United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

MB-R3-01-4

October 2010

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

Public Motorized Travel 

Management Plan

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Apache, Coconino, Greenlee and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Printed on recycled paper – October 2010
DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs i

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Apache, Navajo, Greenlee and Coconino Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Forest Supervisor

30 South Chiricahua Drive, P.O. Box 640

Springerville, AZ 85938

For Information Contact: Pamela Baltimore

30 South Chiricahua Drive, P.O. Box 640

Springerville, AZ 85938, tel: (928) 333-6263

Abstract: To comply with the Travel Management Rule (TMR), the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests propose to provide for a system of National Forest System (NFS) roads and motorized 

trails designated for motor vehicle use. As required in the TMR, the forests would prohibit motor 

vehicle use off the designated system. The proposed changes take into account opportunities to 

reduce impacts to biological, physical, and cultural resources. Five alternatives, including no 

action, were analyzed. All action alternatives would amend the “Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Land and Resource Management Plan.” All action alternatives would propose changes to 

designations of NFS roads and motorized trails for motor vehicle use. Included in the 

designations would be the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of designated 

routes solely for the purpose of dispersed camping. Three action alternatives would designate 

corridors for motor vehicle use within a specified distance of designated routes solely for the 

purpose of big game retrieval. 

Commenting: It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a 

way that they are useful to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s 

concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a 

reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments 

received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, 

will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will 

be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with 

standing to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial reviews. 

Send Comments to: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests: Travel Management

30 South Chiricahua Drive, P.O. Box 640 

Springerville, AZ 85938

Fax number: (928) 333-5966, Email: asnftravel@fs.fed.us
ii DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Date Comments Must Be Received: To participate in administrative appeal or judicial reviews, 

you must submit your comments on this draft environmental impact statement during the 45-day 

notice and comment period, which begins the day after the notice of availability (NOA) is 

published in the Federal Register. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests will post the due date 

for comments to the Web site at: www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/projects/travel-management.
DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs iii

Contents

Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1

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

Purpose and Need for Action..................................................................................................................1

Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................2

Tribal Consultation .................................................................................................................................2

Issues ............................................................................................................................................2

Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................3

Conclusions About the Effects of the Alternatives.................................................................................4

Decision to Be Made ..............................................................................................................................6

Chapter 1  Purpose of and Need for Action.............................................................................. 9

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................9

Background ..........................................................................................................................................10

Existing Transportation System............................................................................................................11

Purpose and Need for Action................................................................................................................14

Modified Proposed Action....................................................................................................................14

Decision Framework.............................................................................................................................15

Public Involvement...............................................................................................................................16

Tribal Consultation ...............................................................................................................................17

Issues ..........................................................................................................................................17

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action...................................................... 19

Conditions Applicable to All Alternatives............................................................................................19

Alternatives Considered in Detail.........................................................................................................20

Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives...................................................................................24

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study..............................................................24

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

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences................................ 35

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.......................................................................................35

Unavoidable Adverse Effects...............................................................................................................35

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...................................................................36

Other Required Disclosures..................................................................................................................36

Effect of Each Alternative by Resource ...............................................................................................37

Forest Plan Amendments......................................................................................................................37

Transportation System..........................................................................................................................37

Recreation ..........................................................................................................................................44

Law Enforcement .................................................................................................................................56

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility.........................................................................................................56

Wilderness, Primitive, and Roadless Areas..........................................................................................59

Scenery Management ...........................................................................................................................60

Socioeconomics....................................................................................................................................66

Vegetation ..........................................................................................................................................76

Soils and Watershed .............................................................................................................................85

Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................................99

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Wildlife and Rare Plants......................................................................103

Fisheries ........................................................................................................................................141

Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................................155

Contemporary Tribal Uses..................................................................................................................166

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers; Consultation and Coordination .......................................... 169

List of Preparers..................................................................................................................................169

Consultation and Coordination ...........................................................................................................169

Glossary...................................................................................................................................... 171

Literature Cited......................................................................................................................... 175
Contents

iv DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Appendix A – Maps................................................................................................................... 181

Appendix B – Proposed Forest Plan Amendments for Alternatives B, C, D and E ............ 201

Appendix C – ASNFs Motorized Restrictions and Seasonal Closures ................................ 203

Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures, and Forest Plan Direction............. 207

Appendix E – Cumulative Effects............................................................................................ 219

Index ........................................................................................................................................... 223

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of road and motorized trail changes proposed by alternative.................. 4

Table 2. Existing road mileage on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests........................... 14

Table 3. Comparison of elements between all alternatives...................................................... 27

Table 4. Summary of environmental consequences by alternative.......................................... 29

Table 5. Annual road maintenance costs on the forests for 2008 ............................................ 39

Table 6. Annual road maintenance costs by maintenance level by alternative........................ 43

Table 7. Annual motorized trail maintenance costs by alternative .......................................... 43

Table 8. NVUM survey summarized to show percent participation in 

activities and primary activities of recreation visitors to the forests.......................... 45

Table 9. Average number of permits issued in 2008 for elk and deer, average

number of off-road and motorized retrievals, and harvest numbers.......................... 48

Table 10. Comparison of MBGR, dispersed camping sites, and 

primitive settings by alternative................................................................................. 50

Table 11. Eligible wild and scenic river segments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs................... 56

Table 12. Roads and motorized trails within eligible 

wild and scenic river corridors by alternative............................................................ 59

Table 13. Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.................. 60

Table 14. Acres of VQOs on the forests with miles of roads and trails within each VQO........ 61

Table 15. County populations and projected changes in 2010 and 2020................................... 68

Table 16. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests estimated labor 

income and employment contribution in 2006 .......................................................... 70

Table 17. Forest Service 2006 contribution to jobs and revenue in the assessment area........... 70

Table 18. Percent total employment and labor income 

supported by activity type on the forests ................................................................... 71

Table 19. Percent of assessment area, employment and labor 

income from recreation on the forests in 2008 .......................................................... 72

Table 20. Acres of vegetation types on the forests.................................................................... 77

Table 21. Miles of open roads and motorized trails crossing vegetation types by alternative... 83

Table 22. Acres of dispersed camping corridors by vegetation type by alternative .................. 83

Table 23. Acres of MBGR areas by vegetation type by alternative........................................... 84

Table 24. Soil TES units of concern within the forests ............................................................. 89

Table 25. Fourth and fifth HUC watersheds existing condition summary ................................ 91

Table 26. Comparison of effects by alternative on soils, watershed, and water quality............ 98

Table 27. Miles of open road/trail and percent change in road density by alternative ............ 102

Table 28. Federally threatened, endangered, and 

proposed species on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs..................................................... 105

Table 29. Change from current condition for threatened and endangered species. ................. 108
Contents

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs v

Table 30. Miles of open roads in MSO PACs and critical habitat by alternative .................... 111

Table 31. Comparison of miles of routes and acres of 

areas in sensitive species habitat by alternative....................................................... 123

Table 32. Management indicator species for the forests and affected environments .............. 134

Table 33. Comparison of miles of routes and acres of areas for MIS species by alternative. . 137

Table 34. Migratory birds with habitat types........................................................................... 139

Table 35. Road/stream crossings for existing condition by fish species.................................. 145

Table 36. Summary of routes and areas within fish habitat by alternative.............................. 147

Table 37. Temporal periods and cultural phases on the forests............................................... 156

Table 38. Summary of previous impacts to archaeological sites............................................. 159

Table 39. Number of known heritage sites potentially 

impacted by alternative by proposed activity. ......................................................... 162

Table 40. Number of known heritage sites within game 

management units that are open to MBGR by alternative....................................... 162

Table 41. Summary of the proposed forest plan amendments................................................. 201

Table 42. Current motorized restrictions on the forests........................................................... 203

Table 43. Seasonal road closures by alternative ...................................................................... 205

Table 44. Laws and regulations pertinent to travel management............................................. 207

Table 45. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests................................................ 219

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona............................... 12

Figure 2. Ranger Districts on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. ................................... 13

Figure 3. Fourth-code watersheds on the forests....................................................................... 90

Figure 4. Roads and trails under alternative A for the Apache National Forest...................... 182

Figure 5. Roads and trails under alternative A for the Sitgreaves National Forest................. 183

Figure 6. Roads and trails under alternative B for the Apache National Forest...................... 184

Figure 7. Roads and trails under alternative B for the Sitgreaves National Forest ................. 185

Figure 8. Roads and trails under alternative C for the Apache National Forest...................... 186

Figure 9. Roads and trails under alternative C for the Sitgreaves National Forest ................. 187

Figure 10. Roads and trails under alternative D for the Apache National Forest...................... 188

Figure 11. Roads and trails under alternative D for the Sitgreaves National Forest................. 189

Figure 12. Roads and trails under alternative E for the Apache National Forest...................... 190

Figure 13. Roads and trails under alternative E for the Sitgreaves National Forest.................. 191

Figure 14. Motorized use areas under alternatives 

B and D for the Sitgreaves National Forest ............................................................. 192

Figure 15. MBGR under alternative A for the Apache National Forest.................................... 193

Figure 16. MBGR under alternative A for the Sitgreaves National Forest............................... 194

Figure 17. MBGR under alternative B for the Apache National Forest.................................... 195

Figure 18. MBGR under alternative B for the Sitgreaves National Forest ............................... 196

Figure 19. MBGR under alternative C for the Apache National Forest.................................... 197

Figure 20. MBGR under alternative C for the Sitgreaves National Forest ............................... 198

Figure 21. MBGR under alternative D for the Apache National Forest.................................... 199

Figure 22. MBGR under alternative D for the Sitgreaves National Forest............................... 200
Contents

vi DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Acronyms

ACHP: Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

AGFD: Arizona Game and Fish Department

APE: Area of potential effect

APIF: Arizona Partners in Flight

ATV: all-terrain vehicle

CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

DEIS: draft environmental impact statement

ESA: Endangered Species Act

FEIS: final environmental impact statement

FR: Federal Register

FS: Forest Service

FSM: Forest Service Manual

GIS: geographic information system

GMU: game management unit

HUC: hydrologic unit code

IRA: inventoried roadless area

MA: management area (designated in forest 

plan)

MBGR: motorized big game retrieval

MIS: management indicator species

ML: maintenance level

MSO: Mexican spotted owl

MUTCD: manual of uniform traffic control 

devices

MVUM: motor vehicle use map

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NFS: National Forest System

NFSR: National Forest System roads

NFST: National Forest System trails

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act

NOA: notice of availability

NOI: notice of intent

NVUM: national visitor use monitoring

OAW: outstanding Arizona waters

OHV: off-highway vehicle

ORV: off-road vehicle

PAC: protected activity center

PFA: post-fledgling area

ROD: record of decision

ROS: recreation opportunity spectrum

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Officer

SOPA: schedule of proposed actions

TAP: transportation analysis process

TCP: traditional cultural property

TES: terrestrial ecosystem survey

TMDL: total maximum daily load

TMR: travel management rule

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDI: U.S. Department of the Interior

USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VQO: visual quality objectives

WUI: wildland-urban interface
DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 1

Summary 

To comply with the Travel Management Rule, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (referred 

to as forests or ASNFs) propose to provide for a system of National Forest System (NFS) roads, 

trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use. This road and motorized trail system would 

provide access to the forest while protecting physical, biological and cultural resources. The 

proposed changes do not restrict where people’s non-motorized activities may take place.

Background

To address concerns about the effects of unmanaged off-highway vehicles (OHVs), the Forest 

Service published final travel management regulations for motor vehicle use on national forests 

and grasslands on November 9, 2005. The Travel Management Rule “... provides for a system of 

National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest 

System lands that are designated by vehicle class and if appropriate, by time of year, for motor 

vehicle use. After these roads, trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use, not in 

accordance with these designations is prohibited...”

A motor vehicle use map (MVUM) published by the forests will show where people are allowed 

to drive. The motor vehicle use map enforces the system designated for motorized use. In other 

words, people will only be allowed to drive on the roads, trails, and areas depicted on the motor 

vehicle use map. If they drive places that aren’t on the map, they will be subject to a fine unless 

they have a permit or other authorization from the Forest Service. Because the forest will publish 

the motor vehicle use map annually, roads, trails, and areas can be added or removed each year 

after the proper environmental analysis is done.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this project is to comply with the Travel Management Rule by providing a system 

of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use that reduces impacts to biological, 

physical, and cultural resources on the forests (36 CFR 212, sections 212, 251, 261). At 36 CFR 

261.13, the forests are required to prohibit motor vehicle use off the system of designated roads, 

trails, and areas, and motor vehicle use that is not in accordance with the designations. 

There is a need for a safe and efficient transportation system for public use, Agency 

administration, and resource protection, while recognizing historic and current uses of the forests. 

Specifically, there is a need for: (1) identifying the system of roads that would be open to motor 

vehicle use; (2) identifying the system of motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in width; 

and (3) the optional designation of the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of 

designated routes solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of big game by an 

individual who has legally killed the animal.

There is a need to counter detrimental effects to resources from continued use of some roads and 

motorized trails, as well as cross-country travel. Some detrimental effects from motorized use of 

the forests include increased sediment deposits in streams which degrade water quality and fish 

habitat, the spread of invasive plants across the forests, disturbances to a variety of plant and 

wildlife species, and the risk of damaging cultural resource sites. 
Summary

2 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Public Involvement

Beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2008, the forests hosted and participated in 31 public

meetings and workshops related to motorized travel management. This preliminary, pre-NEPA 

public input was used to develop the initial proposed action. On October 10, 2007, a Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for motorized travel on the 

forests was published in the Federal Register. A correction to the miles of road on the 

transportation system and the availability of maps to the general public was published on 

October 31, 2007. 

The forests conducted public meetings in November 2007 to present the proposed action. After 

consideration of the input received during those meetings, the forest supervisor modified the 

proposed action and included more miles of corridors for dispersed camping, increased the acres 

of the areas designated for motorized use, and slightly increased the miles of motorized trails. A 

new NOI was published in the Federal Register on February 29, 2008, on the modified proposed 

action. Additional public meetings were held in March 2008. Coordination with local 

governments has occurred since this period. The forests have received over 20,000 comments 

from 2005 through 2008. These comments have been incorporated into the development of 

alternatives B through E. 

Tribal Consultation

The ASNF consulted with nine tribes and one chapter that use the ASNFs for traditional, cultural, 

or spiritual activities. These tribes were informed about travel management in October 2007 as 

part of the NEPA process. A followup consultation letter was sent in July 2008 regarding the 

modified proposed action. Consultation meetings were held with three tribes. The forests are in 

the process of scheduling meetings with the Pueblo of Zuni and San Carlos Apache Tribe.

Concerns identified by the tribes have been taken into consideration and were incorporated into 

the development of alternatives. 

Issues

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

relationships directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. The issues

defined as within the scope of the project, and directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposal, were used to develop the range of action alternatives. 

Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

Concern: Restricting motorized access for dispersed camping may increase interactions between 

campers and diminish the quality of experience. Designating routes and corridors for camping 

may eliminate favorite spots which have been used for decades. 

Response: All alternatives provide open roads to access dispersed camping. Alternative B

(modified proposed action) and alternative D increase the miles of camping corridors and roads 

that access identified dispersed camping over what is currently available. 
Summary

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 3

Issue 2: Restricting Motorized Big Game Retrieval

Concern: Changing the motorized big game retrieval policy to a fixed distance corridor may 

result in hunters being unable to collect a downed animal in a timely manner. 

Response: Alternatives B, C, and D respond to this issue by including motorized big game 

retrieval for several animal species. 

Issue 3: Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use 

Concern: Adding roads and camping corridors to the transportation system will adversely impact

terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species, soil and water, and cultural resources. 

Response: Alternative E was developed to provide motorized access with minimal miles of 

camping corridors and no motorized big game retrieval.

Issue 4: Economics: Loss of Revenues and Jobs

Concern: Restrictions on motorized access (a change from the current condition) could 

negatively impact local and state economies from a loss of local, tourist, and hunter generated 

revenues. 

Response: The social and economic impacts the project would have on the region have been 

analyzed in chapter 3. 

Alternatives

Alternative A (no action) represents the existing transportation system and proposes no changes. 

Cross-country travel off system roads on around 1.6 million acres would continue, except where 

currently prohibited. 

Alternative B (modified proposed action and the preferred alternative) would eliminate motorized 

cross-country travel and designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motorized use (table 1). 

The road system would have 5.6 percent fewer roads and 72 percent more motorized trails than 

the current system. Corridors would be designated 300 feet from either side of around 25 percent 

of the designated open roads (658 miles) for the sole purpose of accessing dispersed camping 

locations with motor vehicles. Motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) would be allowed within a 

1-mile distance off the designated road and motorized trail system (1.2 million acres). There 

would be five motorized use areas designated on two ranger districts (459 acres). 

Alternative C would eliminate motorized cross-country travel and designate a system of roads, 

trails, and areas for motorized use (table 1). The road system would have 1 percent more roads 

and the same miles of motorized trails as the current system. Twenty-eight miles of unauthorized 

roads would be added to the system, providing general access as well as motorized access to 

dispersed camping locations. MBGR would be allowed within a 1-mile distance off the 

designated road and motorized trail system (1.2 million acres). 

Alternative D would eliminate motorized cross-country travel and designate a system of roads, 

trails, and areas for motorized use (table 1). The road system would have 3.6 percent fewer roads 

and 93 percent more motorized trails than the current system. Corridors would be designated 300 

feet from either side of around 75 percent of the designated open roads (2,034 miles) for the sole 
Summary

4 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

purpose of accessing dispersed camping locations with motor vehicles. MBGR would be allowed 

within a 1⁄4-mile distance off the designated road and motorized trail system (700,000 acres). 

There would be five motorized use areas designated on two ranger districts (459 acres). 

Alternative E would eliminate motorized cross-country travel and designate a system of roads, 

trails, and areas for motorized use (table 1). The road system would have 12.7 percent fewer 

roads and 31 percent more motorized trails than the current system. Corridors would be 

designated 300 feet from either side of around 5 percent of the designated open roads (118 miles) 

for the sole purpose of accessing dispersed camping locations with motor vehicles. MBGR would 

not be allowed off the designated system of roads and motorized trails. 

Table 1. Comparison of road and motorized trail changes proposed by alternative

Action Proposed Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

National Forest System Roads (miles)

Add unauthorized roads 0 53 28 37 64

Open closed NFS roads 0 358 0 415 220

Close NFS roads to all motor vehicles 0 493 0 479 559

Restrict currently open NFS roads to 

administrative and permitted use only 0 77 0 75 84

Total Miles Open Roads 2,832 2,673 2,860 2,730 2,473

Total Miles Closed Roads 3,373 3,866 3,373 3,852 3,932

National Forest System Trails (miles)

Convert closed roads to trails for motor 

vehicles 50 inches or less in width 0 60 0 64 14

Convert open roads to trails for motor 

vehicles 50 inches or less in width 0 16 0 19 14

Add unauthorized roads as trails for 

motor vehicles 50 inches or less in width 0 34 0 62 20

Construct new trails for motor vehicles 

50 inches or less in width 0 2 0 1 1

Total Miles Motorized Trails 156 268 156 302 205

Conclusions About the Effects of the Alternatives

The forests’ road system was not designed for the primary purpose of meeting today’s 

recreational needs; rather it began as access for timber removal and mining. The ability of the 

public to move around within the forests using motor vehicles is integral to the many recreation 

activities available. Visitors are not only using vehicles to get from one point to another, they are 

operating vehicles in a rural setting as a part of the recreational experience. 

A general summary of the effects to resources from changes in the designated road and motorized 

trail system is provided here. The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) examines direct, 
Summary

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 5

indirect, and cumulative effects to the physical and social environments in and around the forests 

in detail in chapter 3. 

Under alternative A, motorized cross-country travel, dispersed camping and MBGR would 

continue forestwide. It would be expected that with increasing populations, cross-country travel 

would increase causing resource damage. There would be increased mixed-user conflicts, 

associated noise levels, creation of user-created roads with resource damage and public safety 

concerns, and the creation of additional dispersed camping locations; some near riparian areas. 

This alternative would not provide additional motorized trail opportunities including loop trails. 

Indirect effects to visitors seeking non-motorized opportunities would be high under alternative 

A, since cross-country motorized use would continue at present levels. These effects would 

include an increase in conflict with motorized users for recreation, hunting, noise, in transition 

areas between motorized and non-motorized uses, and along private lands. There would also be 

increased noise in semiprimitive nonmotorized and primitive settings.

Under the action alternatives (B, C, D, and E), the elimination of motorized cross-country travel 

on the forests would result in beneficial impacts on resources such as soils, water, vegetation, 

fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. This could provide negative impacts to motor vehicle users 

who enjoy traveling off the designated system of roads and trails under current conditions. The 

road and motorized trail systems, however, would continue to provide motorized recreation 

opportunities across the forests. 

Since there would be limited change in activities by alternative related to jobs and economics, 

there would be no measurable direct and indirect effects on the economy relative to the scale. The 

employment and income figures representing the contribution of current activities to the economy 

of the assessment area (six counties) would be unchanged or changed so slightly they cannot be 

evaluated.

Effects on MBGR under alternatives B and C are not expected to be much different from current 

conditions under this alternative since MBGR is still allowed on around 80 percent of the area 

currently open. Under alternative C, around 44 percent would be open to MBGR of the area 

currently open. There could also be potential for user conflicts between hunters using motor 

vehicles to retrieve game and those who do not. Alternative E would not allow MBGR, and 

AGFD could have issues meeting its harvest objectives, meat could be spoiled, hunters could be 

injured by not being assisted with motor vehicles to retrieve game, and impacts to vegetation 

from elk grazing could increase. There would still be access into the forests on the designated 

road and motorized trail system, which could be used for game retrieval only on the designated 

routes and hunter’s would not be precluded from using non-motorized means of retrieving a 

downed animal.

On routes that are used repeatedly for MBGR (alternatives B, C, and D), there could be some 

resource damage from motor vehicle use, although it is not expected that this would occur very 

often. Additionally, there is expected to be some areas with concentrated use of dispersed 

camping within the corridors, resulting in some resource impacts to riparian areas, streams, and 

vegetation. Beneficial effects would occur to vegetation from elimination of motorized crosscountry travel. Limited effects from crushing and burying plants with sediment in areas where 

motorized off-road travel would occur (dispersed camping corridors, within MBGR distances, 

and areas).
Summary

6 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Compared to alternative A, the action alternatives would have reduced potential to spread weed 

seeds due to the elimination of motorized cross-country travel. Potential to spread seeds would 

exist in areas where off-road travel is allowed (dispersed camping corridors, MBGR areas, and 

areas) and drainages along roads and trails. Likewise, impacts to soil productivity and sediment 

loading into streams would be improved. There would still be impacts, however, to soil 

productivity and water quality, relative to the number of roads and motorized trails proposed by 

alternative. 

There would be impacts to wildlife and fish species under all alternatives (A, B, C, D, and E). 

There are four federally listed wildlife species and two areas of associated critical habitat. The 

effect of any alternative on those species is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

Mexican wolves and not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) Mexican spotted owl and critical 

habitat, southwestern willow flycatcher and critical habitat, and Chiricahua leopard frog. There 

are 58 Forest Service sensitive wildlife species and the effect of any alternative may impact 

individuals or habitat, but is not likely to contribute to the trend toward Federal listing (MIIH). 

There are 17 management indicator species (MIS) and the effect of any alternative would

maintain forestwide habitat and population trends; action alternatives may improve trends from 

reduced off-road travel. There are 34 migratory bird species with no effect to populations under 

any alternative, and the action alternatives may improve some habitats.

There are seven threatened or endangered fish species, one candidate fish species, and four areas 

of associated critical habitats. Aquatic habitat for fish results in negative effects under all 

alternatives due to added sediment in drainages from the presence of roads and trails near surface 

water, road/stream crossings, and off-road travel; the amount of impacts varies by alternative 

based on the routes proposed (the action alternatives greatly reduce areas open to off-road travel, 

benefiting all fish species). The effects for the fish species are: seven species may effect, likely to 

adversely affect (LAA), one species may effect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA), three

critical habitats LAA, and one critical habitat NLAA. There are five Forest Service sensitive fish 

species and the effect of any alternative may impact individuals or habitats, but would not likely 

contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species 

(MIIH).

Under alternative A, there would be no adverse effect to cultural resource sites, however, there 

would be a high potential from unauthorized routes and motorized cross-country travel to impact 

sites. The action alternatives would have no adverse effect to cultural resource sites, and 

mitigation measures would be adhered to. The number of sites potentially impacted varies by 

alternative. 

Under the action alternatives, non-motorized users would continue to share the majority of the 

roads and trails with motorized users; however, the elimination of cross-country motorized travel 

would produce beneficial impacts to non-motorized recreation. There would be a reduction of 

roads in primitive and semiprimitive nonmotorized settings. User conflicts related to noise, 

traffic, dust, etc., would be reduced to a certain extent; although, incompatible recreation conflicts 

would continue in popular areas located in close proximity to motorized routes.

Decision to Be Made

Based on the effects to social, natural, and cultural resources, the forest supervisor will decide 

what changes to make to the current motorized travel system to be compliant with the TMR. The 
Summary

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 7

decision will also include whether to provide motorized access for dispersed camping, whether to 

designate motorized use areas, and whether to provide access for motorized big game retrieval.

The record of decision (ROD), which will be published after analyzing the public’s comments on 

the DEIS, will document the decision with the rationale.

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 9

Chapter 1  Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests have prepared this draft environmental impact statement 

(DEIS) to analyze different ways to implement the Travel Management Rule (TMR). This DEIS 

discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts which would result from the 

proposed action and alternatives, using best available science. The analysis complies with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. The document consists of the following:

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: This chapter describes the history of the 

project proposal, the purpose and need for the project, and the proposal for achieving the

purpose and need. This chapter also describes how the Forest Service informed the public of 

the proposal and how the public responded. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a detailed 

description of the proposed action and alternative methods for achieving the purpose. The

alternatives were developed based on key issues raised by the public and other agencies. This 

chapter also includes a summary of the environmental consequences for each alternative. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental effects of implementing each alternative. The analysis in this 

chapter is organized by resource topic. 

Chapter 4. List of Preparers; Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list 

of people who prepared this document and the list of agencies, organizations, and persons to 

whom copies of the statement are sent. 

Glossary: A description of terms used in the document.

Literature Cited: A list of references used for the project.

Appendix: The appendix consists of multiple parts and provides more detailed information to 

support the analyses presented in the DEIS. 

Index

The project record, including more detailed analyses of forest resources, is located at the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests Supervisor’s Office, P.O. Box 640, Springerville, AZ 85938. Records 

are available pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (40 CFR 1506.6(f)).

Introduction

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (referred to as the forests or ASNFs) are located in eastcentral Arizona (figure 1) and range in elevation from approximately 3,500 feet near Clifton to 

more than 11,400 feet on Mt. Baldy. There are 2,110,196 acres within the current forests

boundaries. The forests cover portions of Coconino, Navajo, Apache, and Greenlee Counties 

(figure 2). The forests are administratively divided into five ranger districts: Alpine, Black Mesa, 

Clifton, Lakeside, and Springerville. Motor vehicles are used to access the forests for both 

motorized and non-motorized activities including sightseeing, camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, 

horseback riding, and firewood cutting, as well as permitted and administrative uses. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

10 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Definitions (36 CFR 212.1)

Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 

inches wide, unless identified and 

managed as a trail.

Trail – A route 50 inches or less in 

width or a route over 50 inches wide that 

is identified and managed as a trail. 

Forest or system road or trail – A road 

or trail wholly or partially within or 

adjacent to and serving NFS lands that 

the Forest Service determines is 

necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the 

NFS, and the use and development of its 

resources.

Unauthorized road – A road or trail 

that is not a forest road or trail, or a 

temporary road or trail and that is not 

included in a forest transportation atlas.

Area – A discrete, specifically 

delineated space that is smaller (in most 

cases, much smaller) than a ranger 

district.

Background

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations 

governing off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and other motor vehicle uses on all national forests and 

grasslands. The Travel Management Rule (TMR) amended regulations in 36 CFR (Code of 

Federal Regulations), Parts 212, 251(b) and 261(a), and removed obsolete direction at 36 CFR 

295. These three regulations—36 CFR, Parts 212, 251(b), and 261(a)—are referred collectively

as TMR throughout this document. The TMR was developed in response to the substantial 

increase in use of OHVs on National Forest System (NFS) lands and related damage to forest 

resources caused by unmanaged OHV use over the past 30 years. The regulations implement 

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 regarding off-road use of motor vehicles on Federal lands. 

The TMR provides for a system of NFS roads, 

trails, and areas on NFS lands designated for motor 

vehicle use (36 CFR 212.50(a)). After the roads, 

trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use 

not in accordance with these designations is 

prohibited, including motor vehicle use off 

designated roads and trails and outside designated 

areas (36 CFR 261.13). Therefore, under the TMR, 

forests that do not already restrict motorized travel 

to designated NFS roads, trails, and areas on NFS 

lands must do so. Once a decision is made, forests 

must display motorized roads, trails, and areas on a 

motor vehicle use map (MVUM) and provide it to 

the public free of charge (36 CFR 212.56).

The responsible official may incorporate previous 

administrative decisions regarding travel 

management made under other authorities, 

including designations and prohibitions of motor 

vehicle use, in designating NFS roads, trails, and 

areas for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212.50(b)). 

Therefore, only changes to the existing system will 

be analyzed in this NEPA document. 

Regulation 36 CFR 212.51(a) states that roads, 

motorized trails, and areas shall be designated by 

vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year by 

the responsible official, provided that the following 

vehicles and uses are exempted from these 

designations: (1) aircraft; (2) watercraft; (3) oversnow vehicles; (4) limited administrative use by the Forest Service; (5) use of any fire, military, 

emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; (6) authorized use of any combat 

or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; (7) law enforcement response to 

violations of law, including pursuit; and (8) motor vehicle use specifically authorized under a 

written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations. Exemption 8 includes (but is not 

limited to) uses under Forest Service written authorizations (i.e., permits) and includes uses such 

as access for range improvements, firewood cutting, gathering forest products (e.g., seedlings, 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 11

rocks, pinecones), ceremonial gathering by tribes, outfitter and guide services, maintenance of 

utility corridors (e.g., power lines, pipelines), administrative use by other Federal or State 

agencies, and special use permit events.

In addition to specific exemptions, the TMR decision would not change the management of, or 

restriction of, non-motorized methods of travel on the forests, such as hiking, biking, horseback 

riding, etc. On National Forest System roads, roadside parking adjacent to the designated routes 

would continue to be allowed per Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7716.1(1). The designation 

includes parking a motor vehicle on the side of the road when it is safe to do so without causing 

damage to NFS resources or facilities, unless prohibited by state law, traffic sign, or order 

pursuant to (36 CFR 261.54). 

In 2008, the forests finalized the travel analysis process (TAP). The purpose of the TAP was to 

help the forests identify the minimum road system necessary to provide safe and efficient travel 

and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands (36 CFR 212.5(b)). The TAP also 

identified unneeded roads and made recommendations for the future designation process. The 

TAP was used to assist in the formulation of the proposed action for this project. The TAP is on 

the forest’s Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/projects/travel-management). 

Existing Transportation System

There are 2,832 miles of open NFS roads (table 2), 156 miles of motorized trails, and 

approximately 3,373 miles of closed roads. In looking at the existing transportation system, as 

described by the most current information in the forest’s transportation database, many data errors 

and outdated information were discovered and the database has been corrected:

● 100 miles of roads coded as closed (maintenance level 1) in the database are actually 

being managed as open and public motorized use is being allowed on the ground. 

● 375 miles of roads coded as decommissioned in the database are actually being managed 

as open and public motorized use is being allowed on the ground. 

The 2,832 miles of open NFS roads shown under the existing condition now includes these 475 

miles of incorrectly coded roads in the database. This system reflects ground conditions, how the 

forests have been managing the road system, and how the public has been using the road system. 

The existing system is made up of roads that are open to highway legal vehicles (standard 

passenger cars) and roads that are open to all motor vehicles. This includes roads with access 

restricted on a seasonal basis and roads closed during extreme weather conditions or for 

emergencies, but which are otherwise open for general public use (FSM 7705). In addition to the 

existing open road system, there are potentially additional miles of unauthorized routes that exist, 

but have not been inventoried.

Approximately 1.6 million acres of the forests are currently open to cross-country motorized 

travel. This has been in place since the Apache-Sitgreaves land and resource management plan

was approved in 1987. The forest plan states that the forests are open to off-road vehicle (ORV) 

use with the exception of designated wilderness and the Blue Range Primitive Area. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

12 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 1. Location of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 13

Figure 2. Ranger districts on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

14 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Table 2. Existing road mileage on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests

Road Type Total Miles

Highway legal vehicles 765

Open to all motor vehicles 2,067

Total Open NFS Roads 2,832

Total Closed NFS Roads 3,373

The forests currently have motorized travel designations and decisions which were made under 

other authorities that apply to over 383,000 acres (USDA FS 2008a). For example, the Mt. Baldy, 

Escudilla, and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas and the Blue Range Primitive Area have had 

motorized use restricted or prohibited by legislation. There are nine special orders that identify 

motor vehicle travel restrictions by specific geographic area and season. Please refer to appendix 

C for existing motor vehicle prohibitions carried forward in this analysis. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of this project is to comply with the Travel Management Rule by providing a system 

of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use that reduces impacts to biological, 

physical, and cultural resources on the forests (36 CFR 212, sections 212, 251, 261). At 36 CFR 

261.13, the forests are required to prohibit motor vehicle use off the system of designated roads, 

trails, and areas and motor vehicle use that is not in accordance with the designations. 

There is a need for a safe and efficient transportation system for public use, Agency 

administration, and resource protection, while recognizing historic and current uses of the forests. 

Specifically, there is a need for: (1) identifying the system of roads that would be open to motor 

vehicle use; (2) identifying the system of motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in width; 

and (3) optional designation of the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of 

designated routes solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of big game by an 

individual who has legally killed the animal.

There is a need to counter detrimental effects to resources from continued use of some roads and 

motorized trails, as well as cross-country travel. Some detrimental effects from motorized use of 

the forests include increased sediment deposits in streams which degrade water quality and fish 

habitat, the spread of invasive plants across the forests, disturbances to a variety of plant and 

wildlife species, and the risk of damaging cultural resource sites. 

Modified Proposed Action 

The forests published the proposed action in October 2007 requesting public comment. A large 

number of comments received indicated the original proposed action did not provide adequate 

motorized access because it proposed removing too many roads and areas from the motorized 

road and trail system. In response, the forest supervisor decided to modify the proposed action. 

The modified proposed action was released for public comment in February 2008 and was 

subsequently modified to respond to internal and external comments received as provided for in 

36 CFR 220.5(e)(1). See the “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study”
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 15

section of chapter 2 under the heading “Original Proposed Action,” to review the specific changes 

that occurred between modifications. The result of this process, alternative B, is described here 

and maps are found in appendix A. This proposal includes more miles of corridors for dispersed 

camping, increased acreage of motorized use areas, and slightly increased miles of motorized 

trails. As a result, the forestwide transportation system would include 2,673 miles of NFS roads 

designated for motor vehicle use and 268 miles of motorized NFS trails designated for vehicles 

50 inches or less in width. The proposal would: 

● Amend the forest plan to: (1) prohibit cross-country motorized travel off the designated 

system of roads, trails, and areas except as identified on the MVUM, as required by 36 

CFR 261.13 and to be consistent with the language and intent of 36 CFR 212.50 and 

261.13; and (2) remove obsolete references to using the RATM process (see appendix B

which summarizes proposed changes to the forest plan).

● Designate 1 mile distance from either side of NFS roads and trails open to motor vehicles 

and on NFS lands adjacent to open roads managed by other State and Federal agencies 

except where motorized restrictions exist, solely for the purpose of motorized big game 

retrieval (MBGR). 

● Designate five areas (totaling 459 acres) on the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger 

Districts as open to all motor vehicles. 

● Designate 300-foot corridors along either side of 658 miles of road for the sole purpose 

of motorized dispersed camping per 36 CFR 212.51(b). 

● Add 53 miles of unauthorized routes as roads open to all motor vehicles (of these, 28 

miles are proposed to provide general access as well as access to existing dispersed 

camping locations).

● Designate 358 miles of closed roads as open to motor vehicle use. 

● Convert 60 miles of closed road to motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in 

width.

● Convert 16 miles of open road to motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in width.

● Add 34 miles of unauthorized routes as motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in 

width.

● Construct 0.8 mile of new motorized trail on the Lakeside Ranger District for vehicles 50 

inches or less in width. Construct 1.3 miles of new motorized trail on the Black Mesa 

Ranger District for vehicles 50 inches or less in width. 

● Close 493 miles of currently open roads to motor vehicle use for resource protection. 

● Restrict 77 miles of roads currently open to all motor vehicles, to administrative and 

permitted use only, by opening 7 miles of closed roads and adding 1 mile of unauthorized 

road restricted to administrative and permitted use only. 

Decision Framework

The forest supervisor of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests is the responsible official who 

will evaluate the purpose and need for action, the modified proposed action along with the other 

alternatives, and consider the environmental consequences to decide:
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

16 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

● What changes to the existing transportation system would be necessary to be compliant 

with TMR. This may include adding or removing NFS roads and trails authorized for 

motorized travel, and adding unauthorized roads and trails to the designated motorized 

system;

● Whether to provide motorized access for dispersed camping within corridors along 

specified routes;

● Whether to designate areas for motor vehicle use, and if so, under what conditions; and, 

● Whether to provide motorized access for big game retrieval within specified distances of 

certain designated routes. 

After a decision has been made, a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) will be published and will 

display the new designated transportation system with the changes made in the NEPA decision. 

The forest supervisor must amend the Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan to prohibit cross-country 

motorized travel off the designated system of roads and motorized trails and to be consistent with 

the language and intent of the TMR (36 CFR 212, sections 212, 251, 261). 

Public Involvement 

Scoping and Comments Received

This project has been listed on the forest’s schedule of proposed actions beginning in 2005. Local 

citizens, State, county, local, and tribal governments; and other Federal agencies were invited to 

collaborate with the forests. From 2005 to 2008, the forests hosted and participated in 31 public

meetings and workshops related to motorized travel management and the travel analysis process 

(TAP) across the forests and in local communities. The following local groups participated in 

workshops and provided specific input: the Town of Eagar, White Mountain Conservation 

League, White Mountain Open Trails Association, Apache County ATV Roughriders, Grand 

Canyon Wildlands Council, and Citizens for Multiple Land Use and Access (CMLUA). This 

preliminary, pre-NEPA public input was used to develop the initial proposed action. 

On October 10, 2007, a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for motorized travel on the forests (72 FR 57514–57517) was published in the Federal 

Register. On October 31, 2007, a corrected NOI (72 FR 61607) was published in the Federal 

Register correcting the miles of road on the transportation system and the availability of maps to 

the general public. 

The forests conducted five public meetings in November 2007 in the communities of Lakeside, 

Eagar, Clifton, Heber-Overgaard, and Alpine to present the proposed action. Public comment 

indicated the proposed action did not provide adequate motorized opportunities and access for 

dispersed camping. After consideration of the input received during those meetings, the forest 

supervisor modified the proposed action and included more miles of corridor for dispersed 

camping, increased the acres of the areas designated for motorized use, and slightly increased the 

miles of motorized trails. 

A new NOI was published in the Federal Register on February 29, 2008 (73 FR 11088-11091),

requesting public comment on the modified proposed action. Additional public meetings were 

held in March 2008 in the communities of Show Low, Springerville, Clifton, Safford, HeberOvergaard, and Alpine. Coordination with local governments has occurred since this period.
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 17

The forests have received over 20,000 comments since the initial scoping in 2005-2008. 

Categories of interest include motorized access for dispersed camping, big game retrieval and 

other motorized uses, impacts to wildlife, soil and water and air, specially designated areas and 

scenery/visuals, economics, potential conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses, noise, 

public safety, availability of recreation opportunities, and impacts to grazing and ranching. These 

comments have been incorporated into the development of alternatives B through E. 

Tribal Consultation

The ASNF consulted with nine tribes and one chapter that use the ASNFs for traditional, cultural, 

or spiritual activities. The following tribes and chapter were consulted: White Mountain Apache 

Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, Yavapai-Apache 

Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and 

the Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation. 

These tribes were informed about travel management in October 2007 as part of the NEPA 

process. A followup consultation letter was sent in July 2008 regarding the modified proposed 

action. Two tribes provided written responses: the Navajo Nation and White Mountain Apache 

Tribe. Consultation meetings were held with the Hopi Tribe (November 2009), Navajo Nation 

(February 2010) and White Mountain Apache Tribe (April 2010). The forests are in the process of 

scheduling meetings with the Pueblo of Zuni and San Carlos Apache Tribe. So far, two concerns 

were identified by the tribes regarding travel management: (1) continued looting and damage to 

archaeological sites, and (2) has the forest taken the protection of cultural resources into 

consideration. These issues were taken into consideration and were incorporated into the 

development of alternatives. 

Issues

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

relationships directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. The issues

defined as within the scope of the project, and directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposal, were used to develop the range of action alternatives. Other comments, eliminated from 

detailed study were identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) already 

decided by law, regulation, forest plan, or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the 

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

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 

1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or 

which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” The following issues 

were used to develop alternatives and focus the analysis for this project. All comments and the 

forests’ response to these comments are located in the project record. 

Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping

Concern: Restricting motorized access for dispersed camping may increase interactions between 

campers and diminish the quality of experience. Designating routes and corridors for camping 

may eliminate favorite spots which have been used for decades. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

18 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Response: All alternatives provide open roads to access dispersed camping. Alternative B

(modified proposed action) and alternative D increase the miles of camping corridors and roads 

that access identified dispersed camping over what is currently available. 

Units of Measure

● Miles/acres/location of motorized dispersed camping corridors, and

● Miles/location of roads accessing dispersed camping locations.

Issue 2: Restricting Motorized Big Game Retrieval

Concern: Changing the motorized big game retrieval policy to a fixed distance corridor may 

result in hunters being unable to collect a downed animal in a timely manner. 

Response: Alternatives B, C, and D respond to this issue by including motorized big game 

retrieval for several animal species. 

Unit of Measure: Acres available for motorized big game retrieval.

Issue 3: Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use 

Concern: Adding roads and camping corridors to the transportation system will adversely impact

terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species, soil and water, and cultural resources. 

Response: Alternative E was developed to provide motorized access with minimal miles of 

camping corridors and no motorized big game retrieval.

Units of Measure

● Miles and/or acres of habitat affected.

● Proximity (distance) of motorized roads and trails to riparian vegetation and wetlands.

● Miles/acres of motorized use on sensitive soils.

● Number of cultural resources (sites) potentially impacted.

Issue 4: Economics: Loss of Revenues and Jobs

Concern: Restrictions on motorized access (a change from the current condition) could 

negatively impact local and State economies from a loss of local, tourist, and hunter generated 

revenues. 

Response: The social and economic impacts the project would have on the region has been 

analyzed in chapter 3. 

Unit of Measure: Revenues and jobs generated from motorized (recreation related) activities.
DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 19

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, 

Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for this analysis. It includes a 

description of each alternative considered. This chapter presents the alternatives in comparative 

form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice

between alternatives by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to 

compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative, and some of the information 

is based upon the environmental, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative. 

These effects are discussed in detail in chapter 3 of this document. Maps of the alternatives are 

found in appendix A. 

Conditions Applicable to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, there are certain laws and policies already in place which would remain:

● Motorized use on NFS roads and NFS trails is subject to Arizona State law.

● In accordance with 36 CFR 261.12 on NFS roads and NFS trails the following is 

prohibited: (c) damaging and leaving in a damaged condition any such road, trail, or 

segment thereof.

● In accordance with 36 CFR 261.15, use of vehicles off roads (h), it is prohibited to 

operate any vehicle off NFS, State, or county roads in a manner which damages or 

unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, or vegetative resources.

● The provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA: PL 96-

487) that require the Forest Service to allow access to private in-holdings will continue to 

apply.

● As provided for in the TMR, none of the alternatives preclude the forest from closing 

roads, trails, or areas to motorized use through emergency closure orders. 

● Counties, tribes, states, private companies and citizens may have been granted rights of 

access, or in some cases have been assigned jurisdiction over some roads on NFS lands. 

Rights that have been legally established will continue to be recognized.

● Parking would be allowed under all alternatives within one vehicle length from the edge 

of the road surface, where it is safe to do so. 

● Where off-road motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) is proposed, it would be 

authorized in accordance with the annual hunting regulations published by the Arizona 

Department of Game and Fish for elk, mule deer and black bear. Retrieval would be 

authorized for late summer and fall hunts limited to individuals with hunting licenses that 

have legally killed an animal. Motorized retrieval of other game animals would not be 

allowed. No MBGR would be allowed in wilderness or primitive areas. Only one vehicle 

would be allowed MBGR per harvested animal.

Consistency with the Forest Plan 

The forest plan defines a set of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines that provide direction 

for managing the forests and their resources (USDA FS 1987a). See appendix D for some 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

20 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

pertinent forest plan direction that applies to this project. All alternatives are consistent with 

standards and guidelines in the forest plan and are consistent with applicable laws, regulation and 

policy, unless noted. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

In addition to no action (alternative A) and modified proposed action (alternative B), the forests 

developed three additional action alternatives to address the issues identified during scoping. 

Alternative A — No Action

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require no action to be included as a 

baseline, continuing with the present course of action for comparison to all action alternatives. 

This alternative proposes no change to the existing motorized system. The forest plan and other 

written direction (e.g., closure orders) would continue to guide motor vehicle use on the forests. 

The TMR would not be implemented, and no MVUM would be produced. No changes to the 

existing transportation system would be made. Cross-country travel off system roads on 

approximately 1.6 million acres would continue to be allowed. Existing motorized prohibitions 

and seasonal closures would remain in place (appendix C). It is important to note that not 

prohibiting motor vehicle use off the designated system would not be compliant with the TMR. 

Alternative A would result in a system of 2,832 miles of NFS roads open for motor vehicle use 

and 156 miles of motorized NFS trails designated for motor vehicles 50 inches and less in width 

(table 3). Motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping would continue 

forestwide except where motorized restrictions exist. Maps displaying open roads and motorized 

trails under this alternative are found in appendix A. 

Alternative B – Modified Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) 

The modified proposed action (see the “Public Involvement” section for information on why the 

original proposed action was modified) addresses the purpose and need by providing motorized 

access to the forests while protecting resources. This alternative responds to “Issue 1: Restricting 

Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping” and “Issue 3: Impacts to Resources from Motorized 

Use.” Maps displaying open roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas under this alternative are 

found in appendix A. Seasonal road closures are displayed in appendix C. 

This alternative would result in a system of 2,673 miles of NFS roads designated for motor 

vehicle use and 268 miles of NFS trails designated for vehicles 50 inches or less in width. 

Alternative B would:

● Amend the Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan to: (1) prohibit cross-country motorized travel 

off the designated system of roads, trails, and areas except as identified on the MVUM, as 

required by 36 CFR 261.13 and to be consistent with the language and intent of 36 CFR 

212.50 and 261.13; and (2) remove obsolete references to using the resource access and 

travel management (RATM) process (see appendix B which summarizes the proposed 

changes to the forest plan).

● Designate 1 mile distance along either side of NFS roads and trails open to motor 

vehicles and on NFS lands adjacent to open roads managed by other State and Federal 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 21

agencies except where motorized restrictions exist, solely for the purpose of motorized 

big game retrieval. 

● Designate five areas (totaling 459 acres) on the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger 

Districts as open to all motor vehicles. 

● Designate 300-foot corridors along either side of 658 miles of road for the sole purpose 

of motorized dispersed camping per 36 CFR 212.51(b). 

● Add 53 miles of unauthorized routes as roads open to all motor vehicles (of these, 28 

miles are proposed to provide general access as well as access to existing dispersed 

camping locations).

● Designate 358 miles of closed roads as open to motor vehicle use. 

● Convert 60 miles of closed road to motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in 

width.

● Convert 16 miles of open road to motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in width.

● Add 34 miles of unauthorized routes as motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in 

width.

● Construct 0.8 mile of new motorized trail on the Lakeside Ranger District for vehicles 50 

inches or less in width. Construct 1.3 miles of new motorized trail on the Black Mesa 

Ranger District for vehicles 50 inches or less in width. 

● Close 493 miles of currently open roads to motor vehicle use for resource protection. 

● Restrict 77 miles of roads currently open to all motor vehicles, to administrative and 

permitted use only, by opening 7 miles of closed roads and adding 1 mile of unauthorized 

road restricted to administrative and permitted use only. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C responds to “Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping” and 

“Issue 2: Restricting Motorized Big Game Retrieval,” and closely resembles the existing 

transportation system. Cross-country motorized use would be eliminated in order to make the

alternative consistent with the TMR. The miles of roads designated for motor vehicle use would 

be similar to the existing system, and no additional roads would be closed. To compensate for 

prohibiting motorized travel off system routes, roads would be designated to provide general 

access as well as access to dispersed camping sites, and a corridor for motorized big game 

retrieval would be allowed. Maps displaying open roads and motorized trails under this 

alternative are found in appendix A. Seasonal road closures are displayed in appendix C.

This alternative would result in a system of 2,860 miles of NFS roads designated for motor 

vehicle use and 156 miles of NFS trails designated for vehicles 50 inches or less in width.

Alternative C would: 

● Amend the Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan to: (1) prohibit cross-country motorized travel 

off the designated system of roads, trails, and areas except as identified on the MVUM, as 

required by 36 CFR 261.13 and to be consistent with the language and intent of 36 CFR 

212.50 and 261.13; and (2) remove obsolete references to using the RATM process (see 

appendix B which summarizes the proposed changes to the forest plan).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

22 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

● Designate 1 mile distance along either side of NFS roads and trails open to motor 

vehicles and on NFS lands adjacent to open roads managed by other State and Federal 

agencies except where motorized restrictions exist, solely for the purpose of motorized 

big game retrieval. 

● Add 28 miles of unauthorized routes as roads open to motor vehicle use (provides general

access as well as access to existing dispersed camping locations).

Alternative D

Alternative D was developed to address “Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed 

Camping,” “Issue 2: Restricting Motorized Big Game Retrieval,” and “Issue 3: Impacts to 

Resources from Motorized Use.” This alternative increases motorized access for dispersed 

camping through corridors and designated routes. This alternative adds miles of unauthorized 

routes as roads and motorized trails, designates areas, includes corridors for motorized big game 

retrieval, and closes roads for resource protection. Maps displaying open roads, motorized trails, 

and motorized areas under this alternative are in appendix A. Seasonal road closures are displayed 

in appendix C.

This alternative would result in a system of 2,730 miles of NFS roads designated for motor 

vehicle use and 302 miles of NFS trails designated for vehicles 50 inches or less in width. 

Alternative D would: 

● Amend the Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan to: (1) prohibit cross-country motorized travel 

off the designated system of roads, trails, and areas except as identified on the MVUM, as 

required by 36 CFR 261.13 and to be consistent with the language and intent of 36 CFR 

212.50 and 261.13; and (2) remove obsolete references to using the RATM process (see 

appendix B which summarizes the proposed changes to the forest plan).

● Designate 1⁄4-mile distance along either side of NFS roads and trails open to motor 

vehicles and on NFS lands adjacent to open roads managed by other State and Federal 

agencies except where motorized restrictions exist, solely for the purpose of motorized 

big game retrieval. 

● Designate five areas (totaling 459 acres) on the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger 

Districts as open to all motor vehicles. 

● Designate 300-foot corridors along either side of 2,034 miles of road for the sole purpose 

of motorized dispersed camping per 36 CFR 212.51(b). 

● Designate 415 miles of closed roads as open to motor vehicle use. 

● Add 37 miles of unauthorized routes as roads open to all motor vehicles (provides general 

access as well as access to existing dispersed camping).

● Convert 64 miles of closed road to motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in 

width.

● Convert 19 miles of open road to motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in width.

● Add 62 miles of unauthorized routes as motorized trails for motor vehicles 50 inches or 

less in width.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 23

● Construct 1.3 miles of trail for motor vehicles 50 inches or less in width on the Black 

Mesa Ranger District. 

● Close 479 miles of currently open roads to motor vehicle use for resource protection.

● Restrict 75 miles of roads currently open to all motor vehicles, to administrative and 

permitted use only, by opening 5 miles of closed road, and adding 11 miles of 

unauthorized roads restricted to administrative and permitted use only. 

Alternative E

Alternative E was developed to address “Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed 

Camping” and “Issue 3: Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use.” This alternative adds miles 

of NFS roads and trails but includes minimal miles of corridors to access dispersed camping 

locations. This alternative closes roads for resource protection and would not allow corridors for 

motorized big game retrieval. Maps displaying open roads and motorized trails under this 

alternative are found in appendix A. Seasonal road closures are displayed in appendix C.

This alternative would result in a system of 2,473 miles of NFS roads designated for motor 

vehicle use and 206 miles of NFS trails designated for vehicles less than 50 inches in width. 

Alternative E would: 

● Amend the Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan to: (1) prohibit cross-country motorized travel 

off the designated system of roads, trails, and areas except as identified on the MVUM, as 

required by 36 CFR 261.13 and to be consistent with the language and intent of 36 CFR 

212.50 and 261.13; and (2) remove obsolete references to using the RATM process (see 

appendix B which summarizes the proposed changes to the forest plan).

● Designate 300-foot corridors along either side of 118 miles of road for the sole purpose of

motorized dispersed camping per 36 CFR 212.51(b). 

● Add 64 miles of unauthorized routes as roads open to all motor vehicles (provides general 

access and access to identified dispersed camping locations).

● Designate 220 miles of closed roads as open to motor vehicle use.

● Convert 14 miles of closed road to motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in 

width.

● Convert 14 miles of open road to motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in width.

● Add 20 miles of unauthorized route as motorized trails for vehicles 50 inches or less in 

width. 

● Construct 1.3 miles of trail for motor vehicles 50 inches or less in width on the Black 

Mesa Ranger District. 

● Close 559 miles of currently open roads to motor vehicle use for resource protection.

● Restrict 84 miles of roads currently open to all motor vehicles, to administrative and 

permitted use only, by opening 5 miles of closed road and adding less than 1 mile of 

unauthorized road restricted to administrative and permitted use only. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

24 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA define 

mitigation as measures that avoid, minimize, reduce, rectify, or compensate for impacts to the 

physical environment resulting from Federal actions (40 CFR 1508.20). Mitigation measures 

would be done as part of implementing the decision to lessen any potential damage to natural or 

cultural resources. In addition to the “Conditions Applicable to All Alternatives” section in this 

chapter, forest plan requirements (standards and guidelines) as well as mitigation would be 

applied to all action alternatives (appendix D). 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

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

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

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). The Forest Service and public developed 

alternatives that were not analyzed in detail. Comments received in response to the proposed 

action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of 

these alternatives may have been outside the scope of consideration, duplicative of the 

alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary 

environmental harm. Therefore, five alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed 

consideration for reasons summarized below.

Original Proposed Action 

The original proposed action released in October 2007 would have designated 2,868 miles of 

open road and motorized trails, 409 miles of motorized dispersed camping corridors (within 300 

feet from designated roads), seven motorized use areas (1,433 acres) and identified a 1-mile 

corridor along designated roads for MBGR. Public comments indicated the proposed action did 

not provide adequate motorized opportunities and access for dispersed camping. 

After consideration of the input received during those meetings, the forest supervisor added a 

modified proposed action. The modified proposed action released in February 2008 proposed to 

designate 2,961 miles of roads and motorized trails, 938 miles of motorized dispersed camping 

corridors (within 300 feet from designated roads), eight areas designated for motor vehicle use 

(5,989 acres) and identified a 1-mile corridor along designated roads for MBGR. Based on public 

comment on the modified proposed action, the team developed what is currently described as 

alternative B. Therefore, the original proposed action was eliminated and not further analyzed in 

detail. 

An Alternative that Increases the 

Transportation System to Approximately 7,000 Miles 

Many public comments suggested an alternative that opened all existing closed roads increasing 

the transportation system to approximately 7,000 miles. Additions to the existing transportation 

system at this magnitude were not considered manageable and would not have passed the TMR 

212.55 criteria for the designation of roads, trails, and areas.

Over 3,000 miles of NSFRs would have required additional field surveys to determine effects on

heritage sites. At least 85 known archaeological sites would have been adversely affected. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 25

Moving forward with this alternative would have been difficult to comply with Executive Order 

11593, the Southwestern Region travel management protocol with the Arizona State Historical 

Office (AZ SHPO), and with forest plan direction specific to authorized off-road vehicle use 

(camping corridors) in areas with high heritage site density. The National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) would have been difficult to implement due to the magnitude of surveys and the 

amount of mitigation needed to minimize adverse effects. 

Approximately 830 miles of road would have been within the habitat of some protected terrestrial 

and aquatic threatened and endangered species, and approximately 280 miles of roads would have 

intersected threatened and endangered fish habitat. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements in terms of species recovery and viability would 

have been difficult to achieve. Additionally, this alternative would have designated roads in the 

Blue Range Primitive Area and in inventoried roadless areas. 

Additionally, the cost of maintaining this road system would not have been feasible given the 

current and expected budgets for road maintenance. The forests are in a current position of having 

a large backlog of deferred maintenance for the existing road system. For these reasons, this 

alternative would not meet the purpose and need and was not analyzed in detail. 

