United States Department of Agriculture

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Coronado National Forest, Prescott National Forest, and Tonto National Forest, Arizona

U.S. Forest Service Southwest Region January 2017

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) If you require this information in alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or TDD). If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than English, contact the agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA office. To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call Toll free, (866) 632-9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice users). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement Navajo County, Arizona

Responsible Agency: United States Forest Service

Responsible Official: M. Stephen Best, Forest Supervisor Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 30 S. Chiricahua Drive P.O. Box 640 Springerville, Arizona 85938

For Information Contact: Edward W. Collins, District Ranger Lakeside Ranger District Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 2022 West White Mountain Boulevard Lakeside, Arizona 85929 Phone: (928) 368-2100; fax: (928) 368-6476 Email: [email protected]

Abstract The United States Forest Service (USFS) is proposing a land exchange between the Apache- Sitgreaves (ASNFs), Coronado (CNF), Prescott (PNF), and Tonto (TNF) National Forests in Central and Southern Arizona, and Lawyer’s Title of Arizona, Inc. The proposed exchange includes the transfer of one 344.24-acre parcel of federal land into private ownership and 18 parcels, totaling 1,719.32 acres, of private land into federal ownership. The land to be transferred to the USFS includes one 110.57-acre parcel to the ASNFs; eleven parcels totaling 1,153.18 acres to the CNF; one 11.15-acre parcel to the PNF; and five parcels totaling 444.42 acres to the TNF. The proposal to exchange lands 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 are surrounded by national forest system lands and contain special features and habitats such as wildlife species habitat and perennial waters. The non-federal lands are also classified as desirable for acquisition because they contribute to an undesirable ownership pattern across the forests, making management of surrounding national forest system land more challenging.

U.S. Forest Service i

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... vii Executive Summary ...... ix Document Structure ...... xi Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1 Purpose and Need ...... 1 Decision Framework ...... 1 Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Agency Direction ...... 2 Forest Plans Compliance ...... 4 Additional Documents/Requirements for Implementation ...... 8 Tribal Consultation ...... 8 Public Involvement ...... 9 Environmental Assessment Scoping Period ...... 11 Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Period ...... 11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period ...... 11 Issues ...... 11 Issue 1: Recreation and Access ...... 12 Issue 2: Land Values and Socioeconomics ...... 12 Issue 3: Retention of Utility Easements ...... 13 Issue 4: Loss of Cultural Resources ...... 13 Other Related Efforts ...... 14 Other USFS Real Estate Activities in the Geographic Region ...... 14 Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ...... 15 Introduction ...... 15 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 15 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 15 Alternative 2: The Proposed Action ...... 15 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 44 Summary of Alternatives Comparison ...... 44 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 49 Introduction ...... 49 Projects & Actions Analyzed for Cumulative Effects...... 49 Land Use ...... 51 Affected Environment ...... 51 Environmental Consequences ...... 61 Recreation and Public Access ...... 65 Affected Environment ...... 65 Environmental Consequences ...... 66 Socioeconomics ...... 69 Affected Environment ...... 69 Environmental Consequences ...... 78 Plants, Fish, and Wildlife ...... 82 Affected Environment ...... 82 Environmental Consequences ...... 86

U.S. Forest Service iii Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Grazing ...... 98 Affected Environment ...... 98 Environmental Consequences ...... 101 Wetlands and Floodplains ...... 102 Affected Environment ...... 102 Environmental Consequences ...... 103 Water Rights/Claims & Water Quality ...... 105 Affected Environment ...... 105 Environmental Consequences ...... 106 Cultural Resources ...... 107 Affected Environment ...... 107 Environmental Consequences ...... 109 Mineral Resources ...... 112 Affected Environment ...... 112 Environmental Consequences ...... 113 Roads ...... 114 Affected Environment ...... 114 Environmental Consequences ...... 115 Fire and Fuels ...... 117 Affected Environment ...... 117 Environmental Consequences ...... 117 Hazardous Materials ...... 118 Affected Environment ...... 118 Environmental Consequences ...... 121 Chapter 4. Other Considerations Required Under NEPA ...... 125 Prime and Unique Farmlands ...... 125 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ...... 126 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 127 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 127 Cumulative Effects ...... 128 Other Required Disclosures ...... 130 Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination ...... 133 Preparers and Contributors ...... 133 Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team ...... 133 Other Forest Service Contributors ...... 133 Cardno ...... 133 3c Consulting ...... 134 PaleoWest Archaeology ...... 134 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 134 State Agencies ...... 134 Tribal Governments and Offices ...... 134 Local Government ...... 134 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ...... 135 Chapter 6. References ...... 137 Appendix A: Comments ...... 143 EA Scoping Period ...... 143

iv U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary of Issue Determination ...... 152 EIS Scoping Period ...... 152 DEIS Comment Period ...... 156 Comments and Responses ...... 160

List of Tables

Table 1. Approved and proposed recreation acquisition composites1/Coronado National Forest...... 7 Table 2. Federal land single parcel proposed for exchange with sections and lots in order of priority ...... 16 Table 3. Non-federal lands proposed for exchange locations with parcels in order of priority...... 16 Table 4. Alternatives comparison ...... 45 Table 5. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions ...... 49 Table 6. Authorized uses on the Camp Tatiyee Parcel ...... 52 Table 7. Management area designations surrounding the non-federal parcels and current land uses of the non-federal parcels ...... 57 Table 8. Population projections, 2020-2030 ...... 70 Table 9. Race, alone or in combination1, 2010 ...... 70 Table 10. Civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment, 2000 and 2010 ...... 70 Table 11. Poverty rates, 2010 ...... 71 Table 12. Housing characteristics, 2010 ...... 71 Table 13. Population projections, 2010-2030 ...... 72 Table 14. Race, alone or in combination1, 2010 ...... 73 Table 15. Civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment, 2000 and 2010 ...... 74 Table 16. Poverty rates, 2010 ...... 76 Table 17. Housing characteristics, 2010 ...... 76 Table 18. County-wide property taxes levied in 2014 compared to taxes paid in 2013 for the non-federal parcels ...... 77 Table 19. PILT Payment per acre by county, 2014 ...... 77 Table 20. Anticipated PILT payment per acre by county with proposed action ...... 80 Table 21. Anticipated PILT payment per acre by county with proposed action ...... 80 Table 22. Federal and sensitive species with the potential to occur on the federal parcel ...... 87 Table 23. Summary of wetlands and floodplains on non-federal lands to be exchanged ...... 102 Table 24. Access to and from non-federal parcels ...... 114 Table 25. Summary of cumulative effects ...... 128 Table 26. Comments received during 2007 scoping period, responses/discussion, and topic analysis ...... 144 Table 27. Comments received and reviewed during the 2010 scoping period ...... 153

U.S. Forest Service v Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 28. Identification of commenters and date and delivery method of comments received during the 2015 comment period...... 159 Table 29. Comments received during the 2015 comment period, responses, and analysis of comments ...... 161

List of Figures

Figure 1. Regional locations of parcels proposed for exchange ...... 21 Figure 2. Camp Tatiyee Federal Parcel ...... 22 Figure 3. Carlisle Non-federal Parcel ...... 23 Figure 4. Happy Valley Non-federal Parcels ...... 24 Figure 5. Harshaw Non-federal Parcel ...... 25 Figure 6. Mansfield Non-federal Parcel ...... 26 Figure 7. Ronstadt Highway Non-federal Parcel ...... 27 Figure 8. Ronstadt Tank Non-federal Parcel ...... 28 Figure 9. Rucker Non-federal Parcels ...... 29 Figure 10. Stronghold and Stronghold Well Site Non-federal Parcels ...... 30 Figure 11. Babcock Non-federal Parcel ...... 31 Figure 12. Red Rover Non-federal Parcel...... 32 Figure 13. Tonto Creek Non-federal Parcels ...... 33 Figure 14. Pleasant Valley Non-federal Parcel ...... 34 Figure 15. Mogollon Rim Trail preservation area ...... 41 Figure 16. Zoning districts adjacent to the Camp Tatiyee Federal Parcel ...... 56 Figure 17. Grazing Activities on the federal and non-federal parcels proposed for exchange ...... 100

vi U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Acronyms and Abbreviations A-General General Zoning District AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AML Abandoned Mine Lands ARS Arizona Revised Statues ASNFs Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BA&E Biological Assessment and Evaluation BO Biological Opinion C-1 Light Commercial Zoning District CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNF Coronado National Forest CocNF Coconino National Forest C-R Commercial-Residential Zoning District DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DN Decision Notice DOI Department of the Interior EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FSM Forest Service Manual HPTP Historic Properties Treatment Plan IOC Issue(s) of Concern LFA Lions Foundation of Arizona, Inc. LMP Land Management Plan MA Management Areas

U.S. Forest Service vii Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

MOA Memoranda of Agreement N/A Not applicable NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NFSR National Forest System Road NRHP National Register of Historic Places PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl(s) PILT Payments in Lieu of Taxes PNF Prescott National Forest R-2 Multi-family Residential Zoning District R-LOW Rural Residential Zoning District REC Recognized Environmental Condition RD Ranger District ROD Record of Decision ROW Right-of-Way RU-1 Rural One Zoning District SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SR State Route SUP Special use permit T&E Threatened and Endangered TNF Tonto National Forest U.S. United States USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WUI Wildland Urban Interface

viii U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Executive Summary The United States Forest Service (USFS) proposes to exchange one federal parcel of land of up to 344.24 acres in the incorporated Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona, for up to 1,719.32 acres of non-federal lands within four national forests of Arizona. The federal land proposed for exchange is located in Navajo County and the non-federal lands proposed for exchange are located in Cochise, Gila, Graham, Maricopa, Navajo, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties. The USFS units the parcels lie within are the Lakeside Ranger District on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs); the Douglas, Nogales, Safford, Santa Catalina, and Sierra Vista Ranger Districts on the Coronado National Forest (CNF); the Bradshaw Ranger District on the Prescott National Forest (PNF); and the Cave Creek, Pleasant Valley, and Tonto Basin Ranger Districts on the Tonto National Forest (TNF).

The proposal to exchange lands 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 are land parcels that break up USFS ownership requiring the USFS to manage around these lands. They also contain special features such as critical habitat and perennial waters. These land parcels are available for future development that could diminish the value of those resources and support activities that would be incompatible with the surrounding national forest character. Due to these characteristics, these lands are identified as desirable for acquisition by the USFS. The federal land parcel also meets criteria of the 2015 ASNFs Land Management Plan that make it desirable for exchange as it is an isolated parcel surrounded by private land on three sides and the Fort Apache Indian Reservation on the fourth side. It also lacks many of the characteristics of desirable and suitable National Forest System (NFS) land and requires administrative oversight of several uses that must be authorized to occur on NFS land. Management direction states that lands proposed for exchange by the USFS would provide for consolidation of public lands, improve management of or benefit specific resources, and meet overriding public needs including that of expanding communities. The federal lands, if conveyed, could be subject to development. However, the stated intent of the proponent is to continue operating the Camp Tatiyee youth camp at its current site on the parcel if the land is conveyed.

Preliminary issues identified with this proposal include concerns over the loss of opportunity for the continued use of the ASNFs land for wildlife viewing and recreation by residents living in the area adjacent to the federal parcel and concerns regarding the effect of possible future development of the federal parcel.

At this time, the alternatives under consideration include taking no action or exchanging lands among those analyzed in the Proposed Action dependent on final appraisal and value equalization. The EIS analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on both private and NFS lands are considered in the analysis. The EIS also includes discussion of site-specific mitigation.

U.S. Forest Service ix Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Major conclusions include:

The proposed and preferred alternative would result in federal acquisition of up to 1,719.32 acres of private land in the national forests of Arizona and conveyance of up to 344.24 acres of federal land within the incorporated Town of Pinetop-Lakeside in the ASNFs. If the exchange occurs, the non-federal lands exchanged would no longer be subject to potential development but would instead be incorporated into the appropriate USFS management area and regime. The conveyed federal lands would be subject to future development. However, the stated intent of the proponent is to maintain and improve the youth camp, which has been operated on a portion of the parcel since 1958. If developments were to occur, no riparian habitat, aquatic or wetland habitat would be impacted because these habitats do not naturally 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 the no action alternative were selected, the federal lands would continue to be managed by the USFS. The non-federal lands, which include special features and habitats such as critical habitat and perennial waters, would remain subject to future development.

Based on the potential effects of the alternatives analyzed in this EIS and finalization of the appraisal and value equalization of lands, the Forest Supervisor, ASNFs (the responsible official), will decide whether or not to exchange lands, what lands within this analysis will be exchanged, and whether or not cash equalization will be included as part of the exchange package.

x U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Document Structure The United States (U.S.) Forest Service (USFS) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into six chapters:

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the purpose of and need for the project, the decision framework; the main laws, regulations, and policy that apply to the project; public notification and involvement; SHPO and tribal consultation; and issues identified through public and tribal involvement. Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed action (preferred alternative) and a no action alternative as well as alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study and the reasons for their elimination. Alternatives considered were developed based on the purpose and need and in consideration of issues raised by the public and tribes. This chapter also includes mitigation measures of the proposed action and provides a summary table comparing each alternative. Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes existing conditions and the potential environmental consequences from implementation of the proposed action and no action alternative. This analysis is organized by resource area. Chapter 4. Other Considerations Required Under NEPA: This chapter describes short- term uses and long-term productivity; unavoidable adverse effects; irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources; cumulative effects; and other required disclosures. Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers who worked on this EIS or related documents and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement (EIS). Chapter 6. References: This chapter lists the references referred to throughout this analysis. Appendices. The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the FEIS. Additional documentation, including further detailed analyses of certain project-area resources, such as cultural resources, may be found in the administrative record located at the Lakeside Ranger District, 2022 West White Mountain Boulevard, Lakeside, Arizona 85929. Some of this documentation is included in this FEIS by reference.

U.S. Forest Service xi

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action Purpose and Need The United States (U.S.) Forest Service (USFS) currently owns a section of land (344.24 acres) on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs) that is challenging to manage because (1) it is an isolated parcel, surrounded by private land on three sides and the Fort Apache Indian Reservation on the fourth side; (2) it requires more administrative oversight because other authorized uses, including the Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace Youth Camps and several utility and irrigation rights of way, are also located on the parcel and must be overseen by the USFS, and (3) it lacks many of the characteristics of desirable and suitable National Forest System (NFS) land.

The USFS also currently has to manage around several isolated private land parcels lying within the Prescott National Forest (PNF), ASNFs, Tonto National Forest (TNF), and Coronado National Forest (CNF). Managing around these parcels makes management of NFS land in those areas more complicated, costly, and less efficient. These private parcels also include special features, wildlife species critical habitat, perennial waters, and other forest resources and characteristics of desirable and suitable NFS land. These resources are at risk of possible future loss or use that differs from surrounding NFS land management uses if the parcels remain under current private ownership.

The USFS needs (1) reduced administrative oversight of the section of USFS land where special use permits have increased over the years and (2) consolidated contiguous federal land ownership patterns on NFS lands, particularly on proclaimed Arizona national forests, specifically the PNF, ASNFs, TNF, and CNF, with land containing resources and characteristics of desirable and suitable NFS land and excluding land no longer suitable for NFS land management.

Further detailed information that informed the purpose and need for and development of this project is found in the Forest Plans Compliance section and the affected environment sections in Chapter 3, which provides more details on the land parcels proposed for exchange.

Decision Framework The responsible official for making a decision on this project is the ASNFs Forest Supervisor. The Forest Supervisor will review the alternatives considered in Chapter 2 and the environmental consequences in Chapter 3 in consideration of the purpose and need in order to make an informed decision. The final decision may include implementation of the proposed action with exchange of all lands analyzed for exchange with or without cash equalization to equal the value of lands exchanged (as explained under the Land Exchange Process section), the proposed action

U.S. Forest Service 1 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

with exchange of some of the lands analyzed with or without cash equalization, or the no action alternative leaving lands under current ownership and management.

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Agency Direction This project is compliant with all applicable laws, regulations, policy and Agency direction including the major applicable laws identified below:

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976: Requires that public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use. Also states that the United States shall receive fair market value of the use of public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by law.

General Exchange Act of 20 March 1922: Permitted the United States Secretary of the Interior to accept or acquire lands outside of the boundaries of current national parks deemed to be of national-forest purposes interest. Federal land could also be exchanged for privately owned land within the boundaries of United States National Forest. The law permits acquisition of lands by exchange, encumbered by reservations of timber, or minerals or easements that would not interfere with use of the lands for National Forest purposes.

Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 20 August 1988: Outlines the types of land desired for acquisition, specifically inholdings; identification of inholdings and their prioritization, and provides direction on the processes for notification of acquiring such land and direction on disposing of federal land. Directs that the Secretary shall not acquire lands contaminated by hazardous substances or that are difficult or uneconomic to manage due to location or other characteristics.

National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970: Directs all Federal agencies to consider and report the potential environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions and established the Council on Environmental Quality.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended: Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the act or regulations; and, authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the act or any regulation issued thereunder. Section 7 of the act requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and to insure that any action

2 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat.

National Historic Preservation Act: Sets forth the Federal government’s policy to preserve and protect historical and cultural resources. This act states that the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of the Nation’s community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people. Directs 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. Establishes inventory, nomination, protection, and preservation responsibilities for federally owned historic properties. As amended extends the policy in the Historic Sites Act to state and local historical sites as well as those of national significance, expands the National Register of Historic Places, establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officers, and requires agencies to designate Federal preservation officers. Establishes criteria for designating tribal historic preservation officers to assume the functions of a state historic preservation officer on tribal lands.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act: The act establishes permit requirements for removal or excavation of archaeological resources from Federal and Indian lands. Provides criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, damage, alteration, defacement, or the attempted unauthorized removal, damage, alteration, or defacement of any archaeological resource, more than 100 years of age, found on Federal or Indian lands. Prohibits the sale, purchase, exchange, transportation, receipt, or offering of any archaeological resource obtained from public lands or Indian lands. The act further directs Federal land managers to survey land under their control for archaeological resources and create public awareness programs concerning archaeological resources.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act: 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.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (25 USC 3001): 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. Includes provisions for the intentional excavation and unanticipated discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. The act requires agencies to identify holdings of such remains and objects and to work with appropriate Native American groups toward their repatriation.

U.S. Forest Service 3 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Plans Compliance The LMPs of all four involved forests provide direction on lands to acquire and exchange. The ASNFs and the PNF recently finalized new LMPs, the ASNFs in August of 2015 and the PNF in June of 2015. The CNF and TNF are developing new LMPs but manage under the current plans in place, the CNF under the 1986 plan and the TNF under the 1985 plan. Following direction of the plans, land adjustments (e.g. exchanges, purchases) should be completed to help consolidate the NFS land base, reduce administrative problems and costs, enhance public access and use, and support resource management objectives. All four of the applicable LMPs were reviewed to determine if land parcels considered meet criteria of land desirable for acquisition or conveyance. The non-federal land parcels were determined to be desirable for acquisition as follows criteria from the applicable plan and the federal parcel desirable for conveyance as follows criteria in the LMP for the ASNFs. Applicable criteria reviewed from the four current forest plans is listed below and includes issues, concerns, and opportunities; goals and objectives; standards and guidelines; and management prescriptions and direction.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (2015) • The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs exist in a pattern that promotes efficient management which consists of large contiguous tracts of NFS lands (design criteria). • Land exchanges should not result in the creation of isolated NFS parcels surrounded by other ownerships (guideline). • Land acquisitions and exchanges should evaluate, and possibly include, associated beneficial encumbrances (e.g., water rights, mineral rights, easements, instream flow) (guideline). • Land adjustments (e.g., exchanges, purchases) help to consolidate the NFS land base, reduce administrative problems and costs, enhance public access and use, and support resource management objectives. Management emphasis is to work with local communities to understand their community expansion needs and retain access to NFS land. The Apache- Sitgreaves NFs work with communities during development of their master plans and with communities, developers, and homeowner groups to retain legal access to public lands (e.g., easements, trailheads). NFS lands that are made available for exchange generally meet one or more of the following criteria: (1) isolated tracts or scattered parcels that cannot be efficiently managed, (2) recreation residence tracts, (3) provide for consolidation of public lands, (4) improve management or benefit specific resources, or (5) overriding public needs. Lands desirable for acquisition generally meet one or more of the following criteria: (1) lands that contain vital species habitat or vital wildlife habitat (e.g., calving areas, critical winter range); (2) lands needed for developed or dispersed recreation; (3) wetlands, riparian areas, and other water oriented lands; (4) lands that contain unique natural or cultural values; (5) lands that improve public land management, meet specified administrative needs, or benefit other NFS programs; (6) lands that provide needed access, protect public lands from fire or trespass, or prevent damage to public land resources; (7) lands that are needed to consolidate public landownership or meet research needs; (8) lands that are needed to meet programs

4 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

prescribed or endorsed by acts or reports of Congress or the Department of Agriculture; (9) inholdings that contain needed access; or (10) undeveloped inholdings. When acquired, lands are evaluated for suitability (chapter 4) prior to being allocated for appropriate uses. (management approaches for lands)

Coronado National Forest (1986) While the Coronado is substantially solid blocks of federal land, there are areas where lands Special Uses would be better suited for private uses or where administration is made more costly because of the ownership pattern. Conversely, some included private lands are of a National Forest character. Demand for a wide variety of special uses of the Forest continues to grow. Three issues are listed:

1. Revision of land ownership adjustment plans to update lands desirable for acquisition and available for disposal.

• Use land ownership adjustment to accomplish resource management objectives. • Capitalize on opportunities to consolidate small private land holdings into economically viable units through land ownership adjustment. • Recognize, in the periodic review of Forest land ownership adjustment planning, the public benefits to be gained and the effect of the planning on land adjacent to the Coronado National Forest. • Take actions necessary to determine status of NFS lands and interests in lands. • Acquire lands or interest in lands through exchange, purchase or donation in accordance with the Forest Land Adjustment Classification Maps and criteria set forth in Table 11 • Make the following changes in the Forest Land Adjustment Program: a. East Whitetail Canyon (Chiricahua Mountains) . Reclassify approximately 183 acres of National Forest land as base-for-exchange. . Reclassify approximately 464 acres of private land from priority 3 for acquisition to undesirable for National Forest purposes. b. Holy Cross Area (Santa Catalina Mountains) . Reclassify approximately 340 acres of National Forest land as base-for-exchange. c. Summerhaven Area (Santa Catalina Mountains) . Reclassify approximately 41 acres of private land from priority 1 to priority 3 for acquisition. d. North and east side of Santa Rita Mountains. Reclassify approximately 2500 acres of National Forest land as base-for-exchange. • Exchanges should result in an improved forest land ownership pattern.

U.S. Forest Service 5 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Emphasize acquisition of water oriented property inside the National Forest boundary. This property provides much needed high density public recreation use as well as high value wildlife and fish habitat. • Attempt to acquire private land from willing sellers that will provide additional public recreational opportunities including open space. Acquisition will receive low priority Forest- wide. • Act on land exchange offers involving Priority 1 lands and the Administration most desirable Priority II lands to the extent possible. • Attempt to acquire private lands that will "fill in" ownership pattern, resulting in more effective management of National Forest lands. • Act on all exchange offers that appear to be in the public interest. • Act on all land exchange offers involving acquisition of private land. • To improve management and benefit the administration of the National Forest, certain private lands within or adjacent to the boundary of the Forest have been classified as desirable for acquisition. Because local and physical conditions may change during the life of this plan, the lands classified in this plan and others that may be considered, will meet one or more of the following criteria.  Lands within designated wildernesses.  Lands that contain vital threatened and endangered species habitat, or vital wildlife habitat (i.e. lambing areas).  Lands needed for developed and dispersed recreation.  Wet lands, riparian areas, and other water oriented lands.  Lands that contain unique, natural, or cultural values.  Lands that will improve public land management, meet specific administrative needs, or benefit other National Forest programs.  Lands that provide needed access, or protect public lands from fire, or trespass or prevent damage to public land resources.  Lands that need rehabilitation or stabilization to restore their productivity.  Lands that are needed to block up public land ownership or meet research needs.  Lands that are needed to meet programs prescribed or endorsed by acts, or reports of Congress, or the Department of Agriculture.  Acquire inholdings that contain needed rights-of-way and will contribute to the Forest Resource Management Base. • The acquisition program will be achieved through purchase, exchange, and donation authorities. The Purchase Program Centers about the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act that designates that lands within the following categories are eligible for acquisition with L&WCFA funds:  Congressionally designated areas.

6 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

 Wilderness.  Threatened and endangered species habitat.  Recreation acquisition composites and inholdings. The basic goals of the composite program are to provide:

 Lands needed for construction of public recreation facilities.  Lands needed for dispersed recreation and open space.  Protection of public recreation resources.  Prevention of private usurpation of public resources and facilities on nearby public lands. The following table shows the approved and proposed L&WCFA composites:

Table 1. Approved and proposed recreation acquisition composites1/Coronado National Forest Composites Date Approved Acres Approved New Acres 1980 Est. Cost of as desirable for Remaining Lands (million $) Acquisition Madera 2/16/78 15.49 15.49 0.5 Santa Catalina 10/17/78 65.27 54.17 0.5 Huachuca Mountain Proposed2 2174 2175 2.5 Dragoon Mountain Proposed2 1463 1463 1.5 Chiricahua Mountain Proposed2 6387 6387 8.0 1. Essentially all of the lands identified for acquisition with L&WCFA Funds are also eligible for acquisition by exchange or donations, and will be acquired by these authorities when the opportunity arises and when appropriate. 2. This RAC has been reviewed by the Regional Office and personnel of the U.S. Department of Interior. • The Land Exchange Program operates under several authorities and is the major land adjustment program that can be employed to acquire all of the lands that meet the acquisition criteria. The lands offered by the United States in a land exchange are tentatively classified as base-in-exchange. Because local and physical conditions may change during the life of this plan, those lands classified in this plan and any other that may be considered will generally meet one or more of the following criteria:  Lands needed to meet the needs of expanding communities.  Isolated tracts or scattered parcels that cannot be efficiently managed.  Provide consolidation of the public lands.  To improve management, benefit specific resources, or increase management efficiency.  To meet overriding public needs.

Prescott National Forest (2015) In coordination with general factors to consider in 36 CFR 254.3(1), proposals for acquisition should meet one or more of the following criteria:

• Lands within designated wilderness

U.S. Forest Service 7 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Lands that contain important wildlife habitat, including that needed for species viability, such as habitat needed to maintain migration patterns or important habitat linkages • Wetlands, riparian areas, and other water oriented lands • Lands that contain unique, natural, or cultural values • Lands that provide needed access, protect public lands from fire or trespass, or prevent damage to resources

Tonto National Forest Plan (1985) • Land ownership adjustments within and adjacent to local communities need a continuing emphasis to significantly increase efficiency in resource management and to satisfy the needs of expanding communities. The Plan provides for accomplishment of property boundary surveys, elimination of backlog rights-of-way surveys, and approximately 300 acres of land exchange per year. The base-for- exchange land is reduced by 4,500 acres near Payson and increased by 600 acres near Young. • Use land ownership adjustment to accomplish resource management objectives. Post identifiable property boundaries. • Review land classification and determine the need for land adjustment to meet management objectives of providing for community expansion and logical boundary adjustments. Per criteria of the four plans provided above, the proposed action would meet or move toward objectives, goals, standards, guidelines, and management direction of the four forest plans. The no action alternative would not contribute to but would also not detract from or move away from objectives, goals, standards, guidelines, and management direction of the forest plans as lands considered for exchange would remain in their current situation.

Management area information of the different plans is discussed by each parcel proposed for exchange under the Land Use section in Chapter 3.

Additional Documents/Requirements for Implementation For an exchange to occur under the proposed action, some additional documents are required. An exchange agreement must be signed by the parties involved to complete the exchange. This agreement would follow the decision made by the responsible official (see the Decision Framework section) and would include any necessary details pertinent to the exchange.

Tribal Consultation Through the NEPA scoping process and Sections 101 and 106 of NHPA, nine tribes and one chapter were consulted about the proposed action. The tribes consulted were the Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation, San Carlos Apache Tribe, The Hopi Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Tribes. Consultation was initiated in

8 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

November 2006. The Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, and White Mountain Apache Tribe responded to the initial letter.

In December 2006, as part of the consultation process for NHPA, the ASNFs sent another letter about the proposed land exchange to all affiliated tribes. A determination of adverse effect was made for all of the National Register-eligible sites that would be transferred out of federal ownership under the proposed action. The ASNFs received Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurrence of the determinations of eligibility and effect in December 2007 and Phase 1 data recovery was recommended for all eight sites. The Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe responded to the letter. In June 2008, the ASNFs sent a follow-up letter to the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, and the Hopi Tribe requesting further input on the land exchange process and inviting tribal representatives to visit the proposed land exchange area. Over the course of the next five years, the project team developed a treatment plan for the cultural resources (refer to the Cultural Resources analysis in Chapter 3) and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA is between the US Forest Service Southwestern Region and the SHPO with the concurring parties the Pueblo of Zuni, LFA, and BC2 LLCs. It was signed by the main signatories the Regional Forester on 29 April 2014 and the SHPO on 18 June 2014 and the concurring parties LFA and BC2 LLCs on 2 September 2014. To date, the Pueblo of Zuni has not signed the MOA. Members of the Hopi tribe have expressed interest in continued consultation, reviewing and commenting on the treatment plan, reviewing and commenting on the data recovery report, and visiting the federal parcel, but have not been responsive to attempts by ASNFs personnel to schedule a tour over the last eight years. Members of the White Mountain Apache Tribe have expressed interest in visiting the exchange area and have attended several meetings and visited the area over the last few years. During one of the site visits in 2015, cultural staff of the White Mountain Apache Tribe discovered an Apache petroglyph at one of the sites and have expressed an interest in protecting/preserving the petroglyph. LFA and the Tribe agreed to protection measures and further discussion will be continuing. The Navajo Nation did not identify any concerns. ASNFs is continuing tribal consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.

Public Involvement During the initial evaluation of the exchange as an Environmental Assessment (EA), the ASNFs initiated a public scoping process. A land exchange notice was published once per week for four consecutive weeks between 5 and 27 November 2007 in the newspapers serving the areas affected by this proposal: the White Mountain Independent (ASNFs), Arizona Daily Star/Tucson Citizen (CNF), Daily Courier (PNF), East Valley Tribune (TNF), and Payson Roundup newspapers. The board of supervisors in the counties containing federal and non-federal parcels, elected state representatives, tribal governments, and the Arizona Congressional Delegation were notified via mail.

U.S. Forest Service 9 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

A scoping letter dated 30 October 2007 was mailed to adjacent landowners, potentially interested parties, and affected SUP holders who were believed may have an interest in or be affected by the project. The letter explained that interested parties should access the listing of the project on the ASNFs website to find a description of the lands being considered for exchange, the legal land descriptions of the parcels, and maps displaying their locations. Comments were requested by 15 December 2007.

The analysis was moved to the level of an EIS from an EA and a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on 25 March 2010. In addition, notification included listing of the project in the ASNFs’ Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions; distribution of letters to individuals, organizations, and agencies who previously indicated interest in the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange; and communication with Tribes.

News releases were also distributed inviting the public to an open house on the project held on 13 April 2010. News releases were distributed to the Arizona Republic (the regional newspaper of record), and each forest’s newspaper of record: the White Mountain Independent (ASNFs), Arizona Daily Star (CNF), Daily Courier (PNF), Arizona Capitol Times (TNF), and to other papers serving areas affected by this proposal: Tucson Citizen, Sierra Vista Herald, Nogales International, Eastern Arizona Courier, East Valley Tribune, and Payson Roundup. Supervisors in the counties containing federal and non-federal parcels, elected state representatives, tribal governments, and the Arizona Congressional Delegation were notified of the scoping meeting in a letter dated 31 March2010. Commenters were encouraged to contact the ASNFs concerning any questions about the proposed land exchange or to obtain additional information.

Letters dated 1 June 2015 were sent to interested publics and agencies providing notification that a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) had been completed and was available for public review on the Forest project web page. The letters also provided notification of the expected publication of a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIS in the Federal Register and information on an upcoming public meeting to be held 16 June 2015. The NOA was published 5 June 2015 initiating an official comment period that extended for 45 calendar days ending on 20 July 2015; Nine legal notices were also published in the newspaper of record for each ranger district and forest that had parcels included in the exchange: the White Mountain Independent, the Arizona Daily Star, Nogales International, Eastern Arizona Courier, Daily Dispatch, Daily Courier, Arizona Republic, Arizona Capitol Times, and Payson Roundup. These legal notices provided notification of the comment period and the availability of the DEIS, referencing the NOA for timeframe, and gave directions on how to provide comments on the DEIS. The public meeting held on 16 June 2015 had 17 members of the public sign in; ten of whom identified themselves as members of LFA and/or tied in to Camp Tatiyee. Comment forms were provided at the meeting to allow meeting attendees to provide comments on the project.

10 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Assessment Scoping Period During the EA scoping period in 2007, the ASNFs received 14 responses/inquiries. Several commenters expressed concern about effects to wildlife use/viewing, and concern about the continued use of the federal parcel for outdoor recreation by local residents. The DEIS provided analysis of effects of foreseeable future uses on the federal land to wildlife use/viewing and outdoor recreation should the land be conveyed to the proponent, and that analysis is included in Chapter 3 of this FEIS. Other comments expressed concern about the extent of possible future development on the federal parcel, excluding currently existing authorized land uses. The DEIS evaluated these concerns, and that analysis is a part of Chapter 3 of this FEIS.

Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Period During the EIS scoping period, the ASNFs received 9 comments. Comments included notice from special use permit (SUP) holders who wish to establish easements on the Camp Tatiyee parcel if the land exchange is completed (Issue 3 under the Issues section). One commenter expressed concern that the land exchange was unbalanced and that there may be socioeconomic ramifications that would result from the transfer. Socioeconomic impacts associated with the balancing of federal and non-federal properties are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3 under Socioeconomics. One comment requested that the EIS address the future management of the non-federal parcels, including the habitat benefits and other resource concerns at issue on these parcels. Analysis of habitat benefits and related resource concerns is provided in Chapter 3, mainly under Plants, Fish, and Wildlife. One comment emphasized the importance of maintaining the Mogollon Rim Trail for public use (Issue 1 under the Issues section). Three comments expressed concern regarding loss of property values for landowners with property abutting the Camp Tatiyee parcel (Issue 2 under the Issues section).

