Travel Management Tonto National Forest Visual Resources...
Transcript of Travel Management Tonto National Forest Visual Resources...
Travel Management
Tonto National Forest
Visual Resources Report
Page 2 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
Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel ................................................................................ 24
Page 3 of 33
Permit Zones ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Dispersed Camping ............................................................................................................................. 25
Alternative C – Direct and Indirect Effects .............................................................................................. 25
Roads and Trails Designated for Motor Vehicle Use .......................................................................... 26
Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel ................................................................................ 26
Permit Zones ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Dispersed Camping ............................................................................................................................. 27
Alternative D – Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................. 27
Roads and Trails Designated for Motor Vehicle Use .......................................................................... 27
Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel ................................................................................ 27
Permit Zones ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Dispersed Camping ............................................................................................................................. 28
Comparison of Effects by Alternative ..................................................................................................... 28
Decommissioned Existing Roads and Unauthorized Routes............................................................... 28
Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel ................................................................................ 29
Dispersed Camping ............................................................................................................................. 29
Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................................... 30
No Action (Alternative A) ........................................................................................................................ 30
Action Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 31
References .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Page 4 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.
Page 5 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.
Page 6 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
Page 7 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
Page 8 of 33
VQO, including State Route 87, State Route 260, and US Highway 60, as well as the upper Salt River and
Roosevelt Lake (
Page 9 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.
Page 10 of 33
Figure 1: Forest Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) Map from Digitized Visual Resource Inventory
Page 11 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
Page 12 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.
Page 13 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
Page 14 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.
Page 15 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
Page 16 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
Page 17 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
Page 18 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.
Page 19 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).
Page 20 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.
Page 21 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.
Page 22 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.
Page 23 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
Page 24 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.
Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel
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.
Page 25 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.
Page 26 of 33
Roads and Trails Designated for Motor Vehicle Use
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
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 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.
Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel
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.
Page 27 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.
Roads and Trails Designated for Motor Vehicle Use
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
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 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.
Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel
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.
Page 28 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.
Page 29 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.
Areas Open To Motorized Cross-Country Travel
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.
Page 30 of 33
Table 3: Summary of Effects of Action Alternatives on Scenic Quality
Indicator Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Roads and Trails Designated for Motor Vehicle Use
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
Page 31 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.
Page 32 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.
Page 33 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