An Alternative that Bases the Motorized Transportation 

System Solely on Annual Funding for Road Maintenance

The interdisciplinary team considered an alternative based solely on existing funding for road and 

motorized trail maintenance. Designated NFS roads would be 28 percent of the existing system, 

totaling 850 miles. This would be considered a sustainable road system from an economic 

standpoint. Under this alternative, all annual maintenance needs could potentially be met for 

designated roads and motorized trails assuming continued maintenance funding at current levels. 

Maintenance that is not annual or routine (deferred) would still not be accomplished unless 

additional funding is secured. This road system would have only provided for essential 

administrative access, access to key recreation sites, and a very limited seasonal road system for 

hunting access. In addition, the motorized trail system would be less than the existing system and 

would not meet expectations from the public and extensive recreation desires for motorized travel 

on NFS lands.

An alternative based solely on funding would not meet the purpose and need and would not 

provide needed access for effective and efficient administration and use of the forests. For these 

reasons, this alternative was not analyzed in detail. 

An Alternative that Uses the Minimum 

Road System Based Solely on TAP Recommendations

The travel analysis process (TAP) was completed in 2008, and in part, identified the minimum 

road system needed to manage the forests. It recommends approximately 1,180 miles of roads 

designated open to motor vehicles. Comments were received from the public from 2005 through 

2008, which indicated a strong desire for increased motorized access for dispersed camping and 

motorized big game retrieval that exceeded the minimum road system. This alternative did not 

respond to these needs brought up by the public and would, therefore, not meet the purpose and 

need to recognize historic and current uses of the forests. In contrast, public input was received 

desiring a smaller road system than existing, and in response, the range of alternatives that were 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

26 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

analyzed in detail consisted of three alternatives (alternatives B, D, and E) that would result in a 

system with fewer miles of open roads than the current system, while still meeting the purpose 

and need.

The travel management rule focuses on motor vehicle use on NFS roads, trails and areas, rather 

than a road system (36 CFR 212.51(a)) and does not require a forest to adopt the minimum road 

system as an objective or desired condition. The purpose and need of the proposed action for this 

analysis is to meet the requirements of the travel management rule. For these reasons the 

minimum road system was eliminated from detailed study. 

An Alternative that Adds Roads 

to the Blue Range Primitive Area 

There were recommendations to designate unauthorized roads along the Blue River to access 

around 13 favored dispersed camping locations. Along NFSR 281 Y and V, recommendations 

were to open the two closed roads, about 3 miles long and located within the Blue Range 

Primitive Area (BRPA). The BRPA was established on June 21, 1933, by the Chief of the Forest 

Service and was recommended for wilderness designation by President Nixon in 1972. Although 

it is not a designated wilderness, the BRPA is managed as such under FSM 2320.3(11), which 

states “Manage primitive areas as wilderness areas consistent with 36 CFR 293.17 until their 

designation as wilderness or other use is determined by Congress.” The forests must give due 

consideration to the wilderness resource value under 16 USC 529, and manage the BRPA 

consistent with the forest plan. Management of the BRPA is subject to PL 98-406, Section 

103(b)(4) requiring management of the BRPA for the purpose of protecting its “suitability for 

wilderness designation.”

The current regulation generally prohibits roads, motorized travel, commercial timber harvest, 

and special use occupancy involving permanent structures in primitive areas. However, the 

regulation allows for continued use of existing roads and roads necessary for a statutory right of 

ingress and egress under appropriate conditions. The roads in question are considered 

unauthorized and the forest supervisor does not have the authority to designate roads within the 

BRPA. For this reason, this alternative was not analyzed in detail. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

This section provides a comparison of alternatives (tables 3 and 4) and a summary of the 

alternatives with the environmental consequences. Information in tables 3 and 4 is focused where 

effects can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively between alternatives. Further 

discussion of effects on resources by alternative can be found in chapter 3.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 27

Table 3. Comparison of elements between all alternatives 

Action Proposed Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

National Forest System Roads (miles)

Add unauthorized roads to 

system 0 53 28 37 64

Open closed NFS roads 0 358 0 415 220

Close NFS roads to all motor 

vehicles 0 493 0 479 559

Restrict currently open NFS 

roads to administrative and 

permitted use only

0 77 0 75 84

Total Miles of 

Open NFS Roads 2,832 2,673 2,860 2,730 2,473

Total Miles of 

Closed NFS Roads 3,373 3,866 3,373 3,852 3,932

National Forest System Trails (miles)

Convert closed NFS roads to 

trails for motor vehicles 50 

inches or less in width

0 60 0 64 14

Convert open NFS roads to

trails for motor vehicles 50

inches or less in width

0 16 0 19 14

Add unauthorized roads as NFS 

trails for motor vehicles 50

inches or less in width

0 34 0 62 20

Construct new NFS trails for

motor vehicles 50 inches or less 

in width

0 2 0 1 1

Total Miles of 

Motorized NFS Trails 156 268 156 302 205

Motorized Off-Road Travel

Create 300-foot wide corridors 

(from either side of road) for the 

sole purpose of dispersed 

camping.

Allowed 

forestwide 

except where 

motorized 

restrictions 

exist (1.6 

million 

acres).

Corridors 

designated 

along 658

miles of 

NFS roads 

(48,000 

acres).

No corridors, 

however, 

unauthorized 

routes added 

which 

provide 

access to 

existing 

camping sites

up to 28 miles 

(2,000 acres).

Corridors 

designated 

along 2,034

miles of 

NFS roads 

(148,000 

acres).

Corridors 

designated 

along 118

miles of 

NFS roads 

(8,500 

acres).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

28 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Action Proposed Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Motorized big game retrieval 

(MBGR) areas for elk, mule 

deer, and black bear late 

summer and fall hunts.

Allowed 

forestwide 

except where 

motorized 

restrictions 

exist (1.6 

million 

acres).

A 1-mile 

distance 

designated 

from both 

sides of NFS 

roads and 

NFS trails

and on NFS 

lands 

adjacent to 

open roads 

managed by 

other 

agencies 

except 

where 

motorized 

restrictions 

exist (1.2 

million 

acres).

A 1-mile

distance 

designated 

from both 

sides of NFS 

roads and 

NFS trails

and on NFS 

lands adjacent 

to open roads 

managed by 

other 

agencies 

except where 

motorized 

restrictions 

exist (1.2 

million 

acres).

A 1⁄4-mile 

distance 

designated 

from both 

sides of 

NFS roads 

and NFS 

trails and 

on NFS 

lands 

adjacent to 

open roads 

managed 

by other 

agencies 

except 

where 

motorized 

restrictions 

exist

(700,000 

acres).

Not 

allowed.

Designate areas for motor 

vehicle use (number/acres).

Allowed 

forestwide 

(1.6 million 

acres).

5 areas/459

acres

0 5 areas/459

acres

0
Chapter 2 

– Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 29

Table 4. Summary of environmental consequences by alternative 

Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Preferred Alternative Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Transportation

Motorized Access 

(NFS roads, NFS 

trails, off-road 

travel)

No change from current 

road and trail system, 

and cross-country travel 

would remain 

forestwide.

Road system decreases by 

159 miles (5.6 percent). 

Road system increases 

by 28 miles (1 percent).

Road system decreases 

by 102 miles (3.6

percent).

Road system 

decreases by 359 

miles (12.7 percent).

Trail system increases by 

112 miles (72 percent).

No change in trails. Trail system increases 

by 146 miles (94

percent).

Trail system 

increases by 49 miles

(31 percent).

Off-road travel limited to: 

300-foot corridors for 

dispersed camping, 1-mile 

distance for MBGR, and 

five areas. 

Off-road travel limited 

to: roads providing 

access for dispersed 

camping, 1-mile 

distance for MBGR.

Off-road travel limited 

to: 300-foot corridors 

for dispersed camping, 

1⁄4-mile distance for 

MBGR, and five areas. 

Off-road travel 

limited to: 300-foot 

corridors for 

dispersed camping. 

Maintenance Costs Roads: $4.7M Roads: $4.6M ($167,963 

less cost, decrease by 3.5

percent)

Roads: $4.7M ($3,836

more cost, increase by 

0.1 percent)

Roads: $4.6M 

($155,603 less cost, 

decrease by 3.3 percent) 

Roads: $4.5M 

($223,049 less cost, 

decrease by 4.7

percent) 

Trails: $70K Trails: $120K ($50,400 

more cost, increase by 72

percent)

Trails: $70K Trails: $136K ($65,700 

more cost, increase by 

94 percent)

Trails: $93K 

($22,500 more cost, 

increase by 31

percent)

Additional one-time 

implementation cost: 

NA

Additional one-time 

implementation cost 

(adding unauthorized 

roads): $70K

Additional one-time 

implementation cost 

(adding unauthorized 

roads): $14K

Additional one-time 

implementation cost 

(adding unauthorized 

roads): $50K

Additional one-time 

implementation cost 

(adding unauthorized 

roads): $60K
Chapter 2 

– Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

30 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Preferred Alternative Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Public Safety Safety concerns from 

continued use of 

unauthorized (usercreated) roads and 

motorized trails.

Improved safety by 

maintaining unauthorized 

roads and trails added to 

the system (87 miles

added).

Improved safety by 

maintaining 

unauthorized roads 

added to the system (28 

miles added).

Improved safety by 

maintaining 

unauthorized roads and 

trails added to the 

system (99 miles

added).

Improved safety by 

maintaining 

unauthorized roads 

and trails added to 

the system (84 miles

added).

Road 

Density 

(miles per 

square 

mile)

Open 0.9 0.91 0.91 1.2 0.83

Closed 1.9 1.88 1.91 1.88 1.87

Recreation

Impacts to 

Motorized Users

No change in motorized 

recreation

opportunities.

Motorized cross-country travel would be eliminated. It would be illegal to drive off the designated route 

system. Motorized recreation opportunities would still exist across the forests with alternatives B and D 

offering the most motorized trails and areas, and alternatives C and D offering the most miles of open roads. 

Impacts to Nonmotorized Users

Continued motorized 

cross-country travel and 

unauthorized routes. 

Existing non-motorized 

uses would remain.

Motorized travel limited to designated road and trail system and more opportunities for finding areas of 

natural appearance and low levels of human contact. Elimination of motorized cross-country travel would 

provide more areas for non-motorized recreation only. All existing non-motorized uses would remain. 

Noise Motorized travel 

allowed forestwide.

Motor vehicles limited to designated route system. Elimination of motorized cross-country travel would 

provide many areas where motor vehicles would not be allowed, thus related noise would be reduced. 

Conflicts 

(motorized and 

non-motorized 

users)

Mixed uses allowed 

forestwide.

There would be an increase in areas available for non-motorized travel, resulting in less mixed user conflicts.

However, incompatible recreation conflicts would occur in popular areas located close to motorized routes. 

Wilderness, Primitive Area (BRPA), and Roadless Areas (IRA)

Impacts to 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(miles NFS roads)

No change to 

characteristics.

40 miles IRA

0.2 miles BRPA

No change to 

characteristics.

31 miles IRA

1.2 miles BRPA

No change to 

characteristics.

40 miles IRA

1.2 miles BRPA

No change to 

characteristics.

31 miles IRA

1.2 miles BRPA

No change to 

characteristics.

23 miles IRA

1.2 miles BRPA
Chapter 2 

– Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 31

Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Preferred Alternative Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Impacts to 

Eligibility of Wild 

and Scenic Rivers 

(miles of roads and 

trails)

No change in eligibility.

76.9 miles in WSR 

corridors.

No change in eligibility.

Addition of 8 miles and 

closure of 4.7 miles in 

WSR corridors, resulting 

in 80 miles total.

No change in 

eligibility.

Addition of 0.8 mile in 

WSR corridors 

resulting in 77.7 miles 

total.

No change in eligibility.

Addition of 9.3 miles 

and closure of 4.4 miles 

in WSR corridors 

resulting in 82 miles 

total.

No change in 

eligibility.

Addition of 4.4 miles 

and closure of 17.2 

miles in WSR 

corridors resulting in 

64 miles total.

Scenery Management

Impact on Visual 

Quality Objective 

(VQO) Thresholds 

in the Forest Plan 

Would exceed VQO 

thresholds in retention 

and partial retention 

areas due to continued 

use of unauthorized 

roads and motorized 

trails.

Variations in acres of VQOs would all be below thresholds 

Less variations in acres of 

VQO than alternative A.

Less variations in acres 

of VQO than 

alternatives A, B, and 

D.

Less variations in acres

of VQO than 

alternatives A and B.

Less variations in 

acres of VQO than 

alternatives A, B, C, 

and D.

Socioeconomics

Change in Jobs 

and Incomes from 

Motorized 

Recreation Related 

Activities

No change Since there would be limited change in activities related to jobs and economics, there would be no 

measurable direct and indirect effects on the economy relative to the scale. The employment and income 

figures representing the contribution of current activities to the economy of the assessment area (six counties) 

would be unchanged or changed so slightly they cannot be evaluated. 

Vegetation

Impacts to Plants 

from Off-road 

Travel

Allowed forestwide, 

continued crushing 

from vehicles and 

burying of plants with 

sediment.

Beneficial effect to plants from elimination of motorized cross-country travel. Limited effects from crushing 

and burying plants with sediment in areas where motorized off-road travel would occur (dispersed camping 

corridors, within MBGR distances, and areas). 

Less effect than 

alternative A

Less effect than 

alternatives A and B

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B,and C.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, C, 

and D.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

32 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Alternative A No ActionAlternative B

Preferred Alternative Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

NoxiousWeeds High potential for 

spread and 

establishment of weed 

seeds forestwide from 

cross-country travel, 

and potential to spread 

off NFS land along road 

and trail drainages.

Reduced potential to spread weed seeds. Potential to spread seeds would exist in areas where off-road travel 

is allowed (dispersed camping corridors, MBGR areas, and areas) and drainages along roads and trails. Less effect than 

alternativeA.

Less effect than

alternatives A and B.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, and C.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, C, 

and D.

Soils

Soil Productivity Miles of road and trail 

surfaces remove soil 

productivity.

Miles of road and trail surfaces and acres of areas for motor vehicle use remove soil productivity.

Less effect than 

alternatives A and D

Less effect than 

alternativeA.

Less effect than 

alternativeA.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, and D

Soil Erosion* 650 miles of roads and 

trails and 580,000 acres 

on erosive TES soils, 

230 miles of roads and 

trails and 390,000 acres 

on slopes over 40

percent

No change from current miles of roads and trails on erosive TES soils and steep slopes

A total of 5,800 acres on 

erosive TES, no acres on 

steep slopes.

No acres on erosive 

TES soils or steep 

slopes.

A total of 25,000 acres 

on erosive TES, 125 

acres on steep slopes.

A total of 1,800 acres 

on erosive TES, no 

acres on steep slopes.

Less effect than 

alternatives A and D.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, D, 

and E.

Less effect than 

alternativeA.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, and D.

Watershed

Peak Runoff 

Amounts to Drainages*

Around 2,700 stream 

crossings, around 900 

miles of roads and 

trails, and 400,000 

acres within 300 feet of 

surface water.

Around 2,500 stream 

crossings.

Around 2,700 stream 

crossings.

Around 2,500 stream 

crossings.

Around 2,300 stream 

crossings.

A total of 880 miles and 

7,500 acres within 300 

feet of surface water

A total of 930 miles 

and no acres within 

300 feet of surface 

water.

A total of 900 milesand 

32,000 acres within 300 

feet of surface water.

A total of 800 miles 

and 1,600 acres 

within 300 feet of 

surface water.

Less effect than 

alternatives A andD.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, and D.

Less effect than 

alternativeA.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, and D.
Chapter 2 

– Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 33

Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Preferred Alternative Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Water Quality Increased peak runoff 

from road/trail 

proximity to surface 

water result in 

increased sediment and 

decreased water quality.

Decreased peak runoff from road/trail proximity to surface water would result in reduced effects of sediment 

loading to water quality.

Less effect than 

alternatives A and D.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, and 

D.

Less effect than 

alternative A.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, and 

D.

Air Quality

Fugitive Dust 

Generation

No measureable effect 

from roads, trails, or 

motorized crosscountry travel.

No measurable effect.

Less effect than 

alternative A.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, D, 

and E.

Less effect than 

alternative A.

Less effect than 

alternatives A, B, and 

D.

Wildlife and Rare Plants

Federally Listed 

Species (4) and 

Critical Habitat (2) 

Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Mexican wolves; not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) for MSO and critical habitat, 

southwestern willow flycatcher and critical habitat, and Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Sensitive Species 

(58), MIS (17), and 

Migratory Birds 

(34) 

Sensitive species: may impact individuals or habitat, but not likely to contribute trend toward Federal listing (MIIH); MIS: maintain 

forestwide habitat and population trends, action alternatives may improve trends from reduced off-road travel; migratory birds: no effect 

to populations, action alternatives may improve some habitats. 

Summary of 

Wildlife Impacts

Greatest likelihood of 

vehicle interactions 

with wildlife from 

cross-country travel and 

impacts from human 

disturbance and 

resource damage.

Elimination of crosscountry travel, designation 

of motorized use areas, 

corridors, MBGR 1-mile

distance, and closing 

roads result in less area of 

disturbance than 

alternative A.

Elimination of crosscountry travel, no 

motorized use areas, no 

corridors, and MBGR 

1-mile distance result 

in less area of impacts 

than alternatives A, B, 

D, and E.

Elimination of crosscountry travel, 

designation of

motorized use areas, 

corridors, MBGR 1⁄4-

mile distance, and

closing roads would 

result in less area of 

disturbance than 

alternative A.

Elimination of crosscountry travel, no 

areas, fewer corridors 

than alternatives B

and D, no MBGR, 

and closing more 

roads than 

alternatives B and D, 

results in less area of 

disturbance than 

alternatives A, B, and 

D.
Chapter 2 

– Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

34 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B

Preferred Alternative Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Fisheries

Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat for fish results in negative effects under all alternatives due to added sediment in drainages from the presence of roads and 

trails near surface water, road/stream crossings, and off-road travel; the amount of impacts varies by alternative based on the routes 

proposed (the action alternatives greatly reduce areas open to off-road travel, benefitting all fish species). 

Alternative B has fewer impacts than A; alternative C has fewer impacts than A, B, D, and E; alternative D has fewer impacts than A; 

alternative E has fewer impacts than A, B, and D. 

Federally Listed 

Species and 

Critical Habitats –

seven fish listed as 

threatened or 

endangered, one

candidate species, 

four have critical 

habitat

Seven species may 

effect, likely to 

adversely affect (LAA). 

One species may effect, 

not likely to adversely 

affect (NLAA). 

Seven species (LAA) 

One species (NLAA) 

Seven species (LAA) 

One species (NLAA) 

Seven species (LAA) 

One species (NLAA) 

Seven species (LAA) 

One species (NLAA) 

Three critical habitats 

LAA, one critical 

habitat NLAA.

Three critical habitats, 

LAA one critical habitat 

NLAA.

Three critical habitats 

LAA, one critical 

habitat NLAA.

Three critical habitats 

LAA, one critical 

habitat NLAA.

Three critical habitats 

LAA, one critical 

habitat NLAA.

Forest Service 

Sensitive Species –

five fish species

All alternatives “may impact individuals or habitats, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species” (MIIH). 

Cultural Resources

Potential Impact to 

Sites

No adverse effect, high 

potential from 

unauthorized routes and 

motorized crosscountry travel.

No adverse effect

Less potential for impacts 

than alternatives A and D.

Less potential for 

impacts than 

alternatives A, B, D, 

and E.

Less potential for 

impacts than alternative

A.

Less potential for 

impacts than 

alternatives A, B, and 

D.

*Miles include roads and trails on NFS lands, not just routes under FS jurisdiction, unlike other resources. 
DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 35

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents 

the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives as described in chapter 2. In 

development of the environmental analyses that follow, the best available science was considered 

and documented in the project record. This analysis is tiered to the “Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan” and associated record of decision 

(USDA FS 1987 b, c). The predicted environmental consequences are dependent on the 

application of forest plan standards and guidelines, mitigation measures and best management 

practices (BMPs) designed to reduce impacts (see appendix D).

The environmental analysis focuses on issues identified through the scoping process. An 

environmental effect, impact, or consequence is defined as a modification or change in the 

existing environment brought about by the action taken. Effects are direct, indirect, or cumulative 

and may be temporary (short term) or permanent (long term). Effects can vary in degree, ranging 

from only a slightly discernable change to a major alteration of the environment. 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared 

by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and 

technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create 

and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill 

the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans 

(NEPA Section 101). Short-term uses are those that generally occur for a finite time period. Longterm productivity refers to the ability of the land to produce a continuous supply of a resource. 

The change in the designated road system under any action alternatives does not jeopardize the 

long-term productivity of the lands and resources on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 

There would be beneficial impacts to some biological, physical and cultural resources by 

prohibiting motorized cross-country travel off the designated system of roads and motorized 

trails. A description of impacts by resource can be found in the “Effects of Each Alternative by 

Resource” section of this chapter. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Regardless of the alternative, there would be unavoidable adverse effects from the use of motor 

vehicles on the forests. The severity of the effects would be minimized by adhering to mitigation

measures built into the alternatives. When management activities occur, some effects cannot be 

avoided. Even the no action alternative has effects on the environment. A description of impacts 

expected by alternative can be found by resource area in this chapter. Some unavoidable impacts 

could include soil, vegetation, water, fish and wildlife, among others.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

36 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

An irreversible effect is a change in a natural resource that cannot be reversed. An irreversible 

commitment of resources refers primarily to the use of non-renewable resources such as minerals 

or the loss of cultural resources, or to the extinction of a wildlife species. An irretrievable effect is

a loss of production or use of a renewable natural resource for a period of time, but is reversible, 

such as the loss of soil productivity or wildlife habitat from the presence of a road. 

By definition, cultural resource sites and traditional cultural properties are not renewable and 

damage to them cannot be reversed. Alternative A could result in the irreversible loss of cultural 

resource sites from continued motorized cross-country travel across the forests. The continued 

use of unauthorized routes would increase the potential of impacting sites. Under the action 

alternatives, sites would continue to be impacted by motorized vehicle disturbance, but on a much 

smaller scale than the existing condition, since many areas would be closed to motorized off-road 

travel. Under all alternatives, the programmatic agreement with SHPO would be adhered to,

which is designed to mitigate effects, resulting in no adverse effects to cultural sites. 

All alternatives would result in the irretrievable commitment of some of the forests’soil 

productivity. This effect, however, would be negligible when considered at the scale of the forest,

and forest plan standards and guidelines would be met for soil disturbance. The action 

alternatives all add unauthorized roads to the system and designate them for motor vehicle use. 

Alternatives B, D, and E add unauthorized trails to the system. These roads and trails, inherently

remove the soil productivity from the route surface. The action alternatives designate motorized 

corridors which are expected to result in bare ground in some places. This effect would be 

negligible at the forestwide scale. See the “Soils and Watershed” section for more details. 

The loss or modification of habitat for fish and wildlife species could constitute an irretrievable

commitment of resources since the timeframe could be decades for the habitat to recover. There 

are no anticipated losses of any fish or wildlife species populations or an impact to habitats that 

would lead toward Federal listing for any species not currently listed under any alternative. See 

the discussion in the “Fisheries” and “Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Wildlife and Rare Plants”

sections.

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” As a proposed Federal project, the forests travel management 

decisions are subject to compliance with other Federal and State laws. The following actions have 

been taken to document and ensure compliance with other laws.

Consultation with Arizona State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) - Compliance 

with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Southwestern Region has 

developed a standard consultation protocol for travel management route designation as 

appendix I of the programmatic agreement (PA). By following the procedures of the PA, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and SHPO have agreed that the forests

will satisfy legal requirements for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 37

properties. The forests will comply with the protocol for designating roads, trails and areas in 

lieu of standard consultation in the PA and the council’s regulations (36 CFR 800). 

Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Biological assessments (BAs) for fisheries and wildlife have

been prepared for the preferred alternative and will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for formal consultation according to the ESA, and will be completed prior to a 

decision on this project. Effects to any threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife, fish, 

and plant species are discussed in the “Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Wildlife and Rare 

Plants” and “Fisheries” sections of this chapter. The BAs and associated specialist reports are 

found in the project record. 

Effect of Each Alternative by Resource

The following resources were analyzed for anticipated effects from implementing each 

alternative: the forests transportation system, recreation and special areas, scenery, socioeconomics, forest vegetation, soils and watershed, air quality, wildlife and rare plants, fisheries, 

and cultural resources. Specialist reports containing further documentation of the analyses and 

resulting effects can be found in the project record located at the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests Supervisor’s Office in Springerville, Arizona; and are incorporated by reference in places. 

This DEIS looks at effects on a forestwide scale rather than describing the site-specific effect at 

each road or trail. The analysis does not list every road and trail and predict the effects at that 

particular site. Specialists, however, sometimes used individual sites as examples. 

The analysis in this chapter focuses on effects of only the proposed changes to the current 

designated system, not effects to the whole designated system. The TMR does not require the 

Forest Service to reconsider any previous administrative decisions that allow, restrict, or prohibit 

motor vehicle use (Federal Register, vol. 70, no. 216, pg 68268, as reflected in 36 CFR 

212.50(b)). 

Forest Plan Amendments

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule (TMR) is not a discretionary decision as it is 

mandated. Since the Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan allowed motorized cross-country travel, the 

forest plan would need to be amended if alternative B, C, D, or E is implemented. A detailed 

description of the proposed amendment is found in appendix B. Since the amendment would 

allow use that is depicted in each alternative, the effect of the amendment by resource is included 

within direct and indirect effects described by resource. 

Transportation System 

This section describes the existing transportation system and displays the changes each alternative 

would make to the system and includes costs of road maintenance. The criteria used for 

comparing the existing condition to the alternatives are based on the following: 

● Motorized access: this analysis addresses “Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for 

Dispersed Camping,” quantified by the increase or decrease in motorized access to the 

forests based on miles of roads, trails and areas designated for motorized use. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

38 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

● Road maintenance: maintenance requirements and relationship to the budget in terms of 

the forests’ ability to conduct maintenance on motorized roads and trails.

● Public safety: the consequences associated with roads, trails and areas accessed by motor 

vehicles, restricting trail use to vehicles 50 inches or less in width, authorizing dispersed 

camping in corridors, and general safeness of roads.

● Road density: changes to open road density and forest plan consistency. 

Public response and comments were heavily focused on these criteria. Some people felt that 

access to the forests should not be limited in any way, however, many commenter’s favored 

limited off-road travel in support of protecting natural resources. The public provided specific 

information as to which roads to close or open, which was considered when the alternatives were 

developed. Some of the public encouraged the forests to maintain the roads and trails based on 

funding constraints and to consider congestion and increased maintenance needed if the miles of 

open roads are reduced. The public requested that the forests analyze roads in terms of conditions 

that would make roads unsafe for use, such as steepness or congestion. 

Affected Environment

Motorized Access

The forests’ road system is accessed primarily from the: (1) north on State Highway 77 near the 

town of Show Low, and U.S. Highway 191 near the towns of Springerville and Eagar; (2) east on 

U.S. Highway 180 near the town of Alpine, and U.S. Highway 60 near the towns of Springerville 

and Eagar; (3) south on U.S. Highway 191 near the town of Clifton, and U.S. Highway 60 near 

the town of Show Low; and (4) west on State Highway 260 near the towns of Heber and 

Overgaard, continuing to the towns of Show Low and Eagar. 

Historically, roads on the forests were created for accessing commodities, primarily for mining, 

timber, and livestock production. Some roads were created to connect small communities. While 

the roads continue to provide access for resource management, livestock production and mineral 

extraction, the majority of use today comes from public recreation and forest products extraction. 

There are 2,832 miles of open NFS roads and 156 miles of NFS motorized trails (table 3) in the 

current road and trail system. The forest road system does not include private roads or roads 

under the jurisdiction of State, county, or local public road authority. The existing system is made 

up of roads open to highway legal vehicles and roads open to all types of motorized vehicles. 

There are also currently 3,373 miles of closed roads on the forests. Approximately 1.6 million 

acres are currently open to cross-country motorized travel, which has been in place since the 

forest plan was approved in 1987. The forest plan states the forests are open to off-road vehicles 

(ORV) with the exception of wilderness and the Blue Range Primitive Area. 

Road Maintenance

A term used by the Forest Service to describe the service provided by, and maintenance required 

for, a specific road is the maintenance level (ML). A road is assigned a maintenance level based 

on the vehicle type and the intended use of the road. The maintenance level also provides an 

indication of the level of comfort the user would expect while operating a motorized vehicle on 

the road. There are five maintenance levels (ML1 – ML5) with ML1 having minimal to no 

maintenance and ML5 having the greatest. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 39

The estimated annual maintenance costs per mile of road by maintenance level were based on 

historic maintenance costs. Annual maintenance involves the preventative and cyclical 

maintenance required to keep a road functioning in accordance with the assigned maintenance 

level. Annual costs for ML2 roads average $220 per mile local unit rates. Maintenance for these 

low standard roads typically involves addressing resource concerns including drainage, and user 

comfort is not a consideration. Annual maintenance costs for ML3-5 roads average from $4,501

to $10,587 per mile at local unit rates. Costs are higher because these roads tend to be wider, 

require a higher standard including surface blading for passenger car vehicle use and are subject 

to the Highway Safety Act. 

As shown in table 5, the forests annual maintenance needs using local average unit costs totaled 

$4.7 million, while the budget was $1.5 million in 2007 and $2.1 million in 2008 and 2009 

(USDA FS 2008a). Deferred maintenance is the cumulative total of all annual maintenance not 

accomplished as needed. Deferred maintenance costs for ML3-5 roads currently averages from 

$40,842 to $71,427 per mile. If the annual maintenance budget does not keep up with the 

maintenance needed, deferred maintenance backlogs grow. Smaller tasks not accomplished over 

time may result in major reconstruction needs. 

Table 5. Annual road maintenance costs on the forests for 2008

ML Miles

Annual 

Local 

Rates per 

Mile1

Total 

Annual 

Costs 

Using Local 

Rates1

Deferred 

Costs per 

Mile

Total 

Annual and 

Deferred 

Costs

Annual 

Regional 

Rates per 

Mile2 

Total Annual 

Costs Using 

Regional 

Rates2

5 49 $10,587 $518,763 $40,842 $2,001,258 $11,273 $552,377

4 88 $4,501 $396,088 $55,972 $4,925,536 $9,851 $866,888

3 628 $4,911 $3,084,108 $71,427 $44,856,156 $6,751 $4,239,628

2 2,067 $223 $460,941 $171 $353,457 $420 $868,140

1 3,373 $86 $290,078 $140 $472,220 $107 $360,911

Total 6,205 4,749,978 $52,608,627 $6,887,944

1 Annual maintenance costs are calculated using the forests’ local unit rates per mile for 2008. 2 Regional average unit rates are shown for comparison to local unit costs. Local unit costs are used for comparison of 

alternatives.

Public Safety  Mixed Use

Public safety involves the type, amount, and speed of traffic on a forest road. Most NFS roads are 

driven at relatively low speeds, which prevent some accidents from occurring and reduce the 

severity of accidents that do occur. The volume of vehicles on NFS roads is generally lower than 

traffic on main roads, which also reduces the chance of accidents. A potential hazard to drivers is 

roads where motorized mixed use, or use by both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles, 

occurs. The Forest Service Southwestern Region policy is to conduct an analysis on any road 

where mixed use occurs. During the analysis, risks are identified and recommendations made 

including mitigation measures to reduce risks associated with designating roads as mixed use.

While most of the forests’ ML3–5 roads are used by highway legal vehicles, two roads—NFSR 

504, Heber Mormon Crossing and NFSR 169, Deer Lake Road—provide recreational access for 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

40 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

all-terrain vehicles and other non-highway legal OHVs. A mixed use study was completed on 

these two roads and can be found in the project record and in the TAP report. 

Signing of roads according to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is 

another safety precaution on NFS roads. The forests have received funding in the past 3 years for 

warning and regulatory signing. Some roads are signed based on the MUTCD, improving safety 

for users of the roads. To date, 293 miles of NFS roads (38 percent of ML3-5) have had sign 

studies completed and 226 miles have been signed according to the MUTCD. 

Road Density

Forest plan direction for road density is specific to management of the transportation system. 

Total road densities should average 3.5 miles per square mile or less of total forest area. Open 

road densities should average 2.0 miles per square mile or less (USDA FS 1987a). There are no 

road density standards or guidelines for other resources such as terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. By 

using GIS analysis to conduct the road density calculations, the existing motorized road and trail

density is 0.9 mile of open motorized routes per square mile and 1.9 miles of all motorized routes 

per square mile.

Environmental Consequences 

This section includes the direct and indirect effects by alternative and concludes with the 

cumulative effects. The criteria described above are used to compare alternatives: motorized 

access, road maintenance, safety, and road density. Table 6 displays the maintenance costs by 

alternative for the NFS roads and table 7 displays maintenance costs by alternative for NFS 

motorized trails.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

● Eliminating cross-country travel would make current funding for route closure signs and 

devices used to mark areas as closed to cross-country travel, available for road and trail 

maintenance instead.

● Motor vehicle use would only be allowed on roads, trails, and areas designated for 

motorized use. This would make it less complicated for forest users to understand where 

they can travel with motor vehicles. 

● Safety issues would be reduced by not having motor vehicles on unauthorized usercreated routes. 

● Each action alternative would cost more to implement than the current forest travel 

management budget. The current budget also does not provide enough funding for 

maintenance of existing roads and trails. 

● Mixed use would continue on NFSR 504, Heber Mormon Crossing, and NFSR 169, Deer 

Lake Road, providing motorized access for ATVs and other non-highway legal OHVs.

● The forests would continue to monitor traffic numbers on ML 3–5 roads ensuring the 

current design is adequate.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 41

Alternative A

No changes to the current road and motorized trail system would occur under this alternative. 

This includes no road closures, no unauthorized roads incorporated into the designated road 

system, no opening of roads currently closed to motor vehicles, and no motorized trail additions. 

The current forest transportation system was originally designed to provide for administrative and 

public access to NFS lands and did not consider non-highway legal vehicles. 

Motorized access would not be affected. By not adding routes to the system, nor making any 

changes to the existing roads and motorized trails, no additional maintenance costs would be 

incurred. With no changes to the current road and trail system, deterioration of unmaintained 

roads would continue. Costs of annual road maintenance for all maintenance levels would total 

approximately $4.7 million, and the deferred road maintenance backlog would continue to grow. 

The costs of repairing resource damage associated with unmanaged motorized use including 

cross-country travel can be anticipated but has not been quantified. Annual maintenance costs of 

the motorized trail system would be $70,200. 

Motorized cross-country travel would not be managed or addressed, and any existing safety 

concerns with resulting unauthorized routes would continue. Existing road densities would 

remain unchanged and are within forest plan standards and guidelines.

Alternative B

There would be a net decrease in total miles of open roads by 5.6 percent. Compared to the 

baseline (alternative A), costs for annual maintenance of roads under alternative B decreases by 

$168,272 (-3.5 percent). This would allow funding to be used for the deferred maintenance 

backlog. Annual maintenance costs of the motorized trail system would increase by $50,400. The 

proposed addition of unauthorized routes to the system as either ML2 roads or motorized trails 

would increase public safety since these routes would be maintained. The net decrease in miles of 

open roads does not pose a safety concern due to a traffic increase on other roads as the number 

of people accessing the forests is not expected to change (refer to “Recreation” section). 

Changes to the transportation system would have implementation costs. Route signing and 

transportation atlas updates would cost $500 per mile for adding the unauthorized routes to the 

system, totaling approximately $44,000. Other proposed changes would have a cost of $25 per 

mile to account for transportation atlas updates totaling $25,300. The total approximated one-time 

implementation cost—separate from annual, on-the-ground maintenance costs—is $69,300. 

Road density in terms of miles of open motorized routes per square mile increases by 0.01 and 

road density for all routes decreases by 0.02 from alternative A. This indicates that motorized 

route mileage on the forests, given the proposed opening and closing of different routes is nearly 

equal to existing conditions and would be consistent with forest plan direction.

Alternative C

There would be a net increase in total miles of open roads by 1 percent, mainly short spurs to 

provide motorized access to dispersed camping sites. Compared to the baseline (alternative A), 

costs for annual maintenance of roads under alternative C increase by $3,527 (0.1 percent).

Although this increases the annual maintenance cost, it is insignificant to the $1.4 million budget.

Unauthorized routes would be added as ML2 roads and maintained as such, providing an increase 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

in public safety over the existing condition of no maintenance on unauthorized routes. Annual 

maintenance costs of the motorized trail system would remain the same.

Changes to the transportation system would have implementation costs and long-term 

maintenance requirements. Route signing and transportation atlas updates would cost $500 per 

mile for adding the unauthorized routes to the system, totaling approximately $14,000 (one-time

cost), separate from annual on-the-ground maintenance costs. 

Road density in terms of miles of open motorized routes per square mile increases by 0.01 and 

road density for all routes increases by 0.01 from alternative A. This indicates that motorized 

route mileage on the forests, given the proposed opening and closing of different routes, is nearly 

equal to existing conditions and would be consistent with forest plan direction.

Alternative D 

There would be a net decrease in total miles of open roads by 3.6 percent. Compared to the 

baseline (alternative A), costs for annual maintenance of roads under alternative D decreases by 

$155,912 (-3.3 percent). This would allow funding to be used for the deferred maintenance 

backlog. Annual maintenance costs of the motorized trail system would increase by $65,700. The 

proposed addition of unauthorized routes to the system as either ML2 roads or motorized trails 

would increase public safety since these routes would be maintained. The net decrease in miles of 

open roads does not pose a safety concern due to a traffic increase on other roads as the number 

of people accessing the forest is not expected to change (see “Recreation” section). 

Changes to the transportation system would have implementation costs and long-term 

maintenance requirements. Route signing and transportation atlas updates would cost $500 per 

mile for adding the unauthorized routes to the system, totaling approximately $24,000. Other 

proposed changes would have a cost of $25 per mile to account for transportation atlas updates 

totaling $26,025. The total approximated one-time implementation cost, separate from annual onthe-ground maintenance costs, is $50,025. 

Road density in terms of miles of open motorized routes per square mile increases by 0.3 and 

road density for all routes decreases by 0.02 from alternative A. This indicates that motorized 

route mileage on the forests, given the proposed opening and closing of different routes is nearly 

equal to existing conditions and would be consistent with forest plan direction.

Alternative E

There would be a net decrease in total miles of open roads by 13 percent. Compared to the 

baseline (alternative A), costs for annual maintenance of roads under alternative E decreases by 

$223,358 (-4.7 percent). This would allow funding to be used toward the deferred maintenance 

backlog. Annual maintenance costs of the motorized trail system would increase by $22,500. The 

proposed addition of unauthorized routes to the system as either ML2 roads or motorized trails 

would increase public safety since these routes would be maintained. The net decrease in miles of 

open roads could pose a safety concern due to an increase in traffic on ML2 roads, but it is 

unknown to what extent.

Changes to the transportation system would have implementation costs and long-term 

maintenance requirements. Route signing and transportation atlas updates would cost $500 per 

mile for adding the unauthorized routes to the system, totaling approximately $42,500. Other 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 43

proposed changes would have a cost of $25 per mile to account for transportation atlas updates 

totaling $16,800. The total approximated one-time implementation cost, separate from annual onthe-ground maintenance costs, is $59,300. 

Road density in terms of miles of open motorized routes per square mile decreases by 0.07 and 

road density for all routes decreases by 0.03 from alternative A. This indicates that motorized 

route mileage on the forests, given the proposed opening and closing of different routes would 

reduce the overall road density and would be consistent with forest plan direction.

Table 6. Annual road maintenance costs by maintenance level by alternative

Alt.

ML 1

$86/mi

(Miles)

ML 2

$223/mi

(Miles)

ML 3

$4,911/mi

(Miles)

ML 4

$4,501/mi

(Miles)

ML 5

$10,587/mi

(Miles)

Total Annual 

Maintenance 

Costs

A 3,373 2,067 628 88 49 $4,749,978

B 3,529 1,941 575 107 51 $4,581,706

C 3,344 2,094 628 88 49 $4,753,505

D 3,473 1,996 576 107 51 $4,594,066

E 3,731 1,744 590 89 49 $4,526,620

Table 7. Annual motorized trail 

maintenance costs by alternative

Alt. Total 

Miles

Total Annual 

Maintenance Costs

A 156 $70,200

B 268 $120,600

C 156 $70,200

D 302 $135,900

E 206 $92,700

Cumulative Effects on the Transportation System

The cumulative effects analysis considers past, present, and foreseeable future actions that could 

contribute to the direct and indirect effects. The existing condition described above reflects the 

past activities that resulted in the road and motorized trail systems that exist today. Present and 

future projects as listed in appendix E, cumulatively would have little effect on the forestwide 

transportation system. The following present and future actions when combined with the 

designated road system under the action alternatives would cumulatively reduce the annual 

maintenance costs allowing more funding to be used toward the deferred maintenance backlog. 

These actions would also cumulatively result in improved public safety in addition to the action 

alternatives due to maintenance operations performed on the route systems. 

● Alpine Ranger District Blue River Gravel Pits Development and Pueblo Park Mineral 

Materials Pit Development would provide a nearby materials source for road 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

maintenance, reducing the cost of maintaining roads due to a shorter distance to reach 

materials. 

● Additional road easements would put the burden of road maintenance on the easement 

holder and reduce costs to the forests. 

● Legacy funded road projects may reduce sediment delivery to adjacent watersheds.

● American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) awarded road projects consisted of 

resurfacing aggregate ML 3–5 roads in 2010. Around 28 miles of roads were improved 

(eliminating the deferred maintenance on these roads) and 0.5 mile of unauthorized 

routes were obliterated. 

Recreation

This section describes the existing recreation opportunities on the forests. The effects of each 

alternative on the motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities are included. “Issue 1: 

Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed Camping,” “Issue 2: Restricting Motorized Big Game 

Retrieval,” and “Issue 3: Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use” are addressed in this 

analysis. The criteria used for comparing the existing condition to the alternatives are based on 

the change in motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

Comments from the public related to recreation centered largely on how forest visitors would be 

affected by a change in the existing road and motorized trail system, as well as changes to 

motorized cross-country travel. Other concerns included impacts to recreational experiences, both 

motorized and non-motorized, access within the forests, and potential for mixed user conflicts. 

Affected Environment

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM)

Information regarding recreation visitor use and desired experiences were collected from a variety 

of Federal, State, and local sources. The primary source for estimates of visitor uses and 

preferences is the NVUM survey, which was conducted from October 2000 to September 2001 

(Kocis et al. 2002). The Forest Service initiated the NVUM project in 1998 as a response to the 

need to better understand the use, importance of, and satisfaction with NFS recreation 

opportunities. The following discussion summarizes data from the NVUM to provide quantified 

information on forest recreation. 

The forests received 1.9 million visits to recreation facilities (Kocis et al. 2002). The majority of 

visitors were above 30 years old, although children under the age of 16 made up the largest age 

group. Most visitors originate from locations outside communities located near the forests, partly 

due to the proximity of Phoenix (1.5- to 4-hour drive). According to the Census Bureau, the 

Phoenix population was around 6.5 million in 2007, up 26 percent from 2000 (ADOC 2006).

More than 50 percent of visitors stayed overnight on the forests. As shown in table 8, the top five 

recreation activities were relaxing, viewing natural features, viewing wildlife, hiking/walking, 

and driving for pleasure. Driving for pleasure reflects some of the greatest participation at 53 

percent, when compared to other activities. Approximately 11 percent of visitors used OHVs, but 

only 4 percent identified OHV use as their primary recreational activity. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 45

Table 8. NVUM survey summarized to show percent participation in activities and primary 

activities of recreation visitors to the forests

Activity

Percent Participation

(more than one activity 

could be checked)

Percent Who 

Indicated as 

Primary Activity

Camping in developed sites 35.7 7.2

Primitive camping 19.4 3.3

Backpacking and camping in unroaded areas 4.0 0.1

Resorts and cabins on NFS lands 13.7 0.0

Picnicking and day gatherings in developed sites 47.8 1.5

Viewing wildlife on NFS lands 73.5 1.0

Viewing natural features (scenery) on NFS lands 79.3 3.5

Visiting historic and prehistoric sites 11.0 0.1

Visiting nature center or visitor information services 18.3 0.5

Nature study 4.8 0.0

General – relaxing, escaping noise and heat 84.2 41.3

Fishing – all types 50.5 19.6

Hunting – all types 3.0 1.3

Off-highway vehicle travel 11.3 4.0

Driving for pleasure on roads 53.3 3.2

Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds) 6.8 0.2

Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other) 1.1 0.0

Hiking or walking 62.2 8.7

Horseback riding 3.4 0.4

Bicycling, including mountain bikes 11.5 0.3

Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft) 6.4 0.0

Other non-motorized activities (swimming, sports) 6.9 0.9

Recreation Opportunities

The forests provide a diversity of recreation opportunities throughout five ranger districts (Black 

Mesa, Lakeside, Springerville, Alpine and Clifton). The prominent Mogollon Rim is a 

distinguishing feature of the forests, defining a clear boundary between the deserts and the 

Colorado Plateau. The recreation settings range from primitive to highly developed, including 

campgrounds, picnic areas, boating and fishing sites, trailheads, two visitor centers, scenic 

overlooks, wilderness, and primitive areas. There are 45 developed campgrounds with more than 

1,200 campsites ranging from car and tent camping to RV sites. 

The forests host a wide range of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities year 

round. Motorized recreation involves the use of highway legal vehicles, all-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs), snowmobiles, and highly customized and specialized machines able to travel extreme 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

terrain. Non-motorized recreational activities include hiking, camping, mountain bike riding, 

horseback riding, wildlife viewing, picnicking, rock climbing, hunting, fishing, recreational 

shooting, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, snow camping, and snow play. 

The forests have implemented more management along the Mogollon Rim to support facilities 

and development of ATV staging areas and trailheads. In addition to dispersed OHV use within 

the forests, sanctioned motorized events have gained in popularity over the past 25 years. For 

example, the Arizona ATV Outlaw Trail Jamboree has held a 5-day ATV event on the forests 

since 2003. In 2008 there were 312 participants who traveled over 50,000 cumulative miles of 

designated roads and motorized trails. Whiplash Motorsports has annually held an off-road racing 

event for over 30 years with a participation rate of up to 700 individuals and approximately 2,000 

spectators. This event occurs on 26 miles of motorized routes within a 1,600-acre area. 

Recreation Settings by Ranger District

● Black Mesa Ranger District: This is the westernmost geographical zone. This area 

contains Rim Lakes Recreation Area, Black Canyon Lake, Chevelon Canyon, and 

hundreds of thousands of acres of gently rolling terrain. The majority of trails are located 

in and around the Rim Lakes Recreation Area and along State Highway 260.

● Lakeside Ranger District: Located near the communities of Show Low, 

Lakeside/Pinetop, McNary, and Pinedale. The terrain ranges from juniper flats and ridges 

on the north end, to rugged canyon bottoms, meadows, small streams, and occasional 

clearings on the east end. 

● Springerville Ranger District: Located near the communities of Springerville, Eager, 

and Greer. This area contains Big Lake Recreation Area and Mt. Baldy Wilderness. 

● Alpine Ranger District: Contains a portion of the Blue Range Primitive Area and the 

East and West Forks of the Black River. 

● Clifton Ranger District: The southernmost geographic area of the forests located near 

the communities of Clifton, Morenci, and Safford. The Coronado Trail Scenic Byway 

bisects this district as does a portion of the Blue Range Primitive Area.

Roads and Motorized Trails

The forests’ road system was not designed for the primary purpose of meeting today’s 

recreational needs; rather it began as access for timber removal and mining. Access to 

communities and to roads that lead into the forests begins with highly developed interstate and 

state highways. Many county roads have been in existence since the area was first settled, and 

some lead directly into the forest. Roads on the forests fall under several jurisdictions, but the vast 

majority are under Forest Service jurisdiction.

The ability of the public to move around within the forests using motor vehicles is integral to the 

many recreation activities available. Visitors are not only using vehicles to get from one point to 

another, they are operating vehicles in a rural setting as part of the recreational experience. Some 

visitors prefer motorized access for scenic driving to access vistas, lakes and streams, cultural 

sites, developed and dispersed recreation sites, camping areas, interpretive exhibits, and 

overlooks. Natural appearing settings, motorized access, and high quality scenery are important 

characteristics for this user group. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 47

The number of OHVs used in Arizona has risen dramatically. Almost 500,000 households within 

the State have one or more OHVs. Furthermore, as many as 30,000 new ATVs and motorcycles 

are purchased annually (USDA FS 2007a; Arizona State Parks 2009a). Motorized recreationists 

include those who prefer non-paved surfaces from maintained and graded dirt roads to 

unmaintained rocky routes that present a challenge. A preference is shown for remote natural 

appearing landscapes with unmaintained routes that have little evidence of human sights, sounds,

and disturbances. 

Motorized users desire increased opportunities, which provide for quality and diverse recreation 

experiences including, but not limited to, hunting and fishing access, access to scenic overlooks, 

and connecting existing motorized systems to create loop opportunities. There is a desire from the 

public for creation of more motorized areas and trails on the forests to provide more recreation 

opportunities including connecting loop trails. 

Currently, there are 2,067 miles of maintenance level 2 roads open to all motorized vehicles, 

including OHVs. There are 765 miles of ML 3-5 roads open to highway legal vehicles. There are 

also 156 miles of trails open to motorized vehicles that are 50 inches or less in width. 

Cross-country Motorized Travel

Currently, the forests have approximately 383,000 acres restricted either seasonally or year-round 

to non-motorized use only. Conversely, more than 1,624,055 acres do not presently have 

motorized restrictions in place. This equates to approximately 80 percent of the forests being 

currently open for motorized cross-country use.

There are numerous unauthorized (user-created) routes on the forests. These routes are not 

considered permanent or temporary forest roads or trails, since they are not included in the forests 

transportation atlas or as part of the authorized transportation system. Some unauthorized routes 

are old timber, range, and mining roads that no longer serve their intended purpose, but continue 

to be used for motorized access. Most unauthorized routes are the result of repeated use by crosscountry drivers. Many of these are 2-track, 8 feet wide or less, and are relatively short (less than 

1⁄4-mile long). Others have been established by people who drive off system routes for firewood

gathering, dispersed camping, or the experience of off-road driving, or to retrieve big game 

animals. 

Unauthorized routes are not designed or constructed to standards for safety and avoidance of 

resource degradation and often result in measureable impacts to resources including soil, 

watershed, vegetation, wildlife, and primitive values. Some efforts have been made to close these 

routes, especially where excessive resource damage is occurring. Closed routes, however, 

continue to be accessed with motor vehicles despite efforts to close these roads. 

Motorized Dispersed Camping

The forests have the greatest number of overnights stays over any other forest in the Nation 

(USDA FS 2007b). Over half of all forests’ visitors spend the night, and approximately 20 percent 

choose to primitive camp within dispersed areas. While camping is often not the primary reason 

for visiting the forests, it is often associated with other activities. Currently, motorized dispersed 

campsites are accessed by a variety of means including roads, trails, and unauthorized routes. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

There are currently around 1,611 sites that have been identified as being used for motorized 

dispersed camping along the existing route system and along some unauthorized routes. The 

dispersed campsites that are located in close proximity to riparian areas and water tend to see 

higher levels of use than sites in other areas. Some existing resource impacts that are a result of 

dispersed camping are crushed vegetation, clearing of vegetation in some areas, campfire rings, 

and sanitation issues. 

Dispersed camping is allowed on designated motorized routes on the forests, although Arizona 

State law mandates that dispersed camping sites must be at least a quarter mile from watering 

holes and water sources (ARS Title 17). Under the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.51(b)),

“In designating routes, the responsible official may include...the limited motorized use of vehicles 

within a specified distance of certain forest roads or trails where motor vehicle use is allowed... 

solely for the purposes of dispersed camping.” 

Hunting and Motorized Big Game Retrieval

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) is responsible for management of game 

populations within Arizona. Nationally, recent surveys indicate a downward trend in participation 

by hunters. From 2001 to 2006 the number of hunters dropped by 4 percent (USFWS 2007a). 

While it is unknown how those trends relate directly to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

the forests are believed to be experiencing changes consistent with national trends. 

The motor vehicle supported hunter travels to and from a hunting area by some type of vehicle to 

retrieve harvested big game animals using their motorized vehicle. AGFD asserts that MBGR is 

used as a tool to increase hunter success; thereby aiding the AGFD to meet its harvest objectives, 

reduce meat spoilage, reduce injuries to hunters, and address habitat impacts due to elk grazing 

(AGFD 2009). During the past 15 to 20 years, the forests have seen an increase in OHV use 

during hunting season. 

Big game hunting is concentrated during the fall season from September through December. Big 

game species hunted within this region include: collared peccary, pronghorn antelope, bighorn 

sheep, black bear, Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, mountain lion, and white-tail deer. The forests 

lie within the AGFD Region 1 hunting unit, which is further divided into 10 individual game 

management units (GMUs). Of these 10 units, 9 are within the forests’ boundaries.

Table 9 shows the average number of elk and deer permits issued on the forests for 2008 (AGFD 

2009). This table also includes the harvest numbers, the average number of off-road retrievals,

and the number of motorized retrievals. 

Table 9. Average number of permits issued in 2008 for elk and deer, average number of 

off-road and motorized retrievals, and harvest numbers

Unit* Average No. of

permits

Harvest 

Numbers**

Average No. Off-road 

Retrievals

Percent of Permits Using 

Motor Vehicles (average)

3A, 3C 1,835 715 515 28%

3B 751 58 111 15%

4A 1,303 316 225 17%

4B 977 225 117 12%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 49

Unit* Average No. of

permits

Harvest 

Numbers**

Average No. Off-road 

Retrievals

Percent of Permits Using 

Motor Vehicles (average)

1 1,535 705 483 31%

27 2,655 730 305 11%

Total 9,056 2,749 1,756 19%

* Unit 28 is a small area on the forests, so was not included here, however, there were 24 harvested elk and deer in 

2008 in this GMU. 

**harvest numbers include elk, mule deer, and bear. 

Conflict Between Motorized and Non-motorized Users

Unmanaged recreation has been identified as one of four major threats facing the National Forest 

System (USDA FS 2007a). As growth in visitor use occurs on the forests, personal expectations 

specific to the quality of experience increases conflicts among user groups. Some visitors who 

utilize the forests for recreation (including motorized recreation) have become unsettled when 

their experience failed to meet expectations. 

Though motorized and non-motorized users seek the same setting in which to recreate, their 

values differ enough to cause conflict. Both groups enjoy scenic trails, solitude, places close to 

water, varied terrain, and large areas in which to travel. Non-motorized recreationists enjoy 

slower trips and expect the forest to be quiet, while motorized groups want more speed. 

Noise is one of the biggest sources of conflicts between these two groups. ATV engine noise is a 

major source of conflict to non-motorized recreationists, many of whom seek solace from modern 

technology or access the public lands to view wildlife. The increase in OHV use during hunting 

season has resulted in conflicts between hunters with differing philosophies (e.g. motorized vs. 

non-motorized access and game retrieval). There is also conflict at transition areas where 

motorized and non-motorized use occurs, with increased potential for motorized users to cross the 

boundaries. Encroachment associated with motorized cross-country travel onto adjacent private 

lands has also occurred. 

Noise from Motorized Use

Noise is defined as unwanted sound and the pitch or loudness could cause a sound to be 

objectionable. The sources of noise are predominately from motorized vehicles and recreationists 

at developed recreation facilities, dispersed camping sites, and from motorized cross-country 

travel. In quiet environments, virtually any change in local activities will cause an increase in 

noise levels and a loss of “peace and quiet.” Such increases may be considered annoying to 

recreationists, even if the increase is small. 

Areas with the highest noise levels most often contain numerous roads and trails with high OHV

use. Currently, there are 1.6 million acres of the forests open to motorized cross-country travel. 

Motorized use and associated noise is not uniformly occurring across this entire area. There are 

currently 2,832 miles of roads and 156 miles of motorized trails, on which motor vehicles would 

produce noise. 

Noise levels vary considerably within the analysis area, but much of the forests remain relatively 

quiet with little human-caused noise. Those seeking areas with a low level of noise can find it in 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

areas such as Escudilla Wilderness or the Blue Range Primitive Area, where motorized use is not 

allowed. Those who are not concerned with higher levels of noise can utilize other areas where 

motorized recreation is acceptable or even encouraged. There are numerous areas that provide a 

range of noise levels between these extremes.

Non-motorized Recreation

Non-motorized visitors to the forests include hikers, fisherman, backpackers, equestrians, wildlife 

viewers, mountain bikers, snowshoers, cross-country skiers, and photographers. Non-motorized 

visitors prefer natural appearing environments with little evidence of disturbance or noise, and 

few restrictions or visitor controls. Approximately 58 percent of Arizonans use non-motorized 

trails as their core activity for the majority of their recreational trail time (Arizona State Parks, 

2009a).

Currently, there are 3,373 miles of roads closed to motor vehicle use and 1,142 miles of trails 

closed to motor vehicle use, that are available for non-motorized recreation such as hiking, 

horseback riding, and mountain biking. There are areas on the forests that provide visitors with 

primitive recreation settings. These include wilderness areas, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), 

wild and scenic river corridors, the Blue Range Primitive Area, and areas with primitive and 

semiprimitive nonmotorized settings. Currently, there are roads within some of these areas. There 

are 50 miles of roads within IRAs and the Blue Range Primitive Area, 77 miles within wild and 

scenic river corridors, and 421 miles in primitive and semiprimitive nonmotorized settings. 

