United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

April 2009 

Southwestern 

Region 

Information Contact: 

Charlotte Minor, IDT Leader 

Kaibab National Forest 

800 S. Sixth Street, Williams, AZ 86046 

928-635-8271 or fax: 928-635-8208 

Final Environmental Assessment 

Tusayan Ranger District Travel 

Management Project 

Tusayan Ranger District 

Kaibab National Forest 

Coconino County, 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 alternate means for communication of program information 

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

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 

(TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Printed on recycled paper 
Chapter 1 

5

Document Structure 5

Introduction 5

Background 8

Purpose and Need 10

Existing Condition 10

Desired Condition 12

Proposed Action 13

Decision Framework 15

Issues 15

Chapter 2 - Alternatives 17

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 17

Comparison of Alternatives 27

Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 27

Standard Mitigation Measures 28

Monitoring Implemented For All Alternatives 28

Comparison of Effects (Summary) 30

Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects 33

Transportation 33

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 37

Recreation and Scenic Resources 40

Soils and Watershed 50

Wildlife 58

Invasive Weeds and Sensitive Plant Species 71

Heritage 78

Alternative 3 85

Vegetation Management 86

Fire and Fuels Management 87

Range 89

Economics/Social 92

Environmental Justice 97

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 98

Appendix 1 Proposed Forest Plan Amendment 100

Appendix 2 Response to comments 87

Glossary 101

References 164
List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Tusayan Ranger District and location of National Forests in Arizona....................... 6

Figure 2. Location of ecosystem management areas. ............................................................................ 8

Figure 3. Existing roads and unauthorized routes crossing Tusayan Ranger District (2005 data)........11

Figure 4. Locations of proposed camping corridors and recreation access routes............................... 19

Figure 5. Proposed action road system open to motorized travel compared to existing roads. ........... 21

Figure 6. Proposed action motorized big game retrieval opportunities with one-mile road buffer...... 23

Figure 7. Alternative 3 open road system compared to existing roads. ............................................... 24

Figure 8. Alternative 3 big game retrieval opportunities with one-mile road buffer............................ 26

Figure 9 . Cross-country motorized damage during 2008 hunting season........................................... 38

Figure 10. Dispersed camping on the Kaibab National Forest (2007)................................................. 43

Figure 11. Drainage network of ephemeral streams on Tusayan Ranger District................................ 52

Figure 12. Existing road-ephemeral stream crossings on Tusayan Ranger District............................. 53

Figure 13. Kaibab Forest Archaeologist inspects cultural site heavily impacted by campers. ............ 84

List of Tables 

Table 1 Existing forest road system and unauthorized routes on Tusayan Ranger District (2005 data).10

Table 2. Current forest road system by maintenance level, Tusayan Ranger District (2005 data)....... 12

Table 3. Summary of existing and proposed action road systems for Tusayan Ranger District. ......... 14

Table 4. Proposed action road summary............................................................................................... 22

Table 5. Existing and Alternative 3 road systems comparison............................................................. 25

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives..................................................................................................... 27

Table 7. Summary of effects for Tusayan travel management planning by resource area................... 30

Table 8. Road maintenance costs by alternative. ................................................................................. 34

Table 9. Arizona resident current and expected recreation participation for selected activities 

SCORP 2008)................................................................................................................................47

Table 10. Estimated numbers of motorized big game retrievals occurring annually onTusayan 

Ranger District 2004-2006........................................................................................................... 68

Table 11. Proximity of cultural resources to open roads...................................................................... 82

Table 12. Estimated annual economic output by sector in Tusayan..................................................... 94

Table 13. Tourism contribution to Arizona economy. .......................................................................... 94

Table 14. Selected categories of spending for Coconino County by year............................................ 95

Table 15. Recreation related economic contributions. ......................................................................... 95
Chapter 1 

Document Structure 

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This 

Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that 

would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: 

• Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the 

purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose 

and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the 

proposal and how the public responded. 

• Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more 

detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for 

achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant 

issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible 

mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental 

effects associated with each alternative. 

• Environmental Effects: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing 

the proposed action and alternative. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within 

each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No 

Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison to the Proposed 

Action. 

• Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies 

consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. 

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses 

presented in the environmental assessment. 

Additional documentation, and analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project 

planning record located at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Williams, AZ. 

Introduction 

The Tusayan Ranger District Travel Management project encompasses the entire Tusayan District of 

the Kaibab National Forest. The District contains 331,427 acres. Tusayan Ranger District (TRD) is 

located just south of Grand Canyon National Park South Rim and borders the Navajo Indian 

Reservation to the east, Havasupai Indian Reservation and Arizona State and private land to the west 

and south. The District is not contiguous with other National Forest System lands. The District is 

located in portions of Townships 28, 29, 30 and 31 North, and Ranges 1 West and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 

East. Figure 1 shows a map of the project area and its proximity within the State of Arizona and 

National Forests within Arizona. The project area encompasses Geographic Areas (GA) 8, 9, 10, 21, 

and 22 as identified in the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan), and Arizona 

Game and Fish Department Game Management Unit (GMU) 9. 
Figure 1. Map of Tusayan Ranger District and location of National Forests in Arizona. 

The Geographic Areas are described in the Kaibab Forest Plan as amended (2008): 

GA 10 contains 86,250 acres. The ponderosa pine vegetation type dominates the area at higher 

elevations. The principle elk calving, deer and pronghorn antelope fawning, and turkey nesting 

habitat in the TRD are located here. Most of the area is grazed by cattle from late spring until fall. 

GA 21 includes the developed recreation sites on the Forest encompassing a total of 1,556 acres. For 

Tusayan Ranger District, developed recreation sites include Ten-X Campground and Ten-X Group 

Campground. These campgrounds are closed to OHV travel in the Forest Plan. 

GA 22 includes proposed recreation development sites, of approximately 2,228 acres on the Forest. 

On Tusayan Ranger District, the Upper Basin Recreation Area was proposed for private sector 
development of a campground. (There are no plans to develop any new campgrounds on the 

District.). 

The lower elevation portions of GA 8 and 9 contain pinyon-juniper and grasslands vegetation types 

with scattered areas of ponderosa pine. These GA contain 195,118 acres and 43,377 acres 

respectively. These areas provide winter habitat for mule deer and wintering elk. The eastern portion 

of the area provides most of the winter habitat on the District for pronghorn antelope. Open 

grasslands are scattered throughout the area and are important forage areas for livestock and wildlife. 

There are no developed recreation sites. In GA 8 the area encompassing Red Butte is closed to all 

vehicles and in GA 9, the Coconino Rim escarpment is closed to motorized vehicles. Much of the rest 

of the district is open to motorized cross country travel. The Arizona Trail is a main non-motorized 

trail through the area. A segment of Great Western Trail crosses the District, providing a designated 

motorized route on existing forest roads. 

The Forest Geographic Areas for Tusayan Ranger District are displayed in Figure 2. Additional 

information and management direction for these areas is found in the Kaibab National Forest 

Management Plan (Forest Plan). 
Figure 2. Location of geographic areas. 

Background 

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

off-highway vehicles (OHV) and other motor vehicles on National Forests and grasslands. These 

regulations amended part 212, subpart B of part 251, subpart A of part 261, and removed part 295 of 

title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Together, these regulations are referred to as the 

Travel Management Rule (TMR). The TMR was developed in response to the substantial increase in 

use of OHVs on National Forest System lands and related damage to Forest resources caused by 
unmanaged OHV use over the past 30 years. The regulations implement Executive Order (EO) 11644 

and EO 11989 regarding off-road use of motor vehicles on Federal lands. 

Per the TMR, the District must identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel 

and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands. 36 CFR 212.5 

further describes the minimum system is the road system needed to achieve the following: 

 Meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource 

management plan (36 CFR part 219); 

 Meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements; 

 Reflect long-term funding expectations; 

 Ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with 

road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance; 

In order to identify the minimum road system, Forests are required to use a science-based travel 

analysis and involve a broad spectrum of interested and affected citizens, state and federal agencies, 

and Tribal governments. 

The new travel management rule, hereafter referred to as the “Rule” requires each National Forest to 

designate those National Forest System roads, motorized trails, and areas under the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service that are open to motor vehicle use. The designations are made by class of vehicle and, 

if appropriate, by time of year (36 CFR 212.51). It prohibits the use of motorized vehicles off the 

designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in areas that are not consistent with 

the designations. The clear identification of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use is intended to 

enhance management of National Forest System lands; sustain natural resource values through 

effective management of motor vehicle use; enhance opportunities for motorized vehicle use; address 

needs for access to National Forest System lands; and preserve areas of opportunity on each National 

Forest for non-motorized travel and experiences. 

This process also meets specific requirements of 36 CFR 212, subparts A and B: 

1. To designate a system of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and 

areas on National Forest system lands for motor vehicle use. Motor vehicle use off of this 

system is prohibited. 

It partially meets specific requirements of 36 CFR 212, subparts A and B: 

2. For the Forest transportation program: develop and maintain a travel management atlas, a 

Forest transportation atlas, and program of work for the Forest transportation system. 

Since this analysis is limited to one district of the forest, it does not meet this requirement for the 

entire forest. This document with the accompanying Tusayan Travel Analysis help to inform the 

travel management atlas, forest transportation atlas and transportation program of work. 
Purpose and Need 

• There is a need for improving management of motorized vehicle use on National Forest 

System lands within the Tusayan Ranger District in accordance with provisions of the Travel 

Management Rule and 36 CFR parts 212, 251, and 261. 

• There is a need for complying with the Travel Management Rule and 36 CFR part 261.13 

which requires that Forests prohibit motor vehicle use off the system of designated roads, 

trails and areas. 

• There is a need for complying with the Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR part 212.5, which 

requires that Forests identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel 

and for administration, utilization, and protection. There is also a need for complying with 36 

CFR 212.51 (a) which requires Forests to designate a system of roads, trails and areas for 

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

Existing Condition 

Motor vehicles are used to access and engage in a wide range of recreational activities on the Tusayan 

Ranger District (TRD). With the exception of two closure areas, vehicles may drive on existing forest 

roads and drive cross-country across the district. Local tribes use motorized vehicles to access Forest 

areas for activities such as gathering resources for traditional medicines, ceremonial items, craft 

items, and other traditional uses, and collecting resources such as pinyon nuts and fuel wood for 

personal use. Vehicles are also used for administrative and commercial uses as support for fuels 

reduction and vegetation management projects, grazing management, utility maintenance, mining, 

special uses, and outfitter guide services.

Approximately 800 miles of roads cross the Tusayan Ranger District including state and federal 

highways, county roads, private roads, community roads and forest roads. The Forest Service has 

jurisdiction on about 709 miles of forest roads (see Table 1) and provides access to private land 

parcels with permitted roads1 and will not be considered in this decision except for their cumulative 

effects. All existing roads on the District are displayed in Figure 1 (note that the analysis will only 

address the existing forest roads). 

In addition to the forest roads, there are also unauthorized routes that are not part of the forest road 

system. At the time the inventory for this analysis was completed in 2005, there were over 160 miles 

of unauthorized routes. 

Table 1 Existing forest road system and unauthorized routes on Tusayan Ranger District (2005 data). 

Jurisdiction of Road Approximate 

Number of Miles 

Existing Forest Road System Open to Motorized Travel 709 

Unauthorized Routes 166* 

Private Roads 13 

State Highway 22 

 

1

 Alaska National Interest Landsc Conservation Act. 
Figure 3. Existing roads and unauthorized routes crossing Tusayan Ranger District (2005 data).

The Forest Service has been directed to develop and maintain a forest transportation atlas (FTA). It 

displays the designated system of roads, trails and airfields of the administrative unit (see glossary). 

The FTA is continually updated to reflect new information, and therefore information from the FTA 

reflects the most current information regarding roads, trails and areas at a particular point in time. 

The most recent roads inventory data for Tusayan Ranger District is from 2005; this data is the basis 

for this analysis. When a decision on this proposal is made, the FTA will be updated. 

Roads evaluated in this analysis are the existing National Forest System roads which are maintained 

at five different maintenance levels. Table 2 describes the existing forest roads by maintained by the 

Forest Service to provide motorized access to the district. The Forest Service uses five maintenance 

levels (ML) to classify roads, ranging from ML-1 indicating a road closed to motorized use, to ML-5, 

indicating a high degree of use comfort and convenience. This report will refer to passenger car roads 

(ML 3, 4, 5 that a typical sedan could drive down) and high clearance roads (ML 2, that require a 
vehicle such as a pickup with higher clearance). Unauthorized routes are not part of the National 

Forest System of roads or trails and are not maintained by the agency. 

Table 2. Current forest road system by maintenance level, Tusayan Ranger District (2005 data). 

Maintenance Level Approximate Miles of 

Existing Forest Roads* 

Percent of Existing 

Forest Roads 

2 – High Clearance Roads 612 86% 

3, 4, 5 - Passenger Car Roads 97 14% 

TOTAL 709 100% 

*Mileages are derived from the 2005 inventory and are approximate. No ML-1 or ML-5 roads on TRD. 

