travel management tonto national forest visual resources...

Travel Management

Tonto National Forest

Visual Resources Report

of 33

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Desired Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Visual Resource Management ...................................................................................................................... 5

Legal and Regulatory Direction ..................................................................................................................... 7

National Forest Management Act ............................................................................................................. 7

Travel Management Rule .......................................................................................................................... 7

Forest Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Limitations........................................................................................................................................... 12

Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Existing NFS Roads and Trails .................................................................................................................. 15

Cross-Country Travel ............................................................................................................................... 15

Unauthorized Routes .............................................................................................................................. 16

Concentrated Use Areas ......................................................................................................................... 16

Permit Zones ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Motorized Big Game Retrieval ................................................................................................................ 19

Motorized Dispersed Camping................................................................................................................ 19

Environmental Effects ................................................................................................................................. 21

Methodology and Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 21

Assumptions Associated With Roads and Trails ................................................................................. 21

Assumptions Associated With Permit Zones ...................................................................................... 22

Assumptions Associated with Dispersed Camping ............................................................................. 22

Assumptions Associated With Motorized Big Game Retrieval ........................................................... 23

Assumptions Associated With Collection of Forest Resources ........................................................... 23

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................. 23

Decommissioned Existing Roads and Unauthorized Routes............................................................... 23

Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel ................................................................................ 23

Permit Zones ....................................................................................................................................... 23

Dispersed Camping ............................................................................................................................. 24

Alternative B – Direct and Indirect Effects .............................................................................................. 24

Roads and Trails Designated for Motor Vehicle Use .......................................................................... 24


of 33

Permit Zones ....................................................................................................................................... 25


Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects .............................................................................................. 25



Permit Zones ....................................................................................................................................... 26


Alternative D – Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................. 27



Permit Zones ....................................................................................................................................... 28


Comparison of Effects by Alternative ..................................................................................................... 28

Decommissioned Existing Roads and Unauthorized Routes............................................................... 28



Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................................... 30

No Action (Alternative A) ........................................................................................................................ 30

Action Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 31

References .................................................................................................................................................. 32

of 33

Introduction The Forest Service Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (2000) indicates that

“high quality scenery, especially scenery with natural-appearing landscapes, enhances people's lives and

benefits society” (p. 1). Additionally, Visual Resource Management is defined in the Tonto National

Forest Plan (Forest Plan) (U.S. Forest Service, 1985) glossary as “the art and science of planning and

administering the use of Forest lands in such ways that visual effects maintain or upgrade man’s

psychological welfare. The planning and design of visual aspects of multiple-use land management (U.S.

Forest Service, 1985, p. 21 in glossary)”. Scenery management is “the art and science of arranging,

planning, and designing landscape attributes relative to the appearance of places and expanses in

outdoor settings” (U.S. Forest Service, 2000, p. 5 in glossary).

As the American population increases and more areas become urbanized, the Forest Service has seen an

increase in public concern about the natural scenic qualities of national forests. “Research shows that

there is a high degree of public agreement regarding scenic preferences. This research indicates that

people value most highly the more visually attractive and natural-appearing landscapes. However, the

fact that preferences may vary somewhat in different regions or cultures must be recognized (U.S.

Forest Service, 2000, p. 30)”.

“People utilize travelways and use areas throughout the national forests. In addition, they utilize

travelways and use areas located outside of national forest boundaries that provide views into national

forests. Travelways represent linear concentrations of public viewing including highways, roads, trails,

rivers, and other waterways. Portions of landscapes visible from travelways and use areas are important

to constituents for their scenic quality, aesthetic values, and landscape merits (U.S. Forest Service, 2000,

p. 4 - 6)”.

Roads create disruptions in the natural appearing landscape and lower scenic integrity by reducing the

natural appearance of the landscape. The major visual impact of roads is their linear configuration,

which must be superimposed upon nonlinear landscapes (U.S. Forest Service, 1977). The proliferation of

unauthorized routes, particularly in sparsely covered landscapes, can adversely affect the existing

landscape character.

The top recreational activities on the Tonto National Forest according to the most recent National

Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey (U.S. Forest Service, 2013) include hiking/walking, viewing

natural features (scenery), relaxing, motorized trail activity, driving for pleasure, OHV use, motorized

water travel, camping, and picnicking.

Of those surveyed, over 26 percent indicated that they participated in hiking or walking. Nearly 16

percent indicated that it was their primary activity. For viewing natural features (scenery), 23 percent of

visitors participated in this activity, with 10 percent indicating that it was their primary activity. Of those

surveyed, also 23 percent indicated that they participated in relaxing. Over 7 percent indicated that it

was their primary activity.

of 33

For motorized trail activity, nearly 18 percent of visitors participated in this activity, with nearly 12

percent indicating that it was their primary activity. Of those surveyed, 15 percent indicated that they

participated in driving for pleasure. Nearly 5 percent indicated that it was their primary activity. For

driving for pleasure, nearly 15 percent of visitors participated in this activity, with nearly five percent

indicating that it was their primary activity. Of those surveyed, 11 percent indicated that they

participated in OHV use. Nearly 7 percent indicated that it was their primary activity. Of those surveyed,

over 10 percent indicated that they participated in camping. Over 3 percent indicated that it was their

primary activity. For picnicking, over 8 percent of visitors participated in this activity, with nearly 2

percent indicating that it was their primary activity. All of these activities are directly related to scenic

quality. As a result, visitors place a high value on scenic quality and have an interest and concern on

effects to scenic quality (U.S. Forest Service, 2009).

The scenic qualities of forest landscapes are valuable resources and important factors in the

development of management actions. Primary objectives of scenery management are to maintain

natural appearance and to minimize alterations that contrast with the natural elements of forest

landscapes. The Tonto National Forest Plan (U.S. Forest Service, 1985) directs that the scenic qualities of

forest landscapes be recognized and emphasized in all resource planning and management activities.

Desired Conditions The desired conditions for visual resources were general in the Forest Plan. Since the Forest Plan was

signed in 1985, the following desired condition has been developed to maintain and improve scenic

quality on the forest:

The desired condition for scenery management is to maintain the natural appearance of

National Forest Lands with the objective of minimizing intensity of alterations that contrast with

the natural character of landscapes.

Visual Resource Management The Visual Management System (VMS) (U.S. Forest Service, 1974) has been used since the mid-1970s as

the preferred analysis tool for determining effects to scenery from proposed activities. “It has become

necessary to both inventory the visual resource and provide measurable standards for the management

of it (U.S. Forest Service, 1974, p. 2)”. All National Forest lands have been inventoried following the VMS

as described below to provide measurable standards for the management of visual resources; visual

quality objectives (VQOs):

“Landscape Character Type is an area of land that has common distinguishing visual

characteristics of landform, rock formations, water forms, and vegetative patterns. Its

establishment is based on physiographic sections as defined by Nevin M. Fenneman1. Character

1 Fennemand, Nevin M. 1931 Physiography of the Western United States. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book

Company.

of 33

types are used as a frame of reference to classify physical features of a given area as to their

degree of scenic quality (U.S. Forest Service, 1974, p. 5)”.

“Variety Classes classify landscapes into different degrees of variety (U.S. Forest Service, 1974, p.

12): A – Distinctive, B – Common and C – Minimal”. The majority of the Forest contains features

common throughout this character type, classified as Variety Class B. An example of distinctive

scenic quality, classified as Variety Class A, is stretches of the Salt River.

“Distance Zones are the portions of a particular landscape seen from roads, trails, use areas, and

water bodies. The zones and importance of viewer position in relation to the landscape indicate

the degree to which landscapes are visible and important to the public. The three distance zones

are foreground (extends ¼ to ½ mile from observer), middle ground (extends from foreground 3

to 5 miles), and background (extends from middle ground to horizon) (U.S. Forest Service,

1974)”.