Environmental Consequences

This section includes the direct and indirect effects by alternative and concludes with the 

cumulative effects. See the recreation specialist report for more detailed descriptions by 

alternative. The following assumptions were used in analysis of the effects on recreation:

● Population growth in communities near the forests and surrounding areas will continue to 

increase resulting in increased demand for areas to recreate. 

● Since user preferences are so diverse, it is assumed that not all user preferences can be 

accommodated on every acre of land on the forests. 

● Management of non-motorized activities will not change (bird watching, horseback 

riding, backpacking, bicycling, fishing, hiking, etc.). 

● At transition areas, where motorized and non-motorized use occurs, the potential exists 

for motorized users to either intentionally or inadvertently cross boundaries.

Table 10. Comparison of MBGR, dispersed camping sites, and primitive settings by 

alternative 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Acres MBGR within Each GMU on the Forests

Unit 1 349,666 338,972 330,481 200,634 0

Unit 3A 17,581 17,581 17,575 8,821 0

Unit 3B 83,977 80,979 81,485 45,440 0

Unit 3C 270,504 268,256 268,854 151,940 0
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 51

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Unit 4A 16,016 156,005 161,990 82,626 0

Unit 4B 171,881 168,270 161,467 86,970 0

Unit 5A 55 19 20 3 0

Unit 27 548,406 247,000 237,516 134,590 0

Unit 28 15,805 314 314 205 0

Total 1,624,055 1,277,534 1,259,829 711,305 0

Percent Change 0% -21% -22% -44% -100%

Number of Identified Dispersed Campsites

Total known campsites 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611

Campsites within corridors n/a 598 0 1,335 0

Campsites accessible via 

roads/trails 1,611 869 1,112 11 1,334

Campsites NOT accessible 

by road/trails or corridors 0 144 499 265 277

Percent Change 0% -9% -31% -16% -17%

Miles of Roads and Trails in Non-motorized Settings

Primitive setting 14 3 1 3 2

Semiprimitive nonmotorized 

setting 407 27 1 35 16

Alternative A

Motorized cross-country travel, dispersed camping, and MBGR would continue on approximately 

1.6 million acres (table 10). It would be expected that with increasing populations, cross-country 

travel would increase causing negative effects such as resource damage, increased mixed user 

conflicts, associated noise levels, creation of user-created roads with concerns of resource damage 

and public safety, and creation of additional dispersed camping locations, most likely near 

riparian areas. Use of the existing road (2,832 miles) and motorized trail (156 miles) system 

would continue for motorized recreation. The need for more motorized trails with connecting 

loops would not be met under this alternative. Dispersed camping would still be allowed and 

access would be provided to 1,611 known dispersed camping locations (table 10). 

Indirect effects to visitors seeking non-motorized opportunities would be high, since crosscountry motorized use would continue at present levels. These effects would include an increase 

in conflict with motorized users for recreation, hunting, and noise, in transition areas between 

motorized and non-motorized uses, and along private lands. There would also be increased noise 

in semiprimitive nonmotorized and primitive settings.

Alternative B

This alternative would designate 53 miles of unauthorized roads open to motor vehicles and 

would open 358 miles of closed roads. There would be 493 miles of roads closed to motor vehicle 

use and 77 miles would be converted to administrative and permitted use only. The resulting 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

designated road system would be 2,673 miles, which is a 5.6 percent reduction from the current 

road system. There would be an additional 112 miles (increase of additional 72 percent) of 

motorized trails designated, which would provide additional opportunities and loop opportunities 

for motor vehicles less than 50 inches in width. Together, this road and motorized trail system 

would continue to provide motorized recreation opportunities across the forests. 

This alternative would eliminate motorized cross-country travel on the forests. There would be 

five motorized use areas (459 acres) designated, however, the amount of area available for 

motorized off-road travel would be extensively decreased from 1.6 million acres. It is expected 

that this elimination of cross-country motor vehicle use would have beneficial impacts on 

resources such as soils, water, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. This could 

provide negative impacts to motor vehicle users who enjoy traveling off the designated system of 

roads and trails nearly forestwide under current conditions. 

Off-road motorized travel would be allowed on 658 miles within 300 feet from either side of the 

road for general access and motorized dispersed camping (around 48,000 acres). There would be 

1,467 known dispersed camping locations within the corridors, still accessible with motor 

vehicles (table 10). There is expected to be some areas with concentrated use of dispersed 

camping within these corridors resulting in some resource impacts to riparian areas and streams, 

vegetation, and possibly scenery. 

MBGR would be allowed within a 1-mile distance from the road and motorized trail system. This 

results in around 1.2 million acres where MBGR would be allowed, with some restrictions such 

as hunting seasons, certain species, and legally taken animals. Effects on MBGR are not expected 

to be much different from current conditions under this alternative since MBGR is still allowed 

on around 80 percent of the area currently open. Differences in acres by GMU can be found in 

table 10. On routes that are used repeatedly, there could be some resource damage from motor 

vehicle use. There could also be potential for user conflicts between hunters using motor vehicles 

to retrieve game and those who do not. 

There would be an increase in areas available for non-motorized travel, resulting in less mixed 

user conflicts. There would be a reduction of roads in primitive and semiprimitive nonmotorized 

settings of 93 percent (table 10). This would result in less noise from off-road motor vehicle 

travel, and non-motorized users would find increased opportunities for natural appearing 

environments and low levels of human contact. Under this alternative, non-motorized users would 

continue to share the majority of the roads and trails with motorized users; however, the 

elimination of cross-country motorized travel would produce beneficial impacts to non-motorized 

recreation. There would be additional roads designated in wild and scenic river corridors as well 

as roads closed (table 12) and a 14 percent reduction in roads within IRAs. User conflicts related 

to noise, traffic, dust, etc., would be abated to a certain extent; although, incompatible recreation 

conflicts would continue in popular areas located in close proximity to motorized routes.

Alternative C

This alternative would designate 28 miles of unauthorized roads open to motor vehicles. The 

resulting designated road system would be 2,860 miles, which is a 1 percent increase from the 

current road system. There would be no additional miles of motorized trails designated, which 

would not provide any additional opportunities or loop opportunities for motor vehicles less than 

50 inches in width. This road and motorized trail system would continue to provide motorized 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 53

recreation opportunities across the forests and would be most similar to existing conditions when 

compared to the other action alternatives. 

This alternative would eliminate motorized cross-country travel on the forests. There would not 

be any motorized use areas designated, and the amount of area available for motorized crosscountry travel would be reduced by 100 percent from 1.6 million acres. It is expected that this 

elimination of cross-country motor vehicle use would have beneficial impacts on resources such 

as soils, water, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. This would provide negative 

impacts to motor vehicle users who enjoy traveling off the designated system of roads and trails 

nearly forestwide under current conditions. 

Off-road motorized travel would be allowed on 28 miles for general access and motorized 

dispersed camping (around 2,000 acres). There would not be any corridors assigned to these roads 

since they provide direct access to around 1,112 dispersed camping locations (table 10). There is 

expected to be some areas with concentrated use of dispersed camping along these roads resulting 

in some resource impacts to riparian areas and streams, vegetation, and possibly scenery. 

MBGR would be allowed within a 1-mile distance from the road and motorized trail system. This 

results in around 1.2 million acres where MBGR would be allowed, with some restrictions such 

as hunting seasons, certain species, and legally taken animals. Effects on MBGR are not expected 

to be much different from current conditions under this alternative since MBGR is still allowed 

on around 80 percent of the area currently open. Differences in acres by GMU can be found in 

table 10. On routes that are used repeatedly, there could be some resource damage from motor 

vehicle use. There could also be potential for user conflicts between hunters using motor vehicles 

to retrieve game and those who do not. 

There would be an increase in areas available for non-motorized travel, resulting in less mixed 

user conflicts. There would be a reduction of roads in primitive and semiprimitive nonmotorized 

settings of almost 100 percent (table 10). This would result in less noise from off-road motor 

vehicle travel, and non-motorized users would find increased opportunities for natural appearing 

environments and low levels of human contact. Under this alternative, non-motorized users would 

continue to share the majority of the roads and trails with motorized users; however, the 

elimination of cross-country motorized travel would produce beneficial impacts to non-motorized 

recreation. There would be an additional 0.8 mile of roads designated in wild and scenic river 

corridors (table 12) and there would be no change in roads within IRAs. User conflicts related to 

noise, traffic, dust, etc., would be abated to a certain extent; although, incompatible recreation 

conflicts would continue in popular areas located in close proximity to motorized routes.

Alternative D

This alternative would designate 37 miles of unauthorized roads open to motor vehicles and 

would open 415 miles of closed roads. There would be 479 miles of roads closed to motor vehicle 

use and 75 miles would be converted to administrative and permitted use only. The resulting 

designated road system would be 2,730 miles, which is a 3.6 percent reduction from the current 

road system. There would be an additional 146 miles (increase of additional 93 percent) of 

motorized trails designated, which would provide additional opportunities and loop opportunities 

for motor vehicles less than 50 inches in width. Together, the changes to the road and motorized 

trail system would be similar to changes proposed in alternative B and would continue to provide 

motorized recreation opportunities across the forests. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

This alternative would eliminate motorized cross-country travel on the forests. There would be 

five motorized use areas (459 acres) designated, however, the amount of area available for 

motorized off-road travel would be extensively decreased from 1.6 million acres. It is expected 

that this elimination of cross-country motor vehicle use would have beneficial impacts on 

resources such as soils, water, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. This could 

provide negative impacts to motor vehicle users who enjoy traveling off the designated system of 

roads and trails nearly forestwide under current conditions. 

Off-road motorized travel would be allowed on 2,034 miles within 300 feet from either side of 

the road for general access and motorized dispersed camping providing the greatest amount of 

acres compared to all other action alternatives (around 148,000 acres). There would be 1,346 

known dispersed camping locations within the corridors, still accessible with motor vehicles 

(table 10). There is expected to be some areas with concentrated use of dispersed camping within 

these corridors resulting in some resource impacts to riparian areas and streams, vegetation, and 

possibly scenery. 

MBGR would be allowed within a one-quarter mile distance from the road and motorized trail 

system. This results in around 700,000 acres where MBGR would be allowed, with some 

restrictions such as hunting seasons, certain species, and legally taken animals. Effects on MBGR 

would be a reduction in areas available to MBGR from the existing condition. MBGR would be 

allowed on around 44 percent of the area currently open. Differences in acres by GMU can be 

found in table 10. On routes that are used repeatedly, there could be some resource damage from 

motor vehicle use. There could also be potential for user conflicts between hunters using motor 

vehicles to retrieve game and those who do not. 

There would be an increase in areas available for non-motorized travel, resulting in less mixed 

user conflicts. There would be a reduction of roads in primitive and semiprimitive nonmotorized 

settings of 91 percent (table 10). This would result in less noise from off-road motor vehicle 

travel and non-motorized users would find increased opportunities for natural appearing 

environments and low levels of human contact. Under this alternative, non-motorized users would 

continue to share the majority of the roads and trails with motorized users; however, the 

elimination of cross-country motorized travel would produce beneficial impacts to non-motorized 

recreation. Similar to alternative B, there would be additional roads designated in wild and scenic 

river corridors as well as roads closed (table 12) and a 14 percent reduction in roads within IRAs. 

User conflicts related to noise, traffic, dust, etc., would be abated to a certain extent; although, 

incompatible recreation conflicts would continue in popular areas located in close proximity to 

motorized routes.

Alternative E

This alternative would designate 64 miles of unauthorized roads open to motor vehicles and 

would open 220 miles of closed roads. There would be 559 miles of roads closed to motor vehicle 

use and 84 miles would be converted to administrative and permitted use only. The resulting 

designated road system would be 2,473 miles, which is a 12.7 percent reduction from the current 

road system. There would be an additional 49 miles (increase of additional 31 percent) of 

motorized trails designated, which would provide additional opportunities and loop opportunities 

for motor vehicles less than 50 inches in width. Together, this designated system would have 

fewer roads and motorized trails than alternative B or D, but would continue to provide motorized 

recreation opportunities across the forests. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 55

This alternative would eliminate motorized cross-country travel on the forests. There would not 

be any motorized use areas designated, and the amount of area available for motorized crosscountry travel would be reduced by 100 percent from 1.6 million acres. It is expected that this 

elimination of cross-country motor vehicle use would have beneficial impacts on resources such 

as soils, water, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. This would provide negative 

impacts to motor vehicle users who enjoy traveling off the designated system of roads and trails 

nearly forestwide under current conditions. 

Off-road motorized travel would be allowed on 118 miles within 300 feet from either side of the 

road for general access and motorized dispersed camping (around 8,500 acres). There would be 

1,334 known dispersed camping locations within the corridors still accessible with motor vehicles 

(table 10). There is expected to be some areas with concentrated use of dispersed camping within 

these corridors resulting in some resource impacts to riparian areas and streams, vegetation, and 

possibly scenery. 

No MBGR would be allowed which would result in a 100 percent reduction from alternative A 

(table 10). By not allowing MBGR on the forests, AGFD could have issues meeting its harvest 

objectives, meat could be spoiled, hunters could be injured by not being assisted with motor 

vehicles to retrieve game, and impacts to vegetation from elk grazing could increase. There would 

still be access into the forests on the designated road and motorized trail system, which could be 

used for game retrieval only on the designated routes, and hunters would not be precluded from 

using non-motorized means of retrieving a downed animal. 

There would be an increase in areas available for non-motorized travel, which would be the 

greatest of all alternatives, resulting in less mixed user conflicts. There would be a reduction of 

roads in primitive and semiprimitive nonmotorized settings of 96 percent (table 10). This would 

result in less noise from off-road motor vehicle travel, and non-motorized users would find the 

greatest number of opportunities when compared with other alternatives for natural appearing 

environments and low levels of human contact. 

Under this alternative, non-motorized users would continue to share the majority of the roads and 

trails with motorized users; however, the elimination of cross-country motorized travel would 

produce beneficial impacts to non-motorized recreation. There would be additional roads 

designated in wild and scenic river corridors as well as 17 miles of roads closed, which is more 

than the other action alternatives (table 12) and there would be a 34 percent reduction in roads 

within IRAs compared to alternative A. User conflicts related to noise, traffic, dust, etc., would be 

abated to a certain extent; although, incompatible recreation conflicts would continue in popular 

areas located in close proximity to motorized routes.

Cumulative Effects on Recreation

A cumulative effect is an effect on the environment that results from the incremental effect a 

proposed action has when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. See appendix E for a table of past, present, and planned future projects on the 

forests. Some specific projects from appendix E that may cumulatively impact the recreation 

resource on the forests, in addition to the designated road and motorized trail systems proposed,

are described here. There are trail construction, reconstruction, and maintenance projects planned, 

which would further enhance the trail system. One of the trails planned for maintenance and 

reconstruction is the OHV Heber-Overgaard Trail North on the Black Mesa Ranger District. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

56 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

There are some land exchanges planned, which could provide additional recreation opportunities. 

Ongoing road maintenance activities would provide improvements to the road system for the 

public. 

Law Enforcement

Currently, there is access to law enforcement officers and special agents from local cities, the 

State of Arizona, Forest Service, and forest protection officers and officers from the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. These individuals all have the ability to enforce regulations related to 

use of motor vehicles on the forests. Under alternative A, the current access to law enforcement 

would continue or be increased when possible. With the “open unless posted closed” policy, it is 

difficult to know if a road is an open system route or an unauthorized route. It has become 

difficult to keep up with posting closed road signs or constructing closure devices as they are 

removed almost as quickly as they are installed. 

By implementing the Travel Management Rule, it would be illegal for motor vehicle drivers to 

leave the designated system of roads, trails, and corridors/areas. The motor vehicle use map 

(MVUM) would be the primary tool for determining if a person is operating a motor vehicle in an 

authorized location or not. It would be important that the MVUM be very clear and easy to read 

since it is assumed that the easier it is to follow the map, the more likely people are to comply 

with it. There would be a period of time of educating forest visitors on the new rule. Under the 

action alternatives, there would be no change in access to law enforcement, so no direct, indirect, 

or cumulative effects would occur. By having the MVUM as a single source to identify where 

people are allowed to drive, it would ease enforcement and improve compliance. 

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542) was established by Congress in 1968 to 

preserve free-flowing rivers that possess certain “outstandingly remarkable” values. Pursuant to 

Section 5(d)(1) of the act, the Secretary of Agriculture requires the Forest Service to evaluate 

rivers within its jurisdiction for their potential for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. Evaluation of a river’s potential as a wild and scenic river consists of the 

following 3-step process: (1) determination of eligibility (inventory); (2) potential classification 

as wild, scenic, or recreational (inventory); and (3) determination of suitability (decision). Step 3 

is a decision by the Forest Service to recommend to Congress the stream or segment for 

designation as a wild and scenic river. The forests conducted an updated eligibility evaluation in 

2009 for all ranger districts and produced the “Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic 

River System” (USDA FS 2009b). There are no designated wild and scenic rivers on the forests, 

but there are rivers eligible for designation and those are shown in table 11. 

Table 11. Eligible wild and scenic river segments on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

River Name Length 

(miles)3

Outstandingly Remarkable Values1

Class2

A B C D E F G H

Alpine Ranger District

Bear Wallow Creek 3.7 x x x W

0.9 x x x R
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 57

River Name Length 

(miles)3

Outstandingly Remarkable Values1

Class2

A B C D E F G H

Black River 0.5 x x x x x S

11.0 x x x x x W

7.3 x x x x x W

Blue River 24.7 x x x x x x x R

5.7 x x x x x x x W

Campbell Blue Creek 6.5 x x x x x R

4.1 x x x x x W

1.1 x x x x x R

East Fork Black River 8.2 x x x x x R

1.2 x x x x x S

3.3 x x x x x W

Fish Creek 9.9 x x x S

0.6 x x x R

K P Creek 11.3 x W

Little Blue Creek 1.1 x x W

North Fork East Fork Black River 3.1 x x x W

West Fork Black River 0.4 x x x x x x W

Black Mesa Ranger District

Chevelon Creek 5.3 x x x x x S

12.8 x x x x x W

10.7 x x x x x W

2.4 x x x x x R

East Clear Creek 20.8 x x S

Leonard Canyon 23.3 x R

0.2 x R

Willow Creek 18.9 x x x x W

Woods Canyon 4.9 x x x W

Clifton Ranger District

Blue River 4.2 x x x x x x x S

8.1 x x x x x x x W

10.3 x x x x x x x W

Coal Creek 5.4 x x x x W

3.8 x x x x R

0.6 x x x x S

4.2 x x x x W

0.8 x x x x R

Dix Creek 1.5 x x S

0.7 x x S

1.1 x x S

Eagle Creek 17.0 x x x R
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

58 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

River Name Length 

(miles)3

Outstandingly Remarkable Values1

Class2

A B C D E F G H

East Eagle Creek 7.5 x x W

3.5 x x S

3.5 x x R

Little Blue Creek 17.2 x x W

Pigeon Creek 4.8 x W

10.3 x R

San Francisco River 9.0 x x x x x W

15.0 x x x x x R

Sardine Creek 8.9 x W

Turkey Creek 8.2 x x x x W

1.0 x x x x W

Springerville Ranger District

East Fork Little Colorado River 9.3 x x x x x S

North Fork East Fork Black River 4.8 x x x W

1.0 x x x S

4.9 x x x W

South Fork Little Colorado River 1.4 x S

5.9 x S

West Fork Black River 8.3 x x x x x x W

3.0 x x x x x x S

West Fork Little Colorado River 1.7 x x x R

4.3 x x x W

2.1 x x x W

Adjacent Areas to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Blue River 0.4 x x x x x x x R

Campbell Blue Creek 0.4 x x x x x R

Chevelon Creek <1 x x x x x W

Coal Creek 3.1 x x x x R

Eagle Creek 2.5 x x x R

East Clear Creek 4.2 x x S

Leonard Canyon <1 x R

1

Outstandingly remarkable values: A-Scenic, B-Recreation, C-Geologic, D-Fish, E-Wildlife, F-Heritage/Historic, GHeritage/Prehistoric, H-Vegetation/Ecology

2

Classification: W-Wild River, S-Scenic River, R-Recreational River (see glossary for definitions) 

3

Full descriptions of stream segment locations can be found in the forests’ eligibility report (USDA FS 2009b).

Eligible wild and scenic rivers have temporary corridors established at a distance of one-quarter 

mile from the centerline of the stream. These corridors are adjusted when, and if, an eligible river 

is designated by Congress. Table 12 lists the roads and motorized trails within eligible wild and 

scenic river corridors. A list of the specific stream corridors which would have roads and 

motorized trails by alternative is available in the project record (GIS datasets). Under all 

alternatives, there would be no impact to the outstandingly remarkable values of eligible rivers as 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 59

displayed in table 11 and, therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on 

the wild and scenic river eligibility for any rivers and segments on the forests. 

Table 12. Roads and motorized trails within eligible wild and scenic river corridors by 

alternative

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Roads and motorized trails designated open (miles) 76.9 +7.9 +.8 +9.3 +4.4

Roads and motorized trails to be closed or for 

administrative use only (miles) 0 -4.7 0 -4.4 -17.2

Total Roads and Trails in WSR Corridors (miles) 76.9 80.1 77.7 81.8 64.1

Wilderness, Primitive, and Roadless Areas

The National Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 resulted in the 

designation of three wilderness areas on the forests: Mount Baldy, Escudilla, and Bear Wallow. 

Although it is not a designated wilderness, the Blue Range Primitive Area (BRPA) is managed as 

such under FSM 2320.3(11), which states “Manage primitive areas as wilderness areas consistent 

with 36 CFR 293.17 until their designation as wilderness or other use is determined by 

Congress.” Within the wilderness and primitive areas, no motorized or mechanized vehicles, 

including mountain bikes, are allowed; one may travel only on foot and horseback. Since motor 

vehicle use is prohibited in wilderness areas, alternatives A, B, C, D and E would have no direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects on the wilderness characteristics of the Mount Baldy, Escudilla, 

and Bear Wallow Wilderness areas. 

There are existing roads within the BRPA. There is 10.6 miles of County Road GR-67004 

currently within the BRPA that is not under Forest Service jurisdiction. This road is used to access 

many areas of private land along the Blue River. There is an additional 0.2 mile of Forest Service 

road also within the BRPA. This road segment (FS Road 281Z) is used to access private land and 

it would remain on the designated road system under all alternatives. There is also 1 mile of 

Forest Service Road 711 within the BRPA. This road is currently listed as a closed road, however, 

it is used to access a cabin and well system. It is proposed under the action alternatives to convert 

this road from a closed road to open for administrative and permitted use only to continue 

providing permitted access to the cabin and well. Although there are existing roads within the 

BRPA, all alternatives would have no effect on the area’s wilderness characteristics. 

There are 17 inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) within the forests. There are 275 miles of nonmotorized trails within IRAs on the forests, but there are no motorized trails within IRAs. The 

names and acreages of the IRAs are presented in table 13. IRAs are managed to maintain roadless 

area characteristics. There are currently 40 miles of roads within the IRAs. Alternatives B and D 

propose changes to the designated system resulting in 31 miles of roads within IRAs. Alternative 

C would not propose any changes to the roads in IRAs, while alternative E would result in a 

designated system of 23 miles of roads in IRAs. Under all alternatives, there would be no direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects to eligibility as potential wilderness or impacts to roadless area 

characteristics in any of the IRAs. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Table 13. Inventoried roadless areas on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests 

Roadless Area Acres Roadless Area Acres

Leonard Canyon 3,082 Bear Wallow 11,895

Chevelon Canyon 5,569 Salt House 21,848

Escudilla Mountain 6,101 Hot Air 31,703

Campbell Blue 7,003 Pipestem 34,751

Mother Hubbard 2,086 Lower San Francisco 59,124

Centerfire 13,113 Sunset 29,063

Nolan 6,652 Mitchell Peak 35,525

Black River Canyon 11,802 Painted Bluffs 43,162

Hells Hole 15,457

Scenery Management

This section describes the existing quality of scenery on the forests. The effects of each 

alternative on the scenic qualities are included. “Issue 3, Impacts to Resources from Motorized 

Use” is addressed in this analysis. There were concerns raised by the public related to potential 

impacts to the scenery and visual quality from motorized travel on the forests. The criteria used 

for comparing the existing condition to the alternatives are based on the following: 

● Potential exceedance in visual quality objective (VQO) thresholds and scenic quality 

from the proposed changes to the transportation system. 

Affected Environment

The Visual Management System (VMS) is used to derive VQOs from a combination of three 

factors: (1) the variation of a landscape; (2) the level of concern visitors have for scenic quality 

while viewing the landscape from certain areas or routes; and (3) the distance viewers are from 

the landscape or a feature on the landscape, such as a road (USDA FS 1979). A map can be 

produced which shows VQOs across the forests and is used in land use planning to evaluate 

scenic quality.

The variation of a landscape is quantified by variety classes ranging from A to C. Variety class A 

represents areas with distinctive or unusual features exhibiting variety in form, line, color, and 

texture. Landforms, rocks, water and vegetation can stand out as unusual on the landscape. In 

comparison, class C features have very little variety, if any, in form, line, color, and texture. An 

example would be continuous acres of a single vegetation types such as sagebrush vegetation.

The level of concern or sensitivity visitors have while viewing national forests is determined by 

those traveling through the forests on developed roads and trails, or who are using areas such as 

campgrounds and visitor centers, and recreating at streams and lakes. These levels are ranked 

from 1 to 3, with 1 having the highest sensitivity and 3 the lowest sensitivity to scenic quality.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 61

The distance viewers are from the landscape is analyzed by identifying viewpoints where people 

would be expected to have high concern for scenic quality. On the forests this would include the 

Mogollon Rim scenic overlook on the Black Mesa Ranger District, the Blue Range Primitive 

Area scenic overlook on the Clifton Ranger District, the developed recreation site at Big Lake on 

the Springerville Ranger District, and designated wilderness. Under the VMS, areas that are 

seldom seen generally have a lower sensitivity level. Distance zones are developed to describe 

particular divisions of the landscape being viewed. The three distance zones are: foreground, 

middle ground and background. Foreground is areas within 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile from the observer, 

middle ground extends from the foreground zone to 3 to 5 miles from the observer, and 

background extends beyond that for as far as the eye can see.

There are four VQOs for which management direction is provided in the forest plan ranging from 

allowing almost no change to the landscape to allowing many types of changes. The VQOs are: 

preservation, retention, partial retention, and modification/maximum modification. Table 14 

displays the acres of each VQO with the existing miles of roads and motorized trails. There are 

unauthorized routes within all VQOs resulting from motorized cross-country travel.

Preservation (P): Applies to wilderness areas, primitive areas, other special classified areas, 

areas awaiting classification, and unique management units. Only ecological changes may occur

to the landscape and most management activities are prohibited resulting in very minimal changes 

to visuals.

Retention (R): Provides for management activities which are not visually evident to the casual 

forest observer and may only repeat form, line, color, or textures common in the landscape. 

Changes in size, amount, intensity, direction, and pattern should not be evident. 

Partial Retention (PR): Provides for management activities which are visually subordinate to 

the landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture common in the landscape but 

changes in size, amount, intensity, direction, and pattern must remain visually subordinate. 

Activities may introduce form, line, color, or texture which are found infrequently or not at all in 

the landscape, but should still remain subordinate to the overall landscape. 

Modification/maximum modification (M/MM): Allows for management activities to visually 

dominate the landscape. Vegetative and landform alteration must borrow from naturally 

established form, line, color, or texture resulting in visual characteristics matching the 

surrounding area. Structures, roads, slash, root wads, etc., must remain visually subordinate.

Table 14. Acres of VQOs on the forests with miles of roads and trails within each VQO

VQO Class Acres on 

Forests

Miles

Existing 

Open Roads

Miles Existing 

Closed Roads

Miles Existing 

Motorized 

Trails

Preservation 194,148 12 3 0

Retention 604,324 878 1,345 29

Partial Retention 919,000 1,225 493 101

Modification/maximum modification 391,000 696 710 25
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Forest Plan Thresholds for VQOs

To meet specific resource management objectives, the following VQO variations are allowed for 

management areas (forest plan, Recreation Management, pp. 35-36): 

● VQO-P: No Change from existing

● VQO-R: +2 percent change from existing in foreground, +5 percent in background, 

middle ground 

● VQO-PR: +5 percent change from existing in foreground, +10 percent in background and 

middle ground 

● VQO-M/MM: +10 percent change from existing in all zones

These allowable variations in acres by VQO were established to ensure visuals were not severely 

impacted by projects such as timber harvesting. These allowable variations are less relevant to the 

travel management analysis since it is not likely that designation of roads, motorized trails, and 

areas for motorized use would result in changing enough acres to result in a change to the VQOs. 

The analysis focuses on whether or not VQOs will be met and what the general impacts would be. 

Motorized Use and Its Impacts on Quality of Scenery

The majority of the existing transportation system was developed in the 1950s for timber 

harvesting. Once timber related activities were complete, few roads were closed. There is still 

visual evidence on all districts of past timber projects, particularly roads located in sensitive areas 

such as drainage bottoms. 

Other than old timber related roads, the transportation system has been designed with the 

objective of retaining scenic quality. Existing ML2-5 roads have been designed to minimize 

impacts to some degree to visuals and meet forest plan requirements. This design includes 

structures that blend with the landscape and reduce soil loss and erosion. Maintenance of roads

and trails maintains visual quality by mitigating resource damages. Past and present vegetation

treatments and prescribed fire projects have closed hundreds of miles of old roads.

Resource damage from motorized use off the designated road and trail system is visible for years. 

There are likely thousands of miles of unauthorized routes across the forests. In most cases on 

these unauthorized routes, motor vehicle use damages vegetation, soils and water, and detracts 

from scenic quality. Some closed roads are revegetating, but a high percentage of closed roads are 

still being used. 

Motorized access to dispersed campsites has left long lasting visual impacts on the forests, 

especially in riparian corridors and wetlands. In some cases on the forests, the lack of designated 

routes or the conditions of routes (routes that have not been maintained) have resulted in the 

creation of multiple tracks. These unauthorized routes have resulted in vegetation removal and 

bare ground. These routes diminish the natural appearance and reduce the scenic quality 

associated with the forest landscapes. 

Environmental Consequences

This section includes the direct and indirect effects by alternative and concludes with the 

cumulative effects. The forests GIS data identified miles of roads in each VQO, which was used 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 63

to determine potential exceedance to VQO thresholds by alternative. Environmental 

consequences to recreation, soils, watershed, vegetation, and transportation were used in terms of

predicting outcomes to scenery. Consistency with forest plan VQO thresholds was evaluated in 

addition to the potential change to the quality of scenery from the proposed transportation system. 

See the scenery management specialist report for more detailed descriptions by alternative. 

Mitigation measures applicable to alternatives B, D, and E are found in appendix D. 

The following assumptions were used in analysis of the effects on scenery: 

● Designated NFS roads and trails are generally in an acceptable condition, unless 

information exists to the contrary. Most NFS roads and trails were designed to minimize 

resource damage. ML1 roads are closed and are expected to revegetate unless reopened. 

Unauthorized routes not designated for motorized travel are expected to revegetate. 

● Motorized off-road travel would have direct impacts such as crushing of foliage or root 

systems. If off-road use occurs on the same route repeatedly—for example to access 

dispersed campsites or multiple trips on the same route for MBGR—there could be 

impacts to scenery from the removal of vegetation. For single trips, as is expected for 

MBGR, limited direct effects on vegetation would occur since plants generally recover 

within one growing season. 

Alternative A

The scenic quality on the forests designated transportation system on the existing 2,832 miles of 

roads and 156 miles of motorized trails would remain unchanged from current conditions. In 

areas currently managed for non-motorized use (383,000 acres), there would be no change to 

scenic quality as a result of the transportation system, with the exception of the possible creation 

of unauthorized routes, which could impact scenic quality in these areas. 

Alternative A poses the greatest risk of degraded scenic quality because cross-country travel 

would not be controlled, which has the biggest potential for impact to scenic quality. Crosscountry travel would be allowed forestwide over 1.6 million acres with potential to create 

resource damage (vegetation crushing and soil erosion) by motorized travel. This is especially the 

case in unsuitable locations where physical impacts should be subordinate to the natural 

landscape (VQO-R and VQO-PR). Unauthorized routes would continue and possibly increase 

across all VQOs as influence from nearby populations increases. Since unauthorized use is not 

managed and will likely increase, the overall scenic quality would decline under this alternative. 

As a result, all VQOs would be met under this alternative, except at some point the variance 

allowed by the forest plan may be exceeded in VQO-R and VQO-PR. 

Alternative B

This alternative would meet all VQO forest plan thresholds for percent of variation in acres by 

VQO class. There would be no change to existing VQO classes. This alternative adds 53 miles of 

unauthorized routes and designates them for motor vehicle use and opens 358 miles of currently 

closed roads to motorized travel. Additionally, 493 miles of roads would be closed to motorized 

travel and 77 miles would be converted to administrative and permitted use only. Closed, open, 

and unauthorized routes (112 miles) would be converted to motorized trails. Impacts to VQO 

would be no net increase of acres associated with roads and motorized trails in “P,” a net increase 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

of 103 acres or 0.01 percent in “R,” a net increase of 125 acres or 0.1 percent in “PR,” and a 

decrease of 300 acres in “M/MM.”

Motorized cross-country travel would be eliminated under this alternative, which would prevent 

impacts to scenic quality from this activity, as compared with alternative A. The proposed road 

and motorized trail system is not expected to change any VQOs. The remaining unauthorized 

routes that currently exist and are not proposed to be part of the designated system under this 

alternative would revegetate and improve the scenic quality. 

In dispersed camping corridors (around 48,000 acres), scenic quality would decrease from the 

presence of vehicle tracks when a route is used repeatedly. The camping corridors are in the 

foreground of highly traveled roads, and many are adjacent to rivers and streams. No change is 

expected to VQOs from motorized dispersed camping. 

Off-road motorized travel for MBGR would continue at a fixed distance (1 mile) from routes 

resulting in an area of 1.2 million acres. Where off-road travel creates a track that is used 

repeatedly, there could be a decline in scenic quality. Off-road motorized travel for MBGR, 

however, is expected to be sporadic across the forests and the likelihood of vehicles going over 

the same path to retrieve downed animals is low. Therefore, for the majority of MBGR, there is 

expected to be little to no impact to scenic quality and no resulting change to VQOs. 

Alternative B proposes opening five designated areas to motorized travel. VQO classes range 

from M/MM to PR in four areas and to R in one area. Some vegetation disturbance has already 

occurred in four of the five areas. Whether scenic quality is retained is highly dependent on 

timing, duration and intensity of use. If the areas are used intensively, vehicle tracks would be

prevalent and scenic quality would degrade since some areas would be easily viewed from roads 

that receive high use during summer and fall. 

Alternative C 

This alternative would meet all VQO forest plan thresholds for percent of variation in acres by 

VQO class. There would be no change to existing VQO classes. This alternative adds 28 miles of 

unauthorized routes and designates them for motor vehicle use. The rest of the road and 

motorized trail system would remain unchanged. Impacts to VQO would be no increase 

associated with roads in “P,” a net increase of 29 acres in “R,” a net increase of 34 acres in “PR,”

and an increase of 8 acres in “M/MM.” Each of these changes in acres would have less than 0.01 

percent change in the size of the VQO areas.

Motorized cross-country travel would be eliminated under this alternative which would prevent 

impacts to scenic quality from this activity, as compared with alternative A. The proposed road 

and motorized trail system is not expected to change any VQOs. The remaining unauthorized 

routes that currently exist and are not proposed to be part of the designated system under this 

alternative would revegetate and improve the scenic quality. 

In dispersed camping areas along the 28 miles of unauthorized roads that would be designated for 

motor vehicle use (around 2,000 acres), scenic quality could decrease from the presence of 

vehicle tracks when a route is used repeatedly. This alternative has the least acres available for 

motorized dispersed camping compared to the other action alternatives. No change is expected to 

VQOs from motorized dispersed camping. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 65

Off-road motorized travel for MBGR would continue at a fixed distance (1 mile) from routes 

resulting in an area of 1.2 million acres. Where off-road travel creates a track that is used 

repeatedly, there could be a decline in scenic quality. Off-road motorized travel for MBGR, 

however, is expected to be sporadic across the forests and the likelihood of vehicles going over 

the same path to retrieve downed animals is low. Therefore, for the majority of MBGR, there is 

expected to be little to no impact to scenic quality and no resulting change to VQOs. 

Alternative D 

This alternative would meet all VQO forest plan thresholds for percent of variation in acres by 

VQO class. There would be no change to existing VQO classes. This alternative adds 37 miles of 

unauthorized routes and designates them for motor vehicle use and opens 415 miles of currently 

closed roads to motorized travel. Additionally, 479 miles of roads would be closed to motorized 

travel and 75 miles would be converted to administrative and permitted use only. Closed, open, 

and unauthorized routes (146 miles) would be converted to motorized trails. Impacts to VQO 

would be a net decrease of 1 acre of roads in “P,” a net increase of 183 acres or 0.03 percent in 

“R,” a net increase of 40 acres or less than 0.01 percent in “PR,” and a decrease of 91 acres in 

“M/MM.”

Motorized cross-country travel would be eliminated under this alternative which would prevent 

impacts to scenic quality from this activity, as compared with alternative A. The proposed road 

and motorized trail system is not expected to change any VQOs. The remaining unauthorized 

routes that currently exist and are not proposed to be part of the designated system under this 

alternative would revegetate and improve the scenic quality. 

In dispersed camping corridors (around 148,000 acres), scenic quality would decrease from the 

presence of vehicle tracks when a route is used repeatedly. This alternative has the most acres 

available for motorized dispersed camping compared to the other action alternatives. The 

camping corridors are in the foreground of highly traveled roads and many are adjacent to rivers 

and streams. No changes is expected to VQOs from motorized dispersed camping. 

Off-road motorized travel for MBGR would continue at a fixed distance (1/4 mile) from routes 

resulting in an area of 700,000 acres. Where off-road travel creates a track that is used repeatedly, 

there could be a decline in scenic quality. Off-road motorized travel for MBGR, however, is 

expected to be sporadic across the forests and the likelihood of vehicles going over the same path 

to retrieve downed animals is low. Therefore, for the majority of MBGR, there is expected to be 

little to no impact to scenic quality and no resulting change to VQOs. 

Alternative B proposes opening five designated areas to motorized travel. VQO classes range 

from M/MM to PR in four areas and to R in one area. Some vegetation disturbance has already 

occurred in four of the five areas. Whether scenic quality is retained is highly dependent on 

timing, duration and intensity of use. If the areas are used intensively, vehicle tracks would be

prevalent and scenic quality would degrade, since some areas would be easily viewed from roads 

that receive high use during summer and fall. 

Alternative E 

This alternative would meet all VQO forest plan thresholds for percent of variation in acres by 

VQO class. There would be no change to existing VQO classes. This alternative adds 64 miles of 

unauthorized routes and designates them for motor vehicle use, and opens 220 miles of currently 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

closed roads to motorized travel. Additionally, 559 miles of roads would be closed to motorized 

travel, and 84 miles would be converted to administrative and permitted use only. Closed, open, 

and unauthorized routes (49 miles) would be converted to motorized trails. Impacts to VQO 

would be a net decrease of 2 acres of roads in “P,” a net decrease of 62 acres in “R,” a net 

decrease of 113 acres in “PR,” and a decrease of 463 acres in “M/MM.”

Motorized cross-country travel would be eliminated under this alternative which would prevent 

impacts to scenic quality from this activity, as compared with alternative A. The proposed road 

and motorized trail system is not expected to change any VQOs. The remaining unauthorized 

routes that currently exist and are not proposed to be part of the designated system under this 

alternative would revegetate and improve the scenic quality. 

In dispersed camping corridors (around 8,500 acres), scenic quality would decrease from the 

presence of vehicle tracks when a route is used repeatedly. The camping corridors are in the 

foreground of highly traveled roads, and many are adjacent to rivers and streams. No change is 

expected to VQOs from motorized dispersed camping. There would be no MBGR allowed under 

this alternative, so there would be no related impacts to scenic quality or VQOs. 

Cumulative Effects on Scenery Management

The existing condition is a result of past impacts to the scenic environment and is described in the 

“Affected Environment” section. Under alternative A, vegetation loss and resource damage would 

continue primarily from motorized cross-country travel. The cumulative impacts from some 

projects listed in appendix E that could contribute changes to scenery in VQOs (thinning, fuels 

treatments), could create a contrast with characteristics of the natural environment and lead to a 

decline in scenic quality in the short term (1 to 10 years). However, these future projects would 

likely improve scenic quality in the long term (15 to 30 years) by moving vegetation toward

forest plan desired conditions. Areas with VQOs of P, R, and PR would have the greatest potential 

to have impacts to scenic quality. 

For all action alternatives, elimination of cross-country travel and road closures when combined 

with foreseeable projects such as thinning and fuels management may have short-term impacts in 

areas where the planned activities are near areas used for motorized dispersed camping or motor 

vehicle use areas. These projects (appendix E) have the potential to improve scenic quality in the 

long term by moving vegetation toward forest plan desired conditions. Ongoing activities such as 

road and trail maintenance, when combined with a system of roads and motorized trails, would 

result in improvement of scenic quality as resource damage in visually sensitive areas is 

minimized or eliminated. It is not expected that any cumulative effects on scenic quality would 

result in changes to VQOs under any alternative. 

Socioeconomics

This section describes the social and economic environment on areas in and surrounding the 

forests. The effects of each alternative on socioeconomics are included, as well as effects to 

environmental justice. “Issue 4, Economics: Loss of Revenue and Jobs” is addressed in this 

analysis. The analysis on the social environment also addresses, in part, Issues 1 and 2 (motorized 

access for dispersed camping and MBGR). The criteria used for comparing the existing condition 

to the alternatives are based on revenues and jobs generated from motorized (recreation related) 

activities. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 67

The socioeconomic analysis is derived from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Economic 

and Social Sustainability Assessment (USDA FS 2009a). The analysis (hereafter referred to as the 

sustainability analysis) is the best available science to assess the forests contribution to economic 

and social sustainability. For the purposes of evaluating how travel management decisions affect 

social and economic outputs, this information provides the most comprehensive and relevant data. 

Affected Environment

The assessment area is four counties in Arizona which the forests overlap as well as two counties 

in New Mexico, which the forests border. These are the Apache, Navajo, Coconino and Greenlee

Counties in Arizona and Grant and Catron Counties in New Mexico. Within the assessment area, 

prominent cities and towns in Arizona include Heber-Overgaard, Show Low, Alpine, 

Springerville, Payson, Pinetop-Lakeside, St. Johns, Forest Lakes, Clifton, Snowflake-Taylor, 

Greer, Eager and Winslow; and in New Mexico include Reserve and Silver City. 

Due to the physical distances, economic activities in northern Apache and Navajo Counties 

generally do not influence the forests management and, conversely, management of the forests 

does not affect those areas. Less than 1 percent of the forests’Arizona visitors are from Coconino 

County. Western Catron County was included because county residents contribute to Apache 

County through the purchase of goods and services. In addition, recreationists commonly travel 

from Reserve, New Mexico.

There are over 31 million acres of land across the counties with 23 percent managed by the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Greenlee and Catron Counties have large percentages of 

Forest Service land (64 and 50 percent, respectively). This is relevant to this analysis in terms of 

qualifying to what extent transportation management on the forests may affect counties.

Countywide data was used to estimate economic impacts. Models of the local economy were built 

using IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning, Professional Version 2.0) and 2007 data. 

IMPLAN was utilized to develop estimates of the level of jobs and income generated per 

thousand visits by activity type. The estimates are input to the Recreation Economic Contribution 

Application (RECA called TMECA in the specialist report). RECA is a spreadsheet that, along 

with data collected from the 2001 NVUM survey, estimates local economic contributions of 

different types of recreational activities on NFS roads and motorized trails. The models used the 

area of potential economic impact, industry sector data (how much activity happens in a type of 

business), and demand (number of people visiting the forest and the activities they participate in). 

Population

Population growth in the assessment area, except Coconino, has been well below the Arizona and 

New Mexico average (table 15). Each county, except Greenlee (AZ) and Catron (NM), 

experienced net population growth between 1990 and 2000. Catron County has the lowest 

population density with one individual for every 2 square miles. In contrast, Navajo County is the 

most densely populated with almost 10 people per square mile. Growth rates for the under-18 

population were considerably lower than overall population growth within the five counties 

between 1990 and 2000. Conversely, the 65 and over populations grew at a higher rate than 

average for their respective states and considerably faster than county populations. The 

assessment area per capita income is far below the national average of $31,000. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Table 15. County populations and projected changes in 2010 and 2020

County* 2000 

Population

Projected 2010 

Population

Percent 

Change

Projected 2020 

Population

Percent 

Change

Apache 69,423 76,645 10 85,766 12

Coconino 116,320 147,352 27 169,343 15

Greenlee 8,547 9,605 12 10,271 7

Navajo 97,470 99,979 3 111,946 12

Catron 3,543 4,063 15 4,459 10

Arizona 5,130,632 6,145,108 20 7,363,604 20

New Mexico 1,819,046 2,112,986 16 2,383,116 13

*Grant County was not analyzed in this population trend analysis (USDA FS 2009a).

Populations have moderate racial and ethnic diversification. Hispanic presence has increased 

from 20 to 25 percent of the total population since 1940, while the African American population 

increased 0.1 percent. The Native American population has grown 83 percent over the past 6

decades. However, as a percentage of Arizona’s population, it has declined from 11 percent in 

1940 to 5 percent in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Employment and Income

Total employment in the six counties was 152,497 in 2000. Wage and salary employment 

accounted for 80 percent. Farm proprietor (self-employment as opposed to corporate farms) 

employment was 1 percent of all jobs. The sector providing the largest portion of employment 

(including wage and salary employment) was government, followed by services and retail trade. 

Services and retail trade contain the industries most likely to be affected by recreation activities 

on the forests. The manufacturing sector and the agricultural services, forestry, fishing, and other 

sectors represented 3 and 0.5 percent of total employment respectively.

Employment growth in each of the six counties between 1990 and 2000 was below that of their 

respective states. Employment growth for Navajo and Apache Counties (27 and 39 percent, 

respectively) was less than the 48 percent increase for Arizona. Wage and salary employment was 

below the Arizona average in all but Greenlee County, but non-farm proprietor employment 

increased substantially, particularly in Apache County. Overall, employment growth within the 

six counties averaged 34 percent from 1990 to 2000, compared to 48 percent in Arizona and 27 

percent in New Mexico (USDA FS 2009a).

In the early stages of the forests’ and Arizona’s development, extractive industries such as mining, 

ranching, farming, and timber harvesting were the mainstays of local economies because these 

resources were needed by a growing population. In recent decades, however, the counties 

surrounding the forests have joined neighboring western states in experiencing a major decline in 

extractive industries because of national social changes. Industry declines have been accompanied 

by declines in employment and income traditionally provided by these sectors. There has been, 

and will likely continue to be, a transition from employment based on extractive industries to one 

based on services, recreation, and construction (USDA FS 2009a).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 69

The 2002 per capita personal income of the four Arizona counties was $19,333, only 63 percent 

of the national average (approximately $31,000). The average income growth rate in the 

assessment area over the past 3 decades is just under 8 percent, slightly below the 8 percent New 

Mexico growth rate and well below the 10 percent Arizona average. This suggests that the 

assessment area lags behind the region in individual economic status, in contrast to Arizona’s 

strong, continuing growth.

OHV Economic Contributions 

Based on the Arizona Trails 2005 Plan, OHV users represent 24 percent of the state population, 

which includes residents who use motorized vehicles on trails for multiple purposes. Of that, 7

percent reported that motorized trail use accounted for the majority of time (Arizona State Parks 

2009b). Less than 2 percent of the estimated use on the forests is attributed to OHV use. 

Arizona State Parks estimated OHV use and camping, along with hunting and fishing, stimulate 

the regional economy through direct local expenditures on motorized vehicles, trailers, equipment 

and accessories, and insurance and maintenance costs. Local spending on food, gas and lodging, 

and souvenirs also indirectly benefits the region by supporting wages and income in the local 

economy, as well as contributing local and State tax dollar revenue. 

OHV users alone spend an estimated $3.1 billion to $4 billion annually in Arizona (Silberman 

2003). The estimated expenditure per overnight visit for non-local OHV use is $84 and $63 for 

local overnight visits (USDA FS 2009a). All-terrain vehicles registered with the Arizona Motor 

Vehicle Division increased 347 percent from 1998 (51,453 vehicles) to July 2006 (230,000 

vehicles). This does not include untitled OHVs, out of state visitors, or other OHVs that recreate 

in Arizona. In 2009, Arizona State Parks estimated that $780,000 was generated from OHV 

sticker purchases (Arizona State Parks 2009a). 

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Economic Contribution 

The recreation economic contribution stimulates the greatest levels of employment and labor 

income for the forests. However, 3 percent of the estimated employment and 6 percent of the 

estimated labor income are attributed to the recreation activities of local residents. While 

providing recreation opportunities to local residents is an important contribution, the recreation 

expenditures of locals do not represent new money introduced into the economy. If national forest 

related opportunities were not present, it is likely residents would participate in other locally 

based recreation activities and this money would still be retained in the local economy. 

Approximately 97 percent of the jobs and 94 percent of the labor income are generated from 

expenditures by non-local visitors bringing new money into the area (table 16). 

The forests activities are estimated to be responsible for approximately 7 percent of jobs and 5

percent of labor income within the regional economy (table 17). The wholesale trade, lodging and 

food services, and arts, entertainment, and recreation sectors benefit from the forests

contributions to a greater extent than other sectors.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Table 16. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests estimated labor income and employment 

contribution in 2006

Economic Contribution Area

Total 

Contribution 

Contribution from 

Recreation Activities of 

Local Residents

New Money 

Contribution 

Thousands of 2006 Dollars Contributed

Recreation $43,866 $3,882 $39,983

Total Forest Management $83,301 $4,910 $78,391

Percent Total Labor Income 100% 6% 94%

Number of Jobs Contributed

Recreation 1,678 140 1,538

Total Forest Management 3,119 179 2,940

Percent Total Employment 100% 3% 97%

Table 17. Forest Service 2006 contribution to jobs and revenue in the assessment area 

Industry Sector 

Employment (Jobs) Labor Income (Thousands of 

2006 Dollars) 

Area 

Totals 

ASNFs 

Related 

Percent 

of Total 

Area 

Totals 

ASNFs 

Related 

Percent 

of Total 

Agriculture 950 344 36.2 $13,060 $6,482 49.6 

Mining 2,524 16 0.6 $172,047 $602 0.4 

Utilities 376 10 2.7 $24,739 $661 2.7 

Construction 3,082 22 0.7 $105,371 $763 0.7 

Manufacturing 979 158 16.1 $50,615 $3,725 7.4 

Wholesale trade 475 126 26.5 $18,082 $4,813 26.6 

Transportation/storage 1,360 68 5.0 $84,663 $2,034 2.4 

Retail trade 4,444 317 7.1 $113,333 $7,571 6.7 

Information 922 28 3.0 $37,131 $1,112 3.0 

Finance/insurance 649 27 4.2 $23,695 $963 4.1 

Real Estate/rental 679 39 5.7 $21,700 $1,342 6.2 

Prof./scientific services 718 43 6.0 $25,704 $1,295 5.0 

Management of companies 185 11 5.9 $9,050 $542 6.0 

Administration, Waste Management 795 35 4.4 $18,672 $744 4.0 

Educational Services 454 10 2.2 $13,125 $167 1.3 

Health Care 2,777 69 2.5 $103,732 $2,574 2.5 

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 323 123 38.1 $7,274 $3,055 42.0 

Lodging/ Food Services 3,211 995 31.0 $45,012 $14,573 32.4 

Other Services 2,464 89 3.6 $45,052 $1,766 3.9 

Government 18,608 588 3.2 $742,836 $28,509 3.8 

Total 45,974 3,119 6.8% $1,674,902 $83,301 5.0% 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 71

As shown in table 18, total motorized activities on the forests account for 4.27 percent of total 

jobs (including direct, indirect and induced jobs) and 4.23 percent of total labor income 

(including direct, indirect and induced labor income). Direct jobs supported by all other activities 

account for 66.9 percent of all jobs contributed to the local economy from recreation on the 

forests, and indirect and induced jobs account for another 20.1 percent. 

Table 18. Percent total employment and labor income supported by activity type on the 

forests

Type of Activity on the Forests

Employment

(Percent of full and

part-time jobs)

Labor Income 

(2008 dollars)

(Percent of Total Income)

Direct Indirect and

Induced Direct Indirect andInduced

Non-Motorized Use

Backpacking 

Local 0.12% 0.04% 0.10% 0.05%

Non-local 0.12% 0.04% 0.11% 0.05%

Hiking/Walking 

Local 1.46% 0.44% 1.30% 0.60%

Non-local 3.79% 1.12% 3.35% 1.53%

Horseback Riding 

Local 0.09% 0.03% 0.08% 0.04%

Non-local 0.24% 0.07% 0.21% 0.10%

Bicycling 

Local 0.09% 0.03% 0.08% 0.04%

Non-local 0.24% 0.07% 0.21% 0.10%

Other 

Nonmotorized 

Local 0.15% 0.04% 0.13% 0.06%

Non-local 0.38% 0.11% 0.34% 0.15%

Total Nonmotorized 6.67% 1.98% 5.92% 2.71%

Motorized Use

OHV Use 

Local 0.74% 0.23% 0.65% 0.32%

Non-local 0.88% 0.27% 0.78% 0.37%

Driving for Pleasure 

Local 0.99% 0.30% 0.85% 0.42%

Non-local 0.66% 0.19% 0.58% 0.27%

Snowmobiling 

Local 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Non-local 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Motorized 3.27% 1.00% 2.85% 1.37%

All Other Use

All Other Activities - Local 28.4% 8.6% 25.3% 11.9%

Non-local 38.5% 11.5% 34.1% 15.8%

Total Other 66.9% 20.1% 59.4% 27.7%

Totals 76.9% 23.1% 68.2% 31.8%

100% 100%

Source: TMECA, 2009 and IMPLAN, 2007

In terms of total employment and income in the study area, recreation on the forests in 2008

accounted for 0.885 percent of total jobs and 0.588 percent of total labor income (table 19). Nonlocal motorized use on the forests supports 0.017 percent and 0.012 percent of total jobs and labor 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

income in the assessment area, respectively. Local motorized use on the forests supports 0.02 

percent and 0.013 percent of total jobs and labor income, respectively.

Table 19. Percent of assessment area, employment and labor income 

from recreation on the forests in 2008

Employment Effects

(full and part time jobs)

Labor Income

(2008 dollars)

Total NonMotorized Use

Local 0.022% 0.014%

Non-Local 0.054% 0.036%

Total Motorized 

Use

Local 0.020% 0.013%

Non-Local 0.017% 0.012%

Total All Other 

Use

Local 0.323% 0.215%

Non-Local 0.436% 0.289%

Total Use 0.885% 0.588%

Source: TMECA, 2009 and IMPLAN, 2007

Environmental Consequences

This section includes the direct and indirect effects by alternative and concludes with the 

cumulative effects. The following assumptions were used in analysis of the effects on 

socioeconomics:

● Under all alternatives, there would be no change to special use authorizations. This 

includes, but is not limited to, forest product gathering, access to private lands, grazing 

authorizations, outfitter and guides, and temporary recreation events. In terms of 

continuation of lifestyle and the social values attributed to conducting livestock grazing 

activities on the forests, there would be no change as a result of this analysis and 

decision. 

● In all alternatives, access to developed recreation sites and opportunities (such as 

campgrounds, day use areas, picnic sites) would remain unchanged. 

● Visitor use originating from outside locations would continue to increase due to growth 

of urban populations, such as Phoenix. Increasing visitation by non-local forest users 

would result in the creation of more jobs and income than the same increase in visitation 

by local forest users.

Alternative A

Alternative A maintains the existing transportation system with 2,832 miles of road designated for 

motor vehicle use and 156 miles of motorized trails. There would be no change in motorized or 

non-motorized use. Cross-country travel off system roads forestwide on 1.6 million acres would 

continue, except where currently prohibited. Access to 1,611 dispersed campsites and MBGR 

would not change. 

The employment and income figures that represent the contribution of current activities to the 

assessment area (six counties) would remain unchanged in the short term (up to 10 years). In 

2008, these numbers were 0.037 percent of jobs and 0.025 percent of income that was contributed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 73

to the assessment area economy from recreation on the forests. In the long term (over 10 years),

the trend of increasing population and economic growth would result in increased demand for 

recreation opportunities specifically motorized trails and dispersed camping sites. If the physical, 

biological, and cultural resources are not managed for this increased demand, overcrowding and 

resource damage could occur and possibly displace some recreation forest visitors. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would result in 2,673 miles of road open for motor vehicle use and 268 miles of 

motorized trails. Both roads and corridors would be available to access dispersed camping on 

about 25 percent of open roads. In comparison to alternative A, the miles of open roads would 

decrease by less than 6 percent but miles of motorized trails would increase by 72 percent. Crosscountry motorized travel would be eliminated. Motorized access to dispersed camping would 

remain, with 1,467 existing sites still accessible by motor vehicles. Five motorized use areas 

would be designated providing motor vehicle use opportunities on 459 acres. Although the acres 

available for MBGR are reduced (from 1.6 million acres to 1.2 million acres), when compared to 

alternative A, the opportunity would exist in all game management units. 