Per Arizona State Law beginning January 1, 2009 (Arizona SB 1167, 2008), forest roads managed at 

Maintenance Levels 3, 4, and 5 are subject to the Highway Safety Act and are considered maintained 

roads. These are open to travel by passenger cars. The State of Arizona requires that motorists using 

passenger car forest roads may operate OHV if the OHV is “highway-legal” (registered in the State of 

Arizona). Unlicensed drivers and non-highway legal OHVs as well as highway-legal vehicles can be 

operated on high clearance roads (Maintenance Level 2)2. 

Desired Condition 

The desired condition for the Tusayan Ranger District is to have a designated system of National 

Forest System roads open for motor vehicle use. The designated road system is managed, more 

sustainable and consistent with District recreation opportunities and Forest Service administrative 

needs. Cross country motorized travel across the District is prohibited, except as specified for 

permitted uses, such as in a designated fuel wood gathering location. Opportunities are provided for 

motorized access to dispersed camping along designated corridors. A minimal amount of 

unauthorized routes are adopted into the designated road system to provide access to recreation 

opportunities (day use, dispersed campsites, etc.). Hunters may use a motorized vehicle to travel up to 

one mile cross-country to retrieve legally downed and tagged elk during all elk hunting seasons. 

Kaibab Forest Plan Direction 

The Kaibab National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) contains the 

following direction relating to the proposed project: 

• Establish off-road vehicle [ORV] closures as needed to maintain other resource objectives. 

Manage ORV use to provide ORV opportunities while protecting resources and minimizing 

conflicts with other users. (Pg 18) 

• Provide and manage a serviceable road transportation system that meets needs for public 

access, land management, resource protection, and user safety. Provisions are made for the 

construction and reconstruction, maintenance, seasonal and special closures of Forest roads; 

and obliteration of unnecessary roads. (p. 19)

• Manage road densities at the lowest level possible to minimize disturbance in Goshawk nest 

areas. (p.23)

 

2

For more information about the Arizona OHV program, go to http://www.pr.state.az.us/partnerships/ohv/OHVindex.html
• Close project specific areas to off-road vehicle traffic; refer to ORV Map for location of 

closure areas, and ROS Map for location of SPNM [semi-primitive non-motorized] areas. (pg 

73) 

• Monitor off-road vehicle (ORV) use during scheduled patrols and revise the ORV plan to 

prevent resource damage and user conflicts. Provide adequate off-road vehicle (ORV) signing 

to advise the public of motorized restrictions. (pg 69-70) 

Proposed Action 

The Tusayan Ranger District proposes to: 

• Remove about 163 miles from the existing open forest road system. These roads will be for 

administrative uses only (not open to public motorized travel). 

• Prohibit use of most unauthorized routes. About 6 miles of unauthorized routes will be added to the 

designated forest road system. 

• Prohibit cross country motorized vehicle use on national forest system land on the Tusayan 

Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, except as specified for permitted uses (administrative 

uses, designated fuel wood gathering areas, timber sales, required range permittee maintenance 

and operations, etc.). 

• Provide for limited use of motorized vehicles for the purposes of dispersed camping and big 

game retrieval for elk, 36 CFR 212.51 (b) Approximately 17 miles of camping corridors along 

the national forest system of roads will be designated. These camping corridors will be 300 feet 

wide. Authorized cross country motorized big game retrieval for elk is limited to those persons 

with a legally harvested, and properly tagged animal. Hunters may travel for up to one mile 

from a designated route. Only one vehicle is allowed per harvested animal. 
Table 3. Summary of existing and proposed action road systems for Tusayan Ranger District.

Category Existing Road System 

Approx. Mileage 

Proposed Action 

Approx. Mileage 

Miles of Designated National Forest 

System of Open to Public Travel 709 546 

Miles of Forest Roads for 

Administrative Use Only 0 163 

Miles of Unauthorized Routes 166 0 

Routes Added to Designated 

Motorized Road System 

0 6 

Area Closures Current Acres Proposed Acres 

Acres Closed to Motorized CrossCountry Travel 9,695* 327,363** 

*Existing administrative closures for motorized cross-country travel at Coconino Rim and Red Butte. **In the Proposed Action the 

entire District is closed to motorized cross country travel. 

In addition to the motorized travel designations, the proposed action requires amending the “Kaibab 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (Forest Plan) to adjust plan direction that is 

inconsistent with the Travel Management Rule direction related to how the designations would be 

implemented (see Appendix 1 for specific changes to the plan). The proposed action is consistent 

with other direction in the forest plan as discussed in a subsequent section. 

More information about the Proposed Action, No Action, and other alternatives considered are 

displayed in Chapter 2. 

Notes on the Proposed Action and its Relation to the Motor Vehicle Use Map 

The environmental analysis and decision will result in the designation of roads open to motorized 

use. After the designation, a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) showing the designated routes and 

areas will be published per section 212.56. 

The MVUM will be distributed at Forest Service offices, visitor information centers, and on the 

internet. It will be the tool that implements the decision made about which roads are designated for 

motor vehicle use, in what kind of vehicle. The MVUM may be updated and changed as needed. 

Some of the roads proposed and designated may not show up on the first version of the map, nor may 

all potential dispersed camping corridors or routes for recreation access, because the survey and 

clearance for resources may not be finished at the time of the final decision. As clearances are 

completed, the roads, dispersed camping areas and routes for recreation access will be added. It will 

be prohibited to use motorized vehicles on roads until they are published on the MVUM. The forest 

will produce MVUM annually or as needed to reflect changes. 
Decision Framework 

Given the purpose and need, the responsible official will review the Proposed Action and the other 

alternatives in order to make the following decisions: 

• Whether to designate a National Forest System of roads, trails, and areas for motorized 

travel, by vehicle class. 

• Whether to prohibit motorized cross-country travel on the Tusayan Ranger District, except 

as specified for permitted uses (such as fuel wood gathering in a specific permit area). 

• Whether to allow limited use of motorized vehicles within a specified distance of certain 

designated routes for the purposes of dispersed camping and/or big game retrieval for elk. 

Public Involvement and Agency Coordination 

A District-wide travel analysis process (TAP) was developed in May 2006 (this was updated in 2008 

to more closely follow the proposed travel analysis guidance in FSM 7710.2). In the travel analysis, 

the existing forest road system was analyzed. Resource specialists provided input and variables for 

the analysis, and a risk-benefit matrix was developed based on this input. A preliminary road system 

was developed from the risk-benefit matrix. The preliminary road system was reviewed with the 

public during the 2006 TAP. Input was gathered from the public, Tribal governments and 

immediately-affected Tribal communities, and other agencies. Based on the public involvement, 

adjustments were made on the preliminary road system, and this became the Proposed Action for the 

Tusayan Ranger District (TRD) Travel Management project. The Tusayan Travel Analysis is 

available on the Kaibab National Forest website 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/travelmanagement/index.shtml). 

In the fall of 2006, the proposed action based on the TAP was scoped with the public. Input was 

gathered from the public, Tribal governments and immediately-affected Tribal communities, and 

other agencies. During scoping, the public was advised that there would be guidance coming from the 

Southwestern Region addressing dispersed camping and big game retrieval. This information has 

been incorporated into this environmental analysis. 

An additional alternative was developed based on public comments during the scoping period. 

Alternative 3 retains additional roads identified by OHV riders that includes ties together routes the 

riders currently enjoy. An alternative was also proposed by local environmental groups that reduced 

the open road system by about 80 percent in order to provide for wildlife concerns. This proposal 

would use the Forest Service identified Wet Weather road system the designated system of roads open 

to the public for motorized travel. This proposal was discarded after preliminary analysis (see 

Chapter 2 alternatives eliminated from detailed analysis). 

Issues 

Using the comments received during the scoping period, several issues were identified. An issue is 

defined as a discussion, debate, or dispute regarding effects. The issues were separated into two 

groups: significant and non-significant issues. Non-significant issues 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; 4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence, or 5) limited in duration, distribution, and intensity, so that the level of 

effect is not significant. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require 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)...” Significant 

issues were defined as those that required changes in the proposed action to minimize or mitigate 

potential adverse effects. These issues and the agency responses are presented below. 

Many comments were received identifying concerns or opinions regarding the proposed action and 

the Travel Management Rule. Significant issues that resulted in creation of alternatives follow: 

1.Designating a minimum road system would restrict motorized recreation opportunities. 

Response: There is a need to identify a minimum road system that would be responsive to recreation 

users as well as other management needs. Per the discussion of comments and responses in the Travel 

Management Rule (TMR), the availability of resources should be a consideration in designating 

routes for motor vehicle use; however, scarcity of resources should not lead to blanket closures of 

National Forest System lands to recreation users. 

The Tusayan Travel Analysis Process (TAP) was used to evaluate the existing road system for risks 

and values to resource management activities. Public input was included in the evaluation, and the 

result was the minimum road system identified as Alternative 2, the proposed action. 

Alternative 3 was generated in response this issue. It includes about 20 miles of additional roads that 

users identified as using in a motorized tour route around the District. 

2. Wildlife habitat and migration corridors will be negatively impacted unless a minimal road system 

is designated. 

Response: Alternatives 2 and 3 would prohibit motorized cross-country travel and would reduce road 

density from the existing condition. These actions would be beneficial for most wildlife species. 

The proposal from environmental groups to make the Wet Weather road system was reviewed, and 

preliminary analysis completed. The proposal was later discarded, see Chapter 2 alternatives 

eliminated from further analysis. 

The comments and response summary for scoping can be found in Appendix 2. 
Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for Tusayan Ranger District Travel 

Management. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also 

presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and 

providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. 

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

A no action alternative is required by regulation and is used as a baseline for comparison of 

alternatives. This alternative would not implement the new Travel Management Rule (TMR) nor 

fulfill the purpose and need. The no action alternative is the continuation of existing motor vehicle 

use on the Tusayan Ranger District (TRD). It would not restrict motor vehicle use or make any 

changes to the transportation system at this time. Cross-country motorized travel would continue to 

be allowed except in areas currently closed to vehicular travel (Red Butte and Coconino Rim); 

existing roads would remain open and unchanged. Dispersed camping and big-game retrieval would 

continue as currently managed. Resource damaged caused by motorized cross-country travel would 

continue and increase as off-highway vehicle (OHV) use increases, as would damage caused by unregulated dispersed camping. 

In the previous chapter, Figure 3 illustrates the existing road system. 

Items Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 

Motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited on the Tusayan Ranger District (TRD). Some 

vehicles and uses are exempt from the prohibitions of the designation process (36 CFR 212.51(a)) 

these are: (1) aircraft; (2) watercraft; (3) over-snow vehicles; (4) limited administrative used 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” (36 

CFR 212.51(a)(8)). 

Implementation of TMR will require active management of all motorized use, including that related 

to permitted grazing activities, special use authorizations, forestry program activities, timber sale 

contracts, and authorized administrative uses. Operating plans for permits will include specific 

instructions relating to TMR. All authorizations for cross-country motorized travel are subject to 

existing regulations intended to protect natural and/or heritage resources. This includes National 

Forest Wilderness (36 CFR 261.18), National Forest Primitive Areas (36 CFR 261.21) as well as 

other applicable laws and regulations. Authorized Forest Service use will also be limited to that use 

necessary for management of national forest system lands. Personnel will be encouraged to use the 

designated forest road system and refrain from motorized cross-country use whenever possible. 

All alternatives provide for dispersed camping and game retrieval. 
 Alternative 1 is the current management strategy of unrestricted motorized cross-country travel 

except at Red Butte and Coconino Rim closure areas. 

 Alternatives 2 and 3 allow for limited motorized vehicle use for dispersed camping and game 

retrieval per 36 CFR 212.51 (b): “In designated routes, the responsible official may include in the 

designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, 

and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or 

retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal.” 

Items Common to All Alternatives 

Dispersed Camping and Access for Dispersed Recreation 

No camping corridors or motorized routes to dispersed campsites will be located within 1⁄4 mile of a 

water source or in locations with heritage, soil/watershed, or rare plant concerns. 

1) Camping Corridors 

A dispersed campsite is a place where people cam that is not in a developed campground. 

Dispersed campsites do not have picnic tables or fire rings provided by the Forest Service, but 

may have rock fire rings built by a camper. To address the observed pattern of short-term camping 

use by Grand Canyon National Park visitors near State Highway 64 and along major forest road 

corridors, limited use of camping corridors will be employed. Where appropriate, allow camping 

in designated corridors where a vehicle may pull a maximum of 300 feet off a designated forest 

road to establish a dispersed camp. The preferred motorized travel within the corridor is the most 

direct route to the chosen camp site. Other travel within the corridor to search for or link 

campsites is discouraged. Corridors will be used in limited locations that are cleared for resource 

concerns. A designated corridor will be identified on the MVUM as well as by a marker 

indicating the start and end of the corridor. Individuals may choose their campsite within this 

corridor. 