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Period During the DEIS official 45-day comment period, the ASNFs received 16 comments. Comments included reiterations of SUP holders who wish to continue their permitted uses across the Camp Tatiyee parcels if the land exchange is completed; a request for additional analysis of development growth induction that may result from the exchange (any possible development of the parcel is analyzed in Chapter 3); questions regarding access to and across the Camp Tatiyee parcel, particularly relating to the Mogollon Rim Trail, which is discussed under the proposed action and analyzed in Chapter 3; and general statements regarding the exchange, both supportive (four comments) and opposing (one comment).

Issues The project interdisciplinary team identified a list of issues to address from public and agency comments received during the EA and EIS scoping periods and DEIS comment period as well as input from tribes. Issues are disputes, debates, or discussions about environmental effects of a

U.S. Forest Service 11 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement proposed project. The USFS separated the issues identified from comments received on the project into two groups: issues eliminated from detailed study and key/significant issues.

Issues eliminated from detailed study are those identified in regulations as (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 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, stating that agencies shall “identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3).” All comments received during the scoping periods and comment period, any responses to them, and identification of any issues from those comments is in Appendix A.

Key/significant issues identified are those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the Proposed Action. The project team reviewed key/significant issues to determine if any of the concerns would require development of another alternative, further refinement of the Proposed Action, or addition of any further possible mitigation measures. Below are the issues identified used to refine this analysis.

Issue 1: Recreation and Access Concern 1: The land exchange would remove access to the popular Mogollon Rim Trail and would reduce forest access and existing recreational opportunities in the Pinetop-Lakeside area.

Response: The parcel is not known for any unique particular recreation other than the Mogollon Rim Trail and ease of access to NFS lands for nearby owners. Although the trail would no longer be under public ownership, the LFA has agreed to maintain part of the Mogollon Rim Trail, a very popular trail that is the main recreational draw to the area. LFA would maintain the paved portion of the trail with a 25 foot buffer on all sides, and would maintain the parking area, trailhead, and entrance road. Access to and use of the trail would continue to be available to the public so residents and visitors can continue to enjoy use of the trail and the beautiful vistas. Public access to the remainder of the parcel would be at the discretion of the landowner. Residents of abutting properties would need to travel a farther distance to reach ASNFs land but the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside abuts NFS land for miles and has numerous access points to forest land that provide opportunities for various types of recreation.

Issue 2: Land Values and Socioeconomics Concern: Residents owning property that abuts the Camp Tatiyee parcel raised the concern that privatizing the land and allowing it to be subject to development would adversely affect their property values.

12 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Response: In consideration of the present economy and general oversupply of housing, the land within the Camp Tatiyee parcel would likely remain vacant until a demand exists for new residences and development would be a profitable enterprise. If the land exchange occurs, the proponent working with the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside would utilize reasonable setbacks and other measures to help minimize impacts to surrounding areas and maintain the mountain forest character of the area. When development becomes economically feasible on the Camp Tatiyee parcel, the parcel would be subject to the rezoning and subdivision approval processes required by the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. Both of these processes include an opportunity for public comment and input. While development plans are not known at this time, the development would likely be similar to the surrounding low-density residential development. Camp Tatiyee would continue to operate at its current location. Camp Grace would have the option to purchase the land where it is located to continue operating as well. The parcel would become part of an “open space” zoning designation upon initial exchange.

Issue 3: Retention of Utility Easements Concern: Utility access across Camp Tatiyee is currently managed under the USFS SUP process. Utility companies are concerned that without a defined easement, the utilities would need to be relocated.

Response: Existing easements would remain as easements after the exchange. Existing utilities, including the irrigation ditch and storage pond, would be granted easements or other appropriate authorizations on the Camp Tatiyee parcel at the time of the exchange to allow continued authorized use.

Issue 4: Loss of Cultural Resources Concern: Tribes expressed concern over the loss of cultural resources in the project area and other projects transferring NFS land in the area that contained cultural resources and stated the loss was significant.

Response: A memorandum of agreement (MOA) among the SHPO and the USFS that includes a historic properties treatment plan HPTP was developed to resolve and mitigate the direct and indirect adverse effects to any cultural resources (USFS 2014d) in the project area and is available in the project record files. Mitigation measures in the treatment plan include photographic documentation, mapping the sites, conducting surface artifact collections, and data recovery through excavation. Through documentation and data recovery, adverse effects to these sites would be mitigated. The signed MOA and HPTP were shared with the tribes that responded and other design criteria of the project was also shared, some that would help protect a specific site identified as associated with the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The suggested protection measure for that site was agreed to by the tribal representative and LFA. Other projects in the area underway are receiving or would receive similar mitigation measures, one project was adjusted to maintain a section of land of cultural significance in NFS ownership rather than

U.S. Forest Service 13 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement transfer that section of land. The USFS has consulted with the tribes on any concerns on this project over the length of the project, as described in the Tribal Consultation section, and on other projects in the surrounding area (some described in the section below) and will continue coordination efforts as needed for mitigation of effects to cultural resources.

Other Related Efforts Other USFS Real Estate Activities in the Geographic Region The ASNFs has been consolidating ownership through land exchanges throughout the geographic region. Other similar efforts include the Black River Land Exchange and the Show Low South Land Exchange. These exchanges are land-for-land exchanges seeking to move private parcels surrounded by Forest Service land into Forest Service ownership and isolated Forest Service lands surrounded by private land into private ownership. These exchanges are completed to consolidate Forest Service lands and improve management across those lands or benefit specific natural resources as well as to meet public needs including allowing growing communities to meet development needs in the future. In addition, the ASNFs is engaged in two disposition actions: the Woodland Lake Park Land Conveyance, in which the Woodland Lake Park parcel is being sold to the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, and the Lakeside District Office Conveyance, in which the ASNFs is proposing to sell land currently housing the Lakeside Ranger District Office and adjacent parcels at auction.

The NEPA analysis for the Black River Land Exchange has been completed and decision signed for the Show Low South Land Exchange and Woodland Lake Park Conveyance. The Lakeside District Office Conveyance is still in the phase of developing the project’s alternatives.

14 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Introduction This chapter describes and compares the two alternatives considered for the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Project—the no action and proposed action (preferred alternative)—and identifies alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study with the rationale for their elimination. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives may be based on the design of the alternative (e.g., acres of land currently in federal ownership versus acres of land in federal ownership after exchange) and some of the information may be based on the environmental, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative (e.g. total acres of federal land currently containing wetlands and floodplains versus total acres of federal land containing wetlands and floodplains after exchange).

Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative 1: No Action Under the no action alternative, lands would remain under the current ownership and existing management. While this alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need of the project, it was analyzed as required by the CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1502.14 (d).

Alternative 2: The Proposed Action The proposed action is the preferred alternative of the USFS. Under this alternative the USFS would exchange one large parcel of federal land of up to 344.24 acres to LFA and BC2 LLC, for up to 18 private parcels totaling up to 1,719.32 acres with cash equalization if needed to equal the value of the exchange (see figure 1 for locations of all the parcels and the Land Exchange Process section for information on the exchange process and cash equalization). The exchange would be with Lions Foundation of Arizona, Inc. (LFA) and BC2 LLC, through Lawyer’s Title of Arizona, Inc., which holds the 18 private parcels in trust as Trustee. The exchange would occur under authority of the General Exchange Act of 20 March 1922, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 20 August 1988. The exchange would convey land, interests in land, and the resources associated with them, including subsurface mineral resources and any associated rights, royalties, or other interests, any agreed to water rights/claims, and any roads lying within the parcels. Some agreements and mitigation measures would apply as outlined in the Design Criteria section. Information on the locations of the parcels proposed for exchange is provided below. Details on the current uses and resources of each parcel and the forest management areas they lie within are provided in the Land Use, Affected Environment Section of Chapter 3 as well as under affected environment sections for other resources in Chapter 3. Information is also available in the administrative record from the Lakeside Ranger District Office. In accordance with USDA Forest Service policy, parcels must be appraised in the manner in which they were acquired, so some of

U.S. Forest Service 15 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement the parcels may be lumped together in identification in documents in the administrative record under one name. For example, Stronghold and Stronghold Well Site may be considered together and referenced simply as “Stronghold,” but identified as separate parcels in this analysis. The Tonto Creek Parcels may also be identified with different numbers in project record and lands documents, i.e. with “Tonto Creek 1 Parcel” labeled “Tonto Creek 3 Parcel.”

Locations & Acreage of Land Parcels Proposed For Exchange Information on the location of the lands involved in the proposed exchange is provided below with the priority order for exchange of the sections and lots of the federal parcel and priority order of the non-federal parcels outlined in Tables 2 and 3 below. Some parcels were identified together in the priority listing and so have the same priority order number.

Table 2. Federal land single parcel proposed for exchange with sections and lots in order of priority Priority Parcel Name, Section, & Lot Acreage County Ranger National Forest District

1 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 24 35.70 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 2 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 11 46.64 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 3 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 21 43.82 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 4 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 7 39.55 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 5 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 20 15.76 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 6 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 3 39.65 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 7 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 4 28.18 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 7 Camp Tatiyee, Section 17, lots 1 and 2 0.18 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 8 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 16 16.75 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 9 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 17 39.04 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves 10 Camp Tatiyee, Section 16, lot 18 38.97 Navajo Lakeside Apache-Sitgreaves Total Acreage 344.24

Table 3. Non-federal lands proposed for exchange locations with parcels in order of priority Priority Parcel Name Acreage County Ranger National District Forest

1 Carlisle 110.57 Navajo Lakeside Apache- Sitgreaves 2 Mansfield 182.41 Santa Cruz Nogales Coronado 3 Harshaw Creek 75.80 Santa Cruz Sierra Vista Coronado 4 Stronghold 1.02 Cochise Douglas Coronado 4 Stronghold Well Site 0.44 Cochise Douglas Coronado 5 Ronstadt Tank 80.00 Graham Safford Coronado 5 Ronstadt Highway 134.43 Graham Safford Coronado 6 Pleasant Valley 32.50 Gila Pleasant Valley Tonto 7 Tonto Creek 1 120.00 Gila Tonto Basin Tonto 7 Tonto Creek 2 160.00 Gila Tonto Basin Tonto

16 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Priority Parcel Name Acreage County Ranger National District Forest 7 Tonto Creek 3 70.00 Gila Tonto Basin Tonto 8 Red Rover 61.92 Yavapai and Maricopa Cave Creek Tonto 9 Babcock 11.15 Yavapai Bradshaw Prescott 10 Rucker East 160.00 Cochise Douglas Coronado 10 Rucker West 160.00 Cochise Douglas Coronado 11 Happy Valley 40 40.00 Pima Santa Catalina Coronado 12 Happy Valley East 80.00 Pima Santa Catalina Coronado 13 Happy Valley West 239.08 Cochise Santa Catalina Coronado Total Acreage 1,719.32

Federal Land Parcel Location The 344.24-acre Camp Tatiyee Parcel proposed for exchange lies within the Lakeside Ranger District (RD) unit of the ASNFs, located within the corporate boundaries of the Town of Pinetop- Lakeside, Navajo County, Arizona (see figure 2). The northern boundary of the parcel is the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside road easement for Wagon Wheel Road. The land north of the Wagon Wheel Road is private land occupied primarily by single family residences with one commercial business located north of the northwest corner of Wagon Wheel Road and State Route (SR) 260. The majority of the eastern boundary is the centerline of SR 260. The land on the east side of SR 260 is private land and primarily subdivided residential property. The southern one-third of the east boundary is shared with commercial business properties located in the Maverick Center, and the other part of the southern boundary is the Navajo County road easement Vallery Lane. Land south of Vallery Lane is private land occupied primarily by single family residences. The western boundary abuts undeveloped Fort Apache Indian Reservation land.

Non-federal Land Parcels Locations The 18 parcels of private land include one 110.57-acre parcel within the ASNFs; 11 parcels totaling 1,153.18 acres within the CNF; one 11.15-parcel within the PNF; and 5 parcels totaling 444.42 acres within the TNF. Information on the locations of the individual parcels follows.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Carlisle Parcel The Carlisle Parcel (110.57 acres) is located approximately 6.5 miles northwest of Show Low, Arizona. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on three sides with private land bordering the western side (see figure 3).

U.S. Forest Service 17 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Coronado National Forest

Happy Valley 40 The Happy Valley 40 Parcel is located in the Happy Valley area east of Tucson approximately 1 mile east of Saguaro National Park within the Rincon Mountains approximately 0.5 miles east of the Rincon Mountain Wilderness area. The parcel is almost completely surrounded by NFS land with an exception of a private parcel that borders the southeast end (see figure 4).

Happy Valley West The Happy Valley West Parcel is also located in the Happy Valley area east of Tucson within the Rincon Mountains just over 1 mile east of the Happy Valley 40 parcel. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on the north, south, and southeast sides with private land on the western side (see figure 4).

Happy Valley East The Happy Valley East Parcel is also located in the Happy Valley area east of Tucson within the Rincon Mountains just over 1 mile east of the Happy Valley 40 parcel. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on the south, southeast, and part of the north sides with State Land bordering one portion of the north side and the Happy Valley West Parcel on the eastern side (see figure 4).

Harshaw Creek Parcel The Harshaw Creek Parcel is located approximately 8 miles southeast of Patagonia, Arizona along Harshaw Creek between the Patagonia Mountains and the Canelo Hills. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on north, east, and south sides with private land on the west side (see figure 5).

Mansfield Parcel The Mansfield Parcel is located in the Santa Rita Mountains southeast of Tucson, Arizona, and approximately 7 miles northwest of Patagonia, Arizona, in Mansfield Canyon. The parcel is completely surrounded by NFS land (see figure 6).

Ronstadt Highway Parcel The Ronstadt Highway Parcel is located within the Pinaleno Mountains in the Stockton Pass area along SR 266 approximately 3 miles southeast of Fort Grant Arizona State Prison. The parcel is surrounded by NFS land except for the northeast corner, which borders a small private parcel (see figure 7).

Ronstadt Tank Parcel The Ronstadt Tank Parcel is located within the Pinaleno Mountains in Bar-X Canyon approximately 5 miles southeast of the Ronstadt Highway parcel. The parcel is entirely surrounded by NFS land (see figure 8).

18 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Rucker East The Rucker East Parcel is located approximately 30 miles north of Douglas, Arizona in the Rucker Canyon within the Chiricahua Mountains. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on the north, east, and south sides with private land on the western side (see figure 9).

Rucker West Parcel The Rucker West parcel is also located approximately 30 miles north of Douglas, Arizona in the Rucker Canyon within the Chiricahua Mountains. The parcel is separated from the Rucker East parcel by a strip of privately owned land. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on the north and south sides with private land on the west and east sides (see figure 9).

Stronghold Parcel The Stronghold parcel is located approximately 9 miles northwest of Pearce, Arizona in East Stronghold Canyon within the Dragoon Mountains and north of the East Stronghold Campground. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on the west side and southwest corner, the Stronghold Well Site Parcel on the east side, and private land on the north and south sides (see figure 10).

Stronghold Well Site Parcel The Stronghold Well Site parcel is also located approximately 9 miles northwest of Pearce, Arizona in East Stronghold Canyon within the Dragoon Mountains and north of the East Stronghold Campground. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on the east side, The Stronghold Parcel on the west side, and private land on the north and south sides. The Stronghold Well Site parcel is a partial interest in 0.44 acre (see figure 10).

Prescott National Forest Babcock Parcel The Babcock parcel is located approximately 3 miles south of Crown King, Arizona. The parcel is almost surrounded by NFS land except for the northwest corner that is bordered by private land (see figure 11).

Tonto National Forest

Red Rover Parcel The Red Rover parcel is located approximately 15 miles northeast of Carefree, Arizona, in the New River Mountains. Red Rover Parcel straddles Maricopa County to the north and Yavapai County to the south. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on the north, northeast, and south sides with private land on the west and southeast sides (see figure 12).

U.S. Forest Service 19 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Tonto Creek 1 Parcel Tonto Creek 1 is located approximately 11 miles northwest of Roosevelt Lake, Arizona. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on the east, northeast, and northwest sides (see figure 13).

Tonto Creek 2 Parcel Tonto Creek 2 is also located approximately 11 miles northwest of Roosevelt Lake, Arizona, just southeast of the Tonto Creek 1 parcel. The parcel is surrounded by NFS land except on the southwest corner, which borders private land (see figure 13).

Tonto Creek 3 Parcel Tonto Creek 2 is also located approximately 11 miles northwest of Roosevelt Lake, Arizona, just south of the Tonto Creek 2 parcel. The parcel is bordered by NFS land on the south and southeast sides with private land bordering the rest of the parcel (see figure 13).

Pleasant Valley Parcel Pleasant Valley parcel is located approximately 3 miles west of Young, Arizona, at the head of Walnut Creek Canyon. The parcel is surrounded by NFS land except on the northeast corner, which borders private land (see figure 14).

Maps Figure 1 below shows the regional location of the 18 parcels proposed for exchange in the Proposed Action. Figures 2 through 14 display the location of individual parcels.

20 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 1. Regional locations of parcels proposed for exchange

U.S. Forest Service 21 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2. Camp Tatiyee Federal Parcel

22 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3. Carlisle Non-federal Parcel

U.S. Forest Service 23 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4. Happy Valley Non-federal Parcels

24 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 5. Harshaw Non-federal Parcel

U.S. Forest Service 25 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 6. Mansfield Non-federal Parcel

26 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 7. Ronstadt Highway Non-federal Parcel

U.S. Forest Service 27 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 8. Ronstadt Tank Non-federal Parcel

28 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 9. Rucker Non-federal Parcels

U.S. Forest Service 29 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 10. Stronghold and Stronghold Well Site Non-federal Parcels

30 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 11. Babcock Non-federal Parcel

U.S. Forest Service 31 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 12. Red Rover Non-federal Parcel

32 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 13. Tonto Creek Non-federal Parcels

U.S. Forest Service 33 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 14. Pleasant Valley Non-federal Parcel

34 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Legal Land Descriptions Complete land descriptions of both the federal and non-federal land parcels are as follows.

Federal Parcel Property the USDA Forest Service considers for exchange:

Sitgreaves National Forest Lakeside Ranger District Camp Tatiyee Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Navajo County, Arizona T. 9 N., R. 22 E. . sec. 16 – Lots 3, 4, 7, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 24. . sec. 17 – Lots 1 and 2. Containing 344. 24 record acres, more or less

Non-federal Parcels Property the Non-federal Party considers for exchange:

Sitgreaves National Forest Lakeside Ranger District Carlisle Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Navajo County, Arizona T. 11 N., R. 21 E. . sec. 21 – SW1/4NE1/4SW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4SW1/4, W1/2SW1/4SW1/4, N1/2SE1/4SW1/4, SE1/4SE1/4SW1/4. Containing 110.57 record acres, more or less.

Coronado National Forest Santa Catalina Ranger District Happy Valley East Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Cochise County, Arizona T. 15 S., R. 19 E. . sec. 6 – Lots 1, 2, and 5, S1/2NE1/4, SE1/4NW1/4. Containing 239.08 record acres, more or less.

Happy Valley West Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Pima County, Arizona T. 15 S., R. 18 E. . sec. 1 – SE1/4NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4. Containing 80.00 record acres, more or less.

Happy Valley 40 Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Pima County, Arizona

U.S. Forest Service 35 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

T. 15 S., R. 18 E. . sec. 2 – W1/2NW1/4SE1/4, E1/2NE1/4SW1/4. Containing 40.00 record acres, more or less. Sierra Vista Ranger District Harshaw Creek Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Santa Cruz County, Arizona T. 22 S., R. 16 E. . sec. 26 – SW1/4SW1/4. . sec. 27 – Lot 1. LESS AND EXCEPTING therefrom, those certain roads, as shown and described as easements on that certain Record of Survey Plat, recorded November 6, 1998, Book 1 of Road Maps, at Page 166, Official Records of Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Said roadways were dedicated to Santa Cruz County, Arizona in fee simple interest via that certain Warranty Deed entitled “Dedication of Right-of- Way”, recorded November 9, 1998, Docket 776, at Pages 521-522 and not as easements, notwithstanding the reference to easements within said record of survey. Containing, after recognizing the exception, 75.80 record acres, more or less.

Nogales Ranger District Mansfield Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Santa Cruz County, Arizona T. 21 S., R. 15 E. . secs. 8 and 9 –MS 4318 Described as the American Boy, Great American, Deep Down No. 2, Rhode Island, Fraction, Albert Gross, Deep Down No. 1, New York, and Lost Horse Lode Mining Claims, Wrightson Mining District. Containing 182.41 record acres, more or less.

Safford Ranger District Ronstadt Highway Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Graham County, Arizona T. 10 S., R. 24 E. . sec. 3 – Lots 6 and 7. . sec. 4 – Lots 5 and 6, SE1/4NE1/4NE1/4NE1/4, SE1/4NE1/4NE1/4, W1/2NW1/4NE1/4SE1/4, NE1/4SW1/4SE1/4, E1/2NW1/4SW1/4SE1/4, NE1/4SW1/4SW1/4SE1/4, NW1/4SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4. . LESS AND EXCEPTING therefrom any portion of Lots 6 and 7, sec. 3, T. 10 S., R. 24 E., G&SRM, Graham County, Arizona lying south of the centerline of Arizona State Route 266. Said centerline is described in that certain easement recorded at Docket 58, Pages 58-60, Official Records of Graham County, Arizona. TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress and egress over the existing Ranch Roads over and across secs. 8 and 22, T. 10 S., R. 24 E., G&SRM, Graham County, Arizona. Containing, after recognizing the exception, 134.43 record acres, more or less.

36 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Ronstadt Tank Parcels GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Graham County, Arizona T. 10 S., R. 24 E. . sec. 35 – N1/2NE1/4. Containing 80.00 record acres, more or less.

Douglas Ranger District Rucker East Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Cochise County, Arizona T. 19 S., R. 29 E. . sec. 27 – NW1/4NE1/4, N1/2NW1/4; . sec. 28 – NE1/4NE1/4. Containing 160.00 record acres, more or less.

Rucker West Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Cochise County, Arizona T. 19 S., R. 29 E. . sec. 28 – NE1/4NW1/4, W1/2NW1/4; . sec. 29 – SE1/4NE1/4. Containing 160.00 record acres, more or less.

Stronghold Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Cochise County, Arizona T. 17 S., R. 23 E. . sec. 25 – A portion of the E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4 more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northwest corner of said E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4; thence S00°45’32”W 480.00 feet on the west line of the E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4 to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N34°33’50”E 312.00 feet; thence S05°58’00”W 437.36 feet to a point on the south line of the E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4; thence S 89°53’00” W 135.00 feet on said south line to the southwest corner of the E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4; thence N 00°45’32” E 178.41 feet on said west line to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Containing 1.02 acres, more or less.

Stronghold Well Site Parcel TOGETHER with an undivided 2/20th interest in and to that certain well site described as follows: That portion of the E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4 of sec. 25, T. 17 S., R. 23 E., Gila and Salt River Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northwest corner of said E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4; thence S00°45’32”W 480.00 feet on the west line of the E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4; thence N34°33’50”E 312.00 feet to the POINT OF

U.S. Forest Service 37 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

BEGINNING; thence S05°58’W 437.36 feet to a point on the south line of the E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4 located East 135 feet from the Southwest corner of the E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4; thence N17º07’53”E 332.89 feet on a diagonal line between said point and the Northeast corner of the E1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4; thence N72º52’07”W 15.00 feet; thence N17º07’53” E 15.00 feet; thence S72º52’07”E 15.00 feet to a point on the aforementioned diagonal line; thence N17º07’53”E 108.50 feet on said diagonal line; thence S89º16’00”W 89.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.44 acres, more or less.

Prescott National Forest Bradshaw Ranger District Babcock Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Yavapai County, Arizona T. 10 N., R. 1 W Mineral Survey No. 2711 (within sec. 34) . (Described as the patented Ochre Load Mining Claim, Tiger Mining District, as granted by United States Patent No. 244228 recorded in Book 95 of Deeds, page 412, records of Yavapai County, Arizona.) . Excluding all that portion within the boundaries of: 1) Mineral Survey No. 1826 (within sec. 34) . (Described as the Central Mining Claim, Tiger Mining District, as granted by United States Patent No. 451.48 recorded in Book 78 of Deeds, page 227, record of Yavapai County, Arizona.) 2) Black Eagle Lode Mining Claim (unsurveyed). The described areas aggregate 11.15 record acres, more or less.

Tonto National Forest Cave Creek Ranger District Red Rover Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, Arizona T. 8 N., R.5 E. (unsurveyed) . MS No. 3569 - Red Rover No. 6, Red Rover Copper No. 7, and Red Rover Copper No. 15, in the Magazine Mining District. Containing 61.92 record acres, more or less.

Tonto Basin Ranger District Tonto Creek 1 Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Gila County, Arizona T. 6 N., R. 10 E. . sec. 14 – NE1/4SW1/4, SW1/4SE1/4; . sec. 23 – NW1/4NE1/4. Containing 120.00 record acres, more or less.

38 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Tonto Creek 2 Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Gila County, Arizona T. 6 N., R. 10 E. . sec. 24 – W1/2SW1/4; . sec. 25 – N1/2NW1/4. Containing 160.00 record acres, more or less.

Tonto Creek 3 Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Gila County, Arizona T. 6 N., R. 10 E. . sec. 25 – E1/2SW1/4 EXCEPT the South 330.00 feet. Containing 70.00 record acres, more or less.

Pleasant Valley Ranger District Pleasant Valley Parcel GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, Gila County, Arizona T. 9 N., R. 13 E. . sec. 29 – E1/2NW1/4NE1/4, E1/2W1/2NW1/2NE1/4, NW1/4NW1/4NE1/4NE1/4. Containing 32.5 record acres, more or less.

Design Criteria Federal Parcel Future Use LFA has stated that it is their intention to continue operating Camp Tatiyee as a youth organization camp on the federal parcel should it be conveyed. The operators of Camp Grace have been extended the opportunity by LFA to acquire the land where their camp is located at the conclusion of the exchange if it occurs so they can also continue operating. The parcel, or portions of it, specifically those outside the camp boundaries, could also be made available for residential or commercial development in full compliance with and if permitted under the Town of Pinetop- Lakeside zoning ordinances and processes1. Further information on the foreseeable future developments on the land are addressed in the Land Use section of Chapter 3 of this FEIS.

1 Lands conveyed out of federal ownership become subject to all laws, regulations and zoning authorities of State and local governing bodies (Forest Service Manual 5400). Various State of Arizona agencies as well as the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, and possibly Navajo County, are the regulatory authorities for all land uses and development related activities that would be permitted on the conveyed federal land the same as for the other private land within the corporate limits of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. 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. Local authorities are in the best position to determine appropriate uses of private land. Except as authorized by law, order, or regulation, USFS policies, practices, and procedures shall avoid regulating private property use (Forest Service Manual 5403.3). Local governments have traditionally agreed and insisted that such decisions be left to them.

U.S. Forest Service 39 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-federal Future Parcel Use Non-federal parcels exchanged would be incorporated into the four different forests and management areas within which they are located (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 254.3(f)). Management direction for the acquired parcels would follow management area direction for that area and be the same as that for the surrounding federal lands, unless management of the area is modified by future amendment(s) to the forest LMP or as a result of a project specific change See the Land Use, Affected Environment Section of Chapter 3 for information on the management areas the individual parcels would become part of.

Existing Easements & Special Use Permits Existing easements would remain as easements after the exchange. All current special uses, described in more detail in the Land Use section of Chapter 3, including utility uses and the irrigation ditch and storage pond on the parcel would be converted to easements or provided other appropriate authorization to allow continued use and management.

The Mogollon Rim Interpretive Trail (#615) LFA, has agreed to maintain and preserve from any future building sites the Mogollon Rim Trail parking lot area and road connecting the parking lot area to SR 260 with the trailhead and the paved portion of the trail including a buffered area extending 25 feet from all sides of the paved trail and including a small buffered outcrop vista area (see figure 15 below). This identified area that includes the trail would remain available to the public as a recreation hiking trail area.

40 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 15. Mogollon Rim Trail preservation area

U.S. Forest Service 41 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources: Since the exchange of land is expected to be a significant effect to cultural resources in the removal of sites from federal ownership, the USFS, in consultation with the Arizona SHPO and interested tribes, has developed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that includes a historic properties treatment plan (HPTP) outlining mitigation measures to be used as part of the Proposed Action (USFS 2014d) to mitigate any effects of sites changing ownership. By following the treatment plan outlined in the MOA, discussed further in the cultural resources section of Chapter 3, adverse effects to cultural resources would be mitigated through data recovery. Consultation with tribes that have expressed affiliation to the sites and interest in involvement in the project and mitigation is ongoing for mitigation purposes.

Land Exchange Process For a land-for-land exchange of federal and private lands to take place, a proponent develops an initial proposal of lands to exchange for lands to acquire. Lands to be conveyed and acquired must be desirable for both the federal and non-federal parties and must be within equal value requirements of FLPMA for an exchange to be considered and the exchange and analysis process begun. An exchange package is arrived at by a series of proposals and counter proposals between the parties of what land is made available by private owners and the USFS until both agree on a proposal of parcels that falls within the equal value requirement. Once an acceptable proposal is reached, it is finalized in an agreement to initiate that begins the land exchange process, and the USFS moves forward with analysis of exchanging those parcels. An appraisal is completed and reviewed to determine the actual market value of the land parcels proposed for exchange. Lands must be of equal value or cash equalization may occur to equal the value of lands exchanged. In cash equalization, one side of the exchange may provide payment to supplement the lands to be exchanged in order to equal the higher value of lands on the other side. Both parties to the exchange must agree on the total package of lands to be exchanged and any cash equalization before the exchange is completed. Because of this process, a final exchange may include all lands in the proposal with or without cash equalization, some of the lands in the proposal with or without cash equalization, or a determination not to exchange. The exchange proposal analyzed in this document considers the final exchange possibilities and all the lands mutually agreed upon by a proponent and the USFS. Information on the history of the proposal and its development is provided below.

Land Exchange Proposal History In August 1997, Page Land & Cattle Co. representing LFA, an Arizona non-profit organization, proposed to exchange private land parcels within NFS land for NFS land where the Camp Tatiyee youth camp is located in order to continue operation of the camp with improved abilities to manage it. The camp has been operated under a USFS SUP since 1958. LFA proceeded to acquire further non-federal properties within the ASNFs, CNF, PNF, and TNF, and presented the ASNFs with an informal proposal for consideration that included these properties for the Camp

42 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Tatiyee Land Exchange in June 2000. LFA provided a formal offer to enter into an exchange of lands in January 2002.

In 2003, a preliminary value analysis concluded that the estimated value of the federal land far exceeded that of the offered non-federal lands. Following this analysis and discussion between the two parties, a determination was made that LFA would need to acquire additional properties for the proposed exchange to proceed. Reduction of the federal parcel to equalize the lands proposed for exchange was not considered because it would simply result in continued management of a smaller isolated parcel, and goals of the ASNFs and USFS are to reduce management of such parcels and SUPs like those that exist on the Camp Tatiyee Parcel.

In December 2005, Page Land & Cattle Co. submitted a revised proposal with more private parcels offered, including a number of parcels located within the CNF that were previously acquired by BC2 LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, for a land exchange proposal that had been known as the Cote Land Exchange. At this time, one previously offered private parcel within the ASNFs, the Carlock Parcel (60 acres) was also withdrawn from the offered non- federal lands.

A Value Consultation for the proposed land exchange was completed on 9 May 2007, and a Feasibility Analysis was approved by the Acting Director of Lands & Minerals, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Southwestern Region on 9 August 2007. The Value Consultation concluded that the proposed land exchange was in compliance with the equal value requirement of the FLPMA, as amended. An Agreement to Initiate the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange was authorized by the Acting Director of Lands & Minerals, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region on 1 October 2007.

The project was delayed for a time and when moved forward again, an updated Feasibility Analysis was prepared and was approved by the ASNFs’ Deputy Forest Supervisor on 1 August 2014 and an Amended Agreement to Initiate was authorized by the ASNFs’ Deputy Forest Supervisor on 1 August 2014. Land proposed for exchange remained the same as in the December 2005 proposal and are the same lands analyzed for exchange under the Proposed Action in this EIS.

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 provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the purpose and need of the project, not feasible for specific reasons, or duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail. Also, the land exchange process in land-for-land exchanges itself limits alternatives of the land

U.S. Forest Service 43 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement proposed for exchange as both parties must agree to the lands to be exchanged. Details on two specific alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration and detailed study follow.

Direct Purchase of Non-federal Parcels Alternative The direct purchase of non-federal lands by the U.S. is an alternative to a land-for-land exchange. However, Land and Water Conservation Fund Act funds that are the primary source of funding for the purchase of non-federally owned lands have historically been available in very limited amounts and only for the highest national priorities. It is anticipated that funding available for land purchases will continue to be very limited into the foreseeable future. Even if funds were available, the exchange proponents have stated they are not interested in selling the land to the U.S. Their offer is only for a land-for-land exchange for the federal land containing the Camp Tatiyee youth organization camp.

Deed Restrictions Alternative The use of deed restriction(s) to direct and control possible future development on the federal land once it has been conveyed into private ownership was considered. The purpose for deed restricting the federal land is to limit or control its use or development after conveyance in order to protect public interest. Since the federal land would originally be zoned “open space,” immediate development is not expected, and future development would be subject to the same state laws, county ordinances, and Town of Pinetop-Lakeside zoning ordinances, processes, and subdivision regulations as the adjacent private lands, which include public input prior to rezoning, so a deed restriction was not deemed necessary. Furthermore, for a land exchange to occur, both sides of the exchange must agree to the exchange and the components therein. A deed restriction could reduce or eliminate interest in the exchange and so was not considered. A deed restriction could also affect market value of the land.