By putting a designated road and motorized trail system in place, sustainability of resources 

would be provided as population and economic growth continues. In the long term (over 10 

years), the trend of increasing population and economic growth would result in increased demand 

for recreation opportunities specifically motorized trails and dispersed camping sites. Under this 

alternative some physical, biological, and cultural resources would be managed for this increased 

demand by eliminating cross-country travel. This alternative responds to the demand for more

motorized trails, continued motorized access to dispersed campsites, the addition of motorized 

use areas, and MBGR would still be allowed across all game management units within the 1-mile 

distance from roads. 

Since there would be limited change in activities related to jobs and economics, there would be 

no measurable direct and indirect effects on the economy relative to the scale. The employment 

and income figures representing the contribution of current activities to the economy of the 

assessment area (six counties) would be unchanged or changed so slightly they cannot be 

evaluated. 

Alternative C

Alternative C most closely resembles the existing transportation system. The miles of motorized 

trails would not change (156 miles). The increase in roads is associated with designating general 

access and motorized access to existing dispersed camping sites. Motorized access to dispersed 

camping would remain, with 1,112 existing sites still accessible by motor vehicles. Cross-country 

motorized travel would be eliminated. Although the acres available for MBGR are reduced (from 

1.6 million acres to 1.2 million acres), when compared to alternative A, the opportunity would 

exist in all game management units.

By putting a designated road and motorized trail system in place, sustainability of resources 

would be provided as population and economic growth continues. In the long term (over 10 

years), the trend of increasing population and economic growth would result in increased demand 

for recreation opportunities specifically motorized trails and dispersed camping sites. Under this 

alternative some physical, biological, and cultural resources would be managed for this increased 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

demand by eliminating cross-country travel. This alternative responds to the demand for 

continued motorized access to dispersed campsites and MBGR would still be allowed across all 

game management units within the 1-mile distance from roads. 

Since there would be limited change in activities related to jobs and economics, there would be 

no measurable direct and indirect effects on the economy relative to the scale. The employment 

and income figures representing the contribution of current activities to the economy of the 

assessment area (six counties) would be unchanged or changed so slightly they cannot be 

evaluated. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would result in 2,730 miles of roads open for motor vehicle use and 302 miles of 

motorized trails. In comparison to alternative A, the miles of open roads decrease slightly by less 

than 4 percent, but the most miles of dispersed camping corridors and motorized trail miles would 

be designated. Cross-country motorized travel would be eliminated. Motorized access to 

dispersed camping would remain, with 1,346 existing sites still accessible by motor vehicles. The

increase in miles of motorized corridors encompasses most existing dispersed camping sites on 

the forests. Five motorized use areas would be designated providing motor vehicle use 

opportunities on 459 acres. Although the acres available for MBGR are reduced (from 1.6 million 

acres to 700,000 acres), when compared to alternative A, the opportunity would exist in all game 

management units.

By putting a designated road and motorized trail system in place, sustainability of resources 

would be provided as population and economic growth continues. In the long term (over 10 

years), the trend of increasing population and economic growth would result in increased demand 

for recreation opportunities specifically motorized trails and dispersed camping sites. Under this 

alternative some physical, biological, and cultural resources would be managed for this increased 

demand by eliminating cross-country travel. This alternative responds to the demand for more 

motorized trails, continued motorized access to dispersed campsites, the addition of motorized 

use areas, and MBGR would still be allowed across all game management units within the 1⁄4-mile 

distance from roads. 

Since there would be limited change in activities related to jobs and economics, there would be 

no measurable direct and indirect effects on the economy relative to the scale. The employment 

and income figures representing the contribution of current activities to the economy of the 

assessment area (six counties) would be unchanged or changed so slightly they cannot be 

evaluated. 

Alternative E 

Alternative E decreases miles of open roads but increases miles of motorized trails. Alternative E 

would result in 2,473 miles of roads open for motor vehicle use and 205 miles of motorized trails. 

In comparison to alternative A, there would be 13 percent fewer open roads but about 31 percent 

more motorized trails. Cross-country motorized travel would be eliminated. Motorized access to 

dispersed camping would remain, with 1,334 existing sites still accessible by motor vehicles. 

Alternative E has the most potential to displace hunters who rely on MBGR. The designated road 

and motorized trail system would still offer access into the forests. Non-motorized means of big 

game retrieval could be utilized off the designated road and motorized trail system. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 75

By putting a designated road and motorized trail system in place, sustainability of resources 

would be provided as population and economic growth continues. In the long term (over 10 

years), the trend of increasing population and economic growth would result in increased demand 

for recreation opportunities specifically motorized trails and dispersed camping sites. Under this 

alternative some physical, biological, and cultural resources would be managed for this increased 

demand by eliminating cross-country travel. This alternative responds to the demand for more 

motorized trails and continued motorized access to dispersed campsites.

Since there would be limited change in activities related to jobs and economics, there would be 

no measurable direct and indirect effects on the economy relative to the scale. The employment 

and income figures representing the contribution of current activities to the economy of the 

assessment area (six counties) would be unchanged or changed so slightly they cannot be 

evaluated. 

Cumulative Effects on Socioeconomics 

Under all alternatives, the direct and indirect effects to the economy of the assessment area (six

counties) would be unchanged or changed so slightly they cannot be evaluated. Given no 

measurable direct and indirect effects under any alternative, there would be no measurable 

cumulative effects. Cumulatively, how foreseeable transportation decisions, when combined with 

adjacent forest decisions (Tonto, Gila, and Coconino), would affect the local and regional 

economy are unknown until the decisions are implemented. 

Environmental Justice 

Regulatory guidance for the evaluation of environmental justice includes both Executive Orders 

12898 and 13045. Executive Order 12898 governs Federal actions to address environmental 

justice in minority and low-income populations. It requires agencies to “...make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies and activities...” 

Executive Order 13045 governs Federal actions to protect children from environmental health and 

safety risks. It requires agencies to “...make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental 

health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children; and shall ensure that its 

policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks...” 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines a minority as individuals belonging to one 

of the following groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not 

of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic (CEQ 1997). The past 50 years have seen only moderate racial 

diversification in Arizona. The Hispanic presence has increased from 20 to 25 percent of the total 

population since 1940, while African American populations increased 0.1 percent. The Native 

American population has grown from 44,076 to 275,321 over the past 6 decades. However, as a 

percentage of Arizona’s population, it has declined from 11 percent in 1940 to 5 percent in 2000 

(USDA FS 2009a).

A low income population is determined using annual statistic poverty thresholds from the U.S. 

Census Bureau (CEQ 1997). The 2002 per capita personal income of the Arizona counties was 

$19,333, or 63 percent of the national average. Poverty levels in the assessment area are above 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

state averages (14 percent for Arizona and 18 percent for New Mexico in 1999) and are highest in 

Native American populations (42 percent). 

The average unemployment rates by county from 1980 through 2004 ranged from a high of 15 

percent in Apache County to a low of 7 percent in Coconino County. The average in all counties 

was higher than the state averages of just over 5 percent in Arizona and 6 percent in New Mexico. 

Navajo County’s rate of 12 percent is substantially affected by high employment rates in 

Whiteriver (average of 22 percent) (USDA FS 2009a). Around 26 percent of the population had 

incomes below the poverty level in 1999 and poverty levels have continually declined. Greenlee 

County has lower poverty levels because of high mining related employment (USDA FS 2009a).

Environmental Consequences

No change to affected populations would occur under alternative A, since cross-country travel 

would still be allowed forestwide, and the current road and motorized trail system would remain. 

Implementing the changes to the transportation system under any action alternative would have 

no disproportionate effects on populations of minority, low income, or children. The net change in 

miles of road open for motorized uses for the action alternatives is no more than 13 percent when 

compared to the existing transportation system. Motorized trail opportunities would be 

maintained or increased under all action alternatives. Motorized access to dispersed camping is 

maintained or minimally decreased while opportunities to access dispersed camping via nonmotorized means are unchanged. Since there would be a very limited change in activities, the 

employment and income figures that represent the contribution of current activities to the 

economy of the assessment area (six counties) would be unchanged or changed so slightly that 

they cannot be evaluated. 

Vegetation 

This section describes the existing native vegetation communities and noxious weeds on the 

forests. The effects of each alternative on the vegetation communities and noxious weeds are 

included. The spread of noxious weeds was a topic brought up during public comment periods. 

Whether roads or motorized trails and MBGR would affect spread and infestation by noxious 

weeds on the forests is evaluated in this section. The following issues are addressed in this 

analysis in relation to vegetation effects: “Issue 1: Restricting Motorized Access for Dispersed 

Camping,” “Issue 2: Restricting Motorized Big Game Retrieval,” and “Issue 3: Impacts to 

Resources from Motorized Use.” The criteria used for comparing the existing condition to the 

alternatives are based on: 

● Number of acres of types of vegetation communities impacted from the existing 

condition. This would be a change from a non-vegetated condition to a vegetated 

condition and vice-versa.

● Potential for the establishment or spread of noxious weed infestations.

Affected Environment

Vegetation Types

Elevations on the forests range from approximately 3,500 feet near Clifton, Arizona, to nearly 

11,000 feet west of Springerville, Arizona. The landscape is equally varied and includes 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 77

mountains, hills, cinder cones, plains, plateaus, deep canyons, and escarpments (USDA FS 

2008b). The climate also varies in the forests from hot steppe at the lower elevations to boreal at 

higher elevations (Laing et al. 1987). The vegetation communities of forests match the uneven 

terrain, wide elevation range, and extreme climatic regimes with a variety of ecosystems.

Vegetation communities were broken down into potential natural vegetation types. Vegetation 

types are groupings of ecosystems that share similar vegetation composition and historic 

processes such as fire, drought, and grazing by native animal species. Two references were used 

in developing the vegetation types for the forests: (1) the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests” (USDA FS 2008b), and (2) The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 

analysis on the Forest Service Southwestern Region NFS lands throughout Arizona and New 

Mexico (Vander-Lee et al. 2006). Since TES provides data at a better resolution and accuracy for 

the forests than the TNC data, it was used for mapping and quantitative data such as acreage. The 

TNC analysis was used primarily for vegetation type descriptions. The vegetation type 

descriptions can be found in the vegetation specialist report in the project record. 

Thirteen vegetation types were identified on the forests. Table 20 displays the acres of vegetation 

types from the forests’ potential natural vegetation GIS database. Ponderosa pine forests, 

Madrean pine-oak woodlands, and mixed conifer with frequent fire forests encompass the 

majority of acreage at 64 percent. Grasslands comprise 17 percent and riparian areas only cover 

1.5 percent of the forests, but include the majority of riparian areas in all of northeastern Arizona 

(USDA FS 2008b). The miles of roads crossing each vegetation type under the current designated 

road system is displayed in table 21, under alternative A. 

Table 20. Acres of vegetation types on the forests

Vegetation Types Acres Percent of Forest

Forests Ponderosa pine 626,989 30

Dry mixed conifer with frequent fire 290,003 14

Spruce-fir with wet mixed conifer 59,053 3

Woodlands Madrean pine-oak 399,557 19

Pinyon-juniper 240,772 11

Grasslands Great Basin 192,642 9

Semidesert 108,692 5

Montane/subalpine 59,627 3

Chaparral Interior 56,069 3

Riparian Areas Wetland/cienega 12,483 1

Mixed broadleaf deciduous 7,631 <1

Montane willow 7,197 <1

Cottonwood-willow 6,274 <1

Non-vegetated Areas Urban, agricultural, quarry 39,928 2

Water 3,279 <1

Total 2,110,196 100
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Wildlife impacts (elk in particular) on the existing vegetation in meadows and riparian wetlands 

on the forests include browsing and trampling of woody components, reproduction of aspen, 

changes in some plant composition, and some compaction of soil. As such, elk in particular are 

considered a baseline impact to forest vegetation.

Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds are defined as alien plants that aggressively invade or are detrimental to native

plant communities. These weeds are normally introduced from other areas of the world and arrive 

without natural enemies (insects and disease) to keep them in check. Noxious weeds occur in 

higher densities along roadways, areas disturbed by timber harvests, campgrounds, motorized 

trails, trailheads, livestock, utility corridors, and ditches. Outside of mechanically disturbed areas, 

riparian areas are the most common places for weeds to establish and spread.

Weed seed is most often transported on roads and motorized trails by humans, vehicles, 

equipment, horses, livestock, wildlife, wind, and water. Roads and motorized trails provide 

corridors for the spread of noxious weeds. Soil disturbances associated with the maintenance and 

decommissioning of roads and motorized trails create potential weed habitat. Continual use of 

roads and motorized trails can provide a continuous supply of seed. Once established, weeds 

spread to adjacent undisturbed habitats.

On the forests, there are currently 53 noxious and invasive weeds covering between 20,000 and 

26,350 acres, and this is a management concern (USDA FS 2008c). Noxious weeds are found in 

all 13 vegetation communities. Riparian areas represent the greatest proportion of acreage 

affected within a vegetation type, with around 11 percent of the mixed broadleaf deciduous 

riparian areas infested. The riparian areas also have the greatest number of recorded nonnative 

species: 49 to 52 species (USDA FS 2008c). The largest number of acres infested are found in the 

pinyon-juniper forests (3,700 acres) and the ponderosa pine forests (13,450 acres). A list of weed 

species found on the forests is provided in the vegetation specialist report. 

Environmental Consequences

This section includes the direct and indirect effects by alternative and concludes with the 

cumulative effects. The following indicator measures are used to evaluate the alternatives: (1) 

miles of open roads and motorized trails; (2) acres of forests open to off-road travel (motorized 

dispersed camping corridors, motorized areas, and MBGR); and (3) acres of riparian vegetation

affected by open roads, motorized trails, and cross-country travel. Table 21 shows the miles of 

open roads and trails by alternative which would cross each vegetation type. Table 22 shows the 

acres of dispersed camping corridors by alternative which would cross each vegetation type. 

Table 23 shows the acres of MBGR by alternative which would cross each vegetation type.

Environmental consequences for Forest Service sensitive plant species for the forests can be 

found in the “Terrestrial and Semi-aquatic Wildlife and Rare Plants” section and associated 

specialist report. Most descriptions of effects only pertain to NFS lands, however, a somewhat 

larger footprint is discussed to encompass the most common corridors of weed spread that might 

include roads, stream courses and associated riparian areas, or domestic or wild grazing animals.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 79

The following assumptions were used in analysis of the effects on vegetation and noxious weeds:

● All action alternatives would either close existing roads, or open existing closed roads or 

add existing unauthorized roads to the road and motorized trail system. Two districts are 

proposing less than 2 miles of trail construction which do not entail all new trail 

construction as an unauthorized route already exists. 

● All vehicle types—ranging from motorcycles, ATVs, 4-wheel-drive vehicles, to 

passenger cars—are assumed to have the same level of impact on roads and motorized 

trails and are evaluated as equal. Although different vehicle types may impact roads on 

different levels and in different ways, there is not adequate data to differentiate the 

amount of use per vehicle type.

● Motorized off-road travel would have direct impacts such as crushing of foliage or root 

systems. By undercutting root systems, soil erosion and burial of vegetation from soil 

deposition would occur. Roads and motorized trails remove potential habitat for 

numerous plant species found adjacent to road and trail surfaces. For MBGR, single trips 

have limited direct effects on vegetation since plants generally recover within one 

growing season. When a route is used repeatedly for off-road MBGR, the vegetation 

becomes exposed to many trips by motor vehicles and impacts to plants and exposed root 

systems occur. 

● ML1 roads are expected to revegetate unless reopened. Roads not traveled produce less 

sediment than those with traffic (Luce and Black, 2001). Closed roads would continue to 

be a source of chronic sediment production, but the road would adjust and stabilize, 

reducing sediment production, particularly in comparison to open roads subject to 

vehicular use. Closed roads would continue to influence surface and subsurface 

hydrology for the life of the road. Reduction of road miles within a watershed would take 

time before negative effects are no longer realized.

● Unauthorized routes not designated for motorized travel are expected to revegetate. 

Unauthorized routes not subject to use would continue to be a source of chronic sediment 

production, but revegetation would stabilize soils reducing sediment production, 

particularly in comparison to open roads subject to vehicular use. This would provide 

positive effects to vegetation under all action alternatives. 

● Designated NFS roads and NFS trails are generally in acceptable condition, unless 

information exists to the contrary. This is because most roads and trails were constructed 

with engineered design. Various types of improvements from surfacing to a multitude of 

drainage structures improve the road (reduce sediment and erosion) compared to an 

unauthorized road. 

● Unauthorized routes may not be in an acceptable condition, unless site-specific 

information exists to the contrary. This is based on the fact that unauthorized routes were 

created without engineered design.

● Visitor use is expected to increase as surrounding populations increase and as demand for 

recreational opportunities also increases.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Alternative A

Alternative A, no action, has the potential for the greatest risk to plant species because it 

maintains cross-country travel forestwide and includes all 13 vegetation types. Cross-country 

travel directly impacts vegetation and increases soil erosion and sedimentation adjacent to vehicle 

tracks. With few restrictions on cross-country travel, riparian areas are subject to damage from 

motor vehicles. Resource damage would occur where motor vehicles travel cross-country to 

retrieve big game and for dispersed camping, and would be spread across all vegetation types

since the forests are currently open to these activities. 

Alternative A would maintain all currently open roads and motorized trails on the forests. These 

roads and trails are already established and have removed potential habitat for plant species 

within the forests. The acreage occupied by route surfaces lacks vegetation. There have been 

impacts to vegetation adjacent to open roads and motorized trails from the removal of potential 

habitat for plant species.

Alternative A also has the greatest potential to infest the forests with weeds due to cross-country 

travel. This alternative has the greatest potential to transport weed seeds along roads and 

drainages, eventually reaching areas downstream, off of NFS lands and onto neighboring lands. 

The spread of noxious weeds from existing roads and trails would continue to occur along 2,832 

miles of open roads and 156 miles of motorized trails. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would result in 2,673 miles of roads and 268 miles of motorized trails designated 

for motor vehicle use. Although there is a decrease in open roads from alternative A, there would 

be additional impacts to vegetation from adding 53 miles of unauthorized roads to the system. 

The roads added to the system, as well as adding trails, would result in the removal of potential 

habitat for plant species since the acreage occupied by route surfaces would lack vegetation. 

There would be impacts to vegetation adjacent to open roads and motorized trails from the 

removal of potential habitat for plant species. The loss of ground cover due to crushing exposed 

root systems and compaction would result in increased soil erosion along road and trail surfaces 

and eventual rutting and gullying. Areas of soil deposition would bury some vegetation, such as 

grasses, along roads. 

The areas open to off-road travel would be reduced from alternative A. The 300-foot wide 

dispersed camping corridors would provide fewer acres of direct disturbance as compared with 

the existing condition. This reduction would result in a beneficial effect to plants and their 

habitats. Motor vehicle use within dispersed camping corridors (table 22), motorized use areas, 

and for MBGR (table 23) would directly remove some vegetation through compaction and 

crushing from vehicles. Use of dispersed camping corridors would increase soil erosion and cause 

indirect impacts to vegetation. The corridors are present in all 13 vegetation types and are in 

many riparian areas. In riparian areas and wetlands, any ground disturbance from motorized 

vehicles would leave impacts to the vegetation and soils that could take substantial time to 

recover. 

Alternative B has reduced potential to spread noxious weeds when compared to alternative A, and 

the potential is proportional to the miles of roads and motorized trails proposed. The reduced 

potential to spread weeds is primarily from restricting off-road travel to designated areas only. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 81

Consequently, it would also have a reduced potential to spread weed seeds off of NFS lands 

through connected roads or down drainages.

Alternative C

Alternative C would result in 2,860 miles of roads and 156 miles of motorized trails designated 

for motor vehicle use. This alternative is similar to alternative A in total mileage, however, it 

would prohibit cross-country motorized travel. This would greatly reduce the effects to vegetation 

from motor vehicles and would have an overall beneficial effect to vegetation through a lower 

impact to vegetation habitat. There would be 28 miles of unauthorized routes added to the system, 

some of which could be used to access dispersed camping (table 22). There would be impacts to 

vegetation adjacent to open roads and motorized trails from the removal of potential habitat for 

plant species, which would be similar to alternative A. The loss of ground cover due to crushing 

exposed root systems and compaction would result in increased soil erosion along road and trail

surfaces and eventual rutting and gullying. Areas of soil deposition would bury some vegetation, 

such as grasses, along roads. 

There would be areas designated for MBGR (table 23) which would directly remove some 

vegetation through compaction and crushing from vehicles. The areas for MBGR are present in 

all 13 vegetation types and are in many riparian areas. In riparian areas and wetlands, any ground 

disturbance from motorized vehicles would leave impacts to the vegetation and soils that could 

take substantial time to recover. 

Alternative C has reduced potential to spread noxious weeds when compared to alternatives A and 

B and is proportional to the miles of roads and motorized trails proposed. The reduced potential 

to spread weeds is primarily from restricting off-road travel to designated areas only. The 

designation of existing unauthorized routes (28 miles or 1 percent change in the road system) is 

dispersed throughout the forests and would not measurably increase the potential for noxious 

weeds to spread. 

Alternative C has the same effects to noxious weeds as described for alternative B except the 

reduced potential to spread weeds is proportional to the miles of roads and motorized trails 

proposed. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would result in 2,730 miles of roads and 302 miles of motorized trails designated 

for motor vehicle use and would increase the risk to plant species and their habitats. Although 

there is a decrease in open roads from alternative A, there would be additional impacts to 

vegetation from adding 37 miles of unauthorized roads to the system. Effects of the miles of 

roads and trails would be similar to those described under alterative B. 

The areas open to off-road travel would be reduced from alternative A. The 300-foot-wide 

dispersed camping corridors would provide fewer acres of direct disturbance as compared with 

the existing condition. This reduction would result in a beneficial effect to plants and their 

habitats. Compared with the other action alternatives, this alternative opens the most area to 

dispersed camping at 148,000 acres. 

There would also be areas designated for motor vehicle use as well as for MBGR, although 

compared with alternatives B and D, there are fewer acres designated for MBGR under this 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

alternative at around 700,000 acres (table 23). Travel to dispersed camping sites, travel within 

designated areas, and for MBGR would directly remove some vegetation through compaction and 

crushing from vehicles. Use of dispersed camping corridors would increase soil erosion and cause 

indirect impacts to vegetation along the route. The corridors are present in all 13 vegetation types 

and are in many riparian areas (table 22). In riparian areas and wetlands, any ground disturbance 

from motorized vehicles would leave impacts to the vegetation and soils that could take 

substantial time to recover. 

Alternative D has the same effects to noxious weeds as described for alternative B except the 

reduced potential to spread weeds is proportional to the miles of roads and motorized trails 

proposed. 

Alternative E

Alternative E would result in 2,473 miles of roads and 205 miles of motorized trails designated 

for motor vehicle use and would impact the least amount of plant species and their habitat of all 

the alternatives. This alternative would prohibit cross-country motorized travel. This would 

greatly reduce the effects to vegetation from motor vehicles and would have an overall beneficial 

effect to vegetation. There would be 64 miles of unauthorized routes added to the system. There 

would be impacts to vegetation adjacent to open roads and motorized trails from the removal of 

potential habitat for plant species, which would be less than alternative A. The loss of ground 

cover due to crushing exposed root systems and compaction would result in increased soil erosion

along road and trail surfaces and eventual rutting and gullying. Areas of soil deposition would 

bury some vegetation, such as grasses, along roads. 

Alternative E would not designate any motorized use areas and would prohibit MBGR across the 

forests (table 23). This would have a beneficial impact on vegetation by removing the direct and 

indirect effects on vegetation from cross-country travel on over 1.6 million acres of the forests.

The 300-foot-wide corridors for dispersed camping would provide fewer acres of direct 

disturbance as compared with the existing condition and alternatives B and D. This reduction 

would result in a beneficial effect to plants and their habitats. In riparian areas and wetlands, any 

ground disturbance from motorized vehicles would leave impacts to the vegetation and soils that 

could take substantial time to recover. 

Alternative E has reduced potential to spread noxious weeds when compared to all the 

alternatives, and the potential is proportional to the miles of roads and motorized trails proposed. 

The reduced potential to spread weeds is primarily from restricting off-road travel for dispersed 

camping and not providing MBGR or motorized use areas. Consequently, it would also have a 

reduced potential to spread weed seeds off of NFS lands through connected roads or down 

drainages.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 83

Table 21. Miles of open roads and motorized trails crossing vegetation types by 

alternative

Vegetation Types

Alternatives

A B C D E

Cottonwood willow riparian forest 17 16 17 19 11

Great Basin grassland 361 349 363 354 332

Interior chaparral 6 5 6 5 2

Madrean pine-oak woodland 125 128 126 126 120

Mixed broad leaf deciduous riparian forest 19 19 19 19 14

Mixed conifer with frequent fire 419 479 427 508 408

Montane/subalpine grassland 113 130 115 136 124

Montane willow riparian forest 13 12 13 12 9

Pinyon-juniper woodland 348 316 349 322 300

Ponderosa pine 1,347 1,239 1,359 1,294 1,131

Semidesert grasslands 96 100 96 100 91

Spruce-fir with wet mixed conifer 68 85 70 89 75

Wetland/cienega 24 31 25 33 28

Other (non-vegetative and off-forest) 32 32 31 15 33

Total 2,988 2,941 3,016 3,032 2,678

Total miles are approximate due to rounding and are reflective of the GIS data at the time of analysis. 

Table 22. Acres of dispersed camping corridors by vegetation type by alternative

Vegetation Types

Alternatives

A B C D E

Cottonwood willow riparian forest 4,509 299 N/A 365 132

Great Basin grassland 174,02

3

1,978 N/A 20,424 1,457

Interior chaparral 36,183 87 N/A 610 25

Madrean pine-oak woodland 265,18

0

3,016 N/A 7,247 1,430

Mixed broad leaf deciduous riparian 3,823 60 N/A 776 49

Mixed conifer with frequent fire 213,99

2

5,559 N/A 25,747 1

Montane/subalpine grassland 47,576 1,330 N/A 7,775 0

Montane willow riparian forest 3,447 149 N/A 290 108

Pinyon-juniper woodland 210,96 1,693 N/A 9,500 1,059

Ponderosa pine 525,05 28,702 N/A 63,135 2,798

Semidesert grasslands 94,476 3,396 N/A 4,900 1,540

Spruce-fir with wet mixed conifer 34,120 1,158 N/A 5,362 0

Wetland/cienega 9,274 379 N/A 1,672 0

Total 1,622,6 47,854 N/A 147,80 8,559

Total acres are approximate due to rounding and are reflective of the GIS data at the time of analysis.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Table 23. Acres of MBGR areas by vegetation type by alternative

Vegetation Types

Alternatives

A B C D E

Cottonwood willow riparian forest 4,509 4,449 3,951 2,754 0

Great Basin grassland 174,023 170,691 168,480 95,768 0

Interior chaparral 36,183 4,113 3,921 1,828 0

Madrean pine-oak woodland 265,180 68,415 65,791 28,650 0

Mixed broad leaf deciduous riparian 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,837 0

Mixed conifer with frequent fire 213,992 198,992 193,820 118,420 0

Montane/subalpine grassland 47,576 46,957 46,123 28,734 0

Montane willow riparian forest 3,447 2,983 2,927 2,078 0

Pinyon-juniper woodland 210,965 196,331 196,611 89,709 0

Ponderosa pine 525,057 501,620 497,458 291,891 0

Semidesert grasslands 94,476 37,483 35,981 20,582 0

Spruce-fir with wet mixed conifer 34,120 32,491 31,938 21,922 0

Wetland/cienega 9,274 9,225 9,036 6,277 0

Total 1,622,622 1,276,011 1,258,299 710,450 0

Total acres are approximate due to rounding and are reflective of the GIS data at the time of analysis. 

Cumulative Effects on Vegetation

The cumulative effects analysis geographic boundary is the forests’ boundary. Past activities on 

the forests that have resulted in impacts to vegetation and the spread of noxious weeds include 

timber management, vegetation management, extensive wildfire, prescribed burns, and fuels 

management. Livestock grazing has occurred on the forests for over 100 years and has impacted 

sensitive riparian areas, potentially increasing the impacts to riparian and wetland plant species 

and increasing the risk of noxious weeds. Other habitat management activities include the 

revegetation and mitigation of approximately 2,000 acres of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire. There is 

now spotted knapweed present in the areas burned by this fire. Areas of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire 

(2002) could still produce impacts to vegetation on a large scale, especially if beetle killed areas 

catch fire.

As exact impacts of the various project effects are unknown, a description of the anticipated 

effects is given to provide context for the significance of the activity type. Since implementation 

of travel management is forestwide, the activities are discussed in general. Future actions on State 

and private lands that are likely to occur are increased community development and energy 

development. 

● Vegetation Management: Vegetation management projects were listed in the current 

SOPA and are forest restoration projects. These projects have the potential to stabilize 

upland vegetation in the long term, and potentially increase runoff thus enhancing 

vegetation.

● Fuels Management/Reduction: Fuels reduction projects were listed on the current 

SOPA. These projects have the potential to restore the health of forest and woodland 

communities by reducing the understory density and competition between species and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 85

individuals. These projects would have minimal direct and cumulative impacts at a 

forestwide scale.

● Prescribed Burns: Prescribed burns were listed in the current SOPA. The R-C 

prescribed burn is located in the Lakeside and Black Mesa Ranger Districts, and the 

Campbell Blue prescribed burn is in the Alpine Ranger District. These prescribed burns 

have the potential to restore the forest and woodland communities by reducing fuels in 

the short term. In the long term, the prescribed burns would reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. These projects are on a small scale and are not likely to change 

vegetation communities across the forests.

● Livestock Grazing: Grazing livestock have the potential to severely impact riparian 

areas if not managed properly. The forests permit livestock grazing in all districts. The 

current SOPA has allotment management plans listed for re-analysis that span all of the 

districts. These revisions to the allotments have the potential to better manage livestock 

grazing and potentially reduce impacts to riparian areas. Grazing occurs all across the 

forests and is the most influential activity in terms of affecting vegetation, vegetation

types, and plant succession. 

● Natural Erosion Rates: Natural erosion is continuous and cannot be reduced by 

management. Natural erosion rates are cumulative in that human-caused erosion rates add 

to natural erosion rates, producing totals that affect downstream sediment loads.

Implementation of any alternative in conjunction with other activities (discussed above) may 

impact vegetation on a local scale. The actual amount of this increase or decrease is

indistinguishable from natural levels of disturbance. The designation of roads and motorized trails 

and areas for motor vehicle use, combined with the elimination of cross-country travel, has the 

potential to impact vegetation composition, plant populations, and the spread of noxious weeds. 

Present and future actions have the potential to provide cumulative effects, however, the action 

alternatives would result in a road and motorized trail system that is only within 10 percent of 

current miles. 

Soils and Watershed 

This section describes the existing watershed, soil, and water quality characteristics on the forests, 

as related to motorized use. The effects of each alternative on these resources are included. “Issue 

3, Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use” is addressed in this analysis. To compare effects of 

the alternatives, the analysis is based on the fifth-code watershed level, also called a hydrologic 

unit code (HUC). Figure 3 displays the fourth-code HUCs across the forest. The soils and 

watershed specialist report contains a map of the fifth-code HUCs. The criteria used for 

comparing the existing condition to the alternatives are based on the following: climate and 

precipitation amounts; elevation change; vegetation cover; soil types and soil characteristics; and 

watershed health. 

Affected Environment 

Watershed

Watersheds are critical natural resources that: provide water quality protection; help sustain 

ecosystems; provide clean water supplies; provide high quality recreational opportunities; and 

help prevent or reduce downstream effects from flooding or high runoff events. Watersheds exist 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

in a natural balance between environmental processes such as precipitation amount, seasonal 

climate, snow accumulation and melt, evaporation from surface water and vegetation, ground

water recharge from precipitation, and ground water discharge that provides streamflow during 

dry periods.

A concern with regard to effects from travel management on the forest watersheds is the 

generation of sediment in wetlands and riparian areas from motor vehicle use on roads, trails, and 

areas. Road densities are included because the greater the road density, the greater the risk of 

adverse watershed effects related to erosion and sedimentation. Other dynamics on the forest 

influencing sediment levels include the number of road-stream crossings and the proximity of 

roads to streams. Greater stream and road densities within a watershed equate to greater 

interactions between the roads and streams, and an increased risk of sediment contamination to 

streams caused by activities or erosion on the roads. Roads that cross streams, follow streams, or 

are in close proximity (within 300 feet) to streams, lakes, and wetlands increase the potential for 

sediment contamination to streams and other water bodies. 

Off-road motorized vehicle use on the forest adds significantly to the risk of sediment 

contamination to streams by spreading soil and vegetation disturbance over wider areas that are 

less controlled and more difficult to manage than established roads. Since no maintenance or 

erosion control mitigation occurs on tracks made by cross-country motorized vehicle use, any 

erosion that starts in these tracks will get worse without any means to stop it. As lakes and 

wetlands often provide desirable scenery and recreation opportunities, roads tend to concentrate 

in these areas. This juxtaposition increases the interaction between vehicle use and surface water. 

The five proposed motorized use areas (proposed under alternatives B and D) are located in the 

watershed of the Little Colorado River, which has a high sediment load; however, its current 

condition does not resemble presettlement conditions. Much of the Little Colorado River’s 

watershed to the north of the forests’ boundary lies in arid, cold desert grasslands that have low 

ground cover and highly erosive soils. Table 25 displays the watersheds with factors related to 

motorized use, providing an existing condition. The watershed and soil resource specialist report

located in the project record provides detailed lists of the existing condition of watersheds and 

surface waters on the forests.

Surface Water

Surface water on the forests includes streams, springs, seeps, fens, cienegas, wetlands, riparian 

areas, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and numerous stock ponds and tanks. They contribute to aesthetic 

resources; habitat for terrestrial wildlife and fisheries; natural water purification processes; flood 

control; and agricultural and recreational uses. 

Based on GIS analysis, there are 996 miles of perennial streams and 3,399 miles of intermittent 

streams on the forests. Ephemeral and intermittent streams in GIS combine to total 6,284 miles of 

dry washes that flow only during storm events or intermittently. As the GIS data only has major 

ephemeral drainages, the actual miles of ephemerals could be up to 10 times the miles of 

perennial and intermittent streams. Open water comprises 3,771 acres. An estimated 29,430 acres 

of riparian/wetland ecosystems are associated with all surface waters on the forests (USDA FS 

2008b). The forests contain headwaters of the Little Colorado, Black, Blue, and San Francisco 

Rivers, all of which originate in the northern portion of the Apache National Forest in the vicinity 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 87

of Mount Baldy Wilderness and the area between Baldy Peak and the Arizona-New Mexico 

border. 

The Little Colorado River is a direct tributary to the Colorado River, whereas the Black, Blue, 

and San Francisco Rivers are all tributaries to the Salt and Gila Rivers to the south. The Gila 

River, in turn, is a direct tributary to the Colorado River, with the confluence in the southwest 

corner of the state at Yuma, Arizona. Numerous streams in the Sitgreaves National Forest drain 

north from the crest of the Mogollon Rim and are tributaries to the Little Colorado River. Some of 

the principle streams draining this region of the forests, as reflected by fifth-level HUC watershed 

names, are: Clear Creek, Chevelon Canyon Creek, Black Canyon, Phoenix Park Wash,

Cottonwood Wash, Show Low Creek, and Silver Creek.

Water Quality

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has identified water quality 

standards and beneficial uses for waters of the State. Waterbodies that do not meet water quality 

standards with implementation of existing management measures are listed by the State as 

impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). To ensure Arizona’s water quality 

standards are met, the allowable pollutant load or total maximum daily load (TMDL) is allocated 

to potential sources (i.e. point or nonpoint sources) for each of the pollutants in question. It is the 

responsibility of the Forest Service as a Federal land management agency, through 

implementation of the CWA, to protect and restore the quality of public waters under its 

jurisdiction. Protecting water quality is addressed in several sections of the CWA, including 

sections 303 and 319. Best management practices (BMPs) are used to meet water quality 

standards (or water quality goals and objectives) for nonpoint source pollution under Section 319. 

The 303(d) list for 2006 to 2008 indicates that two stream segments within the forests—one is on 

the San Francisco River from the headwaters to the New Mexico border—are impaired because 

of sediment (ADEQ 2008a). Much of this 13.1-mile river reach is located on private lands in the 

San Francisco River valley adjacent to U.S. Route 180. However, both the beginning and end of 

the stream segment are located in the Apache National Forest. Although not all of the reach is 

under Forest Service authority, activities and management practices on the forests would likely 

influence water quality in this stream reach. This stream reach is on the 303(d) list based on 

turbidity exceedances obtained from 10 samples collected by ADEQ in 1999 to 2000 (EPA 

2008a). The second impaired stream segment is the lower stretch of Nutrioso Creek. The majority 

of the impaired stream segment is on private and State lands, but the beginning of the segment is 

on the forests (ADEQ 2008a). Additionally, the Blue River is being looked at for a possible 

TMDL study regarding contaminants. The reach of concern runs from Strayhorse Creek to the 

confluence with the San Francisco River.

The State of Arizona has identified stream segments that are particularly pristine and where no 

degradation of water quality is allowed. These are called “Outstanding Arizona Waters” (OAW), 

nine of which are located in the high elevation regions northeast, east, and southeast of Mount 

Baldy Wilderness on the Apache National Forest (ADEQ 2003). Since no water quality 

degradation is allowed in the OAW stream reaches, any roads, motorized trails, or cross-country 

use in close proximity to these streams would be a problem due to the increased risks of 

contamination caused by the presence of motorized vehicles and increased sedimentation and 

turbidity from roads and cross-country disturbance. The nine OAWs on the forests are: 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

1. Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to the boundary of the San Carlos Indian 

Reservation; 

2. South Fork Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to Bear Wallow Creek; 

3. North Fork Bear Wallow Creek, from its headwaters to Bear Wallow Creek; 

4. Hay Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork of the Black River; 

5. KP Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Blue River; 

6. Lee Valley Creek, from its headwaters to Lee Valley Reservoir; 

7. West Fork Little Colorado River, above Government Springs; 

8. Snake Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Black River; and 

9. Stinky Creek, from the Fort Apache Indian Reservation boundary to its confluence with 

the West Fork of the Black River.

Soils

The reference for soil descriptions and characteristics on the forests is the terrestrial ecosystem 

survey (TES). The TES is the primary method for describing and categorizing the physical and 

environmental characteristics on the forests (Laing et al. 1987). Of 123 total TES units, 59 units 

of concern were evaluated in further detail (see specialist report for additional information). Table 

24 displays the TES units of concern evaluated for risks to activities proposed under this project. 

Biological soil crusts (BSCs) are common in dry climate regions of the Colorado Plateau and are 

very important for the development of soils and protection against erosion. BSCs are very 

sensitive to disturbance and are very important to soil development, soil health, and provide 

protection against erosion. BSCs have not been quantified in detail on the forests, but it is 

assumed BSCs are present in parts of dry, low elevation areas, particularly in the pinyon-juniper 

woodlands vegetation type (USDA FS 2008b). There is no way to quantify the effects of the 

project alternatives on BSCs. Therefore, the relative effects of the alternatives on BSCs are 

discussed in a general way.

Flood Plains and Wetlands 

Executive Order 11988 requires the Forest Service to provide leadership and take action to 

minimize adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of flood plains and reduce 

risks of flood loss; minimize impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and restore 

and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains. Executive Order 11990 

requires the Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of 

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

Wetlands are areas saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency which influences the 

nature of soil development and the types of plants and animals supported. There are 29,430 acres 

of riparian and wetland areas on the forests (USDA FS 2008b). Although riparian and wetland 

areas occupy less than 2 percent of the forests, they are key to productive fisheries and wildlife 

habitat, reduce flooding, maintain high quality water for downstream users, are ground water 

recharge areas, and provide diverse scenery and recreation sites. Riparian and wetland areas also 

are important to sustaining timber and forage production. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 89

Table 24. Soil TES units of concern within the forests

Soil Group TES Units of Concern Soil Group Characteristics

Vertic Clay 182, 187, 202, 379, 412, 469, 

470, 479, 481 502, 504, 515, 

531, 580, and 589

Highly expansive soils; low bearing strength when 

wet; sensitive to cross-country traffic; sensitive to 

compaction; subject to piping and gully erosion; can 

be mitigated, partly by avoiding use during wet 

seasons/conditions.

Riparian and 

Wetland Habitat

4, 10, 16, 58, 60, 100, 102, 

198, and 208

Level to low slopes (0 to 5 percent); riparian and 

wetland habitats; sensitive to cross-country use and

within the 300-foot camping corridor; sensitive to 

compaction; subject to frequent flash flooding.

Datil Formation 

Soils

140, 141, 208, 516, 565, and 

570

Steep to very steep slopes (40 to 120 percent); soils 

are either derived from or associated with sandstones 

of Datil Formation (volcanic ash); extremely sensitive 

to erosion; healthy, undisturbed vegetative cover and 

ground litter is essential for erosion prevention; once 

erosion begins, it is very difficult to mitigate to stop 

the process.

Cindery Soils 505, 536, 556, 567, and 584 Moderately steep to steep slopes (15 to 40 percent); 

occur on the steep flanks of cinder cones in the 

Springerville Volcanic Field (Condit 1991); 

extremely sensitive to erosion; healthy, undisturbed 

vegetative cover and ground litter maintained to at 

least 80 percent ground cover is essential for erosion 

prevention; these areas are a concern for crosscountry use and unsurfaced roads on native soils.

Steep Slopes Greater 

than 40 Percent

55, 130, 131, 141, 189, 206, 

220, 312, 412, 481, 512, 514, 

516, 560, 565, 567, 570, 582, 

585, 586, 612, 618, 620, 628, 

634, 638, 650, 673, 691, 714, 

720, and 732

Steep to very steep slopes (40 to 120 percent); steep 

slopes exacerbate the erosion potential of the soils; 

steep slope areas are a particular concern for crosscountry use and unsurfaced roads on native soils.

Other TES Units Not 

Included in the TES 

Units of Concern

Total of 64 units. Listed in 

table 9 in specialist report as 

units not highlighted in 

yellow.

Low risk of negative effects due to travel 

management issues.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 3. Fourth-code watersheds on the forests
Chapter 3 

– Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 91

Table 25. Fourth and fifth HUC watersheds existing condition summary 

Fourth Level 

Hydrologic Unit Code 

(HUC) and

Associated 5th Level 

HUCs

Open 

Road 

Miles and 

Road 

Density 

Miles/mi2

Perennial Streams Intermittent/Ephemeral Streams Lakes and Wetlands

Stream 

Miles and 

No. of

Road 

Crossings

Miles Open 

Roads 

within 300 

Feet of 

Streams

Acres Offroad Travel 

within 300 

Feet of 

Streams

Stream 

Miles and 

No. of

Road 

Crossings

Miles 

Open 

Road 

within 300 

Feet of 

Streams

Acres Offroad Travel 

within 300 

Feet of 

Streams

Miles Open 

Road 

within 300 

Feet of 

Lakes/ 

wetlands

Acres Offroad Travel 

within 300 

Feet of 

Lakes/ 

wetlands

Little Colorado River 

headwaters (Carnero, 

Coyote, Nutrioso, South

Fork)

362/

0.56 to 

1.19

317/89 34 9,001 408/185 65 23,101 64 14,061

Upper Little Colorado 

River (Big Hollow 

Wash, Oso Draw)

130/ 1.14-

1.77

13/8 2 960 113/79 27 7,662 9 2,604

Silver Creek

(Cottonwood, Show 

Low, Upper Silver 

Creek)

805/

1.21-1.65

40/9 6 1,141 982/676 237 37,972 31 5,356

Middle Little Colorado 

River (Lower and Upper 

Clear Phoenix Park 

Wash, Dry Lake)

439/

1.28 to 

1.94

49/6 2 2005 542/268 93 29,017 7 1,898

Chevelon Canyon 

(Black Canyon, Lower 

and Upper Chevelon 

Canyon)

741/

1.22 to 

1.47

38/2 1 246 1,035/509 176 50,436 29 5,875

Mangus Creek-Upper 

Gila River (Apache 

Creek, Upper Gila 

River)

6/

0.20

0 0.7 0 61/4 1.0 4,352 0 0
Chapter 3 

– Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Fourth Level 

Hydrologic Unit Code 

(HUC) and

Associated 5th Level 

HUCs

Open 

Road 

Miles and 

Road 

Density 

Miles/mi2

Perennial Streams Intermittent/Ephemeral Streams Lakes and Wetlands

Stream 

Miles and 

No. of

Road 

Crossings

Miles Open 

Roads 

within 300 

Feet of 

Streams

Acres Offroad Travel 

within 300 

Feet of 

Streams

Stream 

Miles and 

No. of

Road 

Crossings

Miles 

Open 

Road 

within 300 

Feet of 

Streams

Acres Offroad Travel 

within 300 

Feet of 

Streams

Miles Open 

Road 

within 300 

Feet of 

Lakes/ 

wetlands

Acres Offroad Travel 

within 300 

Feet of 

Lakes/ 

wetlands

San Francisco River

(Centerfire Creek, 

Chase Creek, Lower and 

Upper Blue River, Mule 

Creek, Pueblo Creek)

364/

0. 11 to

1.23

310/79 364 4,190 2,039/260 983 75,486 26 4,630

Upper Gila River - San 

Carlos Reservoir

147/

0.52 to

12.25

56/28 14 2,736 618/88 35 41,042 19 6,017

Black River (Middle 

and Upper Black River)

421/

0.78 to 

1.24

274/63 54 12,079 584/240 99 35,242 64 18,132

White River (Upper 

North Fork White 

River)

3/

0.63

0 0 0 3/0 0 191 0 213

Upper Salt River 

(Canyon Creek)

31/

1.19

0 0 0 39/8 3 92 0 0

Carrizo Creek (Carrizo 

Creek (local drainage) 

and Corduroy Creek)

23/

2.83 to 

10.57

0 0 0 8/3 0 1 0 0

Tonto Creek (Haigler 

Creek, Tonto Creek)

23/

2.69

0 0 0 5/3 1 0 0 0
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 93

Environmental Consequences

This section includes the direct and indirect effects by alternative and concludes with the 

cumulative effects. 

The following assumptions were used in analysis of the effects on soils and watershed: 

● All vehicle types, ranging from motorcycles, ATVs, and 4-wheel-drive vehicles to 

passenger cars are assumed to have the same level of impact on roads and motorized 

trails and are evaluated as equal. 

● Education and enforcement of regulations would limit adverse effects to designated 

routes. The public would not use closed roads, would not create unauthorized routes, and 

would follow rules regarding designated road and cross-country use. 

● Designated NFS roads and trails are generally in an acceptable (contributing sediment, 

eroding) condition, unless information exists to the contrary. This is because most NFS 

roads and trails were constructed with engineered design. Various types of improvements 

from surfacing to a multitude of drainage structures improve the roads (reduce sediment 

and erosion) compared to unauthorized roads.

● Unauthorized routes may not be in an acceptable condition (are contributing sediment 

and are eroding) unless site-specific information exists to the contrary. This is because

unauthorized routes were created without engineered design. 

● Visitor use of the forests would increase as surrounding populations increase, and there is 

likely to be corresponding increases in demand for recreational opportunities.

● ML1 roads would be expected to revegetate and heal unless reopened for administrative 

purposes. Roads that are not traveled would produce less sediment than those with traffic

(Luce and Black 2001). 

● ML1 roads would continue to be a source of chronic sediment production, but the road 

would adjust to the environment and stabilize, reducing the amount of sediment 

production, particularly in comparison to open roads subject to vehicular use. Any 

reduction of road miles within a watershed from road closures would take time before 

negative effects are no longer realized. 

● Unauthorized routes would be expected to revegetate and heal over time. The routes 

would continue to be a source of chronic sediment production. However, revegetation

would stabilize soils, reducing the amount of sediment production, particularly in 

comparison to open roads subject to vehicular use. 

● Roads and motorized trails in close proximity to drainageways have the potential to 

increase peak runoff into drainageways and impair water quality with added sediment 

loading. The more roads, trails, and stream crossings in close proximity to drainageways, 

the greater potential for negative effects. Reduced numbers of road/drainageway 

interactions is likely to reduce the potential for effects to drainageways. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Additional indicators used to assess impacts to watersheds include: 

● Miles of roads and trails designated for motor vehicle use containing OAWs or 303dlisted streams impaired by sediment, suspended sediment, or turbidity.

● Number of roads and trails designated for motor vehicle use crossing perennial streams, 

intermittent streams, and mapped ephemeral stream drainages.

● Miles of roads and trails designated as open to motor vehicles within 300 feet of 

perennial streams, intermittent streams, mapped ephemeral stream drainages, lakes, and 

wetlands.

● Miles of roads and trails designated as open to motor vehicles on slopes greater than 40 

percent.

● Acres of designated areas and dispersed camping corridors overlying TES units of 

concern.

● Acres of designated areas and dispersed camping corridors within 300 feet of perennial 

streams, intermittent streams, mapped ephemeral stream drainages, lakes, and wetlands.

● Acres of designated areas on slopes greater than 40 percent.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, motorized use would result in increased potential for both wind and water 

erosion, reduced productivity of soils due to compaction and erosion, destruction of vegetative 

cover and natural ground litter, damage to riparian zones, increased sedimentation into stream 

channels and water bodies, and changes in surface waterflow routes when compared to 

presettlement conditions. Destruction of biological soil crusts would occur particularly by offroad motorized travel. There is potential for streambank damage at vehicle crossings and in 

recreation areas along streams. There is potential for reduced surface water quality from 

sedimentation, increased turbidity, and introduction of automotive fluids from spills, leaks, and 

direct contact of vehicles with streams and water bodies. Dust from traffic on unpaved roads 

would settle out across the landscape and on water bodies. This has potential to increase sediment 

loads washed into the drainage network (ephemeral drainages, intermittent streams and perennial 

streams). 

Outstanding Arizona Waters (OAWs) are not located adjacent to extensive miles of unsurfaced 

roads. There would be no measurable impact to their status in any alternative. All alternatives 

would meet the intent of regulatory requirements pertaining to OAWs, State water quality 

standards, and wetland, riparian and soil productivity direction given in the forest plan. 

In addition most “engineered roads” are surfaced, which limits effects to native soils that may be 

more sensitive than gravel surfacing. Sensitive soils on TES units of concern affect exposed 

native soils in ditches, cut slopes, fill slopes, and on unsurfaced road surfaces more so than on 

graveled surfaces where native soils are covered. Effects to soils and watersheds, including water 

quality and sedimentation issues, will decrease from existing levels under alternatives B, C, D, 

and E due to less off-road travel. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 95

Alternative A

Motorized cross-country travel would continue forestwide, including 582,272 acres on TES units 

of concern which contain highly erosive soils or sensitive areas. Due to the lack of data, exact 

levels of existing erosion cannot be determined; however, by reviewing tolerance erosion rates in 

TES it is likely that thresholds of soil erosion would not be exceeded in uplands (non-riparian 

areas). While some low elevation vegetation types may exceed thresholds, overall soil erosion 

thresholds are not being exceeded. Only in specific instances or localized areas—such as road 

cuts, drainage ditches, road drainage crossings, unpaved road surfaces or other limited disturbed 

areas—are erosion rates elevated (table 26). These localized areas almost always fall under 

specific BMPs that address capturing excessive sediment. 

Under alternative A, sediment delivery from roads to the drainage network is expected to remain 

at current levels. There are areas that naturally generate high levels of sediment, such as barren 

outcroppings of the Datil geologic formation, but these areas are fairly limited across the forests 

and do not affect extensive areas. No additional mitigation or extra maintenance is proposed. 

Current levels of erosion contribute to: (1) some level of upland and aquatic habitat quality 

degradation; (2) excess sediment reaching downstream resources (dams and/or habitat); and (3) 

some degree of change to hydrographs, resulting in elevated peak discharges and potentially 

greater total discharge. 

Alternative B 

The proposed open road and motorized trail system would have similar road/stream crossings and 

miles of roads within 300 feet of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, lakes, and 

wetlands as alternative A (table 26). In addition, there are 16 more miles of roads and motorized 

trails on TES units of concern than alternative A. This would translate to more potential for 

erosion on TES units with an increased risk of soil erosion. There may be specific areas where 

roads or motorized trails are designated on TES units of concern where erosion rates would be 

elevated to the point that negative effects would be anticipated. 

The difference between A and B that would have the most effect forestwide would be that 

alternative B would only allow off-road travel in 48,000 acres of dispersed camping corridors and 

designated areas, which is a 97 percent decrease from alternative A. This includes a reduction of 

99 percent of off-road travel on TES units of concern within camping corridors and areas. 

Alternative B would reduce the amount of the forests open to motorized off-road travel from 

alternative A and would result in a beneficial impact to plant species and their habitat. However, 

alternative B would open roads and motorized trails on 50 more miles within sixth-code

subwatersheds containing 303d-listed streams and OAWs.

In areas designated for motorized use, torrential rainfalls or sudden snowmelt events would be 

expected to generate more sediment than similar undisturbed areas with higher ground cover. As 

there is no special mitigation to capture sediment from designated areas, this would eventually 

wind up in the drainage system. All five designated areas are in the greater Little Colorado River 

watershed which has a naturally high sediment load. However, two of these areas are within 

established materials pits which have little drainage release, which results in no effect. 

The designation of roads, trails, and areas would result in an overall reduction in indirect effects 

of motorized travel across the watersheds. The reduction in off-road motor vehicle use would 

allow areas to recover naturally and would reduce erosion and sedimentation transport. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

reduction in dispersed camping corridors and designated areas on sensitive TES units would 

reduce erosion and sediment transport. With the reduction of off-road travel, large areas would 

result in natural recovery of vegetation, and an overall reduction in erosion, sediment transport, 

and sedimentation to streams and waterbodies would occur.

Alternative C 

Alternative C is nearly identical to alternative A (table 26). However, under alternative C, offroad motorized travel would be prohibited on 70 percent of the forests. This greatly reduces the 

direct and indirect impacts to sensitive soils by eliminating corresponding impacts. Some off-road 

travel would occur for MBGR, but effects would be limited in scope and scale. The 28 miles of 

trails to identified dispersed camping sites would be added to the system; however, these 28 miles 

currently already occur, so would not add to current disturbance levels. 

Other major differences under alternative C compared to alternative A are the lack of designated 

camping corridors and areas. These could reduce overall forestwide effects to soil and watershed 

resources. Most camping related activities do not generate significant amounts of sediment, as 

most of these activities occur on flat slopes where sediment cannot get very far before it settles 

out due to high ground cover. However, many sites are adjacent to riparian areas, streams and 

wetlands. Not having areas designated would be of benefit as during heavy rainfalls or sudden 

snowmelt events, these places would be expected to generate more sediment than undisturbed 

areas having higher ground cover. 

Indirectly, reducing vehicular effects to 2,000 acres from 1.6 million acres would allow areas 

disturbed by previous cross-country motor vehicle use to begin revegetating, which would reduce 

erosion and sedimentation transport. As a result of lower sediment yield to the drainage network, 

less maintenance to road related structures would be expected (culverts), some level of aquatic 

habitat improvement would be expected downstream, a lower more gradual hydrologic discharge 

would be expected with less tendency to cause damage from high peak flows, and a longer 

residence time of water on the watershed would be expected, which promotes infiltration and 

ground water recharge. These benefits would not be measurable. 

Alternative D

In general, and within specific fifth-code watersheds, the open road and motorized trail network 

proposed under alternative D would be similar to that under alternative B with similar 

road/stream crossings and miles of roads within 300 feet of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

streams, lakes, and wetlands (table 26). In addition, the total number of miles of roads and 

motorized trails on TES units of concern is 699 miles, which is a 4.8 percent increase over 

alternative A. This would translate to slightly higher potential for erosion on the TES units with 

increased risk of soil erosion. There may be specific areas where roads or motorized trails are 

designated on particularly unstable slopes where erosion rates would be elevated to the point that 

negative effects are expected. 

The difference between alternatives D and A that would have the most effect forestwide would be 

that alternative D would only allow off-road travel in 148,000 acres of dispersed camping 

corridors and designated areas, which is a 96 percent decrease from alternative A. This includes a 

reduction in off-road travel on TES units of concern. However, alternative D would open roads 

and motorized trails on watersheds containing 303d-listed streams for contamination. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 97

In areas designated for motor vehicle use, heavy rainfalls or sudden snowmelt events would be 

expected to generate more sediment than similar undisturbed areas with higher ground cover. As 

there is no special mitigation to capture sediment from designated areas (monitor and address as 

needed), this sediment would eventually wind up in the drainage system. All five designated areas 

are in the Little Colorado River watershed; however, two of these areas are within established 

materials pits which have little drainage release, which results in no effect.

Indirectly, the designation of roads, trails, and areas would result in an overall reduction in effects 

of motorized travel across the watersheds. The high reduction in off-road motor vehicle use 

would allow areas that are no longer affected to recover naturally and would reduce erosion and 

sedimentation transport. The reduction in dispersed camping corridors and designated areas on 

the sensitive TES units would reduce erosion and sediment transport. With the reduction of offroad travel, large areas would result in natural recovery of vegetation, and an overall reduction in 

erosion, sediment transport, and sedimentation to streams and waterbodies would occur.