 

Camping corridors are proposed along parts of forest roads 328, 302, 303, 306, 347, 688, 2703, 

2732, 304, 301, 2758, 310, 307, and 320. The corridors would include a maximum of 17 miles 

and resource impacts on approximately 618 acres. The final miles/acres of corridors is dependent 

upon completion of resource clearances, (some corridors or parts of corridors may be eliminated). 

2) Designate Routes to Access Dispersed Recreation Opportunities 

Designate short motorized routes to access dispersed recreation opportunities. About six miles of 

existing unauthorized routes would be added to the open road system. Existing motorized routes 

will be selected that correspond to the observed patterns of use by hunters, and forest users who 

participate in forest product gathering, camping, and other recreation opportunities. .The road 

segments, up to 300 feet long, may be used to park on for dispersed recreation such as camping or 

day-use activities. Existing routes will be used unless resource clearances identify these are 

unsuitable for this activity. Recent survey of the existing routes showed that only a few routes 

were longer than 300 feet, thus this distance was selected as the standard length. The designated 

segments would be shown on the MVUM, signed and included in the designated open road 

system. Resource impacts would impact a maximum of 32 acres (average 300 feet of road plus 

100 foot x 100 foot campsite). If all routes are designated, this would add approximately 6 miles 

of road to the designated system of open roads. The final number of acres disturbed is dependent 
upon completion of resource clearances (soils, wildlife, heritage), as some access routes may be 

eliminated. 

Figure 4 displays the proposed camping corridors and potential routes to be designated to access 

dispersed recreation opportunities. Both camping corridors and access to dispersed recreation are 

subject to review for resource concerns, and some locations may not be included on the 2009 motor 

vehicle use map. Corridors are highlighted in gray, and recreation access points are black dots. 

Figure 4. Locations of proposed camping corridors and recreation access routes.

Big Game Retrieval 

National Forests in the Southwestern Region provide hunting opportunities that are important to the 

public (see notice and comment results in Appendix 3). State agencies are responsible for managing 

big game within the capacity of the land. 

All authorizations for cross-country motorized big game retrieval are subject to other existing 

regulations including use of vehicles off roads (36CFR 261.15), National Forest Wilderness (36CFR 

261.18), and National Forest Primitive Areas (36CFR 261.21). 

In collaboration with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, cross country motorized big game 

retrieval on the Tusayan Ranger District is authorized for elk during elk hunting seasons. This 

authorization would help to meet the State big game harvest and management objectives, to avoid 

spoilage of meat, and to provide for State programs related to disabled hunters. 
The first option for hunters is to use the designated road system to get close enough to retrieve their 

animal without driving cross-country. Authorized cross country motorized big game retrieval is 

limited to those persons with a legally harvested and properly tagged animal. Those authorized 

should take one vehicle in a direct and safe route that minimizes resource effects when retrieving 

their harvested animal, and should take the minimum number of trips to accomplish retrieval. Hunters 

may travel for up to one mile from a designated route. Only one vehicle is allowed per harvested 

animal. Legally harvested elk may be retrieved during the legal elk hunting season and for 24 hours 

following the end of the specific season. Motorized game retrieval would not be authorized for any 

other hunts. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

The proposed action would remove about 163 miles of existing National Forest System (NFS) roads 

currently open to motorized travel. Per Arizona State law, travel on passenger car roads would be 

limited to registered vehicles and licensed operators. The high-clearance roads would be open to 

operators of non-highway-legal OHV as well as other motorized vehicles. Approximately 6 miles of 

unauthorized routes would be incorporated into the open road system in order to provide access for 

dispersed recreation. Motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited, except for exempt and 

permitted uses (see details under items common to action alternatives, page 27). 

Figure 5 illustrates the proposed road system as compared with the existing roads. Table 4 

summarizes road data for the proposed action. 
Figure 5. Proposed action road system open to motorized travel compared to existing roads.
Table 4. Proposed action road summary.

Status Approx. 

Miles of 

Road 

Percent of Total Existing Roads (709 mi.) 

NFS Designated Roads Remaining Open to 

Motorized Public Travel 

546 77% 

Roads for Administrative Use Only 163 23% 

Proposed Action Open Roads Miles of 

Road 

Percent of Proposed Action Roads (546 mi.) 

Passenger Car Roads Open to Public Travel 105 19% 

High Clearance Roads Open to Public Travel 455 83% 

Unauthorized Routes Status Miles of 

Road 

Percent Increase in FS Roads 

Miles Added for Recreation Access 6 1% 

Figure 6 illustrates the game retrieval opportunities for the proposed action with a simple one-mile 

buffer of the proposed action road system. Note that with the proposed one-mile vehicle access limit 

from the proposed road system; most of the district can be accessed for game retrieval. Existing area 

closures to motorized travel would continue along the Coconino Rim and at Red Butte; these areas 

would not be open to motorized game retrieval for elk. 
Figure 6. Proposed action motorized big game retrieval opportunities with one-mile road buffer.
Dispersed camping opportunities were shown in Figure 4 above. Camping corridors would provide 

camping opportunities along 17 miles of forest roads and about six miles of unauthorized routes 

would be added to the designated open road system to provide access for recreation activities. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would remove about 143 miles of the existing National Forest System (NFS) roads 

from public travel. It retains about 20 additional miles of open roads as compared to the proposed 

action. Per Arizona State law, the passenger car roads would be open to operators of registered OHV 

and other vehicles, and licensed drivers. The high clearance roads would be open to “non-highwaylegal” OHV, as well as other motorized vehicles. Approximately 6 miles of unauthorized routes 

would be incorporated into the open road system in order to provide access for recreation activities. 

Motorized cross-country travel would be prohibited, except for exempt and permitted uses (see 

details under items common to action alternatives, page 27) 

Figure 7 shows the road system for Alternative 3 as compared with the existing roads. Table 5 

provides the miles of proposed roads compared to the existing road system. 

Figure 7. Alternative 3 open road system compared to existing roads.
Table 5. Existing and Alternative 3 road systems comparison.

Status Miles of Road* Percent of Total Existing Roads 

(709 mi.) 

NFS Designated Roads Open to 

Motorized Travel 

566 80% 

Roads for Administrative Use Only 143 20% 

Alternative 3 Roads Open to Motorized 

Travel 

Miles of Road Percent of Alternative 3 Roads (566 

miles) 

Passenger Car Roads Open to Motorized 

Travel 

105 19% 

High Clearance Roads Open to 

Motorized Travel 

475 84% 

Unauthorized Road Status Miles of Road Percent Increase in FS Road 

System 

Miles Added for Recreation Access 6 1% 

* Numbers are approximate. 

Figure 8 illustrates the game retrieval opportunities for alternative 3 using a simple one-mile buffer of 

the Alternative 3 road system. Note that the one-mile driving limit from open roads for motorized 

game retrieval provides access from most of the district. Existing area closures to motorized travel 

would continue along the Coconino Rim and at Red Butte; these areas would not be open to 

motorized game retrieval for elk. 

Dispersed camping opportunities are the same as the proposed action shown in Figure 4 above. 

Camping corridors provide camping opportunities along 17 miles of forest roads and about six miles 

of unauthorized routes would be potentially added to the road system open to motorized travel to 

provide access for recreation activities. Dispersed camping corridors and routes for recreation access 

routes will be subject to resource surveys and only those areas that have no resource conflicts will be 

shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map. 
Figure 8. Alternative 3 big game retrieval opportunities with one-mile road buffer.
Comparison of Alternatives 

A comparison of the alternatives is presented in Table 6. Alternatives 2 and 3 would close the District 

to cross-country motorized travel. 

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives.

Status Alt 1 

(No Action) 

Alt 2 

(Proposed Action) 

Alt 3 

(Increased Roads) 

Miles of Roads Open to 

Motorized Travel 709 546 566 

Percent of Existing 

Roads 100% 77% 80% 

Miles of Roads for 

Administrative Use Only 0 163% 143% 

Percent of Existing 

Roads 0% 23% 20% 

Miles of Routes Added 

to Open Road System N/A 6 6 

Percent Increase from 

Routes Added to Open 

Road System 

N/A 1% 1% 

Information by Vehicle Type 

Miles of Passenger Car 

Roads by Alternative 105 105 105 

Miles of High Clearance 

Roads by Alternative 604 441 461 

(Mileages are approximate) 

Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 

Local environmental groups proposed a road system that would designate the Forest Service Wet 

Weather road system as the open road system. The district scoped this alternative in 2006 and began 

preliminary analysis in 2007. The alternative was dropped from further analysis when it was 

determined it would not provide required access to private land parcels, and that it did not complying 

with the Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR part 212.5, which requires that Forests identify the 

minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and 

protection. Resource management concerns with potential designation of the wet weather road system 

were identified for recreation, fire, and vegetation management. The wet weather road system would 

remove about 85 percent of forest roads. Many recreation sites would not have road access, the 

spectrum of recreation opportunities would no longer follow the Forest Plan guidance, response time 

for fire suppression would be reduced, and future vegetation management activities would require 

more miles of road reconstruction and temporary road construction. The interdisciplinary team was 

also concerned that the proposed road system would concentrate all users on less than 100 miles of 

roads, and that user conflicts would increase. 

Another alternative was considered that would convert about 20 miles of forest roads removed from 

the designated road system to a motorized trail system. This would require construction of about 4 

miles of new trail to connect the roads to form a loop system. This alternative was dropped from 
further consideration since the roads proposed for conversion to motorized trails were initially 

removed from the system due to sensitive soils and had high concern for soil erosion. Changing from 

road to motorized trail would not have modified the uses that are causing the resource impacts (soil 

erosion and sedimentation and negative impacts to watershed). In addition, when the transportation 

and recreation specialists reviewed the miles of high clearance roads that are currently open to OHV 

riders, they found at least 455 miles of roads (depending upon the alternative) that could be used by 

OHV and other motorized users. High clearance roads provide a range of riding opportunities from 

challenging to easy, and many loop routes could be identified. 

Monitoring Implemented For All Alternatives 

• Monitor camping corridors and routes to dispersed recreation. If damage at a site exceeds limits 

of acceptable change principles developed for TMR, consider closing or relocating corridors or 

routes with a new planning project. 

• Monitor the proposed road system identified for administrative use and determine if there are 

roads that could be decommissioned in future planning projects. 

• Dispersed camping corridors and cross country elk retrieval areas will be monitored 

periodically for ruts, erosion, sedimentation of water bodies, and excessive damage to 

vegetation from motor vehicle use. This monitoring will occur in conjunction with other 

project or management activities, including enforcement of the Wet Weather Roads Policy. 

o If soil damage and/or excessive damage to vegetation are discovered, the Forest 

Service may temporarily or permanently close specific dispersed camping corridors or 

cross country elk retrieval areas to motorized vehicle use. All temporary or permanent 

closure proposals will follow the required NEPA process. 

• Open roads, closed roads, and dispersed camping routes will be monitored periodically for 

ruts, erosion, or sedimentation of water bodies. This monitoring will occur in conjunction 

with other project or management activities, including enforcement of the Wet Weather Roads 

Policy. 

o If road damage, erosion, or sedimentation of water bodies is discovered, the Forest 

Service may repair or upgrade the roads and routes. Temporary or permanent closures 

of roads or dispersed camping routes may be necessary. Decommissioning of closed 

roads (i.e. block access rip compaction, re-vegetate) may be necessary. All closure or 

decommissioning proposals will follow the required NEPA process. 

• Staff will continue to do annual invasive exotic weed inventory and monitoring in conjunction 

with other project or management activities. Areas targeted for weed surveys will include all 

roads, unauthorized routes, and dispersed camping corridors and routes. 

o If weed populations are discovered, the Forest Service may temporarily close specific 

roads, dispersed camping corridors, dispersed camping routes, or cross country elk 

retrieval areas to motorized vehicle use, until the weeds are controlled. All temporary 

closure proposals will follow the required NEPA process. 
• The impact of current roads on known rare plant populations will be monitored periodically. 

At this time, only the Forest Service Sensitive plants Tusayan rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus 

molestus) and Arizona leatherflower (Clematis hirsutissima var. hirsutissima) have been found 

along roads on the Tusayan District. Surveys for new populations of rare plants will be 

conducted periodically in conjunction with other project and management work in the area. 

Any newly discovered populations of rare plants found along roads or unauthorized routes 

(including new routes created by big game retrieval) will be monitored periodically for 

adverse effects. 

o If rare plant populations are discovered, the Forest Service may close specific roads, 

dispersed camping corridors, dispersed camping routes, or cross country elk retrieval 

areas to motorized vehicle use. Road or area closures or road decommissioning may 

be needed if motorized vehicle travel is harming or has the potential to harm rare 

plants. All closure proposals will follow the required NEPA process. 

• The Kaibab National Forest will conduct an extensive floristic survey of the Upper and Lower 

Basins within the next few years. The objective of the survey will be to determine whether 

any populations of Fickeisen pincushion cactus, Kaibab pincushion cactus, or other rare plant 

species occur in this area. If any populations are discovered, they will be monitored 

periodically. 

o Fickeisen pincushion cactus survey – This survey will focus mostly on the Lower 

Basin (north and east of HWY 64) or other areas below 6000 feet in elevation. 