Comparison of Alternatives Below is a short summary of the effects of implementing each alternative analyzed in Chapter 3. Information in Table 4 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, provides a detailed analysis of the effects found within Table 4.

Summary of Alternatives Comparison The conveyance of the federal land would increase the number of acres of private land within the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside by up to 344.24 acres and eliminate the isolated USFS parcel from USFS ownership and management. USFS administration of over a dozen special use permits (SUPs) on the federal land would no longer be necessary though such uses and existing easements would continue.

44 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

The acquisition of the non-federal lands would result in a reduction in mixed ownership patterns and consolidation of public land ownership. The elimination of numerous miles of common federal/private property boundaries and corners would contribute to increased management efficiency and a reduction in future administrative costs. Possible future residential/subdivision development on the private parcel inholdings would be eliminated. The USFS would gain a net total of up to 1,375.08 acres of land that would no longer need to be managed around and would be included as land available for public use. Non-federal lands would also provide additional federally managed habitat for wildlife and plant species.

Table 4. Alternatives comparison Affected Resource/Issue Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Land Use Federal No change; SUPs would continue to Significant change, as property need periodic review and re- would no longer be subject to USFS authorization for existing land uses management. SUPs and USFS to persist. oversight of SUPs would no longer be needed. Land zoning of “open space” would apply. Development could occur if the land owners change the zoning of the parcel, which would follow required public involvement processes. Non-federal No change. Significant change possible as parcels would be subject to land management under the forest LMP rather than less-restrictive county planning and would not be available for development. Recreation and Public Access Federal No change Negligible impacts. Federal parcel would no longer be accessible for public use, with the exception of the Mogollon Rim Trail and associate parking area. Non-federal No change Beneficial impacts. Non-federal parcels would be available for public recreation, as appropriate under their forest LMP designation. Socioeconomics Federal No change Less than significant impacts. County would see a reduction in payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) funding. Loss may be offset by property taxes on previously federal parcel, pending any development that may occur on the parcel. Non-federal No change Less than significant impacts. Counties where non-federal parcels lie would see a reduction in private property tax, but this would be offset by an increase in PILT funding.

U.S. Forest Service 45 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Affected Resource/Issue Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action Plants, Fish, and Wildlife Federal No change Negligible impacts. The federal parcel has minimal quality habitat for sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Non-federal No change Beneficial impacts. The non-federal land includes high value habitat for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species that is adjacent to critical habitat designations. Grazing Federal No change No change. Non-federal No change Negligible impacts. Non-federal parcels currently used for grazing would be evaluated within each forest for the suitability of ongoing grazing access. Prime and Unique Farmlands Federal No change No change. Non-federal No change No change. Wetlands and Floodplains Federal No change No change; no wetlands or floodplains are located on the federal parcel. Non-federal No change Beneficial impacts. Approximately 98 acres of wetlands and 527.76 acres of floodplain would be conveyed to and managed by the USFS. Water Quality, Rights, and Claims Federal No change No change. All existing water rights would be maintained with the exchange. Non-federal No change No change. All existing water rights would be maintained with the exchange. Cultural Resources Federal No change Cultural sites located within the federal parcel would leave federal ownership. Mitigation of the adverse effects would be completed by data recovery prior to transference to private ownership. The protection of an Apache petroglyph located on the federal parcel was agreed upon by LFA, the new land owner, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe that would be further detailed in an agreement upon exchange.

46 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Affected Resource/Issue Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action Non-federal No change Beneficial impacts. Any cultural resources located on non-federal parcels would be conveyed to and managed by the USFS. Mineral Resources Federal No change No change. Subsurface/mineral rights are conveyed as part of the exchange. Non-federal No change No change. Subsurface/mineral rights are conveyed as part of the exchange. Any mineral exploration would be subject to USFS policies and requirements. Roads Federal No change Negligible impact. Parking access to the Mogollon Rim Trail would be maintained as part of the Proposed Action. Non-federal No change Negligible impact. Private road access on the non-federal parcels would transfer to USFS ownership for evaluation for improvement, maintenance, closure, or obliteration. Fire and Fuels Federal No change Negligible impacts. Management for fuels and fire safety would become the responsibility of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. Non-federal No change Negligible impacts. Management for fuels and fire safety would become the responsibility of the USFS instead of counties. Hazardous Materials Federal No change No change. Non-federal No change. Waste rock at the Negligible impacts. Waste rock at Mansfield Parcel would remain the Mansfield Parcel would be unevaluated by the Abandoned evaluated and ranked for clean up Mine Lands Program for cleanup. under the Abandoned Mine Lands Program.

U.S. Forest Service 47

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction Land exchanges convey land, interests in land, and the resources associated with them. This Chapter considers all of those aspects and summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic resources in the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on those resources. Analysis of the proposed action considers all parcels proposed for exchange with the recognition that the exchange may fall within those analyzed and may involve cash equalization as explained in the Land Exchange Process section. It also focuses on the future use and management of the lands conveyed and acquired and the effect of the exchange on the lands that adjoin them, presents the scientific and analytical basis for the alternatives comparison in Chapter 2, and identifies the actions considered for cumulative effects below.

Projects & Actions Analyzed for Cumulative Effects A cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to the effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions and regardless of land ownership on which the other actions occur. An individual action when considered alone may not have a significant effect; however, when its effects are considered in sum with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the effects may be significant. Cumulative effects are assessed in terms of how the Proposed Action will combine with effects of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. Table 5 displays projects/actions which are near the project area, have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects to resources, and were analyzed in conjunction with actions of the alternatives for cumulative effects.

Table 5. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions Implementation Project/Action Name Description Resource(s) Affected

Present – decision Second Knoll Target Development and authorized Land use, recreation, signed under Range (EA) management and use of an 80- and socioeconomics. implementation acre target range including an existing access road. A special use permit issued to Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). AGFD will partner with White Mountain Shooters Association for the long-term operation and maintenance of the range. Decision Notice (DN) signed May 2013.

U.S. Forest Service 49 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Implementation Project/Action Name Description Resource(s) Affected Present – decision Timber Mesa - Vernon Vegetation thinning and fuels Plants, fish, and wildlife; signed under Wildland-Urban Interface reduction across 39,000 acres of water quality; cultural implementation (EA) NFS lands east of the City of resources; fire and fuels. Show Low and north of Pinetop- Lakeside. Project borders 20–25 miles of private lands and includes the Woolhouse Wildlife Habitat Area. DN signed September 2012. Present – decision Woodland Lake Park An ongoing phased purchase by Land use, recreation; signed under Tract Townsite Act the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside of socioeconomics; implementation Purchase (EA) 543 acres of federal lands wetlands and floodplains; containing Woodland Lake Park cultural resources. administered by the ASNFs (DN signed September 2013). Present – decision Show Low South Land A land exchange consisting of Land use, recreation, signed under Exchange EIS 1,028 acres of NFS lands in the and public access; implementation ASNFs and Coconino National socioeconomics; cultural Forest (CNF) in exchange for resources; hazardous 1,558 acres of non-federal lands materials. in the PNF, CNF, and ASNFs. ROD signed December 2013. Present – decision Upper Rocky Arroyo Project mechanical cut select Plants, fish, and wildlife; signed under Restoration Project EA trees across approximately 28,000 water quality; cultural implementation acres; manually cut select trees resources; across 2,400 acres, specifically in socioeconomics, meadows, sensitive soil areas, recreation; roads; fire and slopes above 25 percent; and fuels. prescribed burn across the ~31,300-acre project area; manage, use, and maintain roads removing user created or unnecessary roads; relocate unsustainable sections of the Chipmunk Connector and Country Club Trails; establish an off highway vehicle trail route to connect existing routes together across an area with no route where such use is occurring; and breach and/or obliterate a non- functioning ditch. DN signed in March 2015. Foreseeable Future Lakeside District Office Analyze conveyance of NFS land Land use, recreation and – under analysis Conveyance (EA) at the Lakeside Ranger Station public access; and adjacent parcels for sale socioeconomics; cultural under the FS Facility Realignment resources; hazardous and Enhancement Act (FSFREA, materials. PL109-54). This also involves analyzing the location of a new ranger station. Analysis in progress; two decisions anticipated 2018 or later.

50 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Implementation Project/Action Name Description Resource(s) Affected Foreseeable Future Rim Country 4 FRI (EIS) Proposed action still under Plants, fish, and wildlife; – under analysis development, but currently water quality; included mechanical and manual socioeconomics; cultural cutting restoration treatments of resources; roads; fire ponderosa pine and dry mixed and fuels. conifer ecosystems, restoration of meadows, and prescribed burning. Would involve road maintenance and use.

Land Use Affected Environment Federal Land Forest Land Management Plan Management Area The management area of the federal parcel as identified in the ASNFs LMP is Community-Forest Intermix. This management area is composed of areas within a one-half mile distance of communities at risk. The ASNF 2015 LMP defines “communities-at-risk” as “identified in the Federal Register, high risk urban communities within the wildland-urban interface” (USFS 2015a). The wildland-urban interface areas are areas of the ASNFs adjoining human development at imminent risk from wildfire. The Community-Forest Intermix MA can be used as a zone for fire suppression activities and acts as a buffer to protect land and property adjacent to the MA from wildfire. Management direction for this area is focused on management activities for fire control and prevention to minimize the risk of fire spreading into (or from) adjacent developed areas (USFS 2015a).

Land Use The federal parcel is partially developed and includes several special use permit (SUP) land uses authorized and overseen by the USFS. SUP uses include two organization camps that occupy portions of the parcel: Camp Tatiyee, operated by Camp Tatiyee, Inc., an instrumentality of the LFA, and Camp Grace, a separate and unrelated organization operated by Mission of Grace, Inc. that occupies a nearby portion of the federal parcel. The parcel also contains other uses including the Mogollon Rim Interpretive Trail (#615), a popular hiking trail, and an attached parking lot area; several easements; national forest system roads (NFSRs); and water, energy, and telephone utility features and structures. Table 6 below summarizes the land uses currently authorized on the federal parcel.

U.S. Forest Service 51 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 6. Authorized uses on the Camp Tatiyee Parcel Type of Authorization – Organization or Action Expiration Date Notes Name Individual Date

Special Use Permits Water conveyance ditch, Show Low/Pinetop- 10/31/2012 12/31/2016 None reservoir, water feeder ditch, Woodland Irrigation (In process of and supply (outlet) line – Company, Inc. extension expected unnamed 3/31/2017) Water pipeline and gauging City of Show Low 12/18/2007 12/31/2018 None station – unnamed (formerly Phelps Dodge Corporation) Sewer collection system, lift Pinetop-Lakeside 09/12/1997 12/31/2017 Lies within SR 260 Right- station and sewer lines – Sanitary District of-Way (ROW) unnamed Powerline and substation – Navopache Electric 04/27/1998 12/31/2027 None Wagon Wheel Substation Cooperative, Inc. and 69 KV line McNary- Show Low (PHX 086955) Domestic water transmission Arizona Water 03/01/2015 12/31/2034 None line – unnamed Company Telephone line – unnamed Citizens 10/14/2003 12/31/2035 None Telecommunications Company of the White Mountains, Inc. Natural gas pipeline – UNS Gas, Inc. 03/01/2015 12/31/2034 Lies within SR 260 ROW unnamed Organization – Camp Tatiyee Camp Tatiyee, Inc. 11/30/2004 12/31/2016 SUP covers 80 acres (In process of extension expected 3/31/2017) Organization camp – Camp Mission of Grace, Inc. 11/30/2004 12/31/2016 SUP covers ~16 acres Grace (In process of extension expected 3/31/2017) Municipality entering/leaving Town of Pinetop- 11/09/2012 12/31/2022 Partially located within town identification sign Lakeside westerly SR 260 ROW SR ROW – SR 260 Arizona Department 07/08/1976 None The centerline of SR 260 of Transportation is contiguous to the eastern boundary of the parcel, only the 100 feet west of the centerline lies on federal land Easements Road ROW – Vallery Lane Navajo County Board 01/27/1975 None Vallery Lane is (Rd# 9705L4) of Supervisors contiguous with the southern boundary of the federal parcel.

52 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Type of Authorization – Organization or Action Expiration Date Notes Name Individual Date Road ROW – Wagon Wheel Navajo County Board 01/31/1975 None Wagon Wheel Road is Road of Supervisors contiguous to northern (Rd #9705L3) boundary of the federal parcel, except where it curves to the south into the parcel just before SR 260 junction. Notes: ROW = Right-of-Way; KV kilovolt.

U.S. Forest Service 53 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

A number of improvements have been made to the federal parcel by the LFA related to Camp Tatiyee and the 80 acres included in its SUP. Facilities on the site include four dormitories with a total capacity of 125 people, three staff cabins, a dining hall and kitchen, a recreation hall with a stage, an indoor heated pool, an outdoor ramada with barbeque, an infirmary, a sensory therapy room and outdoor recreational amenities. The recreational amenities include nature trails, a fishing pond, an archery range, an outdoor playground, a baseball field, and a basketball court. Throughout the summer, Camp Tatiyee hosts intervals of 72 campers per week and up to 600 per season. When the summer camp is not in session, late August through early May, groups can rent facilities for private use (Lions Camp Tatiyee 2014).

Camp Grace is available to rent year-round by groups for private use. Facilities on the site include 14 cabins, a three-bedroom guest house, two restroom facilities with showers, an outdoor ramada, an amphitheater-style campfire pit, a commercial kitchen and dining hall, and outdoor recreational amenities. The recreational amenities include a volleyball area, a horseshoe pit, a basketball court, a baseball and a soccer field, a tetherball site, an activity course, and a small lake (Mission of Grace 2014).

The remainder of the parcel is primarily used for pedestrian recreation such as walking, which occurs intermittently.

The Mogollon Rim Interpretive Trail (#615) lies entirely within the parcel and is the main recreational draw of the area with heavy year-round use by thousands of people. The USFS manages an access road, parking lot, and trailhead for this trail. The Recreation and Public Access section in this chapter provides additional details on the Mogollon Rim Trail.

Three other NFSRs other than the access road to the Mogollon Rim Trail are also located on the parcel that are directly managed by the USFS. NFSR 300 (the Rim Road; currently closed to the public), NFSR 9705L1, and NFSR 9705L2, which are the access roads to Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace from SR 260. Further details on roads within the federal parcel is provided in the Roads section.

Local Zoning The Camp Tatiyee parcel is bordered on the north, east, and south by light commercial and residential development that follows the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside and Navajo County zoning ordinances as depicted in figure 16. Zoning districts established for the Town of Pinetop- Lakeside are outlined in the Town Code that guides local development. Since the Camp Tatiyee parcel is owned by the USFS and the Town does not have jurisdiction over federal land, zoning does not currently apply to the parcel. However, the Town has zoned the parcel within its municipal limits as “open space.” The existing land use of the parcel is consistent with this designation. Surrounding areas zoning designations are described in detail below.

54 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Town of Pinetop-Lakeside Zoning: The land to the east is within the Town’s municipal boundary, and the current uses are consistent with the Town’s zoning district designations. The properties along the northeastern border of the federal parcel, across SR 260, are zoned as primarily planned unit development (Planned Development on map) surrounded by small areas zoned as open space. The Planned Development zoning district allows for mixed-residential uses, such as townhomes, condos, multi-family dwellings, cooperatives and timeshares (Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 2014). Currently, a number of lots in that area are being marketed for residential development. The properties along the southeastern border, both across SR 260 and abutting the federal parcel, are zoned as light commercial (Commercial 1 on map) and rural residential (Low Density Residential on map). The Commercial 1 zoning district allows for a wide variety of uses, including multiple/single family dwellings, hotels/motels, private schools, churches, banks, offices, home occupations, restaurants, cafes. A number of the lots in that area are currently being marketed for commercial development, and a few have been developed as commercial properties. The Low Density Residential zoning district is more limited, allowing for a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre (Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 2001). In addition to single-family dwellings, other types of structures are allowed and may include guest ranches, churches, private schools, and home occupation structures.

Navajo County Zoning: The lands to the north and south of the Camp Tatiyee parcel do not fall within the Town’s municipal boundary, and are therefore subject to the planning and zoning regulations of Navajo County. The light commercial and residential uses present are consistent with Navajo County zoning designations. The land to the north of the federal parcel is zoned as Medium Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Community Commercial (Navajo County 2014). The Neighborhood Commercial zoning district allows for multiple family dwellings or other types of high-density housing (minimum 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet) as well as orphanages, rest homes, nursing homes, and convents. The Community Commercial zoning district allows for multiple-family residential (minimum 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit, minimum parcel size of 6,000 square feet) uses as well as commercial retail and entertainment, and light manufacturing, The Medium Density Residential zoning district allows for residential uses (single-family dwellings, one dwelling per a minimum of one acre), farms, recreational, institutional, commercial and industrial uses (Navajo County 2012). The land to the south of the parcel is zoned Medium Density Residential.

The land to the west of the Camp Tatiyee parcel is undeveloped, part of the Fort Apache Reservation, under the jurisdiction of the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and not subject to municipal or county zoning. The land is often used for fishing, camping, rafting and other outdoor recreational activities as allowed by permits purchased from the Tribe (White Mountain Apache Tribe Game & Fish 2014).

U.S. Forest Service 55 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 16. Zoning districts adjacent to the Camp Tatiyee Federal Parcel

56 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-federal Land Management areas surrounding the 18 non-federal parcels and land uses occurring on the parcels are identified and described in the table below with descriptions of the management areas following the table. Local zoning was not analyzed for the non-federal parcels because city and county zoning would not apply to the non-federal parcels under the proposed action and would not change under the no action alternative.

Table 7. Management area designations surrounding the non-federal parcels and current land uses of the non-federal parcels Parcel Forest LMP MAs Around Current Land Use Description the Parcel

Carlisle ASNFs: General Forest Not currently encumbered and remains undeveloped and Management Area unoccupied. NFSR-134 crosses the northeast corners of the parcel. A telephone line crosses the parcel from north to south along the western boundary of the parcel. Utility poles and transmission lines maintained by Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. traverse the parcel from east to west (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a).

Happy Valley 40 CNF: MA 4 Fuelwood/forage Not currently encumbered and remains undeveloped and production unoccupied. Turkey Creek runs through the Happy Valley 40 CNF: MA 7A Riparian habitat parcel as well as several dirt roads for all-terrain vehicle protection and improvement. recreational use. Cattle grazing has also been known to occur

Happy Valley CNF: MA 4 Fuelwood/forage Paige Creek and Buckhorn Spring are present on the parcel, West production and a public road traverses it. Recreational uses such as CNF: MA 7A Riparian habitat hunting have been known to occur (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011b). protection and improvement. Cattle grazing has also been known to occur.

Happy Valley CNF: MA 4 Fuelwood/forage Paige Creek and Buckhorn Spring are present on the parcel, East production and a public road traverses it. The parcel has a utility line CNF: MA 7A Riparian habitat maintained by Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative. protection and improvement. Grazing and recreational uses such as hunting have been known to occur on the parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011b).

Harshaw Creek CNF: MA 4 Fuelwood/forage Not currently encumbered and remains undeveloped and production unoccupied. Easements for Santa Cruz County road right-of- CNF: MA 7B Maintenance of way are present on the parcel (recorded 9 November 1998), unique ecological values and access to the parcel is via Harshaw Road (National Forest System Road [NFSR] 58).

Mansfield CNF: MA 4 Fuelwood/forage Not currently encumbered and remains mostly undeveloped production and unoccupied. Nine historic (now abandoned and closed) patented lode mining claims in the Wrightson Mining Claim are located on the parcel (Mineral Survey number 4318). Site improvements include two 4-wheel drive roads on the eastern half of the parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009a). Detailed information on the mining operations is presented in the Hazardous Materials section of this chapter. The parcel is accessed via NFSR 72.

U.S. Forest Service 57 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parcel Forest LMP MAs Around Current Land Use Description the Parcel Ronstadt CNF: MA 4 Fuelwood/forage Not currently encumbered and remains undeveloped and Highway production unoccupied. The primary use of the parcel is free range cattle grazing. The cattle drink from a 10-foot-square earthen reservoir (soil depression) located at the southeast corner of the parcel. Detailed information on grazing activities can be found in the Grazing section in this chapter. An easement exists for ingress and egress via the existing ranch road, to any portion of the parcel south of the Arizona SR 266 centerline. A stock tank is the only structure that exists on the parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011b).

Ronstadt Tank CNF: MA 4 Fuelwood/forage Not currently encumbered and remains mostly undeveloped production and unoccupied. A small paved road, NFSR 664, provides access to the parcel. Free range cattle grazing occurs on the parcel. Recreational uses such as hunting have also been known to occur and a USFS trail crosses through the northwest corner of the parcel. Structures on the parcel include a cement water tank, a well, and an earthen reservoir lined with clay that was constructed in 1985 (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011b). Detailed information on grazing, the water tank, and recreational features can be found in the Grazing; Water Quality, Rights, and Claims; and Recreation and Public Access sections in this chapter. The parcel is accessed using NFSR 664

Rucker East CNF: MA 3 Recreation Not currently encumbered and remains mostly undeveloped CNF: MA 4 Fuelwood/forage and unoccupied. A paved road, NFSR 64, running east and production west provides access to the parcel. The parcel is used for free range cattle grazing, and a small creek runs through it (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011b). Detailed information on grazing can be found in the Grazing section in this chapter. And are accessed using NFSR 74.

Rucker West CNF: MA 3 Recreation Not currently encumbered and remains mostly undeveloped CNF: MA 4 Fuelwood/forage and unoccupied. A paved road, NFSR 64, running east and production west provides access to the parcel. The parcel is used for free range cattle grazing, and a small creek runs through it (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011b). Detailed information on grazing can be found in the Grazing section in this chapter. And are accessed using NFSR 74.

Stronghold CNF MA: 3 Recreation Not currently encumbered and remains mostly undeveloped and unoccupied The parcel accessed by NFSR 84, which lies along the eastern border of the parcel. A second paved road exists on the western border of the parcel, leading to the East Stronghold Campground one-quarter mile to the south.

Stronghold Well CNF MA 3: Recreation Not currently encumbered and remains mostly undeveloped Site and unoccupied The parcel accessed by NFSR 84, which lies along the eastern border of the parcel. A second paved road exists on the western border of the parcel, leading to the East Stronghold Campground one-quarter mile to the south. An additional improvement is a well site located on the parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011b).

58 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parcel Forest LMP MAs Around Current Land Use Description the Parcel Babcock PNF: Crown King Not currently encumbered and remains undeveloped (i.e., no surface structures, improvements, or modifications observed on site) and unoccupied. The Ochre Mining Claim (MS number 2711) in the Tiger Mining District, established in 1909, exists on the parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2010). The parcel is accessed via NFSR 192.

Red Rover TNF MA 5G: General Not currently encumbered and remains mostly undeveloped Management Area and unoccupied. No structures or improvements were observed on the subject site; however, mining is known to have occurred in the past. A power transmission line runs east- west approximately 1 mile from the parcel. Three patented lode mining claims (Red Rover Company, MS numbers 6, 7, and 15) are located on the parcel, in the Magazine Mining District established in 1919 (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2010). The parcel is accessed via NFSR 254

Tonto Creek 1 TNF MA 6J: General Not currently encumbered and remains undeveloped and Management Area unoccupied. The parcel lies almost completely within the Tonto Creek floodplain. The land surrounding the parcel is also undeveloped. The parcel contains an Arizona Public Service Electric Company (APS) utility line and a road easement. The land is mainly used for recreational activities, including hunting and fishing and is accessed via a road easement for a SR 188.

Tonto Creek 2 TNF MA 6J: General Not currently encumbered and remains undeveloped and Management Area unoccupied. The parcel lies almost completely within the Tonto Creek floodplain. The land surrounding the parcel is also undeveloped. The parcel contains an Arizona Public Service Electric Company (APS) utility line. The land is mainly used for recreational activities, including hunting and fishing and is accessed via SR 188

Tonto Creek 3 TNF MA 6J: General Not currently encumbered and remains undeveloped and Management Area unoccupied. The parcel lies almost completely within the Tonto Creek floodplain. The land surrounding the parcel is also undeveloped. A small modern man-made dam of boulders exists on the site. This dam lies within the creek and is of ephemeral construction; it would not have survived high water conditions and could not date any earlier than the modern period. The land is mainly used for recreational activities, including hunting and fishing and is accessed via SR 188

Pleasant Valley TNF MA 1F: General Not currently encumbered and remains mostly undeveloped (a Management Area water tank for cattle is located on the parcel). The parcel is mainly used for free range cattle grazing and a large water tank exists on site (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a). Detailed information on grazing can be found in the Grazing section of this chapter. Portions of the parcel’s perimeter are fenced but not enclosed entirely. Walnut Creek runs southwest to the northeast of the property, but the creek occasionally runs dry. The parcel is accessed via NFSR 254

U.S. Forest Service 59 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs) Management Area (MA) – General Forest: This MA encompasses the majority of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (2015a). The management area contains undeveloped areas as well as developed facilities and open roads and trails. It also contains special areas including eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers, national recreation trails, and scenic byways (though none of these are within or near the Carlisle parcel). This MA is managed to restore priority 6th level HUC watersheds and fire-adapted ecosystems, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire, and provide forest products. A wide variety of management activities occur and a wide variety of forest products are available within this management area including timber.

Coronado Nation Forest (CNF) MA 3 – Recreation: This area includes undeveloped grasslands, woodlands, coniferous forest and riparian areas that have a high attraction to recreationists. Many are near developed recreation sites and are influenced by the presence of these sites, although not developed themselves. This area is to be managed for a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities while protecting or maintaining the unique physical, biological and cultural resources. Visual quality objectives are to be met. Other activities should maintain or enhance the recreational opportunities. Watershed conditions are to be improved or maintained. Cave Creek, outside the South Fork, is to be managed with an emphasis on wildlife habitat. Habitat for species shown under standards and guidelines will be maintained or improved primarily through coordination with other resource activities. Wildlife oriented recreation is also an important part of the management for dispersed and developed use in Cave Creek.

CNF MA 4 - Fuelwood/forage production: Land under this MA typically includes desert scrub, grassland, chaparral, and woodland vegetative types identified as capable and suitable for fuelwood harvest (USFS 1986). The fuelwood/forage production MA focuses on the sustained availability and harvest of fuelwood and livestock forage. Dispersed recreational activities are encouraged when the productivity of the land or resources is not adversely affected, visual qualities objectives are to be met, and watershed and soil conditions are to be maintained or improved. Management or activity impacts on cultural resources and non-game wildlife are to be fully mitigated.

CNF MA 7A - Riparian habitat protection and improvement: This MA includes undeveloped lands that have been identified as supporting flora and fauna associations that are unique enough to require special management practices, identified riparian ecotypes, deciduous and coniferous forest types, and known, essential habitats for threatened and endangered plants and animals. This MA focuses on perpetuating the unique wildlife or vegetative species and improving and managing riparian areas to benefit riparian dependent resources. Dispersed recreation activities and other uses may be allowed to the extent they do not degrade the unique values. Facilities may be allowed and maintained for the purpose of protecting these resources. Visual quality objectives are to be met.

60 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

CNF MA 7B - Maintenance of unique ecological values: This MA includes undeveloped lands that have been identified as supporting flora and fauna associations that are unique enough to require special management practices; identified higher ecosystem extensions, such as oak and mesquite bottoms; and known, essential habitats for threatened and endangered plants and animals. Management of this MA focuses on perpetuating the unique wildlife or vegetative species while producing livestock forage and fuelwood on a sustained basis. Recreation activities and other uses may occur to the extent they do not degrade the unique values. Visual quality objectives are to be met. Facilities may be allowed and maintained for the purpose of protecting these resources.

Prescott National Forest (PNF) MA Crown King: The terrain in this MA is rugged and consists of steep hillsides, desert plants (primarily chaparral with interspersed pinyon-juniper vegetative types), and boulders. This MA is focused on the availability of recreational opportunities including both motorized and non-motorized. Management in this MA focuses on providing developed camping in Horsethief Basin, reduction of recreation impacts such as soil compaction or loss of vegetation in dispersed camping areas, and providing a sanitary, primitive camping opportunity in the vicinity of Horsethief Basin and the Crown King community (USFS 2015b). This MA includes non-motorized day-use of the Grapevine Botanical Area and non- motorized recreation in the Castle Creek Wilderness area.

Tonto National Forest MAs 1F, 5G, and 6J – General Management Area: These MAs focus on managing for a variety of renewable natural resources with primary emphasis on wildlife habitat improvement, livestock forage production, and dispersed recreation. Watersheds in this MA are to be managed so as to improve them to a satisfactory or better condition. Direction includes improving and managing the included riparian areas (as defined by FSM 2526) to benefit riparian dependent resources.

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land

Forest Land Management Plan Under the proposed action, Community-Forest Intermix MA designation under the 2015 LMP would no longer be applicable to the federal parcel as it would transfer out of federal ownership and become part of private land within the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside.

U.S. Forest Service 61 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Land Use While the Camp Tatiyee federal parcel would be conveyed under the proposed action, the majority of the land uses would continue. The Camp Tatiyee youth organization camp would continue operation. Camp Grace, would have the option to purchase the land that Camp Grace occupies and may continue operation as well. Existing easements on the parcel, including roads such as Vallery Lane and Wagon Wheel Road, would remain easements under current management and continue to be used as they currently are. Existing SUPs for utilities on the parcel would no longer need require administrative oversight of the USFS and would be converted to easements or other appropriate authorizations at the time of the exchange to allow continued use. The paved portion of the Mogollon Rim Interpretive Trail (#615) that leads out to a scenic vista and surrounding vegetation within 25 feet of the trail as well as the access road, parking lot area, and trailhead would continue to be available for public use. Access roads to Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace are expected to remain as Camp Tatiyee is planned to continue operation and Camp Grace is expected to as well. The section of NFSR 300, the Rim Road, which is closed, would leave federal management and be subject to the land owner’s management. Public use of the remainder of the parcel would be at the discretion of the landowner and could be restricted. The remaining section of the parcel could also be developed when a demand exists for new residences and development would be a profitable enterprise, but the proponent working with the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside would utilize reasonable setbacks and other measures to help minimize impacts to surrounding areas and maintain the mountain forest character of the area. For development to occur, the areas considered for development would have to go through rezoning processes as described below.

Local Zoning The existing zoning designation of “open space” for the parcel would apply upon transfer to private ownership. In order for any uses other than open space to be established on the parcel, the parcel would have to go through the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside rezoning process, which provides multiple opportunities for public notification, review, and comment, via Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council hearings prior to the approval and adoption of the new zoning ordinance. Areas of the parcel, if rezoned, would likely be developed consistent with the adjacent zoning districts and may include a planned development, commercial 1, and low density residential designations, as described in the previous affected environment section outlining zoning of the area. Development of the parcel would be dependent on planning and zoning reviews, market demands, and regional growth demands.

Non-federal Land Under the Proposed Action, the 18 non-federal parcels would become a part of the forests they lie within and no future development on them would occur. Management of the non-federal parcels would follow the USFS LMP MA surrounding each parcel as outlined in the affected environment Non-federal Land Parcels section for Land Use. New LMPs were recently finalized

62 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

in 2015 for the Apache-Sitgreaves and Prescott National Forests. The Coronado and Tonto National Forests are currently undergoing development of new LMPs. The revision process for the CNF and TNF is still preliminary, but MA designation may change after the completion of this NEPA process. With finalization of those new plans, the non-federal parcels would likely become a part of newly established MAs in those LMPs. Management of specific resources on the parcel, such as streams, habitat, roads, etc. would follow direction for those resources as outlined in each respective forest’s forest plan. The parcels would also be evaluated by the USFS for potential inclusion in any surrounding grazing allotments and recreation areas, as applicable. Further details on other resources are provided in other sections of this chapter. The USFS would continue to recognize existing easements and authorized uses located on the non-federal parcels such as state and county roads and utilities, including communication lines, several of which are described in Table 7 in the Affected Environment section above.

Cumulative Effects Actions and projects in the surrounding vicinities that are most likely to contribute to cumulative effects to land use and that were analyzed include

1. The Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act Purchase 2. The Show Low South Land Exchange 3. Lakeside District Office Conveyance See the Projects & Actions Analyzed for Cumulative Effects section for details on each project/action.

Federal Land The projects identified in 1 – 3 in the list above all involve the transfer of land out of federal ownership. The combination of the Proposed Action with these other real estate actions would result in a transfer of approximately 1,722 acres of undeveloped federal land from federal to private ownership of land that is used by the residents of the City of Show Low, the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, Navajo County, and visitors from other areas. While this does constitute a substantial transfer of land from NFS ownership, much of the access to and important current uses of these lands would remain. In the Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act Purchase (543 acres), the highly popular and main recreational area on the parcel is the town park Woodland Lake Park (107 acres), which would remain open as a town park for continued use by local residents and visitors. Retention of the park for use into the future was a key reason for the transfer. Facilities that would also remain open for public use within the town park area include a playground area, baseball/softball parks, and restroom facilities that were under permit to the town prior to the transfer. Trails in the area would also remain available. The rest of the parcel may be used on occasion, but is not known to be an area popular for major recreational, aesthetic, utility, or other such uses. The area is an open area that is remaining open space currently (436 acres) but could be developed in the future similar to surrounding areas following

U.S. Forest Service 63 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

zoning ordinances and processes of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. The Show Low South Land Exchange includes the popular Buena Vista Trail (#637), which will be relocated with the construction of a new trailhead on federal land to maintain the trail in that area. With continued public use of the Mogollon Trim Trail, uses of the Camp Tatiyee parcel for Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace, and the continuance of other utility uses the conveyance of the Camp Tatiyee parcel, considered cumulatively with other local land activities, is not expected to result in significant adverse cumulative impacts to land use.

