from historical conditions of each vegetation type found within the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests

4
• The quaking aspen component of several vegetation 

types is declining because of insects, disease, 

drought, browsing by wildlife and livestock, absence 

of natural fire and unnaturally dense stands of 

conifers that shade out and inhibit aspen growth. 

Healthy aspen stands have scenic values and provide 

forage for wildlife and livestock, wildlife habitat, and 

natural fire breaks.

• At one time or another, insects or disease have 

extensively damaged the forest and woodland 

vegetation types. The most severe insect damage has 

been in spruce (spruce aphid) and piñon (Ips bark 

beetle) areas. The most extensive and damaging 

parasite in ponderosa pine is Southwestern dwarf 

mistletoe.

• Fire suppression, sustained drought, and increasing 

disease, insect and invasive plant infestations 

have led to the presence of higher levels of woody 

vegetation (fuel loads) in the forests than existed 

historically.

• Approximately 85 percent of ASNFs lands are out of 

sync with historic natural fire cycles. Fire is a natural 

component of many Southwestern ecosystems, yet 

the current forest plan emphasizes suppressing fire 

rather than using it to improve ecosystem health.

• The great variety of habitat conditions found on the 

ASNFs provides for a wide diversity of plant and 

animal species.

• Since 1987, nine additional species have been listed 

as threatened or endangered. The American peregrine 

falcon was delisted in 1999.

• Seventy-five percent of inventoried streams show 

reduced fish habitat quality. Fish populations, 

especially Apache trout, have shown decreases 

of 50 to 75 percent over the last 10 years. These 

declines can be attributed to undesirable habitat 

characteristics, such as streambank soil and 

vegetation instability. 

Humans in the Ecosystem

• In general, the communities dependent on the ASNFs 

have shifted from an extraction-based economy 

dependent on logging and grazing, to a service-based 

economy dependent on tourism, recreation and 

second home ownership. However, there continues to 

be social and economic dependencies on extractive 

activities.

• ASNFs management activities during 2005 

contributed approximately 6 percent of the jobs and 

5 percent of the labor income to the surrounding 

areas. The majority of these jobs were in government 

and in accommodations and food services sectors. 

The White Mountain Stewardship Project contract 

accounts for 5 percent of this labor income 

percentage.

• Increased demand for water has elevated concerns 

regarding water availability and contamination.

• Human activities, including fire exclusion, noxious 

and invasive plant and animal species introductions, 

grazing, road density, and erosion from existing roads 

continue to pose threats to the sustainability of the 

forests’ ecosystem.

• Greater numbers of noxious and invasive weeds 

are found on the ASNFs each year. Noxious weed 

infestations grow and spread at rapid rates and 

aggressively replace native plants.

• Invasive animal species are also a serious and 

growing problem. Nonnative animals, such as zebra 

mussels, crayfish, and bullfrogs, have the potential to 

cause economic and environmental harm.

• The forests have one research natural area, which 

was set aside to provide researchers an opportunity 

to gather information about the montane/subalpine 

grassland ecosystem. There are four proposed 

research natural areas.

Ecosystem Restoration . . . continued

Cattle grazing on the Greer Ranger District, 1939

5
Ecosystem Restoration . . . continued

• The 25 Percent Fund payments to counties are the 

only Federal payments that may be affected by forest 

plan direction. These payments are based on monies 

generated from forest activities, such as timber 

harvesting, livestock grazing, and recreation. 

See also the managed recreation and community-forest 

interaction revision topics.

Ecosystem Restoration: 

Need for Change

In order to address key findings related to the ecosystem, 

ASNFs forest managers need to:

Soils and Watersheds

• Maintain or improve soil and watershed conditions, 

where needed, emphasizing sustainability and overall 

ecosystem function.

Fire-adapted Ecosystems

• Move vegetation types toward more sustainable, 

resilient states. In particular, address the loss of 

native grasslands, the amount and distribution of 

structural classes in all vegetation types, and the 

decline in aspen.

• Restore and maintain appropriate fire regimes.

• Reintroduce fire as a necessary ecological process to 

improve and maintain ecosystem health.

Grassy opening in ponderosa pine, 1945

Species Diversity

• Provide for individual species habitat needs that are 

not covered by forest level ecosystem diversity.

• Improve and maintain habitat conditions for all 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

• Address nonnative species threats.

Humans in the Ecosystem

• Provide for a spectrum of human needs and desires 

from the forests, while maintaining ecosystem 

sustainability.

• Identify areas of the forests that are suitable for uses 

such as timber production, livestock grazing, and 

recreation.