Potential habitat includes rocky areas and shallow soils within sagebrush and semidesert grassland/shrub vegetation types. 

o Kaibab pincushion cactus survey – This survey will focus on level to gentle slopes 

within semi-desert grassland/shrub, sagebrush, grassland, pinyon-juniper woodland, 

and lower ponderosa pine forest vegetation types. 

 If Fickeisen pincushion cactus or Kaibab pincushion cactus plants are 

discovered, the Forest Service may close specific roads, dispersed camping 

corridors, dispersed camping routes, or cross country elk retrieval areas to 

motorized vehicle use. Road or area closures or road decommissioning may be 

needed if motorized vehicle travel is harming or has the potential to harm rare 

plants. All closure proposals will follow the required NEPA process. 

Standard Mitigation Measures 

• Cross-country travel for the purposes of dispersed camping and tagged elk retrieval is 

prohibited when it will result in soil damage (e.g. ruts, erosion, and sedimentation of water 

bodies) or excessive damage to vegetation (e.g. removal of vegetative cover, broken shrub and 

tree branches, dead plants). 

• Implement Appendix B “Design Features, Best Management Practices, and Mitigation 

Measures” in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious 

or Invasive Weeds on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, 
Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona” (2004). Practices specific to this project 

include: 

o Forest Service workers, permittees, and contractors will avoid driving or parking within 

populations of invasive exotic weeds. 

o If administrative work is required within invasive exotic weed populations, control the 

weeds before work begins. Controlling the weeds means at least removing all above 

ground plant parts and seeds that could be spread by project activities. Wash all vehicles 

and equipment on site before moving to another area. 

o Control populations of invasive exotic weeds in all areas. 

• Avoid designating camping corridors in these areas due to rare plant concerns: 

o FR 302 – Section 29 

o FR 303 – Section 28 

o FR 310 – Sections 1 and 12 

• Avoid designating camping corridors in these areas due to soils/watershed concerns: 

o FR 302 – Section 18 

o FR 303 – all Sections 

o FR 305 – Section 1 

o FR 306 – Sections 34 and 35 

o FR 310 – Sections 1 and 12 

o FR 328 – all Sections 

o FR 347 – Section 35 west of second drainage 

Comparison of Effects (Summary) 

The results of the effects analysis in chapter 3 are summarized in the table below. 

Table 7. Summary of effects for Tusayan travel management planning by resource area.

Environmental 

Effect 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Transportation 709 miles of open forest 

roads. 

1/7 of roads maintained 

each year. 

No progress toward 

minimal road system. 

546 miles of open forest 

roads. 

1/5 of roads maintained each 

year. 

Progress toward minimal road 

system. 

566 miles of open forest 

roads. 

1/5 of roads maintained 

each year. 

Progress toward minimal 

road system. 

Recreation and 

Scenery 

Few restrictions on 

motorized dispersed 

recreation; most of the 

district is open to motorized 

travel. 

Cross-country motorized 

Approx. 650 acres of 

dispersed camping corridors 

and routes to dispersed 

recreation are provided. 

Cross-country motorized 

travel is prohibited, improving 

Approx. 650 acres of 

dispersed camping 

corridors and routes to 

dispersed recreation. 

Cross-country motorized 

travel is prohibited, 
travel becomes more wide 

spread across the 

landscape as does the 

resource damage from it 

increases. This decreases 

scenic integrity. 

Intrusions and damage in 

inventoried roadless area 

and semi-primitive nonmotorized area increases 

with higher OHV use. 

scenic integrity and reducing 

problems with vehicle 

intrusion in inventoried 

roadless areas and semiprimitive non-motorized areas 

improving scenic integrity 

and reducing problems with 

vehicle intrusion in 

inventoried roadless areas 

and semi-primitive nonmotorized areas. More 

opportunities for motorized 

recreation. 

Soils and 

Watershed 

Most areas of high 

erodibility and damage to 

watershed from crosscountry motorized travel. 

Highest potential for fugitive 

dust and contribution to 

lowered air quality. 

Cross-country motorized 

travel is prohibited reducing 

motorized vehicle damage. 

Some areas of high erodibility 

are removed from the 

designated road system. 

There is less damage to the 

watershed from motorized 

travel. 

Reduced potential for fugitive 

dust and less contribution to 

lowered air quality. 

Cross-country motorized 

travel is prohibited reducing 

motorized vehicle damage. 

Some areas of high 

erodibility are removed from 

the designated road 

system. There is less 

damage to the watershed 

from motorized travel. 

Reduced potential for 

fugitive dust and less 

contribution to lowered air 

quality. 

Wildlife Negative for habitat quality. 

Positive for population 

management. 

Increased habitat quality. 

Slightly negative for 

population management. 

Increased habitat quality. 

Slightly negative for 

population management. 

Sensitive Plants Most negative alternative 

because of damage from 

motorized cross country 

travel. 

Damage to plants from crosscountry travel is reduced. 

Damage from recreation 

activities near roads is 

reduced through designation 

of camping corridors and 

limited adoption of 

unauthorized routes for 

recreation access. 

Damage to plants from 

cross-country travel is 

reduced. Damage from 

recreation activities near 

roads is reduced through 

designation of camping 

corridors and limited 

adoption of unauthorized 

routes for recreation 

access. 

Invasive Weeds The existing road system 

remains the same and 

motorized cross country 

travel is allowed, both 

contribute to the spread of 

noxious weeds. No 

improvement with this 

alternative. 

Some improvement in 

reducing the spread of 

noxious weeds due to fewer 

miles of roads. 

Slightly less improvement in 

reducing the spread of 

noxious weeds due to fewer 

miles of roads. 
Heritage Negative to cultural sites 

primarily from unrestricted 

motorized cross country 

travel. Limited ability to 

manage cultural sites due 

to unrestricted dispersed 

camping and game 

retrieval. 

Most cross country motorized 

travel is eliminated. 

Dispersed camping is limited 

to areas with no heritage 

sites. Motorized game 

retrieval is restricted to elk in 

elk seasons; reducing 

potential damage to cultural 

sites. 

Most cross country 

motorized travel is 

eliminated. Dispersed 

camping is limited to areas 

with no heritage sites. 

Motorized game retrieval is 

restricted to elk in elk 

seasons; reducing potential 

damage to cultural sites. 

Range Neutral Slight positive range 

resources. 

Slightly less positive range 

resources. 

Vegetation Mgt No direct or indirect No direct or indirect No direct or indirect 

Fire/Fuels Negative for suppression 

since unauthorized routes 

and cross country travel 

may increase fire starts. 

Wildland fire use is less 

effective because of 

number of roads. 

Neutral to positive for fire 

suppression with motorized 

cross country use prohibited; 

wildland fire use improves 

some since there are fewer 

roads in the open road 

system. 

Slightly less positive for 

suppression and wildland 

fire use than Alt. 2. 

Economic/Social No effects since the 

existing roads and 

motorized cross country 

use continue. 

Fewer roads are open to 

motorized travel, but they 

may be better maintained. 

There are still opportunities to 

access the forest for 

recreation including hunting. 

Fewer roads are open to 

motorized travel, but they 

may be better maintained. 

There are still opportunities 

to access the forest for 

recreation including 

hunting. 
Chapter 3 - Environmental Effects 

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected 

project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the 

alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of effects of 

alternatives presented in the charts above. 

Transportation 

There are over 800 miles of existing roads and routes crossing the TRD (a complete list of the roads 

is found in the Tusayan Ranger District Travel Analysis Process). The Forest Service has jurisdiction 

and maintenance responsibility for the forest road system. In addition to the existing forest roads, 

there are unauthorized routes on the National Forest that are not part of the forest road system and are 

not maintained by the agency. See the glossary at the end of the document for definitions. 

Roads evaluated in this analysis are the existing National Forest System passenger car and high 

clearance roads, and any unauthorized routes added to the proposed road system. Forest roads are 

maintained at five different maintenance levels. The maintenance levels (ML) used to classify roads 

range from ML 1 indicating a closed road, ML 2 are high clearance roads, ML 3, 4 and 5 are roads 

suitable for passenger cars. 

There are about 105 miles of passenger car roads on TRD and 604 miles of high clearance roads. 

There are paved forest roads at the Tusayan Administrative site and at Ten-X Campground. The 

passenger car roads provide the primary access points to the District. These roads typically have a 

crushed aggregate surface composed of limestone or volcanic material. Some roads have culverts at 

drainage or watercourse crossings, but due to the xeric environment, most crossings do not have 

culverts. Most of the remaining forest roads are classified as high clearance roads, these are unpaved, 

and are constructed, native-surface roads. 

 Of the 709 miles of forest roads on the district, about 100 miles receive maintenance annually; 

mostly passenger car roads. The current forest road density on the District is approximately 1.4 miles 

of roads per square mile of land. 

Costs of Road Maintenance 

Road maintenance is currently performed on passenger car roads more frequently than on high 

clearance roads. The passenger car roads have higher standards that must be met and are more 

expensive to maintain. Maintenance on high clearance roads is less costly because they are only 

maintained for passage by high clearance vehicles and are not subject to the Highway Safety Act. 

About 100 miles of maintenance is completed on the District each year. Since only a limited number 

of roads can be maintained due to available funds, emphasis is placed on keeping the passenger roads 

to standard. Very little road maintenance can be achieved on high clearance roads because of limited 

funds. The costs to maintain roads vary by maintenance level road requirements, gas prices, haul 
distances and other variables. Table 8 summarizes the costs of maintenance for the different 

alternatives based on local costs (O’Brien 2008). 

Table 8. Road maintenance costs by alternative.

Measure Alt 1 (No Action) Alt 2 (Proposed Action) Alternative 3 

Miles of high 

clearance roads 630 455 475 

Cost of Annual 

Maintenance per 

Mile $230 $230 $230 

Subtotal ML 2 $144,900 $104,650 $109,250 

Miles of ML 3 

(passenger car 

roads) 

105 103 103 

Cost per mile for 

annual 

maintenance 

$3,435 $3,435 $3,435 

Subtotal ML 3 $360,675 $353,805 $353,805 

Miles ML 4 

(passenger car 

roads) 

2 2 2 

Cost per mile for 

annual 

maintenance $2,638 $2,638 $2,638 

Subtotal ML 4 $5,276 $5,276 $5,276 

Total Cost of 

Road System by 

Alternative 

$510,851 $463,731 $468,331 

The annual roads budget for the KNF in 2005 was $920,000. The existing Tusayan Ranger District 

road system represents about 20 percent of the total roads on the forest. If the District receives about 

20 percent of the roads budget, or $184,000, only about 20 percent of the needed annual maintenance 

is performed each year depending upon the alternative. 

Minimum Road System 

The minimum road system must be identified. It is the road system needed for safe and efficient 

travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands (36 CFR 

212.5b). The minimum road system is that which is needed to meet resource and other management 

objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR part 219), laws and 

regulations, long-term funding expectations, and minimizes adverse environmental impacts. The 
desired minimum road system attempts to balance these elements and make progress toward a 

sustainable road system. 

Unauthorized Routes 

Currently the Tusayan Ranger District is open to cross-country travel except in areas administratively 

closed to vehicular travel (Kaibab National Forest Management Plan 2008). Approximately 9,695 

acres or three percent of the Tusayan District is administratively closed to motorized cross country 

travel. These closed areas are the Coconino Rim and Red Butte. Both areas are categorized as semiprimitive non-motorized in the Forest Plan Recreation Opportunity Spectrum mapping and 

guidelines. In addition the Coconino Rim is an Inventoried Roadless Area. These areas will retain 

their closures regardless of the decision for this document.

The district inventoried (2005 data) about 166 miles of unauthorized routes that are not not part of the 

National Forest System road system and are not maintained by the forest. Many of the routes were 

created by users traveling cross-country along the same pathways. Forest Service employees have 

noted a substantial increase in the number of people who are using OHV’s and portable geographic 

positioning system devices to facilitate the collection of deer and elk antler sheds in the late winter 

and early spring (Stahn 2008). District personnel have reported antler hunters crisscrossing the 

District in a grid system collecting antlers. There are also OHV riders in the Tusayan, AZ area, that 

have also created their own short motorized trail systems. 

OHV use can damage forest resources, disturb wildlife, and can impact forest visitors seeking a quiet 

and secluded recreation experience in the forest due to the noise and increase in dust that they create. 