Non-federal Land The Proposed Action combined with other local land activities outlined above would result in a cumulative reduction of isolated private parcels within NFS land that would altogether reduce the number of SUPs the Forest Service must administer. The Proposed Action combined with the Show Low South Land Exchange would also cumulatively consolidate NFS land, eliminating some common boundaries through acquiring private land inholdings and thereby removing the possibility of future uses inconsistent with NFS land surrounding those parcels. Several current uses on the non-federal parcels within the Show Low South Land Exchange and the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange would either not change or may increase slightly when the land becomes open to the public. These uses include current utility uses, hiking, hunting, fishing, grazing, and other such uses as identified in the Affected Environment section for the non-federal parcels. Such uses would be allowed as follows management areas of the forest plan for that area and are also discussed in the sections that follow. Since many of the current uses will remain including the main uses identified by the public and local organizations with some use becoming available to the public from transfer of the non-federal parcels into federal ownership, no major cumulative adverse effects are expected and a cumulative beneficial effect for public use from the proposed action in conjunction with the other projects is expected from acquisition of these lands.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Federal Land Under the no action alternative, existing conditions would remain unchanged. Land use would remain as it currently is with the USFS administering the SUPs and easements located on the federal parcel and incurring the associated expenses for such administration and for managing an isolated parcel surrounded by urban development. The parcel would remain zoned under the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside zoning ordinances although zoning would continue to not apply.

Non-federal Land Parcels The no action alternative would leave the non-federal parcels in private ownership and would not change any of the current land uses on the non-federal parcels. The parcels would remain

64 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

available for possible future development. While further future development and use is difficult to predict as it is at the discretion of the private landowners and the parcels are more rural, if occurring, some development and use may be inconsistent with management of surrounding NFS land. The Forest Service would also continue to manage around private inholdings and maintain the current extent of boundaries shared by NFS and private land.

Cumulative Effects Actions and projects most likely to contribute to cumulative effects to land use that were analyzed for the no action alternative are the same as those analyzed under the Proposed Action Cumulative Effects section.

Federal Land No adverse cumulative effects to land use with the no action alternative in conjunction with other land actions in the area is expected as all land uses would remain as currently exist with no changes on the Camp Tatiyee Federal Parcel. The parcel would remain desirable for future exchange for the USFS as it is isolated and requires a lot of oversight of SUPs. The parcel could be exchanged in the future with different conditions that could affect land use differently than this exchange in the future, but predictions on future exchange would be speculative at this time. With no direct and indirect effects to land use, no cumulative effects would occur.

Non-federal Land No adverse cumulative effects to land use are expected with the no action alternative in conjunction with other land actions in the area as all land uses on the non-federal parcels would continue as currently occurring. Future development or changes in use would occur at the discretion of the private landowner. Future exchange could occur as the parcels would remain desirable for acquisition by the USFS and could include conditions that would affect land use differently than this exchange but would be speculative. With no direct and indirect effects to land use, no cumulative effects would occur.

Recreation and Public Access Affected Environment Federal Land The existing youth organization camps Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace that occupy the eastern portion of the federal land are both private facilities and are therefore not legally open to free public use although both camps have a high use of youth camp attendees and both camps allow renting of their facilities. Detailed descriptions of the facilities at these camps and their uses are provided under the prior Affected Environment Federal Parcel Land Use section. Together these camps occupy approximately 96 acres, or 28 percent of the 344-acre site. The rest of the federal parcel is available to and used by the public as follows: The Mogollon Rim Interpretive Trail

U.S. Forest Service 65 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

#615 is the main recreational attraction on the federal parcel and is a one-mile-long self-guided recreational trail open to public use. The main portion of the trail is a paved section that winds through a forested area to a few beautiful vistas that overlook an expanse of forested land on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation with the pavement turning to a dirt path just after the last beautiful open vista area. These vistas are highly popular spots for photos and short walks with thousands of people using the trail annually, local and summer residents and visitors alike (USFS 2014a). The trailhead for the trail begins at a parking lot located along the western side of Highway 260 and is accessed by a current NFS Road that lies between the road entryways to Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace. Use of the rest of the parcel for walks by residents living nearby also occurs.

Non-federal Land The non-federal land parcels are private property and not legally open to free public use. However, many of these non-federal parcels are located adjacent to USFS MAs that permit or encourage recreational activities under specified conditions (i.e. when recreation does not adversely affect the productivity of the land or resources). Recreationists must go around these private parcels to remain on NFS land, but depending on the condition of fencing or other barriers along the property boundaries adjoining federal land, may enter these private land parcels unknowingly. Recreational uses such as hunting have been known to occur on many of the parcels and a USFS trail crosses through the northwest corner of the Ronstadt Tank Parcel.

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Federal Land Under the Proposed Action, the main recreational use area on the parcel the Mogollon Rim Interpretive Trail (#615) would remain open for public recreational use for the entire paved portion of the trail including 25 feet on every side. The trailhead, parking area, and access road would remain available to the public for trail access. Public access to and use of the camp areas isn’t expected to change as the camps are expected to continue operation. Use of the rest of the parcel would be at the discretion of the new landowner.Therefore, no major impacts to recreation and public access are expected.

Non-federal Land Under the Proposed Action, the public would be able to legally access additional NFS land on up to 18 parcels encompassing up to approximately 1,719 acres that do not currently provide legal public access, public roads use, or public recreation thereon. The following non-federal parcels are located adjacent to USFS MAs that encourage recreation under certain circumstances:

66 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Happy Valley East • Happy Valley West • Harshaw Creek • Ronstadt Highway • Rucker East • Rucker West • Stronghold • Stronghold Well Site The above parcels total more than 990 acres. Assuming that these parcels would be designated to permit or encourage recreation, consistent with the adjoining USFS MAs, then the Proposed Action would increase the amount of land that is accessible to the public for recreational purposes with the acquisition of these parcels. Based on a review of LMP compliance and public benefits determinations presented in Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Feasibility Analysis (USFS 2014b), all of the non-federal parcels would provide a benefit to dispersed recreation, which includes camping, hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, and vehicular access. As a result, the Proposed Action would have a beneficial impact to recreation and public access on the non- federal land acquired.

Cumulative Effects Actions and projects in the surrounding vicinities that are most likely to contribute to cumulative effects to recreation and that were analyzed include

1. The Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act Purchase 2. The Show Low South Land Exchange 3. Lakeside District Office Conveyance 4. Upper Rocky Arroyo Restoration Project 5. Second Knoll Target Range See the Projects & Actions Analyzed for Cumulative Effects section for details on each project/action

Federal Land Parcel Actions identified in 1 – 3 in the list above involve the transfer of land out of federal ownership and items 1 and 2 include some high use recreational areas. However, the high use recreational areas in actions 1 and 2 are intended to be maintained for public recreational use. The Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act Purchase was completed for the purpose of maintaining a public use town park—Woodland Lake Park—and nearby amenities of a playground, baseball fields, and restroom facilities into the future. The main recreational concern in the Show Low South

U.S. Forest Service 67 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Land Exchange involved the popular Buena Vista Trail (#637), which will be relocated with the construction of a new trailhead on federal land to maintain the trail in that area. No high use recreational areas are involved in the Lakeside District Office Conveyance. The Lakeside District Office Conveyance does include an area that was a campground, but is closed now and no longer open to the public. The campground had high use on a couple of days out of the year, but a very low percentage of use over the year for many years and little funding available for administrative oversight and was closed due to such low use. The Upper Rocky Arroyo Restoration project included improvement of two walking/hiking trails and designation of an ATV/UTV route across mainly already existing roads to connect existing routes that would improve resource conditions and benefit recreation opportunities in that area. The Second Knoll Target Range was focused on increasing recreatin through development and management of a target range for public target shooting for rifles and pistols. Some intermittent recreation, usually walking for bordering residents, occurs on some parts of the parcels outside the high-use recreational areas, but is usually intermittent. Development on any of these areas, if it occurs, would need to go through town zoning ordinances and process and is expected to be more gradual as need arises then immediate.

Since most of the actions in the surrounding vicinities involve maintaining and even improving the high use recreation areas and loss of recreation in areas is focused to areas not of high use and is also expected to change gradually rather than immediately and dramatically, no major cumulative adverse effects are expected with implementation of the proposed action in conjunction with these projects.

Non-federal Parcels With the Show Low South Land Exchange project, there would be a net gain of up to 530 acres of private land, which would be largely available to recreationists (USFS 2013). Statewide the Proposed Action and the Show Low Land Exchange project would result in a net increase of approximately 1,900 acres that would be transferred to USFS management with much of that land expected to be available to the public for rural recreational activities such as camping, hunting, and hiking.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land Under the no action alternative, recreation would remain as it is on the federal parcel with Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace operating privately under permit, the Mogollon Rim Trail accessible as it currently is, and the parcel available for intermittent walking/hiking. The parcel would remain desirable for future exchange for the USFS and could be exchanged with different conditions that

68 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

could affect recreation differently than this exchange in the future, but predictions on a future exchange would be speculative at this time.

Non-federal Land The non-federal parcels would remain legally closed to free public recreational use at the discretion of the private landowners although intermittent recreational activities, such as hunting, on the non-federal parcels may continue to occur where boundaries are not fenced or clear or as allowed by the landowners. Overall, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to recreation on the non-federal parcels a result of the no action alternative. Possible future development would be at the discretion of the landowners, but could alter opportunities for certain recreational activities depending on what developments occur.

Cumulative Effects Federal Land No adverse cumulative effects to recreation are expected to occur under the no action in conjunction with other land actions in the area as recreation would remain as currently exists with no known changes on the Camp Tatiyee Federal Parcel. The parcel would remain desirable for future exchange for the USFS and future exchange could affect recreational use differently than this exchange in the future, but such predictions would be speculative. With no direct and indirect effects to recreation, no cumulative effects would occur.

Non-federal Land No adverse cumulative effects to land use are expected with the no action alternative in conjunction with other land actions in the area if the non-federal parcels remain in current ownership as recreation would remain closed to the public with no changes in allowed recreation unless allowed at the discretion of the private landowners. The parcels would remain desirable for acquisition by the USFS and if acquired under another future land exchange would be considered for recreational use at that time under the current forest plan.

Socioeconomics Affected Environment Much of the information from this section was obtained from census data and is, therefore, limited to the past but most recent decade.

Federal Land Population Table 8 shows past population statistics in 2000 and 2010 and population growth projections in 2020 and 2030 for Navajo County (where federal land would become private land), the state of

U.S. Forest Service 69 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Arizona, and the U.S. Navajo County had a population of 90,470 in 2000 and 107,449, growing 10.2 percent over the decade. From 2000 to 2010 Navajo County grew at a slower rate than Arizona but at a faster rate than the U.S. overall. Population growth in near future decades is expected to be greater for Navajo County than for the nation overall but slower than Arizona.

Table 8. Population projections, 2020-2030 Location 2000 2010 2020 2030 Percent Change 2010 - 2030

Navajo County 97,470 107,449 116,800 126,000 17.3% 10.2% Increase 8.7% Increase 7.9% Increase Increase

Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 7,485,000 8,852,800 38.5% 24.6% Increase 17.1% Increase 18.3% Increase Increase U.S. 281,421,906 308,745,538 333,896,000 358,471,000 16.1% 9.7% Increase 8.2% Increase 7.4% Increase Increase Sources: Arizona Department of Administration 2011 and 2012 and U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2010a, and 2012.

Table 9 provides the population race distribution of Navajo County in 2010 with the majority of the population almost evenly divided between White/Caucasian and American Indian. Navajo County has a much greater percentage of American Indians than either Arizona or the U.S. overall, which is expected with the surrounding tribal reservations.

Table 9. Race, alone or in combination1, 2010 Location White/Caucasian American Hispanic Black or Asian Native (percent) Indian or or Latino African (percent) Hawaiian or Alaska (percent) American Other Native (percent) Pacific (percent) Islander (percent)

Navajo 51.3 44.9 10.8 1.3 0.8 0.2 County Arizona 75.9 5.5 29.6 5.0 3.6 0.4 U.S. 74.8 1.7 6.7 13.6 5.6 0.4 Note: 1Respondents were able to identify themselves as one or more races so percentage totals may exceed 100 percent. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010a.

Employment and Income Table 10 provides labor force statistics for Navajo County, the state of Arizona, and the nation overall. Unemployment rates in Navajo County were higher than in Arizona or the U.S. overall.

Table 10. Civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment, 2000 and 2010 Location Years Labor Force Employed Unemployed Unemployment Rate1 (percent)

Navajo County 2000 33,722 29,575 4,147 12.3%

70 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Location Years Labor Force Employed Unemployed Unemployment Rate1 (percent) Navajo County 2010 42,168 36,182 5,986 14.2% Navajo County Percent Change 25% Increase 22% Increase 44% Increase 1.9% Increase 2000 to 2010 Arizona 2000 2,366,372 2,233,004 133,368 5.6% Arizona 2010 3,017,845 2,737,514 280,331 9.3% Arizona Percent Change 28% Increase 23% Increase 110% Increase 3.7% Increase 2000 to 2010 U.S. 2000 137,668,798 129,721,512 7,947,286 5.8% U.S. 2010 155,866,553 141,848,097 14,018,456 9.0% U.S. Percent Change 13% Increase 9% Increase 76% Increase 3.2% Increase 2000 to 2010 Note: 1Changes in the unemployment rate, from 2000 to 2010, are expressed in terms of percentage. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2010b. Table 11 shows poverty rates for the counties containing lands proposed for Navajo County, the state of Arizona, and the nation overall. Poverty rates in Navajo County were higher than in Arizona or the U.S. overall.

Table 11. Poverty rates, 2010 Location All People (percent) Age 18-64 (percent) Families (percent)

Navajo County 25.8 24.0 20.6 Arizona 16.3 15.2 11.6 U.S. 14.4 13.1 10.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010c.

Property Values and Taxes Table 12 shows the number of housing units, gross rent, and median value of owner-occupied units, for Navajo County, the state of Arizona, and the U.S. in 2010. Navajo County had lower gross rents and property values than Arizona and the U.S. overall.

Table 12. Housing characteristics, 2010 Location Housing Units Gross Rent Median Value of Owner- Occupied Units

Navajo County 56,702 $630 $144,000 Arizona 2,825,789 $863 $195,400 U.S. 131,210,606 $850 $187,500 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010c.

Navajo County receives Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) from the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) that are paid because federal lands are not taxable at the local level. These funds help offset losses in property taxes due to non-taxable federal lands within county boundaries. In 2014, Navajo County received $1,519,256 in lieu of taxes for 598,977 acres of federal land (DOI 2014), a rate of $2.54 in payments per acre. Given that the Camp Tatiyee Parcel is 344.24 acres,

U.S. Forest Service 71 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement a rough estimate of the Camp Tatiyee Parcel contribution to PILT funds received by Navajo County in 2014 is around $874, which is less than 0.06 percent of the total PILT funds for that year.

Non-federal Land Population Table 13 shows past population statistics in 2000 and 2010 and population growth projections in 2020 and 2030 for the counties the non-federal parcels lie within, the state of Arizona, and the U.S. Maricopa County had a population of 3,817,117 in 2010, making it the most populous county in Arizona. Population growth in Arizona (24.6 percent) exceeded the national average (9.7 percent) by more than double; with growth in each county containing lands proposed for exchange, excluding Gila County (4.4 percent), exceeding the growth of the nation overall. Population growth is expected to continue to be greater for Arizona than for the nation overall. For the 20-year period from 2010 to 2030 population in Arizona is expected to increase by 38.5 percent. Of the counties containing lands proposed for exchange, Gila County is expected to have the least amount of growth (7.3 percent) with projections suggesting increases from 53,597 residents in 2010 to approximately 57,500 residents in 2030. The next slowest estimated growth for a county a non-federal parcel lies within, 17.3 percent growth between 2010 and 2030 in Navajo County, is greater than the expected growth in the nation overall (16.1 percent). Maricopa County is expected to see the greatest amount of growth (40.4 percent), increasing from 3.8 million residents in 2010 to a projected 5.36 million residents in 2030.

Table 13. Population projections, 2010-2030 Location 2000 2010 2020 2030 Change from 2010 – 2030

Cochise 117,755 131,346 142,400 157,700 20.1% Increase County 11.5% Increase 8.4% Increase 10.7% Increase

Gila County 51,335 53,597 55,700 57,500 7.3% Increase 4.4% Increase 3.9% Increase 3.2% Increase

Graham 33,489 37,220 41,200 46,600 25.2% Increase County 11.1% Increase 10.7% Increase 13.1% Increase

Maricopa 3,072,149 3,817,117 4,506,900 5,359,500 40.4% Increase County 24.3% Increase 18.1% Increase 18.9% Increase

Navajo County 97,470 107,449 116,800 126,000 17.3% Increase 10.2% Increase 8.7% Increase 7.9% Increase

Pima County 843,746 980,263 1,100,000 1,243,100 26.8% Increase 16.2% Increase 12.2% Increase 13.0% Increase

72 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Location 2000 2010 2020 2030 Change from 2010 – 2030 Santa Cruz 38,381 47,420 55,700 64,200 35.4% Increase County 23.6% Increase 17.5% Increase 15.3% Increase

Yavapai 167,517 211,033 247,900 289,400 37.1% Increase County 26.0% Increase 17.5% Increase 16.7% Increase

Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 7,485,000 8,852,800 38.5% Increase 24.6% Increase 17.1% Increase 18.3% Increase

U.S. 281,421,906 308,745,538 333,896,000 358,471,000 16.1% Increase 9.7% Increase 8.2% Increase 7.4% Increase

Sources: Arizona Department of Administration 2011, 2012 and U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2010a, and 2012.

Table 14 provides the population race distribution of the counties the non-federal parcels lie within a majority of the population of Arizona (75.9 percent) White/Caucasian and 29.6 percent Hispanic or Latino. In comparison to the population of the nation overall, Arizona had a similar proportion of White/Caucasian and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; a higher number of Hispanic or Latino, American Indian, or Alaska Native; and fewer Asian or Black or African American residents. All counties containing land proposed for exchange, compared to the nation as a whole, had a larger proportion of Hispanic or Latino residents, and only Santa Cruz County had a lower proportion than the nation of American Indian or Alaska Native residents. In Navajo County 44.9 percent of the residents identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, while approximately half (51.3 percent) of the residents identified as White/Caucasian. All other counties were similar to, or greater than, the nation in the proportion of residents identifying as White/Caucasian.

Table 14. Race, alone or in combination1, 2010 Location White/Caucasian American Hispanic Black or Asian Native (percent) Indian or or Latino African (percent) Hawaiian or Alaska (percent) American Other Pacific Native (percent) Islander (percent) (percent)

Cochise 82.0 2.3 32.4 5.2 3.1 0.6 County Gila County 78.6 15.8 17.9 0.7 0.7 0.2 Graham 74.6 15.3 30.4 2.4 0.8 0.3 County Maricopa 75.9 2.8 29.6 6.0 4.4 0.4 County Navajo 51.3 44.9 10.8 1.3 0.8 0.2 County Pima County 77.5 4.3 34.6 4.5 3.6 0.3

U.S. Forest Service 73 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Location White/Caucasian American Hispanic Black or Asian Native (percent) Indian or or Latino African (percent) Hawaiian or Alaska (percent) American Other Pacific Native (percent) Islander (percent) (percent) Santa Cruz 75.3 0.9 82.8 0.5 0.7 0.1 County Yavapai 91.7 2.8 13.6 1.0 1.3 0.3 County Arizona 75.9 5.5 29.6 5.0 3.6 0.4 U.S. 74.8 1.7 6.7 13.6 5.6 0.4 Note: 1Respondents were able to identify themselves as one or more races so percentage totals may exceed 100 percent. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010a.

Employment and Income Table 15 provides labor force statistics for the counties containing lands proposed for exchange from private to federal ownership, the state of Arizona, and the nation overall. Unemployment rates and change were similar between Arizona and the nation as a whole in 2000 and 2010. Of the counties containing lands proposed for exchange, Navajo County and Santa Cruz County had the highest unemployment rates (14.2 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively) in 2010, while Gila County had the lowest rate (7.6 percent). The unemployment rate decreased between 2000 and 2010 in both Gila County (-2.1 percent change) and Graham County (-2.0 percent change).

Table 15. Civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment, 2000 and 2010 Location Years Labor Force Employed Unemployed Change in Unemployment Rate1 (Percent)

Cochise County 2000 45,702 42,626 3,076 6.7% Cochise County 2010 53,364 48,846 4,518 8.5% Cochise County Change from 17% 15% 47% 1.7% Increase 2000 to 2010 Gila County 2000 19,981 18,051 1,930 9.7% Gila County 2010 20,497 18,947 1,550 7.6% Gila County Change from 3% Increase 5% Increase 20% Decrease 2.1% Decrease 2000 to 2010 Graham County 2000 12,094 10,692 1,402 11.6% Graham County 2010 13,738 12,416 1,322 9.6% Graham County Percent 14% Increase 16% Increase 6% Decrease 2.0% Decrease Change 2000 to 2010 Maricopa 2000 1,498,223 1,427,292 70,931 4.7% County Maricopa 2010 1,896,950 1,730,452 166,498 8.8% County

74 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Location Years Labor Force Employed Unemployed Change in Unemployment Rate1 (Percent) Maricopa Percent 27% Increase 21% Increase 135% Increase 4.0% Increase County Change 2000 to 2010 Navajo County 2000 33,722 29,575 4,147 12.3% Navajo County 2010 42,168 36,182 5,986 14.2% Navajo County Percent 25% Increase 22% Increase 44% Increase 1.9% Increase Change 2000 to 2010 Pima County 2000 391,673 370,768 20,905 5.3% Pima County 2010 466,213 423,308 42,905 9.2% Pima County Percent 19% Increase 14% Increase 105% Increase 3.9% Increase Change 2000 to 2010 Santa Cruz 2000 13,953 12,875 1,078 7.7% County Santa Cruz 2010 19,723 17,147 2,576 13.1% County Santa Cruz Percent 41% Increase 33% Increase 139% Increase 5.3% Increase County Change 2000 to 2010 Yavapai County 2000 71,714 68,098 3,616 5.0% Yavapai County 2010 93,714 85,286 8,428 9.0% Yavapai County Percent 31% Increase 25% Increase 133% Increase 4.0% Increase Change 2000 to 2010 Arizona 2000 2,366,372 2,233,004 133,368 5.6% Arizona 2010 3,017,845 2,737,514 280,331 9.3% Arizona Percent 28% Increase 23% Increase 110% Increase 3.7% Increase Change 2000 to 2010 U.S. 2000 137,668,798 129,721,512 7,947,286 5.8% U.S. 2010 155,866,553 141,848,097 14,018,456 9.0% U.S. Percent 13% Increase 9% Increase 76% Increase 3.2% Increase Change 2000 to 2010 Note: 1 Changes in the unemployment rate, from 2000 to 2010, are expressed in terms of percentage points. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2010b.

Table 16 shows poverty rates for the counties containing lands proposed for exchange from private to federal ownership, the state of Arizona, and the U.S. in 2010. Compared to the nation as a whole, Arizona has a greater percentage of all people (16.3 percent compared to 14.4 percent), working age adults aged 18-64 (15.2 percent compared to 13.1 percent), and family units (11.6 percent compared to 10.5 percent) whose income was below poverty level for the preceding twelve months. Of the counties containing lands proposed for exchange, Navajo County and Santa Cruz County had the highest poverty rates (above 20.0 percent) in each

U.S. Forest Service 75 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement category. Except for families in poverty in Yavapai County (9.5 percent), all categories in each county were above the national averages.

Table 16. Poverty rates, 2010 Location All People (percent) Age 18-64 (percent) Families (percent)

Cochise County 15.3% 14.2% 10.7% Gila County 18.6% 19.3% 10.8% Graham County 19.6% 17.6% 16.3% Maricopa County 15.0% 13.7% 10.8% Navajo County 25.8% 24.0% 20.6% Pima County 17.8% 17.4% 12.2% Santa Cruz County 27.5% 22.0% 22.2% Yavapai County 15.2% 16.8% 9.5% Arizona 16.3% 15.2% 11.6% U.S. 14.4% 13.1% 10.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010b.

Property Values and Taxes Table 17 shows the number of housing units, gross rent, and median value of owner-occupied units for the counties containing non-federal lands proposed for exchange from private to federal ownership, the state of Arizona, and the U.S. in 2010. Gross rent and median value of owner- occupied units was greater in Arizona ($863 and $195,400, respectively) than the nation as a whole ($850 and $187,500, respectively). Of the counties containing lands proposed for exchange, Graham County had the lowest gross rent ($592) and median value of owner-occupied units ($124,800), was below the national average, and had the lowest number of housing units (12,896). Maricopa County had the highest number of housing units (1,627,073) and highest gross rent ($917), while Yavapai County had the highest median value of owner-occupied units ($217,400).

Table 17. Housing characteristics, 2010 Location Housing Units Gross Rent Median Value of Owner- Occupied Units

Cochise County 58,763 $742 $157,300 Gila County 32,482 $704 $164,400 Graham County 12,896 $592 $124,800 Maricopa County 1,627,073 $917 $215,900 Navajo County 56,702 $630 $144,000 Pima County 439,679 $742 $190,500 Santa Cruz County 17,878 $655 $156,400 Yavapai County 109,877 $828 $217,400 Arizona 2,825,789 $863 $195,400 U.S. 131,210,606 $850 $187,500

76 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010c.

Table 18 shows property tax rates (tax per $100 in assessed value) and primary property tax levies in 2014 for each of the counties containing lands proposed for exchange from private to federal ownership. Gila County has the highest primary tax rate ($4.19), while Navajo County has the lowest ($0.6995). Maricopa County has the second lowest primary tax rate ($1.2807), and the highest primary property tax levy ($409,775,397). The lowest primary property tax levies are in Graham County ($4,558,218) and Navajo County ($6,318,553). Table 16 also shows the total property taxes paid to each county for the non-federal parcels in the project area in 2013.

Table 18. County-wide property taxes levied in 2014 compared to taxes paid in 2013 for the non- federal parcels Location Primary Tax Rate Primary Property Property Taxes Percent of Total Tax Levy in 2014 from Non-federal Taxes Levied Parcels in 2013

Cochise County $2.6276 $26,446,148 $988.96 <0.01 Gila County $4.1900 $18,378,381 $1,494.50 0.01 Graham County $2.3711 $4,558,218 $28.72 <0.01 Maricopa County $1.2807 $409,775,397 $292.46 <0.01 Navajo County $0.6995 $6,318,553 $8.04 <0.01 Pima County $3.6665 $277,155,468 $24.72 <0.01 Santa Cruz County $3.4215 $11,576,873 $2,951.58 0.02 Yavapai County $1.9308 $43,108,560 $1,049.60 <0.01 Source: Arizona Tax Research Association 2013.

Each of these counties received PILT funds in 2014. Table 19 shows the amount of PILT funds received by each county, the total number of acres that PILT funds are paid for, and PILT funds per acre in 2014.

Table 19. PILT Payment per acre by county, 2014 Location PILT Payment Applicable Acreage PILT Payment per Acre

Cochise County $2,142,985.00 901,148 $2.38 Gila County $3,426,420.00 1,771,484 $1.93 Graham County $2,784,560.00 1,099,637 $2.53 Maricopa County $3,011,264.00 2,434,825 $1.24 Navajo County $1,519,256.00 598,977 $2.54 Pima County $3,152,584.00 1,534,068 $2.06 Santa Cruz County $978,173.00 432,662 $2.26 Yavapai County $3,177,599.00 2,599,553 $1.22 Source: DOI 2014.

U.S. Forest Service 77 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land

Population The Proposed Action is not expected to change population characteristics or trends in Navajo County. No immediate development of the federal parcel is expected and uses of the parcel for the two youth camps are expected to continue. However, any future development of the parcel if and as allowed following zoning ordinances and processes of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside may help accommodate expected increases in population in the local area. Availability of the parcel for possible development in the future could focus some of the future increases in population in the area of the parcel, although several other areas are also available for development in the local communities, so increases are expected to be gradual and would likely be limited to low density town zoning requirements similar to the surrounding areas if rezoned in the future as described below.

Employment and Income The parcel would be zoned as open space originally and would have to go through the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside rezoning and development processes to allow for any development, including development of any businesses. While the camps are expected to continue operation on part of the parcel, any future rezoning of the rest of the parcel would likely be similar to that of the surrounding area, which is mainly low density residential with some open space and limited commercial zoning. Due to its original expected zoning, no immediate effects are expected on employment and income. Any possible future rezoning could result in some business development if authorized, but such development would likely be limited. Effects to employment and income would be beneficial to employment of local residents in Navajo County but also correspondingly minor. Development of housing may provide employment and income temporarily, but is not expected to be a major change in employment and income in the area as it is expected to be gradual.

Property Values and Taxes The foremost socioeconomic change that could occur from the exchange of lands would be related to local property taxes. Federal property is not taxable by local governments while private property is taxable. As such, the land that is being transferred would become taxable. As the land would become taxable, two effects would be anticipated (1) property tax revenues would increase and (2) PILT revenues would decrease. The net effect would likely be minimal because the amount of PILT payments from the federal parcel is less than 0.06 percent of all the PILT

78 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement funds received by Navajo County. Also, property taxes would be levied that would likely be close in amount to the decreased PILT payments, so any change in government revenue and the provision of public services would likely be very minor.

Some concerns have been raised that if the land is developed (changing from its current open space land use) it may have a detrimental effect on nearby residential property values. Research does suggest that proximity to open space can have an effect on property values (Bolitzer and Netusil 2000, Geoghegan 2002, Sengupta et al. 2003, Anderson and West 2006). Effects of open space on nearby property values have been shown to be mixed but, overall, beneficial to prices (Bolitzer and Netusil 2000, Sengupta et al. 2003). Furthermore, one study indicates that beneficial effects on property values are stronger with permanent open space than with developable open space (Geoghegan 2002). Given the findings of this study, because the Proposed Action would convey land from being non-developable to being developable, the Proposed Action may negatively affect nearby property values. The impact on individual properties, however, would tend to be small given that the overall impact of open space on property values is greatest in more urban areas where open space is at a premium, and lower in areas like Navajo County where nearby open space is abundant (Anderson and West 2006). Because Navajo County is a rural area where open space is not at a premium, any effects on property values related to conveying land from permanent open-space to developable land are expected to be less than significant and more limited to those properties nearest to the transferred parcel.

Non-federal Land

Population Under the Proposed Action, residential property development would not occur on the non-federal parcels because they would become a part of NFS land. The Proposed Action is not expected to have much effect on population characteristics or trends in the counties the parcels lie within because the parcels are more rural and not known to be areas of high focus for development or population expansion. Transfer of the non-federal parcels is also not expected to change population characteristics or trends in the surrounding remaining private lands as those lands are already near or adjoin NFS land boundaries.

Employment and Income The Proposed Action is not expected to change employment rates or income in any of the counties the parcels lie within. Most of the parcels are rural and undeveloped, do not include any businesses, current open mining operations or areas with higher potential for minerals that are expected to be a focus for mining, or provide employment or generate known income of any kind related to the parcels or the resources thereon, other than utility use management, which would continue, and grazing, which may continue with any future analysis and inclusion of the parcels into federal grazing allotments.

U.S. Forest Service 79 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Property Values and Taxes The foremost socioeconomic change that would occur from the transfer would be related to local property taxes. Federal property is not taxable by local governments while private property is. As such, the non-federal parcels that would be transferred would become non-taxable thereby decreasing local government revenues, but PILT revenues would increase, increasing local government revenues. Table 20 shows estimates of increased acreages of federal land in each county, PILT payments per acre, and associated increased PILT payments for each county that would be affected.

Table 20. Anticipated PILT payment per acre by county with proposed action Location Additional Federal PILT Payment per Potential Increase in Land (acres) Acre Annual PILT Payment

Cochise County 560.5 $2.38 $1,333 Gila County 382.5 $1.93 $740 Graham County 214.4 $2.53 $543 Maricopa County1 N/A N/A N/A Navajo County 110.6 $2.54 $280 Pima County 120.0 $2.06 $247 Santa Cruz County 258.2 $2.26 $584 Yavapai County1 73.1 $1.22 $89 Note: 1Acreage and payment associated with Red Rover parcel applied to Yavapai County. N/A=not applicable. Source: DOI 2014. Table 21 compares the potential increase in PILT payments with the 2013 property taxes paid to each county. The net effect would be minor as decreased property tax revenues would likely be similar in amount to increased PILT payments and any overall effects related to government revenue and the provision of public services would be less than significant. For those counties that would result in a net loss of income (i.e., Gila County, Santa Cruz County, and Yavapai County), the total property tax contributes less than 0.02 percent of each counties’ property tax revenue. Thus, the net loss is expected to be less than significant.

Table 21. Anticipated PILT payment per acre by county with proposed action Location 2013 Property Taxes Potential Increase in Difference between 2013 Annual PILT Payment Taxes and Potential PILT Payments

Cochise County $988.96 $1,333 $344.04 Gila County $1,494.50 $740 -$754.50 Graham County $28.72 $543 $514.28 Maricopa County1 $292.46 N/A N/A Navajo County $8.04 $280 $271.96 Pima County $24.72 $247 $222.28 Santa Cruz County $2,951.58 $584 -$2,367.58 Yavapai County1 $1,049.60 $89 -$960.60 Note:1Acreage and payment associated with Red Rover parcel applied to Yavapai County. N/A=not applicable.

80 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Source: DOI 2014.

Cumulative Effects Actions and projects in the surrounding vicinities that are most likely to contribute to cumulative effects to socioeconomics and that were analyzed include

1. Second Knoll Target Range 2. The Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act Purchase 3. The Show Low South Land Exchange 4. Lakeside District Office Conveyance 5. Upper Rocky Arroyo Restoration Project 6. Rim Country 4-FRI See the Projects & Actions Analyzed for Cumulative Effects section for details on each project/action

Federal Land The proposed action in conjunction with other projects that would convey land from federal to private ownership, items 2 – 4 in the list above, is not expected to result in increased population in the area, which is projected to increase in the local area regardless over the next couple decades, but may provide availability of land for the expected increasing population. Some increase in employment and income in the local area could occur due to development of businesses on transferred land in items 2-4 in the future, although most transferred areas are expected to be residential similar to surrounding areas. Effects of gradual increased development on nearby home prices is expected to be mixed and for the vast majority of properties in the region less than significant relative to other factors that have an effect on housing values. The Second Knoll Target Range is expected to provide some jobs for local residents, and the Upper Rocky Arroyo Restoration Project and Rim Country 4-FRI may contribute to employment of some local residents for implementation of project activities; however, the increase in employment and income is not expected to have much of a measureable effect on the unemployment rates or number of families in poverty and is expected to be gradual and minor.