“Sensitivity Levels are a measure of people’s concern for the scenic quality of the National

Forests (U.S. Forest Service, 1974, p. 18”): Level 1 – Highest Sensitivity, Level 2 – Average

Sensitivity, Level 3 – Lowest Sensitivity. The foreground distance zones are classified as Level 1

while middle ground distance zones are classified as Level 2. Level 3 classifications are isolated

to background distance zones (U.S. Forest Service, 1974).

Combining these attributes, the Tonto Land and Resource Management Plan assigns a VQO to be used

during project planning and implementation for the purpose of maintaining or enhancing the scenic

qualities of the Tonto’s landscapes. VQOs represent different degrees of acceptable alterations to

national forest landscapes. The following are definitions of the five VQOs as from the National Forest

Landscape Management Volume 2 Chapter 1 the Visual Management System (U.S. Forest Service, 1974):

“Preservation (P) – This visual quality objective allows ecological changes only. Management

activities, except for very low visual – impact recreation facilities are prohibited” (U.S. Forest

Service, 1974, p. 29).

“Retention (R) – This visual quality objective provides for management activities that are not

visually evident. Under Retention, activities may only repeat form, line color, and texture

frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount,

intensity, direction, pattern, etc. should not be evident” (U.S. Forest Service, 1974, p. 30).

“Partial Retention (PR) – Management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic

landscape when managed according to the Partial Retention visual quality objective. Activities

may repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the characteristic landscapes but changes in

their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc. should remain visually

subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may also introduce form, line, color, or

texture which are found infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape, but they

of 33

should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape” (U.S. Forest

Service, 1974, p. 32).

“Modification (M) – Under the modification visual quality objective management activities may

visually dominate the original characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and

land form alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so

completely and at such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences

within the surrounding area or character type” (U.S. Forest Service, 1974, p. 34).

“Maximum Modification (MM) – Management activities of vegetative and land alterations form

may dominate the characteristic landscape. However, when viewed as background, the visual

characteristics must be those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character

type. When viewed as foreground or middle ground, they may not appear to completely borrow

from naturally established form, line, color, or texture. Alterations may also be out of scale or

contain detail which is incongruent with natural occurrences as seen in foreground or middle

ground” (U.S. Forest Service, 1974, p.36).

Legal and Regulatory Direction

National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and its implementing regulations, required the inventory

and evaluation of the Forest’s visual resource, addressing the landscape’s visual attractiveness and the

public’s visual expectations. Management prescriptions for definitive lands areas of the forest are to

include visual quality objectives.

Travel Management Rule The Travel Management Rule does not cite aesthetics specifically, but in the designation of trails and

areas, the responsible official shall consider effects on forest resources with the objective of minimizing

effects of motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.55 (b)).

Forest Plan The current Tonto National Forest Plan (Forest Plan) (U.S. Forest Service, 1985) used the VMS to outline

VQOs for all areas of the forest. Direction in the current Forest Plan for visual resource management is

under Outdoor Recreation and states, “Emphasize visual quality objectives in all resource planning and

management activities” (U.S. Forest Service, 2004 p. 21). Visual quality objective is defined in the Forest

Plan as “A desired level of excellence based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area. It

refers to degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape” (U.S. Forest Service, 1996, p.

234-5).

There are two forms of direction from the 80s for visual quality on the Tonto National Forest, narrative

and maps. The Forest Plan narrative gives actual acres or a percentage of acres prescribed for the

assigned VQOs for each management area. Major travel corridors on the VQO maps are in the retention

of 33

VQO, including State Route 87, State Route 260, and US Highway 60, as well as the upper Salt River and

Roosevelt Lake (

of 33

Figure 1). The less heavily traveled corridors, such as State Route 188 and State Route 288, are in the

partial retention VQO. Areas away from lakes, river corridors, and highways located in otherwise

significantly disturbed areas allow more visually intrusive objects and are to be managed as modification

and maximum modification VQOs. Wilderness areas on Forest Service Land are typically managed as

preservation; however, the preservation objective is so small on the Forest-wide map below that it is

not visible so it is shown separately. This is not an accurate representation of VQO of preservation on

the forest.

of 33

Figure 1: Forest Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) Map from Digitized Visual Resource Inventory

of 33

The management prescription section (narrative) in the Forest Plan (pages 35-199) more accurately

represents the VQO of preservation on the forest. It assigns 571,662 acres as having a VQO of

preservation (Table 1), which consists of 564,716 acres of wilderness areas and 6,946 acres of natural

areas (see Recreation Specialist Report for more details about wilderness areas and natural areas on the

forest).

Table 1: Wilderness Areas & Research Natural Areas with VQO of Preservation from Forest Plan

Narrative (Acres)

Management

Area

Page

Number in

Forest Plan Name

Ranger

District

Acres of

Wilderness

Areas in

Preservation

VQO*

Acres of

Natural

Areas in

Preservation

VQO*

1B 53 Mazatzal Wilderness Area Cave Creek 120,658

2A 73 Superstition Wilderness Area Globe 23,819

2B 76 Salt River Canyon Wilderness

Area

Globe 23,023

2E 84 Proposed Picket Post Mountain

Research Natural Area

Globe

1,120

3A 91 Mazatzal Wilderness Area Mesa 10,753

3B 94 Superstition Wilderness Area Mesa 53,477

3C 97 Superstition Wilderness Area Mesa 62,707

3D 100 Four Peaks Wilderness Area Mesa 42,040

3E 103 Bush Highway Research Natural

Area

Mesa

488

3F 110 Proposed Sycamore Creek &

Bluepoint Cottonwood Natural

Area

Mesa

540

4A 119 Mazatzal Wilderness Area Payson 100,759

4C 124 Hell's Gate Wilderness Area Payson 17,351

4E 137 Proposed Fossil Springs Natural

Area

Payson

20

5A 144 Sierra Ancha Wilderness Area Pleasant

Valley

20,850

5B 147 Hell's Gate Wilderness Area Pleasant

Valley

19,429

5C 149 Salome Wilderness Area Pleasant

Valley

7,832

5F 163 Proposed Upper Forks Parker

Creek Research Natural Area

Pleasant

Valley

1,288

6A 169 Mazatzal Wilderness Area Tonto

Basin

9,579

6B 172 Superstition Wilderness Area Tonto

Basin

21,754

of 33

Management

Area

Page

Number in

Forest Plan Name

Ranger

District

Acres of

Wilderness

Areas in

Preservation

VQO*

Acres of

Natural

Areas in

Preservation

VQO*

6D 177 Buckhorn Mountain Research

Natural Area

Mesa

2,810

6E 178 Haufer Wash Research Natural

Area

Tonto

Basin

680

6G 184 Salt River Canyon Wilderness Tonto

Basin

9,777

6H 187 Salome Wilderness Area Tonto

Basin

11,098

6F 190 Four Peaks Wilderness Area Tonto

Basin

9,810

SUBTOTAL 564,716 6,946

GRAND TOTAL 571,662

*Note: Wilderness areas have expanded in size since the 80s so the acreage does not match current acreage.

The second form of direction from the 80s for visual quality is the Forest Plans reference to the visual

resource inventory (a series of VQO maps) that show prescribed VQOs for the forest. Two layers of

information created the VQO maps in the 80s. One layer is blank sheets of mylar with outlines of the

assigned VQOs hand drawn with markers on them and labeled with the appropriate objective. The

second layer is mylar topographic quad maps (7.5 minute), which consists of terrain maps showing

elevations and contours along with water features, roads, etc. The two mylar layers were overlaid and

blueprint hard copies were made to create the VQO maps.