A recent study has concluded that OHV traffic can adversely affect natural resources regardless of the 

type and equipment on the individual vehicle (USDA Forest Service, 2008). The study looked at the 

effects of cross-country travel and user-created trails. It found vegetation was reduced by a minimum 

of 40 percent and was often completely eliminated as a result of repeated OHV traffic at the seven 

test sites (located in different vegetation types across the country). Soils were compacted, displaced 

or loosened, making them available for erosion by water. The ability of soil to absorb rainfall was 

reduced by half, while soil erosion was increased by more than a half. It was also found that OHV 

can cause significant amounts of dust. Low volumes of riders could generate dust loads greater than 

150 micrograms per cubic meter. As the volume of riders increases, the dust concentrations could 

move into the unhealthful range in forested locations where air circulation is inhibited. Two other 

results from the study indicated that sport-model OHV (lighter weight vehicles) cause as much 

disturbance as utility model vehicles (heavier weight vehicles). 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would prohibit use of almost all unauthorized routes except those added to the 

National Forest System of roads to provide access to dispersed recreation activities (approximately 6 

miles). 

Wet Weather Travel Policy 

In unusually wet years, when deep snow or saturated soils raise concerns for public safety and/or road 

and resource damage from motorized vehicles, wet weather travel restrictions are implemented. 

Based on site-specific ground conditions, an official order implementing the wet weather road system 
is signed by the District Ranger authorizing the restrictions. As soon as conditions allow, the 

restrictions are lifted by the District Ranger. Forest visitors are informed of travel restrictions in the 

Forest through signs that read, “Entering wheeled motorized restriction area. Use only roads and 

trails shown on official map.” A second sign shows the map of open routes. Notice and maps are also 

available on the KNF website when the wet weather emergency road closures are in effect, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/ . When travel restrictions are in place, motorized travelers are required to 

stay on those designated routes until the soils dry out. Cross-country travel is prohibited in all cases 

when these restrictions are in place. 

The wet weather travel policy is implemented on an as-needed basis in order to be responsive to 

conditions in the Forest. Wet weather travel policy is not a part of the Tusayan Ranger District Travel 

Management NEPA analysis; it will continue to be used by District Rangers in response to road 

conditions. The roads identified in the wet weather travel policy are part of the designated system of 

roads for public travel in all alternatives. 

Climate Change 

The Southwestern Regional Office planning program has summarized some ecological and 

socioeconomic effects of climate change (Periman 2008). The following is an excerpt of the 

information. 

The state of knowledge needed to address climate change at the forest scale is still evolving. Most 

global climate models are not yet suitable to apply to land management at the forest scale. This limits 

regional analysis of potential effects especially for a specific project. At a more local scale, 

paleoenvironmental studies of changing southwestern climate may provide limited historical 

ecological context for ecosystem variability and climate change. These can provide limited 

knowledge about past climate change, patterns of precipitation, drought severity and changes in 

vegetation patterns. 

Climate modelers general agree that the Southwestern United States is experiencing a drying tend 

that will continue into the later part of 21st century. In the recent past, two droughts occurred, one in 

the 1930’s Dustbowl and one in the 1950’s Southwestern Drought. Climate model scenarios suggest 

the warming trend observed in the last 100 years may continue into the next century with the greatest 

warming occurring during the winter. Some climate models predict 2-3 degree temperature changes 

in the next 20 years. Such temperature changes could result in limited water supplies, alter fire 

regimes, and influence the distribution and abundance of animal and plant species. 

Some potential ecological implications of climate change trends include: 

• More extreme disturbance events such as wildfires, intense rain and wind events. 

• Greater vulnerability to invasive species. 

• Long term shifts in vegetative patterns, such as cold-tolerant vegetation moving upslope or 

disappearing in some areas. 

• Changes in wildlife populations, diversity, viability and migration patterns. 

Potential socioeconomic effects include: 
• Water shortages. 

• Changes in the viability and productivity of rangeland plants. 

• Impact on amenities, goods and services from forests. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

The no action alternative represents the existing condition. It provides almost 709 miles of open 

national forest system roads at different maintenance levels. It is most costly for road maintenance, 

and less than 30 percent of the road system can be maintained annually. The majority of the roads are 

not maintained annually and this creates a backlog of needed maintenance referred to as deferred 

maintenance. Most maintenance is accomplished on the passenger car roads because these must meet 

higher standards for health and safety. When these higher standard roads cannot be sufficiently 

maintained, the road surface breaks down, and the roads become impassable to passenger cars. It 

takes more resources to bring a road back to standard that has been neglected because of a lack of 

maintenance. While some roads are maintained, the majority become less passable and increasingly 

contribute to resource damage. This alternative would not make progress toward the minimal road 

system, does not minimize environmental impacts, does not reduce road maintenance costs, and does 

not implement the Travel Management Rule. 

The existing unauthorized routes would remain, and additional routes would likely be created as 

antler shed collectors continue their activities, dispersed campers create new campsites, and fuel 

wood gatherers drive farther back from the edge of roads as the available dead trees are removed. 

While road funding could be used to close unauthorized routes, it is unlikely that substantive amounts 

would allocated to this use when road maintenance needs continue to increase. 

Dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval would continue per the existing condition. State 

projections indicate there will be some increase in the amount of OHV riders, camping, hiking and 

other activities (see Recreation section). The District has observed cross country driving for antler 

shed collection and hunters drive cross-country to scout for animals and retrieve game during hunting 

seasons. This motorized cross-country travel contributes to resource damage especially when soils are 

wet and the vehicles cause rutting resulting in loss of vegetation and increased erosion. The following 

photo was taken during the 2008 fall hunting season, and illustrates the type of damage observed on 

the District. 

This alternative has the greatest potential for negative impacts to resources from climate change. It 

retains the greatest number of roads and allows motorized cross-country use and unauthorized routes 

created from this use. Damage to resources from motorized cross-country use would be exasperated 

by climate change especially drought. Repeated traffic along unauthorized routes results in loss of 

plant cover and the potential for soil erosion. If predictions for increasing OHV use and dispersed 

camping (see Recreation section) occur, there could be increased areas of bare ground that are 

vulnerable to soil movement. Bare soil is also more vulnerable to spread of invasive exotic plants.

 
Figure 9 . Cross-country motorized damage during 2008 hunting season.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

The proposed action provides 546 miles of open national forest system roads at different maintenance 

levels. It would remove about 163 miles of existing roads from the road system and these would be 

for administrative use only. Road maintenance costs are less than in Alternative 1 and about 40 

percent of the roads could be maintained annually. This alternative reduces the number of roads while 

providing adequate access for resource management, recreation activities, and reducing annual road 

maintenance costs. 

Motorized travel on the majority of unauthorized routes would be prohibited. About 6 miles of 

unauthorized routes would be added to the designated road system providing access to dispersed 

recreation activities. Dispersed camping corridors would be designated along approximately 17 miles 

of roads. No more than 650 acres would be disturbed as a result of all dispersed camping and access 

for recreation activities. It is anticipated that slightly fewer acres will be disturbed when resource 

surveys are completed because some locations will not be designated for these uses. 

This alternative closes the district to motorized cross-country travel. This will result in substantial 

reductions in damage to resources. Motorized game retrieval, limited to the elk seasons would be 

authorized, it is anticipated there would still be isolated occurrences of resource damage. 
This alternative reduces the potential for negative impacts to resources from climate change. It retains 

about 20 percent fewer roads and prohibits motorized cross-country use and travel on 160 miles of 

unauthorized routes. Although damage to resources from motorized cross-country use would be 

exasperated by climate change especially drought, this alternative restricts such travel to designated 

camping corridors and limited use by hunters to retrieve legally downed elk during elk seasons.. 

Repeated traffic along unauthorized routes results in loss of plant cover and the potential for soil 

erosion would be reduced. If predictions for increasing OHV use and dispersed camping (see 

Recreation section) occur, there would be decreased areas of bare ground that are vulnerable to soil 

movement. Fewer areas of bare soil created by motorized cross-country travel would be created that 

are vulnerable to spread of invasive exotic plants.

Alternative 3 

This alternative provides about 566 miles of open national forest system roads at different 

maintenance levels. It would remove about 143 miles from the open road system. Road maintenance 

costs are less than Alternative 1. About 39 percent of the forest roads could be maintained annually. 

Twenty more miles of high clearance roads would be retained, increasing maintenance costs slightly, 

as well as increasing the deferred maintenance burden by an additional four percent. This alternative 

reduces the number of roads while providing adequate access for resource management and 

recreation activities, and makes progress toward reducing road maintenance costs. 

The effects of dispersed camping and motorized game retrieval are the same as Alternative 2. 

This alternative reduces the potential for negative impacts to resources from climate change. It retains 

about 19 percent fewer roads and prohibits motorized cross-country use and travel on 160 miles of 

unauthorized routes. Although damage to resources from motorized cross-country use would be 

exasperated by climate change especially drought, this alternative restricts such travel to designated 

camping corridors and limited use by hunters to retrieve legally downed elk during elk seasons.. 

Repeated traffic along unauthorized routes results in loss of plant cover and the potential for soil 

erosion would be reduced. If predictions for increasing OHV use and dispersed camping (see 

Recreation section) occur, there would be decreased areas of bare ground that are vulnerable to soil 

movement. Fewer areas of bare soil created by motorized cross-country travel would be created that 

are vulnerable to spread of invasive exotic plants.

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area consists of the Tusayan Ranger District, and the time period is 

1998 to 2018. 

Past, ongoing, planned, and foreseeable projects and activities in the cumulative effects analysis area 

that effect transportation include: timber and fuel wood harvesting, forest thinning, grassland 

restoration tree removal, sagebrush restoration, prescribed burning, livestock grazing, fence 

construction, water tank construction and maintenance, invasive weed control, recreational activities 

(e.g. motorized cross-country vehicle and OHV use), dispersed camping, horseback riding, mountain 

biking, hiking, hunting), trail construction, road use and maintenance, mineral exploration and 

possible mining, pipeline and possible transmission line construction and maintenance. 

 
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have increasingly negative cumulative effects. Fewer miles of 

existing national forest system roads would be maintained and more miles of road would become 

impassable. Resource damage would increase from existing roads on sensitive soils resulting in 

increased erosion and sedimentation, as well as from the resource damage such as loss of vegetation 

and increased erosion from motorized cross-country use. These would be compounded by permitted 

uses, mineral exploration, pipeline and transmission line use and maintenance. This alternative has 

the most potential to have effects magnified by climate change. The overall cumulative effects of not 

implementing TMR would result in a downward trend. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) will have a positive effect for transportation. It 

would close some existing roads that have drainage issues and would prohibit motorized crosscountry use. More miles of road would be maintained. Resource damage would be reduced compared 

to the existing condition. There would be an adequate system of roads to provide for forest 

management activities. Based on the road closures and prohibition on cross-country motorized use, 

there is a reduced effect on resources as a result of climate change. The net cumulative effect of 

implementing TMR and other natural events will result in a positive trend. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2. There would be a slightly reduced 

positive trend with this alternative. 

Recreation and Scenic Resources 

Affected Environment 

Recreation and scenic resources are related. High-quality scenery and unique scenic resources are 

important to recreationists and are an integral part of high-quality recreational settings. Highly 

attractive and scenic landscapes, and high quality recreational facilities and attractions can be 

important to quality of life. They also contribute to the success and growth of a vibrant tourism 

industry, thus contributing to the local economy. A challenge for recreation managers is to address the 

needs and expectations of forest users while protecting the land’s health and scenic resources. 

Motorized Recreation Opportunities 

Since this is a motorized travel management project, discussion will focus on motorized recreation 

opportunities. Forest roads provide opportunities to access developed recreation sites, trailheads, 

dispersed camping areas, day-use areas and points of interest. They also are used for commercial 

operations including logging, ranching, mining, outfitting and guiding services, and to access 

electronic sites, and private land. Viewing scenery, wildlife, and touring along Forest roads are highly 

desired recreation activities. The Tusayan Ranger District (TRD) forest roads are heavily used 

seasonally by hunters. Road use is moderate by woodcutters and for gathering forest products, and 

relatively light by other forest users. There are approximately 709 miles of forest roads on the TRD. 

The majority of these are available to OHV riders. There is one designated motorized route, the 

approximately 20 mile Great Western Trail segment which crosses the District utilizing existing 

forest roads. 

Motorized travel has changed over time on the district. In the past, the typical vehicles used on forest 

roads would have included passenger cars, pickups and other standard-sized vehicles. There was less 
travel off-road, although it did occur for activities such as fuel wood gathering and game retrieval. 

More recently off-highway vehicle (including four-wheel drive vehicles, motorcycles and moto-cross 

single-wheel vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, and utility terrain vehicles, such as Polaris Ranger, a cross 

between a truck and OHV) use has increased dramatically. 

Motorized cross-country use has increased. District personnel have noted that OHV and geographic 

positioning system devices are increasingly used to facilitate antler shed collecting. The value of 

antlers has increased as they may be sold for decorative uses. The collectors grid the district on 

motorized vehicles to find antler sheds and this activity, especially when repeated year after year, is 

resulting in damage to vegetation and creation of unauthorized routes. OHV are also used for game 

scouting, hunting and game retrieval. Some resource damage occurs each year from this use. The 

Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) estimates that about nine 

percent of Arizona’s residents participate in OHV riding (Arizona State Parks 2008). These same 

residents expect to increase their OHV activities in coming years, indicating that they would like to 

increase their OHV riding by 24%. TRD has experienced limited increases in recreational OHV 

driving and a few user-created OHV “tracks” on national forest system land have been discovered 

near the town of Tusayan. 