Non-federal Land Transfer of the non-federal parcels into USFS ownership is not expected to have an effect on population in the counties the parcels lie within as they Projects that convey land from private to federal hands could have cumulative impacts in terms of the potential for reduced economic activities that may result from federal ownership. For instance, some existing or potential mining operations or cattle grazing activities may be disallowed under federal ownership, leading to a potential reduction in overall economic activity. This effect is anticipated to be less than significant relative to overall economic activity in the region.

U.S. Forest Service 81 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Under the Proposed Action, residential property development would not occur on the non-federal parcels because they would become a part of NFS land. The Proposed Action is not expected to have much effect on population characteristics or trends in the counties the parcels lie within because the parcels are more rural and not a high focus for development. Transfer of the non- federal parcels is not expected to change population characteristics or trends in the surrounding remaining private lands as those lands are already near or adjoin NFS land.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal and Non-federal Land Since no changes would be made to land ownership under the no action alternative, no changes or effects would occur to socioeconomic conditions.

Cumulative Effects Federal Land and Non-federal Land Because the no action alternative would not affect socioeconomic conditions, no impacts are anticipated in association with the Proposed Action; as such cumulative impacts are not anticipated.

Plants, Fish, and Wildlife Affected Environment Consultation between the USFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) associated with the ASNFs 2015 LMP resulted in a Biological Opinions (BO) that provides guidance on all activities conducted on ASNFs lands. The ASNFs LMP BO (USFWS 2015) was issued 13 May 2015 and is applicable to the Proposed Action. It is the current direction of the Southwestern Region to conduct a consistency check to determine whether a project is consistent with the requirements of the ASNFs LMP BO. Based on a review of the ASNFs LMP BO in relation to proposed project activities, implementation of any of the alternatives proposed would be consistent with the new ASNFs LMP BO.

The ASNFs also completed a biological assessment and evaluation (BA&E) for the proposed land exchanged that evaluated impacts of the proposed action on federally protected species listed as threatened and endangered (T&E) under the ESA; Forest Service sensitive species, management indicator species (MIS), which were listed by the ASNFs under a prior forest plan; and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act. The BA&E focused only on the federal parcel proposed for conveyance out of USFS ownership (3C Consulting 2010) as that is the only federal parcel involved in the exchange. Habitat and potential for species on the non-

82 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

federal parcels is discussed generally in this analysis based on what is known for the non-federal parcels and habitat types for different species. The BA&E did not analyze effects to plants and wildlife as a result of the no action alternative because no change would occur under that alternative. An Addendum BA&E was completed (September 2016) to cover species not analyzed, new listings, and/or status changes since the 2010 BAE. Management indicator species were analyzed in the 2010 BA&E as followed the current plan at the time, but under the new Forest Plan (2015) the ASNFs no longer has MIS species. The MSO, goshawk, and antelope are identified as focal species in the new Forest Plan and are only analyzed at the Plan level, so further analysis of them in this EIS as MIS is not included. MSO and goshawk are federally listed and sensitive species so they are analyzed as such in the BA&E and the analysis included in this EIS.

Federal Land The vegetation of the federal parcel is primarily ponderosa pine with a small Gambel oak component and two man-made ponds. No naturally occurring riparian habitat exists on this parcel; however, an irrigation ditch and the ponds do support some riparian plant and animal species. The ponds have water year round but the irrigation ditch that feeds them is frequently dry. Willows and sedges grow along the irrigation ditch and ponds. The ponds have cattails, and are populated with bullfrogs, bass, and sunfish.

Non-federal Land Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests The Carlisle parcel is a combination of semi-arid grassland and pinyon-juniper woodland. The parcel is relatively flat. The Carlisle parcel has potential habitat for Chiricahua leopard frog within a small pond. The Carlisle parcel also has potential habitat for the Mexican gray wolf. The wolves are habitat generalists and can be found in deserts, grasslands, shrublands/chaparral, and various types of woodlands. The wolves succeed where human population density and persecution level are low and prey densities (primarily elk or other ungulates) are high.

Coronado National Forest The Happy Valley 40, East, and West parcels are part of the Happy Valley Riparian Area, a large riparian corridor along Page Creek. The corridor is considered to be an exceptional habitat for neo-tropical migrant birds. The Happy Valley parcels also include a combination of oak and mesquite woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. The parcels have assemblages of diverse mesquite and acacia types, creosote brush, and succulents. The riparian corridors include mesquite species, mulefat, arrow-weed, and willow species. Page Creek and Turkey Creek could provide potential habitat for the northern Mexican gartersnake.

The Happy Valley 40 parcel is within designated Mexican spotted owl critical habitat; the Happy Valley East and West parcels, while not within critical habitat, may provide foraging habitat. The

U.S. Forest Service 83 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Happy Valley parcels also include potential habitat for the northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis), a federally endangered falcon. The falcon is considered a “non- essential experimental population” within Arizona, a status which provides protection similar to that of a listed threatened species. Northern aplomado falcons use varying habitats, including oak savannahs, various desert grassland associations, and open pine woodlands. The falcons require open terrain with scattered trees, relatively low ground cover, an abundance of insects and small to medium-sized birds (for prey), and a supply of nest sites. The falcon has not been observed in Arizona for over 40 years.

The Happy Valley Riparian Area offers potential habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), a federally endangered bird that breeds in the southwestern United States. The flycatcher favors dense riparian habitats (cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation) with saturated soils, standing water, or nearby streams, pools, or cienegas.

The three Happy Valley parcels may also provide habitat for the Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii), a bird species identified as a candidate for federal listing. Habitat within these parcels is likely to be marginal at best, for while the birds do use grasslands and wetlands similar to those interspersed throughout these parcels, they generally prefer large expanses of these habitats, rather than the small clumps of habitat present here. However, the habitat is better quality for the federally threatened yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). The cuckoos prefer open woodlands and riparian woodlands, and typically nest in tall cottonwood and willow riparian woodland.

The Harshaw Creek parcel includes three-eighths of a mile of the intermittent Harshaw Creek, which supports a healthy riparian community. The Harshaw Creek parcel also includes a combination of oak and mesquite woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. The parcel has assemblages of diverse mesquite and acacia types, creosote brush, and succulents. The Harshaw Creek parcel also includes an isolated area of bedrock outcropping, typified by cliffs and canyons, with unstable scree slopes. Species associated with the outcropping areas include elephant-tree, ocotillo, Bigelow's bear-grass, teddy-bear cholla, and other desert species and succulents.

The Mansfield parcel includes a perennial spring that drains into Mansfield Canyon Creek. The creek supports riparian and wetland habitats within and beyond the Mansfield parcel. The Mansfield parcel includes pinyon-juniper woodlands, pine-oak forests and woodlands, and diverse grasslands. The riparian corridor includes willow species and large cottonwoods.

The Ronstadt Highway and Ronstadt Tank parcels are primarily a combination of desert grassland and chaparral, with a sizeable pinyon-juniper woodland component.

The Rucker parcels include Rucker Canyon Creek, an intermittent stream with perennial pools and a robust riparian community. The parcels are primarily a combination of pinyon-juniper and

84 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

oak woodlands. The Rucker West parcel includes bedrock outcroppings, as well as smaller areas of chaparral and grasslands. The Rucker East parcel has more riparian habitat, and is almost entirely pinyon-juniper and pine-oak woodlands. The parcels also include portions of federally designated critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, as well as a post-fledgling area for northern goshawks.

The Stronghold Parcels are entirely pinyon-juniper woodland.

Prescott National Forest The Babcock parcel is an interspersed mix of chaparral and pine-oak woodlands and forests.

Tonto National Forest The Pleasant Valley parcel is primarily savannah grasslands, with two isolated patches of pinyon- juniper woodlands, and a corridor of riparian woodland surrounding Walnut Creek Canyon.

The Red Rover parcel is an interspersed mix of chaparral and pinyon-juniper woodlands. The parcel also has an isolated patch of pine-oak woodlands. The Tonto Creek parcels run in and along Tonto Creek. This creek supports habitat for several threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, as well as provides substantial wetland habitat.

The Tonto Creek 1, 2, and 3 parcels are primarily Sonoran Desert scrub, typified by cactus (including saguaro and barrel cactus) and paloverde and creosotebrush scrub. There are few grasses or herbs. While the majority of the cover of Tonto Creek 1 is Sonoran Desert scrub, there are also several pockets of mesquite-dominated scrub, riparian woodlands, and desert wash assemblages. The riparian woodland features box-elder, cottonwood, and various willow species. The desert wash has sparse vegetation, primarily acacia, mesquite, and desert willow species. Tonto Creek 1 also has a large riparian area that is dominated by introduced species (primarily salt cedar). Tonto Creek 2 has large continuous areas of riparian woodlands, but also has a small pocket of invasive riparian species. Tonto Creek 3 also has high quality continuous native riparian woodlands, but also has the largest assemblages of non-native riparian species. Tonto Creek is home to the northern Mexican gartersnake, but invasive bull frogs have been observed to be adversely impacting the population.

U.S. Forest Service 85 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land Table 22 summarizes the potential impact to species potentially found on the federal parcel proposed for exchange under the proposed action. These summaries are derived from the BA&E completed for this project.

A list of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Proposed Species was compiled by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs with concurrence on September 20, 2013 by the Phoenix Endangered Species Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS-approved species list for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs was used in determining which, if any, listed species or critical habitat may be affected. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs received the Region 3 Forest Service sensitive species list, dated September 2013 from the Regional Forester. The most recent survey information, knowledge of species and habitats, review of official web sites providing information on the species, and site-specific locations, as well as the overall range of species were used in determining if any listed, proposed, sensitive species, or critical/suitable habitats would be affected by the proposed action. Each species was reviewed to consider potential impacts the proposed action could have. If impacts are considered discountable or non-existent the species is not evaluated in detail and discounted in the table below. Those species with possible effects will be evaluated in greater detail.

Subsequent to the development of the concurrence list, the Mexican gartersnake and narrow- headed gartersnake were listed as federally threatened. While these species are not included on the official concurrence list, they are included in this analysis.

Only one federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species was identified as having potential habitat within the federal lands: the federally threatened Chiricahua leopard frog. None of the federally listed species have designated critical habitat within the federal parcel.

86 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 22. Federal and sensitive species with the potential to occur on the federal parcel Species Status Key Habitat Elements Occurrence within Project Determination of Area/Habitat Present Effect

Mammals Gunnison’s prairie dog SEN High mountain valleys and plateaus at No prairie dogs have been NO IMPACT Cynomys gunnisoni elevations of 6,000 to 12,000 feet. Open or documented in the project area. slightly brushy country with scattered junipers No impacts from this project will and pines. Mainly in areas with high abundance occur. of native plants. Springerville pocket mouse SEN Volcanic grasslands, prairies of sandy, gravelly, Species not known to occur on NO IMPACT Perognathus flavus or rocky areas with sparse vegetation of various district. Requires open grassland goodpasteri grasses and forbs. Not restricted to a specific habitats. Potential habitat is not plant association. present in action area. Mexican gray wolf EXP/NEP Primarily Madrean evergreen forests and Species unlikely to occur due to the NOT LIKELY TO Canis lupus baileyi woodlands, including pine, oak woodlands, development on three sides of the JEOPARDIZE pinyon-juniper woodlands, riparian areas, and action area. Area is too small to be grasslands at elevations above 4,500 ft. of use for wolves. There are no known established wolf packs or dens on the Lakeside RD. Allen’s lappet-browed bat SEN Boulder piles, cliffs, rocky outcrops or lava Species not documented in action Additional evaluation Idionycteris phyllotis flows. Roosts in caves and abandoned area but potential habitat does required mineshafts. Taken in Arizona mainly from occur ponderosa pine forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands. Pale Townsend’s big-eared SEN Desert-scrub, oak woodland, oak/pine, pinyon- The analysis area does not contain NO IMPACT bat juniper, and coniferous forests. Roosts in caves suitable roosting sites for this Corynorhinus townsendii and mines from desert-scrub up to woodlands species. No bat roosts or pallescens and coniferous forests. Abandoned buildings, hibernacula were found, and no cold caves, lava tubes and mines. individuals were observed during the biological field survey of the project area. Birds Northern goshawk SEN Wide variety of forest types including Potential habitat occurs in action Additional evaluation Accipiter gentiles deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests. area. required Typically nest in mature or old-growth forests, commonly in ponderosa pine.

U.S. Forest Service 87 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Species Status Key Habitat Elements Occurrence within Project Determination of Area/Habitat Present Effect Western yellow-billed cuckoo T/SEN This species occurs in deciduous riparian No montane riparian hardwoods NO EFFECT Coccyzus americanus woodlands with dense stands of cottonwoods present. Not documented as occidentalis and willows. In Arizona, this species nests occurring on the District. No mostly below 5,000 feet. suitable habitat exists within or near the analysis area. No effects from the proposed action will occur.

Southwestern willow E/SEN Found in riparian habitats along perennial This species has not been found in NO EFFECT flycatcher drainages where dense growth of willows, mid-elevation riparian habitats from Empidonax traillii extimus tamarisk, and other shrubs and medium-sized 3,400 to 7,960 feet. The analysis trees are present with a scattered overstory of area is at the mid-elevation level. cottonwoods. Nests in thickets of trees and The species is not known to occur shrubs approximately 12-24 feet tall, with a high in or near the analysis area and no percentage of canopy cover and large volume suitable or occupied habitat occurs of foliage. near the analysis area. Critical Habitat was designated final in February, 2013. No critical habitat was designated on the Lakeside Ranger District. No habitat modifications or detectable indirect impacts will occur from the proposed action. American peregrine falcon SEN Steep, sheer cliffs overlooking woodlands, Potential foraging habitat in project Additional evaluation Falco peregrinus anatum riparian areas or other habitats supporting avian area. required prey species in abundance. Presence of an open expanse is critical. 400 – 9000’ elevation. Sonoran, Mohave, and Great Basin desert- scrub up through areas of Rocky Mountain and Madrean Montane Conifer Forest.

88 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Species Status Key Habitat Elements Occurrence within Project Determination of Area/Habitat Present Effect Bald eagle SEN Sonoran Riparian Scrubland and Sonoran Potential habitat in project area. Additional evaluation Haliaeetus leucocephalus Interior Strand, Sonoran Desert-scrub biome- required Arizona Upland subdivision, Interior Chaparral biome, Great Basin Conifer Woodland biome, and Rocky Mountain and Madrean Montane Conifer Forest. Inhabit unfrozen inland waters where abundant prey. Winter habitat has open water and abundant food supply. Nests usually on cliff ledges, rock pinnacles, and in cottonwood tree, but have been found in junipers, pinyon and ponderosa pines, sycamores, willows, snags. Mexican spotted owl T/SEN Spotted owls use a wide variety of habitats Suitable habitat does not occur NO EFFECT Strix occidentalis lucida including open and non-contiguous forests, within the action area. Surveys pure ponderosa pine stands, small cave in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and openings, and rocky slopes. In northern 2005 found no spotted owls. Arizona, they are associated primarily in The Area was thinned in 2006 unlogged mixed-conifer forests. as part of a WUI project. Based on the negative survey data and the presence of residential development on three sides of the parcel it is not considered potential MSO habitat.

Fish Little Colorado sucker SEN Found from 2200’ to 7100’, principally in rocky Species not present in action NO IMPACT Catostomus sp. 3 pools and riffles of creeks and small to medium area. No suitable or potential rivers with abundant cover. They are also habitat is present in the action found in impoundments. area

U.S. Forest Service 89 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Species Status Key Habitat Elements Occurrence within Project Determination of Area/Habitat Present Effect Little Colorado spinedace T/SEN Found in water 0.5-4.3 ft deep, but appear most Species not present in action NO EFFECT Lepidomeda vittata abundant in depths of about 1.9 ft. Spinedace area. No suitable or potential are most common in slow-to-moderate water habitat is present in the action currents that flow over fine gravel bottoms. area. They avoid deep, heavily shaded pools and shallow, open areas, preferring unshaded pools with rocks or undercut banks for cover. Temperatures where populations exist generally range from 58-79° F. Spinedace appear quite capable of tolerating relatively harsh environments that undergo dramatic fluctuations in pH, dissolved gases, and water temperatures. Loach minnow E/SEN The loach minnow is primarily a benthic Species not known to occur in NO EFFECT Tiaroga cobitis species, inhabiting moderate to large streams project area and no habitat present. at intermediate elevations, and is typically No impact to species or habitat. associated with shallow, turbulent riffles with cobble and gravel substrates. The species feeds on a variety of aquatic insects. Spawning occurs in the same riffle habitat that is normally inhabited by the species, where eggs are deposited on the underside of small, flattened rocks. Periodic flooding that cleans riffles of embedding sediments is important to the survival of loach minnows. Major floods do not appear to displace loach minnows, but may aid the species by flushing away non-native fish with which the loach minnow appears incompatible.

90 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Species Status Key Habitat Elements Occurrence within Project Determination of Area/Habitat Present Effect Amphibians and Reptiles Chiricahua leopard frog T/SEN Occurs chiefly in the oak and mixed oak and There are no known populations Additional evaluation Lithobates chiricahuensis pine woodlands. Highly aquatic and almost within the project area or within required always associated with permanent water, dispersal distance. Last recorded preferably with emergent and submergent on Lakeside RD in 1970s. The aquatic vegetation. Prefers rocky streams with presence of crayfish, non-native deep rock bound pools. Species inhabits fish, and/or bullfrogs would likely montane springs, streams, and tanks, it was prevent this species from occurring historically found in numerous valley wetlands within any riparian zone or wetted and cienegas. Fifty percent of the populations area in or near the project area. documented in Arizona were associated with Critical Habitat was designated natural lotic systems. The others were final in April, 2012. No critical associated with stock tanks (39%) and natural habitat was designated on the or artificial lakes (11%). Lakeside Ranger District. Northern leopard frog SEN Grassland, brush land, woodland, and forest Species not documented in Additional Lithobates pipiens ranging high into the mountains, usually in action area but potential habitat evaluation required permanent waters with rooted aquatic does occur. vegetation; also frequents ponds, canals, marshes, springs, and streams. May forage far from water. 2,640 – 9,155’ elevation. Northern Mexican T/SEN Permanent water with lush vegetation. Lakes, There are no known occurrences of NO EFFECT gartersnake large streams and rivers, and rich springs and this species within the project area Thamnophis eques headwaters. It is semi-aquatic and seldom seen or within dispersal distance. No megalops more than 15 meters from permanent water. proposed critical habitat occurs within the project area or district. There are no populations within dispersal distance. No effects from this project will occur.

Narrow-headed gartersnake T/SEN Permanently flowing streams, sometimes There are no known occurrences of NO EFFECT Thamnophis rufipunctatus sheltered by broadleaf deciduous trees, in this species within the project area pinyon-juniper and pine-oak woodland up to or on the district. No habitat in ponderosa pine forest. project area. No proposed critical habitat occurs within the project area or district. No effects from this project will occur.

U.S. Forest Service 91 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Species Status Key Habitat Elements Occurrence within Project Determination of Area/Habitat Present Effect Insects Ferris’s copper SEN In meadows and cienegas near food plant, Species not known to occur in NO IMPACT Lycaena rubidus ferrisi Rumex hymenosepalus action area. Requires wet meadow habitat with Rumex hymeospalus which is the larval host plant. No suitable habitat exists within the project area. A stonefly and caddisflies SEN Riparian lotic systems. Species not known to occur in NO IMPACT Capnia caryi, Lepidostoma project area and no habitat present. apache, Lepidostoma knulli, No impact to species or habitat. Limnephilus granti

Plants Blumer’s dock SEN Mid- to high-elevation wetlands with moist, Species not known to occur in NO IMPACT Rumex orthoneurus organic soil adjacent to perennial springs or action area. Species requires wet streams in canyons or meadows. Intolerant of meadow habitats adjacent to shading. 4,480 – 9,660’ elevation. mountain streams. No potential habitat occurs within the action area

Bebb’s willow SEN Along riverbanks, stream banks, overflow Species is found in high elevation NO IMPACT Salix bebbiana channels, and seeps in chaparral to high- riparian meadows and along elevation coniferous forests. streams. No suitable habitat occurs within the Camp Tatiyee parcel. Arizona sneezeweed SEN Ponderosa pine forests, especially around wet Potential habitat in project area. Additional evaluation Helenium arizonicum places such as bogs, ponds, lakes, and required roadside ditches. 6,000 – 8,000’ elevation. Arizona sunflower SEN Dry, frequently sandy soils between 4,000 and Potential habitat in project area. Additional evaluation Helianthus arizonensis 7,000’ elevation. required Key to Abbreviations: SEN = Sensitive Species as determined by Regional Forester, E = Federally listed as endangered; T = Federally listed as threatened; C = Federal candidate species; EXP/NEP = Experimental nonessential population

92 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Federally Listed Species

Chiricahua Leopard Frog The Chiricahua leopard frog occurs chiefly in the oak, mixed oak, and pine woodlands, and was last recorded on Lakeside RD in 1974. This frog is highly aquatic, and is almost always associated with permanent water, preferably with emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation. Chiricahua leopard frogs prefer rocky streams with deep rock bound pools; it inhabits montane springs, streams, and tanks. Historically, it was found in numerous valley wetlands and cienegas. Fifty percent of the populations documented in Arizona were associated with natural lotic systems. The others were associated with stock tanks (39 percent) and natural or artificial lakes (11 percent). No individuals were found during 2003 or 2009 surveys within federal parcel. The presence of predatory species including bull frogs and predatory fishes in the ponds would likely prevent the Chiricahua leopard frog from being established in the federal parcel.

Effects Determination The determination of effects for this species is based on the following:

• Habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog occurs in the project area in the form of two man-made ponds that are stocked with bass and sunfish, and have bullfrogs. All of these species prey on leopard frogs. • All potential habitat sites were surveyed in 2003 and 2009. No leopard frogs were found. Bass, sunfish, and bull frogs were found to be common. • The most recent sighting of Chiricahua leopard frogs on the Lakeside Ranger District occurred immediately south of the project area in Rainbow Lake in 1974. • This species is likely absent from the Little Colorado Watershed. The final rule listing the Chiricahua leopard frog as threatened states that once extirpated from a region, natural recolonization of suitable habitats is unlikely to occur in the near future. • Current populations are not within reasonable dispersal distances to suitable habitat within the project area. • The nearest critical habitat occurs approximately 45 miles away in the Deer Creek drainage of Apache County near Conch Bill Spring (USFWS 2012c). Based on the above discussion, implementation of the proposed action would have no effect on the Chiricahua leopard frog.

Forest Service Sensitive Species

American Peregrine Falcon The American peregrine falcon occurs around steep, sheer cliffs overlooking woodlands, riparian areas or other habitats supporting avian prey species in abundance. The falcons may also be found in less optimal habitat, including small, broken cliffs in ponderosa pine forest or large, sheer cliffs in very dry areas. American peregrine falcons favor birds as their primary prey, and

U.S. Forest Service 93 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

may feed on bats secondarily. The federal parcel is relatively flat, and does not provide the cliffs or open expanses favored by the falcons. There is no suitable nesting habitat within the federal parcel but it is likely used as foraging habitat.

Effects Determination The effects of this project on the American peregrine falcon consider the following information:

• No peregrine falcon eyries are known within the project area or on the district • The proposed action would not affect the suitability of this parcel as foraging habitat • Residential development on the parcel could increase the falcon’s prey base on the parcel as residents feed and attract birds. • There are no cliffs or nesting habitat in the project area. Based on the above discussion, the proposed action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Bald Eagle Bald eagles favor areas with high water-to-land edge, and areas with unimpeded views including both horizontal and vertical aspects. Areas selected for as wintering habitat will have an adequate food supply, and have open water such as river rapids, impoundments, dam spillways, lakes, and estuaries. Potential roosting and perching habitat are present in federal parcel. The two ponds within the parcel could be used as foraging habitat for bald eagles; however, these ponds are so small that it is unlikely that they could provide sufficient space and forage to be important to wintering bald eagles. There is a bald eagle nest approximately ¾ of a mile to the east of the project at Show Low Lake. Nest watchers from the AZGFD have not observed eagles foraging at the ponds.

Effects Determination The effects of this project on the bald eagle consider the following information:

• One nesting pair of bald eagles are known on the Lakeside Ranger District at Show Low Lake approximately ¾ mile east of the parcel. • Eagles have not been observed roosting, foraging, or nesting on the parcel. • The 2 ponds on the 344 acre parcel are likely too small and don’t provide enough prey base for wintering bald eagles. They freeze in the winter and no prey are present. • Nest watchers from the AZGFD have not observed eagles foraging at the ponds during their monitoring. Based on the above discussion, the proposed action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

94 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Northern Goshawk The northern goshawk is a forest generalist foraging in most forest types. It typically nests in stands of large ponderosa pine or mixed conifers. The federal parcel contains both potential foraging and nesting habitats. This parcel was surveyed for goshawks in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2009, and 2010. A single goshawk responded to the surveyor in 2003. No nest was found; it is likely the goshawk was foraging in the area but was likely nesting outside of the parcel. The presence of Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace on this parcel likely cause sufficient noise disturbance during the goshawk breeding season to preclude nesting adjacent to the existing structures even though some of the largest trees on the parcel are located close to and within these camps. Additional noise disturbance could be contributed to the presence of SR 260 on the northeast side of the parcel and the residential and commercial development on the north, south and east sides of the parcel.

Effects Determination The effects of this project on the northern goshawk consider the following information:

• Lack of suitable habitat on 3 sides of the parcel lessens the importance of the 344 acres being used for foraging habitat. • The closest northern goshawk PFA is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the parcel. • The presence of Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace on this parcel likely cause sufficient noise disturbance during the goshawk breeding season to preclude nesting adjacent to the existing structures even though some of the largest trees on the parcel are located close to and within these camps. • Residential and commercial development on 3 sides of the parcel also likely preclude goshawks from foraging on the parcel. Based on the above discussion, the proposed action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Northern Leopard Frog Northern leopard frogs may be found in a variety of habitats including grassland, brush land, woodland, and forest. The frogs are usually in permanent waters with rooted aquatic vegetation, but are also found in ponds, canals, marshes, springs, and streams. Northern leopard frogs primarily feed on small invertebrates, and may forage far from water. The presence of predatory species including bull frogs and predatory fishes in the ponds on the federal parcel would likely prevent the northern leopard frog from being established in the federal parcel.

Effects Determination The effects of this project on the northern leopard frog consider the following information:

U.S. Forest Service 95 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Habitat for the northern leopard frog occurs in the project area in the form of two man-made ponds that are stocked with bass and sunfish, and have bullfrogs. All of these species prey on leopard frogs. • All potential habitat sites were surveyed in 2003 and 2009. No leopard frogs were found. Bass, sunfish, and bull frogs were found to be common. • With the presence of predators it is unlikely that northern leopard frogs could persist in the two ponds. • There are no known populations that exist on the parcel or on the district. • There are no known populations that exist within dispersal distance of the parcel. Based on the above discussion, the proposed action will have no impact to northern leopard frogs.

Allen’s Lappet-browed Bat Allen’s lappet-browed bat has been found primarily in ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, Mexican woodland and riparian areas of sycamores, cottonwoods and willows. The bats are often found near boulder piles, cliffs, rocky outcrops or lava flow, and have been captured along streams or over ponds where the bats may be seeking insects, water or both. The bats generally roost in caves and abandoned mineshafts, but may use snags as well. The bats primarily feed on soft- bodies insects. The federal parcel provides suitable foraging habitat, but few large snags on the parcel and no known caves or rock crevices that could provide suitable roosting habitat.

Effects Determination The effects of this project on the Allen’s lappet-browed bat consider the following information:

• No occupancy within the project area has been documented but foraging habitat is available. • No boulder piles, cliffs, or rocky outcrop roosting habitat occurs on the parcel. Based on the above discussion, the proposed action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Arizona Sneezeweed Arizona sneezeweed is an annual or biennial flowering forb found in regions of ponderosa pine forests, especially around wet places such as bogs, ponds, lakes, and roadside ditches. Arizona sneezeweed habitat is common throughout the ASNFs. Potential habitat for this species occurs on the federal parcel around the two ponds, on roadsides and in low lying areas where water puddles after rainstorms.

Effects Determination The effects of this project on the Arizona sneezeweed consider the following information:

96 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Potential habitat occurs on the federal parcel around the two ponds, on roadsides, and in low lying areas after rainstorms. • Proposed action would not alter potential habitat around ponds but might alter habitat in other areas of the parcel. • No Arizona sneezeweed plants have been observed on the parcel • If Arizona sneezeweed is present the proposed action would not result in a measurable change in the species population on the ASNF. Based on the above discussion, the proposed action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Arizona Sunflower The Arizona sunflower is a flowering herbaceous perennial, found in open pine and juniper woodlands. It has been found within five miles of Show Low, but has not been documented in Arizona since 1984. The federal parcel includes suitable habitat for the Arizona sunflower, and it could potentially occur there.

Effects Determination The effects of this project on the Arizona sunflower consider the following information:

• No Arizona sunflower plants have been documented within the project area but habitat is available. • Arizona Sunflower has been observed within 5 miles of Show Low but not recently. Based on the above discussion, the proposed action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Non-federal Land The proposed action would bring the non-federal parcels into federal ownership and allow for more continuous habitat management by eliminating these inholdings. The USFS mandate to improve habitat and water quality would result in an overall benefit to biological resources located on these parcels.

Several of the parcels also have the potential to benefit listed or sensitive species. The Rucker parcels include areas mapped as Mexican spotted owl critical habitat which would be transferred to federal ownership and would not undergo future development. Thus, the project would have a beneficial effect to Mexican spotted owl critical habitat. These parcels also include a northern goshawk post-fledgling area that would also be subject to federal management and protection.

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.

U.S. Forest Service 97 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Under the no action alternative, the federal parcel would remain under federal ownership, no development would occur, and plant, fish, and wildlife resources would continue to receive protection. The non-federal parcels, however, would continue to be unprotected, and the management of sensitive but unlisted species (e.g., the northern goshawk) would be at the discretion of the land owner.

Cumulative Effects 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 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.

Migratory Birds A detailed analysis of effects on migratory birds is found in Appendix 2 of the BAE. The proposal is to trade 344 acres of Federal Land on the Lakeside Ranger District of the Apache – Sitgreaves National Forests for 1719 acres of private land in 14 parcels and in 4 National Forests all within Arizona. Due to the high real estate values in the Pinetop Area one acre of land will trade for 4.9 acres of land elsewhere. The Camp Tatiyee parcel has a high value for development, but limited value for wildlife due to the current human disturbance associated with the Rim Trail, unofficial hiking trails, traffic noise from the adjoining highways, and surrounding residential areas. The analysis primarily considered the 344 acres of ponderosa pine and pinyon juniper habitat that will pass out of Forest Service control. It is assumed that the 1719 acres that will come under Forest Service control will be only a benefit for migratory birds as it will be protected from further development. It is determined that this land exchange will be a net benefit for migratory birds

Grazing Affected Environment Lands throughout Arizona are used for livestock grazing. A stockman may elect to graze livestock on his own land, on someone else’s private land via a grazing lease, or on a federal grazing allotment as a permittee if authorized.

Federal Land As of 2011, the ASNFs administered 92 active grazing allotments and two designated sheep driveways. Livestock grazing contributes to the livelihood of the permittees and to the economy

98 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

of local communities and counties. Although the federal parcel could be utilized for grazing (among other uses), as specified in the LMP, grazing does not currently occur on the site and the parcel is not included in any grazing allotment (USFS 2015a).

Non-federal Land Privately-administered grazing leases exist on 15 of the non-federal parcels (figure 17):

• Carlisle Parcel • Happy Valley 40 Parcel • Happy Valley East Parcel • Happy Valley West Parcel • Harshaw Creek Parcel • Mansfield Parcel • Pleasant Valley Parcel • Red Rover Parcel • Ronstadt Highway Parcel • Ronstadt Tank Parcel • Rucker East Parcel • Rucker West Parcel • Tonto Creek 1 Parcel • Tonto Creek 2 Parcel • Tonto Creek 3 Parcel The individuals who hold grazing leases on the non-federal parcels are also permittees with authorized active permits for grazing on allotments on adjacent federal land. The allotments are managed through separate permits by the individual ranger districts. Grazing does not currently occur on any of the other non-federal parcels (USFS 2014c).

U.S. Forest Service 99 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 17. Grazing Activities on the federal and non-federal parcels proposed for exchange

100 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land Since the federal parcel is not part of a grazing allotment, the land exchange would not result in any reduction of animal units on an active grazing allotment and have no direct or indirect impacts to grazing.

Non-federal Land Under the Proposed Action, the existing grazing leases on the non-federal lands would be terminated. Since, the grazing leases on the non-federal parcels belong to the same permittees on adjacent federal land, the permittees are likely to be able to continue to graze livestock on the exchanged parcel if the USFS is able to expand the existing allotment. The non-federal lands would be integrated into ongoing USFS management plans for each respective area and the non- federal parcels would be evaluated by the USFS for potential inclusion in any surrounding grazing allotments and permits. However, any decision to authorize future livestock grazing on the affected allotments is not a component of the analysis for an exchange of lands and would be considered in a separate environmental analysis following the exchange. Because the areas surrounding the non-federal parcels would continue to be grazed under the existing allotments, no significant direct or indirect effects to grazing are anticipated from the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects The non-federal lands would be integrated into the USFS management plans area under the Proposed Action. The federal land would not be part of a grazing allotment initially. Any future grazing effects to the non-federal lands, if any, would be considered in the environmental analysis for the affected allotments. There are no known actions that, in conjunction with the Proposed Action, would result in substantial impacts to grazing. No cumulative effects are anticipated.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land Since the federal parcel is not part of a grazing allotment nor would any changes occur to the parcel under the no action alternative, no direct or indirect impacts to grazing would occur.