Limitations

GIS did not exist when the Forest’s VQO mapping was completed for the Forest Plan in the 80s. The VQO

maps were digitized and integrated into the GIS system in 2006 using NAD27 UTM 12N arc coverage. As

shown in Table 2, according to the digitized VQO maps the majority of the Tonto National Forest,

953,902 acres, is in partial retention VQO, the second highest objective acreage is modification with

504,779 acres and then 466,283 acres of maximum modification. The majority of the remainder of the

Forests’ land is managed for retention, at 291,743 acres. The VQO with the least acreage is preservation

with less than 1,000 acres. As noted above typically wilderness areas on Forest Service land are

managed as preservation VQO. This does not accurately reflect the wilderness areas on the forest.

of 33

Table 2: Forest-wide Visual Quality Objectives from Digitized Visual Resource Inventory (Acres)

VQO Acres Percent of Forest Inaccuracies

Preservation 975 0 0

Retention 291,743 10 0

Partial Retention 953,902 32 0

Modification 504,779 17 0

Maximum Modification 466,283 16 0

Middle Ground (MG) 1,983 0 1,983

Unknown 744,681 25 744,681

N (More Unknown) 1,346 0 1,346

Total 2,965,692 100 748,010

During the process to integrate the forest’s VQO maps into the GIS system, it was discovered that many

areas of the forest had no VQO assigned to them including wilderness areas. In addition, there were

multiple duplicate blueprint hard copies (VQO layer overlaid with the quad maps) and many of the

blueprints had handwritten notes indicating revisions, others were labeled as “wrong VQOs” and none

of them was dated. It was not always apparent which maps should be digitized since it was not clear

which maps were the most updated. Since the 80s inventory was completed by employees that have

retired from the Tonto National Forest, and there is no documentation, it is not clear why wilderness

areas were not classified as preservation VQO on the VQO maps and why other parts of the forest were

not assigned VQOs. The blueprints that appeared to be the most updated were digitized.

Numerous factors have contributed to the current VQO GIS layer being outdated. One significant factor

contributing in discrepancies in acreages for the preservation VQO from the 80s and existing conditions

today is that wilderness areas have expanded in size and the forest boundary has changed since the 80s.

In addition, since the VQO maps were integrated into the GIS system in 2006 there have been numerous

changes in the versions of GIS software the forest uses (currently ArcGIS 10.1 NAD 83 UTM 12N is being

utilized). These changes in the system have resulted in differences in forest boundary, wilderness

boundaries, etc., which has contributed to discrepancies for all VQOs. Major changes in visitor use,

recreation areas, and travel routes have also made the old inventory out-of-date for all VQOs. Table 2

shows the combined inaccuracies result in 748,010 acres classified as “unknown” and “middleground”

without an assigned VQO. The GIS layer for visual quality is the best available data. Due to the

inaccuracies in VQO data, the alternatives will be evaluated on other criteria in addition to consistency

with VQOs. The analysis of alternatives for impacts on the visual resources will also be based on the

proposed decommissioning of existing roads, designation of unauthorized routes as either roads or

motorized trails, areas open to motorized cross country travel, and dispersed camping.

In 1995, the U.S. Forest Service developed a new scenery analysis system, the Scenery Management

System (SMS). In preparation for forest plan revision, the Tonto is currently developing the various

inventories required for SMS. After reviewing the mylar and paper copies of visual resource inventory

maps (VQO maps) from the 1980s, the SMS team determined it was not possible to convert these maps

of 33

into the Scenery Management System due to the limitations discussed above. When the SMS inventory

is completed in 2014, it will be used for all future project level analysis.

Existing Conditions Rugged and spectacularly beautiful country defines the almost 3 million Tonto National Forest ranging

from saguaro cactus-studded desert on the southern districts, to pine-forested mountains beneath the

Mogollon Rim on the northern districts connected by a series of scenic drives. This variety in vegetation

and range in altitude (from 1,300 to 7,900 feet) offers outstanding recreational opportunities

throughout the year, whether it is lake beaches or cool pine forest. The Forest’s six districts include two

northern districts (Payson and Pleasant Valley) and four southern districts (Cave Creek, Globe, Mesa,

and Tonto Basin). Cave Creek and Mesa ranger districts are near the Phoenix Metropolitan area.

As the fifth largest forest in the United States, the Tonto National Forest is one of the most visited

“urban” forests in the U.S. (approximately 5.8 million visitors annually). In the winter, national and

international visitors flock to Arizona to share the multi-hued stone canyons and Sonoran Desert

environments of the Tonto’s lower elevations with Arizona residents. In the summer, visitors seek

refuge from the heat at the Salt and Verde rivers and their chain of six man-made lakes. Visitors also

head to the high country to camp amidst the cool shade of tall pines and fish the meandering trout

streams under the Mogollon Rim.

The scenery of the forest can be experienced along two National Forest Scenic Byways running through

it: From the Desert to the Tall Pines Scenic Road and Apache Trail Historic Road. Additional scenic

highlights of the forest are wilderness areas including Four Peaks, Hell’s Gate, Mazatzal, Salome, Salt

River Canyon, Sierra Ancha, and Superstition.

As defined in the Landscape Character Types of the National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico: The

Visual Management System, the landscape character type of the Tonto National Forest includes the

Upper Tonto and the Sonoran Arizona Uplands, both subtypes of the Tonto Landscape Character Type.

“The overall appearance of the Upper Tonto Subtype, which is in the northeast third of the forest, is of

an extensive plateau dissected by canyons of moderate depth, creating buttes and mesas. The dominant

physiographic feature is the Mogollon Rim, which forms the northern boundary of this subtype and of

the Forest. This subtype occurs mostly above 3,500 – 4,000 feet. The dominant vegetative type at higher

elevations is the ponderosa pine and at intermediate and lower elevations, there are vast areas of

pinyon-juniper and interior chaparral” (U.S. Forest Service2, p. 22). The Sonoran Arizona Uplands

subtype includes the Upper Salt River valley. “The area is characteristically arid to semi-arid desert in

appearance with physiographic form being the most dramatic element. Elements are generally between

1,500 feet and 3,000 - 4,000 feet. The Salt River is a prominent riparian corridor along with numerous

2 Unable to determine date of publication.

of 33

lesser drainages. Stringers of riparian deciduous forest and woodland are common along watercourses”

(U.S. Forest Service3, p. 23).

Human activities have altered the existing landscape character of the Tonto National Forest. A

component of the current landscape character is the degree to which alterations created by

management activities are already evident. This existing visual condition defines how natural or altered

the present landscape looks (as opposed to the Visual Quality Objectives, which define how natural the

landscape should look). While many parts of the Forest, such as wilderness areas, are still predominantly

natural in appearance there has been a significant amount of past and present human activities.

According to Arizona State Parks (2009), during the past ten years, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use has

increased dramatically across the nation and on millions of acres of public land in the western U.S. In

Arizona, sales of OHVs increased 623 percent, from 1995 to 2006. Prior to 2001, the majority of OHV

sales in Arizona consisted of ATVs; however, by 2008 UTVs had surpassed the sales of ATVs in Maricopa

County. According to a survey conducted by the State of Arizona, 22 percent of adult Arizona residents

have participated in motorized recreation, with nearly 11 percent indicating that motorized vehicle use

accounts for the majority of their recreation (Arizona State Parks, 2009).