Map of Arizona showing the location of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests

6
Although the counties within and surrounding 

the ASNFs are experiencing some population 

growth, the Phoenix metropolitan area, where 

the majority of forest visitors live, is one of the Nation’s 

fastest growing areas.

Planned highway improvements will provide easier access 

to the ASNFs from the state’s major population centers, 

increasing visitor numbers as well as recreation demands. 

The population is also aging; the 65 and over population 

in surrounding counties grew at a higher rate than state 

averages.

Extractive uses of national forests are declining, while 

recreation, including off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, 

continues to increase.

The Chief of the USDA Forest Service identified 

unmanaged recreation as one of the “four threats” 

facing the National Forest System. In particular, he 

was concerned about the large increase in demand for 

motorized recreation opportunities. The damage and 

conflicts that can occur from “off-road vehicle” use were 

identified as a major issue in the current forest plan.

Current Conditions and Trends

During the current conditions and trends evaluation for 

the ASNFs, developed recreation and undeveloped or 

dispersed recreation opportunities, including motorized 

recreation, were examined. Some of the key findings are 

listed below.

Developed Recreation

• The ASNFs offer a wide array of developed 

recreation opportunities, including single family and 

group campgrounds, picnic areas, boating and fishing 

sites, trailheads, two visitor centers, and scenic 

overlooks. Over 35 percent of forest visitors use the 

developed campgrounds.

• The ASNFs receive approximately 2 million 

visitors per year. Approximately 70 percent of the 

forests’ visitors are from the Phoenix and Tucson 

metropolitan areas.

• The ASNFs currently have a $2.6 million backlog of 

deferred recreation facility maintenance, meaning 

that there have not been adequate funds to properly 

maintain the forests’ recreation facilities. If this trend 

continues, facilities may be closed because of risks to 

human health and safety.

Dispersed Recreation

• The primary dispersed recreation activities are 

“relaxing and escaping the heat,” fishing, hiking, 

OHV use, viewing natural features and wildlife, 

camping, driving for pleasure, picnicking and large 

group gatherings, and hunting. Over 19 percent 

of forest visitors camped outside of developed 

campgrounds.

• Three scenic byways, including the Coronado Trail 

National Scenic Byway, traverse the forests. The 

current forest plan does not address these byways.

• Fall visitation is increasing because of a growing 

interest in viewing fall colors. Declines in aspen 

could affect this activity.

LDS Church Girls Camp near Lakeside, Arizona, 

under special use permit, 1957

Revision Topic 2: Managed Recreation

7
• Wilderness resources on the ASNFs include Mount 

Baldy Wilderness, Bear Wallow Wilderness, 

Escudilla Wilderness, and Blue Range Primitive 

Area. Since forestwide visitor use is expected to 

grow, wilderness visitor numbers may also increase.

• There are currently 17 inventoried roadless areas, 

totaling over 300,000 acres, on the forests.

• Of the 981 perennial stream miles on the ASNFs, 

over 25 percent are eligible for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as wild, 

scenic, or recreational rivers.

Motorized Recreation

• The number of OHVs in Arizona has risen 

dramatically. Almost 500,000 Arizona households 

have one or more OHVs and 29 percent of Arizonans 

operate OHVs for recreation. OHV sales show a 

steady increase in vehicles sold each year.

• Approximately 11 percent of 2001 forest visitors used 

OHVs, but only 4 percent identified OHV use as their 

primary recreational activity.

• Motorized vehicle use is not allowed or is seasonally 

restricted on approximately 18 percent of the ASNFs. 

The remainder of the forests is open to motorized 

vehicle use, including cross-country travel.

• The ASNFs have an extensive road network, with 

over 6,000 miles of road. Forest managers face major 

challenges in maintaining this transportation system 

to ensure user safety and resource protection.

• The forests are in the process of implementing the 

2005 Travel Management Rule, which when fully 

implemented, will restrict motorized vehicle use 

to designated routes and areas and will prohibit 

cross-country motorized travel. This will change 

the character of motorized vehicle recreation on the 

ASNFs.

Managed Recreation: 

Need for Change

In order to address unmanaged recreation and provide 

for the needs and desires of the recreating public, ASNFs 

forest managers need to:

Developed Recreation

• Manage for a developed recreation program, 

including facility needs, that considers increasing 

populations, changing demographics, and the 

associated demands for recreation opportunities.

Undeveloped or Dispersed Recreation

• Manage for a dispersed recreation program that 

considers increasing populations, changing 

demographics, and the associated demands for 

recreation opportunities, while protecting sensitive 

environmental features.

• Add direction for dispersed recreation opportunities 

that are not addressed in the current forest plan, such 

as scenic byways.