U.S. Forest Service 101 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-federal Land Under the no action alternative, the non-federal parcels would remain private and would likely continue to be grazed as they currently are, so no direct or indirect effects to grazing would occur.

Cumulative Effects Since no changes to grazing would occur on the federal or non-federal parcels and grazing doesn’t occur on the federal parcel, no cumulative effects would occur under this alternative.

Wetlands and Floodplains Affected Environment Water resources reports were prepared for the federal and non-federal land parcels that are part of the proposed land exchange. Information from these reports is summarized below.

Federal Land Parcel The federal parcel has 0 acres of wetlands and 0 acres of floodplains.

Non-federal Land Parcels As summarized in Table 23, the non-federal parcels contain approximately 98 acres of wetlands and 527.76 acres of floodplains (USFS 2014b).

Table 23. Summary of wetlands and floodplains on non-federal lands to be exchanged Parcel Name Wetlands (acres) Floodplain (acres)

Carlisle 0 0 Happy Valley East 2 4 Happy Valley West 14 22 Happy Valley 40 8 12 Harshaw Creek 26 26 Mansfield 2 3 Ronstadt Highway <1 1 Ronstadt Tank 2 3 Rucker 42 93 Stronghold <1 <1 Babcock 0 0 Red Rover 0 0.76 Tonto Creek 1, 2, and 3 0 360 Pleasant Valley 0 3 Total Acreage 98 527.76 Source: USFS 2014b.

102 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Ronstadt Tank parcel contains an important livestock and wildlife watering tank that is divided into three sections; a main pool, a secondary pool, and a sediment trap. The total surface area inundated by the stock tank is approximately 2.9 acres and can contain up to approximately 27 acre-feet of water (USFS 2011). The earthen stock tank and overflow spillway appear to be in good condition with no erosion or sinkholes (USFS 2011).

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land No direct or indirect effects to wetlands or floodplains would occur with transfer of the federal parcel to private ownership as the parcel does not contain any wetlands or floodplains.

Non-federal Land With acquisition of the non-federal parcels the USFS would receive a net gain of up to approximately 98 acres of wetlands and 527.76 acres of floodplains. These wetlands and floodplains and any associated riparian habitat would then be managed by the USFS and would receive greater protection under federal jurisdiction and management. This would complement the USFS’s ongoing efforts to protect and increase riparian habitat. This would also comply with USFS policy (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2527.3) and is consistent with the intent of Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management and EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands.

The livestock and wildlife watering tank at the Ronstadt Tank parcel would continue to provide a source of water for wildlife and for livestock if the parcel were included in a grazing allotment in the future and would also benefit from management by the USFS. If acquired in the land exchange, the tank would be classified as a “Class D Dam” (FSM 7511.1) and would have a hazard classification of LOW (FSM 7511.2(1)).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects with regards to wetlands and floodplains 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 floodplains:

• The proposed Second Knoll Target Range and associated access roads in the Lakeside RD of the ASNFs.

• The Woodland Lake Park Tract Townsite Act Purchase project, which would result in a net loss of 543 acres of land administered by the ASNFs but there is no expected change to existing wetlands and floodplains in the parcels to be sold.

U.S. Forest Service 103 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

• The sale of National Forest lands at the Lakeside Ranger Station under the Forest Service Facility Realignment & Enhancement Act, which would result in no expected change to existing wetlands or floodplains.

• Timber Mesa – Vernon Wildland-Urban Interface Project.

• The Show Low South Land Exchange on the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Prescott national forests, which would result in USFS receiving a net gain of approximately 110.5 acres of wetlands and between 163 and 166 acres of floodplains.

• The Upper Rocky Arroyo Restoration in the Lakeside RD of the ASNFs.

• The Show Low South Fire Risk and Fuels Reduction in the Lakeside RD of the ASNFs.

• Residential development as addressed in the City of Show Low General Plan.

While these projects could potentially affect wetlands and floodplains, these projects on NFS lands are managed to mitigate impacts to wetlands. Under the Proposed Action alternative, a net gain in approximately 98 acres of wetlands and 527.76 acres of floodplain would occur. Other projects would result in either a net gain (approximately 110.5 acres of wetlands and between 163 and 166 acres of floodplain under the Show Low South Land Exchange) or no change in acreage of existing wetlands and floodplains and in conjunction with the proposed action would result in a cumulative gain in and protection of wetlands and floodplains. Federal acquisition of additional lands containing these resources would contribute towards reversing the long-term trend of declining riparian habitat in the southwest. With more stringent management objectives under federal ownership, beneficial cumulative impacts are anticipated.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Federal Land Since no wetlands or floodplains exist on the federal parcel and no changes would occur to the parcel under the no action alternative, no cumulative adverse effects to wetlands or floodplains would occur.

Non-federal Land Under the no action alternative, no immediate change to wetlands or floodplains is expected; however, future development and use of these lands would be at the discretion of the private landowners and dependent on any developments or uses, could negatively affect wetlands and floodplains and potentially remove associated riparian habitat.

104 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Effects There are no known actions that, in conjunction with the no action alternative, would result in substantial impacts to wetlands or floodplains.

Water Rights/Claims & Water Quality Affected Environment Federal Land The federal parcel does not have any naturally occurring intermediate or perennial waters located on the parcel nor any water rights or claims.

Water quality in the Show Low Creek watershed, which includes areas of the federal 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. Drought conditions from 1996 to 2005, coupled with increasing residential growth, spurred shortages in water supplies in the Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside area and drew concern for water quality issues. In 1988, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality placed the nearby Rainbow Lake on Arizona’s 303(d) list of impaired waters due to excessive weeds, pH, and nutrient overloading. The issues were due primarily from agricultural and residential pollutants that infiltrate tributaries such as Show Low Creek.

Non-federal Land No existing water rights have been identified on the Happy Valley 40, Happy Valley East, Happy Valley West, Babcock, Red Rover, Tonto Creek, or Pleasant Valley parcels. A Water Resources Evaluation was completed as part of the Feasibility Analysis (USFS 2014b) and details the existing water rights on the remaining parcels. The findings of that evaluation are summarized below.

The Carlisle parcel includes one claim (Certificate Record No. 38-83314) for 2 acre-feet per year stock pond for use as stockwater.

The Stronghold parcel has no surface water rights; however, it does have a divided interest well. The Stronghold parcel, as defined in this analysis includes an undivided 2/20th interest in and to the well site; Well Registration No. 55-610090. No known agreement exists between any of the interest holders regarding how this well is maintained or managed.

The Ronstadt Tank parcel includes both a surface claim and a registered well. The surface claim (Certificate of Water Right No. 33-089677) authorizes use of the waters of Bar X Canyon for the

U.S. Forest Service 105 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

purpose of stock watering. This is used primarily in conjunction with the use of a grazing permit on the adjacent federal lands (Forest Grazing Permit 50462, 0 Bar 0 Allotment). The well site (Well Registration No. 55- 601473) is similarly used for stock watering.

The Ronstadt Highway parcel includes two distinct surface water claims for the purpose of stock watering. Statement of Claim of Right to Use Public Waters of the State No. 36-102332 includes 0.5 acre-foot per year within section 3, and 0.2 acre-foot per year within section 4, Township 10 South, Range 24 East. Certificate of Water Right No. 33-89575 includes the waters of a unnamed wash, a tributary of Pitchfork Canyon for the purpose of stock watering, and for a volume up to 768,000 gallons per year and storage up to 2 acre-feet.

The Mansfield parcel includes one surface claim to be used for stockwater and mining. The claim is registered as Assignment (Conveyance) of Statement of Claim No. 36-48816 and is for up to 16 acre-feet per year.

The Harshaw Creek parcel includes one surface claim to be used for stock watering. The claim is for the Santa Cruz River, Harshaw Creek, (Registry No. 36-102368.2), and is for 2 acre-feet per year.

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Federal Land Since no naturally occurring intermediate or perennial waters are located on the parcel and no water rights or claims exist, no direct or indirect effects to water rights/claims would occur.

While the transfer of the federal parcel to private ownership would have development limited by current zoning, any future zoning changes would have to be considered in light of regional water quality as an increase in demand for water use in the Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside area could further the issues facing the watershed.

Non-federal Land Under the Proposed Action, agreed upon water rights/claims (up to a total of 720 acre-feet in annual volume) would be conveyed to federal ownership. Under the protection of the USFS, 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

106 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

exchanges, including the planned Show Low South Exchange, would involve a similar trade of lands and any associated water rights and claims. However, as with the Proposed Action alternative, land exchanges often involve a net gain of water rights and claims. In general, projects on national forests are designed to minimize effects to water quality. No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land Under the no action alternative, the federal parcel would continue to be managed by the Forest Service and no direct or indirect effects to water rights/claims or water quality would occur.

Non-federal Land Under the no action alternative, the non-federal parcels would remain in private ownership and water rights/claims would continue. While the parcels could be developed at the discretion of the landowners and development could affect water quality, plans would likely include mitigation measures to avoid major impacts to water quality. No adverse direct or indirect impacts to water rights/claims or water quality 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 Land An intensive pedestrian survey for cultural resources (Leonard 2006) was conducted for the entire parcel of land proposed for exchange out of federal ownership. This survey resulted in the identification of 12 archaeological sites and 38 isolated occurrences. Five additional isolates were found in 2006 during unrelated surveys on the parcel. Two additional historic sites were documented in 2007. Five of the cultural resource sites and all of the isolated occurrences were determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP; Leonard 2006, Stein 2007).

The sites within the federal parcel determined not eligible to the National Register with SHPO concurrence include:

AR-03-01-07-1383/AZ P:16:236 (ASM) – Rock pile

U.S. Forest Service 107 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

AR-03-01-07-1387/AZ P:16:240 (ASM) – Historic artifact scatter AR-03-01-07-1388/ AZ P:16:241 (ASM) – Historic road segment AR-03-01-07-1428/No ASM number – Historic Camp Grace AR-03-01-07-2101/No ASM number – Historic Camp Tatiyee The remaining National Register-eligible sites located within the federal parcel include:

AR 03-01-07-1378/AZ P:16:231 (ASM) - Lithic and ceramic scatter AR-03-01-07-1379/AZ P:16:232 (ASM) - Mogollon habitation site AR 03-01-07-1380/AZ P:16:233 (ASM) - Bedrock milling area AR-03-01-07-1381/AZ P:16:234 (ASM) - Lithic and ceramic scatter AR 03-01-07-1382/AZ P:16:235 (ASM) - Bedrock milling area, Apache petroglyph, and lithic scatter AR-03-01-07-1384/AZ P:16:237 (ASM) - Lithic and ceramic scatter AR 03-01-07-1385/AZ P:16:238 (ASM) - Bedrock milling area AR-03-01-07-1386/AZ P:16:239 (ASM) - Bedrock milling area AR-03-01-07-1389/AZ P:16:242 (ASM) – Historic irrigation ditch (1909) All prehistoric sites listed above are eligible for listing in the NRHP under criterion D for their potential to yield information important to understanding the prehistory of the area. The historic irrigation ditch (AR-03-01-07-1389/AZ P:16:242 [ASM]) is eligible for listing in the NRHP under criterion A for its importance to the development of local agricultural infrastructure. However, continued use and maintenance of the ditch has obliterated or replaced any original features dating before fifty years ago. Therefore, no further archaeological work was recommended and “no further treatment was recommended.”

Non-federal Land AZSite, Arizona’s online cultural resource inventory system, was examined for archaeological surveys and resources within the 18 non-federal parcels. The record search indicated that four of these parcels had been partially surveyed: the Happy Valley East parcel (three surveys); the Ronstadt Highway parcel (one survey); Rucker West parcel (one survey); and the Tonto Creek 1 parcel (one survey). Of the survey efforts that were carried out on portions of these parcels, only the survey for the Rucker West parcel resulted in any cultural resources being recorded (Horton 1999).

The survey in the Rucker West parcel is a small linear corridor running through the parcel. Three sites were recorded within the parcel, two of them, a multicomponent prehistoric ceramic scatter and historic house foundation and a prehistoric lithic scatter that have been determined eligible for the NRHP (Horton 1999).

108 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Archaeological surveys have not been conducted on 14 of the non-federal parcels: the Carlisle, Happy Valley 40, Happy Valley West, Harshaw Creek, Mansfield, Ronstadt Tank, Rucker East, Stronghold, Stronghold Well, Babcock, Red Rover, Tonto Creek 2, Tonto Creek 3, and Pleasant Valley parcels.

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, nine Native American tribes and one chapter were notified of the project: Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, Yavapai- Prescott Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, and the Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation.

Under the Proposed Action, nine archeological sites on the federal parcel considered eligible for listing in the NRHP would be adversely affected by the proposed transfer of these properties out of federal control.

One eligible archaeological site, AR-03-01-07-1389, is a historic irrigation ditch constructed in 1909. The Ditch Bill Act of 1986 grants permanent easements for irrigation ditches across federal land. SHPO concurrence on National Register eligibility (concurrence date is 12/4/2007), states, "This site is of local historical interest and is considered eligible for the [NRHP] under Criterion A, because it pertains to the historic development of the local agricultural infrastructure. However, continued use and maintenance of the ditch has obliterated or replaced any original features dating before A.D. 1950. Therefore, no further archaeological work is recommended. The easement, ownership, operation, and use of the ditch would not be affected by the proposed land exchange, and this site will not be considered further.

For the remaining eight archaeological sites eligible for the NRHP that would be adversely affected by the Proposed Action, a historic properties treatment plan and memorandum of agreement among the SHPO and the USFS was developed to resolve and mitigate the direct and indirect adverse effects (USFS 2014d). Mitigation measures in the treatment plan include photographic documentation, mapping the sites, conducting surface artifact collections, and data recovery through excavation. Through documentation and data recovery, adverse effects to these sites would be mitigated.

U.S. Forest Service 109 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-federal Land 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 would occur to cultural resources on the non-federal land as a result of the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects

Federal Land Policies set forth in the ASNFs LMP are designed to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources. Because of these policies, all future projects in progress or proposed for the ASNFs, which are considered as cumulative events, include appropriate avoidance and mitigation practices for cultural resources.

Several planned or reasonably foreseeable activities within the Lakeside RD of the ASNFs have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources. Four actions on the ASNFs; the Rim Country Restoration project, in conjunction with the KNF, TNF and CNF, the Timber Mesa-Vernon Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Reduction and Forest Restoration Project, Show Low South Fire Risk and Fuels Reduction Project, and Upper Rocky Arroyo Restoration Project involve work with vegetation for fuels reduction and/or habitat restoration. Each of these projects requires that all known cultural resources be avoided or treated to reduce the potential for negative fire impacts by use of Appendix J of the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement. The cumulative effects of these projects would be a net beneficial effect for cultural resources through protection from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Three additional planned or reasonably foreseeable actions; the Woodland Lake Park Townsite Act Purchase, Lakeside Ranger Station Conveyance, and the Show Low South Land Exchange are expected to transfer six archaeological sites eligible for the NRHP and two unevaluated archaeological sites out of federal ownership, and adversely affect one eligible site through construction. Any adverse effects anticipated through these projects would be mitigated through data recovery in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Arizona SHPO, and culturally affiliated Tribes. Data recovery as a mitigation strategy would lead to a cumulative loss of historic properties. The loss of the National Register-eligible and unevaluated sites is significant, but loss of the archaeological sites will be recovered through data recovery. The loss of an Apache petroglyph site from federal ownership protection located within the federal parcel can be mitigated with a preservation agreement between the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the proponent/new land owner(s), and a suggested protection measure for the site was agreed to by the tribal representative and LFA.

110 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-federal Land Parcels The acquisition of additional lands through the Show Low South Land Exchange in conjunction with the acquisition of the non-federal parcels under this project may have a cumulative beneficial effect on cultural resources. Any cultural resources on non-federal land that do not currently receive protection, would receive federal protection once the land is transferred into federal ownership.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land Under the no action alternative, the federal parcel would not be transferred out of federal ownership and would continue to be administered by the ASNFs. All federal lands within the ASNFs are managed according to the ASNFs forest plan, which mandates protection for cultural resources. As a result of this protection, no adverse effects to cultural resources on federal lands would occur.

Non-federal Land Cultural resources on non-federal lands would continue to remain in private ownership and receive no additional protection with the exception of human burials, which are protected under the Burial Protection Law (Arizona Revised Statues [ARS] 41-865 and ARS 410844). If present, direct or indirect adverse effects to cultural resources could occur as a result of future development activities. Under the no action alternative, the added benefit of consideration and protection for cultural resources when under federal control would not occur.

Cumulative Effects Federal Land Under the no action alternative, assuming that the other proposed land exchanges take place, the cumulative effects to cultural resources on NFS lands would be the same as described in the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action, except that fourteen sites located within the Camp Tatiyee parcel would not be transferred out of federal ownership and protection. As discussed in the cumulative effects section for the Proposed Action, the adverse cumulative effects to cultural resources would be mitigated through data recovery.

Non-federal Land Under the no action alternative, the cumulative effects to cultural resources on non-federal lands would be the same as described in the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action. The effects of past, presents and reasonably foreseeable projects could result in the transfer of cultural resources into federal ownership and protection, if there are cultural resources located on those

U.S. Forest Service 111 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement lands. Through the transfer of non-federal lands into federal ownership, additional resources would receive protection with a net beneficial effect to the cultural resources that had no protections under private ownership.

Mineral Resources Affected Environment A mineral report (dated 7 August 2003) was prepared by a certified mineral examiner for Region 3 of the USFS for the exchange parcels in 2003 and updated in 2008. Conclusions of this report are presented below.

Federal Land The federal parcel has little to no potential for mineral commodities; a low potential for coal, oil, and gas; and is not considered prospectively valuable.

Non-federal Land None of the non-federal parcels are considered prospectively valuable. The Happy Valley, Stronghold, Rucker, and Ronstadt parcels are not prospectively valuable for leasable minerals, and have low potential for locatable minerals and salable minerals. Several of the remaining parcels have low to moderate potential for resources:

• The Carlisle non-federal parcel has low potential for coal and oil & gas. The parcel has low potential for locatable minerals and salable minerals. • The Mansfield parcel has low to moderate potential for locatable minerals, and low potential for salable minerals. • The Harshaw Creek parcel has low potential for sodium and potassium. • The Babcock parcel has low to moderate potential for locatable minerals, and low potential for salable minerals. • The Red Rover parcel has low to moderate potential for locatable minerals, and low potential for salable minerals. • The Tonto Creek and Pleasant Valley parcels have low potential for locatable minerals. The mineral report was forwarded to the Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque, New Mexico office, which submitted their concurrence on 2 December 2008.

112 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land Although any mineral resources on the federal parcel would be conveyed along with the land surface of the federal parcel, no direct or indirect effects are expected for mineral resources for the federal parcel, because it has low potential for mineral resources and is not considered prospectively valuable, the camps intend to continue operation, and if the rest of the parcel were zoned for development in the future, it would likely be residentially developed with the possibility of a few commercial businesses.

Non-federal Land Mineral resources on the non-federal parcels would be conveyed along with the surfaces of the parcels and management of the resources on the parcels would follow the respective forest plan. While exploration of minerals could occur on some of the parcels, no plans exist to further explore the potential for locatable minerals on the Mansfield, Babcock, Red Rover, Tonto Creek, Pleasant Valley, or any of the other non-federal parcels and no plans exist to pursue the potential for oil, gas, or coal on the Carlisle parcel or any of the other non-federal parcels. No effects regarding mineral resources are expected to occur.

Cumulative Effects With no direct or indirect effects to mineral resources, no cumulative effects would occur.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Federal Land Mineral estates would remain the same under the no action alternative with no change occurring to current use and management of the federal parcel and no future use of mineral resources expected; therefore, no effects regarding mineral resources would occur.

Non-federal Land Under the no action alternative, the non-federal parcels and any possible mineral resources therein would remain in private ownership and could be developed or explored for mineral resources, but is unlikely. No direct or indirect effects on mineral resources are expected.

U.S. Forest Service 113 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Effects With no direct or indirect effects to mineral resources, no cumulative effects would occur.

Roads Affected Environment Federal Land The federal parcel is located along the western side of SR 260 between Wagon Wheel Road (to the north) and Vallery Lane (to the south). SR260 is under a special use permit to AZ Dept. of Transportation and the other two roads are easements to Navajo County.

NFSR 300 (Mogollon Rim Drive) also passes through the eastern portion of the federal parcel but has been closed for public use for years. This roadway generally follows the southern boundary of the Lakeside RD. Sections of this road in adjacent sections to the parcel are under jurisdiction and management of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside (USFS 2008) as they were transferred with prior exchanges. The section of Mogollon Rim Drive to the north of the federal parcel is paved and currently open. A portion of the section immediately south of the federal parcel (the east 2835 feet) is partly paved and graveled.

The federal parcel also contains three short east/west roads that provide access to Camp Tatiyee, Camp Grace, and the Mogollon Rim Trail parking are and trailhead from SR 260. These roads are designated as open to all motorized vehicles. This designation includes Maintenance Level 2, which is assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles.

Non-federal Land Access to and from many of the non-federal parcels is provided by various NFSRs, and other public and private roadways. Table 24 lists NFSRs and other roadways that cross portions of the non-federal parcels. As described in the Feasibility Analysis (USFS 2014b), private landowners have informally permitted public access through their land via various NFSRs.

Table 24. Access to and from non-federal parcels Parcel Name NFSRs Other Roads

Carlisle 134, 9892E Two low-standard roads Happy Valley (all parcels) 4408, 4410, 4411 N/A Stronghold (both parcels) 84 N/A Rucker (both parcels) 74, 74E N/A Ronstadt (both parcels) 4597, 665 SR 266 Mansfield 72A, 4092 N/A Harshaw Creek 49, 58 N/A Babcock N/A N/A

114 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parcel Name NFSRs Other Roads Red Rover 2021 N/A Tonto Creek (all parcels) N/A N/A Pleasant Valley 134, 2725, 484 N/A Note: N/A = Not Applicable. Source: USFS 2014b.

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land Under the Proposed Action, the segment of Mogollon Rim Drive and the three other USFS roads that provide access to Camp Tatiyee, Camp Grace, and the Mogollon Rim Trail parking area and trailhead would be transferred to private ownership. Management and use of the segment of Mogollon Rim Drive would be under control of the private landowner upon exchange. The roads to Camp Tatiyee, Camp Grace, and the Mogollon Rim Trail area are expected to remain open under private ownership for access to the two camps that are expected to continue operation and public access to the popular Mogollon Rim Trail by agreement of LFA. Use of these roads is expected to continue as currently occurs and no effects to local or regional traffic circulation from their use are expected. No non-NFS roads on the federal parcel would be affected by the land exchange.

Although immediate development is not expected on the federal land parcel, a future indirect traffic effect may occur if this land is developed further on. As discussed in the Land Use section of this chapter, nearby land uses in the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside are designated for residential or commercial development and part of the parcel outside of the two camp areas could eventually be developed following zoning re-designation through processes of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. These types of developments could add new roads to the surrounding road system and thereby contribute to incremental increases in existing traffic volume in adjacent areas. Increases may necessitate traffic control measures to regulate the flow of traffic into and out of the parcel, particularly during peak commuting periods. The future indirect impacts of site development would generally be addressed in planning when a specific development proposal is brought to the Planning and Zoning department of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside and any adjustment to help regulate traffic addressed then.

Non-federal Land Access to and from non-federal parcels would continue to be provided by the roads summarized in Table 24. After acquisition, possible future transportation improvements within the non-federal land would be in accordance with USFS travel management requirements and procedures,

U.S. Forest Service 115 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement including the managing forest’s LMP, Travel Management Plan, and the Travel Management Rule. NFSRs that have been informally permitted for public use across the non-federal parcels would continue to be available for public access and USFS administrative resource management under the Proposed Action. Private roads on non-federal parcels would be analyzed for potential inclusion in the USFS transportation system and included where determined necessary or useful.

Cumulative Effects Provided that access to surrounding areas is maintained, The Proposed Action would not contribute toward any direct cumulative effect on this resource. However, an indirect cumulative impact may occur as the result of potential future development of the federal parcel, as discussed above. The additional traffic associated with this development, taken together with traffic from present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would increase traffic volumes on SR 260, NFSRs, and other public streets near the federal parcel. In turn, this may cause increased vehicle delays and queues at intersections, and increased congestion along roadway segments. The significance of this indirect cumulative impact should be determined by the applicant at the time a specific development proposal is brought forward to the Planning and Zoning department of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. Where significant traffic impacts are identified, applicable measures should be implemented to reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Federal Land Under the no action alternative, the federal parcel would remain in USFS ownership and the existing USFS roads would be retained in their current condition and alignment. No direct or indirect impacts to roads would occur.

Non-federal Land Under the no action alternative, possible indirect effects may arise if private landowners elect to revoke their informal permissions for NFSRs to cross their land. If revocation of permission were to occur, the NFSRs would no longer be available for public access and administrative resource management. However, no current indications that permissions may be revoked currently exists and roads are expected to remain as they are, so no or few impacts are currently expected.

Cumulative Effects Since roads are expected to remain in the same ownership and conditions, this project would not contribute to any cumulative to roads in conjunction with other projects in the nearby vicinities.

116 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fire and Fuels Affected Environment Federal Land Existing levels of live and dead fuels on the federal parcel are generally consistent with surrounding forest lands. No evidence of recent wildfires exists on the federal parcel. The parcel underwent fuels treatment in 2005 – 2006 as authorized in a Decision Memo issued in 2004 (USFS 2004). Treatment was accomplished via mechanical thinning to achieve a goal of 60 square feet of basal area per acre and materials/fuels were removed how so. Thinning of live trees was accomplished.

Non-federal Land Fuels on the non-federal parcels are generally consistent with surrounding NFS land. Three of the non-federal parcels were burned in part of major fire events within the past 15 years. The Cave Creek Complex fire was initiated by a lightning strike in 2005 and burned a total of 43,950 acres, including the entirety of the Red Rover parcel. The Grapevine Fire was initiated by lightning in 2012 and burned a total of 18,431 acres, including the majority of the Ronstadt Highway parcel and parts of the Ronstadt Tank parcel.

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Federal Land With exchange of the federal parcel, implementation of fire and fuel treatments would be at the discretion of the new landowner. 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 Land 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 The Cave Creek Complex Fire killed many of the trees and older shrubs on the Red Rover parcel; however, the majority of the parcel vegetation is grasses, so the parcel experienced low to

U.S. Forest Service 117 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

moderate intensity surface fires that burned quickly. Similar conditions existed on the Ronstadt Tank and Highway parcels, where the Grapevine Fire was primarily grass- and brush-fed, and thus fairly fast burning.

Future fuels reduction and management projects that are completed across all the involved forests would help continue to ensure that the risk of fire to residential properties, including those resulting from development within the federal parcels proposed for exchange, is minimized or eliminated. No cumulative effects would occur.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land 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 following the ASNFs forest plan for Community-Forest Intermix Management Areas.

Non-federal Land Under the no action alternative, the private owners of the non-federal parcels would continue to 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. 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 and 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,

118 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

or surface water of the properties. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments also evaluated each parcel for Issues of Concern (IOCs), a non-ASTM term used to identify an environmental- related issue of interest to the purchaser of the subject site that does not rise to the level of a REC, such as out-of-date permits, or the presence of toxic substances regulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act such as asbestos-containing building materials, lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the potential for radon gas to accumulate inside structures.

Federal Land The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment found no evidence of recent or historical RECs associated with the federal parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a). Small amounts of hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel, and oil-based paints are used and stored at both Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace for basic appropriate uses of those materials (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a). The types and quantities are similar to what would be used by a small landscaping business (i.e. 30 gallons being the largest quantity and the most common quantities ranging from one to five gallons)These materials are stored on concrete surfaces (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a).

Electrical transformers at Camp Grace were clearly marked as non-PCB containing units (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a). Transformers elsewhere on the federal parcel were observed to be in good condition with no evidence of stains or leaks (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a). The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment also noted the Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wagon Wheel electrical substation and 40-foot wide 69 kilovolt transmission line on the federal parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a). Transformers and other electrical equipment associated with the substation and the transmission line were observed to be in good condition with no evidence of stains or leaks (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a).

Several IOCs exist on the parcel. The Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace buildings were constructed in the 1960s, so it is possible that they may contain lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing building materials (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a). A 30-inch diameter concrete water pipeline built in the 1960s and taken out of service before 2007 crosses part of the parcel (Western Technologies, Inc. 2007). The pipeline is buried 10 to 20 feet below the ground surface. It is unknown whether the concrete pipeline contains asbestos, or what procedures were followed in the final closure of the pipeline west of the irrigation ditch (Western Technologies, Inc. 2007). Only a small portion of the extreme western end of the pipeline was actually closed. The line was capped with a riser installed to put water into the irrigation ditch. The pipeline is owned and operated by the City of Show Low. There are no plans to disturb the pipeline where it is currently buried.

Non-federal Land Six RECs were identified during the Environmental Site Assessment conducted at the Mansfield parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009a). Waste rock piles at four former mine sites on the Mansfield parcel were identified as RECs due to their possible effects on water quality (increased turbidity

U.S. Forest Service 119 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement during rainfall and erosion events; acidic runoff) within the Mansfield watershed (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009a). However, these four piles total an estimated 2,900 cubic yards covering approximately one acre of the +/-182.41 acres, with the majority of the material possibly having low concentrations of the sulfide minerals that contribute to acidic runoff (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009a).

The former Dixie Mine located about 1/4 mile northwest of the Mansfield parcel was identified as an REC for the Mansfield parcel. Approximately 8,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of waste rock remaining from former mining activities exist at the Dixie Mine, which is upgradient from the Mansfield parcel and may be affecting surface and groundwater quality in the Mansfield Watershed, including the Mansfield parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009a). The former Dixie Mine is on NFS land.

The former Hosey Mine located on NFS land about 1 mile west-northwest of the Mansfield parcel was also identified as an REC for the Mansfield parcel. The former Hosey Mine is listed on the Arizona State Hazardous Waste List/Environmental Protection Agency Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (a part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] Superfund) (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009a). Approximately 14,000 cubic yards of waste rock remain from former activities at the Hosey Mine (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009a). The site was assessed and assigned USEPA ID number AZ 0002001857 and is not listed on the Superfund National Priorities List (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009a; USEPA 2010a, 2014). The non-National Priorities List status for the Hosey Mine is listed as “assessment complete-decision complete” (USEPA 2014). The former Hosey mine was identified as an REC for the Mansfield parcel because the large quantities of waste rock remaining at the Hosey Mine site may be affecting surface and groundwater within the Mansfield parcel (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009a).

Since the Environmental Site Assessment was completed, the landowner has closed the open mine features and filled in shafts on the Mansfield parcel. Waste rock piles have also been reduced in size.

The Environmental Site Assessment identifies two IOCs of potential lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing building materials in an abandoned cabin of unknown age on the Mansfield parcel. However, the cabin was removed from the parcel by the landowner since the Environmental Site Assessment was completed, so the IOCs no longer apply.

No RECs or IOCs were found at any of the other non-federal parcels (Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2009b, 2010, 2011b).

120 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects

Federal Land The use of hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel, and oil-based paints would continue to be used at the two camps on the federal parcel with their continued operation and storage of the materials on concrete surfaces. No change in hazardous materials from existing conditions would occur and as materials are stored safely and used for appropriate uses, no effects from hazardous materials is expected.

If buildings at either camp are renovated or demolished, the operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state of Arizona, and local rules and regulations regarding testing, handling, and disposal of asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint. All other development should abide by federal, state of Arizona, and local rules and regulations to minimize risk associated with hazardous materials.

The Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. would continue to operate its Wagon Wheel electrical substation, the 69 kilovolt transmission line, and the electrical transformers at Camp Tatiyee in accordance with all applicable federal and state regulations regarding the use and disposal of PCBs.

If part of the parcel is developed in the future following rezoning, expansion of waste water treatment facilities at the Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District would adhere to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and USEPA requirements and provisions for solid waste disposal in an approved landfill in order to minimize the risk of impacts regarding hazardous materials.

Since there are no RECs on the federal lands, and IOCs would be managed according to applicable federal and state regulations, no direct or indirect effects regarding hazardous materials are anticipated.

Non-federal Land The only non-federal parcel where the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identified RECs is the Mansfield parcel, where there is waste rock from past mining activity. The Mansfield parcel also has potential for surface and groundwater quality to be adversely affected by runoff from mining waste rock on surrounding NFS land. The DOI Bureau of Land Management and the USFS jointly operate an Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program to improve the quality of the public lands the two agencies manage (DOI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service 2007). The AML program implements a risk-based approach to encourage watershed-

U.S. Forest Service 121 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

wide cleanups, and addresses high-risk and high-priority abandoned sites to protect public health and safety (DOI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service 2007). The waste rock on the Mansfield parcel would be evaluated and assigned a priority for cleanup under the AML program. No other non-federal lands contain RECs associated with past mining or potentially hazardous materials. The evaluation and potential eventual remediation of the waste rock on the Mansfield parcel would result in a positive effect on the local resources.

Cumulative Effects

Federal Land The only hazardous materials present on the federal parcel are the small quantities used at Camps Tatiyee and Camp Grace. Under the Proposed Action, the camps would continue to operate and use the same types and quantities of hazardous materials they presently use; thus there would be no cumulative impact with respect to hazardous materials. Given proper testing, management, transportation and disposal of any identified lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials in the Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace buildings if they were renovated in the future, and the unused City of Show Low water pipeline there would be no cumulative hazardous materials impact.

Non-federal Land No RECs or IOCs exist on the non-federal lands, except for waste rock from past mining activities the Mansfield parcel. Since the Mansfield parcel would be evaluated and assigned a priority for cleanup under the AML program, the cumulative impacts with regard to hazardous materials would be positive.

No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Federal Land Under the no action alternative, no change would occur to the current use and management of the federal parcels so no effects from hazardous materials are expected. The types and quantities of hazardous materials used at Camp Tatiyee and Camp Grace would continue to be used stored appropriately. If buildings at either camp are renovated or demolished, the operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state of Arizona, and local rules and regulations regarding testing, handling, transporting and disposal of asbestos-containing materials and lead- based paint. The Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. would continue to operate its Wagon Wheel electrical substation, the 69 kilovolt transmission line, and the electrical transformers at Camp Tatiyee in accordance with all applicable federal and state regulations regarding the use and disposal of PCBs, and the rest of the parcel would remain as is; therefore, no direct or indirect effect from hazardous materials are expected.