Many OHV riders enjoy using Forest Service roads. The Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan reports many OHV users ride 50 miles in one day (Arizona State Parks 2008). 

Arizona State law allows Licensed, highway-legal riders/vehicles can ride on maintained roads, 

(passenger car roads), as well as high clearance forest roads. Non-highway-legal vehicles can only be 

ridden on high clearance forest roads. There are currently over 500 miles of high clearance forest 

roads. OHV riders have many opportunities for loop routes on these roads as well as different levels 

of road condition and challenge. 

The Tusayan Ranger District has national forest system roads distributed throughout the District that 

provide access to National Forest System lands. In some areas there are parallel roads within onequarter to one-half of a mile of each other going to roughly the same place. Redundant roads provide 

little additional benefit and can potentially result in negative impacts to scenery, limit wildlife 

viewing opportunities, and decrease visitor satisfaction. The total miles of roads and number of road 

segments on the District could be reduced, while still providing for adequate access to recreation 

opportunities even with projected OHV riding increases. 

Hunting 

Hunting is one of the important recreation opportunities on the TRD. Hunters come to the TRD to 

scout and hunt for big game animals. The hunters are important to the economy of Tusayan, where 

many purchase supplies, dine, and stay at hotels. In addition, some hunters use outfitter-guide 

services for their hunting expeditions. Nation-wide research shows that hunting is declining as a 

recreation activity. Arizona State Game and Fish research also shows this trend as indicated by 

declines or stagnation in hunting license sales (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2005). Even with 

declining numbers, hunting is a valued recreation activity and locally important for the economy. 

Hunting expenditures contribute almost $12 million annually to Coconino County (Silberman, 2001). 
Hunting and trapping activities are facilitated by the existing road system. Roads make it easier to 

access much of the forest and distribute hunting activities over a greater area. The roads facilitate 

access for sportsmen with disabilities. 

The Travel Management Rule affects access to National Forests for people with disabilities. Under 

section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied participation 

in a federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her disability. In 

conformance with section 504, wheelchairs are welcome on all National Forest System (NFS) lands 

that are open to foot travel and are specifically exempted from the definition of motor vehicle in 

§212.1 of the final rule, even if they are battery powered. However, there is no legal requirement to 

allow people with disabilities to use OHV or other motor vehicles on roads, trails, or areas closed to 

motor vehicle use because such an exemption could fundamentally alter the nature of the Forest 

Service’s travel management program (7 CFR 15e.103). 

Motorized big game retrieval is proposed for all elk seasons. It is estimated that currently there are a 

total of 478 to 540 motorized big game retrievals (elk, deer, and pronghorn) each year on the Tusayan 

District. The majority of those estimated big game retrievals are for elk, which would still be allowed 

under Alternatives 2 and 3. Motorized big game retrieval for elk would only authorized for hunters 

taking a relatively direct and safe route that minimizes resource effects, using a minimum number of 

trips to accomplish game retrieval. 

Dispersed Camping and Recreation Access 

One of the traditional and most popular uses of National Forest System lands has been for dispersed 

or throw-down camping in locations chosen by the forest user. (This is in contrast to camping at a 

developed campground such as Ten-X Campground, where amenities such as restrooms, water, and 

picnic tables and cooking grills are provided.) Dispersed camping is an important use of the District, 

and for many people is an inherent part of their recreation expectations and experience. The 2005 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project for the Kaibab National Forest indicated that in the 

approximately 224,600 Forest visits, 13.7 percent of users camped in developed campgrounds, and 

13.2 percent engaged in primitive camping (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Camping in designated 

Wilderness or semi-primitive non-motorized areas where vehicles are currently prohibited would not 

change, and are not subject to the Travel Management Rule. 

From simple car camping with tents to trailers to RVs, motorized dispersed camping is desirable for 

many people and the demand for this type of motor-based recreational use is increasing. In most 

instances dispersed camping occurs in areas that are along main Forest roads, some of which are 

close to recreation opportunities such as scenic views, trails, and water. Most camping occurs within 

a few hundred feet of open roads. As a result of repeated use, dispersed campsites often have less 

vegetation and/or bare ground and one or more rock fire rings constructed by campers. Existing sites 

are readily apparent to the casual Forest visitor and are likely to continue to be “found” and used by 

future campers. Figure 12 illustrates typical dispersed camping use. 
Figure 10. Dispersed camping on the Kaibab National Forest (2007).

District recreation managers have noted two general patterns of recreation activities on the TRD: 1) 

those who are camping en route to Grand Canyon National Park, pulling off the highway and 

camping overnight on National Forest System lands adjacent to existing roads (short-term stays); and 

2) those who are hunting, gathering Forest products, or engaging in other recreation activities on the 

District, who drive farther out on the District and pull off the forest road a short distance to set up a 

dispersed camp or spend the day (McCurry, 2007). 

Much of the summer recreation use is associated with dispersed camping and day use activities like 

hiking. Fall recreation use is often associated with hunting activities and forest products gathering. 

Hunting camps can vary from a single camper to multiple hunters and vehicles/trailers camping 

together. 

User Conflicts 

The trend toward motorized recreation activities has increased in recent years. For some users, the 

natural quiet associated with dispersed camping is desired and the noise and dust associated with 

motorized vehicles is disagreeable. Conflicts are increasing between recreationists engaging in 

motorized recreation activities and non-motorized activities (including hunting). Some hunters have 

also voiced concerns that OHV riders scare away game and reduce hunting opportunities. The TRD 

currently has two locations where motorized activities are restricted, Red Butte and the Coconino 

Rim. 

Motorized Mixed Use 

Designation of Forest roads for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles is termed 

“motorized mixed use”. Many motorized users enjoy driving and riding roads throughout the District. 
Mixed-use becomes a safety concern especially when unlicensed minors drive higher speeds. Higher 

speeds and inexperienced drivers increase the potential for accidents between full sized vehicles and 

OHV. 

Currently unlicensed riders such as children are restricted to riding on high clearance roads. The 

condition of these roads is generally such that slower speeds are required for safe driving. Some of 

the ML 2 roads receive light use, and are more appropriate for children to ride OHV’s. Some of the 

ML 2 roads are more challenging and may require more driver experience. 

Enforcement 

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule through the Tusayan Travel Management project will pose 

some challenges. This project is similar to any change in forest recreation management in that it requires the 

individual forest unit to provide adequate information to the public and in turn for the public to take 

responsibility for its actions and become knowledgeable about the changes. This partnership has been 

successful in past changes, and it is anticipated that within a few years the majority of the public will be 

familiar with travel management since it is being implemented across the national forest system. 

The district (and forest) will provide copies of the Tusayan District Motor Vehicle Use Map free of charge. 

Field visits with forest users will be targeted to higher use periods (hunting season, fuel wood gathering in the 

fall, etc.). Existing brochures will be made available, and the district has received a State grant to develop 

additional information stations and information. 

Beyond the information piece of enforcement, Forest Protection Officers and Law Enforcement will provide 

enforcement. The forest also has cooperative alw enforcement agreements with other agencies, and Arizona 

Game and Fish Department specifically schedules aerial flights to monitor hunting activities during hunt 

seasons. The Department will help to enforce the motorized game retrieval exception for elk seasons, and 

enforcement of the prohibition of motorized game retrieval during other hunting seasons. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Visitors choose specific settings for their recreation activities in order to enjoy desired experiences. 

These settings vary by Ecosystem Management Area and are further refined by the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a classification system that describes different outdoor recreation 

settings across the Forest using seven standard classes that range from primitive, undeveloped 

settings to urban, highly developed settings. Attributes typically considered in describing the settings 

are size, scenic quality, type and degree of access, remoteness, level of development, social 

encounters, and the amount of on-site management. By describing existing recreation opportunities in 

each class, ROS helps match visitors with their preferred recreation setting. ROS can also be used to 

plan how areas should be managed for recreation in the future (USDA Forest Service, ROS 

Handbook 1986). Changes in a national forest’s mix of ROS classes affect the recreation 

opportunities offered. 

In the Kaibab National Forest Management Plan (2008), there are two areas on the District that are 

mapped and managed for non-motorized activities: the Coconino Rim and Red Butte. OHV use is 

also restricted within 1⁄2 mile of developed campgrounds; this would include the Ten-X Campground 

area. All other areas are open to cross-country motorized travel. Most areas of the District are 
accessible by Forest roads and forest settings are managed to provide for recreation opportunities. 

The level of development or disturbance allowed is determined by the ROS class. 

Roads adjacent to or crossing semi-primitive non-motorized areas were used as one of the risk 

variables analyzed in the Tusayan District Travel Analysis. Roads that pose potential threats to this 

ROS category were identified, and in most cases recommended for removal from the designated 

system of open roads. 

Scenic Resources 

Scenery Management is a tool for integrating the benefits, values, desires and preferences regarding 

scenery into land management planning, and it is an integral part of ecosystem management. The 

Scenery Management System (SMS) provides a framework for inventory and analysis of scenic 

values. The old Visual Management System and Visual Quality Objectives were updated and new 

mapping was adopted in the 2005 Forest Plan amendment. The outcome of the scenery management 

analysis is that Scenic Integrity Objectives (similar to Visual Quality Objectives) are assigned to all 

parts of the District. Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is perceived to 

be “complete”, or to have the characteristics that are appropriate for its distinct physical, biological 

and cultural attributes. The SIO can be used to describe the existing condition, standard for 

management, or desired conditions for the future. 

The Tusayan Ranger District is a recreation destination and important scenic area. It represents a 

component of the local community’s scenic identity and image, contributing to its “sense of place” as 

well as contributing to the visitor experience in arriving at Grand Canyon National Park. In addition, 

private landowners with property within or adjacent to the District view the surrounding landscape 

and are likely to consider it important to their quality of life. 

Also important are the “special areas” on the District, which hold high value and meaning for 

visitors, local residents and tribes (spiritual, aesthetic, nostalgic, or other). Red Butte and the 

Coconino Rim have been identified as such “special areas”. These two places have been specifically 

identified; there are additional areas that may be considered “special” to individuals or local Tribes. 

 

Landscape Character Goals and Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) for the project area have been 

defined in the Forest Plan and the Kaibab ROS/SMS Guidebook (2004). Because of the scenic values 

around Red Butte and Coconino Rim, these areas are classified as SIO 2 (High) as are parts of 

Arizona Trail, Ten-X Campground, parts of Great Western Trail, and Anita Crossing. The area around 

the town of Tusayan is also SIO 2 primarily because of the volume of tourist traffic in and around the 

developed area. Much of the remainder of the district is SIO 3 or moderate, where some evidence of 

management is visible. Places where motorized cross country use is occurring often display loss of 

vegetation, rutting, and tracks criss-crossing the landscape. This type of resource damage lowers the 

quality of the forest scenery. 
Direct and Indirect Effects on Recreation and Scenic Resources 

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action alternative, no changes would be made to the existing national forest system 

roads and unauthorized routes would remain. Cross-country motorized travel would continue to be 

allowed except in designated closed areas. If projected increases in recreation use occur (see Table 9), 

there will be increasing amounts of motorized cross country use resulting in increasing loss of 

vegetation, rutting, and increased soil compaction and erosion. The scenic integrity of the area would 

be diminished by the OHV impacts and the contrast the make with the natural landscape character. 

Recreation opportunities for solitude, quiet, and enjoyment non-motorized recreation activities would 

decrease. There is an increasing potential for users who prefer non-motorized activities to be 

displaced or to be concentrated in the designated non-motorized areas of the District which could 

result in overuse of these areas. This alternative would have the most negative effects for both 

recreation and scenic resources. If recreation use increases and there is increasing damage to the 

landscape settings, it is anticipated there will be a downward trend in scenic quality and recreation 

opportunities. 

Hunting opportunities on the TRD would continue unaltered in this alternative. Motorized big game 

retrieval could be used to retrieve any legally hunted and tagged animal during any of the hunting 

seasons. 

Dispersed camping opportunities would be unchanged as would access for recreation activities. 

Campers could use existing routes to campsites, or create new routes into the forest for camping and 

recreation. 

Alternative 2 --Proposed Action 

The proposed action would remove 163 miles of existing Forest roads from the designated system of 

roads, and designate 546 miles for motor vehicle use. Adequate access would be maintained to 

private land inholdings and to adjacent tribal and other agency lands. Special use permits would 

continue and be managed through the annual operating plans. 

The direct and indirect effects of this alternative would include the following: 

Reducing the miles of national forest system roads and prohibition of motorized cross-country travel 

would reduce motorized recreation opportunities by about 20 percent and would restrict use to the 

designated road system. Recreation users such as antler shed hunters would be limited to the 

designated road system or non-motorized means collect these products. Other recreational motorized 

users would be restricted to the designated road system. Road use is light during most of the year, 

except during hunting season (mid-September through early December) when use on some roads may 

be moderate to heavy. Current increases in road use are temporary and associated with hunting 

seasons. 

The Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP 2008) reports that State 

residents expect to increase their participation in both non-motorized and motorized recreation 

activities in the future. It is anticipated that there will be increases in motorized road use with state 

population increases. The proposed road system would provide 546 miles of designated forest roads 

that may be used to engage in motorized riding activities and access other dispersed recreation 

opportunities. At this time the national forest trail system is restricted to non-motorized uses. Table 9 

provides the projections for Arizona residents for some recreation activities. 
Table 9. Arizona resident current and expected recreation participation for selected activities SCORP 

2008).

Recreation Activity Current Days or Visits per year Expect to increase in the future 

(amount of increase in percent) 

Hunting 1.67 10.9% 

RV Camping 2.3 25.6% 

Tent Camping 3.0 32% 

Ride OHV 8.93 24% 

Drive for Pleasures 22.9 34.1% 

Hike or jog 27.7 38.4% 

The designated road system will improve non-motorized recreation opportunities somewhat because 

motorized cross-country travel will be prohibited. However, noise and dust related to motorized uses 

on roads would remain the same or potentially increase. If users are currently feeling displaced by 

motorized activities, closing 20 percent of the roads may be regarded as a positive development, since 

there would be larger areas where non-motorized opportunities are available and it may reduce some 

user displacement. Those recreationists desiring semi-primitive non-motorized opportunities will 

continue to be able to engage in these at Red Butte and the Coconino Rim. 

Opportunities for forest product gathering would be reduced by about 20 percent because the number 

of open roads from which provide roadside wood gathering would be reduced. The Forest Service 

will change the district-wide policy for fuel wood gathering to one of designated fuel wood gathering 

areas. Fuel wood gathering and cutting will allowed by permit in these areas. 

Some local tribal communities have expressed concern about reducing motorized cross-country 

access being concerned it will reduce opportunities for forest product gathering. Other tribes favor 

prohibiting motorized cross country travel. Some tribes have expressed support for reducing road 

density. Opportunities for personal fuel wood gathering will continue to be provided, but these will be 

in designated areas. Ceremonial gathering and uses will be provided on Tusayan Ranger District with 

coordination with Forest Service district and Heritage program personnel. 

ROS classes would be maintained and existing recreational settings would not change. There would 

still be a spectrum of recreation opportunities provided. The Arizona SCORP indicates that both 

motorized and non-motorized trail users have indicated a preference for rural, undeveloped settings, 

and both say they engage in trail related activities to view scenery, be close to nature, and to get away 

from the usual demands of life. These opportunities would be maintained. The removal of 163 miles 

of national forest system roads and closing unauthorized routes should improve scenic integrity since 

there would be less visual contrast if the resource impacts from motorized cross country use are 

eliminate. The designated road system would still provide adequate access to the forest for enjoying 

the scenery. 

Mixed motorized use will continue on high clearance roads. Inexperienced OHV riders would have 

many opportunities to ride on ML 2 roads. Some of the high clearance roads would also provide more 

challenging riding opportunities for experienced riders. 

Opportunities for dispersed campers would be provided, and many users would still have 

opportunities to engage in their favorite past-time of dispersed camping, possibly even in the same 

location using the designated recreation access routes (for existing locations with no resource 

concerns). Some campers might feel a diminished freedom in choosing a location to camp, since the 
dispersed camping corridors will be limited in number and size. Forest users would still have the 

ability to pull off of designated roads a safe distance to park and then engage in recreation activities. 

A maximum of 17 miles of camping corridors could be designated for dispersed corridor camping, as 

well as approximately 6 miles of designated routes to access dispersed recreation opportunities. 

Motorized game retrieval would be provided for elk hunters. Hunters would have the opportunity to 

drive up to one mile from a designated road to a legally downed elk to retrieve it with a motorized 

vehicle. Limiting motorized big game retrieval to elk only may decrease the satisfaction of some 

hunters since they are currently unrestricted in using motorized vehicles to retrieve their animals 

(deer, antelope, etc). Some recreationists and some hunters complain that the use of motorized 

vehicles is intrusive because of noise and disturbance of the natural setting. Some hunters have 

expressed that the noise scares off animals. Commercial outfitter-guide services who guide hunters 

would largely be unaffected. They may have some additional opportunities to provide game retrieval 

assistance using horses or mules to pack downed animals out during the non-elk hunting seasons. 

Alternative 2 would have positive effects on recreation settings and scenic integrity. The prevailing 

ROS of roaded natural would be improved with fewer redundant roads, and the scenic intactness of 

the landscape would be more natural when motorized cross-country use is prohibited. There would be 

opportunities for both motorized OHV riding as well as non-motorized opportunities. Dispersed 

camping will be changed somewhat as participants will have to narrow their choices to camping 

corridor, camping on a designated recreation access route, or pulling off the roadside a safe distance. 

Opportunities for the engagement in dispersed camping for the different use patterns (hunting and 

Grand Canyon visitors will be maintained). Hunters will retain opportunities for dispersed camping 

and motorized big game retrieval for elk. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative would increase the number of Forest roads retained by 20 miles. The additional roads 

kept open in this alternative were identified by OHV riders as being tied of longer-distance routes 

they enjoy taking on the district. Motorized cross country use would be prohibited. 

The direct and indirect effects for the designated roads, dispersed camping and game retrieval are 

similar to Alternative 2. Adequate access would be provided for private land inholdings and permitted 

uses. At this time use is light on the district except for hunting season, and increases in recreation use 

could be accommodated. Both motorized and non-motorized recreation participation are projected to 

increase in the future. 

Specific roads identified by OHV riders have been retained. There would be 566 miles of roads in the 

designated road system. There would be 475 miles of high clearance roads. Mixed motorized use will 

continue on high clearance roads. Inexperienced OHV riders would have many opportunities to ride 

on ML 2 roads. Some of the high clearance roads would also provide more challenging riding 

opportunities. 

Opportunities for roadside forest product gathering would be enhanced slightly from Alternative 2 

because the number of open roads would be increased by about 20 miles. This may not be favored by 

tribes that have indicated that they support reducing the number of forest roads. 

The Scenic Integrity for the area would be improved through closing 143 miles of forest roads and 

prohibition of motorized cross-country travel. There would still be ample opportunities to access the 

district and to enjoy the scenery. 
Alternative 3 has effects similar to Alternative 2. Opportunities for dispersed camping and game 

retrieval would be the same as in Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present and foreseeable projects on Tusayan Ranger District include vegetation management 

projects for forest health and fuels reduction, Grand Canyon National Park South Rim Transportation 

Plan, Ten-X Campground reconstruction (possibly in 2012), possibly additional special use permits 

for visitor tours (motorized and non-motorized), permitting roads to private property, uranium 

exploration and potential mining, development of further stock tanks and waters, maintenance and 

potential new construction of utility corridors. The cumulative effects analysis area is the District 

boundary, and the time period is 1998 to 2018. 

Part of the recreation use on the TRD is related to visitation at Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). 

Recent statistics from GCNP show that visitation at the South Rim has been increasing steadily 

(USDI Park Service, 2004). Much of the remaining recreation use is related to hunting and forest 

product gathering. These combined with the steadily growing population in the State of Arizona 

indicate recreation use will mostly likely continue to increase (although this is subject to changes due 

to national economic conditions and the price of petroleum products). Increased use without 

implementation of TMR in Alternative 1 would produce a negative trend for recreation settings and 

scenic integrity. Resource damage as a result of motorized cross-country travel, user development of 

additional camping sites and OHV tracks would increase, scenic integrity would be reduced, as 

would non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

The proposed action (Alternative 2) would have positive effects especially from prohibiting 

motorized cross country travel this directly improves the scenic integrity (or intactness) of the 

landscape. Non-motorized recreation opportunities would improve with prohibition of motorized 

cross-country travel. The reduced road system would provide adequate access for motorized 

recreation opportunities. Designating camping corridors and adding routes to access recreation 

activities are both provide for dispersed camping and recreation access, these would be neutral to 

positive effects, as it confines impacts from these activities in the natural landscape and still provides 

recreation opportunities. 

Use of motorized game retrieval for elk will be generally viewed as positive. Some hunters may be 

negatively affected because mule deer and antelope are not included. 

There may be slight negative effects to local Tribal members’ ability who gather forest products along 

the roadside. Tribes will continue to be able to obtain permits to cut and gather fuel wood in 

designated cutting areas and to work with the Forest Service to use forest products for ceremonial 

purposes. 

In addition, the separate wet weather travel policy provides an avenue for District Rangers to respond 

to seasonal weather conditions by implementing temporary road closures. This in conjunction with 

implementation of TMR will provide improvements in road conditions by preventing rutting and 

other damage, as well as decreased resource damage since vehicles are restricted to the wet weather 

road system. 

The cumulative effects of the proposed action when combined with past, present, and foreseeable 

projects would result in a positive trend. 
Alternative 3 would have similar effects as the proposed action. The main difference in this 

alternative is the addition of 20 additional miles of forest roads. 

The cumulative effect of alternative 3 would result in a positive trend. 

Soils and Watershed 

Methodology 

The following analysis is largely based on information gathered from the Tusayan Ranger District 

GIS database and the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest. 

The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) was consulted for information on many soil and watershed 

characteristics including: the suitability of soils for native surface roads, erosion hazard ratings, soil 

condition ratings, and revegetation potential. 

Existing Condition 

Climate 

Tusayan area (Grand Canyon National Park South Rim climate station, period of record 1904-2007) 

average annual precipitation is 15 inches. The semiarid climate is characterized by infrequent and 

erratic precipitation events and high evaporation rates. Precipitation generally falls as snow from 

November through April as Pacific frontal storms move through the area. High winds, warm 

temperatures, and a late spring to early summer drought are typical in May and June. High intensity, 

short duration, localized thunderstorms provide rain from July through September during the summer 

monsoon season. Summer moisture originates in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of California. 

Pacific hurricanes and frontal storms sometimes provide rain to the area in September and October. 

Thirty-two percent of the annual precipitation is received from February through June at a time that 

benefits cool season plants. Forty-three percent is received in July through October at a time that 

benefits warm season plants. Twenty-five percent is received during the non-growing season in 

November through January. 

During the last 10 years (1999-2008), drought (less than 90% of average precipitation) has occurred 

during 3 years (2002, 2003, and 2006). Severe drought (less than 75% of average precipitation) 

occurred in 2002. There have been 2 wet (greater than 110% of average precipitation) years (2001 

and 2004). Winter/spring drought has been more common during the last 10 years, while summer 

precipitation has been generally dependable. 

The Tusayan Ranger District is not currently in a drought, according to the February 2009 U.S. 

Seasonal Drought Outlook from NOAA. However, climate scientists have theorized that global 

climate change may lead to higher than average temperatures and lower precipitation across the 

Southwest (IPCC 2007a and 2007b). Scientists have also predicted that the Southwest will have 

more erratic weather, including more frequent drought and more frequent severe storms with high 

winds and flooding (IPCC 2007b). 
Increased temperatures in combination with decreased precipitation will lead to lower plant 

productivity and cover. The reduction in plant and litter cover will make the soils more vulnerable to 

wind and water erosion. More frequent and severe droughts will lead to higher tree and shrub 

mortality, increasing the fuels available for high intensity wildfires. High intensity wildfires will 

reduce soil cover, impair soil condition, and lead to higher rates of erosion. 

Soils 

The geology of the analysis area is dominated by limestone, calcareous sandstone, sandstone, and 

mudstone. At the higher elevations in the watersheds, the geology is composed of igneous deposits 

such as cinders, ash, and basalt. The majority of the project area is characterized by plains with a few 

hills and escarpments. Slopes are mostly less than 15%. A few hills and escarpments have slopes that 

may range up to 40%, 80% or even greater. 

Soils require an adequate cover of vegetation, litter, or rocks in order to prevent excessive erosion. 

When excessive erosion occurs, the water holding capacity of the remaining soils is reduced causing 

more runoff. If the erosion rate exceeds that which will allow for soils to be productive, then the soil 

is described as being highly erodible. One way to measure this is with soil erosion hazard ratings. 

Ratings of slight, moderate and severe are used. Soils with high erosion hazards are susceptible to 

mechanical disturbance from motorized traffic. Seven percent of the District is covered with soils that 

have a severe erosion hazard. Soils with a moderate erosion hazard cover 28% of the area; slight to 

moderate erosion hazard 16%, and slight erosion hazard 49%. 

In order to protect soils from erosion, a minimum of 20% plant and litter cover is required. On 

severely erodable soils, a minimum of 50% plant and litter cover is required. The TES estimates that 

currently about 8% of the District has inadequate plant and litter cover, and about 3 % is approaching 

this. Currently there are 39 miles of frequently-used roads located on soils that have a severe erosion 

hazard. In the lower elevation pinyon-juniper woodlands, the combination of geology and relatively 

dry climate results in naturally higher amounts of bare soil, soil erosion, and sediment yield when 

compared to higher elevation ecosystems. 