Alternative E 

Alternative E is expected to produce the least direct effects of all five alternatives. Overall, 

alternative E would open up the least amount of the forests to off-road travel and would maintain 

the lowest mileage of open roads and trails (table 26). The combination of not opening any 

designated areas, fewer miles of open roads and motorized trails, and designating dispersed 

camping areas would contribute to less effect to soil and watershed resources. Alternative E 

would retain fewer roads and motorized trails when compared to alternative A. This would 

include 441 fewer road/stream crossings and 114 fewer miles within 300 feet of perennial, 

intermittent, and ephemeral streams, lakes, and wetlands. This would reduce the effects to 

riparian and wetland areas.

Alternative E would reduce miles along TES units of concern by 6 percent, which would decrease 

the potential for erosion. Only in specific instances or in localized areas where a road or 

motorized trail is located on a particularly unstable slope would the beneficial effects be 

noticeable.

Alternative E would decrease the acres designated for motor vehicle use to 8,500 acres of 

dispersed camping corridors and would not designate any areas. This includes a reduction of 99.7 

percent of off-road travel on TES units of concern. Dispersed camping on watersheds and soil 

resources are negligible since most camping occurs on flat areas. Not designating areas would 

prevent the concentration of off-road motorized use in small areas with the potential to increase 

sediment transfer to the Little Colorado River drainage system. Alternative E would also prohibit 

MGBR, further reducing vehicular impacts. 

The reduction in off-road motor vehicle use would allow areas that are no longer affected to 

recover naturally and would reduce erosion and sedimentation transport. The 99 percent reduction 

in dispersed camping corridors (and no motorized use areas) on sensitive TES units would reduce 

erosion and sediment transport. With the reduction of off-road travel, large areas would result in 

natural recovery of vegetation and an overall reduction in erosion, sediment transport, and 

sedimentation to streams and waterbodies would occur.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Table 26. Comparison of effects by alternative on soils, watershed, and water quality

Indicator Criteria Affecting Soils 

and Watersheds Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

FS Roads and Trails (miles) 2,988 3,027 3,016 3,107 2,763

“Other” Roads and Trails 843 843 843 843 843

Totals 3,831 3,870 3,859 3,950 3,606

Total number of stream crossings

(intermittent/ephemeral streams (first

row) and perennial streams (second

row)) for open roads and motorized 

trails.

2,445 2,175 2,458 2,241 2,027

302 320 306 329 279

Miles of open roads and motorized trails 

within 300 feet of perennial streams 

(first row), intermittent and ephemeral 

streams (second row), and lakes and 

wetlands (third row).

146 155 148 160 138

698 642 703 659 593

79 82 80 84 78

Miles of open roads and motorized trails 

in 6th code watersheds containing 

“Outstanding State Resource Waters” or 

303d-listed streams impaired by 

sediment.

329 379 332 389 337

Acres of dispersed camping corridors 

and areas within 300 feet of perennial 

streams (first row), intermittent and 

ephemeral streams (second row), and 

lakes and wetlands (third row).

37,493 394 0 3,673 6

348,592 5,905 0 24,992 1,463

17,801 1,258 0 3,206 161

Miles of open roads and motorized trails 

on TES units of concern (miles/percent 

change from alternative A).

667 683 672 699 626

N/A +2.3% +0.7% +4.8% -6.1%

Miles of open roads and motorized trails 

on steep slopes TES group (miles/

percent change from alternative A).

234 239 237 242 221

N/A 2.1% 1.3% 3.4% -5.6%

Miles of open roads and motorized trails 

on riparian and wetland TES group 

(miles/percent change from alternative

A).

130 127 131 131 111

N/A -2.3% 0.8% 0.8% -14.6%

Acres of dispersed camping corridors 

and areas on TES units of concern 

(miles/percent change from alternative

A).

582,272 5,874 0.0 25,233 1826

N/A -99.0% -100.0% -95.7% -99.7%

Acres of areas on steep slopes (> 40

percent) (miles/percent change from 

alternative A).

390,542 0 0 126.4 0

N/A -100.0% -100.0% -99.9% -100.0%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 99

Cumulative Effects on Soils and Watershed

The cumulative effects analysis boundary is the geographic boundary of the forests. This 

encompasses the majority of effects that could occur within the fifth-level HUC watersheds. 

Impacts are discussed in a general qualitative manner.

Past activities on the forests that have resulted in increased soil erosion and sedimentation within 

the watersheds include mining, timber management, vegetation management, livestock grazing, 

extensive wildfire, prescribed burns, road maintenance, recreation, and fuels management. 

Livestock grazing has occurred on the forests for over 100 years and has impacted sensitive 

riparian areas potentially increasing the effects to drainageways in watersheds. In addition, 

livestock grazing has had effects on upland characteristics such as watershed health through 

removing ground cover, soil compaction, trailing that can form water channels, and impacting 

wildlife habitat quality. Other habitat management activities include the reforestation of 

approximately 2,000 acres of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire.

Future State and private actions that are likely to occur (no specific projects were identified) are 

increased community development, water related development (ground water wells and diversion 

of surface water) and energy development, as well as many of the same activities that occurred in 

the past (recreation, road maintenance, livestock grazing, fuels management, timber management, 

etc.). Ecological processes that could contribute to a cumulative effect if they happen at a large 

enough scale to have an impact include erratic climatic events, wildfires, and insect infestations. 

For all alternatives, the proposed activities when combined with past, present and foreseeable 

future actions would not result in measurable changes in sediment yield at the watershed scale.

Air Quality

This section describes the existing air quality across the forests. The effects of each alternative on 

the air quality are included. “Issue 3, Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use” is addressed in 

this analysis. The criteria used for comparing the existing condition to the alternatives is based on 

the miles of roads and motorized trails which would be open to motorized use.

Some comments received by the public suggest OHV use as a primary cause of fugitive dust on 

the forests. This analysis focuses on roadways and trails likely to have the largest contribution to 

increased levels of particulate matter due to fugitive dust. This includes unsurfaced, highclearance roadways (ML2), gravel surfaced roadways (ML3-4), and motorized trails. Paved 

roadways (ML5) are likely to contribute little fugitive dust.

Affected Environment

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rates air quality for criteria pollutants on a scale 

called the Air Quality Index (AQI). AQI values below 100 are considered satisfactory. When AQI 

values are above 100, air quality is considered to be unhealthy. The State of Arizona publishes an

annual report summarizing the AQI by county. The forests are located in portions of four 

counties, and the AQI for the most recent 3 full years of data (2005-2007) for Apache, Navajo, 

and Coconino Counties had an AQI value of 1, well within the satisfactory range (ADEQ 2008b). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Climate Change

Motor vehicle use involves the production of greenhouse gases which are understood to 

contribute to global climate change. Although it is implied that emissions from motor vehicle use 

contain greenhouse gases that may ultimately contribute to global climate change, it is not 

possible to predict the amount of public motor vehicle use occurring forestwide. Many outside 

factors—including the price of fuel, state of the economy, and alternate recreational 

opportunities—may contribute to an individual’s decision to use a motor vehicle on the forests. 

Fugitive Dust Emissions

Emissions related to motor vehicle use may impact the health of visitors and residents and may 

impair scenic vistas. In summer months, motor vehicles can stir up dust on dirt roads and emit 

exhaust pollutants. Travel on unsurfaced roads can substantially increase local atmospheric 

concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM) unless those roads are treated for dust abatement. 

Fugitive dust is fine PM from windblown soil and dust which becomes airborne and has the 

potential to adversely affect human health or the environment. The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1977 

requires attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including PM. 

The impacts to air quality from vehicular activity on the forests are directly related to the number 

of miles of roads and trails open to motorized travel. Of the emissions associated with vehicular 

activity on the forests’ roadways, fugitive dust is anticipated to have the greatest impact on air 

quality. Although there is an obvious relationship between vehicle miles traveled and air pollution 

from dust and exhaust, there is no direct relationship between mileage of available roads and 

actual miles traveled by motor vehicles. This is more of a function of peak usage times such as 

during summer holidays when the forests get high use. During winter, the same forest roads 

generate almost no usage and associated pollution.

Visibility

The Clean Air Act outlines different airsheds based on protection of air quality (EPA 2008b). 

Class I areas include designated wilderness areas over 5,000 acres. Four Class I areas near the 

forests includes the Chiricahua Wilderness, Grand Canyon National Park and Petrified Forest 

National Park. These areas have the most stringent degree of protection from emission sources 

that can cause air quality degradation. The Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan (40 

CFR 51.309(d)(7)) administered by the ADEQ for Arizona from December 23, 2003, states that 

“road dust is not a measurable contributor on a regional level to visibility impairment in the 16 

Class 1 areas.” 

In Class II areas, ADEQ sets emission limits to meet or maintain the criteria pollutant standards. 

Class II areas usually experience ambient pollution levels that limit visibility for many days of the 

year. Any area that is not designated Class I is by default considered Class II. The forests are 

categorized as Class I for the Mt. Baldy Wilderness and Class II for the remainder of the forests. 

Currently, sulfates (primarily from coal burning power plants) and nitrates from power plants are 

the primary source of visibility impairment in other parts of the State. 

Environmental Consequences

This section includes the direct and indirect effects by alternative and concludes with the 

cumulative effects. Quantification of impacts was not performed. Due to the qualitative approach 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 101

taken in this analysis, several assumptions are necessary for comparison of the alternatives: (1) 

miles of roads and motorized trails are directly proportional to impacts on air quality; (2) all 

roadway characteristics are identical (moisture content, silt content, etc.); (3) all vehicle speeds 

are roughly comparable; (4) all vehicle types are identical; and (5) the number of vehicles per 

mile is identical for all roads and trails. The air quality specialist report is found in the project 

record and contains full discussions of this analysis. 

Alternative A

The current state of science cannot support a direct calculation of climate change resulting from a 

minor source such as motor vehicle use on the forests. Further, the growth of trees in the forests 

provides a carbon sink that would offset any effect of emissions from vehicles. On a global scale, 

this alternative can be considered insufficient to cause any change to the climate. 

The direct impact to air quality associated with no action is minimal. Increased concentrations of 

particulate matter along roadways due to fugitive dust are localized and short term. Road 

maintenance is associated with some degree of incidental dust generation and operations 

associated with crushing and hauling gravel for surfacing. Although these are short-term impacts, 

it is an impact that relates to existing road mileage. 

In terms of indirect effects to air quality, downwind impacts of dust or pollutants generated on 

NFS roads could conceivably play a role. However, dust generated on unpaved roads generally 

settles out within a short distance (around 20 feet) of the point of generation. Larger particle sizes 

of road dust drop out within tens of feet, while smallest particle sizes will drop out well within a 

quarter mile. Unless winds carry road dust a farther distance, dust generated on the forests does 

not leave the forests. 

In terms of effects of vehicle exhausts, dilution and air mixing reduces potential effects within a 

short distance. Although sources of pollution, such as vehicles, can pose a problem when operated 

in close quarters such as a city, the number of vehicles operating across the whole forest is not 

deemed to measurably impact off-forest air quality. In addition, most vehicles traversing the 

forests on the road network are approved to meet EPA emission standards, which effectively 

reduce off-forest impacts even further. The indirect impacts to air quality associated with the 

alternative are nonmeasurable on a forestwide scale.

Direct and Indirect Effects Under all Action Alternatives

The effects of alternatives B, C, D, and E on climate change are the same as described under 

alternative A. 

The effects of alternatives B, C, D, and E on air quality are extremely limited. Due to less 

motorized off-road travel, this could theoretically translate into less vehicular exhaust and 

fugitive dust (PM), however, actual differences may be immeasurable. Effects of fugitive dust are 

generally short term and local in nature. Prevailing winds act to disperse dust over a large area in 

a short time, making the effect nonmeasurable. Therefore, visibility would not measurably be 

affected by any of the action alternatives. Since the number of motor vehicles is not expected to 

change, the amount of fugitive dust generated by motor vehicles under the action alternatives 

would not be noticeably different from what is generated on the existing road system.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Vehicular emissions under any action alternative could interact with other compounds in the air. 

Compared to alternative A, the action alternatives could be expected to have less indirect impact. 

The impacts to the ambient air quality of the forests due to vehicular travel, whether through 

engine exhaust or fugitive dust, are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of air 

quality standards. Implementation of any action alternatives is not anticipated to have any 

measurable adverse long-term impacts on air quality.

The total number of miles of accessible roads and trails is increased from the no action alternative 

in alternatives C and D and decreased in alternatives B and E, and the impacts would increase or 

decrease accordingly (table 27). Any increases combined with much more limited off-road travel 

could result in a regional negligible reduced impact through a small reduction in the vehicle miles 

traveled and adverse air quality impacts from dust and vehicular emissions. 

Air quality effects associated with dispersed camping corridors may include vehicle emissions 

and campfire smoke. Effects from MBGR would be sporadic and largely from vehicle emissions. 

These activities would not appreciably impact ambient air quality on the forests.

Table 27. Miles of open road/trail and percent change in road density by alternative

Criteria Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Miles of open road and motorized 

trails and percent change in road 

density 

2,988 2,941

-47 miles/

-1.6%

3,016

+28 miles/

+0.9%

3,032

+44 miles/

+1.5%

2,678

-310 miles/

-10.4%

Cumulative Effects on Air Quality

Cumulative impacts for air quality consider the impacts of the alternatives with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. Those activities which may result in an adverse impact to 

air quality include the following:

● Prescribed burns

● Road reconstruction or maintenance

● Commercial operations (timber harvesting, sand/gravel operations, etc.)

● Continued use of ADOT deicing salt compounds on state highways across the forests. 

Road salts dry on pavement surfaces to form a white coating that turns into white dust in 

traffic which can result in localized impacts to air quality. 

Prescribed burns listed in the SOPA can provide a negative impact on the local and regional air 

quality, but are controlled in order to meet air quality standards. Road impacts in terms of air 

quality are negligible compared with emissions from prescribed burns, however, prescribed 

burning operations are managed so as not to exceed any air quality limits. During wildfires or 

broadcast burns, public access and travel is normally limited for safety reasons and not 

necessarily tied to air quality concerns.

Road reconstruction and maintenance can provide localized, short-term impacts to air quality, but 

mitigation measures are generally required to minimize the impacts. Commercial operations that 

include the crushing, hauling, or mining of aggregate material, or operations that require constant 

and heavy use of the roadways by large vehicles may adversely impact the air quality if 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 103

mitigation measures are not employed. Dust abatement may be used to reduce both air and water 

quality effects of localized high traffic areas. The main impacts to air quality within the state of 

Arizona focus on the limited amount of heavy industry in the state (coal fired power plants, a pulp 

mill, large-scale open pit mining) and large metropolitan areas (Phoenix and Tucson). 

Cumulative effects to the forests’ only Class I airshed (Mt. Baldy Wilderness) is considered 

negligible for several reasons including: (1) Mt. Baldy is located upwind of all roads on the 

forests and this area has very few roads and little traffic; (2) the only roads located close to the 

wilderness to the north and northeast are high standard roads. Other gravel roads to the northeast 

of the wilderness receive lower amounts of traffic and less dust is generated; and (3) roads that 

can generate dust in proximity to the wilderness are located 1 to 2 miles away, and road dust 

normally does not travel that far. Only during high winds can dust travel farther, however, it 

would travel to the northeast away from the wilderness. 

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Wildlife and Rare Plants

This analysis focuses on federally listed species, Forest Service sensitive species, migratory birds, 

and management indicator species. The analysis is based only on proposed changes to the current 

transportation system forestwide. Direct and indirect effects are described for each species, and 

cumulative effects are presented at the end of the section for all terrestrial and semi-aquatic 

wildlife and rare plant species. “Issue 3, Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use” is addressed. 

The specialist report for wildlife and rare plants contains detailed information on the habitats, 

populations, and effects, and can be found in the project record. A biological assessment (BA) 

was prepared for wildlife and is also in the project record. The Forest Service consulted on the 11

forest plans for the Southwestern Region pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 

and a biological opinion was issued in 2005 (USDA FS 2005). It has been determined that 

implementation of any proposed alternative in this analysis would be consistent with the 

regionwide biological opinion. 

The following assumptions were made for evaluating the potential effects to all listed species:

● Due to the large scale of this project, it was not possible to analyze site-specific effects on 

each species. To facilitate this analysis, habitat types were used as surrogates for 

individual species and impacts on habitats used to relate effects to individual species or 

groups dependent on the habitats. 

● Little information is known about some species, including habitat needs and locations of 

populations. Preferred habitat types were used to relate to general effects to the species. 

In all cases, presence of a species is implied in specific habitats and direct and indirect 

effects reflect this assumption. 

● Motorized use in general has some level of direct and indirect effects on terrestrial and 

semi-aquatic wildlife species and rare plants. Use of unauthorized routes has impacted 

vegetation and caused some erosion and sedimentation (refer to the “Vegetation” and 

“Soils and Watershed” sections). 

● Visitor use is expected to increase as surrounding populations and demand for 

recreational opportunities increases.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

● All vehicle types, ranging from cars to OHVs, are assumed to have the same level of 

impact on roads and motorized trails and are evaluated equally. Although different 

vehicle types may impact wildlife on different levels, data is not available to differentiate 

these impacts.

How Routes and Vehicles Affect Wildlife

Roads and motorized trails impact wildlife to varying degrees based on frequency and timing of 

use. Routes can affect behavior, survival, reproduction, and distribution of wildlife, and crosscountry motorized use can alter habitat characteristics. Routes cause fragmentation of habitat, 

which can remove security for wildlife species, provide disturbance from human presence, 

increase vulnerability due to interactions with vehicles, and introduce migration barriers. 

However, roads and trails are often used by wildlife for travel and mobility. Bouchard et al. 

(2009) documented that small mammals avoid going onto roads, most likely due to the lack of 

protective cover. 

While much of the literature on road mortality discusses deer and elk, a number of other species 

are also susceptible, such as amphibians that migrate to breeding grounds. Jochimsen et al. (2004) 

provides an extensive literature review of the effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles due to 

direct injury or mortality from physical contact with vehicles. Species that move slowly, such as 

snakes are more likely to suffer from road mortality.

Changes in vegetation composition and density could result in altered habitat use by some 

species. Direct crushing of plants by motorized cross-country travel could cause injury and 

mortality of individual plants or groups of plants. The quality of forage for some species could 

also be impacted from the spread of noxious weeds.

Overview of Direct and Indirect 

Effects to Wildlife from All Alternatives

The miles of designated roads and motorized trails vary by alternative. Under the no action 

alternative, the creation of unauthorized routes may have greater impact on wildlife than the 

designated roads and trails. The action alternatives with fewer roads and trails open to motorized 

use would concentrate human disturbance impacts to wildlife into smaller areas. By concentrating 

the disturbance, there could be impacts to some wildlife species. However, keeping motorized 

travel to designated routes would benefit wildlife as this would limit direct travel related 

disturbance to the routes. Opening roads or trails that were previously closed would allow traffic 

on routes in previously undisturbed wildlife habitats. Closing roads to motor vehicles would 

increase wildlife habitat quality and security in those areas.

Motorized off-road travel also varies by alternative. Off-road travel may impact wildlife from

human access such as increased noise levels, physical intrusions, and providing access for hunters 

and poachers. The unpredictable nature of motorized off-road use may impact habitat security, 

especially in sensitive habitat areas. The no action alternative would allow cross-country travel 

forestwide, causing the most impacts to wildlife. The action alternatives greatly diminish the 

amount of acres available for off-road travel and some alternatives set corridors for dispersed 

camping, MBGR, and set aside specific areas for motorized use. This is expected to result in a 

beneficial impact to wildlife and plant species by decreasing the amount of human disturbance

which will, in turn, create security.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 105

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and 

Proposed Candidate Species and Designated Critical Habitat

Threatened, endangered, and proposed animal and plant species are designated under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The act requires 

consultation (or conference for proposed species) with the Secretary of the Interior whenever a 

Federal action affects a species listed under the act, or if the action affects designated critical 

habitat. Two federally listed threatened, one federally listed endangered, and one 

experimental/nonessential species occur on the forests (table 28). Critical habitat for two species 

has been designated. No proposed species or proposed critical habitat occurs on the forests. 

Table 28. Federally threatened, endangered, and proposed species on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs

Species ESA Status Habitat and Distribution

Mexican wolf

(Canis lupus baileyi)

experimental/ 

nonessential

Reintroduced to the forests in 1998. The primary and secondary 

recovery zones for Mexican wolf are located within the forests. 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii 

extimus)

endangered 

with critical 

habitat

Nest at two sites near Greer on the Little Colorado River and one 

site near Alpine on the San Francisco River. Critical habitat 

designated for the East Fork, West Fork, and mainstem of the Little 

Colorado River on the Springerville Ranger District.

Mexican spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis 

lucida)

threatened

with critical 

habitat

Present in the Basin Range West and Upper Gila Mountains 

recovery units. Approximately 354,000 acres protected and 

restricted habitat, and 142 protected activity centers (PACs).

Chiricahua leopard frog 

(Rana chiricahuensis)

threatened Scattered occurrences with known populations near Nutrioso, 

Coleman, Campbell Blue, Dix, and Hannagan Creeks, and the San 

Francisco River.

Affected Environment 

Mexican Wolf

Wolves are top predators that have flexibility in using different prey and habitats. Historically, 

wolves occupied every habitat in the northern hemisphere that supported populations of 

ungulates. Mexican wolves historically inhabited Arizona and New Mexico (USFWS 2010). In 

1998, Mexican wolves were reintroduced on the forests at the Alpine and Clifton Ranger 

Districts. In 2008, seven wild packs produced litters, marking the seventh consecutive year in 

which wild-born wolves bred and raised pups in the wild (USFWS 2010). The 2008 end-of-year 

count confirmed 52 Mexican wolves within 10 packs (5 in Arizona and 5 in New Mexico), and 6

single wolves. The growth of the population is a positive sign that the reintroductions were 

successful.

Wolf packs establish territories in which they hunt for prey. Historically, Mexican wolves were 

associated with montane woodlands characterized by sparsely to densely forested mountainous

terrain and adjacent grasslands in habitats found at elevations of 4,000 to 5,000 feet where 

ungulate prey were numerous. Home ranges are around 180 square miles with core use areas 

averaging 23 square miles (Interagency Field Team, 2005). There is existing wolf habitat 

forestwide covering 2.1 million acres and of this area, 1.6 million acres are currently open to 

motorized cross-country travel. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The historical breeding range of the southwestern willow flycatcher covered southwestern states 

including Arizona. The flycatcher’s current range is similar to the historical range, but the 

quantity of suitable habitat within that range is much reduced from historical levels. From 1996 to 

2007, AGFD conducted surveys for southwestern willow flycatchers in Arizona, including the 

White Mountains. Three nesting sites were documented on the forests with numbers of nest 

territories ranging from a high of 14 documented in 1995 to a low of 2 in 2002 (USFWS 2002). 

Flycatcher’s nest at two sites near Greer on the Little Colorado River headwaters (Springerville 

Ranger District), and at one site near Alpine on the San Francisco River headwaters (Alpine 

Ranger District). 

Critical habitat has been designated on 21.8 miles (1,931 acres) for the East Fork and West Fork, 

and the mainstem of the Little Colorado River, on the Springerville Ranger District. All of this 

area is currently open to motorized cross-country travel. Primary constituent elements are riparian 

habitat in a dynamic successional riverine environment for nesting, foraging, migration, dispersal, 

and shelter that comprises: 

● trees and shrubs including willows, box elder, tamarisk, Russian olive, buttonbush, 

cottonwood; 

● dense riparian vegetation with thickets of trees and shrubs ranging in height from 6 to 98

feet. Lower stature thickets (6-13 feet) found at higher elevation riparian forests and tall 

stature thickets found at middle and lower elevation riparian forests; 

● areas of dense riparian foliage from the ground up to approximately 13 feet or dense 

foliage at the shrub level, or as a low, dense tree canopy; 

● sites for nesting that contain a dense tree or shrub canopy with densities ranging from 50 

to 100 percent; 

● dense patches of riparian forests interspersed with small openings of water or marsh, or 

shorter/sparser vegetation creating a mosaic not uniformly dense. Patch size may be as 

small as 0.25 acre. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

Range for the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) extends from southern Utah and central Colorado 

south through the mountainous regions of the Southwest, including Arizona. Many populations 

occur in relatively isolated mountain ranges, sometimes separated by large expanses of nonforested habitats. More than half the U.S. population occurs in the Upper Gila Mountains 

Recovery Unit in Arizona (covers the ASNFs) and New Mexico (USFWS 1995). See USFWS 

(1995) for a spot map showing distribution based on observations from 1990 to 1993.

Home ranges are between 941 and 3,831 acres measured from radio telemetry data (USDA FS 

2006). On the forests, this species is in the Basin Range West and Upper Gila Mountains 

Recovery Units. There are approximately 354,000 acres of protected and restricted habitat, and 

142 protected activity centers (PACs), all of which are in areas currently open to motorized crosscountry travel. Arizona and New Mexico MSO populations have been estimated at around 2,000 

individuals (USFWS 1995). A demography study in the Upper Gila Recovery Unit between 1991 

and 1998 indicated a declining trend in populations. Based on forests’ monitoring between 1984 

and 2009, this downward trend appears to remain.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 107

The forests contain 1,004,019 acres of MSO designated critical habitat. The primary constituent 

elements essential to conservation include physical and biological features that support nesting, 

roosting, and foraging, and include:

● a range of tree species, including mixed conifer, pine-oak, and riparian forests, composed 

of tree sizes reflecting different ages of trees, 30 to 45 percent of which are large trees 

with a trunk diameter of 12 inches or more when measured at 4.5 feet from the ground; 

● a shade canopy created by tree branches covering 40 percent or more of the ground; 

● large snags with a trunk diameter of at least 12 inches when measured at 4.5 feet from the 

ground; 

● elements related to maintenance of adequate prey species such as high volumes of fallen 

trees and other woody debris; a wide range of tree and plant species, including 

hardwoods; and adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and 

allow plant regeneration;

● elements related to canyon habitat such as the presence of water (often providing cooler 

and higher humidity than surrounding areas), clumps or stringers of mixed conifer, pineoak, pinyon-juniper, and/or riparian vegetation; canyon walls containing crevices, ledges, 

or caves; and a high percent of ground litter and woody debris (USFWS 2004).

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

This species occurs in southeastern Arizona and extreme southwestern New Mexico. It occurs at 

elevations of 3,500 to 6,600 feet in Arizona. Its southern range limit is poorly defined due to 

taxonomic uncertainties. A few scattered occurrences of the frogs exist across the forests. Known 

populations occur in Nutrioso, Coleman, Campbell Blue, Dix, and Hannagan Creeks, and the San 

Francisco River. The Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007b) identifies 

recovery units and provides maps showing the unit boundaries, which overlap onto the forests. 

Three of the eight recovery units (RUs) for Chiricahua leopard frogs exist all or in part within the 

boundaries of the forests, including RU 5, 6, and 7. RU 5 lies both above and below the western 

and central portions of the Mogollon Rim. RU 6 lies across the eastern Mogollon Rim of Arizona 

into the Gila Wilderness of New Mexico. This RU includes portions of the upper reaches of the 

Gila River and Mule Creek in New Mexico, and the Blue River in Arizona. (USFWS 2007b)

Chiricahua leopard frogs are historically habitat generalists and have been found in a variety of 

natural and manmade aquatic systems. Natural systems include rivers, permanent streams, 

permanent pools in intermittent streams, beaver ponds, wetlands, and springs. Artificial systems 

include earthen cattle tanks, livestock drinkers, irrigation sloughs, wells, and mine adits. Upland 

aquatic sites serve as dispersal and possibly foraging and temporary breeding habitat, while 

disturbed or developed sites act as habitat barriers that decrease the likelihood of successful 

dispersal and act as population sinks.

Important habitat characteristics include permanent or nearly permanent water free of or 

containing low densities of nonnative predators. Shallow water with emergent and perimeter 

vegetation provides habitat for egg deposition, tadpole and adult thermoregulation or basking 

sites, and foraging sites, while deeper water, root masses, and undercut banks provide refuge from 

predators. Aquatic sites should have substrate that will allow for the growth of algae and diatoms 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

to serve as food for developing tadpoles and to allow for overwintering hibernation (Southwest 

Endangered Species Act Team, 2008). 

Environmental Consequences 

A determination of not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species (no effect, NE) 

was made for Mexican wolves for all alternatives. A determination of may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect (NLAA) was made for southwestern willow flycatcher and its critical habitat, 

Mexican spotted owl and its critical habitat, and Chiricahua leopard frogs for all alternatives. 

Table 29 provides the comparison by alternative of proposed actions occurring within the habitats 

for the four species analyzed. 

Table 29. Change from current condition for threatened and endangered species

Proposed Actions Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Mexican Wolf

Off-road motorized travel and 

MBGR (acres)

No change -366,611 -366,611 -912,172 -1,622,622

Roads (miles) No change -159 +28 -102 -359

Motorized trails (miles) No change +113 No change +147 +51

Motorized use areas (acres) No change +459 No change +459 No change

Closed roads (miles) No change +493 No change +479 +559

Motorized corridors (miles/acres) No change +658 

/+47,854

No change +2,034 

/+147,802

+118 

/+8,575

New trails (miles) No change +2.0 No change +2.0 +2.0

Roads for administrative or 

permitted use only (miles)

No change +78 No change +75 +85

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWWF)

Off-road motorized travel and 

MBGR (acres)

No change -366,611 -366,611 -912,172 -1,622,622

Roads (miles) No change -159 +28 -102 -359

Roads open to motorized travel 

within critical habitat

No change

Motorized trails (miles) No change +113 No change +156 +156

Motorized trails within critical 

habitat

No change

Motorized use areas (acres) No change +459 No change +459 No change

Motorized use areas within 

critical habitat 

No change

Closed roads (miles) No change +493 +479 +479 +559

Closed roads within critical 

habitat (miles)

No change +1.0 No change No change No change

Closed roads within buffer zones 

for SWWF (miles)

No change +54 No change +53 No change
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 109

Proposed Actions Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Motorized corridors (miles/acres) No change +658 No change +2,034/

+147,802

+118/

+8,559

Motorized corridors within 

critical habitat 

No change

New trails No change

New trails within critical habitat No change

Roads for administrative or 

permitted use only (miles)

No change +78 No change +75 +85

Roads for administrative or 

permitted use only within critical 

habitat 

No change

Mexican Spotted Owl

Off-road motorized travel and 

MBGR (acres)

No change -366,611 -366,611 -112, 172 -1,622,622

Off-road motorized travel and 

MBGR in PACs (acres)

No change -7,034 -354,000 -31,155 -354,000

Off-road motorized travel and 

MBGR in critical habitat (acres)

No change -953,515 -1,004,019 -661,071 -1,004,019

Roads (miles) No change -159 +28 -102 -359

Roads in PACs (miles) No change -71.2 +0.87 -69.56 +36.27

Roads in critical habitat (miles) No change -3,422.99 +20.16 -3408.04 +427.77

Motorized trails (miles) No change +113 No change +156 -62

Motorized trails in PACs No change

Motorized trails in critical habitat

(miles)

No change +105 No change +105 +67

Motorized use areas (acres) No change +459 No change +459 No change

Motorized use areas in PACs No change

Motorized use areas in critical 

habitat (acres)

No change +387 No change +387 No change

Closed roads (miles) No change +493 No change +479 +559

Closed roads in PACs (miles) No change +163 No change +160 +179

Closed roads in critical habitat 

(miles)

No change +2,207 No change +2153 +2,387

Motorized corridors (acres) No change +658/ 

+47,854

No change +2,034/ 

+147,802

+118/ 

+8,559

Motorized corridors in PACs 

(miles)

No change +400 No change +892 +13

Motorized corridors in critical 

habitat (miles/acres)

No change +337/ 

+24,537

No change +1106/ 

+79,940

+2,036

New trails (miles) No change +2.0 No change +2.0 2.0

New trails in PACs No change
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Proposed Actions Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

New trails in critical habitat 

(miles)

No change +0.84 No change +0.84 +0.84

Roads for administrative or 

permitted use only (miles)

No change +86 No change +75 +85

Roads for administrative or 

permitted use only in PACs 

(miles)

No change +2.0 No change +2 +2

Roads for administrative or 

permitted use only in critical 

habitat (miles)

No change +27 No change +21 +26

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Off-road motorized travel and 

MBGR (acres)

No change -366,611 -366,611 -912,172 -1,622,622

Roads (miles) No change -159 +28 -102 -359

Motorized trails (miles) No change +113 No change +147 +51

Motorized use areas (acres) No change +459 No change +459 No change

Closed roads (miles) No change -492 No change -479 +559

Motorized corridors (miles/acres) No change +658 

/+47,854

No change +2,034 

/+147,802

+118 

/+8,575

New trails (miles) No change +2.0 No change +2.0 +2.0

Roads for administrative or 

permitted use only (miles)

No change +78 No change +75 +85

Alternative A

Mexican Wolf 

Continued access on open roads and trails as well as forestwide cross-country travel is likely to 

facilitate human access to areas where there are wolves. This is expected to continue at current 

levels, with the accompanying mortality associated with illegal shooting of wolves and other 

impacts associated with human disturbance in wolf habitat. There would also be a level of effect 

from vehicular collisions, which is considered to be the second greatest source of mortality in the 

Blue Range wolf population. Much of the primary recovery zone for the wolf falls within the 

Blue Range Primitive Area, and cross-country motorized travel is not allowed within this area so 

direct and indirect effects would be minimal.

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative A is “not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence” of Mexican wolves or their habitat.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Cross-country motorized travel would continue forestwide including areas designated as critical 

habitat. Approximately 4 miles of open roads occur within critical habitat for this species. Much 

of the occupied habitat on the forests is inaccessible to motorized use, but is within 1⁄4 mile of 

open roads. Motorized use and open roads within or adjacent to habitat has potential to influence 

behavior, survival, reproduction and distribution of these species, as well as alter habitat. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 111

Currently, cross-country motorized use on the forests has minimal impacts on flycatchers and 

occupied suitable habitat, but has the potential to adversely impact this species and the recovery 

of its nesting habitat in the future. Open roads within critical habitat are considered to have 

greater impacts on potential suitable habitat, primarily through fragmentation and alteration of 

habitat structure in areas currently unoccupied by flycatchers. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative A “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) southwestern willow flycatchers and “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) designated critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

Cross-country motorized travel would continue forestwide including MSO PACs and critical 

habitat. Motorized use within or adjacent to MSO habitat has potential to influence behavior, 

survival, reproduction and species distribution, and alter habitat. Cross-country motorized use is 

thought to have minimal impacts on spotted owls and their habitat, but there is potential to 

adversely impact MSO and its habitat in the future if forestwide cross-country motorized travel 

continues. The level of direct and indirect effects would increase over time under alternative A. 

Open roads in PACs and critical habitat have the potential to alter behavior, survival, 

reproduction, and distribution of the species (table 30). There is likely a disturbance level from 

motorized travel at occupied nesting habitat on the forests, but this is thought to be minimal and 

has not precluded nesting in these areas. Roads and trails open to motorized travel may have 

indirect effects on primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat primarily by 

facilitating access into areas that may support nesting, foraging or roosting. These effects, though 

considered to be minimal, could include disturbance to individuals and modification of habitat. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative A “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) MSO. Alternative A “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” 

(NLAA) MSO designated critical habitat. 

Table 30. Miles of open roads in MSO PACs and critical habitat by 

alternative

Alternative

Mile Open Roads in 

PACs (percent change 

from existing)

Miles Open Roads in MSO 

Critical Habitat (percent

change from existing)

A 119 3,951

B 48 (-60%) 528 (-87%)

C 0.9 (-99%) 20 (-99%)

D 49 (-58%) 543 (-86%)

E 39 (-67%) 428 (-89%)

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Cross-country motorized travel would be forestwide on approximately 1.6 million acres, 

including areas occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs. Motorized use within or adjacent to frog 

habitat has the potential to influence behavior, survival, reproduction and distribution of the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

species, and alter habitat. Cross-country motorized use would have minimal impacts on this 

species and habitat, but has the potential to adversely impact this species in the future due to offroad travel. The majority of occupied Chiricahua leopard frog sites on the forests occur in isolated 

locations within the Blue Range Primitive Area, so no direct or indirect effects from roads and 

trails open to motorized travel would occur. In other areas, it is likely that roads and trails would

have effects. Where roads and trails cross streams, the potential for direct injury or mortality, 

destruction of egg masses, or alteration of habitat is high. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative A “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) Chiricahua leopard frogs and their habitat. 

Alternative B

Mexican Wolf 

The reduction of 366,611 acres open to off-road motorized use would benefit wolves. Not only 

would the potential for vehicular collision be reduced forestwide, but motorized access to areas 

inhabited by wolves would be reduced. There would be 46 miles more open roads and trails under 

this alternative. Access into areas where wolves are located would continue and would likely 

occur at a similar rate as it does currently. Any reduction in vehicular collisions or other human 

caused mortality would not be measurable due to the relatively small decrease in roads. 

Five motorized use areas would occur within the experimental population area boundary for 

wolves. Noise disturbance and human presence is likely to cause wolves to avoid these areas, so 

interactions between people and wolves would probably not occur. Some roads proposed for 

closure under this alternative occur in the primary and secondary recovery areas for wolves, and 

several occur within the experimental population area boundary. Road closures are expected to be 

beneficial by decreasing potential for interactions between people and wolves. Corridors are 

designated within the primary and secondary recovery zones for Mexican wolves, and in areas 

throughout the experimental population area. There would be an increase in the level of impact on 

species occurring in areas where corridors are designated. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative B is “not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence” of Mexican wolves or their habitat.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

The reduction in off-road motorized use is considered beneficial to flycatchers and critical 

habitat. This would reduce impacts on potential suitable habitat within the 21.8-mile critical 

habitat corridor by limiting motorized use to the designated road system. MBGR would continue 

within designated critical habitat and occupied nesting habitat. Direct and indirect effects on 

designated critical habitat could include destruction or modification of potential suitable habitat, 

and fragmentation. Effects in nesting habitat would be minimal and limited to individuals. 

Of the 46 additional miles of open roads and trails, none of the additional trails occur in or 

adjacent to occupied, suitable unoccupied or potential suitable habitat, so no direct or indirect 

effects would occur. Approximately 0.19 mile of open roads would be within critical habitat. 

Overall, the reduction in miles of open roads is expected to benefit flycatchers, but would not be 

measureable due to the small area affected, the distance from flycatcher habitat, and the small 

population size of this species on the forests. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 113

The motorized use areas and corridors would not be located within or adjacent to critical habitat, 

occupied or unoccupied suitable habitat, or potential suitable habitat. Road closures are expected 

to be beneficial to flycatchers and would decrease open roads by 17.4 percent. Alternative B 

proposes 54 miles of road closures within buffer zones for southwestern willow flycatchers and 1

mile of road closure within critical habitat. Direct and indirect effects for short-term activities 

related to road closures would include potential for disturbance of individuals and temporary 

habitat disturbance. Over the long term, habitat fragmentation would be reduced, habitat security 

and quality would improve, and disturbance would be reduced.

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative B “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) southwestern willow flycatchers and “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) designated critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

The reduction of 366,611 acres open to off-road motorized use benefit MSO and its habitat. 

Under this alternative, a reduction of 7,034 acres of protected and restricted MSO habitat would 

be open to MBGR, compared with alternative A, and access to these areas would be limited. 

Open roads in PACs and critical habitat have the potential to alter behavior, survival, 

reproduction, and distribution of the species. There would be 46 additional miles of open roads 

and trails under this alternative. The miles in MSO PACs and critical habitat are in table 30. 

Overall, the reduction in open roads would benefit MSO but there would continue to be effects, 

however, these effects would be significantly less than alternative A. 

None of the motorized use areas are within or adjacent to PACs or restricted habitat, so would 

have no direct or indirect effects on nesting owls or habitat. All five motorized use areas, 

however, are within designated critical habitat, so direct and indirect effects would occur. Primary 

constituent elements that would be directly and negatively affected are residual plant cover and 

volume of fallen trees and other woody debris. This is considered a minimal effect due to the 

large area of critical habitat designated on the forests (1 million acres) and the small area affected 

(0.046 percent of designated critical habitat on the forests). The level of disturbance within and 

directly adjacent to these areas would displace individuals to adjacent areas. Extensive acreage of 

suitable roosting and foraging habitat exists in adjacent areas where disturbance levels are less. 

Approximately 163 miles of road would be closed within PACs, and 2,207 miles would be closed 

within designated critical habitat. These closures would benefit MSO and its habitat by reducing 

the potential for disturbance during breeding and nesting, and preventing habitat modification. 

Approximately 400 miles of corridors would be designated within PACs and 337 miles would be 

in designated critical habitat. There would be an increase in the level of impact on MSO in areas 

where corridors are designated. None of the additional trails would be located within or adjacent 

to PACs, protected or restricted habitat for MSO, so no effects would occur. Critical habitat has 

been designated where the new trails are proposed for construction, so direct and indirect effects 

could occur and would be similar to existing conditions due to the existence of unauthorized 

routes in the same area that already have effects. 

Approximately 28 miles of roads would be restricted to administrative and permitted use only 

within areas designated as critical habitat for spotted owls, and an additional 2 miles would be 

restricted in PACs. Restricting use to administrative and permitted use only is expected to have 

impacts similar to closing roads, including decreasing the potential for disturbance and habitat 

modification. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative B “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) MSO. Alternative B “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” 

(NLAA) MSO designated critical habitat. 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Reducing off-road travel and MBGR areas would be considered beneficial to the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. This would reduce the potential for direct and indirect impacts on individuals, 

dispersal, and habitat from motorized use. MBGR would have effects where it occurs in suitable 

or potential habitat for this species. MBGR would not be allowed in the Blue Range Primitive 

Area, so this population segment would not be affected. Direct and indirect effects on habitat 

could include modification of suitable habitat and fragmentation. 

None of the additional miles of open trails occur in or adjacent to occupied or suitable habitat for 

these frogs, so no direct effects would occur. There is a slight chance that the new trails could 

affect dispersal of individuals of this species. Overall, the reduction in the miles of open roads is 

expected to benefit this species, but would not be measureable due to the small area affected, the 

distance from suitable habitat, and the small population size of this species on the forests. 

None of the motorized areas occur within or adjacent to occupied or suitable habitat for these 

frogs. The closest occupied site occurs many miles from the areas proposed, so no effects would 

occur. This would be a decrease of 17.4 percent of roads from the existing system due to road 

closures which would benefit leopard frogs and their habitat by reducing potential for mortality, 

injury and disturbance; reducing effects during dispersal; and preventing habitat modification. 

No corridors are proposed for designation in occupied habitat for these frogs, but some are 

designated within 1⁄4 mile of occupied sites. The potential for human disturbance over a longer 

period of time increases in the area within and directly adjacent to the corridor. This increases the 

likelihood that individuals would be disturbed, injured or killed, or their habitat would be affected 

from human activity. Egg masses may be destroyed or disturbed, as well as tadpoles or young 

frogs. Effects on dispersal of frogs may increase with designation of corridors, including 

fragmentation and impacts on dispersal patterns. None of the proposed trail construction would be 

in suitable habitat for the frogs so there would not be effects from this activity. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative B “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) Chiricahua leopard frogs and their habitat. 

Alternative C

Mexican Wolf 

Cross-country motorized use would be eliminated, and MBGR would be allowed within 1 mile of 

open roads. Direct and indirect effects for these activities would be similar as described for 

alternative B, but with fewer acres impacted. The only differences between roads and motorized 

trails from alternative A is the slight increase (+28) in miles of roads. The differences in effects 

between the alternatives are not measureable due to their small size. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative C is “not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence” of Mexican wolves or their habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 115

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Cross-country motorized use would be eliminated, and MBGR would be allowed within 1 mile of 

open roads. Direct and indirect effects would be similar to alternative B, but with fewer acres 

impacted. The only difference between roads and motorized trails from alternative A is the slight 

increase (+28) in miles of roads. None of the open trails occur in occupied, suitable unoccupied 

or potential suitable habitat for flycatchers, but some occur within 1⁄4 mile of occupied habitat, so 

direct or indirect effects from disturbance in these areas could occur. Approximately 0.19 mile of 

open roads would be within critical habitat. Overall, the reduction in miles of open roads is 

expected to benefit flycatchers, but would not be measureable due to the small area affected, the 

distance from flycatcher habitat, and the small population size of this species on the forests. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative C “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) southwestern willow flycatchers and “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) designated critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

Cross-country motorized use would be eliminated, and MBGR would be allowed within 1 mile of 

open roads. Direct and indirect effects would be similar to alternative B, but with fewer acres 

impacted. Open roads in PACs and critical habitat have the potential to alter behavior, survival, 

reproduction, and distribution of the species. The miles of roads in MSO PACs and critical habitat 

are in table 30. There is a reduction of 28 miles of roads from the current condition and of this, 

approximately 0.9 mile exists within PAC boundaries and 20 miles are within critical habitat. This

would be a decrease of 3,929 miles within critical habitat and118 miles within PAC boundaries 

from the current condition. Direct and indirect effects on Mexican spotted owls and their habitat 

would be much reduced from the existing condition. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative C “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) MSO. Alternative C “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” 

(NLAA) MSO designated critical habitat. 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Cross-country motorized use would be eliminated, and MBGR would be allowed within 1 mile of 

open roads. Direct and indirect effects would be similar to alternative B, but with fewer acres 

impacted. Effects from reducing the road and trail system would be similar to alternative B. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative C “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) Chiricahua leopard frogs and their habitat. 

Alternative D

Mexican Wolf 

The reduction of 912,172 acres open to off-road motorized use would benefit wolves. The 1⁄4-mile 

MBGR distance combined with areas open to off-road travel would be less area of disturbance to 

wolves than alternatives A and B. Direct and indirect effects to wolves from off-road travel would 

be similar to alternative B. There would be a decrease of 45 miles of open roads and trails, but 

any reduction in vehicular collisions or other human-caused mortality would not be measurable 

due to the relatively small decrease in miles. Five motorized use areas would occur within the 

experimental population area boundary for wolves. Effects in these areas would be the same as 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

alternative B. There would be 14 fewer miles of road closed in this alternative than under 

alternative B. The difference in effects from closed roads between this alternative and alternative 

B are not measureable due to the small change. Alternative D proposes designating significantly 

more corridors than any of the other alternatives, with a resulting increase in direct and indirect 

effects expected to the Mexican wolf. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative D is “not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence” of Mexican wolves or their habitat.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

The reduction of 912,172 acres open to off-road motorized use would benefit flycatchers. This is 

a decrease from alternative B, but an increase from alternative C. The 1⁄4-mile MBGR distance 

combined with areas open to off-road travel would be less area of disturbance than alternatives A 

and B. Direct and indirect effects to flycatchers from off-road travel would be similar to 

alternative B.

None of the additional miles of open trails occur in occupied, suitable unoccupied, or potential 

suitable habitat for flycatchers, so effects from open trails would be the same as described for 

alternative B. Approximately 0.19 mile of open roads would exist within critical habitat for 

flycatchers. Overall, the reduction in miles of open roads is expected to be of benefit to 

flycatchers, but the benefit would not be measureable due to the small area affected, the distance 

from suitable flycatcher habitat, and the small population size of this species on the forests. 

The motorized use areas and corridors would not be located within or adjacent to critical habitat, 

occupied or unoccupied suitable habitat, or potential suitable habitat. A decrease of 16.9 percent 

of roads would be closed, and is slightly less than proposed under alternative B. Approximately 

53 miles of roads would be closed within buffer zones of flycatchers. Road closures are expected 

to be beneficial to the flycatcher. Other direct and indirect effects would be similar to those 

described for alternative B. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative D “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) southwestern willow flycatchers and “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) designated critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

Within MSO PACs, 19,349 acres would remain open to MBGR. Within designated critical 

habitat, 342,948 acres would remain open for MBGR. This is a decrease from alternative B, but 

an increase from alternative C. Direct and indirect effects would be most similar to those 

described for alternative B, but effects from MBGR would be at a reduced scale. Open roads in 

PACs and critical habitat have the potential to alter behavior, survival, reproduction, and 

distribution of the species. The miles of roads in MSO PACs and critical habitat are in table 30.

This reduction in open roads would benefit MSO and its habitat. Direct and indirect effects in the 

five motorized area would be the same as alternative B. 

Approximately 160 miles of road would be closed within PACs and 2,153 miles would be closed 

in designated critical habitat. These closures would benefit MSO and habitat by reducing the 

potential for disturbance during breeding and nesting, and preventing habitat modification. 

Approximately 892 acres of corridors would be designated within PACs and 79,940 acres would 

be in designated critical habitat. Effects of corridor would be similar to alternative B. Effects of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 117

constructing trails would be the same as alternative B. Approximately 75 miles of roads would be 

restricted to authorized use only. Approximately 21 miles would be restricted in designated as 

critical habitat and 2 miles would be in PACs. Effects would be similar to alternative B. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative D “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) MSO. Alternative D “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” 

(NLAA) MSO designated critical habitat. 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

By reducing off-road motorized use, Chiricahua leopard frogs would benefit. Effects would be 

similar to alternative B, but the effects from MBGR would be at a reduced scale. The reduction in 

the miles of open roads is expected to benefit these frogs and their habitat with effects similar to 

those described for alternative B. The increase in trails would have minimal effects on leopard 

frogs, mostly in the form of direct and indirect effects on dispersing frogs and could include 

disruption of dispersal patterns, injury or mortality of individuals, and behavioral modification 

resulting from disturbance. Effects from the five motorized areas would be the same as alternative 

B. Road closures of 16.9 percent of the existing system would have similar effects to alternative 

B. Effects in designated corridors would be similar to alternative B. The construction of trails 

would have the same effects as alternative B. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative D “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) Chiricahua leopard frogs and their habitat. 

Alternative E

Mexican Wolf 

Cross-country motorized use would be eliminated and MBGR would not be allowed. Direct and 

indirect effects for these activities would be similar as described for alternative B, but with fewer

acres impacted. There would be a decrease of 308 miles of open roads and trails, but any 

reduction in vehicular collisions or other human-caused mortality would not be measurable due to 

the relatively small decrease in miles. An additional 66 miles of roads would be closed under this 

alternative than alternative B. This would be 12 percent more roads closed than under alternative 

B, so benefits to wolves would be greater under this alternative. By eliminating cross-country 

motorized use, the level of direct and indirect effects would be reduced so greatly that designating 

118 miles of corridors would be considered minimal when compared to alternative A. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative E is “not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence” of Mexican wolves or their habitat.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Cross-country motorized use would be eliminated, and MBGR would not be allowed. Direct and 

indirect effects would be similar as described for alternative B, but with fewer acres impacted. 

None of the additional trails occur in occupied, suitable unoccupied, or potential suitable habitat 

for flycatchers, so effects would be the same as alternative B. Approximately 0.19 mile of open 

roads would exist within critical habitat for flycatchers. Overall, the reduction in roads would be 

of benefit to flycatchers, but would not be measureable due to the small area affected, the distance 

from suitable flycatcher habitat, and the small population size on the forests. Slightly more roads 

would be closed than alternatives B and D, but none of the road closures are proposed in occupied 

or unoccupied habitat for flycatchers, so no direct effects would occur. No roads would be closed 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

within critical habitat so no effects would occur. No corridors would be designated within close 

proximity to occupied habitat or within designated critical habitat. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative E “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) southwestern willow flycatchers and “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) designated critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

Cross-country motorized use would be eliminated, and MBGR would not be allowed. Direct and 

indirect effects would be similar as described for alternative B, but with fewer acres impacted. 

Open roads in PACs and critical habitat have the potential to alter behavior, survival, 

reproduction, and distribution of the species. The miles of roads in MSO PACs and critical habitat 

are in table 30. This reduction in open roads would benefit MSO and habitat. Direct and indirect 

effects in the five motorized areas would be the same as alternative B. Approximately 175 miles 

of road would be closed within PACs, and 2,387 miles would be closed within designated critical 

habitat. Effects would be similar to alternative B. 

Approximately 13 miles of corridors would be designated in PACs, and 2,036 acres would be in 

designated critical habitat. These effects of corridors would be similar to alternative B. 

Alternative E proposes designating fewer corridors than alternatives B and D, with a 

corresponding reduction in effects. Effects of constructing trails would be the same as alternative 

B. Approximately 85 miles of roads would be restricted to permitted and authorized use only. 

Approximately 26 miles would be restricted in designated as critical habitat and 2 miles would be 

in PACs. Effects would be similar to alternative B.

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative E “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) MSO. Alternative E “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” 

(NLAA) MSO designated critical habitat. 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Cross-country motorized use would be eliminated, and MBGR would not be allowed. Direct and 

indirect effects would be similar as described for alternative B, but with fewer acres impacted. 

Effects on these frogs from the changes in road and trail miles would be similar to alternative B. 

Effects in designated corridors would be similar to alternative B. The construction of trails would 

have the same effects as alternative B. 

Based on the analysis of direct and indirect effects, alternative E “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” (NLAA) Chiricahua leopard frogs and their habitat. 

Forest Service Sensitive Species

The forests received the Southwestern Region (R3) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list, 

dated September, 2007 (USDA FS 2007d). There are 58 sensitive species on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. Sensitive species are defined as plant and animal species identified 

by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) 

significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or (b) 

significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ 

existing distribution (FSM 2670.5).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 119

The species have been grouped into amphibians, birds, invertebrates, mammals, reptiles, and rare 

plants for purposes of discussing habitats and potential effects from changing the forests’ 

designated road and trail system. Given the number of species, the discussion has been simplified 

into a table (table 31) showing habitat types, acres of habitat on the forests, and current 

population status on the forests. The direct and indirect effects are displayed by species with 

specific miles of route changes and acres of area changes in table 31. Cumulative effects are 

discussed at the end of the wildlife section for all species. The wildlife specialist report contains a 

detailed description of habitats.

Amphibians

Individuals may be impacted from mortality due to being run over by vehicles and habitat 

alteration. Increased sediment into wetlands and water or pools, and impacts to vegetation from 

cross-country travel and along roads and motorized trails would diminish habitat quality. 

Birds

Threats to bald eagles include habitat loss, prey loss, illegal shooting, and collisions. Abert’s 

towhees are sensitive to disturbance at nest and roost sites, and avoid habitat near roads due to 

traffic disturbance. Burrowing owls are vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation, and 

mortality from vehicular collisions. Dechant, et al., (rev. 2002) documented that Bairds sparrows 

were significantly more abundant along trails than roads indicating a preference for areas with 

less disturbance. Threats to zone-tailed hawks and common black-hawks include degradation of 

habitat and nest and roost site disturbance. Yellow-billed cuckoos can be impacted by alteration of 

flows in rivers and streams. Gray catbirds are sensitive to alteration and elimination of riparian 

habitat and associated prey species. The Arizona Bell’s vireo is threatened by loss and 

degradation of habitat through human activities. Adverse impacts to vireo habitat result from 

human disturbance such as dispersed camping and use of OHVs causing nests to be abandoned. 

Goshawks use a wide range of forest communities during the breeding season, but prefer mature 

and old-growth forest for nesting and hunting. There is some evidence goshawks are resilient to 

forest fragmentation and can re-establish. The primary impact on peregrine falcons is effects to 

prey, and human disturbance at nests inhibit reproductive success. 

Invertebrates

The California floater is sensitive to declining water quality. The Ferris’ copper is sensitive to 

meadow habitat alterations. The three-forks springsnail is sensitive to human disturbance and 

impacts to spring ecosystems. Most habitat on the forests for these snails is fenced from 

motorized use and no direct or indirect effects would occur in these areas. 

Mammals

Threats to Merriams and dwarf shrews, White Mountain ground squirrel, White Mountain 

chipmunk, Springerville silky pocket mouse, and Arizona montane vole include habitat loss and 

degradation. The water shrew is vulnerable to recreational use of stream and lakeside habitats and 

reduced water quality. The western red bat is threatened by habitat loss. Spotted bats are 

threatened by habitat alteration from reduction in wet meadow quality for foraging. Allen’s 

lappet-browed bat is vulnerable to habitat loss from vandalism due to human disturbance. 

Townsend’s big-eared bats are vulnerable to extirpation due to human activity at roosts in caves
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

especially during reproductive and hibernal periods; and impacts to insect prey in wetlands 

including increased sediment and decreased water quality. Greater western mastiff-bats are 

vulnerable to activities that disturb cliff habitats. New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is 

vulnerable to changes in land use and habitat destruction, and roads may act as barriers and 

sources of mortality, however, forage is provided along roadsides. Southern red-backed voles are 

threatened by habitat loss from human causes. 

Reptiles

Management concerns for Mexican gartersnakes include habitat destruction. Threats to narrowheaded gartersnakes include habitat modification, increased recreational use in riparian areas, and

habitat fragmentation.

Rare Plants

Individual plants may be impacted from vehicles including in areas of motorized off-road travel. 

By reducing places where vehicle are allowed, the quality of plant habitat would improve by 

keeping foliage intact, and reducing competition from invasive plants.