Existing NFS Roads and Trails Currently, motor vehicles may drive on any open road across the Tonto NF. The Forest Service uses five

maintenance levels (ML) to classify roads, ranging from ML 1 indicating a road closed to all motorized

use, to ML 5, indicating a high degree of user comfort and convenience (see Glossary). This report will

refer to passenger car roads (ML 3, 4, and 5) that a typical sedan could drive on, and high-clearance

vehicle roads (ML 2) that are maintained and managed for high-clearance vehicles.

Tonto National Forest’s motorized transportation systems include roads open to passenger vehicles

within developed recreation areas and high-clearance roads for OHV riding, dispersed motorized

camping, and motorized big game retrieval. In addition, administrative roads in the existing designated

system are used for fire management, law enforcement, and facilities management. Permittees also use

administrative roads in the NFS roads for access to activities and uses such as ranching, mining,

outfitter/guide services, utility management, and electronic communications sites; recreational

residences; other locations used by holders of special-use permits; and for private land access.

The existing road system does not include trails specifically dedicated to ATVs or off-road motorcycles.

Cross-Country Travel In addition to National Forest System (NFS) roads, there are user-created or “unauthorized” routes.

These routes were not designed or built by the Forest Service, and therefore are not kept in the Forest

Service roads inventory and do not receive maintenance to ensure natural landscape impacts are

minimized. Motorized cross-country travel occurs on the forest for OHV riding and accessing big game

retrieval, dispersed camping, and personal use fuelwood gathering.

3 Ibid

of 33

“Off-road vehicle impacts are particularly serious and difficult to manage. ORV impacts are particularly

troublesome because impact potential is so high. Riders frequently seek out terrain that is particularly

susceptible to impact and object to being confined to areas of concentrated use” (Cole, 1986 p. 2).

Unauthorized Routes Riding a motorized vehicle off designated and maintained roads and trails can result in affects to visual

resources. Unauthorized routes vary in width from single-track routes used by off-road motorcyclists to

over forty feet wide. The number of unauthorized routes continues to grow as more and more visitors

use the area and travel off road. Managing motorized recreation is particularly challenging on the Tonto

National Forest, as the desert ecosystem does not provide many natural barriers to prevent users from

riding anywhere their vehicle will take them. The Tonto National Forest is one of the most heavily used

national forests for motorized recreation, with nearly a million visitors using OHVs on the Forest

annually (English et al, 2004).

Evidence of vehicle travel on unauthorized routes is visible from system roads on the forest. This has the

potential to create negative visual impacts by introducing non-characteristic linear features on a non-

linear landscape. There are also color contrasts from exposed soil on the routes. In most cases, the

visual impact is that of an unimproved road intersecting the road or highway. Often the road is

unnoticed due to topographic and vegetative screening (meeting retention VQO) or briefly seen for

short durations, remaining subordinate to the characteristic landscape (meeting partial retention VQO).

The continued use of these unauthorized routes would not affect visual resources on a route-by-route

basis. However, the overall density in some locations tends to detract from the foreground and

middleground viewing of the landscape at the forest scale.

Concentrated Use Areas Unauthorized routes often leave tracks and ruts that can remain visible for years. Many portions of the

forest, such as near the metropolitan areas of Cave Creek and Mesa, consist of braided or crisscrossed

patterns of unauthorized routes developed by motorized users. In the Sonoran Desert, vegetation is

slow to become established or reestablished after it has been damaged. The proliferation of OHV routes

has contributed to severe degradation of the natural desert landscape character through the

introduction of uncharacteristic visual lines. These concentrated use areas have bare ground, hill climbs,

and scarred landforms that are quite evident on the landscape. In these areas with fragile soils, the

repetitive passage of vehicles has created bare areas, which lack vegetation and are quite visible to the

casual observer.

The existence of such tracks and bare areas visible to people traveling through the forest tends to

diminish the natural appearance of forest lands and, therefore, reduces the scenic quality inherent to a

natural appearing forest landscape. While an occasional track or rut does not detract from forest scenic

quality for most people, concentrations of ruts, tracks, or unauthorized routes on the landscape tend to

detract from what most people expect and desire to see in the forest. User-created staging areas

continually expand in size, often for “tot lots” where beginners can develop their OHV skills. Because the

desert is fragile and vegetation is slow to become established, the proliferation of routes developed by

of 33

OHV riders in these areas has led to severe degradation of the natural desert landscape. In addition,

illegal dumping and excessive trash are common in these areas. These alterations dominate the

landscape in these localized areas, resulting in the overall condition of the area being extremely poor.

The Pobrecito Staging Area in the Mesa Ranger District (Figure 2) is one such example. The aerial photos

below provide an example of the visual impacts of high density unauthorized routes in the area (Figure 3

and Figure 4). This proliferation of unauthorized routes and damage is likely to continue and increase as

influence from nearby populations increases. The foreground of such areas of more concentrated

motorized use would typically not meet visual quality objectives defined in the Forest Plan.

Figure 2: Location of Pobrecito Staging Area

of 33

Figure 3: Image of Pobrecito Staging Area in 2002

Figure 4: Image of Pobrecito Staging Area in 2010

In a 2008 study, Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands and Grasslands (Meadows et al., 2008),

data was collected for the desert ecoregion on the Mesa Ranger District of the Tonto National Forest.

of 33

“Because of the close proximity of Phoenix, Arizona, this ranger district receives an estimated 5,000 ATV

users per week. The topography in the study area on the Mesa Ranger District is flat to gently rolling and

is defined by hills and numerous alluvial washes” (Meadows et al., 2008, p.35). The study found that

properly designed and maintained motorized routes decreased the negative effects on natural

resources, including scenery (Meadows et al., 2008). The study also showed that “areas that continue to

allow cross-country travel can only expect to see a further reduction in the ability of natural resources to

maintain their composition and structure and perform their natural functions. Other studies related to

soil and vegetation disturbance indicated that the rehabilitation of these areas will take many years,

especially those in arid climate zones (Cole, 1986). Some areas impacted by motorized cross-country

travel may never recover without assistance” (Meadows et al., 2008, p. 84).

Permit Zones The only currently permitted OHV Zone is the 34,720-acre Bulldog Canyon on Mesa Ranger District, one

of the southern districts. In Bulldog Canyon, uncontrolled vehicles use was contributing to considerable

environmental damage; however, total closure was undesirable due to its proximity to the Phoenix-

metropolitan area. Fencing and gates were installed to designate zone boundaries. Motorized vehicle

use in the permit zone is prohibited with exception of persons who have written authorization.

Motorized access to the permit zone requires a gate combination code and a free permit from the

Forest. Much of the Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone is in portions of the Forest managed for VQOs of

retention and partial retention. Although, since motorized vehicles are required to stay on designated

NFS roads (assuming no new unauthorized routes formed) and illegal dumping and shooting were

eliminated, scenic quality has improved in the zone. Although they are made with materials designed to

blend with the natural landscape character, barriers delineating the Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone can still

be seen by passersby.

Motorized Big Game Retrieval Big game hunting is a popular activity on the Tonto National Forest that brings many high-clearance and four-wheel drive vehicles to the Forest for both official hunting seasons and scouting for game before the seasons begin.

Motorized Dispersed Camping One of the traditional and popular uses of NFS lands has been for dispersed or “throw-down” camping in

locations chosen by forest visitors. Based on Forest Service employee observation and expertise in the

field, the majority of dispersed camping access on the Tonto is by motorized vehicles. Motorized

dispersed camping describes the practice of driving vehicles to a campsite and camping with the

vehicle(s) in the vicinity.