• Identify and recommend areas that may be suitable 

for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System.

• Identify and recommend rivers that may be suitable 

for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System.

Motorized Recreation

• Manage for a sustainable transportation system 

designed to achieve forest management objectives, 

including public use and enjoyment, while 

minimizing impacts to the ecosystem.

• Identify areas that are suitable for motorized vehicle 

travel.

Managed Recreation . . . continued

8

Building road on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests, 1937
The ASNFs are literally the backyard for many 

residents of Arizona’s White Mountains. Many 

communities adjoin the ASNFs, while others 

are completely surrounded by the forests. Because of 

this close proximity, many communities and private 

landowners are directly affected by forest management 

decisions. These entities, in turn, affect forest 

management.

In the past, local communities have not played a large role 

in the national forest land management planning process. 

Because local governing bodies cannot mandate or direct 

the actions of Federal government agencies, there has 

been little consideration of national forest management 

issues in their policies.

The events surrounding the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire, 

the largest in Arizona history, served as a catalyst for 

increased public concern and interaction with the Forest 

Service. Following the fire, communities developed 

community wildfire protection plans, which identify 

ways to reduce the wildfire risk to communities. In 

2004, the ASNFs awarded a contract for the White 

Mountain Stewardship Project, the first large-scale, 10-

year stewardship contract in the Nation to focus on forest 

restoration. A citizen-based monitoring board provides 

input to the ASNFs regarding contract activities.

Revision Topic 3: Community-Forest Interaction 

Map of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests showing ownership patterns and 

communities adjacent to and within the forests’ boundary

9
The ASNFs share borders with the Fort Apache 

(White Mountain Apache Tribe) and San Carlos Indian 

Reservations. The Forest Service and Native American 

tribes have a unique government-to-government 

relationship of one sovereign nation to another. This 

is based on the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, 

agreements, and court decisions. 

The ASNFs consult with 10 Native American tribes 

including Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi Tribe, 

Navajo Nation, Ramah Navajo Chapter, San Carlos 

Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain 

Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation of Camp Verde 

Indian Reservation, YavapaiPrescott Tribe of the Yavapai 

Reservation, and Pueblo of 

Zuni.

Current Conditions 

and Trends

Highlighted below are some of 

the key findings regarding the 

interactions of communities 

and the ASNFs.

Community-Forest Interaction

• Land exchanges have been the principal means of 

ownership adjustment for the ASNFs. Approximately 

17,540 acres have been acquired and 4,462 acres 

conveyed to private ownership since 1987. The 

ASNFs have acquired more land than they have 

conveyed because many land exchanges have 

involved the transfer of lands within other Arizona 

national forests to private ownership, while 

the ASNFs acquired private lands within their 

boundaries.

• The expansion of many communities is limited 

because they are surrounded by the forests. There 

are strong public feelings, both for and against future 

land exchanges that would make National Forest 

System lands available for community growth.

• The area where human development and the forests 

meet is commonly referred to as wildland-urban 

interface (WUI). The forests have approximately 

900,000 acres of WUI.

• Because tree densities on the ASNFs are at 

uncharacteristically high levels, forested areas are at 

increased risk from wildfires.

• The White Mountain Stewardship Project (WMSP) 

contract, awarded in 2004, is the first large-scale, 

10-year stewardship contract 

in the Nation. The contract 

emphasizes large-scale forest 

restoration activities that 

result in healthier forests, 

enhanced rural economic 

development, and the 

utilization of previously 

unmarketable small 

diameter trees. Some WMSP 

benefits include hazard fuel 

reduction and local economy 

contributions in the form of 

new jobs.

• Comments received from the public indicate a desire 

to increase the amount of goods provided by the 

ASNFs. Goods include timber, firewood and forage 

for livestock grazing.

• Because subdivision and development of land 

adjoining or surrounded by the ASNFs is increasing, 

demands for utility corridors, roads, and special 

permits to service these developments are expected 

to increase. 

• WUI residents may or may not agree with forest 

management practices, such as thinning and 

prescribed burning, on adjacent ASNFs lands.

Community-Forest Interaction . . . continued

Apache National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Springerville, 

Arizona, 1926

10
• Along with the growth of local communities, 

recreational use of the adjacent forests’ lands is 

increasing.

• Economic activity associated with the ASNFs 

generated over $78 million in labor income directly 

and indirectly to the local economy. The combined 

recreation and wildlife economic contribution areas, 

including recreation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife 

viewing-based visits to the forests, are 66 percent of 

this total.