Currently, cross-country motorized use on the forests is considered to have moderate to high 

impacts in pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine, and spruce-fir with wet mixed conifer habitats. Crosscountry travel has the potential to influence behavior, survival, reproduction, and distribution of 

species reliant on these habitats, as well as alter the habitat. There are currently minimal impacts 

on species reliant on wetland and riparian habitats due to the fenced exclusion of many areas from 

motorized use. In areas where exclosures do not protect habitat, there is potential to adversely 

impact these species. 

Direct and Indirect Effect Determination

Table 31 displays the miles of routes and acres of areas by species by alternative for sensitive 

species. Under all alternatives and for all 58 sensitive species, the proposed transportation system 

“may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing 

or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” (MIIH). 

Rationale for Effect Determination to Sensitive Species

Alternative A

Alternative A proposes to keep the existing system of roads and motorized trails and would allow 

continued cross-country travel forestwide. Motorized use within or adjacent to sensitive species 

habitats would have the potential to influence behavior, survival, reproduction, and distribution of 

these species, as well as to alter their habitat. 

Currently, cross-country travel is considered to have minimal impacts to species in the 

wetland/cienega habitats due to the fenced exclusion of many areas from motorized travel. Crosscountry travel is considered to have minimal impacts on cottonwood-willow and montane-willow 

riparian habitats due to difficult access from topography and exclusion of riparian habitats from 

motorized use in many areas due to exclosures. In areas where exclosures do not protect habitat, 

there is potential to adversely impact these species. The current level of impact on pinyon-juniper, 

ponderosa pine, spruce-fir with wet mixed conifer habitats is moderate to high from cross-country 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 121

motorized travel. In cliff habitats, habitat security and quality is expected to be high primarily due 

to the steep, inaccessible nature of this habitat type. However, if unauthorized roads or motorized 

trails are created providing access into these areas, the potential for impacts exists. Fragmentation 

of cliff habitats on the forests is not considered at risk due to the terrain making them largely 

inaccessible to motor vehicles. These levels of impact are expected and could possibly increase

under alternative A.

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E

Under the action alternatives (B, C, D and E), motorized cross-country travel would be eliminated 

on 1.6 million acres. This would be a significant reduction in areas open to motorized use on the 

forests and would be beneficial to all sensitive species. 

Alternatives B, C, and D propose areas for MBGR (1 mile from roads in alternatives B and C, 

and 1⁄4 mile from roads in alternative D). In wetland/cienega and riparian areas that are not fenced 

from motorized use, there would be a potential for impacts to these habitats and associated 

species. In all other habitat types, the direct and indirect effects would be minimal since this 

activity would occur seasonally and there is not likely to be repeated off-road motorized travel in 

the same location.

Alternatives B, D and E would result in a designated open road system with fewer miles of open 

roads than under current conditions. Alternative C would result in 28 miles of additional roads 

designated open. Overall, fewer open roads is expected to be beneficial to all sensitive species, 

while opening more roads to motorized travel is expected to have negative, localized impacts 

dependent on the proximity of roads to habitat types. Alternatives B, D and E would add miles of 

motorized trails, which is expected to have negative, localized impacts dependent on the 

proximity of roads to habitat types. The motorized trails would not change under alternative C. 

Alternatives B and D propose five motorized use areas (459 acres) which are in 70 acres of Great 

Basin grassland, 4 acres of montane/subalpine grassland, 2 acres of pinyon juniper, and 383 acres 

of ponderosa pine habitat. Overall, there would be a positive change to sensitive species as 

compared to current conditions where motorized cross-country travel is allowed forestwide. 

However, there is still potential for adverse direct and indirect effects limited to the extent of the 

proposed areas. Compared to alternative A, designation of the motorized use areas would be 

beneficial to species dependent on these four habitat types. 

Alternatives B, D and E propose to close roads to motorized travel. These closures would benefit 

sensitive species in associated habitat types by reducing the potential for mortality, injury and 

disturbance, reducing effects during dispersal, and preventing habitat modification. 

All action alternatives propose either 300-foot-wide corridors for motorized dispersed camping 

(alternatives B, D and E) or routes for accessing dispersed camping sites with motor vehicles 

(alternative C). These areas would be within or adjacent to habitat for all sensitive species and 

would encompass between 1 and 5 percent of any one habitat type. Overall, there would be a 

positive change to sensitive species as compared to current conditions where motorized dispersed 

camping is allowed forestwide. On a localized scale, direct and indirect effects on sensitive 

species and habitats would be limited in size and extent. 

Alternatives B, D and E propose to construct between 1 and 2 miles of new motorized trails, 

which would be located within existing roadbeds. Portions of these trails would be within pinyon-
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

juniper habitat and ponderosa pine habitat. Due to the limited acres impacted, direct and indirect 

effects are expected to be limited to negative effects to habitat security and quality adjacent to the 

trails, and fragmentation is expected to be increased in these localized areas. 

Alternatives B, D and E propose to convert existing roads to permitted and administrative use 

only. By limiting the use of these roads, there would be impacts similar to those described for 

roads proposed to be closed. Sensitive species in associated habitat types would benefit by the 

reduced potential for mortality, injury and disturbance, reduced effects during dispersal, and little 

to no habitat modification.
Chapter 3 

– Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 123

Table 31. Comparison of miles of routes and acres of areas in sensitive species habitat by alternative

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B C D E

Amphibians

Arizona Toad

(Bufo 

microscaphus)

Mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian

7,631 unknown miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites 0 60 0 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,837 0

Lowland Leopard 

Frog (Rana 

yavapaiensis)

Wetland/cienega 12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

unknown miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites 0 379 0 1,672 0

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,277 0

Northern Leopard 

Frog (Rana 

pipiens)

Wetland/cienega 12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

unknown miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites 0 379 0 1672 0

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,277 0

Birds

Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

Riparian, desert scrub, 

chaparral, mixed 

conifer, pinyonjuniper, ponderosa 

pine

41,278 year-round 

residents, 3 

nest sites

miles roads/trails 68 85 70 90 75

acres dispersed sites 0 1,158 0 5,362 0

acres MBGR 34,120 32,491 32,491 21,922 0

Zone-tailed Hawk 

(Buteo 

albonotatus)

Pine-oak woodland, 

mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian

7,631 unknown miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites 0 60 0 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,837 0

Northern 

Goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis)

Deciduous, mixed 

conifer, ponderosa 

pine

626,989 106 PFAs 

identified 

since 1984, 

decline in 

occupancy 

rates

miles roads/trails 1,347 1,294 1,359 1,344 1,187

acres dispersed sites 0 28,702 0 63,135 2,768

acres MBGR 525,057 501,620 501,620 291,891 0

acres areas 0 383 0 383 0
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management, ASNFs

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

Common Black-

hawk 

(Buteogallus 

anthracinus)

Mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian

7,631 unknown miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 600 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370

American 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrines 

anatum)

Cliffs very limited8 nest sites miles roads/trails routes adjacent to habitat

Western Yellow-

billed Cuckoo 

(Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis)

Willow riparian, 

mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian, 

mesquite and 

hackberry

7,631 unknown miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 600 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370

Burrowing Owl 

(Western) 

(Athene 

cunicularia 

hypugaea)

Mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian, 

willow riparian, 

ponderosa pine, 

pinyon-juniper

192,642 unknown miles roads/trails 361 357 363 361 340

acres dispersed sites0 1,9780 20,424 1,457

acres MBGR 174,023 170,691 170,691 95,7680

acres areas0 700 700

Gray Catbird 

(Dumetella 

carolinensis)

Grassland, desert 

scrub

7,631 unknown miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 600 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370

Abert’s Towhee 

(Pipilo aberti)

Cottonwood-willow 

riparian

6,274 unknown miles roads/trails 17 17 17 19 12

acres dispersed sites0 2990 365 132

acres MBGR 4,509 4,449 4,449 2,7540
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 125

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

Baird’s Sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

bairdii)

Grassland, wet 

meadows

192,642 unknown miles roads/trails 361 357 363 361 340

acres dispersed sites0 1,9780 20,424 1,457

acres MBGR 174,023 170,691 170,691 95,7680

acres areas0 700 700

Arizona Bell’s 

Vireo 

(Vireo bellii 

arizonae)

Willow riparian, 

desert riparian

7,197 trends stable 

to declining

miles roads/trails 13 13 13 12 10

acres dispersed sites0 1490 290 108

acres MBGR 3,447 2,983 2,983 2,0780

Gray Vireo 

(Vireo vicinior)

Pinyon-juniper 

woodland, chaparral, 

desert scrub

240,772 unknown miles roads/trails 348 328 349 332 312

acres dispersed sites0 1,6930 9,500 1,059

acres MBGR 210,965 196,331 196,331 89,7090

acres areas02020

Invertebrates

California Floater 

(Anodonta 

californiensis)

Wetland/cienega 12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

few, isolated 

locations, 

declining

miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 37901,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770

Ferris’ Copper 

(Lycaena ferrisi)

Wet meadow, cienega 12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

stable trend miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 37901,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770

Three Forks 

Springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis 

trivialis)

Wetland/cienega 12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

2 individuals 

in 2005 and 

none since

miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 37901,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management, ASNFs

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

Mammals

Merriam’s Shrew 

(Sorex merriami 

leucogenys)

Grassland, mixed 

conifer, pinyon-

juniper woodland

59,627 one 

documented 

occurrence

miles roads/trails 113 130 115 136 124

acres dispersed sites0 1,3300 7,7750

acres MBGR 47,576 46,957 46,957 28,7340

acres areas04040

Dwarf Shrew 

(Sorex Nanus)

Alpine and subalpine 

tundra, mixed conifer, 

spruce-fir, 

wetland/cienega, 

montane/subalpine 

grassland, pinyon-

juniper woodland

59,627 one 

documented 

occurrence

miles roads/trails 113 130 115 136 124

acres dispersed sites0 1,3300 7,7750

acres MBGR 47,576 46,957 46,957 28,7340

acres areas04040

Water Shrew 

(Sorex palustris 

navigator)

Boreal and montane 

riparian, 

wetland/cienega

12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

unknown miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 37901,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770

Western Red Bat 

(Lasiurus 

blossevillii)

Mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian, 

sonoran desert scrub

7,631 no 

documented 

occurrences 

miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 600 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370

Spotted Bat 

(Euderma 

maculatum)

Sonorant desert scrub, 

riparian, pinyon-

juniper, mixed conifer, 

spruce-fir, cliffs

7,631 no 

documented 

occurrences 

miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 600 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 127

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

Allen’s Lappet-

browed Bat 

(Idionycteris 

phyllotis)

Ponderosa pine, 

pinyon-juniper, 

Mexican woodland, 

mixed deciduous 

broadleaf riparian, 

mixed conifer, cliffs

626,989 no 

documented 

occurrences 

miles roads/trails 1,347 1,294 1,359 1,344 1,187

acres dispersed sites0 28,7020 63,135 2,768

acres MBGR 525,057 501,620 501,620 291,8910

acres areas0 3830 3830

Pale Townsend’s 

Big-eared Bat 

(Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens)

Upper and lower 

Sonoran desert scrub, 

cliffs

399,557 one 

occurrence 

adjacent to 

forest, 

declining

miles roads/trails 125 128 126 127 120

acres dispersed sites0 3,0160 7,247 1,430

acres MBGR 265,180 68,415 68,415 28,6500

Greater Western 

Mastiff Bat 

(Eumops perotis 

californicus)

Desert scrub, oak 

woodland, pine-oak 

woodland, pinyon-

juniper, mixed conifer

very limited one 

occurrence

documented

miles roads/trails routes adjacent to habitat

White Mountains 

Chipmunk 

(Tamias minimus 

arizonensis)

Montane/subalpine 

grassland

59,627 several 

documented 

occurrences

miles roads/trails 113 130 115 136 124

acres dispersed sites0 1,3300 7,7750

acres areas04040

acres MBGR 47,576 46,957 46,957 28,7340

White Mountains 

Ground Squirrel 

(Speprmophilus 

tridecemlineatus 

monticola)

Montane/subalpine 

grassland

59,627 several 

documented 

occurrences

miles roads/trails 113 130 115 136 124

acres dispersed sites0 1,3300 7,7750

acres MBGR 47,576 46,957 46,957 28,7340

acres areas04040

Arizona Gray 

Squirrel (Sciurus 

arizonensis 

arizonensis)

Mixed broadleaf 

forest, mixed 

deciduous broadleaf 

riparian

7,631 several 

documented 

occurrences

miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 600 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management, ASNFs

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

Springerville Silky 

Pocket Mouse 

(Perognathus 

flavus 

goodpasteri)

Montane/subalpine 

grassland

59,627 several 

documented 

occurrences

miles roads/trails 113 130 115 136 124

acres dispersed sites0 1,3300 7,7750

acres MBGR 47,576 46,957 46,957 28,7340

acres areas04040

Southern Red-

backed Vole 

(Clethrionomys 

gapperi)

Montane/subalpine 

forest, mixed conifer

41,278 several 

documented 

occurrences

miles roads/trails 68 85 70 90 75

acres dispersed sites0 1,1580 5,3620

acres MBGR 34,120 32,491 32,491 21,9220

Arizona Montane 

Vole (Microtus 

montanus 

arizonensis)

Montane/subalpine 

grassland, mixed 

conifer 

59,627 several 

documented 

occurrences

miles roads/trails 113 130 115 136 124

acres dispersed sites0 1,3300 7,7750

acres MBGR 47,576 46,957 46,957 28,7340

acres areas

04040

Navajo Mogollon 

Vole (Microtus 

mogollonensis 

navaho)

Grassland, ponderosa 

pine, pinyon-juniper, 

sagebrush, spruce-fir

unknown since 

not inhabited

only known 

to exist 

adjacent to 

the forests

unk unk unk unk unk

Long-tailed Vole 

(Microtus 

longicaudus)

Grassland, 

wetland/cienega, 

mixed conifer

12,483 acres 

wetland/cienega 

several 

documented 

occurrences, 

declining

miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 37901,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770

Meadow (New 

Mexico) Jumping 

Mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius luteus)

Grassland, willow 

riparian

7,197 several 

documented 

occurrences

miles roads/trails 13 13 13 12 10

acres dispersed sites0 1490 290 108

acres MBGR 3,447 2,983 2,983 2,0780
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 129

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

Reptiles

Mexican 

Gartersnake 

(Thamnophis 

eques megalops)

Wetland/cienega, oak 

woodland, desert

7,631 declining miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 600 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370

Narrow-headed 

Gartersnake 

(Thamnophis 

rufipunctatus)

Pinyon-juniper, pine-

oak woodland, 

ponderosa pine, mixed 

broadleaf deciduous 

riparian

7,631 declining miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 600 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370

Rare Plants

Goodding’s Onion 

(Allium 

gooddingii)

Wetland/cienega 41,278 declining to 

extirpated

miles roads/trails 68 85 70 90 75

acres dispersed sites0 1,1580 5,3620

acres MBGR 34,120 32,491 32,491 21,9220

Greene Milkweed 

(Asclepias uncialis

ssp. Uncialis)

Wetland/cienega 192,642 No 

documented 

occurrences

miles roads/trails 361 357 363 361 340

acres dispersed sites0 1,9780 20,424 1,457

acres MBGR 174,023 170,691 170,691 95,7680

acres areas0 700 700

Villous 

Groundcover 

Milkvetch 

(Astragalus 

humistatus var. 

crispulus)

Wetland/cienega 626,989 one 

documented 

occurrence

miles roads/trails 1,347 1,294 1,359 1,344 1,187

acres dispersed sites0 28,7020 63,135 2,768

acres MBGR 525,057 501,620 501,620 291,8910

acres areas0 3830 3830
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management, ASNFs

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

White Mountains 

Paintbrush 

(Castilleja 

mogollonica)

Wetland/cienega 12,483 acres 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 acres open 

water

24 percent

historic 

habitat 

extirpated, 

found over 

11 miles of 

streams

miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 3790 1,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770

Gila Thistle 

(Cirsium gilense)

Wetland/cienega 41,278 unknown miles roads/trails 68 85 70 90 75

acres dispersed sites0 1,1580 5,3620

acres MBGR 34,120 32,491 32,491 21,9220

Yellow Ladys

slipper 

(Cypripedium 

parviflorum var. 

pubescens (=C. 

calceolus var. 

pubesens, C. 

pubescens)

Great Basin grassland; 

Madrean pine-oak 

woodland; pinyon-

juniper woodland

12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

declining miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 37901,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770

Heathleaf Wild 

Buckwheat 

(Eriogonum 

ericifolium var. 

ericifolium)

Ponderosa pine forest; 

mixed conifer with 

frequent fire forest; 

pinyon-juniper 

woodland

399,557 rare on 

forests

miles roads/trails 125 128 126 127 120

acres dispersed sites0 3,0160 7,247 1,430

acres MBGR 265,180 68,415 68,415 28,6500

Wislizeni Gentian 

(Gentianella 

wislizeni)

Ponderosa pine forest 626,989 few 

documented 

occurrences

miles roads/trails 1,347 1,294 1,359 1,344 1,187

acres dispersed sites0 28,7020 63,135 2,768

acres MBGR 525,057 501,620 501,620 291,8910

acres areas0 3830 3830
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 131

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

Arizona 

Sneezeweed 

(Helenium 

arizonicum)

Ponderosa pine forest; 

Madrean pine-oak 

woodland; pinyon-

juniper woodland; 

Great Basin grassland; 

semidesert grassland; 

interior chaparral

626,989 unknown miles roads/trails 1,347 1,294 1,359 1,344 1,187

acres dispersed sites0 28,7020 63,135 2,768

acres MBGR 525,057 501,620 501,620 291,8910

acres areas0 3830 3830

Arizona 

Sunflower 

(Helianthus 

arizonensis)

Madrean pine-oak 

woodland; pinyon-

juniper woodland; 

Great Basin grassland; 

semidesert grassland

626,989 unknown miles roads/trails 1,347 1,294 1,359 1,344 1,187

acres dispersed sites0 28,7020 63,135 2,768

acres MBGR 525,057 501,620 501,620 291,8910

acres areas0 3830 3830

Eastwood Alum 

Root 

(Heuchera 

eastwoodiae)

Interior chaparral; 

Madrean pine-oak 

woodland; pinyon-

juniper woodland; 

ponderosa pine forest

very limited few 

documented 

occurrences, 

locally 

common

miles roads/trails routes adjacent to habitat

Arizona Alum 

Root 

(Heuchera 

glomerulata)

Ponderosa pine forest; 

mixed conifer with 

frequent fire forest; 

Montane/subalpine grasslands

7,631 unknown miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 60 0 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370

Mogollon 

Hawkweed 

(Hieracium 

brevipilum (=H. 

fendleri var. 

mogollense))

Mixed conifer with 

frequent fire forest; 

Spruce-fir with wet 

mixed conifer forest

41,278 unknown miles roads/trails 68 85 70 90 75

acres dispersed sites0 1,1580 5,3620

acres MBGR 34,120 32,491 32,491 21,9220
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management, ASNFs

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

Heartleaf 

Groundsel 

(Packera 

cardamine 

(=Senecio 

cardamine))

Mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian 

forest; Montane willow riparian 

area; 

cottonwood-willow 

riparian area

41,278 unknown miles roads/trails 68 85 70 90 75

acres dispersed sites0 1,1580 5,3620

acres MBGR 34,120 32,491 32,491 21,9220

Maguire’s 

Beardtongue 

(Penstemon 

linarioides ssp. 

Maguirei)

Spruce-fir with wet 

mixed conifer forest; 

Montane/subalpine 

grassland

240,772 unknown miles roads/trails 348 328 349 332 312

acres dispersed sites0 1,6930 9,500 1,059

acres MBGR 210,965 196,331 196,331 89,7090

acres areas02020

Davidson’s Cliff 

Carrot 

(Pteryxia 

davidsonii)

Mixed conifer with 

frequent fire forest; 

Spruce-fir with wet 

mixed conifer forest

240,772 stable trend miles roads/trails 348 328 349 332 312

acres dispersed sites0 1,6930 9,500 1,059

acres MBGR 210,965 196,331 196,331 89,7090

acres areas02020

Parish’s Alkali 

Grass 

(Pucinellia 

parishii)

Spruce-fir with wet 

mixed conifer forest

12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

unknown miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites

0 3790 1,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770

Blumer’s Dock 

(Rumex 

orthoneurus)

Pinyon-juniper 

woodland

12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

declining miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 3790 1,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770

Arizona Willow 

(Salix arizonica)

Wetland/cienega; 

mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian 

forest; Montane willow riparian 

area

12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

18 known 

sites

miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 3790 1,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 133

Species Habitat Type Potential 

Habitat (acres)

Population 

Status on 

Forests

Routes and Areas in 

Potential Habitat

Alternative

A B CDE

Bebb’s Willow 

(Salix bebbiana)

Pinyon-juniper 

woodland; ponderosa 

pine forest; mixed 

conifer with frequent 

fire forest

7,631 few 

documented 

occurrences, 

declining

miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites0 600 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,8370

Mogollon Clover 

(Trigolium 

longipes ssp. 

Neurophyllum 

(=T. 

neurophyllum))

Mixed broadleaf 

deciduous riparian 

forest; Montane willow riparian 

area; 

cottonwood-willow 

riparian area

12,483 

wetland/cienega, 

3,279 open 

water

up to 19 

known sites

miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites0 37901,6720

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,2770
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Management Indicator Species

The Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan (as amended) identifies wildlife species as management 

indicator species (MIS) to monitor the health of the forests’ ecosystems (USDA FS 1987a). The 

forest plan provides direction on managing quality habitat for MIS by management area (MA). 

Table 32 displays the 17 MIS analyzed for this project and describes their habitats and population 

trends. All of these MIS have confirmed presence on the forests.

Table 32. Management indicator species for the forests and affected environments

Species Habitat Type MA

Acres Habitat 

(MA acres 

from forest 

plan)

Habitat 

Trend

Population 

Trend

Abert’s Squirrel 

(Sciurus aberti)

Early succession 

(ponderosa pine

interlocking canopies)

MA1 626,989 Upward Stable

Elk

(Cervus elaphis 

nelson)

Early succession 

(grassland, deciduous 

riparian, ponderosa pine, 

spruce fir wet mixed 

conifer)

MA 1, 

2, 4

1,577,778 Upward, 

but 

declining 

in open 

grasslands

Stable to 

slightly 

decreasing

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates 

Riparian 

(wetland/cienega)

MA3 12,483 wetland 

cienega, 3,279 

water

Declining Declining

Mule Deer

(Odocoileus 

hemionus) 

Early succession (spruce 

fir wet mixed conifer, 

ponderosa pine and 

pinyon juniper habitat 

components)

MA 1, 

2

1,577,778 Upward Declining

Antelope 

(Antilocapra 

Americana)

Early succession

(woodland, grasslands, 

deciduous riparian)

MA 2, 

4

252,269 Upward Stable

Northern Goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis)

Late succession (old 

growth)

MA1 626,989 Stable, but 

declining

Stable

Pygmy Nuthatch

(Sitta pygmaea)

Late succession (snags in 

old growth ponderosa 

pine)

MA1 626,989 Stable, 

upward

Stable

Wild Turkey 

(Meleagris 

gallopavo)

Late succession 

(wetland/cienega, 

ponderosa pine, riparian 

areas, and grasslands)

MA1 989,516 Upward Stable

Red Squirrel 

(Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus)

Late succession (sprucefir and wet mixed conifer)MA1 349,056 Stable, 

upward

Stable

Mexican Spotted 

Owl (Strix 

occidentalis)

Late succession (snags 

and mature forests)

MA1 1,004,019 Declining Stable
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 135

Species Habitat Type MA

Acres Habitat 

(MA acres 

from forest 

plan)

Habitat 

Trend

Population 

Trend

Yellow-Bellied 

Sapsucker (rednaped sapsucker)

(Sphyrapicus 

nuchalis)

Aspen snags

(mixed broadleaf 

deciduous)

MA1 997,147 Stable Stable

Plain Titmouse 

(Baeolophus 

(Parus) ridgwayi)

Snags (pinyon-juniper) MA2 640,329 Upward Stable

Hairy Woodpecker 

(Picoides villosus)

Snags (all forest habitat 

types)

MA1 1,216,817 Stable, 

upward

Stable

Lincoln’s Sparrow

(Melospiza 

lincolnii)

High elevation riparian 

(montane willow)

MA3 19,680 Declining Stable, but 

low

Lucy’s Warbler 

(Vermivora luciae)

Low elevation riparian

(mixed broadleaf 

deciduous)

MA3 7,631 Upward Stable

Yellow-Breasted 

Chat (Icteria 

virens)

Low elevation riparian

(cottonwood-willow)

MA3 13,905 Upward Stable

Cinnamon Teal

(Anas cyanoptera)

Wetlands 

(wetland/cienega)

MA 11 12,483 wetland 

cienega, 3,279 

water

Upward Stable

Environmental Consequences for MIS

Direct and indirect effects are provided here by alternative, and cumulative effects are found for 

all wildlife at the end of the section. Effects to the Mexican spotted owl were covered in the 

“Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Candidate Species and Designated 

Critical Habitat” section. Effects to the northern goshawk were covered in the “Forest Service 

Sensitive Species” section. 

Descriptions of vulnerabilities due to changes in the forests’ transportation system to the MIS 

species would be similar to descriptions found under the “Forest Service Sensitive Species”

section, covering mammals, birds and invertebrates. This includes loss of habitat, habitat 

fragmentation, human disturbance, mortality from vehicles, and alterations in habitat quality. 

Table 33 displays the miles of routes and acres of areas by species by alternative for MIS species. 

Effect Determination

For all MIS species, under alternative A, based on existing trends, this alternative would achieve 

forest plan objectives for habitat and population trends. For all MIS species, under alternatives B, 

C, D and E, the reduction in cross-country travel and designation of routes as proposed would 

improve habitat and population trends from that shown in table 32. These improvements would 

result in achieving forest plan objectives for habitat and population trends. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Rationale for Effect Determination to MIS

Alternative A

Alternative A proposes to keep the existing system of roads and motorized trails and would allow 

continued cross-country travel forestwide. Motorized use within or adjacent to any MIS habitats 

could include disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and impacts to habitat security and habitat 

quality varying by magnitude, frequency, and times of use. Some MIS species may experience a 

change in habitat quality, however, forestwide population and habitat trends would not change. 

Descriptions are provided here of some potential habitat quality impacts:

● For elk and mule deer, the majority of habitat would continue to be open to cross-country 

motorized travel and motorized big game retrieval under alternative A. Due to the large 

area providing habitat and the level of current motorized use, current impacts on habitat 

quality are expected to be spread out and vary in intensity.

● For macroinvertebrates, motorized use within or adjacent to habitat has the potential to 

negatively influence these species, primarily through habitat modification. Currently, 

cross-country motorized use on the forests is considered to have minimal impacts on 

macroinvertebrates due to fenced exclusion of many of the habitats. In areas where 

exclosures do not protect habitat, there would be potential to negatively impact these 

species’ habitat quality. Forestwide, direct and indirect effects from roads and trails open 

to motorized travel are considered to be low to moderate. 

● For antelope, only 0.2 percent of grassland habitat types include roads and trails 

designated as open to motor vehicles. Although this is small, there is a potential for 

negative effects to habitat quality for antelope. 

● For the yellow-bellied sapsucker and hairy woodpecker, cross-country motorized use has 

the potential to impact snag habitats during the breeding season through disturbance. 

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E

Under all action alternatives some MIS species may experience a change in habitat quality,

however, forestwide population and habitat trends would not be expected to change. Under the 

action alternatives, motorized cross-country travel would be eliminated on 1.6 million acres. This

would be a significant reduction in areas open to motorized use on the forests and would be 

beneficial to all MIS species. 

Alternatives B, C, and D propose areas for MBGR (1 mile from roads in alternatives B and C, 

and 1⁄4 mile from roads in alternative D). In wetland and riparian areas that are not fenced from 

motorized use, there would be a potential for impacts to these habitats and associated species. In 

all other habitat types, the direct and indirect effects to habitat quality would be minimal since

this activity would occur seasonally and there is not likely to be repeated off-road motorized 

travel in the same location.

Alternatives B, D and E would result in a designated open road system with fewer miles of open 

roads than under current conditions. Alternative C would result in 28 miles of additional roads 

designated open. Overall, fewer open roads are expected to be beneficial to all MIS species, while 

opening more roads to motorized travel is expected to have negative localized impacts dependent 

on the proximity of roads to habitat types. Alternatives B, D and E would add miles of motorized 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 137

trails, which is expected to have negative localized impacts dependent on the proximity of roads 

to habitat types. The motorized trails would not change under alternative C. 

Alternatives B and D propose five motorized use areas (459 acres) which are in 70 acres of Great 

Basin grassland, 4 acres of montane/subalpine grassland, 2 acres of pinyon juniper, and 383 acres 

of ponderosa pine habitat. Overall, there would be a positive change to MIS species as compared 

to current conditions where motorized cross-country travel is allowed forestwide. However, there 

is still potential for adverse direct and indirect effects limited to the extent of the proposed areas. 

Compared to alternative A, designation of the motorized use areas would be beneficial to species 

dependent on these four habitat types. 

Alternatives B, D and E propose to close roads to motorized travel. These closures would benefit 

MIS species in associated habitat types by reducing the potential for mortality, injury and 

disturbance, reducing effects during dispersal, and preventing habitat modification. 

All action alternatives propose either 300-foot-wide corridors for motorized dispersed camping 

(alternatives B, D and E) or routes for accessing dispersed camping sites with motor vehicles 

(alternative C). These areas would be within or adjacent to habitat for all MIS species. Overall, 

there would be a positive change to MIS species as compared to current conditions where 

motorized dispersed camping is allowed forestwide. The effects to MIS species and habitat 

quality are expected to be limited in size and extent and would occur in localized areas. Effects 

could include disturbance to individuals, reduced habitat security and quality, and fragmentation 

of habitat blocks where corridors are located. 

Alternatives B, D and E propose to construct between 1 and 2 miles of new motorized trails 

which would be located within existing roadbeds. Portions of these trails would be within pinyonjuniper habitat and ponderosa pine habitat. Due to the limited acres impacted, direct and indirect 

effects are expected to be limited to negative effects to habitat security and quality adjacent to the 

trails, and fragmentation is expected to be increased in these localized areas. 

Alternatives B, D and E propose to convert existing roads to permitted and administrative use 

only. By limiting the use of these roads, there would be impacts similar to those described for 

roads proposed to be closed. 

Table 33. Comparison of miles of routes and acres of areas for MIS species by alternative

Species Vegetation 

Communities

Routes and Areas 

in Potential 

Habitat

Alternative

A B C D E

Abert’s 

squirrel and 

Pygmy 

nuthatch

Ponderosa 

pine

miles roads/trails 1,347 1,294 1,359 1,344 1,187

acres dispersed sites 0 28,702 0 63,135 2,768

acres MBGR 525,057 501,620 501,620 291,891 0

acres areas 0 383 0 383 0

Elk and 

mule deer

Forests, 

grasslands, 

pinyon juniper

miles roads/trails 2,237 2,194 2,256 2,263 2,038

acres dispersed sites n/a 34,861 0 106,196 5,314

acres MBGR 991,741 948,090 948,090 528,024 0

acres areas 0 459 0 459 0
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Species Vegetation 

Communities

Routes and Areas 

in Potential 

Habitat

Alternative

A B C D E

Aquatic 

macroinvertebrates

and 

cinnamon 

teal

Wetland/

cienega and 

water

miles roads/trails 24 31 25 33 28

acres dispersed sites 0 379 0 1,672 0

acres MBGR 9,274 9,225 9,225 6,277 0

Antelope Great Basin 

grasslands, 

subalpine 

grasslands

miles roads/trails 474 487 478 497 464

acres dispersed sites n/a 3,308 0 28,199 1,457

acres MBGR 221,599 217,648 217,648 124,502 0

acres areas 0 70 0 70 0

Wild turkey Forests, 

montane 

willow, 

cottonwood 

willow

miles roads/trails 1,545 1,526 1,561 1,589 1,398

acres dispersed sites n/a 30,308 0 69,152 3,038

acres MBGR 567,133 541,543 541,543 318,645 0

acres areas 0 383 0 383 0

Red 

squirrel

Dry mixed 

conifer and 

spruce fir with 

wet mixed 

conifer

miles roads/trails 68 85 70 90 75

acres dispersed sites 0 1,158 0 5,362 0

acres MBGR 34,120 32,491 32,491 21,922 0

Yellowbellied 

sapsucker

Forests, mixed 

broadleaf 

deciduous, 

montane 

willow, 

cottonwood 

willow

miles roads/trails 1,564 1,545 1,580 1,608 1,412

acres dispersed sites n/a 30,368 0 69,928 3,087

acres MBGR 570,956 543,805 543,805 320,482 0

acres areas 0 383 0 383 0

Plain 

titmouse

Woodlands miles roads/trails 473 456 475 459 441

acres dispersed sites n/a 4,709 0 16,747 2,489

acres MBGR 476,145 264,746 264,746 118,359 0

acres areas 0 5 0 5 0

Hairy 

woodpecker

Forests, 

pinyon juniper

miles roads/trails 1,763 1,707 1,478 1,766 1,574

acres dispersed sites n/a 31,553 0 77,997 3,857

acres MBGR 770,142 730,442 730,442 403,522 0

acres areas 0 388 0 388 0

Lincoln’s 

sparrow

Wetland/

cienega and 

montane 

willow 

riparian

miles roads/trails 137 161 140 169 152

acres dispersed sites n/a 528 0 1,962 108

acres MBGR 12,722 12,208 12,208 8,355 0
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 139

Species Vegetation 

Communities

Routes and Areas 

in Potential 

Habitat

Alternative

A B C D E

Lucy’s 

warbler

Mixed 

broadleaf 

deciduous 

riparian

miles roads/trails 19 19 19 19 14

acres dispersed sites 0 60 0 776 49

acres MBGR 3,823 2,262 2,262 1,837 0

Yellowbreasted 

chat

Mixed 

broadleaf 

deciduous and 

cottonwood 

willow 

riparian

miles roads/trails 36 36 36 38 26

acres dispersed sites n/a 359 0 1,141 181

acres MBGR 5,332 6,711 6,711 4,591 0

Migratory Birds

Arizona Partners in Flight (APIF) identifies physiographic areas and high priority migratory bird 

species by broad habitat types. The forests are in Bird Conservation Regions 34 (Sierra Madre 

Occidental) and 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

released its “Birds of Conservation Concern Report” (BCC) in 2008 (USFWS 2008). This 

analysis considers birds from both the BCC report and PIF high priority species. There is one 

identified important bird area (IBA), the Blue River Complex designated by the National 

Audubon Society, and one recognized IBA, the Upper Little Colorado River Watershed. 

A total of 46 species have been identified on the forests, and 12 of these are discussed in the 

“Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species” and “MIS” sections and will not be discussed 

further here. They are: Western yellow-billed cuckoo, Southwestern willow flycatcher, common 

black hawk, Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, burrowing 

owl, red-naped sapsucker, Bell’s vireo and juniper titmouse, and Lucy’s warbler. Table 34 

summarizes the 34 migratory birds considered in this analysis with a description of their habitats. 

More detailed information is provided in the wildlife specialist report found in the project record. 

Table 34. Migratory birds with habitat types

Habitat Species Habitat Component

Mixed 

conifer 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Forest openings and edges within mature ponderosa pine forests 

with snags

Ponderosa 

pine

Purple Martin Uncommon summer resident in ponderosa pine

Flammulated Owl Old growth coniferous forests, nests in cavities of trees

Lewis’ Woodpecker Nests in abandoned cavities and uses open areas for foraging

Grace’s Warbler Occasionally found in mixed conifer and pinyon-juniper 

Cassin’s Finch Occur in open coniferous forests 

Olive Warbler Prefer forests with a Gambel oak component

Spruce fir Swainson’s Thrush Dense spruce fir where forest openings occur

Pine Grosbeak Prefer a mosaic of open areas, disturbed areas, and edges

Golden-crowned Kinglet Mature spruce fir forests with closed canopies
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Habitat Species Habitat Component

Madrean 

pine oak 

woodland

Montezuma (Mearn’s) Quail Found where steep slopes support tall native perennial grasses

Band-tailed Pigeon Found in madrean oak woodlands within pinyon-juniper

Canyon Towhee In remote, rough, rocky terrain, with scattered dense shrubs

Pinyonjuniper 

woodland

Gray Flycatcher Need some ground cover to support insect populations 

Pinyon Jay In foothills and middle elevations 

Gray Vireo Understory of broadleaf shrubs

Black-throated Gray Warbler Favors open woodlands 

Brewer’s Sparrow Breed in shrublands and areas dominated by big sagebrush

High 

elevation 

grassland

Swainson’s Hawk Nests in scattered trees 

Ferruginous Hawk Occupy flat and rolling terrain

Golden Eagle Breed in open and semi-open habitats 

Prairie Falcon Cliffs or bluffs are used for nesting sites

Chestnut-collared Longspur Arid, short- to mixed-grass prairie 

Semidesert 

Grasslands

Cassin’s Sparrow With scattered shrubs, yuccas, or low trees 

Bendire’s Thrasher Favor relatively open grassland, shrubland, or woodland 

Interior 

chaparral

Black-chinned Sparrow Arid brushlands on rugged mountain slopes 

Virginia’s Warbler Breed in pinyon-juniper and oak woodlands

Low 

elevation 

riparian 

Veery Inhabit damp, deciduous forests

Elf Owl Occupy subtropical thorn woodland and riparian forest

Yellow Warbler Breed most commonly in wet, deciduous thickets

High 

elevation 

riparian 

Common Black-hawk Obligate riparian nesters 

MacGillivray’s Warbler Primarily in coniferous forest clearcuts 

Red-faced Warbler Abundant in steep canyons 

Wetlands American Bittern Freshwater wetlands with tall, emergent vegetation

Environmental Consequences for Migratory Birds

Under all alternatives, there would be no direct or indirect effect to rangewide populations of any 

migratory bird species. Some improvement to habitats would be expected under the action 

alternatives from reduced motorized cross-country travel. No intentional take would result from 

actions proposed in this alternative. Unintentional take of individual birds may occur, but will not 

result in changes to the rangewide populations. 

Cumulative Effects for All Wildlife and Rare Plant Species

The cumulative effects analysis area is the forests boundary which is of sufficient size to 

encompass impacts on wildlife, rare plants and habitats. Since the analysis is forestwide, the 

activities are discussed generally. Appendix E lists the specific past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects identified during this analysis. The types of projects listed here could 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 141

add cumulatively to the direct and indirect effects described for federally listed species, sensitive 

species, MIS species, and migratory birds. In combination with this proposal, past, ongoing, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects would have cumulative impacts on wildlife and rare plant 

habitats on a scale that is small relative to this forestwide analysis.

● Vegetation Management: The majority of projects are for riparian restoration and have 

potential to stabilize vegetation in the long term which would improve wildlife habitat 

quality.

● Fuels Management/Reduction: These projects could increase soil erosion in the short 

term before understories reestablish. However, in the long term, they could reduce 

wildfire intensity and decrease soil erosion. These projects are on a small scale and would 

have minimal cumulative impacts at a forestwide scale.

● Prescribed Burns: These prescribed burns have potential to increase soil erosion 

because the understory layer of vegetation would be removed for a short time. Overall, 

there would be beneficial impacts from the reduction in large, intense wildfires that 

greatly impact wildlife habitat.

● Livestock Grazing: Impacts occur on riparian areas if not managed properly. The forests 

permit livestock grazing on all ranger districts. Planned revisions to allotment 

management plans have potential to better manage livestock grazing and reduce impacts 

on riparian areas. On a forestwide scale, these projects would have minimal cumulative 

impacts on wildlife habitat.

● Community development is expected to increase and will include home construction and 

infrastructure improvements which could cumulatively result in a loss of suitable habitat.

Alternative B would have beneficial cumulative impacts as off-road travel would be reduced to 

areas and corridors, resulting in greater habitat security and less adverse physical effects to 

habitat. Alternative E would have the greatest beneficial cumulative impacts as off-road travel 

would be prohibited outside designated corridors. Alternatives C, D, and F would have similar 

cumulative effects and these effects would be greater than those of alternatives B and E. 

However, there would still be beneficial effects from the elimination of cross-country travel and 

minimal change to the existing transportation system.

Fisheries 

This section describes the existing fisheries and aquatic habitat on the forests. The effects of each 

alternative on both fish and habitats are included. “Issue 3, Impacts to Resources from Motorized 

Use” is addressed in this analysis. The analysis area includes the extent of the forests and areas 

adjacent that could be impacted downstream from activities occurring on the forests. This 

analysis area varies by species present within and downstream of the forests, and the extent and 

location of actions within the various alternatives. 

Affected Environment

Aquatic and riparian habitat on the forests is extremely limited (less than 1.5 percent of the 

forests), and has been subjected to significant alterations from past and current management 

practices. This is reflected in the historic and recent declines and fragmentation of fish species 

and populations. Twenty-four of the 33 fifth-code watersheds on the forests historically contained 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

one or more fish species. Currently only 16 of these 24 watersheds contain any native fish, and 

most have suffered losses of one to several species. There are presently 14 native fish species, and 

25 nonnative fish species occurring throughout the forests.

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and 

Proposed Species; Candidate and Designated Critical 

Habitat; and Forest Service Sensitive Species

The following threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species are found on the forests:

● Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) – Endangered – one existing population and six streams 

identified for recovery and reintroduction of the species; seven watersheds covering

51,686 acres; 33 percent currently open to cross-country travel.

● Gila chub (Gila intermedia) – Endangered and critical habitat – three populations; three 

watersheds covering 93,774 acres; 96 percent currently open to cross-country travel.

● Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) – Endangered and critical habitat – No

populations on the forests, but critical habitat is downstream of the forests’ boundary; two 

watersheds covering 528,470 acres; 62 percent currently open to cross-country travel.

● Spikedace (Meda fulgida) – Endangered and critical habitat – one existing population 

and one stream identified for recovery and reintroduction of the species; two watersheds 

covering 528,470 acres; 62 percent currently open to cross-country travel.

● Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apache) – Threatened – Approximately 5 existing 

populations and 19 streams identified for recovery and reintroduction of the species; 19 

watersheds covering 145,591 acres; 70 percent currently open to cross-country travel.

● Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) – Threatened and critical habitat – five populations; 

five watersheds covering 772,031 acres; 70 percent currently open to cross-country 

travel.

● Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) – Threatened and critical habitat –

three populations and two streams identified for recovery and reintroduction of the 

species; five watersheds covering 341,373 acres; 76 percent currently open to crosscountry travel.

● Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) – Candidate – three populations; three watersheds 

covering 548,471 acres; 85 percent currently open to cross-country travel.

The following Forest Service sensitive species are found on the forests (USDA FS 2007d):

● Roundtail chub (see previous description)

● Bluehead sucker (Castostomus discobolus) – five populations; five watersheds covering

390,752 acres; 73 percent currently open to cross-country travel.

● Desert sucker (Castostomus clarki) and Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis) – six

populations; six watersheds covering 853,944 acres; 73 percent currently open to crosscountry travel.

● Little Colorado River sucker (Catostomus sp.) – three populations; three watersheds 

covering 242,462 acres; 75 percent currently open to cross-country travel.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 143

● Longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster) – five populations; five watersheds covering

639,090 acres; 68 percent currently open to cross-country travel.

Statewide and Basinwide Population and Distribution

Both historical and recent data are limited for fish species populations, abundances, and habitat 

conditions, and data that are available vary considerably in analysis approaches, scales, and other 

types of information gathered and analyzed. Olden and Poff (2005) characterized the temporal 

trends in native fish distributions within the Lower Colorado River Basin, including 13 of the 14 

native fish species on the forests. 

Ten of these 13 species have undergone declines in distribution across the basin, with the 

remaining 3 showing slight increases. The species that have declined are primarily threatened, 

endangered, and candidate species which include Apache trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, loach 

minnow, razorback sucker, roundtail chub, and spikedace. The three species that increased are the 

threatened Little Colorado spinedace; the Desert sucker, which is sensitive; and the speckled 

dace. The Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts have significant lengths of streams with 

occurrences of five or more native fish species. 

The recent report, “Ecological Assessment of Arizona’s Streams and Rivers, 2000-2004” 

(Robinson et al. 2006) documents existing conditions for aquatic species. Most of Arizona’s 

streams (70 percent) were determined to be in the most disturbed ecological condition. While this 

assessment did not specifically address any causative agents relative to these changes, it is likely 

that they have resulted from numerous changes and impacts that have occurred throughout the 

State’s watersheds, along with past and ongoing introductions of nonnative species. 

Population, Distribution, and Habitat 

Native fish species occur on 477 miles (63 percent) of the 763 miles of perennial streams on the 

forests. The speckled dace, Sonora sucker, and desert sucker have the largest distributions, while 

the Gila trout, Gila chub, and spikedace have the smallest. Streams with occurrences of the loach 

minnow on national forests in Arizona only occur on the forests. In addition, within national 

forests in Arizona, over two-thirds of the stream reaches with occurrences of the bluehead sucker 

(95 percent), Apache trout (80 percent), Gila trout (71 percent), Little Colorado sucker (70 

percent), and Little Colorado spinedace (66 percent ) occur on the forests (Vander Lee et al.

2006). 

No threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species occur on the Lakeside Ranger District. 

Approximately 40 percent of the Black Mesa Ranger District contains action areas for the 

threatened Little Colorado spinedace and several sensitive fish species. Approximately 50 percent 

of the Springerville Ranger District contains action areas for several threatened species and 

several sensitive fish species. Most of both the Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts include action 

areas for most (12) of the threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive fish species: with 

listed species covering approximately 95 percent of each district, and sensitive fish covering 85 

percent of the Alpine Ranger District and approximately 90 percent of the Clifton Ranger District.

Past and current management has resulted in Apache and Gila trout populations that either will 

provide for recovery or currently are occupied by these species. Most of the populations and their 

habitat are being managed above barriers that have been constructed to reduce and limit the 

ability of the fish downstream of the constructed barrier to gain access to the habitat above. Few 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

populations are above falls or natural barriers that currently reduce and limit movement of fish 

species above them. Other threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species have not been 

intensively managed like the trout species, and occur across the forests where they have been 

capable of persisting with little or no active management of species or habitats. 

Existing conditions are indicative of past and ongoing management actions. Historical impacts 

(e.g., grazing, water developments and diversions, timber harvest and roads, fire suppression) 

resulted in significant impacts to aquatic communities and their watersheds, and the species and 

habitats of today have not recovered from these prior actions and impacts. Fish populations have 

been reduced from large interconnected populations to isolated populations within severely 

altered and degraded habitats. Watershed and hydrologic conditions, along with riparian and 

aquatic conditions, no longer provide the resiliency and ecological processes and functions across 

multiple temporal and spatial scales. 

The threats facing aquatic ecosystems and fish habitat include: water diversions and 

impoundments (e.g., lakes, reservoirs, stock ponds); degraded watershed and hydrologic 

conditions; highly altered infiltration rates associated with soil compaction and loss of vegetative 

ground cover; excessive sedimentation associated with roads and significantly increased drainage 

densities, loss of vegetative ground cover, and stream channel down cutting; large-scale stream 

channel down cutting and the lowering of the water table; the loss of perennial and intermittent 

streams and the conversion of perennial streams to perennially interrupted or intermittent streams; 

highly altered and degraded riparian conditions, and riparian vegetation and soil conditions; 

nonnative fish species and crayfish; and the lack of aquatic habitat diversity, productivity, and 

resiliency. Present aquatic species distributions and population conditions do not provide for the 

resiliency necessary for the long-term persistence of most native fish and their communities. 

Declining conditions are likely to continue from threats and risks at the watershed and landscape 

scale. 

All fish species and their habitats have been impacted directly and indirectly from roads and 

cross-country travel. Past and ongoing timber harvest and vegetation management activities have 

resulted in the highest road densities in those watersheds. Apache trout and Little Colorado 

spinedace have likely been impacted the most by these activities and the associated transportation 

system. Roads along the Blue River, Eagle Creek, and San Francisco River have had considerable 

negative impacts to the fish species and populations within these drainages, along with the 

associated riparian habitat and corridors. The threatened loach minnow and spikedace populations 

have likely been impacted in these areas, along with the Gila and roundtail chubs. 

Road crossings within the species habitats are important indicators of the potential extent of 

impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats. Where crossings occur upstream of occupied habitat, 

increased sedimentation rates can impact downstream reaches, both short and long term. The 

amounts and rates of additional sediment are dependent on several factors and will vary in 

intensity and duration. Table 35 displays the current number of stream crossings on the forests on 

both open and closed roads by fish species. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 145

Table 35. Road/stream crossings for existing condition by fish species

Species

No. Open 

Road/stream 

Crossings 

No. Closed 

Road/stream 

Crossings 

Total No. 

Road/stream 

Crossings 

Federally Listed Fish Species

Apache trout 143 241 384

Gila chub 111 18 129

Gila trout 35 32 67

Loach minnow 699 428 1,127

Spikedace and razorback sucker 318 148 466

Roundtail chub 619 893 1,512

Little Colorado spinedace 392 556 948

Sensitive Fish Species

Bluehead sucker 446 573 1,019

Desert and Sonora sucker 810 829 1,639

Little Colorado River sucker 238 382 620

Longfin dace 507 162 669

Environmental Consequences 

This section includes the direct and indirect effects by alternative and concludes with the 

cumulative effects. The fisheries specialist report contains detailed information on the effects 

analysis and is found in the project record. A biological assessment (BA) was prepared for the 

preferred alternative for fisheries and is in the project record. 

Analysis Methods

Analysis areas were defined for the native fish species and included all of the portions of 

watersheds that drain into habitat occupied by the species or areas identified as recovery habitat 

for reintroduction of the species. The approach by analyses area was to quantify the components 

for each alternative based on three parameters: (1) if proposed activity would occur within 250 

meters of the species habitat, (2) if proposed activity would occur within 250 meters of any 

upstream drainage, and (3) the remaining proposed activities that would occur outside the areas 

associated with the first two parameters (i.e., all upland areas that drain into ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial drainages within the analysis area). For the threatened, endangered, 

and candidate species, population mapping resulted in 47 analyses areas. For the sensitive 

species, population mapping resulted in 25 analyses areas. Maps of these analysis areas can be 

found with the specialist report in the project record. Impacts were evaluated for each alternative. 

The following assumptions were used in analysis of the effects on fisheries:

● ML 3-5 roads receive some level of maintenance activity every year such as grading, 

culvert cleaning, etc. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

● Approximately 20 to 25 percent of ML2 roads are maintained every year. This typically 

results in maintenance that occurs once every 5 years.

● Direct effects are considered to be everything within 250 meters of occupied habitat.

● Indirect effects are considered to be everything outside 250 meters of occupied habitat.

● Although proposed actions have been designated on project maps, they are spatially 

discontinuous across the forests and are too numerous to analyze site specifically. 

Therefore, the meaningful comparison of alternatives is limited to changes relative to the 

existing conditions for the transportation system and off-road travel. 

● Roads and their drainage crossings within areas of fish habitat are a source of increased 

sedimentation that can impact downstream reaches, both short and long term. No site 

specific information regarding conditions and potential impacts to fish and their habitats 

directly resulting from road/stream crossings by alternative was available other than the 

location and count of existing crossings. 

● No ground-disturbing actions are associated, authorized, or evaluated with any of the 

proposed actions within the alternatives, with the exception of the new motorized trails.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

● Activities associated with off-road motor vehicle use would accelerate erosion and 

sediment beyond the historic range of variation and natural geologic rate (Satterlund and 

Adams 1992). Without disturbances caused by roads and associated activities, stream 

channel characteristics are less likely to be altered (Furniss et al. 1991). 

● Direct impacts are associated with road/stream crossings and where roads are located 

within or in close proximity to drainages. Sediment and chemicals enter streams at road 

crossings. Road surfaces, cut banks, fill slopes, bridge/culvert sites, and ditches are all 

sources of sediment associated with roads. The exposed soil surfaces, as well as the 

greater sediment transport capacity of increased hydrologic flows, result in higher erosion 

rates and sediment yields. These impacts include alterations of riparian vegetation, 

channel morphology, and water quality, resulting in negative impacts to fish and stream 

habitats.

● During low flow periods, fine sediment deposits fill pools and embed gravel beds, 

degrading habitats and spawning sites for some fish. During high discharge events, 

accumulated sediment flushes out and deposits downstream. These impacts include 

alterations of riparian vegetation, channel morphology, and water quality resulting in 

negative impacts to fish and their habitats. Road crossings associated with the existing 

transportation system and continued off-road travel would increase these impacts. 

● Where roads and drainages occur upstream of occupied fish habitat, increased 

sedimentation rates can impact downstream reaches in both the short and long term. 

Amounts and rates of additional sediment are dependent on several factors and vary in 

intensity and duration.

● Road density in a watershed affects the collection and transport of water out of the 

watershed (Burroughs and King 1989). The potential for increases in runoff rates 

increases with more miles of road. Road closures would be beneficial to water quality if 

the roads were properly decommissioned and well maintained after closure. A well 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 147

maintained, closed road system would result in less sediment from road surface erosion. 

Roads not proposed for designation to the system may have long-term adverse effects on 

water quality if they are not properly maintained.

● Direct negative impacts to fish populations include impacts to individuals, changes in 

channel morphology, loss and alteration of riparian vegetation, and degraded habitat and 

water quality. Indirect impacts include changes in habitat conditions and impacts to 

species from increased sedimentation and alterations in water quality.

● The environmental consequences associated with all alternatives fall within forest plan 

standards and guidelines.

Table 36. Summary of routes and areas within fish habitat by alternative

Species Routes and Areas in 

Fish Habitat

Alternative

A B C* D E

Federally Listed Fish Species

Apache trout miles open roads 244 310 249 327 271 

miles closed roads 389 399 389 397 407

acres MBGR

145,591

94,564 94,374 61,478 0

acres dispersed sites 1,853 4.5 mi 14,975 0

Gila chub miles open roads 81 98 81 98 94

miles closed roads 27 27 27 28 32

acres MBGR

90,155

38,813 37,054 18,406 0

acres dispersed sites 788 0.4 mi 3,259 880

Gila trout miles open roads 41 50 42 51 43

miles closed roads 57 57 57 58 58

acres MBGR

17,192

14,518 14,386 10,511 0

acres dispersed sites 18 1.1 2,778 0

Loach minnow miles open roads 652 767 660 780 720

miles closed roads 548 576 548 577 594

acres MBGR

541,519

246,888 240,796 137,247 0

acres dispersed sites 8,064 8.4 mi 33,033 3,152

Spikedace and 

razorback sucker

miles open roads 347 383 351 387 365

miles closed roads 191 204 191 204 219

acres MBGR

327,513

115,989 113,688 63,422 0

acres dispersed sites 6,863 4 mi 15,436 2,344

Roundtail chub miles open roads 950 1,105 966 1,144 1,034

miles closed roads 1,261 1,381 1,261 1,377 1,417

acres MBGR

467,625

352,253 343,994 199,847 0

acres dispersed sites 19,049 11 mi 46,450 3,137
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Species Routes and Areas in 

Fish Habitat

Alternative

A B C* D E

Little Colorado 

spinedace

miles open roads 784 881 788 885 837

miles closed roads 1,039 1,203 1,039 1,206 1,232

acres MBGR

258,753

250,325 248,241 137,069 0

acres dispersed sites 19,281 4.4 mi 32,487 2,478

Sensitive Fish Species

Bluehead sucker miles open roads 870 969 875 997 930

miles closed roads 1,125 1,304 1,125 1,293 1,325

acres MBGR

283,897

274,903 272,291 153,692 0

acres dispersed sites 20,776 5.5 mi 37,159 2,478

Desert and 

Sonora sucker

miles open roads 846 1,014 859 1,034 932

miles closed roads 974 1,011 974 1,009 1,051

acres MBGR

619,558

333,683 324,802 187,857 0

acres dispersed sites 9,430 13.4 mi 44,597 3,152

Little Colorado 

River sucker

miles open roads 616 662 619 664 651

miles closed roads 837 998 837 996 1,021

acres MBGR

180,951

175,621 175,621 97,616 0

acres dispersed sites 18,590 2.8 mi 24,610 2,478

Longfin dace miles open roads 442 481 447 485 469

miles closed roads 201 219 201 219 246

acres MBGR

434,912

158,126 158,126 81,461 0

acres dispersed sites 6,674 5.1 mi 20,080 3,152

* Under alternative C, there are no dispersed camping corridors designated, rather there are designated camping sites 

accessible off the 28 miles proposed for addition to the road system. Proportions of those miles are displayed here. 

Alternative A

Overall, maintaining existing management under alternative A would have negative effects to fish

and their habitats. Table 36 displays the routes and areas within fish species habitat. 

Apache trout and Little Colorado spinedace would be impacted the most by road stream crossings 

and the associated transportation system. These impacts include alterations of riparian vegetation, 

channel morphology, and water quality resulting in impacts to fish. Roads along the Blue River, 

Eagle Creek, and San Francisco River would have negative impacts to the fish species and 

populations within these drainages, along with the associated riparian habitat and corridors. The 

threatened loach minnow and spikedace populations would be impacted in these areas, along with 

the Gila and roundtail chub. 