“The reasons for concern about impacts to visual quality are numerous. In wilderness and nature

preserves, impacts compromise the objective of preserving natural conditions. Elsewhere impacts can

make recreational areas and facilities less attractive, desirable, or functional. Loss of tree cover on

campsites and erosion of trails are examples” (Cole, 1986, p. 1).

of 33

“Most research on specific activities has focused on the effects of human trampling. Numerous studies

have documented effects on vegetation in the form of reduced height, vigor, reproductive capacity, and

abundance. In many cases, all vegetation is eliminated except in protected places. Because tolerance of

trampling varies between species, the species composition of recreation areas is also affected by use.

One common finding, particularly in studies of forested campsites, is that tree seedlings are highly

fragile and are quickly eliminated from most campsites (for example, Frissell and Duncan 1965).

Trampling usually has little effect on the overstory, but when the overstory eventually dies, there may

be no trees to replace them” (Cole, 1986, p. 3).

“The only other activity that has been studied in much detail is the use of ORV’s--both terrestrial

vehicles and snowmobiles. Terrestrial ORV’s have many of the same effects as trampling, but their

capacity to impact is much greater than that of humans” (Weaver and Dale 1978; Webb and Wilshire

1983, p. 3). “Another special problem associated with ORV use is their ability to cover and impact large

areas. For example, fragile vegetation and animal species have been disturbed over sizable parts of the

California desert” (Vollmer et al., 1976 in Luckenbach and Bury, 1983) (Cole, 1986, p. 3).

“The few studies that have examined the spatial distribution of impact have found it to be highly

concentrated (McEwen and Tocher, 1976; Cole, 1981). Although heavily used campsites, picnic sites,

trails, or scenic overlooks may be highly impacted, neighboring areas are often virtually undisturbed.

This applies more to the stationary resources (vegetation and soil) than to the mobile resources (wildlife

and water); however, concentration of use and impact is one of the most important strategies for

managing visual impacts. Problems with managing these impacts are most serious where concentration

is either deemed inappropriate (as in many wilderness areas), or rejected by users (as in many ORV

areas) “(Cole, 1986, p. 4).

“On both developed and wilderness campsites, initial use causes most of the visual impact (LaPage,

1967; Merriam and Smith, 1974), while changes on long-established sites are relatively minor (Magill,

1970). Recovery rates vary greatly between environments, being particularly slow where growing

seasons are short and moisture is limited, as in deserts (Webb and Wilshire 1983). Rapid impact and

slow recovery also argue for the wisdom of concentrating use on a small portion of a recreation area—a

portion of the area that is “sacrificed” so that most of the area is spared serious impact” (Cole, 1986, p.

4).

Driving off road for motorized dispersed camping is permitted in the northern districts (Payson and

Pleasant Valley) while it is prohibited in the southern districts (Cave Creek, Globe, Mesa, and Tonto

Basin) unless posted open; however, campers have been cited for driving off roads illegally in these

lower elevation districts. Most frequently used dispersed campsites, where evidence of past use exists,

on the northern districts are located some distance from the edge of NFS roads. This results in a short

(100 to 300 feet) unauthorized route leading to them. Typically, these campsites include an open,

cleared area from vehicles parking and turning around. On the southern districts, dispersed campsites

tend to be user created pullouts along NFS roads and unauthorized routes or in desert washes.

of 33

In the 703,618 acres open to driving off road for motorized dispersed camping permitted in the northern

districts approximately 86,690 acres are managed for a VQO of retention and approximately 265,689

acres are managed for a VQO of partial retention. Dispersed camping is incompatible with these VQOs.

Although there is no site specific data, the effects of OHV use, as a part of dispersed camping on the

Tonto National Forest have altered the existing landscape character and it is likely this would continue.

Environmental Effects This analysis determines the effects of travel management on visual resources of the Tonto National

Forest based on implementation of the four alternatives: the No Action (Alternative A), Alternative B,

the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative C), and Alternative D.

Methodology and Assumptions “One goal of the Forest Service is to provide outdoor recreation opportunities with minimized impacts

to natural resources (U.S. Forest Service, 2006). All-terrain vehicle (ATV) use on public lands is a rapidly

expanding recreational activity. An estimated 11 million visits to national forests involve ATV use. This

constitutes about 5 percent of all recreation visits to national forests (English, 2003). When repeated

ATV use occurs on undesignated trails, the impacts can exceed the land’s ability to rehabilitate. The

challenge for recreation managers is to address the needs – and conflicting expectations – of millions of

people who use and enjoy the national forests while protecting the land’s health and integrity”

(Meadows et al., 2008, p. iii).

As documented in the 2008 study Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands and Grasslands

(Meadows et al., 2008), “ATV traffic does have an impact on natural resources. The levels of disturbance

can be reduced by proper trail design and maintenance and by focusing efforts on trail sections that

require extra attention” (Meadows et al., 2008, p. iv).

Using GIS and associated tabular data, forest staff overlaid the Visual Quality Objectives layer with route

inventories to assess the effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on the visual resources as it

relates to decommissioned existing roads, designating unauthorized routes as either roads or motorized

trails, areas open to motorized cross country travel, and dispersed camping. In addition, data from the

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey was used4 (U.S. Forest Service, 2008).

The boundary of the Tonto National Forest will be the spatial bounds for determining the direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects of Travel Management Planning on the visual resources.

Assumptions Associated With Roads and Trails

Properly designed and maintained motorized routes decrease the negative effects on scenic quality

(Meadows et al., 2008). Although unauthorized routes were not originally designed by Forest Service

engineers, those that are being proposed to be added to the system as a designated road or motorized

4 For more information about the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey, see the Recreation Specialist Report in

the project record.

of 33

trail would likely improve the existing landscape character, as they would be improved and maintained

as necessary. In addition, with the designation of a motorized system, cross-country travel would be

limited, requiring motorists to remain on the designated routes. This would decrease new unauthorized

routes being formed. Eliminating unauthorized routes would move the forest towards the desired

conditions for scenery. Thus, they will not be analyzed in this report.

Changing existing roads, especially ML 2 roads that have not been maintained or unauthorized routes to

motorized trails would likely make no change to the existing landscape character since the prism would

not increase in size. They may actually move towards the desired conditions for scenery since they

would be properly designed and maintained. In addition, vehicles would be required to remain on the

designated routes so new unauthorized routes would not be formed. Eliminating unauthorized routes

would move the forest towards the desired conditions for scenery.

Observation of forest conditions show that some routes naturally revegetate without use. Some roads

changed from open to public access to decommissioned that no longer receive motorized use may

revegetate over time depending on soil type and vegetation. Revegetation would improve the existing

landscape character because they would be more natural appearing. Other routes would have to be

actively restored to a more natural state by the Forest Service in future projects. Roads that are

decommissioned would likely move the forest towards the desired conditions for scenery.

Assumptions Associated With Permit Zones

The designated roads and motorized trails within the permit zones may improve the existing landscape

character since it is unlikely that new unauthorized routes would be formed. In addition, motorized

vehicles would be required to stay on designated roads and trails in permit zones, just like the rest of the

forest, and illegal dumping and shooting would be eliminated, which would move the forest toward the

desired conditions for scenery. However, the barriers necessary to enforce the permit zones, such as

pipe rail fencing and locked gates, may detract from the natural landscape character. The more barriers

necessary to enforce the permit zones, the greater the chance of negative affects to visual quality.

These effects can be decreased by using materials that blend with the natural landscape character and

placing them properly so that they are not placed in direct line of sight.

Assumptions Associated with Dispersed Camping

As stated earlier, numerous studies have documented effects from motorized access to and use of

dispersed camping on vegetation; particularly understory vegetation, and creation of barren soil areas.