Users and Uses

• Communities whose economic 

bases were once largely dependent 

on extractive activities provided 

by the ASNFs, such as logging 

and grazing, are transitioning to 

a more service-based economy 

dependent on recreation, tourism, 

and second home ownership. This 

trend contributes to an increased 

diversity in lifestyles, values, and 

social institutions associated with 

natural resources and their uses. 

• As the population becomes more 

diverse, demand increases for a 

greater range of experiences on the 

ASNFs. Potential conflicts in value 

systems and expectations between 

long-time residents and people 

who have recently moved into 

the area can create friction over 

natural resource management.

• Demographic changes, including increasing 

populations of retirement-age and part-time 

residents, have resulted in larger WUI areas and 

increased demands for access, water, recreation, and 

consideration of persons with disabilities.

• The ASNFs encompass the former aboriginal territory 

of many Native American tribes. Such lands are 

known or thought to contain many traditional cultural 

properties of concern and significance to tribal 

neighbors.

Community-Forest Interaction . . . continued

Sitgreaves National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Holbrook, 

Arizona, 1926

• Native American tribal members’ use of ASNFs lands 

includes the permitted gathering of various forest 

products, such as boughs, basket materials and teepee 

poles, for ceremonial purposes.

Partnerships, Conservation 

Education and Enforcement

• Collaborative efforts have resulted in the formation 

of many partnerships such as the Natural Resources 

Working Group, the Arizona Sustainable Forest 

Partnership, the White Mountain Stewardship 

Monitoring Board, Eastern Arizona Counties 

Resource Advisory Committee, and the 

Little Colorado River Weed Management 

Area. These partnerships have contributed 

to the decisionmaking process and desired 

outcomes on the forests.

• The ASNFs work closely with the 

county governments in Greenlee, 

Apache, Coconino, and Navajo 

counties, with state and local 

governments, and with other Federal 

agencies.

• The importance of having a viable 

conservation education program is 

affirmed often as there is a clear lack 

of public understanding of forest 

issues, laws, consequences of forest 

user behavior, and forest management 

actions. Conservation education 

efforts have been severely limited by 

available funding.

• The law enforcement workload has 

grown substantially because of increased visitor use 

and substantial urban population growth within several 

hours travel of the ASNFs.

• Illegal activities include marijuana cultivation, drug 

and undocumented immigrant corridors, and illegal 

wood cutting, especially old growth alligator juniper 

and oak.

• There is concern that the forests’ current law 

enforcement staffing is not adequate to provide for 

visitor safety and resource protection, handle ongoing 

illegal activities, as well as enforce mandates (i.e. 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule).

11
The ReVision Review

Your Connection to

Forest Plan Revision on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

United States Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southwestern Region

MB-R3-01-1

12

Community-Forest 

Interaction: Need for Change

With more and more people residing in areas of the White 

Mountains that are adjacent to or within forested areas, 

managers are challenged to provide the goods, services, 

and access that people demand. Managers also face a 

major challenge in reducing the fire threat to neighboring 

communities.

In order to address these, managers of the ASNFs need to:

• Reduce the potential for uncharacteristic fire in the 

WUI to protect life and property.

• Address wildland-urban interface recreation demands 

(trailheads, urban uses, and general access).

• Consider the increasing demands for goods, services, 

and forest access from growing populations and 

urban developments that border the forests.

Community-Forest Interaction . . . continued

Get Involved in Your National Forest . . .

Our next step together is to refine the draft need for 

change evaluation. We need your help. Please review this 

draft and let us know what you think. Tell us if you agree 

or disagree with current conditions and trends or the need 

for change items and why. Which of the potential revision 

topics do you think are most important to focus on during 

revision and why? Remember, this analysis and your 

comments and input will be used by our forest supervisor 

to define the scope of revision. The draft summary is 

located on the ASNFs Web site. Your participation and 

comments are welcome at any time, and there are several 

ways to get involved in the forest plan revision process:

Public Meetings—a chance to interact and work with 

Forest Service representatives and other members of the 

public.

Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-reivsion/—

a place to find more information about the revision 

process and opportunity to provide comments.

E-mail: asnf.planning@fs.fed.us—contact us with your 

questions or comments.

Phone: (928) 333-4301—ask for a planning team 

member.

FAX: (928) 333-5966

TTY: (928) 333-5768

Regular Mail: USDA Forest Service

 Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

 Attn: Plan Revision Team

 P.O. Box 640

Springerville, AZ 85938

Let us know if you have other ideas that will better help us work together.
Hope to receive your comments on 

the need for change topics soon!

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 • June 2007

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Supervisor’s Office

Forest Plan Revision Team

30 South Chiricahua Drive

P.O. Box 640

Springerville, AZ 85938

We’re on the Web!

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/