Motorized cross-country use is disparately concentrated within riparian areas and areas where 

water is present. Topography and vegetative conditions limit or preclude accessibility to some 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 149

areas. Increasing motorized recreational use increases the potential for impacts to streams and fish 

from sediment. This use directly damages riparian and aquatic habitat, and certain life stages of 

fish with no or limited mobility. These same impacts indirectly impact downstream habitat 

primarily through increased sediment and water quality, as well as other changes in hydrologic 

conditions.

Determination of Effect for Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species

● Alternative A, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) the following seven species: 

Apache trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, Little Colorado spinedace, loach minnow, roundtail 

chub, and spikedace.

● Alternative A, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) the following species: 

razorback sucker.

● Alternative A, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) critical habitat for the 

following three species: Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, and loach minnow.

● Alternative A, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) critical habitat for the 

following species: razorback sucker.

Determination of Effect for Forest Service Sensitive Species 

For alternative A, a determination of “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species” was found for the bluehead sucker, desert sucker, longfin dace, Little Colorado River 

sucker, and Sonora sucker and their habitat. 

Alternative B

For all species, there would be an increase in the percentage of open and closed roads as shown in

table 36 which displays the routes and areas within fish species habitat. Increases in miles of 

roads for motor vehicle use within action areas would range from 11 to 27 percent for threatened, 

endangered and candidate species, and between 8 and 20 percent for Forest Service sensitive 

species (see specialist report for additional information). The percentage of closed roads for all 

species would increase/range from 1 to 19 percent for all species. 

This alternative would result in effects to all 13 fish species analyzed except there would be no 

direct effects to the Little Colorado River sucker. Both short- and long-term impacts from adding 

roads to the existing transportation system could result in negative effects to Apache trout, Gila 

chub, Gila trout, loach minnow, roundtail chub, spikedace, and Little Colorado spinedace. 

Beneficial effects to these same species could result from roads being closed, the elimination of 

cross-country travel, and reductions in the acres available for MBGR and motorized dispersed 

camping. Given the substantial reductions in acres of off-road travel, potential impacts and 

disturbance to fish species, riparian and aquatic habitat and hydrologic conditions would be 

reduced. 

All the sensitive fish species would be similarly impacted by this alternative as described for the 

threatened, endangered, and candidate species. The current population and habitat conditions for 

these species are largely unknown. Impacts would be primarily indirect and associated with 

increased sedimentation to the species habitat. Most impacts would be within the uplands, occur 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

throughout the watersheds, and would not be concentrated within the species habitats or drainages 

upstream of habitats. 

Given the distances from motorized use areas, only 45 acres are within fish habitat and there 

would be no potential direct or indirect impacts to any fish species downstream. The addition of 

the areas would potentially contribute only a very small impact. 

In comparing the overall effects to fish and their habitats, alternative B provides fewer benefits 

than alternatives C and E, and greater benefits than alternatives A and D.

Determination of Effect for Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species

● Alternative B, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) the following seven species: 

Apache trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, Little Colorado spinedace, loach minnow, roundtail 

chub, and spikedace.

● Alternative B, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) the following species: 

razorback sucker.

● Alternative B, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) critical habitat for the 

following three species: Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, and loach minnow.

● Alternative B, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) critical habitat for the 

following species: razorback sucker.

Determination of Effect for Forest Service Sensitive Species 

For alternative B, a determination of “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species” was found for the bluehead sucker, desert sucker, longfin dace, Little Colorado River 

sucker, and Sonora sucker and their habitat. 

Alternative C

For all species, there would be an increase in the percentage of open and closed roads as shown in 

table 36 which displays the routes and areas within fish species habitat. Increases in miles of 

roads for motor vehicle use within action areas would range from 0.5 to 3 percent for threatened, 

endangered and candidate species and between 0.5 and 2 percent for Forest Service sensitive 

species (see specialist report for additional information). There would be no change in the 

percentage of closed roads for all fish species.

This alternative would result in effects to all 13 fish species analyzed, with the exceptions that 

there would be no direct effects to the Little Colorado River sucker, bluehead sucker, and Little 

Colorado spinedace. Both short- and long-term impacts from adding roads to the existing 

transportation system could result in negative effects to Apache trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, loach 

minnow, razorback sucker, roundtail chub, spikedace, and Little Colorado spinedace. Beneficial 

effects to these same species could result from the elimination of cross-country travel and 

reductions in acres available for MBGR. Given the substantial reductions in acres of off-road 

travel, potential impacts and disturbance to fish species, riparian and aquatic habitat and 

hydrologic conditions would be reduced.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 151

All the sensitive fish species would be similarly impacted by this alternative as described for the 

threatened, endangered, and candidate species above. The current population and habitat 

conditions for these species are largely unknown. Impacts would be primarily indirect and 

associated with increased sedimentation to the species habitat. Most impacts would be within the 

uplands, occur throughout the watersheds, and would not be concentrated within the species 

habitats or drainages upstream of habitats.

Overall, in comparing effects to fish and their habitats, alternative C provides the greatest 

benefits, relative to alternatives A, B, D, and E. 

Determination of Effect for Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species

● Alternative C, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) the following seven species: 

Apache trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, Little Colorado spinedace, loach minnow, roundtail 

chub, and spikedace.

● Alternative C, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) the following species: 

razorback sucker.

● Alternative C, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) critical habitat for the 

following three species: Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, and loach minnow.

● Alternative C, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) critical habitat for the 

following species: razorback sucker.

Determination of Effect for Forest Service Sensitive Species 

For alternative C, a determination of “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species” was found for the bluehead sucker, desert sucker, longfin dace, Little Colorado River 

sucker, and Sonora sucker and their habitat. 

Alternative D

For all species, there would be an increase in the percentage of open and closed roads as shown in 

table 36 which displays the routes and areas within fish species habitat. Increases in miles of 

roads for motor vehicle use within action areas would range from 13 to 34 percent for threatened, 

endangered and candidate species, and between 8 and 22 percent for Forest Service sensitive 

species (see specialist report for additional information). The change in closed roads would range 

from 2 to 19 percent for all species. 

This alternative would result in effects to all 13 fish species analyzed, with the exception that 

there would be no direct effects to the Little Colorado River sucker. Both short and long-term 

impacts from adding roads to the existing transportation system could result in negative effects to 

Apache trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, loach minnow, roundtail chub, spikedace, and Little Colorado 

spinedace. Beneficial effects to these same species could result from roads being closed, the 

elimination of cross-country travel, and reductions in the acres available for MBGR and 

motorized dispersed camping. Given the substantial reductions in acres of off-road travel, 

potential impacts and disturbance to fish species, riparian and aquatic habitat, and hydrologic 

conditions would be reduced.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

All the sensitive fish species would be similarly impacted by this alternative as described for the 

threatened, endangered, and candidate species above. The current population and habitat 

conditions for these species are largely unknown. Impacts would be primarily indirect and 

associated with increased sedimentation to the species habitat. Most impacts are within the 

uplands, occur throughout the watersheds, and would not be concentrated within the species 

habitats or drainages upstream of habitats.

Given the distances from motorized use areas, only 45 acres are within fish habitat and there are 

no potential direct or indirect impacts to any fish species downstream. The addition of the areas 

would potentially contribute only a very small impact to cumulative effects.

Overall, in comparing effects to fish and their habitats, alternative D provides the least benefits, 

relative to alternatives B, C, and E.

Determination of Effect for Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species

● Alternative D, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) the following seven

species: Apache trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, Little Colorado spinedace, loach minnow, 

roundtail chub, and spikedace.

● Alternative D, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) the following species: 

razorback sucker.

● Alternative D, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) critical habitat for the 

following three species: Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, and loach minnow.

● Alternative D, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) critical habitat for the 

following species: razorback sucker.

Determination of Effect for Forest Service Sensitive Species 

For alternative D, a determination of “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species 

was found for the bluehead sucker, desert sucker, longfin dace, Little Colorado River sucker, and 

Sonora sucker and their habitat.

Alternative E

For all species, there would be an increase in the percentage of open and closed roads as shown in 

table 36 which displays the routes and areas within fish species habitat. Increases in miles of 

roads for motor vehicle use within action areas would range from 5 to 15 percent for threatened, 

endangered and candidate species, and between 6 and 10 percent for Forest Service sensitive 

species (see specialist report for additional information). The change in closed roads would range 

from 2 to 22 percent for all species.

This alternative would result in effects to all 13 fish species analyzed, with the exception that 

there would be no direct effects to the Little Colorado River sucker. Both short- and long-term 

impacts from adding roads to the existing transportation system could result in negative effects to 

Apache trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, loach minnow, roundtail chub, spikedace, and Little Colorado 

spinedace. Beneficial effects to these same species could result from roads being closed, the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 153

elimination of cross-country travel, which includes no provisions for MBGR and provides a 

minimal (118 miles) amount of roads for general access and for motorized dispersed camping.

All the sensitive fish species would be similarly impacted by this alternative as described for the 

threatened, endangered, and candidate species above. The current population and habitat 

conditions for these species are largely unknown. Impacts will be primarily indirect and 

associated with increased sedimentation to the species habitat. Most impacts would be within the 

uplands, occur throughout the watersheds, and would not be concentrated within the species 

habitats or drainages upstream of habitats. 

Overall, in comparing effects to fish and their habitats, alternative E provides greater benefits 

than alternatives A, B and D, and is less beneficial than alternative C.

Determination of Effect for Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species

● Alternative E, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) the following seven species: 

Apache trout, Gila chub, Gila trout, Little Colorado spinedace, loach minnow, roundtail 

chub, and spikedace.

● Alternative E, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) the following species: 

razorback sucker.

● Alternative E, “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (LAA) critical habitat for the 

following three species: Gila chub, Little Colorado spinedace, and loach minnow.

● Alternative E, “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) critical habitat for the 

following species: razorback sucker.

Determination of Effect for Forest Service Sensitive Species

For alternative E, a determination of “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species 

was found for the bluehead sucker, desert sucker, longfin dace, Little Colorado River sucker, and 

Sonora sucker and their habitat.

Cumulative Effects on Fisheries

Effects of past projects were incorporated into the description of the affected environment. 

Present and foreseeable future activities on the forests were determined from the SOPA, which

can be found in the project record. As specific impacts are unknown and implementation is on a 

forestwide scale, cumulative effects are described generally to give an idea of the significance of 

the activity. The project types listed here summarizes the past, present, and future activities that 

would add cumulative effects, and the specific projects are listed in appendix E. These particular 

types of projects were determined to potentially provide cumulative impacts to fish species and 

habitats in addition to direct and indirect effects described above. 

Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management: These projects include timber harvest, 

vegetation treatments, fuel reductions, wildland-urban interface treatments, forest restoration, and 

firewood harvesting. Past timber harvests have resulted in substantial impacts to watersheds, 

hydrologic conditions, riparian and aquatic habitat, and fish species (especially in vegetated areas 

with high timber resources: ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, spruce-fir, etc.). This activity has 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

resulted in most of the existing transportation system present today, especially ML1 and ML2 

roads. More recent vegetation treatments have had fewer impacts, but still contribute cumulative 

effects, especially given resource conditions and ecological processes highly altered from legacy 

impacts. Firewood collecting and harvesting is a widespread activity. It occurs extensively within 

timber harvest areas, but also occurs as part of or within vegetation treatments in woodland areas. 

Fire Management: Prescribed burning has been used for managing fuels for the last 10 to 20 

years. Fire management has both short- and long-term impacts that are positive and negative for 

fisheries, and cumulatively these impacts are dependent on existing resource conditions. There 

are two prescribed fires in the SOPA, listed in appendix E. 

Livestock Grazing: Grazing livestock has occurred for over a century across the forests, 

resulting in overgrazing—especially within riparian areas—and has contributed to degraded 

riparian and aquatic habitats. Livestock grazing is continuing over most of the forests, although 

some areas are excluded for resource recovery reasons. Infrastructure development and 

maintenance of grazing allotments is substantial. Impacts to aquatic habitat and species, 

hydrologic conditions and processes, and riparian and upland conditions have occurred, and 

would continue.

Road and Trail Construction and Maintenance: While roads and trails are necessary for

management of the forests, they are responsible for considerable landscape scale changes to the 

functioning and maintaining of ecological processes. Maintenance activities for roads and trails 

result in positive and negative benefits, depending on timing and frequency. These impacts are 

ongoing and are a major contributor to cumulative effects to fish and their habitats from resulting 

sedimentation deposited into drainageways and streams.

Special Uses and Permits/Minerals Management/Land Exchanges: Hundreds of permits have

been issued including permits for outfitter and guiding activities, firewood, road easements, plant 

and minerals collection, gravel and cinder pits, and ditch bill easements. All of these activities can 

result in impacts to watersheds, riparian areas, and aquatic habitat and species, and contribute to 

cumulative effects, especially water development and diversion projects. Land exchanges have 

resulted in acquisition of riparian habitat (and in some cases associated water rights) that could 

help improve or maintain the status of some aquatic species.

Dam and Reservoir Development/Water Developments and Diversions: These projects have 

resulted in considerable impacts to aquatic habitat and species, directly and indirectly. Dam and 

reservoir development occurred from the late 1800s to the 1950s. Most activity was to provide for 

downstream water use and recreational opportunities. Most dams and water diversions have 

detrimental cumulative impacts to aquatic species and habitats, have isolated or separated 

populations, and dewatered or introduced nonnative species upstream and downstream. 

Fisheries and Wildlife: Fisheries habitat improvement in streams began in the 1930s on the 

forests. These efforts were in response to degraded habitats and were focused on higher elevation 

trout streams, intended to stabilize streams and provide pool habitat that had been reduced. 

Considerable efforts in the 1990s improved habitat conditions for Apache trout recovery through

habitat improvement structures within streams, primarily on the Springerville Ranger District. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 155

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources represent the tangible and intangible evidence of human behavior and past

human occupation. Cultural resources may consist of archaeological sites, historic age buildings 

and structures, and traditional use areas and cultural places that are important to a group’s 

traditional beliefs, religion or cultural practices. These types of resources are finite and 

nonrenewable. This section describes a summary of the existing condition of cultural resources 

and the effects analysis in regards to “Issue 3, Impacts to Resources from Motorized Use.” Please 

refer to the full cultural resource specialist report found in the project record. The criteria used for 

comparing the existing condition to the alternatives are based on the following: 

● Number of cultural resources (sites) eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places that would potentially be impacted by motorized use. 

● Potential impacts to contemporary tribal uses, including traditional cultural properties,

from designating a road and motorized trail system. 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and its implementing regulations 

require that Federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on “historic properties.”

The term “historic properties” refers to cultural resources, both prehistoric and historic, that are 

listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources 

that have not been evaluated for the register are treated as if eligible and are afforded the same 

consideration as historic properties. 

The Southwestern Region has a programmatic memorandum of agreement (PA) with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and State Historic Preservation Officers

(SHPOs) that stipulates the Forest Service’s responsibilities for complying with NHPA (USDA FS 

2003). This agreement provides for the development of standard consultation protocols for 

common or special undertakings such as the Travel Management Rule. The Southwestern Region 

has developed a standard consultation protocol for travel management route designation as 

appendix I of the PA which outlines the process for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA 

(USDA FS 2007c). By following the procedures of the protocol, the ACHP and the SHPOs have 

agreed that the Forest Service will satisfy legal requirements for the identification, evaluation, 

and treatment of historic properties. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are complying with 

the protocol for designating roads, trails and areas in lieu of standard consultation in the PA and 

the council’s regulations (36 CFR 800).

Existing system roads and trails and their associated constructed features already open for 

motorized use are exempt from further Section 106 review or consultation. The Southwestern 

Region, ACHP and SHPOs agree that if cultural resources are present on these roads and 

motorized trails, they were likely impacted by the original construction, maintenance, and use. 

Some level of disturbance from continued motorized use on these existing routes can be accepted.

Affected Environment

Currently, 1.6 million acres of the forests’ 2.1 million acres are open to motorized use. However, 

not all of the 1.6 million acres are accessible by motorized cross-country travel; approximately 

248,000 acres have a slope greater than 40 percent, and in other areas some types of vegetation 

limit cross-country travel. Cultural resources on the forests indicate human presence beginning in 

the late Paleoindian period and continuing into the present (table 37). Specific Paleoindian sites 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

have not been recorded, but projectile points such as Folsom and Clovis have been documented as 

isolated surface artifacts on the forests. The Archaic period sites are represented by dispersed 

artifact scatters, bedrock mortars, rock-filled roasting pits, rock shelters, and a variety of dart 

points such as Pinto, Jay, Elko, and Gypsum. In general, sites dating to this period are located in 

all vegetation types. Basketmaker II-III period sites are sparser on the forests. Most sites with

pithouses are found within pinyon-juniper woodlands. Pueblo I period sites include pithouse 

villages, above ground habitation structures, and artifact scatters and are generally located within 

pinyon-juniper woodlands and pine-oak forests.

Habitation of the forests dramatically increased during the Pueblo II - early Pueblo III period. 

Approximately 70 percent of all documented sites date to this period and are associated with 

archaeological cultures identified as the Mogollon and Anasazi. The most numerous sites from 

this period are 1- to 2-room masonry structures. Some sites consist of multiple roomblocks of 

around 40 rooms with features and artifacts, and several large sites include great kivas. 

Table 37. Temporal periods and cultural phases on the forests

Temporal Periods/Cultural Phases Calendar Years

Anasazi (Pecos) Highland Mogollon (Haury)

Paleoindian 9500 – 6500 BC

Archaic 6500 – 400 BC

Early Agriculture Basketmaker II- III Hilltop 400 BC – AD 800

Formative Pueblo I Corduroy AD 800 – 1000

Pueblo II Carrizo AD 1000 – 1150

Pueblo III Pinedale AD 1150 – 1300

Proto-historic Pueblo IV AD 1300 – 1540

Historic Pueblo V AD 1540 – Present

AD 1600 – Present

During the Pueblo III period, there was a steep decline in the number of sites on the forests but an 

increase in the number of rooms per site (Donaldson n.d.). Water and soil control features are 

widespread and far more common than in previous times, particularly along the Little Colorado 

River. Shortly after the beginning of the Pueblo IV period, Bailey Ruin—a large 200 to 250 room 

pueblo—appears to have been inhabited no later than A.D. 1325 (Mills et al. 1999). Nearby sites, 

such as Fourmile Ruin, continue to be occupied at least into the mid-1300s. By the mid-1400s,

the forests were no longer used for permanent habitation but continued to be used on a temporary 

basis by the Zuni, Hopi and Acoma, descendants of the Mogollon and Anasazi. 

Evidence of various Apache tribes using the area suggests that they arrived in the 1600s. 

However, the Apache themselves believe that they have always been in what is now Arizona. 

Apache use generally appears to have been seasonal and evidence of their presence includes 

artifact assemblages, temporary brush structures, and limited activity areas for processing and 

collecting resources. Areas along Show Low and Eagle Creeks show evidence for relatively longterm intensive use (Donaldson n.d.). Other known sites occur in the pine-oak forests.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 157

Historic Euro-American use begins in the 1860s and continues to the present. Two military forts 

were founded in the area, Milligan Fort (Springerville) and Camp Mogollon (Fort Apache) in 

1870 (Plog 1981b). General George Crook established a supply and transportation route along the 

Mogollon Rim between Camp Verde and Camp Mogollon (later Fort Apache) (Jacobs 1980). This 

transportation and supply route became known as Crook’s Road and was used into the early 

1900s and is now a designated national recreation trail. 

More Euro-American settlers came to the area after the establishment of reservations in the 

1870s. These settlers developed an extensive irrigation ditch system for farming in the 

surrounding valley (Plog 1981b), and some of these irrigation ditches are located on the forests 

and are still in use today. The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad reached Holbrook in 1880 and 

resulted in an economic boom for the region (Lightfoot 1978). After the arrival of the railroad, 

sheep and cattle grazing became widespread throughout the Mogollon Plateau. Lightfoot (1978) 

notes that populations near the settlements of Pinedale, Heber, and Taylor continued to grow until 

1900, along with increased tensions between the cowboy and Mormon factions. Remains of 

homesteads, cabins, and improvements for ranching and farming dating to this period are found 

across the forests, primarily near communities. 

The Black Mesa Forest Reserve was established in 1898, of which a part became the Apache 

National Forest in 1908. The Sitgreaves National Forest was established in 1908. By 1917 the 

commercial logging industry was established. During the 1920s, an extensive network of logging 

railroads were constructed, primarily on the Sitgreaves forest. By the time the depression was 

over, logging trucks had replaced railroads as the primary means of transporting timber. Most 

logging railroads in the forests were not used after 1939 and were dismantled in 1944 (Lightfoot 

1978). The remains of logging railroad features with associated camps dating from the 1920s to 

1940s are found today throughout the forests. 

Other historic transportation routes are found within the forests. A 1912 map of Arizona shows 

several wagon routes passing through the forests between towns (Keane and Bruder 2003). By the 

1920s, most roads through the forests still had not been graded or paved, but by the 1930s several 

roads had been graveled and U.S. 60, State Route 77, and portions of State Route 260 had been 

constructed (Keane and Bruder 2003). During the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) 

made improvements along the Blue Road and constructed other roads within the forests. Some of 

these roads are linear historic properties that may be eligible for the NRHP. 

Between 1933 and 1942, several CCC camps were established on the forests where employees of 

the CCC performed innumerable outdoor conservation projects under the guidance of other 

Federal agencies (Collins 1999). Included in these projects were the construction of campsites 

and shelters, installation of telephone lines, boundary fencing, trail, road, and bridge building, the 

construction of numerous other buildings, and various forestry endeavors across the forests 

(Moore 2006). The CCC also erected seven fire lookout towers. Two administrative sites were 

built at Water Canyon and Pinedale, both are still used today. Remnants of all these activities can 

be found throughout the forests.

Site Types, Distribution and Probability Areas

At present, a total of 6,314 archaeological sites are recorded on the forests. Many sites are eligible 

for listing on the NRHP. According to current forest GIS data, as many as 2,107 previously 

identified sites are within 300 feet of forest roads and trails (open and closed), and as many as 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

5,228 sites are within 1 mile of proposed open system roads and trails. As of 2010, approximately 

1,091,498 acres of the forests have been sample surveyed, of which 376,863 acres have been 

intensively surveyed for cultural resources (ASNF heritage GIS and INFRA databases).The 

following provides information on site types and densities within the area of potential effect 

(APE) for the alternatives.

Prehistoric sites include (summarized from Plog 1978, 1981a, 1981b), but are not limited to,

artifact scatters, shrines, rock shelters, pithouses, pueblo sites and great kivas. Plog (1981a) also 

discusses historic age sites found on the forests that include, but are not limited to, Apache 

temporary camps and sweat lodges, military trails and roads, battlefields, ranch and farm

homesteads, logging camps and railroads, sawmills, and temporary ranch activity camps. A 

detailed list of site types can be found in the cultural resources specialist report in the project 

record. 

Donaldson (n.d.) found that within natural drainage basins there is a strong correlation of 

prehistoric site frequency and elevation. The majority of sites are found within the middle and 

upper Little Colorado drainage basins between 6,000 and 7,000 feet. Around 75 percent of sites 

are found at these elevations. The next largest percentage (13 percent) of sites falls between 7,000 

and 8,000 feet in elevation. Very few sites are found below 6,000 feet and above 8,000 feet within 

the APE. Donaldson also found that corresponding to the 6,000 to 8,000 foot elevation, sites 

predominantly fall into either pinyon-juniper woodlands (41 percent) or ponderosa pine-oak 

forests (13 percent). The majority of sites within the Salt-Gila drainage basin are found below 

7,200 feet.

A 2003 study found that a majority of prehistoric sites on the Sitgreaves National Forest were 

found below 6,800 feet, often on ridges or hills and not as often on flood plains, as opposed to 

historic sites which are most often found on flood plains (North 2003). Fifty-eight percent of the 

prehistoric sites were located in ponderosa pine forests, a much higher percentage than 

Donaldson’s results.

Recent analysis of site location data in relation to terrestrial ecosystem system (TES) units has 

also revealed patterns that can be used to predict where sites are most likely to be located, in 

order to understand potential impacts to cultural resources. Based on heritage GIS data, 15 TES 

units have areas of high site density (greater than or equal to 1 site per 20 acres). This data can be 

used to determine where previously unrecorded sites may be located within the APE. 

Traditional Cultural Properties

TCPs are properties associated “with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) 

are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing 

cultural identify of the community” (National Park Service, 1998). TCPs range from mountains 

and other landforms to plant gathering locations to communities. Five American Indian tribes 

represented by nine separate tribal governments have traditional ties to lands within the forests: 

Western Apache, Zuni, Hopi, Navajo and Yavapai. The lands, resources, and sites within the 

forests are considered traditionally significant to all affiliated tribes and, in some cases, certain 

resources or areas are considered sacred to a specific tribe. There are known traditional use areas 

and cultural places located within the forests. For the effect to TCPs and further discussion, see 

the “Contemporary Tribal Uses” section of this chapter. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 159

Existing Impacts to Sites

Forest use has impacted cultural resources as displayed in table 38. Of the 6,255 recorded sites on 

the forests, 5,324 have the potential to be impacted by the alternatives. To assess the existing 

condition of known cultural resources, site records for 2,107 of the 5,324 sites were reviewed to 

determine the existing condition of sites. The list of sites was selected by overlaying the forests’

heritage GIS site location data with a 300-foot buffer over the forests’ GIS transportation system. 

This created a list of known sites within a 600-foot corridor along roads and motorized trails.

Accurate electronic data for NRHP eligibility status for all 5,324 sites was unavailable. However, 

NRHP eligibility status for the 2,107 sites for which records were reviewed indicate that many 

sites are eligible for NRHP listing, 6 are listed on the NRHP, and 38 have been determined 

ineligible for the NRHP.

Table 38. Summary of previous impacts to archaeological sites

Type of Activity Direct and Indirect Effects Number of 

Sites Affected

System roads

(most constructed for timber 

harvest)

Displacement, alteration and damage to features and 

artifacts.

Compaction

Erosion

626

Grazing Disturbance by cattle or sheep

Trampling, crushing, compaction

Pushing and chaining damage to features and artifacts.

Erosion

112

Fire and fire related activities Destruction, alteration and damage to features and 

artifacts.

Re-firing, melting, spalling 

Erosion

198

Timber harvest

(sawtimber, pulpwood, firewood, 

temporary roads)

Displacement, alteration and damage to features and 

artifacts.

Removal of artifacts

Erosion

191

Recreational activities Unintentional vandalism (clearing features and artifacts 

for camping, reuse of features and masonry for 

camping).

44

Looting and vandalism Removal of artifacts, displacement, alteration and 

damage of features and artifacts.

Destruction of features

98

Motorized big game retrieval None noted Unknown

Roads have partially damaged or completely destroyed sites and cultural materials by excavation 

or grading away of soil. Of the 2,107 site records and heritage GIS data, 626 sites have been 

impacted by road construction. Over 100 sites have been impacted by non-forest system roads 

(temporary logging roads, unclassified roads, or unauthorized roads). While the construction and 

use of roads (both official and user created) in and near sites have directly impacted sites, the 

presence of roads in and near sites also can indirectly affect site condition, primarily from 

intentional vandalism (looting). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

As transportation technology has advanced (i.e. 4-wheel drive) a greater number of roads have 

provided access to remote areas. Studies conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s on the 

behavior and impacts by looters documented that these individuals prefer small to large 

prehistoric masonry sites accessible by maintained roads, within a driving distance of 1 to 20 

miles, and that do not require walking more than a few hundred yards (Nickens, Larralde and 

Tucker 1981). Lightfoot and Francis (1978) conducted studies on the forests. They documented 

that unimproved jeep roads and trails within the Little Colorado Planning Unit appeared to have 

no other purpose than to provide access directly to sites. Lightfoot (1978) found there is a 

correlation between the amount of illegal surface collecting of artifacts from sites, and the 

distance and visibility of the site from a road. Of the 98 sites that have been looted within the 

APE, 38 sites are within 30 feet of roads, and 63 are within 100 feet of roads. Almost all looted 

sites are located along unmaintained (ML1) and high-clearance roads (ML2). Records document 

additional sites farther than 300 feet from a system road that have been looted and accessed by 

unauthorized roads (Taylor 2006; Mahalic 2006; Schroeder 2009). Most of the looted sites are 

near communities. 

Impacts to sites from logging sawtimber, commercial and noncommercial firewood harvests, 

livestock grazing, past wildfires, and recreation uses have occurred. Impacts from livestock have 

occurred to 112 sites. In 2002, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire impacted 128 sites. Cross-country OHV 

use and camping have impacted sites by unauthorized roads, or in areas where there are no roads. 

Fifteen of the 2,107 sites are on or near forest trails. Hiking trails do not themselves pose a large 

threat to sites; it is more likely that, like roads, easy access to sites facilitates vandalism, casual 

surface collection, and looting. The majority of sites on the forests are located within the pinyonjuniper woodlands which have less intensive recreational use. 

There is no existing quantifiable data for impacts to sites caused from MBGR, but information is 

available from the Arizona Game and Fish Department about permits and successful hunts. Data 

from 2005-2009 were available for several species, but only the data for species being considered 

for MBGR in the alternatives was analyzed. Site densities within game management units (GMU) 

vary from 0.45 to 4.74 sites per square mile. The GMUs with the highest site densities—3C, 4A, 

and 4B—are all within the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts. These GMUs are the most 

vulnerable to OHV impacts from MBGR. Thousands of acres have been surveyed for cultural 

resources and no adverse impacts specific to MBGR have been documented to sites. The impacts 

from cross-country motorized travel specifically for MBGR have been negligible and are not 

known to have caused adverse effects to the character and use of cultural resources. 

Environmental Consequences

This section includes the direct and indirect effects by alternative and concludes with the 

cumulative effects. The criteria used for establishing the APE was based on:

● Miles of new roads to be opened with a 30-meter buffer.

● Miles of fixed width corridors for motorized access to dispersed camping (600-foot total 

width).

● Number of acres open for proposed MBGR (1⁄4 mile or 1 mile).

● Acreage of open areas designated for cross-country motorized use.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 161

Before implementation of the selected alternative, the forests will comply with the procedures 

stated in the protocol. Until the necessary surveys or analysis are completed and the SHPO has 

concurred with the determination that the action would have no adverse effect on cultural 

resources, the proposed routes, corridors or areas would not be published on the MVUM. If the 

proposed activity has the potential to adversely affect cultural resources, protection measures 

(including but not limited to rerouting, barriers, temporary closures, eliminating the route, 

monitoring) would be required prior to the route, corridor or area being open for motorized use 

and published on the MVUM (see appendix D for mitigation). 

An adverse effect is when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any characteristics of a 

historic property that qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP. Adverse effects may include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther 

removed in distance, or be cumulative. Specific examples of adverse effects cited in statute 

include (36 CFR 800.5):

● Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property.

● Removal of the property from its historic location.

● Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s 

setting that contribute to its historic significance.

● Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

property’s significant historic features.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, motorized use on roads, trails and areas could directly impact 

archaeological sites by displacing and rutting soil which could alter and damage artifacts and 

features; removing or changing the context of artifacts; and crushing artifacts. It is assumed that 

some roads and trails currently open to motorized use have already had impacts to cultural uses,

and continued use of those roads and trails would not substantially increase the level of effects. 

The potential for these impacts to occur increases depending on site type, soils, and season of 

travel (wet vs. dry). Sites located on non-sensitive soils are less likely to be impacted from motor 

vehicles. Generally the forests restrict motorized travel during the winter and early spring to 

prevent damage to roads, which also minimized damage to artifacts. 

Motorized use within and on travel routes and corridors can cause indirect impacts to 

archaeological sites by creating ruts and compaction resulting in changes to the waterflow that 

may create rills and gullies, accelerating the removal of soil, and displacement of cultural 

materials. Sites located on routes, corridors or in open areas that include sensitive soils would 

have a higher potential to be indirectly impacted by erosion. Increasing motorized access also 

increases the potential of indirect adverse effects to remote sites by vandalism. Vandalism of sites 

includes intentional activities like illegal excavation (looting), damage or destruction to extant 

standing architecture or rock art, and collection of surface artifacts. Motorized use may remove 

vegetation that protects and covers archaeological materials. When these materials are exposed 

and visible on the surface of visited sites, the more decorative artifacts and collectable historic 

objects disappear from illegal collecting. When a site is looted, significant contextual information 

is stolen and destroyed. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Table 39. Number of known heritage sites potentially impacted by alternative by proposed 

activity

Activity Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Adding unauthorized roads to the system No change 45 10 0 57

Opening closed roads No change 45 No change 60 45

Dispersed camping corridors and areas No change 153 0 386 35

Motorized trails (converted from closed or 

open roads)

No change 3 No change 8 1

Motorized trails (converted from 

unauthorized routes)

No change 3 No change 18 3

Motorized use areas No change 0 No change 0 No change

Table 40. Number of known heritage sites within game 

management units that are open to MBGR by alternative

GMU Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

1 506 368 350 211 NA

3A 46 47 47 27 NA

3B 301 177 177 101 NA

3C 2,377 2,252 2,256 1,336 NA

4A 1,047 974 1,017 458 NA

4B 1,261 1,192 1,162 641 NA

27 555 312 309 268 NA

28 16 2 2 2 NA

Total 6,109 5,324 5,320 3,044 NA

Alternative A

Per the protocol, the existing designated road and trail system open to motor vehicle travel need 

not be re-evaluated for the TMR. Under this alternative, designation on the MVUM for existing 

roads and trails will not be considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. However, 

sites on or near unauthorized roads have the potential to be impacted by motor vehicles. 

Motorized cross-country travel is used to access dispersed campsites. Dispersed camping 

activities may cause unintentional vandalism to cultural sites. Campers have taken rocks from 

prehistoric structures to build campfire rings and wind breaks; used rocks from features as tent 

weights; dug holes for latrines or buried garbage; collected pieces of wood from collapsed 

wooden structures for campfires; and rearranged artifacts into piles. In areas where previous 

disturbance has occurred, motorized dispersed camping is not expected to cause additional 

impacts that could change the characteristics and integrity that make the site eligible for the 

National Register. In areas not previously disturbed, direct effects from motor vehicles in 

dispersed camping corridors could occur. In is expected that motorized dispersed camping would 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 163

not cause adverse effects to cultural sites as most corridors are located in areas of low site density. 

To minimize or prevent indirect adverse impacts, protection measures may be implemented.

Cross-country motorized travel would be allowed, increasing the potential to adversely impact 

sites. In addition, since no restrictions are placed on MBGR, sites have the potential to be 

impacted (table 40). However, no adverse impacts have been documented to sites from MBGR 

and any potential impacts are not expected to be adverse. Alternative A would have no adverse 

effect to cultural resource sites with the applicable mitigation measures in place (table 39).

Alternative B

Alternative B has the potential to impact cultural resources (table 39). As proposed under this 

alternative, converting closed roads to open, adding unauthorized routes to the system, and fixed 

width corridors could have direct and indirect impacts to sites. There are 46 miles of closed roads 

proposed to be converted to open roads which would be surveyed. Surveys have been completed 

for the Alpine, Clifton, and Springerville Ranger Districts. Trails and roads still need to be 

surveyed on the Lakeside and Black Mesa Ranger Districts. 

The designation of 1 mile from either side of designated roads for MGBR could impact sites 

(table 40). The number of trips are expected to be limited for MBGR and would be spread across 

the forests in various locations. Due to this expected low level of use in any one area, there would 

be low potential for any adverse impacts to sites. There have been no documented adverse affects 

to any known sites as a result of MBGR to date on the forests. There are three game management 

units (GMUs) that have a higher site density than other units: 3C, 4A, and 4B. Within these three 

GMUs, MBGR would have a higher potential for motorized users to come in contact with cultural 

sites, however, the impacts are not expected to be adverse. 

Most of the sites (153 sites) are located within the dispersed camping corridors. Approximately 

402 miles of the dispersed camping corridors are adequately surveyed. The remaining 256 miles 

of corridors would be surveyed within the next year following the travel management survey 

strategy. All proposed new ATV trails and identification of new routes used to access dispersed 

camping would be surveyed by the end of the calendar year. The effects from dispersed camping 

would be similar to that described under alternative A, however, the number of acres for dispersed 

camping would be less under this alternative (48,000 acres). 

The proposed motorized use areas (459 acres) are expected to have no direct or indirect impacts 

on cultural resources. Of the five areas proposed open for motorized use, three have been 

completely surveyed and no known sites are located in these areas. The remaining two to be 

surveyed are on the Black Mesa Ranger District and are in low site density areas. 

Mitigation measures may need to be implemented on sites located along some proposed roads and 

motorized trails. There are known sites that are being impacted or at risk of being adversely 

impacted by the proposed roads and motorized trails. For these areas, natural barriers (such as 

logs or cactus) will be installed to prevent current or future intrusions on the sites. In some cases,

the non-system route would need to be relocated to avoid the impacted site. 

Cultural resources have potential to be impacted by unintentional and intentional disturbance of 

sites from motorized vehicle activities, but these effects would likely be less than for alternatives 

that propose greater access (alternatives A and D). By eliminating motorized cross-country travel, 

the potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced due to less area open to use by motor 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

vehicles, which would result in a beneficial effect to cultural resources. Alternative B would have 

no adverse effect to cultural resource sites with applicable mitigation measures in place.

Alternative C

Alternative C has the potential to impact cultural resources (table 39). This alternative is similar 

to alternative A, but eliminates cross-country travel and adds 28 miles of non-system roads for 

general access and motorized access to dispersed campsites. The effects from dispersed camping 

would be similar to that described under alternative A, however, the number of acres would be 

less (2,000 acres). No currently closed roads are proposed to be opened. By not opening currently 

closed roads, this could reduce the potential for additional impacts to cultural resources. There are 

no motorized use areas proposed. 

The designation of 1 mile from either side of designated roads for MGBR, could impact sites 

(table 40). The number of trips are expected to be limited for MBGR and would be spread across 

the forests in various locations. Due to this expected low level of use in any one area, there would 

be low potential for any adverse impacts to sites. There have been no documented adverse affects 

to any known sites as a result of MBGR to date on the forests. There are three game management 

units (GMUs) that have a higher site density than other units: 3C, 4A, and 4B. Within these three 

GMUs, MBGR would have a higher potential for motorized users to come in contact with cultural 

sites, however, the impacts are not expected to be adverse. 

Cultural resources have potential to be impacted by unintentional and intentional disturbance of 

sites from motorized vehicle activities, but these effects would likely be less than the other 

alternatives, which propose greater access. By eliminating motorized cross-country travel, the 

potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced due to less area open to use by motor 

vehicles, which would result in a beneficial effect to cultural resources. Alternative C would have 

no adverse effect to cultural resource sites with applicable mitigation measures in place.

Alternative D

Alternative D has the potential to impact cultural resources (table 39). As proposed under this 

alternative, converting closed roads to open, adding unauthorized routes to the system, and fixed 

width corridors could have direct and indirect impacts to sites. There are 46 miles of closed roads 

proposed to be converted to open roads which would be surveyed. 

The designation of one-quarter mile from either side of designated roads for MGBR could impact 

sites (table 40). The number of trips are expected to be limited for MBGR and would be spread 

across the forests in various locations. Due to this expected low level of use in any one area, there 

would be low potential for any adverse impacts to sites. This potential is less under this 

alternative than alternatives B and C since there is less area proposed for MBGR for alternative 

C. There have been no documented adverse affects to any known sites as a result of MBGR to 

date on the forests. There are three game management units (GMUs) that have a higher site 

density than other units: 3C, 4A, and 4B. Within these three GMUs, MBGR would have a higher 

potential for motorized users to come in contact with cultural sites, however, the impacts are not 

expected to be adverse. 

Most of the sites (386 sites) are located within the dispersed camping corridors. Approximately 

974 miles of the dispersed camping corridors are adequately surveyed. The remaining 1,059 miles 

of corridors would be surveyed following the travel management survey strategy. Based on the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 165

forests current and future funding, it may not be possible to complete the necessary surveys 

within 3 years of the decision. The effects from dispersed camping would be similar to that 

described under alternative A, however, the number of acres for dispersed camping would be less 

under this alternative (148,000 acres).

The proposed motorized use areas (459 acres) are expected to have no direct or indirect impacts 

on cultural resources. Of the five areas proposed open for motorized use, three have been 

completely surveyed and no known sites are located in these areas. The remaining two to be 

surveyed are on the Black Mesa Ranger District and are in low site density areas. 

Mitigation measures may need to be implemented on sites located along some proposed roads and 

motorized trails. There are known sites that are being impacted or at risk of being adversely 

impacted by the proposed roads and motorized trails. For these areas, natural barriers (such as 

logs or cactus) will be installed to prevent current or future intrusions on the sites. In some cases,

the non-system route would need to be relocated to avoid the impacted site. 

Alternative D proposes the largest amount of corridors resulting in the highest potential for 

intentional and unintentional vandalism, illegal collection of surface artifacts, and indirect 

impacts caused by motorized use near sites compared to alternatives B, C and E. By eliminating 

motorized cross-country travel, the potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced due 

to less area open to use by motor vehicles which would result in a beneficial effect to cultural 

resources. Alternative D would have no adverse effect to cultural resource sites with applicable 

mitigation measures in place.

Alternative E

Alternative E has the potential to impact cultural resources (table 39). As proposed under this 

alternative, converting closed roads to open, adding unauthorized routes to the system, and fixed 

width corridors could have direct and indirect impacts to sites. There are 4.5 miles of closed roads 

proposed to be converted to open roads which would be surveyed. There are no motorized use 

areas or MBGR proposed under this alternative. 

Approximately 50 miles of the dispersed camping corridors are adequately surveyed. The 

remaining 68 miles of corridors would be surveyed within the next year following the travel 

management survey strategy. The effects from dispersed camping would be similar to that 

described under alternative A, however, the number of acres for dispersed camping would be less 

under this alternative (8,500 acres). This alternative has fewer corridors than alternatives B and 

D, thus reducing the potential of inadvertent vandalism to sites.

Mitigation measures may need to be implemented on sites located along some proposed roads and 

motorized trails. There are known sites that are being impacted or at risk of being adversely 

impacted by the proposed roads and motorized trails. For these areas, natural barriers (such as 

logs or cactus) will be installed to prevent current or future intrusions on the sites. In some cases,

the non-system route would need to be relocated to avoid the impacted site. 

Cultural resources have potential to be impacted by unintentional and intentional disturbance of 

sites from motorized vehicle activities. By eliminating motorized cross-country travel, the 

potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced due to less area open to use by motor 

vehicles, which would result in a beneficial effect to cultural resources. The frequency and 

severity of current and potential adverse effects to remote cultural sites from motorized cross-
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

country travel would be reduced and, in some areas, stopped. Alternative E has the least potential 

to have direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources and would have no adverse effect to 

cultural resource sites with applicable mitigation measures in place.

Cumulative Effects on Cultural Resources

Other planned or reasonably foreseeable activities that may cumulatively affect cultural resources 

were considered. Present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the analysis area are listed 

in appendix E. The existing conditions described in the affected environment reflect the actions of 

past activities and the effects on heritage sites. Management activities on the forests over the past 

30 to 35 years were subject to Section 106 consultation, and adverse effects were minimized by 

cultural site avoidance or mitigation and protection measures. Future projects will be subject to 

the same requirements. 

Grazing activity has occurred on the forests since the late 1800s. Direct and indirect impacts from 

livestock grazing have occurred to sites on the forests. In the past, forest managers noted direct 

impacts to sites accessible by cattle from trampling, soil removal, and rubbing where large 

numbers of livestock were grazed in constricted areas with high densities of sensitive prehistoric 

sites. Current grazing management practices and allotment management plans have minimized 

these types of impacts so they would not have an adverse cumulative effect on cultural resources. 

Most of the lands within the forests are located in a fire-adapted ecosystem. Evidence that 

prehistoric sites and TCPs have been repeatedly burned (prior to active fire suppression) is 

demonstrated by fire scarred trees and fire altered masonry structures and artifacts. From the 

1930s to the 1970s, public land managers aggressively attempted to suppress all wildland fires 

and reduce the geographic spread of fires by creating roads and fire breaks. Until the fuel loading 

and forests are restored to a more natural condition, archaeological sites could be exposed to high 

intensity fires and may be adversely affected. In general, low to moderate intensity fires, such as 

prescribed burning would not have an adverse cumulative effect on cultural resources.

Contemporary Tribal Uses 

American Indian tribes are sovereign nations. They are government entities with which the Forest 

Service establishes and maintains government-to-government relationships. Through treaties and 

statutes, the Federal Government has a trust responsibility to each tribal government. When 

American Indian tribes ceded lands to the United States government, rights and privileges to offreservation lands were reserved for tribal members. Therefore, the Forest Service has certain legal 

responsibilities to American Indian tribes. These legal responsibilities are clarified in statutes, 

executive orders, and case law enacted and interpreted for the protection and benefit of federally 

recognized American Indian tribes. Some of those laws include the National Historic Preservation 

Act and subsequent amendments, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Forest Management 

Act. Executive Orders (E.O.) and Memorandum include, 1994 Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, E.O. 13007 Accommodation of Sacred 

Sites, E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments and E.O. 12898 

Environmental Justice.

In meeting these responsibilities, forest managers are required to consult tribes when proposed 

policies or management actions may affect their interests. Nine federally recognized tribal 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 167

governments, representing five American Indian tribes, have aboriginal territories and traditional 

ties to the lands now administered by the ASNFs. They are the San Carlos Apache Tribe, White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, 

Yavapai-Apache Nation, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe. 

Consultations with the tribes have identified the tribes’ historic and present day traditional use 

areas and sacred places. 

Affected Environment

Each tribe has their own history, traditions, and relationship to the land and other groups. The 

lands and resources of the forests have been used and continue to be used by many of the tribes 

for a variety of traditional cultural and religious activities. These activities include, but are not 

limited to, collection of plants, boughs, teepee poles, pigments, feathers and pollen, hunting, 

religious pilgrimages, accessing springs, and making special offerings. Past and current 

consultations with tribes have identified places and properties of religious and cultural 

significance. These places are ethnographically important to tribal values and are inseparable 

from their cultures. 

None of the tribes consulted have identified any issues or impacts that would affect important 

cultural and religious places, traditional activities or resources resulting from eliminating 

motorized cross-country travel and designating roads, trails, corridors, and areas for motorized 

use. The White Mountain Apache Tribe did not identify any trespass or land management issues 

that could result from implementing any of the alternatives. The San Carlos Apache Tribe has not 

provided comments or raised any issues or concerns. The Navajo Nation stated that there would 

be no impact to Navajo traditional cultural places. At present, the only tribal concerns regarding 

travel management were expressed by the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Hopi Tribe: (1) 

the continued looting and damage to archaeological sites; and (2) have the forests taken into 

consideration the protection of cultural resources in developing the alternatives. 

During the development of the alternatives, the forests removed from consideration 

approximately 944 miles of corridors for cultural resource concerns and over 5,000 acres 

considered for areas open to motorized use. Some of the corridors eliminated from consideration 

were located on or near known shrines. The open areas removed from consideration were located 

within lands with a high density of archaeological sites.

Environmental Consequences

There would be no adverse effect to places or properties of cultural and religious significance or 

to traditional uses of the area by practitioners as a result of the alternatives. No tribe has indicated 

that the current road system is inadequate for their continued use for cultural and religious 

activities. The potential to adversely impact the use and characteristics of culturally sensitive sites 

and resources would be reduced by the action alternatives which prohibit motorized cross-country 

travel and limit motorized travel to designated roads and trails. Designating roads, trails, corridors 

and areas for motorized use has the effect of reducing the potential disruption of traditional 

cultural and religious activities by concentrating use near roads and trails. Traditional cultural and 

religious activities generally occur further away from roads to ensure privacy. All lands and 

resources of the forests would still be accessible through non-motorized means of transportation. 

Since there would be no adverse effects, there would be no cumulative effects to contemporary 

tribal uses. 

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 169

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers; 

Consultation and Coordination

List of Preparers

The following Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests staff were directly involved with the 

preparation of this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

Name Title DEIS Contribution

Conner, Tami Environmental Coordinator NEPA, Team Leader, writer/editor

Cote, Paula Previous NEPA Coordinator NEPA, Team Leader, writer/editor, Scenery

Management, Socioeconomics

Domsalla, Ryan Recreation, Lands, Special Uses 

Program Manager

Recreation

Humphrey, Beth Wildlife Biologist Wildlife and Rare Plants

Loving, Nancy GIS Specialist GIS Data Analysis and Maps

MacIvor, Deborah Forest Engineer Travel Management, Roads and Trails 

Schroeder, Melissa Forest Archaeologist, Heritage 

Program Manager

Cultural Resources

Subirge, Tom Soil Scientist Soils and Watershed, Vegetation, Air Quality

Ward, Jerry Fisheries Biologist Fisheries and Aquatics

Ecosphere Environmental Services, on contract with the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

prepared draft specialist reports for most resource areas which were used as a base, but were 

updated and revised by the Forest Service specialists listed above. RecSolutions, a Forest Service 

Enterprise Team, provided some initial writer/editor assistance as well as content analysis of 

public comments received during scoping. 

Consultation and Coordination

Tribal Consultation

The following nine tribes were consulted: White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache 

Tribe, Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, Yavapai-Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and the Ramah Chapter of the 

Navajo Nation. 

Federal, State, and Local Agency Consultation

Due to the number of Federal, State, and local agencies, a complete list is not included here.

However, a list is available in the project record. Mailing lists are available for the scoping 

periods and for the DEIS. A list of agencies who commented during the scoping period is also 

available. Briefly, some agencies consulted included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, University of Arizona, U.S. Senators, 

Arizona State Representatives, County Board of Supervisors, local fire and police departments, 

and local mayors. 
Chapter 4 – List of Preparers; Consultation and Coordination

170 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Coordination with Groups and Individuals

Numerous individuals participated in the process through written comments and by attending 

public meetings. A list of those who provided comments as well as mailing lists are available in 

the project record. Following is a subset of groups that were consulted: White Mountain Open 

Trails Association, TRACKS, White Mountain Conservation League, Citizens for Multiple Land 

Use and Access (CMLUA), Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Grand Canyon Wildlands 

Council, National Wildlife Federation, Arizona Nature Conservancy, Apache County ATV 

Roughriders, Wilderness Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Audubon Society, and 

local chambers of commerce. 

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals 

to Whom Copies of the DEIS were Sent

In the letter accompanying the proposed action, we let people know that they would receive a 

copy of the DEIS if they commented or if they specifically requested it. We also sent postcards to 

the public requesting they return the card if they wanted a copy of the DEIS sent to them, and to 

specify what format they would like it in. We sent the DEIS to everyone who commented during 

the scoping period, and those who asked to receive a copy of it. In addition, copies have been sent 

(or in some cases made electronically available) to Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, 

State and local governments, and organizations that have requested to be involved in the 

development of this analysis.

These entities include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Highway Administration, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, USDA National Agricultural Library, State wildlife and fisheries management 

agencies, County Board of Supervisors, and local community governments. Due to the number of 

people, agencies and organizations, a complete listing is not provided here, but is available upon 

request. 
DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 171

Glossary

Area: A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, 

than a ranger district (36 CFR 212 and 36 CFR 261). Also see corridor definition.

Camping: The temporary use of National Forest System (NFS) lands for the purpose of 

overnight occupancy without a permanently fixed structure (36 CFR 261).

Closed road: Also referred to as maintenance level (ML) 1 roads. Intermittent service roads that 

are closed to vehicular traffic but may be available and suitable for non-motorized uses. The 

closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to 

adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future 

management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff 

patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this maintenance level. A closed road is not the 

same as an obliterated or decommissioned road. These roads are not shown on motor vehicle use 

maps (MVUM).

Closure: As specified in 36 CFR 261.53-57, when provided by an order, it is prohibited to go 

into or be upon a closed road, trail, wilderness, or other specified area.

Corridor: A specified area that occurs from the centerline of a road or trail in which camping 

and/or game retrieval is allowed.

Cross-country travel: Used in this document to refer to motorized travel off of the designated 

system of roads or motorized trails, primarily referring to the existing condition where the forests 

are open to forestwide motorized cross-country travel. The travel within the proposed designated 

camping corridors, within the proposed MBGR distances, and within the proposed motorized use 

areas is primarily referred to as off-road travel in this document. 

Designated road, trail, or area: A NFS road, a NFS trail, or an area on NFS lands designated 

for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 on a motor vehicle use map.

Dispersed campsite: An identified location where camping is occurring outside of developed 

recreation sites or recreation areas.

Forest transportation atlas: A display of the system of roads and trails of an administrative unit

(36 CFR 212).

Inventoried roadless area (IRA) : Areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, 

contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, and any subsequent update or revision of those 

maps through the land management planning process (36 CFR 294).

Maintenance: The upkeep of the entire forest transportation facility including surface and 

shoulders, parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic control devices as are necessary for 

its safe and efficient utilization (36 CFR 212).

Motorized trail: A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is 

identified and managed for motorized use.

Motor vehicle: Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: (1) a vehicle operated on rails; 

and (2) any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery powered, that is designed 
Glossary

172 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an 

indoor pedestrian area (36 CFR 212 and 36 CFR 261).

Motor vehicle use map (MVUM): A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an 

administrative unit or a ranger district of the National Forest System (36 CFR 212).

National Forest System (NFS): As defined in the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act, the NFS includes all lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the 

United States, all NFS lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the 

national grasslands and land utilization projects administered under title III of the BankheadJones Farm Tennant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010–1012), and other lands, waters or interests 

therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through 

the Forest Service as a part of the system (36 CFR 212).

National Forest System road (NFS road): A forest road other than a road which has been 

authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public 

road authority (36 CFR 212, 36 CFR 251, and 36 CFR 261). Motor vehicle route over 50 inches 

wide, unless identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR 212).

National Forest System trail (NFS trail): A forest trail other than a trail which has been 

authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public 

road authority (36 CFR 212 and 36 CFR 261). Trails are 50 inches or less in width or a route over 

50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR 212).

National forest wilderness: Those parts of the NFS which were designated units of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System by the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, and such other 

areas of the NFS as are added to the wilderness system by an act of Congress (36 CFR 261).

Non-motorized trail: A NFS trail that is managed for non-motorized uses, including, but not 

limited to: hiking, equestrian, bicycling activities, hunting, etc.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV): Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel 

on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain

(36 CFR 212).

Off-road travel: Used in this document to primarily refer to motorized travel off the system of 

designated roads and motorized trails, proposed only under the action alternatives (B, C, D, and 

E), that would be within the 300-foot-wide dispersed camping corridors, within MBGR distances 

for the purpose of retrieving downed animals, and within the proposed motorized use areas. 

Off-road vehicle (ORV): Includes all mechanical means of transportation; passenger cars, 4-

wheel drive pickups, trail bikes, snowmobiles or other ground transportation vehicles that are 

capable of traveling overland where no roads exist (Forest Service 1987).

Primitive Area: Those areas within the NFS classified as “primitive” on the effective date of the 

Wilderness Act, September 3, 1964 (36 CFR 261).

Primitive setting: A term associated with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

framework, which is primarily characterized as an unmodified natural environment of fairly large 

size where interaction between users is low and evidence of others is minimal. The area is 
Glossary

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 173

managed to be essentially free of manmade “improvements” and facilities. Motor vehicles and 

other motorized equipment are not permitted. 

Recreational river: Those rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by road or railroad, that 

may have some development along their shorelines and that may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Scenic river: Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by 

roads. 

Semiprimitive nonmotorized setting: A term associated with the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) framework, which is primarily characterized as a natural environment of 

moderate to large size where interaction between visitors is low but there is often evidence of 

other humans. Motor vehicle use in this setting is generally prohibited. Moderate to high 

probability exists for isolation from the sights and sounds of humans. 

Temporary road or trail: A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by 

contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road or trail and that is 

not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212).

Unauthorized road or trail: A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road 

or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212). User-created routes 

are referred to as unauthorized roads or trails in this document. 

Vehicle: Any device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported, 

including any frame, chassis, or body of any motor vehicle, except devices used exclusively upon 

stationary rails or tracks (36 CFR 261).

Wild river: Those rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally inaccessible 

except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These 

represent vestiges of primitive America.

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 175

Literature Cited

ADEQ 2003. List of Unique Waters A. A. C. R18-11-112(E): Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality. http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/uniquewat.pdf, 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/images/uw.jpg. 

ADEQ 2008a. ADEQ Report of 303(d) listed waters. In the Arizona Administrative Record —

Notices of Public Information, 3358. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 

http://www.azsos.gov/Public_Services/Register/2008/34/pubinfo.pdf. 

ADEQ 2008b. State of Arizona Air Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2008. Final Report. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, Air Assessment 

Section. June 30, 2008. 

ADOC 2006. Sub-county population projections: 2006–2055. Arizona Department of Commerce.

http://www.azcommerce.com/econinfo/demographics/Population %20Projections.html. 

Accessed May 5, 2010. 

AGFD 2009. Motorized Big Game Retrieval and Elk Management White Paper. State of Arizona, 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

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

Trails Plan. State of Arizona, Arizona State Parks. 318 pp. 

Arizona State Parks, 2009b. FY08/09 Annual Report. Phoenix, Arizona. 

http://www.pr.state.az.us/publications/downloads/ASP_2009_Annual_Report.pdf

Accessed August 14, 2010. 

Bouchard et al. 2009. Bouchard, J.; Ford, A. T.; Eigenbrod, F. E.; and Fahrig, L. Behavioral 

Responses of Northern Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens) to Roads and Traffic: Implications 

for Population Persistence. Ecology and Society 14(2): 23. 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org.vol14/iss2/art23/. 