These adversely affect landscape character and move the resource away from desired conditions for

scenic quality. In areas where dispersed camping is concentrated, these effects become visible and lead

to unacceptable levels of impact (Cole, 1986). However, when motorized access to dispersed camping is

spread out over the forest, the impacts affect a larger area and the routes to these sites create

unnatural linear features and the sites themselves may affect landscape character if they can be seen

from roads.

of 33

Assumptions Associated With Motorized Big Game Retrieval

Motorized big game retrieval corridors would not affect the existing landscape character because the

amount of trips needed to retrieve game is not likely to form new unauthorized routes because the trips

would be infrequent and would be spread over a large area; the likelihood of multiple trips across the

same area is slim. The impacts are negligible and will not be analyzed in this report.

Assumptions Associated With Collection of Forest Resources

Motorized collection of forest resources would not change the existing landscape character because the

amount of trips needed to gather forest resources is not likely to form new unauthorized routes because

a small number of people would be making infrequent trips and they would be spread over a large area;

the likelihood of multiple trips across the same area is slim. The impacts are negligible and will not be

analyzed in this report.

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative is the no action and acts as the baseline, allowing the decision maker to understand the

effects of travel management if no decision is made.

Decommissioned Existing Roads and Unauthorized Routes

Without site-specific data, it is assumed that the 267 miles of roads listed as decommissioned in RATM

have been implemented and it is not possible to know whether they have returned to a natural state. As

such, for this analysis all roads listed as decommissioned in RATM (along with all ML1 roads) are

assumed open and currently used by the public.

In terms of unauthorized routes, there have only been 672 miles inventoried (although there are more

miles that the forest currently does not have site specific data for). These user created routes often

detract from the visual quality of the forest. Until these routes can either be designated or revegetated,

they will continue to affect visual resources.

Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel

Currently, there are no designated OHV areas although there are numerous locations with a

proliferation of unauthorized routes (often illegal), which have created damaged vegetation and bare

soil that detracts from the existing landscape character. The damage from these concentrated use areas

is likely to continue and increase as influence from nearby populations increases. The foreground of

such areas of more concentrated motorized use would typically not meet visual quality objectives

defined in the Forest Plan.

Permit Zones

Currently, there is only one permit zone: Bulldog Canyon. The designated roads and motorized trails

within the permit zones may continue to improve the existing landscape character since it is unlikely

that new unauthorized routes would be formed. In addition, motorized vehicles would be required to

stay on designated roads and trails in permit zones, just like the rest of the forest, and illegal dumping

and shooting would be eliminated, which would continue moving the forest toward the desired

of 33

conditions for scenery. The existing barriers could be seen from major roads and would continue to

detract from the existing landscape character.

Of the existing 34,720-acre Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone on the Mesa Ranger District, approximately

17,496 acres are in areas of the forest managed for retention and 15,374 acres for partial retention.

Dispersed Camping

Currently, the area available for motorized access to dispersed camping is 703,618 acres on the northern

districts (Payson and Pleasant Valley). Approximately 86,690 acres are in areas of the forest managed for

Retention and 265,689 acres for Partial Retention. On the four southern ranger districts (Cave Creek,

Globe, Mesa, and Tonto Basin), driving off road is prohibited unless posted open; however, campers

have been cited for driving off roads illegally in these areas. Much dispersed motorized camping takes

place in the same sites year after year, resulting in sites that are easily identifiable visually due to the

removal of vegetation from vehicles driving off road to dispersed campsites and the open, cleared area

from vehicles parking and turning around which exposes bare ground and alters the existing landscape

character. As determined by the Southwestern Regional Office when developing travel management

rule guidelines in 2007, it is likely in the future there will be an increase in demand for dispersed

motorized camping as population and visitation in the Southwest continues to grow. Although there is

no site specific data, the effects of OVH use as part of dispersed camping on the Tonto National Forest

would continue to alter the existing landscape character and would move away from the desired

conditions for scenic quality.

Alternative B – Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative proposes to decommission approximately 2,367 miles of existing roads, designate 11

miles of unauthorized routes as either roads or motorized trails, add four permit zones, and limit

motorized access to designated dispersed camping sites.

Roads and Trails Designated for Motor Vehicle Use

In this alternative, there would be approximately 2,367 miles of decommissioned roads and only 11

miles of the unauthorized routes would be designated as roads or motorized trails open to the public.

Once the on-the-ground work to decommission these roads and potentially rehabilitate the

unauthorized routes, the existing landscape character would become more natural in appearance. This

would also move the forest toward the desired conditions for scenic quality.

Of the proposed 2,367 miles of roads proposed to be decommissioned, approximately 346 miles are in

areas of the forest managed for retention and 1,043 miles for partial retention. Of the 11 miles of

unauthorized routes proposed to be designated as roads or motorized trails open to the public,

approximately 4 miles are in areas of the forest managed for retention and 6 miles for partial retention.


In Alternative B, there would be no designated OHV areas proposed. It is unlikely that these heavily used

areas would revegetate without obliteration and seeding. This alternative would move the forest toward

the desired conditions for scenic quality.

of 33

Permit Zones

Alternative B proposes to add four permit zones, in addition to the current Bulldog Canyon, totaling

approximately 150,925 acres. The designated roads and motorized trails within the permit zones may

continue to improve the existing landscape character since it is unlikely that new unauthorized routes

would be formed. In addition, motorized vehicles would be required to stay on designated roads and

trails in permit zones, just like the rest of the forest, and illegal dumping and shooting would be

eliminated, which would continue moving the forest toward the desired conditions for scenery.

However, these four areas may require miles of barrier to enforce the permit zone’s boundaries, which

would detract from the natural landscape character. The more barriers necessary to enforce the permit

zone, the greater the chance of adversely affecting the existing landscape character. These effects can

be reduced by making the barriers with materials that blend with the natural landscape character and

placing them properly so that they are not located in direct line of sight.

Of the proposed 150,925 acres of permit zones, approximately 29,451 acres are in areas of the forest

managed for retention and 66,504 acres for partial retention.

Dispersed Camping

For Alternative B, motorized access for dispersed camping would be limited to 414 sites, totaling

approximately 65 acres (this includes a 50-foot buffer around each of the sites), which is 703,553 acres

less than Alternative A. Although, according to Cole (1986), concentration leads to unacceptable levels

of impact from trampling of vegetation. Based on data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey

for the Tonto National Forest, approximately 4.8 million people visited the forest in one year. Of those,

over half recreated on the forest. Even if it is assumed that five percent (or approximately 120,000) of

those visitors participated in dispersed camping using a motor vehicle for access, these 414 sites would

likely expand quickly and become completely denude of all vegetation and other natural features. This

would adversely affect the existing landscape character in these small areas and would move away from

the desired conditions for scenic quality. Where motorized access for dispersed camping would no

longer be allowed, sites would only be accessed via hiking. This would likely improve the existing

landscape character for the rest of the forest and move towards the desired conditions for scenic

quality.

Approximately 12 acres of the forest open to motorized dispersed camping would be in areas of the

forest managed for retention and 34 acres for partial retention. This would be a reduction of 86,678 in

retention and 265,655 acres in partial retention as compared to Alternative A. Dispersed camping is

incompatible with these VQOs.

Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative proposes to decommission 1,290 miles of existing roads, designate 290 miles of

unauthorized routes as either roads or motorized trails, designate four OHV areas, add three permit

zones, and limit the use of a motor vehicle to access dispersed camping up to 100 feet on both sides of

designated roads and motorized trails.

of 33


In this alternative, there would be approximately 1,290 miles of existing roads decommissioned and

approximately 290 miles of unauthorized routes designated as either roads or motorized trails open to

the public. Once the on-the-ground work to decommission these roads and potentially rehabilitate the



Of the proposed approximately 1,290 miles of roads to be decommissioned, approximately 211 miles

are in areas of the forest managed for retention and 552 miles for partial retention. Of the

approximately 290 miles of unauthorized routes proposed to be designated as roads or motorized trails

open to the public, approximately 19 miles are in areas of the forest managed for retention and 131

miles for partial retention.