122 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Non-federal Land Under the no action alternative, no change would occur to the current use and management of the non-federal parcels. The Mansfield parcel would not be evaluated for potential cleanup under the AML program and a potential for adverse hazardous materials impact from lack of evaluation and cleanup could occur.

Cumulative Effects

Federal Land Under the no action alternative, there would be no change from existing conditions on the federal parcel; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect cumulative hazardous materials impacts on the federal parcel.

Non-federal Land Under the no action alternative, there would be no change from existing conditions. The waste mine rock on the Mansfield parcel would not be evaluated for potential cleanup under the AML and would continue to contribute sediments and acidic runoff to the Mansfield watershed. This could contribute to some cumulative adverse hazardous materials impacts.

U.S. Forest Service 123

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4. Other Considerations Required Under NEPA Prime and Unique Farmlands Under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S. Code § 4201 [2011]), 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 USDA 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.

All of the parcels were reviewed, and no prime or unique farmland was found, so analysis of effects to farmland was not considered in Chapter 3. Details of information of the review of the parcels for prime or unique farmland follows:

The federal parcel is composed of Amos clay loam, Overgaard gravelly loam, and Overgaard- Elledge complex. None of the soils located on the parcel are considered prime and unique farmland (USDA 2014).

The Babcock parcel is composed of Barkerville extremely rocky sandy loam and Moano very rocky loam. These soils are not considered prime and unique farmland (USDA 2014).

Happy Valley East parcel is composed of Romero-Nodman rock outcrop complex and Mabray rock outcrop complex. These soils are not considered prime and unique farmland (USDA 2014).

The Harshaw Creek parcel is composed of Grabe-Comoro complex, Fareway rock outcrop complex, and Chihuahua-Lampshire association. The Grabe-Comoro complex is considered prime and unique farmland, if irrigated. However, no area of the Harshaw Creek parcel is currently used for agriculture and the Harshaw Creek parcel is not irrigated. Thus, the Grabe- Comoro complex is not considered prime and unique farmland. The remaining Harshaw Creek parcel soils are not considered prime and unique farmland (USDA 2014).

The Mansfield parcel is composed of Lampshire-Graham rock outcrop association, Barkerville- Gaddes and association. Neither of these soils are considered prime and unique farmland (USDA 2014).

The remaining non-federal parcels do not have available soil data. Given the lack of prime and unique farmland soils in the geographic area, it is highly unlikely that prime and unique farmland occurs on the Carlisle, Pleasant Valley, Red Rover, Stronghold, Stronghold Well Site, Tonto Creek 1, Tonto Creek 2, and Tonto Creek 3 parcels (USDA 2014).

U.S. Forest Service 125 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Rondstadt Highway, Ronstadt Tank, Rucker East, and Rucker West parcels all have prime and unique farmland (if irrigated) within 5 miles, but no area of these parcels is currently irrigated (USDA 2014).

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 of and 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 exchange would result in the permanent transfer of the federal parcel into private ownership and the up to 18 non-federal parcels into federal ownership. Since the two camps on the federal parcel are expected to continue operation, little, if any, change in short-term uses or long-term productivity on these sections of the conveyed lands are expected.

The future of the remaining sections of the Camp Tatiyee parcel are less clear. Based on current zoning of “open space” no development would occur in the immediate future. However, the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside does include a procedure for a landowner to seek changes in zoning that could allow for future development. If development were to occur on the remaining part of the conveyed federal parcel, impacts to the productivity of upland soils from compaction and the removal of trees and some of the open space could occur where building foundations or concrete slabs and buildings are constructed. Open space, however, remains abundant in areas surrounding the town and the Mogollon Rim Trail would remain with a buffer leading out to scenic vistas that overlook an expanse of open forest land on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation.

Any foreseeable future development on the federal lands would not result in any measurable effects to threatened or endangered plant and animal species or their habitat as the only species with potential habitat is the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuens), and known populations exist within the project area or within dispersal distance, the last recorded frog on Lakeside RD was in the 1970s, and presence of crayfish, non-native fish, and/or bullfrogs would likely prevent this species from occurring within any riparian zone or wetted area in or near the project area.

Since the federal parcel is completely surrounded by city and reservation land and much of the land within the city limits was at points in time made available for private ownership through transfer from federal ownership, exchange of the federal parcel and some future development could contribute to a small increase in economic productivity and availability of land for development in the area if zoned for development in the future.

126 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

The Proposed Action would preclude development on the non-federal parcels, providing protection to the more sensitive soils and habitats of wetlands, riparian areas and riverine systems, increasing the likelihood of production of natural flora and fauna in those areas in the short and long-term.

The Proposed Action affords greater long-term protection to listed species and management indicator species. This would occur as a result of the acquisition of important riparian and wildlife habitat currently located on the non-federal lands. With respect to management indicator species, forest-wide analyses do not indicate any management-induced trends that would be influenced by action or inaction at the scale of the proposed land exchange.

Wetlands and floodplains in federal ownership are subject to more stringent management objectives than those in private ownership. Acquisition of the non-federal lands would contribute toward reversing the long-term trend of declining wetland and riparian habitat in the Southwestern Region. No wetlands or floodplains are located on the federal lands therefore, none would leave federal ownership.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects Unavoidable adverse effects are expected to occur with implementation of the Proposed Action. Eight archaeological sites eligible for the NRHP would be adversely affected by the Proposed Action through transfer of these resources from public to private ownership. A historic properties treatment plan and MOA among the SHPO and the USFS were developed to resolve and mitigate the direct and indirect adverse effects to cultural resources from this exchange (USFS 2014d). Mitigation measures in the treatment plan include photographic documentation, mapping the sites, conducting surface artifact collections, and data recovery through excavation. Through data recovery, adverse effects to these sites would be mitigated.

No unavoidable adverse effects are expected to occur as a result of the no action alternative, if no future development occurs. If future development occurs, the amount of impact, if any, would depend upon the scale, specific location and intensity of future development, and the types of cultural resources located within the area.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species, the removal of mined ore, or the destruction of cultural resources. The removal of National Register-eligible cultural resources from the land through data recovery and transference from NFS land to private land is an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that would occur from the exchange of lands and resulting change in ownership.

In the case of no action, the non-federal lands would remain subject to possible development at the discretion of the private landowners. If future development occurs, the change in land use

U.S. Forest Service 127 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement from riparian influenced riverine habitats to residential home sites or other type of development could be considered an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects associated with the Proposed Action are detailed for each resource in Chapter 3 for both the Proposed Action and the no action alternative. Table 25 summarizes the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action in conjunction with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions for the resources analyzed within this EIS.

Table 25. Summary of cumulative effects Resource Name Cumulative Impact Does the Proposed Is the Cumulative Action Contribute to Impact Significant? the Impact?

Land Use Change in management of Yes Yes-Neutral allowable land uses on all parcels involved in the exchange. The change is compounded with multiple other land exchanges in the region. Recreation and Locally to the federal parcel, a Yes No Public Access cumulative loss of over 2,065 acres of NFS lands available for public recreation. Statewide, a net gain of over 3,618 acres of NFS lands available for public recreation. Socioeconomics Locally to the federal parcel, loss Yes No of PILT funding may potentially be offset via private property taxes. Where development is planned, local economic boosts may result via increased employment, property value, and purchase orders. Statewide, loss of property taxes on remote and undeveloped private land would be partially offset by PILT funding. Plants Fish, and Locally to the federal parcel, there Yes Yes-Beneficial Wildlife would be a loss of protected habitat used by northern goshawks and potentially used by Mexican spotted owls. Net gain of valuable riparian and sensitive species habitat for the USFS throughout the Region. Fuels treatment projects are anticipated to improve forest health throughout the region.

128 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Name Cumulative Impact Does the Proposed Is the Cumulative Action Contribute to Impact Significant? the Impact? Grazing Impacts to grazing are limited to Yes No the Proposed Action and the planning efforts to revised LMPs on several of the Region’s forests. The LMP revisions are not expected to have substantial impacts to grazing. Prime and Unique None of the regional land No No Farmlands exchanges propose the conveyance of farmland from the USFS to a private party. LMP revision efforts may improve quality of NFS farmlands. Wetlands and The USFS is anticipated to have a Yes Yes-Beneficial Floodplains net cumulative gain in wetlands and floodplains. Riparian quality is expected to increase regionally as more waters come under USFS management. Water Quality, The USFS is anticipated to have a Yes No Rights, and Claims net cumulative gain in water rights and claims. Water quality is expected to increase regionally as more waters come under USFS management. Cultural Land exchanges, including the Yes Yes 1 Resources Proposed Action, would result in a total of 21 cultural resource sites that would leave federal management within Navajo County. This impact is mitigated as determined appropriate for each project via tribal consultation and SHPO/ACHP consultation Mineral Resources No plans for mining or mineral No No development are proposed as part of the Proposed Action or any of the present or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Roads No substantial direct cumulative No No impact is anticipated on road access, quantity, or maintenance. However, the development proposed as part of the Show Low South Land Exchange and Woodland Lake Park land sale has the potential to indirectly increase traffic throughout the region. Fire and Fuels Multiple fuels management No No projects are ongoing or proposed in the region. Past treatment on the federal parcel reduced fuel loading and fire risk.

U.S. Forest Service 129 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Resource Name Cumulative Impact Does the Proposed Is the Cumulative Action Contribute to Impact Significant? the Impact? Hazardous None of the identified past, No No Materials present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions are anticipated to introduce or expose hazardous materials to the environment. Note: 1Impact is significant but would be mitigated through measures incorporated in the various projects. Other Required Disclosures NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental review laws and executive orders.”

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations, tasks “each federal agency [to] make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” EO 12898, dated 11 February 1994, aims to: (1) focus the attention of federal agencies on the environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low-income communities with the goal of achieving environmental justice; (2) foster non-discrimination in federal programs that substantially affect human health or the environment; and (3) give minority communities and low-income communities greater opportunities for public participation in and access to public information on matters relating to human health and the environment. The EO specifically requires that Native American populations are included in discussions and analysis of potentially affected minority and low- income populations.

The USEPA describes environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (USEPA 2010b). Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. The goal of fair treatment is not to shift risks among populations but to identify potential disproportionately high and adverse effects and identify alternatives that may mitigate these effects. Federal agencies must provide minority and low-income communities with access to information on matters relating to human health or the environment and opportunities for input in the NEPA process, including input on potential effects and mitigation measures.

130 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Tables 9 and 14 identify race and ethnicity characteristics for the potentially affected areas and Tables 11 and 16 identify poverty characteristics of the affected areas. Impacts that have been identified throughout this EIS were reviewed to determine those that have the potential to adversely and disproportionately affect minority, low-income and tribal populations. None of the impacts would be focused to minority or low-income populations but a mix of populations in the area, White/Caucasian and other as well as minority populations. The project was also designed to minimize adverse impacts; involves features to maintain current uses, such as use of the Mogollon Rim Trail, utility uses, etc; and includes some possible beneficial impacts.

The Cultural Resources section identifies adverse effects to cultural resource sites, which would be focused to related minority Native American populations. However, consultation with interested and affected tribes has occurred for several years and mitigation measures developed and agreed by the tribes that would help mitigate effects to sites through data recovery and other such measures. Effects to an Apache petroglyph would be mitigated through an agreement between the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the new land owner, who have already agreed on a protective measure. As long as results of the excavations are made available to Tribes and the White Mountain Apache Tribe continues to have unencumbered access to the petroglyph as expected, no minority or low-income groups would receive disproportionately high adverse effects.

U.S. Forest Service 131

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination Preparers and Contributors Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team Edward Collins District Ranger, Lakeside Ranger District, ASNFs Randall Chavez Range/Recreation & Lands Staff, Lakeside Ranger District, ASNFs Sharon Cuevas 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 Dawnee Burson NEPA Planner, Lakeside RD, ASNFs Brian Choate Archeologist, Lakeside RD, ASNFs Beth Humphrey Forest Wildlife Biologist, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs Cody Hutchinson Environmental Coordinator, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs Esther Morgan Forest Archeologist and Tribal Liaison, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs Melissa Schroeder Former Forest Archeologist and Tribal Liaison, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs Cristina Weinberg Former Acting Forest Archeologist and Tribal Liaison, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs Ed DeClava, Former Acting Forest Archeologist and Tribal Liaison, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs Charlotte Hunter Former Acting Forest Archeologist and Tribal Liaison, Supervisor’s Office, ASNFs Sandra Arazi-Coombs Former District Archeologist, Lakeside Ranger District Jeanne Schofer Former District Archeologist, Lakeside Ranger District George McKay Former, Realty Specialist Program Manager, Coronado National Forest Ryan Domsalla Former, Infrastructure and Operations Staff Officer, ASNFs

Cardno Stella Acuña Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Erica Boulanger Deputy Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Margaret Bach Environmental Scientist Scott Barker Planner/Transportation Specialist

U.S. Forest Service 133 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Rob Jones Archeologist Daniel Broockmann Archeologist Scott Coombs Hydrologist Caitlin Jafolla Environmental Analyst David Kiernan Economist Claudia Tan Production Manager Vanessa Williford Environmental Analyst Lisa Woeber Technical Reviewer

3c Consulting Mel Wilhelm Certified Wildlife Biologist

PaleoWest Archaeology Cory Breternitz Senior Archaeologist

Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service contacted and consulted the following federal, state, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service individuals during the development of this EIS:

State Agencies Dr. James Garrison Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer Ann Howard Deputy Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer Dr. James Cogswell Compliance Specialist, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office

Tribal Governments and Offices White Mountain Apache Tribe San Carlos Apache Tribe Hopi Tribe Pueblo of Zuni Navajo Nation Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Yavapai-Apache Tribe Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

Local Government Paul Esparza Community Development Department, Town of Pinetop-Lakeside

134 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement The USFS sent two letters on 1 June 2015 to provide notification of availability of the DEIS located on the ASNFs website and an official comment period. One letter was sent to those who submitted scoping comments, state and local governments, and other interested stakeholders. The other was sent to a list of required agencies, and any requested CD or hard copies of the EIS were included. Notice of availability of the document was also sent to federally recognized tribes. The official notice of availability (NOA) of the DEIS was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 32114) on 5 June 2015 initiating a 45-calendar-day comment period that ended on 20 July 2015. A legal notice of the public comment period referencing the NOA was published in the White Mountain Independent, Arizona Daily Star, Nogales International, Eastern Arizona Courier, Daily Dispatch, Daily Courier, Arizona Capital Times, and the Payson Roundup newspapers. The DEIS was made available for public review at the Lakeside RD and on the ASNFs website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=5004.

U.S. Forest Service 135

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 6. References 3C Consulting. 2010. Biological Assessment and Evaluation of Effects to Threatened and Endangered, Sensitive, MIS [Management Indicator Species], and Migratory Bird Species; Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange. (11 November 2010).

Anderson, Soren T. and Sarah E. West. 2006. Open space, residential property values, and special context. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 36:773-789.

Arizona Department of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics. 2011. Interim Intercensal Population Estimates for Arizona, Its Counties, and Incorporated Places, 2000 - 2009. https://population.az.gov/population-projections. (10 October 2014).

Arizona Department of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics. 2012. Arizona State and County Population Projections: 2012 TO 2050, Medium Series. https://population.az.gov/population-projections. (10 October 2014).

Arizona Tax Research Association. 2013. FY 2014 Final Budget Review. http://www.arizonatax.org/sites/default/files/budget_review/file/fy_2014_final_county_budg et_review_11-20-13_3__3.pdf. Accessed: (10 October 2014).

Bolitzer, B. and Netusil, N.R. 2000. The impact of open space on property values in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management. 59:185-193.

DOI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2007. Abandoned Mine Lands: A Decade of Progress Reclaiming Hardrock Mines. Forest Service Publication Number FS-981. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOUR CE_PROTECTION_/aml.Par.86533.File.dat/Final%20AML%20Report.pdf. (23 September 2014).

DOI. 2014. County Payments. http://www.doi.gov/pilt/county-payments.cfm. (10 October 2014).

Geoghegan, Jacqueline. 2002. The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy. 19:91- 98.

Horton, Sarah L. 1999. An Archaeological Survey for the John Long Canyon Right-of-Way Project Cochise County, Arizona. SEC, Inc. Project Number R99-1102A. Sedona, Arizona. On file at the Arizona State Museum.

Lions Camp Tatiyee. 2014. Site Rentals. http://www.arizonalionscamp.org/site-rentals/.

U.S. Forest Service 137 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Leonard, Banks L. 2006. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Camp Tatiyee Area, Near Show Low, Navajo County, Arizona. November 1997, Revised May 2006. Soil Systems Technical Report No. 97-26. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix. On file at the Arizona State Museum.

Mission of Grace. 2014. About Us. http://www.mission-of-grace.com/aboutus.html. (27 October 2014).

Navajo County. 2012. Navajo County Zoning Ordinance. http://www.navajocountyaz.gov/pubworks/pz/ZoningOrdinance/NavajoCountyZoningOrdina nce.pdf. (24 October 2014).

Navajo County. 2014. Property Info Map Search. http://www.navajocountyaz.gov/pubworks/genii/TownAreas/Map/MapPage.aspx.

Sengupta, Sanchita and Daniel Edward Osgood. 2003. The value of remoteness: a hedonic estimation of ranchette prices. Ecological Economics. 44:91-103.

Stein, Pat H. 2007. National Register Evaluation of Camp Grace and Camp Tatiyee, Two Special Use Camps on the Lakeside Ranger District, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Navajo County, Arizona: A Study Conducted for the Proposed Lions Club/Tatiyee Land Exchange. Prepared for Page Land & Cattle Co.

Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 2009a. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Mansfield Parcel. Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Prepared for Page Land & Cattle Co. (9 March).

Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 2009b. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Red Rover Tract. Tonto National Forest. Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. Prepared for Page Land & Cattle Co. (9 March).

Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2010. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Babcock Tract Coronado National Forest. Prepared for Page Land & Cattle Co. Yavapai County, Arizona. (9 March).

Tetra Tech EM Inc. 2011a. Final Expanded Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Camp Tatiyee Non- Federal Parcels – Final Phase, Carlisle Tract, Federal Parcel, Pleasant Valley Tract and Tonto Creek Tract. Sitgreaves and Tonto National Forests, Gila and Navajo Counties, Arizona. Prepared for Page Land & Cattle Co. (December).

Tetra Tech EM. 2011b. Final Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Non- Federal Properties Initial Phase. Happy Valley 40 Acre Parcel, Happy Valley Tract, Harshaw Creek Tract Parcel, Ronstadt Tank Parcel, Rucker Parcel, and Stronghold

138 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

Parcel. Coronado National Forest. Cochise, Graham, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona. Prepared for Page Land & Cattle Co. (11 November).

Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. 2001. Section 4.1, Land Use Element. March. http://www.pinetoplakesideaz.gov/download/i/mark_dl/u/4012515895/4613382402/LAND% 20USE%20ELEMENT%202001.pdf. (21 October 2014).

Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. 2014. Summary of Zoning Regulations. http://www.pinetoplakesideaz.gov/communities/5/004/012/515/895//images/4613262975.jpg.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Decennial Census 2000. Summary File 1. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. (10 October 2014).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. Decennial Census 2010. Summary File 1. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. (10 October 2014).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year estimate. DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_ 3YR_DP03&prodType=table. (10 October 2014).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010c. American Community Survey 1-Year estimate 2010. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_ 3YR_DP04&prodType=table. (10 October 2014).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Projections of the Population and Components of Change for the United States: 2015 to 2060 (NP2012-T1). Available online at: https://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/summary/NP2012-T1.xls. (10 October 2014).

USDA. 2014. Natural Resources Conservation Service: Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

USEPA. 2010a. CERCLIS and EPA Regional AML Inventory. Appendix A. http://www.epa.gov/aml/tech/appena.pdf. (29 September 2014).

USEPA. 2010b. EPA’s Action Development Process: Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/considering-ej-in-rulemaking-guide-07- 2010.pdf. (21 October 2011).

U.S. Forest Service 139 Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

USEPA. 2014. Search Superfund Site Information Mansfield Canyon Mines Site. http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0905356. (29 September 2014).

USFS. 1985. Tonto National Forest Plan. (October).

USFS. 1986. Coronado National Forest Plan. (August).

USFS. 2004. Decision Memo: Fuels Management Treatment of Camp Tatiyee/Camp Grace Area. (1 December).

USFS. 2008. Travel Analysis Report for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. (30 January).

USFS. 2011. Hazard Analysis for the Bar-X Dam. Coronado National Forest, Safford Ranger District. Arizona. (December).

USFS. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Show Low South Land Exchange, Apache- Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Prescott National Forests. (December).

USFS. 2014a. Mogollon Rim Interpretive Trail. Retrieved from website http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/asnf/recreation/ohv/recarea/?recid=45017&actid=50. (14 October 2014).

USFS. 2014b. Feasibility Analysis for the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange. (August).

USFS. 2014c. USFS Southwestern Region GIS Datasets. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/landmanagement/gis/?cid=STELPRDB5202474. (16 October 2014).

USFS. 2014d. Memorandum of Agreement Among the USDA, Forest Service, Southwest Region and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding the Treatment and Disposition of Eight Historic Properties Affected by the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests. (23 April 2014). On file at the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Supervisor’s Office.

USFS. 2015a. Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties, Arizona. In press.

USFS. 2015b. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott National Forest, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona. (June).

USFWS. 2012. Biological and Conference Opinion: The Continued Implementation of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests of the Southwestern Region USDA Forest Service. (30 April).

140 U.S. Forest Service Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement

USFWS. 2015. Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program. Accessed on 1/27/14 at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/brwrp_home.cfm.

Western Technologies, Inc. 2007. Letter to Mr. Dennis Higginbotham, City of Show Low, Arizona. RE: Asbestos Testing Show Low Lake Gauging Station (Site) Show Low, Arizona. (28 June).

White Mountain Apache Tribe Game & Fish. 2014. http://www.wmatoutdoors.org/frequently_asked_questions

U.S. Forest Service 141

Appendix A: Comments Comments from the EA scoping period, the EIS scoping period, and the DEIS official comment period are provided in this appendix. EA scoping comments are provided in a comment response analysis format as analyzed in a separate report, EIS scoping comments are included directly in a table as they were reviewed and used for refining the EIS analysis but not analyzed in a report, and DEIS comments are included verbatim in a comment response and issues analysis format as analyzed in a separate report.

EA Scoping Period Potential issues were screened to ascertain which are key to the proposed action (40CFR 1501.7(3)). A key issue is one that meets all of the following criteria:

1. Issue is within the scope of the analysis, 2. Issue is not decided by law, regulation or policy, 3. Issue is related to the decision, 4. Issue is amendable to scientific analysis rather than conjecture, and 5. Issue is not limited in extent, duration, nor intensity. The public scoping comments and/or questions were reviewed and grouped into the following categories/topics identified in the table.

U.S. Forest Service 143

Table 26. Comments received during 2007 scoping period, responses/discussion, and topic analysis Comments and/or questions Disposition discussion Category/Topic

• We hope the analysis will thoroughly describe Analysis of effects on Threatened and Endangered species is required Natural Resources any habitat values on the parcel to be conveyed, by the Endangered Species Act. A Biological Assessment will be and on each of the parcels to be acquired by the prepared for TE species and consultation, if necessary, will be initiated public. with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Apache- • The 344 acres of National Forest land located Sitgreaves National Forests Plan requires analysis of Sensitive and within the boundaries of the Town of Pinetop- Management Indicator Species and compliance with standards and Lakeside guidelines related to the wildlife resource. Effects of the alternatives on the wildlife resource will be considered in the analysis. This issue is covered by existing laws and regulations. The EA will include a description of the habitat values during the analysis.

• What does the public gain? The public would acquire numerous private inholdings scattered Natural Resources • The Forest Service gains valuable land in far among four National Forests in Arizona, the total acreage of away communities for habitat and recreational undeveloped forest lands in the State of Arizona that would be usage. available for wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation would increase by 13 7 5 acres, there would be an increase in the total number of acres of floodplain under federal management, the amount of resources needed to annually inspect and maintain property boundaries shared with adjoining private lands would be reduced, and a parcel of National Forest land would be conveyed into private ownership for uses in a expanding community. It is expected that the two youth camps would continue to operate with the remainder of the property available for other local uses and future development. It is also likely that the Rim Trail would come under local management. The EA will discuss public benefits (why the exchange is in the public interest) during the analysis.

• In conclusion, I think this proposed land Comment noted. Effects to wildlife will be analyzed in the EA. Natural Resources exchange would be a net loss for the residents and tourists in this region, as well as the wildlife. • Please provide a discussion on how each parcel Parcels that are acquired would be incorporated into the adjacent Natural Resources would be managed, especially parcels that have Management Area(s) as identified in each Forest LMP. Any additional riparian habitat or special attributes. site specific management criteria (such as for riparian or a special designation) would be determined through future project analysis once the lands have moved into federal ownership.

U.S. Forest Service 144

Comments and/or questions Disposition discussion Category/Topic • The residents living in the area surrounding the Direct access to the existing National Forest land from the Outdoor Recreation and Forest 344 acres in question have a wonderful adjacent/surrounding private property would be lost. The EA will Access opportunity to use and enjoy the National Forest discuss the effect on public recreation that is currently associated with and a great many of them do. the Federal parcel during the analysis. • Our home faces the area in question and we enjoy the wildlife and open view of our forest. • Also, the rim overlook trail is visited each year by The Forest Service is working with the non-Federal party to find a way Outdoor Recreation and Forest thousands of people and it is accessible for the to maintain public access to and use of the Rim Trail. The EA will Access handicapped. discuss the effect on public recreation that is currently associated with • The local people would no longer have access to the Federal parcel during the analysis. this land for hiking, jogging, exercising their pets, enjoying the forest as well as catching glimpses of the wildlife that still inhabits this parcel of forest land that abuts the reservation forest land. • If you do proceed with this exchange, please require the new owners to maintain public access to this trail (Rim Trail) so that this wonderful asset will not be taken away from us. • In conclusion, I think this proposed land exchange would be a net loss for the residents and tourists in this region, as well as the wildlife. • There is no benefit to this community in the Direct access to National Forest lands from the adjacent/surrounding Outdoor Recreation and Forest exchange this beautiful forest land for remote private property would be lost. The Sitgreaves National Forest will Access forest lands far from this community but will continue to be readily accessible to the residents in the Pinetop- instead deny the local residents the outdoor Lakeside area. The EA will discuss public benefits (why the exchange recreation the 344 acres of forest land provide on is in the public interest) during the analysis. a daily basis. • The Forest Service gains valuable land in far away communities for habitat and recreational usage. • To trade our own little "Central Park" in Pinetop- Lakeside for remote-unreachable forest lands all over the State of Arizona would be a disservice to the residents of Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low as well.

U.S. Forest Service 145

Comments and/or questions Disposition discussion Category/Topic • What are adjacent uses and their potential The use adjacent to the west side of the Carlisle parcel is rural Future Development impacts on what would become federal land? residential and National Forest lands on the three other sides. The Tonto Creek parcels share common boundaries with private lands along their west sides. The private land is occupied by single family residences, RV parks or is undeveloped. As the non-Federal lands are almost entirely in the Tonto Creek drainage there is little likelihood that there would be any additional impacts to the land. The remaining parcels are either surrounded by National Forest lands or share common boundary with private lands that are undeveloped or minimally developed due to their remote locations. The EA will discuss the use of the adjacent lands and any known potential impacts during the analysis.

• Are there long-term plans for acquisition of all the Future acquisition of other private parcels adjacent to the identified Future Development other private parcels adjacent to these that would non-Federal parcels would be determined by the availability of be acquired? desirable properties and the direction in each National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP).

• Please also discuss the proposed use(s) of the Currently, the Federal parcel adjoins residential properties along the Future Development federal land being traded and the potential north and south boundaries, State Highway 260 along its east impacts of such use. boundary, and the White Mountain Apache Reservation along the west boundary. The foreseeable future uses on the federal land would be the continuation of the two existing youth camps and possibly the development of the remaining property as legally permitted and approved by the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. The EA will discuss the foreseeable future uses on the Federal land and any known potential impacts during the analysis.

• Most assuredly, the environment of the The foreseeable future uses on the Federal land will be discussed Future Development community in proximity to the 344 acres of forest during the analysis. Future uses on the conveyed Federal land would land in question will not be improved by the be regulated by the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. Uses would need to commercial development that will, no doubt, comply with the local zoning ordinances. Determination of the need for immediately follow the proposed land exchange. and the type of future development as well as the process is the responsibility of the non-Federal party and Town of Pinetop-Lakeside once application is made. Existing laws and regulations cover this issue.

U.S. Forest Service 146

Comments and/or questions Disposition discussion Category/Topic • Since we have no idea what the Lions Club plans The foreseeable future uses on the Federal land will be discussed in to do with the land that is not part of Camp the EA during the analysis. Future uses on the conveyed Federal land Tatiyee, we believe it would be a terrible mistake would be approved by the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside and regulated by to make this exchange. local zoning ordinances. • It is well established that the Lakeside area needs more land for development (should the Lions at some point develop the acreage not used by Camp Tatiyee) and such an exchange would protect Camp Tatiyee for future use. • Our concerns would be if part of the parcel would be sold off for development and the zoning that would be applied to the adjoining property to the north of us. We would want the same zoning as it is in our neighborhood along Vallery Lane, one acre or more. • The City of Pinetop/Lakeside wants commercial industry on this land in my front yard for tax benefits. • Camp Tatiyee would benefit financially by keeping its little parcel and selling off the remaining acreage o commercial entities at substantially inflated prices. • It is much more valuable to the community as a forest than as yet another commercial development. • While we realize the need for the Forest Service to acquire tracts for forest and wildlife management, we feel that the areas such as this should be protected for the benefit and use of people in neighborhoods that are quickly becoming more dense and busy. • It is a beautiful area and we'd hate to see it ruined with any kind of development as I'm sure this land swap is designed to do. • I personally welcome the opportunity for Comment noted. Future Development development in the area and appreciate all that the US Forest Service does for our enjoyment.

U.S. Forest Service 147

Comments and/or questions Disposition discussion Category/Topic • Additionally, property values would plummet due The value of land is market driven and it can either go up or down. to monstrous commercial buildings (reference Over time the land values in the White Mountain area have increased Lowe's and Home Depot) with vast parking lots and there is no reason to believe that would not continue into the sitting in our front yards. future. Future uses on the conveyed Federal land would be approved by the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside and regulated by local zoning ordinances. There has not been a proposal for monstrous commercial buildings to be built on the property. The demand for land for primary and second homes is expected to continue in this area. Potential effects to land values will be discussed during the analysis.

• We are concerned about the effect on our lives if The foreseeable fature use on the Federal land will be discussed Future Development this area becomes another development, along during the analysis. Zoning, including the regulation and management with the inevitable increase in traffic and noise. of associated building densities, uses and traffic control provides the mechanism for the management of quality of life and future development. Future uses on the conveyed federal land would be regulated by the State of Arizona and Town of Pinetop-Lakeside zoning ordinances. Management of the existing state highway is the responsibility of ADOT and for any future roads it would be the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. Traffic control is not a component of the proposed land exchange. Any projected increase in traffic numbers from future development would need to be approved by the Town and ADOT. Prior to the approval and permitting of future development the local P&Z Commission would also have to be make a determination if specific mitigation measures would be required at accommodate the existing neighborhoods for any increases in traffic and noise.

U.S. Forest Service 148

Comments and/or questions Disposition discussion Category/Topic • A couple of the parcels the public would get None of the offered non-Federal parcels contain a split estate. All Hazardous Waste include mines. What, if any, are the implications parcels to be acquired must comply with the Comprehensive of this in terms of split estate, liability, hazardous Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). waste, etc? Environmental Site Assessments for the Babcock and Red Rover parcels concluded there were no hazardous wastes on the properties. Approximately 2 acres of the Mansfield parcel contain waste rock from previous mining activities. CERCLA was amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act which included a provision known as The Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser exemption to CERCLA. The provision provides that a purchaser of real property, which can include a Federal agency, an exemption from CERCLA liability if it satisfies certain conditions prior to acquisition. If remediation cannot satisfy the conditions necessary for acquisition the parcel or that portion of the property containing the waste rock would be dropped from farther consideration.

• The residents of Wagon Wheel Park are very The responsible official (Forest Supervisor) will decide whether to hold Procedural interested in this proposal and request that a a public meeting(s) to discuss the proposed exchange. public hearing be held in order for interested parties to express their opposition and concerns of this community personally. • t would be helpful to be given a rationale for the Overall, the public would acquire numerous private inholdings Procedural acquisition of each of the non-federal parcels. scattered among four National Forests in Arizona, the total acreage of undeveloped forest lands in the State of Arizona that would be available for wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation would increase by 13 7 5 acres, there would be an increase in the total number of acres of floodplain under federal management, and the amount of resources needed to annually inspect and maintain property boundaries shared with adjoining private lands would be reduced. The EA will discuss the rationale for individual parcel acquisition during the analysis.

U.S. Forest Service 149

Comments and/or questions Disposition discussion Category/Topic • I, a property owner in Wagon Wheel Park, have Comment noted. The required public scoping process was followed. Procedural never heard of this information from the This included publication of the Notice of Land Exchange in the association (Wagon Wheel Park Homeowners newspapers that serve the counties that contain lands proposed for Association). exchange (both Federal and non-Federal), a scoping letter sent to all known potentially interested individuals (a mailing list of known addresses was compiled that included individuals believed to have an interest that included the Wagon Wh.eel Park Homeowners Association) and the letter, a copy of the published legal notice and a scoping report were posted on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs' internet web site.

• It appears more as a predetermined decision with The environmental analysis focuses on the future use and Procedural an attempt at pacifying the public management of the lands acquired and conveyed and the potential effects, if any, of the exchange on the lands that adjoin them. The EA will discuss the process that is used by the parties when negotiating on the lands proposed for exchange.