Burroughs, Edward R.; King, John G. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. Ogden, 

UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-264. 

21pp. 

CEQ 1997. Environmental justice – guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, DC. December 1997. 

Collins, William S. 1999. The New Deal in Arizona. Arizona State Parks Board, Phoenix, AZ.

Condit, Christopher D. 1991. Lithologic map of the western part of the Springerville Volcanic 

Field, east-central Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series 

Map I-1993. 1 sheet. Map available for copying in ASNFs Supervisors Office, 

Springerville AZ, soils/hydrology section. 

Dechant, J. A.; M. L. Sondreal; D. H. Johnson; L. D. Igl; C. M. Goldade; M. P. Nenneman; and B.

R. Euliss. 1998 (Revised 2002). Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: 

Baird’s Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 19 pp.

Donaldson, Bruce R. nd. Heritage Sites and Where to Find Them. MS on file ASNFs Supervisors 

Office, Springerville, AZ. 
Literature Cited

176 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

EPA 2008a. 2008. Surf Your Watershed: Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet for Watershed, San 

Francisco (HUC 15040004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/huc_rept.control?p_huc=15040004andp_huc_desc=

SAN%20FRANCISCO. 

EPA 2008b. Visibility in Class I areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://www.epa.gov/air.visibility/parks. Accessed August 20, 2008. 

Furniss, M. J.; Roelofs, T. D.; and Yee, C. S. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. American 

Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19:297-323. 

Interagency Field Team, 2005. Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review: 

Technical Component Interagency Field Team. Arizona Game and Fish Department, New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, USDA Forest 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and White Mountain Apache Tribe. 

Jacobs, George M. 1980. General Crook and the Tonto Rim Road. “General Crook’s Road,” ed. J. 

Jefferson Reid. Tucson, Arizona State Museum Cultural Management Section. P:9:1 

Jochimsen, D. M.; Peterson, C. R.; Andrews, K. M., and Gibbons, J. W. 2004. A Literature 

Review of the Effects of Roads on Amphibians and Reptiles and the Measures Used to 

Minimize Those Effects. Idaho Fish and Game Department, USDA Forest Service. Final 

Draft. 78 pp. 

Keane, Melissa and Bruder, J. Simon, 2003. Good Roads Everywhere: A History of Road 

Building in Arizona. URS Cultural Resource Report, Phoenix 2003-28(AZ). 

Kocis, S. M.; English, D. B. K.; Zarnoch, S. J.; Arnold, R.; and Warren, L. 2002. National Visitor 

Use Monitoring Results: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Report prepared for USDA 

Forest Service, Region 3. 

Laing, L.; Ambos, N.; Subrige, T.; McDonald, C.; Nelson, C.; and Robbie, W. 1987. Terrestrial 

ecosystem survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. Hard Copy. 

Lightfoot, Kent G. 1978. An Archaeological Survey of the Nicks Camp Timber Sale. ApacheSitgreaves National Forests, Pinedale Ranger District, Apache County, Arizona. Office of 

Cultural Resource Management Report No. 36, Department of Anthropology, Arizona 

State University, Tempe, AZ. 

Lightfoot, Kent G.; Francis, Julie E. 1978. The Impact of Casual Collecting of Archaeological 

Interpretation Through Regional Surface Surveys. In An Analytical Approach to Cultural 

Resources Management: The Little Colorado Planning Unit, edited by Fred Plog, p. 91-

113. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 13, Tempe, AZ. 

Luce, C. H.; Black, T. A. 2001. Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road 

Sediment Production. In Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV. p. V67-V74.

Mahalic, David 2006. Cothrun’s Kiva Road Closure. Heritage Report 2006-01-087. MS on file 

ASNFs’ Supervisors Office, Springerville, AZ. 
Literature Cited

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 177

Mills, Barbara J.; Herr, Sarah A.; and van Keuren, Scott, eds.1999. Living on the Edge of the 

Rim: Excavations and analysis of the Silver Creek archaeological research project 1993–

1998 vol.1, Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 192, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ.

Moore, Robert J. 2006. The Civilian Conservation Corps in Arizona’s Rim Country: Working in 

the Woods. University of Nevada Press. Reno, NV.

National Park Service. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 38. National Park Service. 

Nickens, Paul R.; Larralde, Signa L.; Tucker, Gordon C. Jr. 1981. A Survey of Vandalism to 

Archaeological Resources in Southwestern Colorado. Cultural Resource Series No. 11. 

Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 

North, Chris. 2003. Environmental Correlates of Site Distribution: Implications for Regional 

Settlement Patterns. In Archaeology at the Edge of the Rim: An Area Heritage Resource 

Survey in the Rodeo-Chediski Burn Area, Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts, 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Navajo County, Arizona, edited by Chris D. North, 

Michael S. Foster, and Louise M. Senior, p. 55-74. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 

03-56. SWCA, Phoenix, AZ.

Olden, J. D.; Poff, N. L. 2005. Long-term trends of native and nonnative fish fauna in the 

American Southwest. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 28.1: 75-89. 

Plog, Fred. 1978 An Analyical Approach to Cultural Resources Management: The Little 

Colorado Planning Unit, Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 

13, Tempe, AZ.

Plog, Fred. 1981a. Cultural Resources Overview: Little Colorado Area, Arizona. USDA Forest 

Service Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM and Bureau of Land Management 

Arizona State Office, Phoenix, AZ.

Plog, Fred. 1981b Managing Archaeology: A Background Document for Cultural Resource 

Management on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Arizona. Cultural Resources 

Management Report No. 1. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, 

NM. 

Robinson, A. T.; Paretti, N. V.; Cordy, G. E. 2006. Ecological Assessment of Arizona’s Streams 

and Rivers, 2000-2004. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, Phoenix. 

p. 52. 

Satterland, D. R.; Adams, P. W. 1992. Wildland Watershed Management. John Wiley and Sons, 

Inc. New York. 

Schroeder, Melissa R. 2009 Damage Assessment of AR-03-01-07-1363/ASM P:12:227 Cothruns 

Kiva Site. MS on file ASNFs’ Supervisors Office, Springerville, AZ. 

Silberman, Jonathon. 2003. “The Economic Importance of Fishing and Hunting, Economic Data 

on Fishing and Hunting for the State of Arizona and for each Arizona County”. Arizona 

State University West. 

http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/FISHING_HUNTING%20Report.pdf 

Accessed August 14, 2010.
Literature Cited

178 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Southwest Endangered Species Act Team. 2008. Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates [Rana] 

chiricahuensis): Considerations for making effects determinations and recommendations 

for reducing and avoiding adverse effects. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque, NM. 75 pp. 

Taylor, Peter 2006. Indian Tank Archaeological Site Damage Assessment. Heritage Report 2006-

01-057. MS on file ASNFs’ Supervisors Office, Springerville AZ. 

U.S. Census Bureau 2005. Census 1990 summary file (SF 1) 100 percent data. US Census 

Bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed October 1, 2008. 

USDA FS 1979. The Visual Management System of the Forest Service, USDA. Bacon, Warren. 

USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. 035-15. p. 660-665.

USDA FS 1987a. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, as 

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

USDA FS 1987b. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan.

USDA FS 1987c. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. Record of Decision 

for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan.

USDA FS 2003. First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection 

and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation Officer, Arizona Historic 

Preservation Officer, Texas and Oklahoma, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 

USDA FS 2005. Programmatic Biological and Conference Opinion. The Continued 

Implementation of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Eleven National 

Forests and National Grasslands of the Southwestern Region. Regional Office, Region 2, 

US FWS, Cons. #2-22-03-F-366, 830 pp. 

USDA FS 2006. Management Indicator Species Assessment. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

September 2006. 

USDA FS 2007a. Forest Plan Revision: revision review. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

Southwestern Region. MB-R3-01-1.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/Forests/plan-revision/revision-review/index.shtml. 

USDA FS 2007b. Recreation facility analysis: 5-year program of work and programmatic results 

of implementation. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Southwestern Region. 

USDA FS 2007c. Appendix I: Standard Consultation Protocol for Travel Management Route 

Designation, of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property 

Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation Officer, 

Arizona Historic Preservation Officer, Texas and Oklahoma, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque,

NM. 

USDA FS 2007d. Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Animals and Plants. September 21, 2007. 

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/tes/index.shtml. 
Literature Cited

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 179

USDA FS 2008a. Travel Analysis Report for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. January 30, 

2008. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/projects/travel-management.shtml.

USDA FS 2008b. Ecological Sustainability Report, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. Hard copy. 

USDA FS 2008c. Environmental analysis for the implementation of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests integrated forestwide noxious or invasive weed management program. 

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. Hard copy. 

USDA FS 2009a. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Economic and Social Sustainability Report. 

Springerville, AZ, Southwestern Region. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/plan-set/ASNF-SESA-2009-01-15.pdf 

USDA FS 2009b. Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic River System. ApacheSitgreaves National Forests, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. May 2009. 

USFWS 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, NM. 

USFWS 2002. Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 

extimus). Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 2 Albuquerque, NM by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team 

Technical Subgroup. 

USFWS 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Final Rule. Federal Register 69(168):53182-53230. 

USFWS 2007a. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 

National Overview. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. May

2007. 

USFWS 2007b. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 

pp. and appendices. 

USFWS 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 85 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds. 

USFWS 2010. Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, NM. 130 pp. 

Vander-Lee, B.; Smith, R.; Bate, J. 2006. Ecological and biological diversity of National Forests 

in Region 3. Southwest Forest Assessment Project. The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 

Hard copy.

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 181

Appendix A – Maps

The maps included in this section are intended to show a general representation of the activities 

proposed by alternative. Due to the forestwide scale of this project, it is not possible to show the 

site specific changes of the road and trail system as well as dispersed camping corridors, MBGR 

areas, and areas for motorized travel. As a result, not all proposed activities are labeled on these 

maps. Due to the scale, maps in this section have been broken into two parts: roads and trails on 

the Apache side of the forests, and roads and trails on the Sitgreaves side of the forests. Large 

maps are available upon request and are located in the project record. The large maps will be 

provided on the forests’ Web site available to the public for viewing and will be displayed at all 

public meetings. Note that motorized use areas are only proposed for the Sitgreaves side of the 

forests under alternatives B and D. There is no MBGR allowed under alternative E, so maps are 

not included here.

The maps found in this section are: 

● Figure 4. Alternative A roads and trails proposed for the Apache National Forest. 

● Figure 5. Alternative A roads and trails proposed for the Sitgreaves National Forest. 

● Figure 6. Alternative B roads and trails proposed for the Apache National Forest. 

● Figure 7. Alternative B roads and trails proposed for the Sitgreaves National Forest. 

● Figure 8. Alternative C roads and trails proposed for the Apache National Forest. 

● Figure 9. Alternative C roads and trails proposed for the Sitgreaves National Forest. 

● Figure 10. Alternative D roads and trails proposed for the Apache National Forest. 

● Figure 11. Alternative D roads and trails proposed for the Sitgreaves National Forest. 

● Figure 12. Alternative E roads and trails proposed for the Apache National Forest. 

● Figure 13. Alternative E roads and trails proposed for the Sitgreaves National Forest. 

● Figure 14. Alternatives B and D motorized use areas proposed for the Sitgreaves National 

Forest. 

● Figure 15. Alternative A areas open to motorized big game retrieval for the Apache 

National Forest. 

● Figure 16. Alternative A areas open to motorized big game retrieval for the Sitgreaves 

National Forest. 

● Figure 17. Alternative B areas open to motorized big game retrieval for the Apache 

National Forest. 

● Figure 18. Alternative B areas open to motorized big game retrieval for the Sitgreaves 

National Forest. 

● Figure 19. Alternative C areas open to motorized big game retrieval for the Apache 

National Forest. 

● Figure 20. Alternative C areas open to motorized big game retrieval for the Sitgreaves 

National Forest. 

● Figure 21. Alternative D areas open to motorized big game retrieval for the Apache 

National Forest. 

● Figure 22. Alternative D areas open to motorized big game retrieval for the Sitgreaves 

National Forest. 
Appendix A – Maps

182 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 4. Roads and trails under alternative A for the Apache National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 183

Figure 5. Roads and trails under alternative A for the Sitgreaves National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

184 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 6. Roads and trails under alternative B for the Apache National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 185

Figure 7. Roads and trails under alternative B for the Sitgreaves National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

186 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 8. Roads and trails under alternative C for the Apache National Forest 
Appendix A – Maps

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 187

Figure 9. Roads and trails under alternative C for the Sitgreaves National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

188 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 10. Roads and trails under alternative D for the Apache National Forest 
Appendix A – Maps

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 189

Figure 11. Roads and trails under alternative D for the Sitgreaves National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

190 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 12. Roads and trails under alternative E for the Apache National Forest 
Appendix A – Maps

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 191

Figure 13. Roads and trails under alternative E for the Sitgreaves National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

192 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 14. Motorized use areas under alternatives B and D for the Sitgreaves National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 193

Figure 15. MBGR under alternative A for the Apache National Forest 
Appendix A – Maps

194 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 16. MBGR under alternative A for the Sitgreaves National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 195

Figure 17. MBGR under alternative B for the Apache National Forest 
Appendix A – Maps

196 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 18. MBGR under alternative B for the Sitgreaves National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 197

Figure 19. MBGR under alternative C for the Apache National Forest 
Appendix A – Maps

198 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 20. MBGR under alternative C for the Sitgreaves National Forest
Appendix A – Maps

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 199

Figure 21. MBGR under alternative D for the Apache National Forest 
Appendix A – Maps

200 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Figure 22. MBGR under alternative D for the Sitgreaves National Forest
DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 201

Appendix B – Proposed Forest Plan 

Amendments for Alternatives B, C, D and E

Table 41. Summary of the proposed forest plan amendments

Chapter/

Section Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment 

Direction 

Forest-Wide 

Standards 

and 

Guidelines

34

The Resource and Travel Management (RATM) 

process will be used to determine the 

management strategies for all existing roads, 

trails and areas. RATM will also consider the 

management of off-road and off-trail use by 

motor vehicles with the objective of resolving 

user conflicts, eliminating wildlife harassment 

and resource damage. 

Off-Road Vehicle Management

Make ORV closure areas available to the public. 

Delete text: superseded by the final 

Travel Management Rule (TMR) 

amended regulations located in 

36 CFR (Code of Federal 

Regulations), Parts 212, 251(b) and 

261(a)

Replace with: Motor vehicle use is 

limited to designated roads, trails,

and areas on the forest. Motor 

vehicle use off designated roads and 

trails and outside of designated areas 

is prohibited, except as identified on 

the motor vehicle use map (MVUM) 

and except where exempted under 36 

CFR 212.51. 

Delete text. Replace with:

Motorized roads, trails, and areas 

will be displayed on a motor vehicle 

use map (MVUM) and provided to 

the public. The motor vehicle use 

map shall specify the classes of 

vehicles and, if appropriate, the times 

of year for which use is designated, 

per 36 CFR 212.56. 

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 203

Appendix C – ASNFs Motorized 

Restrictions and Seasonal Closures 

Table 42. Current motorized restrictions on the forests 

Description Forest Plan Management 

Area or Forest Order No. Acres

Forested Land: Portions managed for ROS classes primitive and 

semiprimitive nonmotorized

Management Area 1 93,970

Woodland: Portions managed for ROS primitive and semiprimitive 

nonmotorized 

Management Area 2 143,652

Riparian: Portions managed for ROS primitive and semiprimitive 

nonmotorized

Management Area 3 2,490

Grasslands Management Area 4 16,630

Mount Baldy Wilderness Management Area 7 7,079

Blue Range Primitive Area and Additions Management Area 8 187,410

Escudilla Demonstration Area: Portions managed for ROS

primitive and semiprimitive nonmotorized

Management Area 9 1,551

Research Natural Areas:

Phelps Cabin (existing)

Thomas Creek (recommended)

Escudilla Mountain (recommended)

Wildcat (recommended)

Hayground (recommended) 

Management Area 10 2,550

Water: Portions managed for ROS primitive and semiprimitive 

nonmotorized

Management Area 11 9

Bear Wallow Wilderness Management Area 12 11,080

Escudilla Mountain Wilderness Management Area 13 5,200

Chevelon Canyon: Portions managed for ROS primitive and 

semiprimitive nonmotorized

Management Area 16 4,785

Sandrock: Portions managed for ROS primitive and semiprimitive 

nonmotorized

Management Area 18 17,637

Motor Vehicle Restriction:

Alpine Divide 01-01

Black River 01-02

Blue Crossing 01-03

East and West Fork Black River 01-04

Hannagan 01-05

Hulsey Lake 01-06

KP Cienega 01-07

Luna Lake 01-08

Sierra Blanca 01-09

Thomas Creek 01-10

Upper Blue 01-11

Williams Valley 01-12

Acker Lake 01-13

Black Canyon Lake 02-01

Forest Lakes 02-02

Rim Recreation Area 02-03

Willow Creek 02-04

Black Jack 03-01

Forests Order 01-401

36 CFR 261.56 80

6,983

80

4,545

24

49

35

393

109

499

61

1,620

9

5,928

2,605

50,371

4,075

80
Appendix C – ASNFs Motorized Restrictions and Seasonal Closures

204 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Description Forest Plan Management 

Area or Forest Order No. Acres

Coal Creek 03-02

Granville 03-03

Honeymoon 03-04

Juan Miller 03-05

Strayhorse 03-06 

Big Lake 06-01

Greer Basin 06-02

Lee Valley 06-03

Nelson Reservoir 06-04

Saffel/Murray Basin 06-05

South Fork 06-06

Fool Hollow 07-01

Lakeside 07-02

Lewis Canyon 07-03

Los Burros 07-04

Scott Reservoir 07-05

Woodland Reservoir 07-06

Mogollon Rim 07-07

Brown Creek 07-08

23

98

7

38

22

5,520

5,854

6,521

186

5,125

38

680

17

50

57

29

603

341

NA

Wildlife Habitat Areas

Hulsey Bench 01-01

Middle Mountain 01-02 (8/15-12/31)

Open Draw 01-03 (5/1 – 8/15)

Blue Range Administration Area 01-04 (acreage included in 

other category)

Upper Coyote 01-05

Alpine RD Three Forks 01-06

Beaver Turkey Ridge 02-01

Buckskin 02-02

Chevelon Canyon 02-03

Leonard Canyon 02-04

Wildcat 02-05

Willow Springs 02-062

Blue River Buffer 03-01

Dry Prong 03-02

Blue Range Addition 03-03

San Francisco River Buffer 03-04

Amberon Point 06-01

Big Cienega 06-02

North, East, West Fork Black River 06-03

East and West Forks Little Colorado River 06-04

Hidden Lake 06-05

Phelps Cabin Botanical 06-06

Phelps Cabin RNA 06-07

Saint Peters Dome 06-08

Three Forks 06-09

Upper Hall Creek 06-10

Haygrounds RNA 06-11

Woolhouse 07-01

South Marsh 07-02

Red Head Marsh 07-03

Jaques Marsh 07-04

Airport March 07-07

Bosque Majado 07-06

Porter Mountain 07-07

Billy Creek 07-08

Forest Order 01-402

36 CFR 261.54(a)

36 CFR 261.54 (e)

36 CFR 261.54(a)

36 CFR 261.56

3,136

3,614

310

632

494

2,925

502

13,196

2,529

526

8,602

3,453

2,363

16,922

2,603

624

47

4,668

1,927

3,265

97

286

5,752

22

1,723

331

17,368

29

144

220

29

17

81

191
Appendix C –ASNFs Motorized Restrictions and Seasonal Closures

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 205

Description Forest Plan Management 

Area or Forest Order No. Acres

Los Burros Meadow 07-09

Pintail Marsh 07-10

104

189

Seasonal Restrictions

Forest Service DFR 515 03-01 (variable, check with district)

Upper Eagle Creek 03-02 (variable, check with district)

Telephone Lake 07-01 (4/1 – 7/15) 

Forest Order 01-403

36 CFR 261.54 (a)

36 CFR 261.54 (e)

36 CFR 261.55 (a)

36 CFR 261.56

5,836

424

161

Threatened and Endangered Species Travel Management

Luna Lake Eagle Nesting 01-01 (1/1-6/30)

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 01-02 (5/1-7/31)

Three Forks Wildlife (yearlong)

Luna Lake Waterfowl Nesting (4/1-8/1)

Greenwood Road 

Forest Order 01-09-506

36 CFR 261.53(e)

Forest Order 01-405 

(Greenwood Road)

312

88

11

116

NA

Blue Range Primitive Area Forest Order 01-408

36 CFR 261.55(b)

180,000

Rim Road – Travel Restrictions Forest Order 01-419 50,371

Public Health or Safety

Alpine Pit

Forest Order 01-448 

36 CFR 261.53(e)

9

Public Health or Safety

Hoyer Sewer Pond

Forest Order 01-452

36 CFR 261.53(e)

7

Public Health or Safety

Porter Mountain Cinder Pit Closure

Forest Order 01-477

36 CFR 261.53(e)

10

Beehive Wildlife Area Closure Forest Closure 01-488 

Expired in 2007

Total acres currently closed to motor vehicles or restricting offroad motor vehicle use383,907

Table 43. Seasonal road closures by alternative 

Route Dates Closed Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

143A August 1 - April 30 X X X X X

187A August 1 - April 30 X X X X X

24U March 1 - September 30 X X

269 August 1 - April 30 X X X X X

37B-T1 August 15 - December 31 X X X

37C August 15 - December 31 X X X X X

515 December 1 - March 31 X X X X X

570 January 1 - June 30 X X X X X

582 May 1 - August 15 X X X X X

701 March 1 - September 30 X X
Appendix C – ASNFs Motorized Restrictions and Seasonal Closures

206 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Route Dates Closed Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

704 February 1 - June 30 X X X X X

8080 March 1 - September 30 X X

8101 March 1 - September 30 X X

8214 March 1 - September 30 X X

8369 February 1 - June 30 X X X X X

8390 May 1 - August 15 X X X

8391 May 1 - August 15 X X X X X

8391D May 1 - August 15 X X X X X

85 January 1 - May 31 X X X X X

8881 March 1 - September 30 X X

9701M April 1 - July 15 X X X X X

9886 March 1 - September 30 X X
DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 207

Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation 

Measures, and Forest Plan Direction 

Laws and Regulations Applicable 

to this Travel Management Project

The management of timber resources on National Forest System (NFS) lands is based on several 

Federal and State laws and regulations. The following table displays some of the laws and 

regulations pertinent to the travel management analysis. 

Table 44. Laws and regulations pertinent to travel management

Laws and Regulations Description Authority

Federal Land Management and 

Policy Act 1976

Public lands to be managed to preserve and protect 

certain lands in their natural condition.

BLM

National Forest Management 

Act, 1976

Requires development of land and resource 

management plans and governs administration on 

national forests.

Secretary of 

Agriculture

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield 

Act, 1960

National forests are to be administered for 

recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, fish, 

and to develop renewable surface resources.

Secretary of 

Agriculture

Clean Air Act, 1990 as amended To protect air quality and promote public health by 

regulating emissions and requiring permits.

Arizona 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality

Clean Water Act, 1977, 1982 as 

amended

Restore and maintain integrity of surface waters by 

eliminating pollutant discharge into water and 

achieve water quality levels to be fishable and 

swimmable.

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers

Executive Order 11988, 1977 as 

amended

Restore and preserve beneficial values of flood

plains. 

All Agencies

Executive Order 11990, 1977 Protect wetlands from destruction or modification. All Agencies

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 

1968 as amended

System for designating wild and scenic rivers. All Agencies

Wilderness Act, 1964 Establishes National Wilderness Preservation 

System administered to leave unimpaired for future 

use and enjoyment. 

U.S. Congress

Arizona Wilderness Act, 1984 Resulted in designation of three wilderness areas on 

the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

State of Arizona

National Trails System Act, 1968 Establishes national system of recreation, scenic, 

and historic trails.

All Agencies

Federal Noxious Weed Act 1974, 

as amended and Executive Order 

13112.

Designated certain plants as noxious weeds. All Agencies

Endangered Species Act, as 

amended 1973 

Section 7 governs conservation of ecosystems and 

populations of threatened and endangered plant and 

animal species.

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

(USFWS)

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act

Protection of bald eagles. All Agencies
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

208 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Laws and Regulations Description Authority

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 1918 

and Executive Order 13186, 2001

Protection of migratory birds, nests and eggs. E.O.

requires environmental analysis of actions on 

migratory bird species of concern. 

USFWS

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act 1978

Considers impacts of actions on tribal cultural 

practices.

All Agencies

National Historic Preservation 

Act, 1966, 1976, 1980, 1992 as 

amended

Section 106 governs treatment of cultural resources 

during project planning and implementation.

All Agencies

Antiquities Act, 1906 Cultural resources. All Agencies

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act, 1979

Cultural resources. All Agencies

Executive Orders 11593 (1971), 

13007 (1996), 13175 (2000)

Protection of cultural resources, Indian sacred sites, 

consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal 

governments.

All Agencies

Executive Order 13443 Governs expansion and enhancement of hunting 

opportunities and management of game species and 

habitats.

All Agencies

Executive Order 11644, as 

amended by 11989

Governs the use of off-road vehicles on Federal 

lands to protect natural resources, promote public 

safety, and minimize conflicts among uses.

All Agencies

Executive Order 12898 (1994) 

and 13045 (1997)

Environmental justice for environmental and health 

conditions in minority and low-income 

communities, and children.

All Agencies

The Travel Management Rule 

(2005)

Directs national forests and grasslands to establish a 

system of roads, trails and areas designated for 

motor vehicle use and prohibits motor vehicle use 

off the designated system. 

Forest Service

Mitigation Measures Applicable 

to Alternatives B, C, D and E

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA define 

mitigation as measures that avoid, minimize, reduce, rectify, or compensate for impacts to the 

physical environment resulting from Federal actions (40 CFR 1508.20). Mitigation measures 

would be done as part of implementing the decision to lessen any potential damage to natural or 

cultural resources. In addition to the “Conditions Applicable to All Alternatives” section in 

chapter 2, forest plan requirements (standards and guidelines) as well as mitigation would be 

applied to all action alternatives. Mitigation measures applicable to alternatives B, C, D and E 

follow.

Cultural Resources Mitigation

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests would comply with the Standard Consultation Protocol 

developed by the USFS Southwestern Region identified as appendix I to the programmatic 

agreement with the SHPOs under any action alternative. This protocol provides a list of 
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 209

protection measures the forests can draw from to ensure adverse effects to cultural resources are 

avoided or minimized. These measures include, but are not limited to:

● dropping proposed motorized road, trail or area designations to avoid or reduce direct or 

indirect effects on historic properties;

● re-routing or modifying designated roads or trails to protect historic properties. Rerouting 

or modifying roads will be subject to Section 106 compliance prior to ground 

disturbance, as provided for in the programmatic agreement; 

● use of temporary emergency closures, if needed, while unacceptable effects on historic 

properties are addressed;

● revision of designations, if determined necessary to protect historic properties from 

adverse effects;

● monitoring to ensure that impacts to historic properties are not occurring or that 

protection measures are working; and

● leaving roads, trails, and/or areas off the MVUM map distributed to the public until after 

all Section 106 compliance needs are met.

Other protection measures effective to minimize impacts from motorized use to cultural resources 

include: plating the site surface with several feet of material or the intentional burying of sites; 

using barriers (boulders, vegetation, logs) or fencing and signage; patrolling; and public 

education. 

General Crook National Trail: Use of motorized vehicles on any portion of the route not 

specifically designated and designed for motorized vehicle travel is prohibited. Emphasize 

protection for the historic value of the trail route. Manage a 200-foot corridor to preserve 

evidences of historic roadway and landscape character, including related historic trees, markers, 

gravesites, and water holes.

MVUM: The MVUM may not have all the roads, trails and areas shown in the record of decision. 

The cultural resource survey and clearance for roads and trails requiring review under appendix I

of the “Programmatic Agreement: Standard Consultation Protocol for Travel Management Route 

Designation” in lieu of the council's regulations 36 CFR 800, may not be finished at the time a 

decision is made.

The cultural resource survey and clearance may determine that some proposed roads or trails 

would cause adverse affects to cultural resources. In such cases, the road, trail, or area would be 

closed to motorized travel and not be published on the map at all or until an acceptable strategy 

for mitigating the adverse effects (including but not limited to rerouting, barriers, temporary 

closures, eliminating the route, monitoring) was established. If protection measures cannot be 

applied or the proposed route, corridor or area will have an adverse effect on cultural resources, 

the forests will follow section VII of the programmatic agreement and will resolve adverse effects 

following the procedures in 36 CFR 800.6.
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

210 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Wildlife Mitigation

All BAs/BEs will be completed prior to implementation on all site specific actions (gating or 

blocking roads or trails closed to motorized use) associated with this decision. There could be 

timing and season of use restrictions placed on site specific actions as a result of this review. 

MVUM: Some proposed motorized routes and camping corridors on the Alpine, Springerville 

and Clifton Ranger Districts are located in threatened, endangered and sensitive fish and aquatic 

habitat. Prior to these routes being added to the MVUM, field review would be conducted and 

mitigation (including but not limited to timing and season of use restrictions) applied as needed. 

Soils, Watershed, and Vegetation Mitigation

Under all action alternatives, the following standards and guidelines from the forest plan and best 

management practices (BMPs) from Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22, and Soil and 

Water Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA/USFS 1990), will be implemented. 

1. Off-road vehicle (ORV) activities will be managed to minimize conflicts with other uses, 

prevent interference with the management of other resources, and prevent general 

environmental degradation while providing a range of ORV opportunities. The three 

wildernesses and the Blue Range Primitive Area are closed to ORV use. (forest plan)

2. Motorized roads and trails are closed to vehicle use unless signed open. (forest plan)

3. Motorized roads and trails will be closed to motorized use when damage from ORVs is 

likely to result in adverse effects and when one or more of the following situations or 

areas exist (forest plan and FSH):

a. soil groups having a high sensitivity rating, slope, erosion hazards, and runoff 

potential;

b. soils with surface textures of clay, clay loam, and heavy silt loam, or soils where such 

textures are within 6 to 8 inches of the surface;

c. effects to water quality, such as increased sediment and turbidity. Also, 

bacteriological and chemical problems due to heavy concentration of users and types 

of use occurring (chances of vehicle related contamination);

d. acres utilized for other recreation activities not compatible with ORV activities;

e. recently rehabilitated or reseeded areas;

f. areas where the forests have plantations with trees less than 4 inches diameter at 

breast height;

g. watercourses and wetlands permanently or intermittently wet;

h. municipal watersheds; and 

i. in areas with watershed restoration projects. 

4. Sediment production from roads may be minimized by methods such as (FSH):

a. out-sloping of road;

b. lead-out ditches;

c. energy dissipaters on culverts;

d. grass seeding; and
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 211

e. rock riprap.

5. Maintain suitable filter/buffer strips between stream courses and disturbed areas and/or 

road locations to (forest plan and FSH):

a. maintain suitable stream temperature; and

b. maintain water quality standards.

6. Effectively close or obliterate roads causing intolerable resource damage (relocate roads 

as needed) (FSH).

7. Enhance watershed condition by obliterating roads causing resource damage that are

unneeded for forest management (FSH).

8. Only one access road is approved to a parcel of private property whether there are one or 

many owners (forest plan).

9. Complete road maintenance plans annually for each district. Maintain roads to the 

maintenance level prescribed in the maintenance plans (forest plan).

10. Seasonally or permanently close existing roads that prohibit cross-country vehicle use or 

manage use when conflicts occur with wildlife and soil resource objectives. Generally 

limit closures to local roads in erosive soil areas, riparian areas, or wildlife areas that 

require specific management practices (forest plan).

11. Roads not needed for industry, public, and/or administrative use, which are uneconomical 

to maintain or causing resource conflicts will be obliterated. Obliteration will be 

accomplished by mechanically destroying the facility or by implementing management 

strategies to discourage, eliminate, or prohibit traffic to allow natural vegetation to return 

to the site. The road or trail shall be removed from the inventory when obliteration is 

complete (forest plan).

12. Emphasize road management in areas where resource/wildlife protection is dominant 

forest policy (seasonal closure orders).

13. Implement best management practices to prevent water quality degradation. Implement 

improvement action where water quality degradation does occur, except for special cases 

where temporary or short-term degradation is occurring from road crossing construction 

or similar situations (FSH).

14. Access will be strictly managed within Chevelon Creek as follows:

a. trails are closed to motorized use; 

b. off-road travel by motorized vehicles is prohibited; and

c. motorized use within the corridor is restricted to the 504 Road. The road to Durfee 

Crossing will remain closed. Any vehicular access within the corridor other than the 

504 Road must be authorized by the district ranger.

15. Roads will be located away from stream bottoms to minimize sediment delivery to the 

stream course whenever possible.

16. Erosion control measures will be included in road plans. Construct roads to keep 

sediment out of riparian and aquatic habitats. Minimize clearing widths and vegetative 

clearing. Permanent roads constructed/reconstructed in the critical wildlife habitat areas 

must meet the following criteria (forest plan):
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

212 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

a. There is no feasible alternative to build the road outside the area, and the road is 

essential to achieve priority goals and objectives of contiguous management areas, or 

to provide access to land administered by other government agencies or to contiguous 

private land.

b. Roads are constructed/reconstructed to the minimum standards necessary to provide 

safety for the road use purpose.

17. Road survey design and construction engineering efforts will be commensurate with the 

value of the road(s) being constructed. Construct roads to minimum economical 

standards. Revegetate cut and fill slopes where feasible. Relocate or remove roads 

occurring within riparian areas. Do not align roads to pass through the long axis of 

narrow riparian strips (forest plan and FSH).

Scenery Mitigation

Under alternatives B, D, and E, construction of motorized trails would not include removal of 

trees. However, any type of slash generated from trail improvement will be removed within 1 

year if within view of roadways or use areas in VQO of retention and partial retention 

foregrounds (forest plan, MA 1, p. 111) and within 2 feet of ground in modification/maximum 

modification (forest plan, MA 1, p. 112).

Transportation Mitigation

While most of the forests’ maintenance level 3-5 roads are designed primarily for use by highway 

legal vehicles, two roads—NFSR 504, Heber Mormon Crossing and NFSR 169, Deer Lake 

Road—provide recreational access for all-terrain vehicles and other non-highway legal OHVs. 

Designating NFS roads for motorized mixed use involves special safety and engineering 

considerations. A mixed use study was completed on these two roads with the following 

mitigations: 

● implementing the universal mitigation measures, especially improved signing and better 

communication will reduce crash probability;

● road mitigation should be prioritized regardless of mixed use, along with implementing a 

comprehensive communication, management, and enforcement plan. Associated 

implementation costs will depend on the designated allowed use for the road; and

● risk without mitigation: NFSR 504 and NFSR 169, crash probability is low and crash 

severity is high.

For all alternatives, the following mitigation measures apply:

● Clear communication and education to visitors on allowed uses, safe motor vehicle use, 

and natural resources (informational signing and kiosks, maps, Web site, etc.).

● Reduce “sign pollution” and separate cluttered signing and avoid unnecessary items.

● Clear brush and shape cut slopes along NFSR 504 to improve sight.

● Upgrade all signing on NFSR 504 and NFSR 169 to MUTCD standards, including 

recreation signing placed along the roadways. (An engineered sign study was performed 

on both NFSR 504 and 169. NFSR 504 has been resigned per the sign study in FY2008. 
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 213

NFSR 169 will be resigned per the sign study in FY2010. The sign study was in 

compliance with MUTCD and does not include recreation signing or additional signing 

requirements for OHVs).

● Cleanup and eliminate vandalism stickers that can confuse forest visitors.

● Combine the appropriate enforcement measures with the allowed uses for the road.

● Utilize a monitoring program to better determine the appropriate management strategy 

for the types of use, new technologies, changes in visitor demands, and resource 

protection measures.

Some Pertinent Forest Plan Standards and

Guidelines Applicable to Some Resource Areas

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ plan specifies the overall direction by which the forest 

resources are managed (USDA FS 1987). The forest plan consists of forestwide and area-specific 

goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines, which provide for land uses with anticipated resource 

outputs. There are many standards and guidelines pertaining to use of the forests’ motorized 

routes. Included here is some of the pertinent direction available for the following resource areas: 

cultural resources, fisheries, wildlife, air quality, soils and watershed, vegetation, recreation, and 

scenery. Refer to the forest plan for complete standards and guidelines.

Cultural Resources

● Establish ORV use areas and closures as needed to meet demand and other resource 

objectives. Manage ORV use to provide opportunities while protecting resources and 

minimizing conflicts with other users. 

● ORV activities will be managed to: minimize conflicts with other uses, prevent 

interference with the management of other resources, and prevent general environmental 

degradation while providing a range of ORV opportunities. 

● Existing, as well as additional, ORV closures are implemented when one or more of the 

following situations or areas exist and ORV use is likely to occur that would result in 

significant adverse effects: 

○ Areas of cultural or religious significance with proven historical significance to 

Native Americans. 

○ Areas with a high concentration of archaeological and historical sites or areas with 

especially significant sites. 

● The preferred management of sites eligible, or potentially eligible, for the National 

Register of Historic Places will be avoidance and protection. 

● Significant or potentially significant inventoried sites will be managed to achieve a “No 

Effect” finding in consultation with the SHPO and ACHP (36 CFR 800). Where resource 

conflicts make this impossible, management will achieve a “No Adverse Effect” finding.

(forest plan: pp. 15, 34-35, 37, 39, 40)
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

214 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Recreation

Direction for guiding management activities for outdoor recreation including, but not limited to 

motorized travel (p. 14-15). Management directives for outdoor recreation that relate directly to 

travel and recreation management:

● Manage the recreation resource to provide opportunities for a wide variety of developed 

and dispersed recreation opportunities. Provide for developed site and dispersed visitor 

use. 

● Maintain a variety of trails, considering people’s needs. Includes foot, motorized, and 

challenge adventure opportunities, as well as opportunities for the handicapped. 

● Continue to integrate the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) system into the forests

planning process to quantify recreation opportunity changes, guide forest management, 

and coordinate recreation with other resources.

● Establish ORV use areas and closures as needed to meet demand and other resource 

objectives. Manage ORV use to provide ORV opportunities while protecting resources 

and minimizing conflicts with other users (p. 15). 

Fisheries

● Maintain habitat for viable populations of wildlife and fish species, and improve habitat 

for selected species. This is accomplished directly through habitat management, and 

indirectly through coordination of habitat management in conjunction with other resource 

activities.

● Improve habitat for listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants and 

animals and other species as they become threatened or endangered. Work toward 

recovery and declassification of species.

● Improve vegetation in riparian areas. This is an emphasis area for the plan. Improvements 

will be accomplished by reducing or, in some cases, eliminating adverse impacts from 

grazing, vehicles, and overuse by man.

Management Area 3 (Riparian): Recognize the importance and distinctive values of riparian 

areas when implementing management activities. Give preferential consideration to riparian 

dependent resources in cases of unsolvable conflicts. Manage to maintain or improve riparian 

areas to satisfactory condition. Other resource activities may occur to the extent they support or 

do not adversely affect riparian dependent resources. Management emphasis will be directed at 

areas with riparian dependent resources in this order of priority: (1) threatened and endangered 

species; (2) cold water fisheries; (3) warm water fisheries; and (4) all other riparian areas.

Management Area 3 Standards and Guidelines: For priority 1 and priority riparian areas for 

aquatic resources: (1) manage for and maintain at least 80 percent of near natural shade over 

water surfaces; (2) manage for and maintain at least 80 percent of streambank total linear distance 

in stable condition; (3) prevent siltation not to exceed 20 percent fines (<855mm) in riffle areas; 

(4) maintain 80 percent of the spawning gravel surface free of inorganic sediment; (5) manage for 

stream temperatures not to exceed 68 degrees F, unless not technically feasible; and (6) manage 

for and maintain at least an 80 biotic condition index on all perennial streams.
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 215

For priority 1 and 2 riparian areas for vegetation resource (where the site is capable of supporting 

woody plants): (1) manage for and maintain at least 60 percent of the woody plant composition in 

three or more riparian species; (2) manage for and maintain at least three age classes of riparian 

woody plants, with at least 10 percent of the woody plant cover in sprouts, seedlings, and 

saplings; (3) manage for and maintain at least 60 percent near natural shrub and tree crown cover; 

and (4) determine need and rehabilitate riparian areas through seeding and planting woody 

species in areas that are in unsatisfactory condition.

Manage for or maintain at least 60 percent of potential habitat capability for Apache trout, 

rainbow trout, brook trout, brown trout, loach minnow, and Little Colorado Spinedace.

Wildlife

Elk: Standards and guidelines expected to maintain or improve elk habitat components in 

timberland, woodlands, riparian areas, and grasslands - Amendment 1. Total road densities should 

average 3.5 miles per square mile or less. Open road densities should average 2 miles per square 

mile or less. 

Aquatic macroinvertebrates: For MA3 riparian areas, manage for several indicator species with 

one of these being aquatic macroinvertebrates. The standards and guidelines for aquatic 

macroinvertebrates for priority 1 and 2 riparian areas are to manage for and maintain at least an 

80 biotic condition index on perennial streams.

Antelope: Standards and guidelines to maintain or improve antelope habitat components in 

woodlands and grasslands – MA 4 grasslands managed to maintain existing antelope range. 

Wild turkey: Standards and guidelines exist to maintain or improve turkey habitat components in 

timberland, woodlands, riparian areas, and grasslands. 

Air Quality

Standards and guidelines: 

● Wilderness: In fire management activities, give preference to using methods and 

equipment that causes the least: (1) alteration of the wilderness landscape; (2) disturbance 

of the land surface; (3) disturbance to visitor solitude; (4) reduction of visibility during 

periods of visitor use; and (5) adverse effect on other air quality related values. 

● Water Resource Improvement Maintenance Monitoring: Monitor specific air pollutant 

and meteorological parameters necessary for the determination of air quality in the Mt. 

Baldy Class 1 area. 

● Air Management: Comply with State and Federal air quality standards. 

● In the Class 1 air quality area (Mt. Baldy) maintain high quality visual conditions. The 

form, line, texture, and color characteristic landscape will be clearly distinguishable when 

viewed as middle ground.
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

216 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Soils and Watershed

Standards, guidelines, and goals for soils, watershed, and riparian areas:

● Maintain, or where needed, enhance soil productivity and watershed condition by 2020. 

Maintain a high quality sustained water yield for forest users and others. Identify and 

protect wetlands and flood plains (p. 16).

● Ensure compliance with Public Law 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and 

amendments including the Clean Water Act. Implement best management practices to 

prevent water quality degradation. Implement improvement action where water quality 

degradation does occur, except for special cases where temporary or short-term 

degradation is occurring from road crossing construction or similar situations (p. 81).

● Provide adequate drainage to prevent concentrated flow and sediment laden runoff from 

entering watercourses (p. 81).

● Conserve soil and water resources, avoid permanent impairment of site productivity, and 

ensure conservation of soil and water resources. The minimum soil and resource 

management requirement is to control surface water runoff and erosion at not less than 

tolerance conditions (36 CFR 218.23 and 27) (p. 81).

● Erosion control measures will be included in road plans. Construct roads to keep 

sediment out of riparian and aquatic habitats (p. 104).

● Management Area 2: Plan/accomplish erosion reduction projects on areas disturbed by 

project activities where the site is not expected to stabilize within 2 years or when water 

quality degradation will occur (p. 153).

Scenery

The following visual quality objectives variations are allowed for a management area (p. 35-36): 

○ Preservation: No Change 

○ Retention: +2 percent foreground, +5 percent background, middle ground. 

○ Partial Retention: +5 percent foreground, +10 percent back and middle ground 

○ Modification/maximum modification: +10 percent in all zones 

● One classification movement downward is all that will be allowed. Even acceptable 

variations must be coordinated through the forest landscape architect to mitigate the 

variation when possible (p. 35-36). 

● Proposed General Crook National Historic Trail – Manage all resource activities to meet 

VQO retention foreground requirements, considering the historic qualities of the 

characteristic landscape (p. 37). 

● Wilderness and Blue Range Primitive Area – Visual quality objective is preservation (MA 

7, MA 8, MA 12, MA 13). 

● Road construction in semiprimitive motorized areas will take into consideration that a 

natural appearing environment will be maintained. Most new roads should be closed 

following project completion. Roads left open will be managed at maintenance class 2 (p. 

33). 
Appendix D – Law, Regulation, Mitigation Measures,

and Forest Plan Direction

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 217

● Off-road vehicle activities will be managed to: minimize conflicts with other uses,

prevent interference with the management of other resources, and prevent general 

environmental degradation while providing a range of ORV opportunities. The three 

wilderness areas and the Blue Range Primitive Area are closed to ORV use (p. 34).

● Existing, as well as additional, ORV closures are implemented when one or more of the 

following situations or areas exist, and ORV use is likely to occur that would result in 

significant adverse effects (full list on p. 34-35).

● The following management areas (with page number references) have specific direction 

for scenery: MA 1 – p. 97; MA 2 – p. 117; MA 3 – p. 125; MA 4 – p. 130; MA 9 – p. 

146; MA 11 – p. 161; MA 14 – Black River main stem – p. 169-170; MA 15 – East and 

West Fork of Black River p. 172-173; MA 16 – Chevelon Canyon p. 175-176; MA 17 –

East and West Forks of the Little Colorado River; and MA 18 – Sandrock.

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 219

Appendix E – Cumulative Effects 

In their cumulative effects analyses, each specialist establishes which actions overlap in space and 

time with the changes proposed under the alternatives to the existing transportation system. 

Cumulative effects are determined by adding the effects of each alternative to the effects of past, 

present, and future activities. It is important to note the existing condition is the basis of an effects 

analysis, and the existing condition is the result of impacts from past and present activities. The 

cumulative effects analysis for each resource adds the impacts of the alternatives (which include 

impacts from past and present activities) to the impacts from the impacts of reasonably 

foreseeable future actions or events that have the potential to change the physical, social, 

economic, or biological nature of a specified area. 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the analysis area are listed in table 45. 

This table was developed from the schedule of proposed actions for the ASNFs and professional 

knowledge of the analysis area. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable activities in the analysis area, but a thorough representation of known 

actions. For this analysis, the cumulative effects analysis area is 5th code watershed boundaries, 

the planning area (boundary of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests), or some larger area 

depending on the resource type and extent of impacts to the resource. 

Table 45. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests 

Activity Type Status Ranger District

Prescribed Fire

Campbell Flat RX Burn Fuels reduction Foreseeable Alpine RD

R-C Prescribed Burn Prescribed burn Implementation 

Oct. 2010

Lakeside and Black 

Mesa RDs

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)

Campbell Blue WUI Wildlife habitat and 

riparian restoration

Implementation 

Oct. 2010

Alpine RD

Beaver Creek WUI Project Fuels treatment Foreseeable Alpine RD

Rim Lakes Forest Health Project Fuels reduction Foreseeable Black Mesa RD

Show Low South Fire Risk and

Fuel Reduction

Fuels reduction Implementation 

July 2011

Lakeside RD

Big Lake WUI Fuels Reduction 

Project

Fuels management Foreseeable Springerville RD

Greens Peak WUI Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction 

Fuel treatment Implementation 

Oct. 2010

Springerville RD

Wildfire

Wildfire History Unplanned ignitions Past Sunflower Fire (2005) 

385 ac., KP Fire 

(2004) 16,092 ac., KP 

Fire (2003) 10 ac., KP 

Fire (2001) 17 ac., 

Thomas Fire (2003) 

10,644 ac., Steeple 

Fire (2003) 6,009 ac. 
Appendix E – Cumulative Effects

220 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Activity Type Status Ranger District

Trail Construction, Reconstruction and Maintenance

Bear Fire Trail Restoration Trail realignment Foreseeable Alpine RD

Leopold Commemorative 

Trail/Green Fire Trail

Trail construction Foreseeable Alpine RD

OHV Trail Heber-Overgaard North OHV trail maintenance 

and reconstruction

Foreseeable Black Mesa RD

Rim Vista Trail 622 Paving Project Trail maintenance and 

reconstruction

Foreseeable Black Mesa RD

Snowmobile Trail Maintenance and

Realignment

Snowmobile trail 

maintenance and 

reconstruction

Ongoing Alpine, Black Mesa,

and Springerville RDs

White Mountain Trail System 

Modifications

Trail maintenance and 

reconstruction

Foreseeable Lakeside RD

Water Development

Water diversions Ongoing Forestwide

Black Canyon Dam Improvement 

Project

Modifications to meet 

current dam safety 

requirements and recent 

reclassification of the 

dam to “High Hazard”.

Implementation 

Sept. 2010

Black Mesa RD

Land Exchanges

Black River Land Exchange –

Rancho Alegre (1 of 2 parcels)

Land exchange - 79.76 

acres, 0.25 mile along 

west fork of the Blue 

River, 3 acres of wetland 

Implementation 

Dec. 2011

Alpine RD

Black River Land Exchange – Blue 

River Ranch parcel (2 of 2 parcels)

Land exchange Implementation 

Dec. 2011

Alpine RD

Camp Tatiyee Land Exchange Land exchange Implementation 

Dec. 2011

Lakeside RD

Show Low South Land Exchange Land exchange Implementation 

Dec. 2011

Lakeside RD

Fisheries Habitat Management

Fish Barriers Fish habitat 

improvement

Foreseeable Clifton RD

Fish Barrier Maintenance, Repair, 

and Reconstruction 

Improvement to existing 

fish barriers 

Foreseeable Alpine and

Springerville RDs

Road and Trail Management

Transportation System Road maintenance Ongoing Forestwide

Road maintenance Road Maintenance Ongoing Forestwide 

Eagle Creek Road Maintenance Road maintenance Past Clifton RD

Heber-Overgaard Nonmotorized 

Trail System

Trail construction Foreseeable Black Mesa RD
Appendix E – Cumulative Effects

DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 221

Activity Type Status Ranger District

FR 129 Paving Road paving project Foreseeable Lakeside RD

Minerals, Energy Development, Oil and Gas Leasing Activities

Pueblo Park Mineral Materials Pit Materials pit and special 

use permit

Implementation 

Oct. 2010

Alpine RD

Minerals Extraction Special use permit Ongoing Forestwide 

Other Jurisdictions

Private property development in 

and adjacent to forests

Recent new home 

construction with 

associated road const.

Ongoing and 

foreseeable

Forestwide 

Livestock Grazing Management

Grazing Allotments Livestock grazing 

management 

Ongoing Forestwide

Heber-Reno and Morgan Mountain 

Sheep Driveway 

Grazing management Ongoing Black Mesa, Lakeside, 

and Springerville RDs

Heber Wild Horse Territory Plan Grazing management Foreseeable Black Mesa RD

Copperas Allotment Management 

Analysis

Livestock grazing 

management

Foreseeable Clifton RD

Wildbunch Allotment Management 

Plan 

Livestock grazing 

management

Foreseeable Clifton RD

Cerro Trigo Allotment Livestock grazing 

management

Implementation 

Oct. 2010

Springerville RD

Greens Peak Allotment Livestock grazing 

management

Implementation 

Oct. 2010

Springerville RD

Hall Allotment Livestock grazing 

management

Implementation 

Oct. 2010

Springerville RD

Revised EA Molina Springs 

Allotment

Livestock grazing 

management

Implementation 

Oct. 2010

Springerville RD

Recreation Management

Developed Recreation Use Recreation management Ongoing Forestwide

General Recreation Use Recreation management Ongoing Forestwide

Land Management Planning

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Forest Plan 

Revision

Land Management 

Planning

Foreseeable Forestwide 

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Blue River and KP Creek Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Suitability Study

Wild and scenic river 

suitability study

Implementation 

Oct. 2010

Alpine and Clifton 

RDs

Special Uses Management/Road Easements

ADOT Maintenance Yard Special use permit Foreseeable Alpine RD

Blue River Gravel Pits Special use permit Sept. 2010 Alpine RD
Appendix E – Cumulative Effects

222 DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs

Activity Type Status Ranger District

Cottonwood Gulch Foundation 

Backpacking Expeditions

Special use authorization Ongoing Alpine RD

NRCS Weather Station Assorted SnowTel and 

Snow Courses - 65 acres

Foreseeable Alpine RD

Nutrioso Fire Department

Communications Site

Special use permit Foreseeable Alpine RD

Salt River Project Weather Stations Special use permit Implementation 

Nov. 2010

Alpine RD

Heber Youth Group Camp Access Road easement and 

special use permit

Sept. 2010 Black Mesa RD

Ditch Bill Easement - Little 

Mormon Lake and associated 

improvements

Irrigation and stock 

watering easement - with 

operating and 

maintenance conditions

Fall 2010 Lakeside RD

Ditch Bill Easement - Lakeside 

Ditch

Irrigation and stock 

watering easement -

operating/maintenance

Foreseeable Lakeside RD

Langkilde Road Easement Road easement Implementation 

Jan. 2011

Lakeside RD

Wildlife Habitat Management

National Wildlife Turkey 

Federation Riparian Restoration 

Project 

Riparian habitat 

restoration 

Sept. 2010 Alpine RD

Mexican Wolf Blue Range 

Recovery Area Holding Pen

Construction of 

permanent pen for 

temporary holding of 

wolves up to 30 days

Foreseeable Springerville RD

Other Vegetation Treatments

Chitty Fire Salvage Fuels treatment Sept. 2010 Alpine and Clifton 

RDs

Hwy 191 Hazard Tree Removal Hazard tree removal Foreseeable Alpine RD

Bruno Thinning and Slash 

Treatment

Fuels treatment Past Black Mesa RD

Integrated Forestwide Noxious,

Terrestrial, and Aquatic Weed 

Management Plan

Invasive species 

management

Ongoing Forestwide

Rodeo-Chediski Fire Reforestation Reforestation Ongoing Black Mesa and

Lakeside RDs

Timber Harvest Tree removal Past Forestwide

Riparian Improvement

Riparian Restoration Projects Restoration treatment Foreseeable Forestwide
DEIS for Public Motorized Travel Management Plan, ASNFs 223

Index

air quality: 33, 37, 99-103, 169, 207, 215

climate change: 100

comments: 2, 6, 14, 16-17, 24-25, 37, 44, 

99, 167-169

cultural resources: i, 1, 2, 6, 14, 17-18, 24, 

34, 51-55, 72-75, 155-166, 208-209, 213-

214

cumulative effects: 6, 40, 43, 55, 59-60, 66,

75, 84, 99, 102, 140, 153, 166-167, 219-222

decision: 6, 10, 15-16, 36-37, 209

dispersed camping: i, 1-2, 15, 17, 20-25, 27, 

47, 50-51, 83

economics: 3, 5, 17-18, 31, 66-75, 169

elk: 5, 19, 28, 48, 55, 78, 104, 134-139, 215

employment: 3, 31, 68-76

enforcement: 10, 56, 93, 212

environmental justice: 66, 75, 166, 208

fisheries: 34, 36-37, 141-154, 169, 214, 220

forest plan amendments: 37, 201

issues: 2-6, 9, 17-18, 20-23, 35, 37, 44, 60, 

66, 76, 85, 99, 103, 141, 155, 167

management indicator species: 6, 33, 103, 

134-139, 140

migratory birds: 33, 103, 139-141, 208

mitigation measures: 6, 24-26, 35, 39, 63, 

86, 95-96, 102, 162-166, 208-213

motor vehicle use map: 1, 10, 15-16, 20-23, 

56, 161-162, 171-172, 209

motorized big game retrieval: 3-5, 15, 18-

24, 28, 44, 48, 50-51, 76, 82, 136, 163, 181

motorized cross-country travel: 2-7, 30-37, 

41, 44, 49-55, 61, 63-66, 95, 104-106, 120-

122, 136, 140, 155, 162-167, 171

noise: 5-6, 17, 30, 45, 49-55, 104, 112

proposed action: i, 2, 9-10, 14-20, 24, 26, 

145, 170

public involvement: 2, 16, 20

purpose and need for action: 1, 9, 14, 24-26

recreation: 30, 44-56

road density: 30, 38, 40-43, 86, 91-92, 102, 

146

roadless areas: 25, 30, 50, 59-60

safety: 5, 17, 29, 38-44, 47, 51, 75, 88, 102, 

208, 212

sensitive species: 33-34, 103, 118-133, 139, 

142, 145, 149-153, 214

social and economic analysis: 31, 37, 66-75, 

169

streams listed as impaired: 94-96, 98

threatened and endangered species: 6, 25, 

34, 37, 105, 108-110, 118-120, 141-153, 

205, 207, 210, 214

Travel Management Rule: i, 1, 9, 14, 26, 37, 

48, 56, 155, 201, 208

unauthorized routes: 6, 11, 15, 21-23, 27, 

29, 34, 36, 41-44, 47, 61-66, 80-83, 93, 103-

104, 113, 161-166

off-highway vehicles: 1, 10, 40, 44-50, 55, 

69, 71, 99, 104, 119, 160, 172, 212

visual quality: 31, 60, 62, 216

wild and scenic rivers: 31, 50, 52-59, 207

wilderness: 11, 14, 19, 26, 30, 38, 45-46, 

50, 59-60, 87, 100, 103, 107, 172, 207, 210, 

215-216

wildlife: 1-3, 14, 17-18, 33, 35-37, 40, 44-

55, 78, 86, 88, 99, 103-141, 154, 169, 207-

215