In this alternative, motorized cross-county travel would be limited to four areas: The area around

Bartlett Lake (Cave Creek Ranger District) between the variable water level and the high water mark;

Golf Course (Globe Ranger District); the area around Roosevelt Lake (Tonto Basin Ranger District)

between the variable water level and the high water mark; and Sycamore (Mesa Ranger District) totaling

approximately 6,778 acres. In addition, there are four proposed “tot lots” totaling approximately 12

acres. In most cases, the existing landscape character in proposed designated OHV areas has already

been adversely affected by heavy motorized use (often illegal) so the actual effects of designating these

areas would not likely be different from existing conditions.

Of the 6,790 total OHV area acres, 3,967 acres of the total acres for the OHV areas would be in retention

and 2,164 acres in partial retention.

Permit Zones

Alternative C proposes to add three permit zones (St. Claire, The Rolls, and Desert Vista), in addition to

the current Bulldog Canyon, totaling approximately 116,798 acres. The designated roads and motorized

trails within the permit zones may continue to improve the existing landscape character since it is

unlikely that new unauthorized routes would be formed. In addition, motorized vehicles would be

required to stay on designated roads and trails in permit zones, just like the rest of the forest, and illegal

dumping and shooting would be eliminated, which would continue moving the forest toward the

desired conditions for scenery. However, these three areas may require miles of barrier to enforce the

permit zone’s boundaries, which would detract from the natural landscape character. The more barriers

necessary to enforce the permit zone, the greater the chance of adversely affecting the existing

landscape character. These effects can be decreased by making the barriers with materials that blend

with the natural landscape character and placing them properly so that they are not located in direct

line of sight.

Of the proposed 116,798 acres of permit zones, approximately 24,668 acres are in areas of the forest

managed for retention and 51,897 acres for partial retention.

of 33

Dispersed Camping

Alternative C would allow motor vehicle use, up to 100 feet on both sides of designated roads and

motorized trails, for accessing dispersed camping sites (approximately 91,391 acres). Limitations to this

corridor would be in congressionally designated areas where motorized travel is not permitted. The

disturbance would be spread throughout this corridor. According to Tonto National Forest Law

Enforcement5, most visitors using motor vehicles for dispersed camping generally travel 300 feet from a

current road. Based on this, the 100 foot corridor would have reduced vegetation and more bare soil.

This would adversely affect the existing landscape character and move the corridor away from desired

conditions, but could improve the landscape character beyond the corridor.

Approximately 220,375 acres would be in areas of the forest managed for retention and 809,146 acres

for partial retention. This would be an increase of 133,685 acres in retention and 265,655 acres in partial

retention as compared to Alternative A. Dispersed camping is incompatible with these VQOs.

Alternative D – Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative proposes to decommission approximately 201 miles of existing roads, designate

approximately 550 miles of unauthorized routes as either roads or motorized trails ,designate four OHV

areas, and limit the use of a motor vehicle to access dispersed camping up to 300 feet on both sides of

designated roads and motorized trails.


In this alternative, there would be approximately 194 miles of decommissioned roads and approximately

552 miles of unauthorized routes would be designated as roads or motorized trails open to the public.

Once the on-the-ground work to decommission these roads and potentially rehabilitate the



Of the proposed approximately 194 miles of roads proposed to be decommissioned, approximately 36

miles are in areas of the forest managed for retention and 98 miles for partial retention. Of the

approximately 552 miles of unauthorized routes proposed to be designated as roads or motorized trails

open to the public, approximately 57 miles are in areas of the forest managed for retention and 237

miles for partial retention.


Just like in Alternative C, motorized cross-county travel for Alternative D would be limited to four areas:

The area around Bartlett Lake (Cave Creek Ranger District) between the variable water level and the

high water mark; Golf Course (Globe Ranger District); the area around Roosevelt Lake (Tonto Basin

Ranger District) between the variable water level and the high water mark; and Sycamore (Mesa Ranger

District) totaling approximately 6,778 acres. In addition, there are four proposed “tot lots” totaling

approximately 12 acres. In most cases, the existing landscape character in proposed designated OHV

5 For more information, see the Law Enforcement Report in the project record.

of 33

areas has already been adversely affected by heavy motorized use (often illegal) so the actual effects of

designating these areas would not likely be different from existing conditions.

Of the 6,790 total OHV area acres, 3,967 acres of the total acres for the OHV areas would be in retention

and 2,164 acres in partial retention.

Permit Zones

Alternative D would continue the designation of the Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone. The designated roads

and motorized trails within the permit zones would continue to improve the existing landscape

character since it is unlikely that new unauthorized routes would be formed. In addition, motorized

vehicles would be required to stay on designated roads and trails in permit zones, just like the rest of the

forest, and illegal dumping and shooting would be eliminated, which would continue moving the forest

toward the desired conditions for scenery. The existing barriers could be seen from major roads and

would continue to adversely affect the existing landscape character.

Of the existing 34,720-acre Bulldog Canyon Permit Zone on the Mesa Ranger District, approximately

17,496 acres are in areas of the forest managed for retention and 15,374 acres for partial retention.

Dispersed Camping

Alternative D would allow motor vehicle use, up to 300 feet on both sides of designated roads and

motorized trails, for accessing dispersed camping sites (approximately 336,038 acres). Limitations to this

corridor would be in congressionally designated areas where motorized travel is not permitted. The

disturbance would be spread throughout this corridor. According to Tonto National Forest Law

Enforcement6, most visitors using motor vehicles for dispersed camping generally travel 300 feet from a

current road. On the northern districts, there would be no change from the existing condition. For the

four southern districts, this would allow motorized access for dispersed camping, which could adversely

affect the existing landscape character and could move the forest away from the desired conditions for

scenic quality. However, campers have been cited for driving off roads illegally in these lower elevation

districts and the actual effects would not likely be different from the existing condition.

Approximately 253,784 acres would be in areas of the forest managed for retention and 861,286 acres

for partial retention. This would be an increase of 86,678 acres in retention and 265,655 acres in partial

retention as compared to Alternative A. Dispersed camping is incompatible with these VQOs.

Comparison of Effects by Alternative This section shows the effects of the four alternatives and how they compare to one another in terms of

intensity of effects and their ability to move visual resources toward desired conditions.

Decommissioned Existing Roads and Unauthorized Routes

For Alternative A, all decommissioned routes in RATM were assumed open and currently being used by

the public for motorized access. Currently for Alternative A, there are 672 miles of inventoried

6 For more information, see the Law Enforcement Report in the project record.

of 33

unauthorized routes. Until these routes can either be designated or revegetated, they would continue to

adversely affect existing landscape character. Furthermore, the creation of unauthorized routes would

continue in the northern districts where cross-country travel is permitted.

Alternative B would result in approximately 2,367 miles of decommissioned roads and 11 miles of the

unauthorized routes would be designated as roads or motorized trails. This is twice the amount of roads

decommissioned than in Alternative C and ten times the amount than Alternative D. Alternative B would

have the greatest potential to move the existing landscape character toward a more natural appearance

and to move the forest toward the desired conditions for scenic quality. However, Alternative D would

still have a greater potential for existing landscape character to become more natural in appearance

than the current condition.