• Pinetop/Lakeside, the U.S. Forest Service, and The EA will include a discussion on public benefits (why the exchange Procedural Camp Tatiyee are attempting to sugar-coat this is in the public interest) during the analysis. proposal as a beneficial exchange, but unfortunately the only beneficiaries will be them and only them. • We are told that by the time such transactions There has not been any political influence involved with a decision. Procedural become common lmowledge, the transactions The EA will include a discussion regarding the process followed by the are done deals. parties for agreeing to the lands proposed for exchange. The process for a land exchange is an administrative process. The Responsible Official will make a decision after the NEPA process has been completed regarding whether the exchange is in the public interest.

U.S. Forest Service 150

Comments and/or questions Disposition discussion Category/Topic • ... it is important to value the forest land The exchange must comply with the Federal Land Policy Management Procedural appropriately. Please assign adequate economic Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, (43 U.S.C. 1716). The non-Federal values to the various services which a natural and Federal parties to an exchange must comply with the appraisal forest provides, such as watershed protection, standards as set forth in 36 CFR 254.9 and to the extent appropriate, wildlife habitat, and urban open space. with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions: /nteragency Land Acquisition Conference 1992 when appraising the values of the properties involved in an exchange. The process for land appraisals is directed by policy and regulations and overseen by the Director of Lands and Minerals in the Forest Service Southwestern Region Office. The Southwestern Region 's procedures were reviewed by an independent organization "The Appraisal Foundation" in 1999 and found to be thorough and professional. The appraisal process is governed by an exacting standard process based on comparability valuation. The law requires equal land values or the use of cash equalization, after making reasonable efforts to equalize values by adding or deleting lands for an exchange to occur.

• Should the exchange be approved, only those The Federal land conveyed would no longer be National Forest and Social/Economic with the physical and/or financial resources would the non-Federal lands being offered/or exchange are located benefit from visiting the remote forest lands to be throughout Arizona and would not be readily accessible to the private exchanged ... property owners that currently adjoin the Federal land. A direct benefit to the public would be an additional 1375 acres of National Forest System lands available for use in Arizona. The EA will discuss public benefits (why the exchange is in the public interest) during the analysis.

• Having read the description of the land exchange Comment noted. Social/Economic and knowing the areas on the Coronado National Forest, party involved in the exchange, I'd say this looks like a good deal! • It seems to me that such an exchange would be Comment noted. If the National Forest land is conveyed into private Social/Economic extremely beneficial to the White Mountain area ownership it is anticipated that the two youth camps and the Rim Trail as well as the many physically challenged would continue as uses on the area with the remainder of the property individuals in Arizona. becoming available for other local uses and development.

• For the record we are not opposed the proposed Comment noted. Social/Economic land exchange. We think Camp Tatiyee is an asset to our community and support their efforts to acquire this parcel.

U.S. Forest Service 151

Comments and/or questions Disposition discussion Category/Topic • I hope . this is not the case and that the Forest The foreseeable future use on the Federal land will be discussed Social/Economic Service will consider the residents near the during the analysis. Future use on the conveyed Federal land would proposed exchange and the affect it will have on eventually be regulated by the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside zoning our community. ordinances. The EA will discuss public benefits (why the exchange is in the public interest) during the analysis.

• First, from the viewpoint of an area resident, the Comment noted. The proposed exchange would result in a change in Social/Economic 344-acre National Forest land with the two ownership for the Federal land. Future use on the conveyed Federal children's camps is a gem of a nearby, accessible land would eventually need to be approved by the Town of Pinetop- forest. Lakeside and regulated by local zoning ordinances.

• Please explain what is meant by "acquired" The land desigrzated as Acquired Federal Land on a couple of the Miscellaneous federal land, as shown on several of the maps. maps is land that was previously acquired by the Forest Service in a previous land ownership adjustment action. The base maps containing the land ownership status layer for the for the Coronado National Forest and the Tonto National Forest have not been corrected to reflect these changes in ownership. Future maps should include these lands in the Federal Land desigrzation.

Summary of Issue Determination The ID Team identified two key issues after the analysis of public scoping comments associated with the proposed Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange.

Issue 1: Loss of opportunity for the continued use of the adjacent National Forest by wildlife and for outdoor recreation by residents living in the area surrounding the Federal parcel.

Issue 2. Effect of possible future development on Federal parcel.

EIS Scoping Period Comments received during the EIS scoping period were reviewed and used in development of the DEIS with information intended to address the questions, comments, and concerns during this period. Comments received follow.

U.S. Forest Service 152

Table 27. Comments received and reviewed during the 2010 scoping period Name Comment

Charles Kermes Thank you for the information. Looks like a reasonable process. Jim Anderson/ White Mountains Land Thank you for taking the time to meet with the White Mountains Land Trust (WMLT) board of directors to discuss the Trust Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange and the public scoping that is being accomplished for the Environmental Impact Statement for the exchange. We were impressed with the complexity of the land exchange and its various associated issues involving four Arizona national forests. The WMLT would like to comment on one of the key issues associated with the 344-acre Forest Service Camp Tatiyee property: the future disposition of the Mogollon Rim Trail. The WMLT is dedicated to working to conserve and steward open spaces and natural areas, to promote responsible use of land and water resources, and to enhance and improve the quality of life in the White Mountains region of Arizona. We are an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that actively works to conserve land through a variety of means ranging from direct land transactions to conservation easements that restrict certain types of development. We work closely with local governments and private entities to facilitate land acquisitions, researching open space needs and priorities, and assisting communities in developing open space and urban trail strategies. As you are well aware, the Mogollon Rim Trail that crosses the Camp Tatiyee parcel is one of the most heavily used public trails in the area, and sits at the entrance to the Town of Pinetop- Lakeside and what many people consider to the “gateway to the White Mountains.” The WMLT has adopted the trailhead maintenance for this trail and understands firsthand how popular it is with the public. The public has a very keen interest in the long-term future of this trail, particularly as the land exchange progresses and development of portions of the parcel ultimately occurs. Failure to proactively address this trail’s future and to provide for continued public use and enjoyment could lead to considerable public outcry and controversy. The WMLT stands committed to playing a positive and proactive role in facilitating the longterm preservation of the Mogollon Rim Trail. We believe that this role could yield benefit to the ultimate success of the land exchange, as well as helping retain a vital amenity to Camps Tatiyee and Grace and future development that would occur on the parcel. We are willing to pursue a partnership with the Lions Foundation Arizona, Forest Service, the Town of Pinetop- Lakeside and other entities to develop and implement strategies to secure and maintain this valuable trail. Securing continued public use of the Mogollon Rim Trail following the exchange and achieving integration with future development could increase property values while promoting healthy lifestyles, as detailed in the Town of Pinetop- Lakeside’s Linking Our Landscape open space and trails assessment, available online at the Town’s website. This assessment details the positive economic impact associated with urban trails, as well as developer/landowner immunity from liability claims associated with the provision of public trail access. The WMLT is eager to help play an integral role in preserving and managing the Mogollon Rim Trail in the future. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to continued involvement in the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange as it progresses. Please don’t hesitate to let us know what assistance we may offer in the environmental analysis process. Kenneth A. Patterson/ City of Show The City of Show Low has an irrigation water line on the property that we need to retain an easement for and the Low irrigation company has an irrigation ditch on the property that the City of Show Low and the irrigation company need an easement for. In addition, the City of Show Low would like to see the Mogollon Rim Overlook Trail preserved.

U.S. Forest Service 153

Name Comment Shirly L. Dawnson, Tommie C. Martin, The undersigned members of the Board of Supervisors of Gila County, Arizona, would like to provide the following & Michael A. Pastor/ Gila County Board comments on the proposed land exchange between the Lions Foundation of Arizona (LF A), BC2 LLC, and the of Supervisors Apache-Sitgreaves, Coronado, Prescott and Tonto National Forests. We support, on its face, the process of exchanging private land for federally owned land. Certainly the purposes of this particular proposal - conveyance into private ownership of the Lions Club Camp Tatiyee for youth - are worthy of favorable consideration. What we find objectionable, however, is the notion of 1,719.32 privately owned acres being removed from the tax rolls. For the Forest Service to bring only 344.06 acres - an untenable 6-1 ratio -- to the table for its part of the "exchange" is no less than a predatory and opportunistic growing of its own acreage on the backs of small, rural counties who, like the rest of the United States, is experiencing the worst economic recession in our history. We would like to suggest that now and in the future, exchanging private land for Forest land be a net neutral change in private land within Gila County, given that 95% of the non-tribal land within Gila County is already United States Forest Service Land. Further, this exchange will be a continuance of the loss of Gila County's cultural and historic identity by obliterating homestead parcels and their structures.

U.S. Forest Service 154

Name Comment Janine Blaeloch/ Western Lands This letter includes our previous comments as well as new questions and issues to be addressed in the EIS. Project First, thank you for including clear maps that actually show the land ownership configuration surrounding the various parcels--this is extremely helpful! We hope the analysis will thoroughly describe any habitat values on the parcel to be conveyed, and on each of the parcels to be acquired by the public. In addition, it would be helpful to be given a rationale for the acquisition of each of the nonfederal parcels. While ownership consolidation is nominally a good thing, and the scoping letter states that the parcels would add wildlife habitat, recreation value, etc., in many cases the lands acquired for the public would not result in substantial consolidation of public land (e.g., Tonto Creek; Red Rover; Babcock; Rucker; Carlisle). In some cases, the public would be gaining just a tiny piece of private land amidst other private land (Babcock, Carlisle). In these cases, our questions would be: (1)What does the public gain? (2)What are adjacent uses and their potential impacts on what would become federal land? (3) Are there long-term plans for acquisition of all the other private parcels adjacent to these that would be acquired? A couple of the parcels the public would get include mines. What, if any, are the implications of this is terms of split estate, liability, hazardous waste, etc? In the original scoping report where 2 the Mansfield Tract is described, there is a reference to the “Mansfield Canyon Mines Site removal action.” Please explain this. Please explain what is meant by "acquired" federal land, as shown on several of the maps. Is this land acquired under the Weeks Act? By purchase? Exchange? When was the acquired land brought into public ownership--i.e., has there been a long-term, ongoing program to acquire these lands for particular values? This would be very helpful to know. Please provide some discussion of how each parcel would be managed, especially parcels that have riparian habitat or other special attributes. We are especially concerned about whether livestock grazing would be permitted on the three Tonto parcels that would be acquired” to benefit riparian dependent resources.” Please also discuss the proposed use(s) of the federal land being traded and the potential impacts of such use. Finally, has the Forest Service established a priority-ranking that establishes in what order the non-federal parcels would be dropped out of the exchange if the non-federal land values exceed the federal land values? Thank you for allowing us to participate in the scoping process for this proposal; we look forward to seeing the analysis. Vinca Holland My concerns are the current irrigation that flows through this parcel flows through my property also. I would want the irrigation to continue. The other concern is future development of houses being put on the Rim Trail. I would like to preserve the Rim Trail. Scott White Very concerned about the private owned LLC and what developing would occur in 5 years to 10 years, etc. Would like to see a way Lions Club partners with non-development interests. Let’s make this permanent nature area. Condos—not in my front yard

U.S. Forest Service 155

Name Comment Yvonne L. Moore Once again, I am writing to convey my dissenting opinion regarding the above proposed land transfer. The detriment to our community (Pinetop/Lakeside) far out ways any potential benefit to the forest service. The forest service desires to eliminate one of the last isolated parcels in town by allowing Camp Tatiyee to absorb a large portion of the land with the remainder to be developed by Pinetop/Lakeside in accordance with local zoning ordinances. Thereby, the forest service would gain additional acreage in Prescott, Safford, etc and the City of Pinetop/Lakeside would gam commercial property taxes. They would be the sole benefactors of any such land transfer. The local property owners adjacent to this land would experience a tremendous drop in their property values for which we all paid a premium for the benefit of bordering forest land. Moreover, we would have to endure commercial properties abutting our homes, and we would suffer from the increased traffic as well as all the lighting that accompanies commercial properties. Additionally, the community would lose public access to these lands for hiking, jogging, horseback riding, and exercising our pets. Wildlife still inhabits this land as it is adjacent to the reservation land. This proposal would choke the wildlife out and erase any opportunity of viewing wildlife. In summary, the land that the forest service would gain would provide recreational enjoyment for those residing in other counties at the expense of recreational opportunities of those of us residing, and paying taxes, in Pinetop/Lakeside. Therefore, I strongly support the "no-action alternative" to retain the current pattern of land ownership and the benefits coinciding. Charles E. Briggs This letter responds you notice to Arizona Water company (the “Company”) concerning a land exchange between the Lions Foundation of Arizona, BC2 LLC, and the United States Forest Service. The Company currently holds a valid USFS permit, LAK496, for water related facilities located in various areas of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Specifically, the Company has water related facilities located within the area of the proposed land exchange with the Forest Service and seeks to preserve the right for those facilities when the exchange takes place. I would appreciate the contact information of the person in charge at Lawyers Title Company with whom I can begin the process of preparing the necessary easements to cover the company’s water related facilities located in the exchange area. The company also requests that I be placed on the project mailing list so that it can be kept informed of the progress of the exchange. Please use the P.O. box listed on this letter for all correspondence, attention Charles Briggs. Certainly if you have questions or concerns regarding my request, please don’t hesitate to contact me at your convenience.

DEIS Comment Period A 45-day comment period was conducted from 5 June – 20 July 2015 to gather input from interested individuals and organizations on the Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The USFS received a total of 16 letters, comment forms, and emails offering comments on the project (provided by email, mail, and hand delivery). Below is a table listing the individuals who provided comments during this 45-day period. The table identifies individuals representing organizations and provides the name of the

U.S. Forest Service 156

organization they represent. Following is a content analysis of the specific comments provided in the letters, comment forms, and emails received.

U.S. Forest Service 157

Table 28. Identification of commenters and date and delivery method of comments received during the 2015 comment period Letter # Author Organization, Title Type Delivery Method Date Received

1 Fredrick Schneifder – Arizona Water Company, Vice President - Letter Mail July 17, 2015 Representing Organization Engineering 2 Kathleen Goforth – Representing US EPA Region IX, Manager – Letter Email and mail July 21, 2015 Organization Environmental Review Section 3 Patricia Port – Representing US Department of the Interior, Regional Letter Mail July 20, 2015 Organization Environmental Officer 4 Chuck Moore – Representing Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc., Email Email July 20, 2015 Organization Chief Executive Officer 5 Steve Saway Citizen Letter Email July 20, 2015 6 Leonold Reichardt Local Resident Comment In Person at Public June 16, 2015 form Meeting 7 Angie Cathemer Local Resident Comment In Person at Public June 16, 2015 form Meeting 8 Barbara Local Resident Comment In Person at Public June 16, 2015 form Meeting 9 Ed Muder – Representing City of Show Low Comment In Person at Public June 16, 2015 Organization form Meeting 10 Janine Blaeloch – Representing Western Lands Project, Director Letter Email June 16, 2015 Organization 11 Audrey Owens – Representing Game and Fish Department, Project Letter Mail June 20, 2015 Organization Program Specialist, Habitat Branch 12 Bob Beene Citizen Email Email June 9, 2015 13 Jean Public Citizen Email Email June 5, 2015 14 Richard Savage Citizen Email Email June 10, 2015 15 Nick Lund – Representing TRACKS, President Email Email June 6, 2015 Organization 16 Greg Glassco – Representing Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, Email Email June 29, 2015 Tribe Compliance Officer

U.S. Forest Service 159

Comments and Responses The comment content analysis table below was used to analyze comments received during the designated public comment period and public meeting and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the final environmental impact statement, as required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (§1501.7). The analysis table provides responses from the US Forest Service to each comment and categorizes comments received into the following categories:

1. Key issues: Issues which are directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed activity that would require development of an alternative to address or resolve them; 2. Issues eliminated from detailed study, which include those a. Outside the scope of the proposed activity b. Already decided by law, regulation, forest plan, or other higher level decisions c. Irrelevant to the stated decision to be made or d. Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; 3. Concerns including a. Comment addressed by comment response and/or analysis or correspondence b. General question/comment/concern about the proposed project 4. Interest in documents and/or continued correspondence 5. Supportive comment; and 6. Neutral comment The comments are transcribed verbatim with responses and identification of the comment type following. Commenters representing organizations are listed with the organization name following the commenter name.

Table Summary: We did not identify any key issues for this project. We eliminated some issues from detailed study as they are already decided by laws and regulations or outside the scope of this project. Various concerns were identified that will be addressed by the forthcoming resource assessments and environmental analysis document and other documents that will be included in the project record. Several supportive comments were provided.

U.S. Forest Service 160

Table 29. Comments received during the 2015 comment period, responses, and analysis of comments Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency

Fredrick Schneifder/ Arizona Water Company (“Company”) currently The USFS is aware of this permit and all existing 3.a. Comment Arizona Water holds a valid USFS permit, LAK496, for water special use permits for utilities on the federal parcel addressed by comment Company related facilities located in various areas of the would be converted to easements or provided response and/or Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Specifically, appropriate authorization at the time of exchange to analysis or the company has water related facilities located allow for continued use as currently occurs. Thank correspondence. within the area of proposed land exchange with the you for your comment and provision of your standard Forest Service and seeks to preserve the right for form. those facilities when the exchange takes place. Enclosed is a copy of our standard easement form to be used to cover the water related facilities with the legal description to follow this letter once a topographic survey has been completed. Kathleen Goforth/ Though supportive of this exchange, given the Information on possible development of the federal 3.a. Comment USEPA Region IX valuable lands that would be brought under Forest parcel was clarified in the FEIS to address this addressed by comment Service stewardship if it is completed, we comment. Population growth in the county is response and/or recommend that the FEIS include additional expected to continue to grow regardless of the analysis or information on the potential for the exchange to project. Immediate development of the parcel is not correspondence. induce growth on the parcel that would be expected as the parcel would be zoned for “open transferred into private ownership. space,” a designation that precludes development, and any development must go through a town zoning process, which allows for public input. Exchanging the parcel may focus some growth to part of the parcel, but it is expected to be gradual in occurrence and similar to the low-density development of the surrounding areas, particularly as there are several other local areas also available for development. Overall, exchange of the parcel is not expected to induce growth but instead be responsive to growth expected to occur.

U.S. Forest Service 161

Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency Kathleen Goforth/ We also recommend that the Forest Service We have updated the tribal consultation section in 3.a. Comment USEPA Region IX provide additional information on the tribal the FEIS to provide more thorough information as addressed by comment consultation that has been conducted for this requested, added information to the issues section response and/or proposed exchange. The DEIS states the Forest on the issues identified with cultural resources and analysis or Service contacted nine Native American tribes and how they would be addressed, and throughout the correspondence. one chapter in the region concerning the proposed document have added further information on land exchange and the eight eligible historic coordinating with tribes to mitigate adverse effects to properties located on the federal parcel. The DEIS cultural resources. The cultural resources section in does not describe the responses received from the Chapter 3 was also updated with more information. tribes, if any, nor how this outreach may have The MOA and treatment plan referred to and other informed the avoidance and mitigation measures documentation of consultation outlined in the FEIS is proposed to address potential adverse effects to also included in the project record. historic properties. We recommend that the Forest Service provide an update, in the FEIS, on consultation between the Forest Service and the tribal governments contacted to date. Discuss issues that were raised, how those issues were addressed in relation to the proposed land exchange, and how impacts to tribal or cultural resources would be avoided or mitigated consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Ac, and Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites. Patricia Port/ The Department of the Interior has received and Thank you for taking the time to provide this 6. Neutral comment US Department of the reviewed the subject document and has no statement. Interior comments to offer. Chuck Moore/ NEC has an electrical distribution substation, The USFS is aware of these lines and all existing 3.a. Comment Navopache Electric electrical distribution lines and 69kV sub- special use permits for utilities on the federal parcel addressed by comment Cooperative (NEC) transmission lines located within the area of the would be converted to easements or provided response and/or land exchange. NEC wants to make sure to appropriate authorization at the time of exchange to analysis or maintain the existing rights we have for these allow for continued use. Thank you for taking the correspondence. electrical facilities to remain so that NEC can time to comment. continue to provide electrical service to the Lakeside and Show Low areas.

U.S. Forest Service 162

Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency Steve Saway I support the purpose and rationale behind the Thank you for your supportive comment and mention 5. Supportive comment proposed land exchange and believe it is in the of the Mogollon Rim Trail. public interest. I commend the Forest Service for the excellent documentation contained in the DEIS which provides a compelling case for the land exchange. 2. The federal lands to be exchanged have significant recreational value to local residents and visitors. However, because the proposed action will assure continued access for public use of the Mogollon Interpretive Trail after the exchange is completed, I believe the loss of these lands will be significantly mitigated. I commend the Lakeside Ranger District for supporting the public’s need for continued access and use of this trail.

U.S. Forest Service 163

Steve Saway 3. Because the federal lands to be exchanged have Thank you for your comment regarding recreation on 3.a. Comment a long history of recreational use, I believe it is the non-federal parcels. As outlined in the Recreation addressed by comment important that the non-federal lands that will and Public Access Section of the FEIS, all of the response and/or transfer to forest service ownership be managed to non-federal parcels are expected to provide a benefit analysis or the maximum extent possible for the public’s to dispersed recreation, as you discuss, for activities correspondence. recreational use and enjoyment. Otherwise, the such as camping, hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, proposed land exchange would result in a net loss and vehicular access. Recreation is encouraged on of outdoor recreational opportunities for the public. many of the parcels, including most of those you 4. As a longtime resident of southeast Arizona, I mention, and is allowed on others following forest have enjoyed hiking, camping, and exploring plan management. We appreciate your rationale on various destinations within the Coronado National making these areas available for recreation under Forest. Thus, I have a special interest in the non- the proposed action and expect recreation like you federal parcels that will transfer to the Coronado describe to be available on the parcels acquired. National Forest. In my view, Table 3-3, Anticipated Thank you for your comment. Future Management Area Designations for Non- federal Parcels (pages 52 and 53), does not adequately reflect the recreational values of certain parcels. Specifically, Table 3-3 should include “dispersed recreation” in the column “Future MA Designation” for the following parcels: Happy Valley East, Happy Valley West, Happy Valley 40, Harshaw Creek, and Mansfield. (Table 3-3 is correctly including “recreation” for the parcels Rucker East, Rucker West, Stronghold, and Stronghold Well Site.) As rationale, the Happy Valley parcels are located in a popular corridor for dispersed recreation. The Arizona National Scenic Trail is located nearby as well as hiking opportunities in the Little Rincon Mountains and Paige Creek. The Happy Valley corridor is also popular for dispersed camping. The location of the Happy Valley parcels should significantly boost opportunities for public access and recreation in that area. The Harshaw Creek parcel is located near some popular hikes south of the town of Patagonia and is a good location for dispersed camping. The Mansfield parcel is located between forest road 72A and Mansfield Canyon, which is a favorite hiking destination of the Huachuca Hiking Club. This area has high scenic and recreational values. Steve Saway I believe the gaining national forests should update As outlined in the Recreation and Public Access 3.a. Comment their current or pending Travel Management Plans section of the FEIS, the public would be able to addressed by comment legally access all the acquired land and current response and/or

U.S. Forest Service 164

Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency and fully consider the need for public access to the easements are expected to remain. As you mention, analysis or non-federal parcels. specific accesses and use would need to be correspondence. considered by each forest for each parcel area. Leonold Reichardt Great opportunity for the Lions Club to own the We have reviewed and noted this comment. Thank 5. Supportive comment land. Can’t see any negative issues. you for taking the time to comment and express your support of this project. Angie Cathemer What are the 10 additional permits indicated? The ten permits you reference are special use 3.a. Comment permits the Forest Service currently must oversee on addressed by comment the federal parcel to allow certain uses; these include response and/or seven utility uses, Camp Tatiyee, Camp Grace, and analysis or the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside municipal sign. See correspondence. EIS page 48. Angie Cathemer Forest land that may not be used for camps be sold Youth camps have been operating on the parcel 3.a. Comment to developers? My concern is that our house faces since 1958; the stated intention of the private parties addressed by comment the forest. is to maintain and continue camp operations. Upon response and/or transfer, the parcel would be subject to municipal analysis or zoning, which is currently “Open Space” with limited correspondence. development potential. Any subsequent rezoning process to allow development on any part of the federal parcel would be subject to public review consistent with the planning and zoning ordinances and processes of the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. If rezoned and development was allowed, it is expected to be similar to the low density development of the surrounding areas. Angie Cathemer The homes on Wagon Wheel Road be allowed to Any subdivision and sale of the Camp Tatiyee parcel 2.a. Outside the scope purchase land across the street so there will be no would be at the discretion of the private landowner. of the proposed activity development? Angie Cathemer Will the trail and rim remain open to the public? The Mogollon Rim Trail would transfer to non-federal 3.a. Comment ownership, but the paved portion of this trail and a addressed by comment buffered area extending 25 feet from all sides of the response and/or trail, the trailhead, parking area, and access road analysis or would be preserved from any future building sites correspondence. and available to the public.

U.S. Forest Service 165

Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency Angie Cathemer Who has the water rights to the pond? Or is it not Three different special use permits (SUPs) for the 3.a. Comment part of the trade? storage and conveyance of water exist on the Camp addressed by comment Tatiyee parcel. These are held by Show response and/or Low/Pinetop-Woodland Irrigation Company, Inc, City analysis or of Show Low (formerly Phelps Dodge Corporation), correspondence. and Arizona Water Company. These SUPs would convert to easements or be given appropriate authorization for continued use upon exchange so they would continue as currently used. Angie Cathemer What is the timeframe when trade will take place If decided upon, the exchange is anticipated to be 3.a. Comment and how will this really affect our neighborhood? completed in 2017. Anticipated impacts on various addressed by comment resources have been analyzed in further detail in the response and/or EIS, but Camp Tatiyee is intended to continue in use, analysis or Camp Grace has been extended the offer to correspondence. purchase the land for Camp Grace to continue operation, and the rest of the parcel would be incorporated into the municipal zoning of “Open Space,” with limited development potential. Any subsequent rezoning process to allow development on any part of the federal parcel would be subject to public review consistent with the planning and zoning ordinances and processes of the Town of Pinetop- Lakeside. If rezoned, any development would be expected to be low density similar to that of the surrounding areas. Angie Cathemer Will we still be allowed to walk through the forest Use of the parcel for walking would be at the 3.a. Comment from our homes or will we have to drive to the trail discretion of the private landowner. The paved addressed by comment parking lot? portion of the Mogollon Rim Trail, trailhead, parking response and/or area, and access road would be maintained for analysis or public access and use. Easements including correspondence. Highway 260, Vallery Lane, and Wagon Wheel Road would also be maintained as part of the exchange allowing continued use.

U.S. Forest Service 166

Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency Barbara W Will the rim road still be open on Wagon Wheel The section of Wagon Wheel Road on the parcel has 3.a. Comment Road? What effects will this have on homes on been closed for many years and would transfer with addressed by comment Wagon Wheel Road? the parcel to the private landowner. Adjacent response and/or sections to the north and south of the parcel were analysis or transferred in the past and have been under other correspondence. ownership for years. Easements including SR 260, Vallery Lane, and Wagon Wheel Road would be maintained as part of the exchange. Effects on home values is difficult to determine. Effects of open space on nearby property values have been shown to be mixed but, overall, beneficial to prices, particularly for permanent open space. The exchange could have some detrimental effects on home values, but effects are expected to be mixed as the parcel would be zoned “open space” initially, any rezoning and development would be expected to be gradual and similar to the low density surrounding area, a large section of the parcel is expected to continue with operation of the camps, The popular Mogollon Rim Trail would continue to remain open to the public, NFS land and open space on the Fort Apache Reservation is not far away, and other similar and different factors all affect housing values, some to a greater extent.

U.S. Forest Service 167

Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency Janine Blaeloch/ The draft EIS does a fair job of describing the Thank you for this comment. Information was Western Lands rationale for and impacts of the land exchange. adjusted and added to the FEIS and Executive Project However, while trading away the Camp Tatiyee Summary to clarify the purposes for acquiring the parcel appears to be in the public interest, the need non-federal parcels. Part of the purpose involves and desirability to acquire some of the non-federal reducing possibility of development, but the parcels parcels is less clear. The DEIS states on page v of also contain special features such as critical habitat the Executive Summary that the nonfederal lands that is beneficial for wildlife, perennial waters, and on are “available for future development that could some parcels access roads; these would receive diminish the value [of the resources present],” but more permanent protection into the far future from the document does not analyze the varying federal ownership. While not all the parcels are potential for development on the 18 parcels. completely surrounded by NFS land, overall Some of the parcels, such as Happy Valley East acquisition of the parcels would reduce shared and Harshaw, appear to have steep topography boundary lines and establish more contiguous land that might limit potential for development. None of ownership that can make management of land in the non- federal parcels have a high potential for those areas easier and more efficient. Some of the mineral resources, so mining and extraction appear areas are also used for some recreational activities not be a threat. as allowed by the landowners and acquisition would help ensure recreation is allowed to continue further into the future in those areas.

U.S. Forest Service 168

Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency Janine Blaeloch/ Admittedly, consolidation of ownership is a worthy Thank you for this comment and mentioning the prior Western Lands overall goal, whether or not there is any imminent comment in scoping. The Forest Service intends to Project threat of development of those parcels. However, continue with consolidation of lands through consolidation of federal land ownership is not acquisition of any private parcels that would help complete in 13 of the 18 acquisitions, so the consolidate land ownership patterns; this includes potential impacts upon newly-acquired federal acquisition of any of the remaining adjacent private lands of uses on remaining private adjacent lands parcels that fit land characteristic for inclusion in NFS should also be described. We posed this question land and that would not be precluded from inclusion for analysis in our April 2010 scoping comments. In due to developments, hazardous sites, etc. In those same comments we asked about long-term consolidating land ownership, the Forest Service plans for acquisition of the remaining private focuses particularly on acquiring lands completely parcels adjacent to these that would be acquired, surrounded by NFS land that are not developed, do and this should be addressed. not contain sites the Forest Service cannot acquire, are characteristic of NFS land, and contain resources that would benefit from long-term protection or federal management. However, provision of private land for inclusion in a land exchange is at the voluntary choice of the landowner. Because of this, the Forest Service can only acquire what is made available over time for acquisition. Effects on nearby private lands weren’t gone into. Ed Muder/ The City of Show Low has irrigation (water) lines Thank you for your comment. The Forest Service 3.a. Comment City of Show Low through the property. We need to make sure the would ensure that all existing special use permits for addressed by comment easements are transferred when the exchange is utilities on the federal parcel are converted to response and/or complete. easements or provided appropriate authorization at analysis or the time of exchange. correspondence. Audrey Owens/ The Department would like to reiterate our support We have reviewed and noted this comment. Thank 4. Supportive comment Game and Fish of this proposed land exchange, based on the you for taking the time to comment and express your Department overall benefit to wildlife resources, the long-term support of this project. conservation of these habitats for wildlife, and the public’s continued ability to pursue wildlife recreational opportunities.

U.S. Forest Service 169

Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency Bob Benne I am unable to locate a map showing the isolated Several maps of the isolated private parcels are 3.c. Interest in private parcels that are to be exchanged for USFS available online at documents and/or land. Can you please provide that to me. http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=5004 in the continued figures provided there and the document titled correspondence “2015.05.29_CampTatiyeeDEIS.” Just click on the name of the document to download it. A copy of that document or the maps can also be provided at the Lakeside Ranger District Office. Jean Public I do not think the taxpayers citizens of this country No new youth camps are proposed. Two current 3.a. Comment want to turn this open space land into a children youth camps have been operating on the parcel addressed by comment camp. since 1958; one of the stated intentions of the private response and/or parties is to maintain and continue operations of analysis or Camp Tatiyee. The other camp, Camp Grace, would correspondence. be offered for purchase to continue running that camp as well. Upon transfer, the parcel would be subject to municipal zoning, which is currently “Open Space” with limited development potential. Any subsequent rezoning process to allow development on any part of the federal parcel would be subject to public review consistent with the planning and zoning ordinances and processes of the Town of Pinetop- Lakeside, and if authorized, any development is expected to be low-density similar to that of the surrounding areas. Jean Public I do not think the compensation for using our open The Federal Land Policy Management Act has strict 3.a. Comment space is adequate to allow this taking to continue. rules to determine appropriate valuation of properties addressed by comment proposed in land exchanges. The exchange can only response and/or be completed if the value of the federal parcel is analysis or approximately equal to that of the private land correspondence. parcels being offered in exchange or cash equalization, provision of funds, to supplement the lands to be exchanged may occur to equal the value of the lands, but the value must be equal and a professional appraisal of the lands is used to determine valuation. Upon exchange, the land will remain open space under the town zoning. The parcel may be rezoned following zoning ordinances and processes, which provide for public input.

U.S. Forest Service 170

Name/ Comment(s) USFS Response Comment Type Organization/ Agency Jean Public I think this is illegal immigrant use too and i do not Your comment has been noted for the record. This 2.a. Outside the scope favor that at all. Illegal immigrants should be sent project does not have anything to do with illegal of the proposed activity right back to their own country when they turn up at immigrants or programs, laws, regulations, policy, or our border. I very much oppose this taking of land anything else related to illegal immigrants. and believe this is a sneaky deal trying to get away with stealing the peoples land. This comment is for the public record. Please receipt. Richard Savage I have no negative comments about this project If approved, the exchange is anticipated to be 4. Supportive comment and hope it can be completed this fiscal year. finalized in 2017. Thank you for taking the time to comment and express your support of this project. Nick Lund/ TRACKS, a 350+ member volunteer organization, We have reviewed and noted this comment. Thank 4. Supportive comment TRACKS supports the proposed land exchange between the you for taking the time to comment and express your USFS and Lions Foundation of Arizona. In our support of this project. opinion, this exchange will benefit the National Forests, the Lions Foundation, and communities in Arizona. Greg Glassco We don’t have any comments at this time on the Your comment has been noted for the record. We will 3.c. Interest in Draft EIS. keep you informed as we move forward on the documents and/or Please keep us informed as the project moves project. continued forward. correspondence

U.S. Forest Service 171