In Alternative A, the concentrated use areas would continue to allow for the proliferation of

unauthorized routes. In Alternative B, there would be no designated OHV areas. Alternatives C and D

propose eight OHV areas (6,790 acres) and in most cases the existing landscape character in proposed

designated OHV areas has already been adversely affected by heavy motorized use (often illegal) so the

actual effects of designating these areas would not likely be different from existing conditions.

Alternative B is the only alternative that would allow for the revegetation over time in these areas.

Dispersed Camping

Alternative A would allow dispersed camping anywhere in the two northern districts, where cross-

country travel is currently permitted. In Alternative B, the 414 sites designated would likely expand

quickly and become completely denude of all vegetation and other natural features, which would move

these areas away from the desired conditions for scenic quality. Where motorized access for dispersed

camping would no longer be allowed, sites would only be accessed via hiking and these sites would likely

improve the existing landscape character for the rest of the forest and move towards the desired

conditions for scenic quality. In Alternative C, the corridor (100 feet both sides of designated routes)

would reduce vegetation and expose more bare soil. This would move the corridor away from desired

conditions, but could improve the landscape character beyond the corridor. In Alternative D, the

corridor (300 feet both sides of designated routes) would spread the effects throughout a corridor larger

than Alternative B. On the northern districts, there would be no change from the existing condition. For

the four southern districts, this would allow motorized access for dispersed camping, which could make

the existing landscape character less natural in appearance and could move the forest away the desired

conditions for scenic quality. However, campers have been cited for driving off roads illegally in these

lower elevation districts and the actual effects would not likely be different from the existing condition.

Table 3 summarizes effects of the alternatives on scenic quality.

of 33

Table 3: Summary of Effects of Action Alternatives on Scenic Quality

Indicator Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D


Greatest potential for existing landscape character to become more natural in appearance; Greatest potential for forest to move toward the desired conditions for scenic quality.

Less than Alternative B, greater than Alternative D potential for existing landscape character to become more natural in appearance; Less than Alternative B, greater than Alternative D potential for forest to move toward the desired conditions for scenic quality.

Least potential for existing landscape character to become more natural in appearance; Least potential for forest to move toward the desired conditions for scenic quality.

Areas open to motorized cross-country travel

Greatest potential for existing landscape character to become more natural in appearance; Greatest potential for forest to move toward the desired conditions for scenic quality.

No change from existing conditions.

No change from existing conditions.

Motorized cross-country travel for dispersed camping

Within designated area: Least potential for existing landscape character to become more natural in appearance; Least potential for forest to move toward the desired conditions for scenic quality.

Within designated area: Less than Alternative D, greater than Alternative B potential for existing landscape character to become more natural in appearance; Less than Alternative D, greater than Alternative B potential for forest to move toward the desired conditions for scenic quality.

Within designated area: Greatest potential for existing landscape character to become more natural in appearance; Greatest potential for forest to move toward the desired conditions for scenic quality.

Cumulative Effects

No Action (Alternative A) The No Action would continue to allow cross-country travel on the northern districts, which would result

in visible impacts. Continued proliferation of routes would result in a loss of existing landscape character

and a potential inconsistency with VQOs. Route proliferation has the potential to carry visual

disturbances into previously untrammeled areas with a consequent degradation of VQOs.

Past activities have altered the natural landscape character, creating its current condition. The most

obvious and significant effects on scenic resources are from constructed facilities, highway construction,

and vegetation manipulation.

The activities that have contributed include mining, utilities, timber management, recreational facility

development, fire management (suppression, prescribed burning, and fuel breaks/reduction), livestock

of 33

grazing, and others. Many of the impacts from these past activities were severe and some effects are

presently hidden by vegetative growth, especially in the northern districts.

A wide variety of uses occurs on the Forest, much of it recreational. Recreational use is expected to

increase dramatically during the next 20 years. Sightseeing and driving for pleasure are examples of

activities that directly use roads as part of the recreational experience. The character of and access to

scenic views, would directly depend on the road system for many people.

Action Alternatives Cumulative effects for the action alternatives would be the same as the direct and indirect effects

because projects on the forest that could affect the existing landscape character would have mitigations

and design features to reduce effects to the scenic quality. Currently, there are no known projects

outside the forest that would affect the scenic quality. In addition, given the size of the Tonto National

Forest, the likelihood that these projects would affect the overall scenic quality for the forest is not

likely. Cumulatively, all of the action alternatives move the forest toward the desired condition for

scenic quality.

of 33

References Arizona State Parks. 2009. Arizona Trails 2010: A Statewide Motorized and Non-motorized Trails Plan.

Available online at:

http://azstateparks.com/publications/downloads/2009_Trails_2010_Final_c.pdf

Cole, D. (1986). A Literature Review. The President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. INT4901

Publication #165. Resource Impacts Caused by Recreation. Systems for Environmental

Management. Missoula, MT. 11 p.

English, D. (2003). Personal communication. U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

English, D.B.K.; S.M.Kocis and D.B. Hales. (2004). Off-Highway Vehicle Use on National Forests: Volume

and Characteristics of Visitors. Special Report to the National OHV Implementation Team.

August 5, 2004. 25 p.

LaPage, W. F. 1967. Some observations on campground trampling and groundcover response. Research

Paper NE-68. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station, 11 p.

Luckenbach, R. A.; Bury, R. B. 1983. Effects of off-road vehicles on the biota of the Algodones Dunes,

Imperial County, California. Journal of Applied Ecology. 20: 265-286.

Magill, A. W. 1970. Five California campgrounds…conditions improve after five years’ recreational use.

Research Paper PSW-62. Berkeley, CA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 18 p.

Meadows, D, R. Foltz and N. Geehan. (2008). Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands and

Grasslands. December 2008. USDA-FS National Technology and Development Program;

Recreation Management. 0823 1811- SDTDC. 110 p.

Merriam, L.C., Jr.; Smith, C. K. 1974. Visitor impact on newly developed campsites in the Boundary

Waters Canoe Area. Journal of Forestry. 72: 627-630.

U.S. Forest Service. (Document not dated). Landscape Character Types of the National Forests in Arizona

and New Mexico. Southwestern Region. 66 p.

U.S. Forest Service. (1974). National Forest Landscape Management; Volume 2, Chapter 1, The Visual

Management System. Agriculture Handbook Number 462. 47 p.

U.S. Forest Service. (1977). National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 4: Roads.

Agriculture handbook number 483. Washington, D.C. 62 p.

http://azstateparks.com/publications/downloads/2009_Trails_2010_Final_c.pdf

of 33

U.S. Forest Service, Tonto NF. (1985). Tonto National Forest Plan, as amended. USDA Forest Service,

Tonto National Forest. 271 p.

U.S. Forest Service. (2000). Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture

Handbook number 701. Washington, D.C. 105 p.

U.S. Forest Service. (2000). Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture

Handbook number 701. Appendixes. Washington, D.C. 134 p.

U.S. Forest Service. 2006. The Four Threats to the Health of National Forests and Grasslands. Available

online at http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/

U.S. Forest Service. (2013). National Visitor Use Monitoring Results: data collected FY 2008-2012. Last

updated 20 May 2013. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

Weaver, T.; Dale, D. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests.

Journal of Applied Ecology. 15: 451-457

Webb, R.H.; Wilshire, H. G., eds. 1983. Environmental effects of off-road vehicles: impacts and

management in arid regions. New York: r –Verlag, 4 p.

Vollmer, A.T.; Maza, B. G.; Medica, P.A.; Turner, F.B.; Bamberg, S.A. 1976. The impact of off-road

vehicles on a desert ecosystem. Environmental Management. 1: 115-129

http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

travel management tonto national forest visual resources...

Documents