Watershed 

The Tusayan Ranger District is distributed across six 5th level watersheds that all drain into the 

Lower Colorado River. There are no perennial streams or wetlands on the Tusayan District. There are 

no springs within the Tusayan District and no large natural lakes. There are numerous constructed 

earthen tanks that provide water to livestock and wildlife. The highest elevations in a watershed are 

cooler, moister, and of higher productivity than lower elevation arid climates. Higher elevations 

produce a smaller portion of the overall sediment yield, but produce more water. Vegetative 

conditions at the highest elevations have the greatest affect on water yield. Currently the watersheds 

are in satisfactory condition. 

There are approximately 950 miles of ephemeral streams on the Tusayan Ranger District (streams 

that flow only when the snow is melting, or during and shortly after heavy rainstorms). The 

ephemeral drainage network is dense, as shown in Figure 11. Ephemeral drainages contribute water 

and sediment to perennial streams, lakes, earthen ponds, and wetlands, including those found 

downstream from the Tusayan District. 
Figure 11. Drainage network of ephemeral streams on Tusayan Ranger District.

Roads that cross ephemeral streams are shown in Figure 12. Each dot in the figure represents a road 

crossing a stream. Roads facilitate water movement off the road surfaces into the drainage systems at 

road-stream intersections. Sediment from the roads is transported into the drainages at these 

locations. Increased sediment decreases the water quality in earthen ponds and lakes; these can fill in 

with sediment. In addition, the water volume is increased at the drainage points and can cause 

flooding and erosion. 

Currently the watersheds are in satisfactory condition. A review of the 2004 and draft 2006 State of 

Arizona 303(d) list indicated that no TMDL limited segments or water bodies are within or adjacent 

to the Tusayan District. 
Figure 12. Existing road-ephemeral stream crossings on Tusayan Ranger District.

Most of the roads on the Tusayan Ranger District are unpaved and consist of bare, compacted soil. A 

few roads have a crushed aggregate surface composed of limestone or volcanic material. Some roads 

have culverts at drainage crossings, but due to the dry nature of the area, most crossings do not have 

culverts. 

Approximately one-quarter of the Tusayan District is covered by soils that have low bearing strength 

when wet. Ruts are easily created on these soils and on roads that traverse these soils. The driving 

surface is damaged and may concentrate water flow that can create gullies on adjoining land. The 

prevalence of soils with low bearing strength makes it necessary to avoid driving on low standard and 

low maintenance roads when they are wet. Safe, sustainable travel is possible on roads on these soils 

when dry. This characterizes much of the high clearance road system. It is also possible to travel on 

roads during wet weather if they have a hard surface and good drainage design; these are typically the 

passenger car roads. 

Most of the road damage and risk to natural resources occurs during periods when moisture is 

received and roads are wet. Generally November through April and July through September are times 

when snow or rain is expected and roads and soils may be susceptible to damage. The Kaibab 

National Forest enacted a Wet Weather Roads Policy several years ago that restricts wet weather 

travel to improved roads with hard surfaces and adequate drainage. This policy may be enacted by 
each District Ranger as conditions occur that could damage roads. It is temporary in nature, and is 

lifted when the weather conditions change and improve, and the risk for road damage is decreased. 

Air Quality 

The Tusayan Ranger District is not located near large population centers, power plants, or industrial 

facilities. The District is located within 160 miles of two active coal fired power plants. These plants 

are located to the northeast in Page, Arizona and to the southeast in Joseph City, Arizona. The 

prevailing winds on most days of the year carry pollution from these plants farther away from the 

District. The District is located approximately 220 miles from Phoenix, Arizona, 270 miles from Las 

Vegas, Nevada, and 485 miles from Los Angeles, California. Pollution and haze from these and other 

urban/industrial centers does drift over the District. Visibility, especially in the adjoining Grand 

Canyon National Park, is affected by this haze. Smoke from wildfires, prescribed fires, and wood 

stoves also contributes particulates and haze to the District periodically. 

The Tusayan Ranger District is not located within an air quality Non-Attainment Area designated by 

the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The closest Non-Attainment Areas are the 

Bullhead City Area for PM10 (particulate matter) and the Phoenix Area for PM10 and ozone. 

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(7)) requires states to assess and reduce pollutants that 

cause haze in order to improve visibility at Class I Areas, including Grand Canyon National Park. 

The Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the State of 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 I areas. Due to this finding, no additional road dust control strategies are needed...” 

The Plan also states that the State of Arizona will “perform further assessments of road dust impacts 

on visibility. Based on these assessments, if road dust emissions are determined to be a significant 

contributor to visibility impairment, the State of Arizona commits to implement emissions 

management strategies...” 

The Kaibab National Forest must submit prescribed burn plans to the Arizona DEQ in order to 

minimize smoke, but it is not required to reduce fugitive dust or vehicle emissions. 

The majority of roads on the Tusayan Ranger District are unpaved. These gravel and dirt roads are 

sources of fugitive dust in dry weather, especially when there is frequent vehicle traffic. Vehicles 

driving cross country may also create fugitive dust. 

Water Quality 

Two of the largest potential issues facing water quality on the Tusayan District are exceeding 

standards related to turbidity and siltation. Unmaintained native surface roads and cross country 

motorized vehicle use can result in decreased vegetative cover, rapid runoff, and increased erosion, 

thus contributing to siltation and turbidity. Sediment is deposited in downstream water bodies or in 

lower gradient stream channels. Earthen ponds and lakes lose capacity, fish eggs and insect eggs and 

larvae may be killed by the weight of material or the lack of oxygen, and floodplains may be 

expanded. Roads that follow drainages may contribute the most sediment. These roads may also be 

damaged by flooding and erosion. 
Desired Condition 

The overall desired condition is maintenance of sustainable ecosystems within and surrounding the 

Tusayan Ranger District, in which roads and off road vehicle use does not impair important 

ecosystem functions, such as maintaining soil stability and productivity, watershed health, water 

quality, and vegetation diversity and productivity. 

• Minimize soil erosion, fugitive dust, and sedimentation of downstream water bodies caused 

by roads and off road vehicle use by maintaining a stable to upward trend toward good or 

excellent in soil condition and maintaining or reducing percent bare ground across the 

District. 

• Reduce the quantity of water lost in excess runoff from the watershed by reducing the number 

of roads and tracks per square mile on the District. 

• Protect watershed resources such as ephemeral lakes and ephemeral stream channels and 

downstream water bodies from adverse effects. 

• Prevent soil compaction and its detrimental impacts (i.e. rapid runoff and loss of vegetative 

productivity) by prohibiting most off road vehicle use. 

• Maintain a stable to upward trend in litter cover by prohibiting most off road vehicle use.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives on Soils and Watershed 

Alternative 1- No Action 

Alternative 1 would allow motorized vehicle travel to continue on and off road in almost all areas of 

the District. Current travel management would not change. 

The Wet Weather Travel Policy will continue to be implemented on the District. This policy allows 

the District Ranger to temporarily close roads and close the Forest to cross country travel when soils 

are wet and susceptible to damage by vehicles. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Recreation and other land uses are expected to increase over the years. More people will use the 

abundant roads that exist on the District. Road maintenance would continue at present levels, 

leaving most roads in need of maintenance. 

Unauthorized routes would continue to be used. More unauthorized routes and dispersed camping 

areas would be developed by Forest users especially in areas near scenic views, productive wildlife 

habitat (water, open grasslands, open sagebrush), and near developed recreation areas and private 

lands. The number of stream crossings and the number of user-created routes that follow drainages is 

likely to increase. Cross country tracks and dispersed camping areas will continue to be created by 

Forest users on soils with a moderate or severe erosion hazard, on soils in unsatisfactory or impaired 

condition, and on soils with low revegetation potential. These disturbances will cause more 

accelerated erosion and runoff, sedimentation, and loss of soil, watershed, and vegetative health and 

productivity. 
New cross country tracks will continue to be created on soils that have low bearing strength when 

wet. Some Forest Service System Roads already exist on this type of soil. Continued 

implementation of the Wet Weather Travel Policy each year should help reduce damage to System 

Roads and to the soils in the Forest. 

Vehicles will continue to create fugitive dust along all Forest roads and cross country tracks. The 

amount of dust will probably increase as more vehicle tracks are created across the District. 

Continuation of current management (Alternative 1) will increase the stress on plants that may 

already be dealing with higher temperatures and drought due to climate change. The plants could 

become less resilient and more susceptible to mortality. As bare ground increases, there will be an 

increase in soil erosion and sedimentation of water bodies. There will also be an increase in fugitive 

dust. 

Continuation of current management (Alternative 1) will lead to a reduction in soil and watershed 

condition and productivity. It will also lead to an increase in fugitive dust. Compared to all other 

alternatives, Alternative 1 will not improve the protection of soils, watersheds, and air quality. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) would close 163 miles of Forest Service System Roads and most of 

the user-created unauthorized routes. Up to 6 miles of user-created unauthorized routes would be 

adopted into the Forest Service Road System for use as recreation access routes after they receive 

resource concern clearances. Up to 17 miles of dispersed camping corridors will be established along 

portions of 14 roads, if there are no resource concerns. Within the corridors, vehicles may be driven 

up to 300 feet off a designated road in order to establish a campsite. Dispersed campers will also be 

allowed to park within a safe distance of any Forest Service System Road unless the road section is 

posted with a no camping sign. Dispersed camping is not allowed within 1⁄4 mile of a wildlife or 

livestock water source. 

The closed Forest Service System Roads will not be obliterated at this time, but will be closed to 

public use. The closed roads will still be available for administrative or permitted use, if necessary. 

If funding is available, the first 200 feet of closed user-created unauthorized routes will be blocked 

with berms, boulders, or logs and de-compacted in order to promote natural revegetation. In the 

future, these roads could be considered for decommissioning (obliteration) as part of other projects. 

Cross country motorized vehicle use would be prohibited in most areas of the District except for 

specific purposes in specific areas and by permit. Cross country motorized vehicle use would be 

allowed by Forest Service employees, Forest Service contractors, or individuals with a permit to 

operate on the District. Cross country motorized vehicle use would only be allowed on a temporary 

basis when access is absolutely necessary at that time and when there is no other reasonable way to 

access the area. 

Cross country vehicle use would be allowed in order to access dispersed camping sites in designated 

dispersed camping corridors. Dispersed camping will be allowed within 300 feet of the main road. 

Cross country vehicle use would also be allowed in order to retrieve a legally tagged elk during all 
legal elk hunting seasons. Hunters may travel cross country in areas outside of motor vehicle 

restricted areas (i.e. Red Butte and Coconino Rim). 

The Wet Weather Travel Policy will continue to be implemented on the District. This policy allows 

the District Ranger to temporarily close roads and close the Forest to cross country travel when soils 

are wet and susceptible to damage by vehicles. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Recreation and other land uses are expected to increase over the years. More people will use the 

roads that exist on the District. 

The Forest Service could provide better road maintenance because there would be 23% fewer miles 

of road to maintain for public use. It might even be possible to make road improvements to some 

roads (i.e. hard surfaces and/or drainage enhancements). The smaller public road system would be in 

better condition, so there would be less erosion and sedimentation caused by the open Forest Service 

System Roads. However, the closed roads would not be obliterated and revegetated at this time. 

Many would continue to be used periodically by Forest Service personnel or by people who hold 

valid permits, if they are not blocked or signed. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) does not propose to close all the Forest Service System Roads that 

could be causing erosion and sedimentation. Many roads that would remain open follow drainages in 

soils that have a moderate to severe erosion hazard. Some open roads are located on impaired or 

unsatisfactory condition soils. These roads could be evaluated for possible closure and/or relocation 

in the future as part of other projects. If the roads are important for management or recreation access, 

then they could be improved with a hard surface and/or enhanced drainage features. 

Current unauthorized routes will not be obliterated and revegetated at this time; but they will be 

closed to all use. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) would not allow recreationists and campers to create new 

unauthorized routes at random along drainages, on erodible soils, on soils in poor condition, on soils 

with low bearing strength when wet, or on soils with low revegetation potential. Hunters would not 

be allowed to drive cross country while hunting, but they could do so in order to retrieve a legally 

tagged and downed elk. Implementation of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), with its reduction in 

cross country vehicle travel, would cause a reduction in compaction, loss of vegetative cover, ruts, 

erosion, runoff, sedimentation, and water diversion. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) will reduce the number of road miles that are accessible to the 

public. It will also restrict most cross country travel. Although vehicles will still create fugitive dust 

during dry periods, the amount could be reduced compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). 

Implementation of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) will reduce the damage to plants from cross 

country vehicle travel. Plants will have the potential to be healthier and more resilient to climate 

change. The maintenance of (and possible increase in) plant cover will protect the soil from water 

erosion and wind erosion (fugitive dust). 
Implementation of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) will reduce the damage to soil and watershed 

condition and productivity from motorized vehicle travel compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). It 

also has the potential to reduce the amount of fugitive dust created on the District. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would close 143 miles of Forest Service System Road and most of the user-created 

unauthorized routes. The other actions to be implemented within Alternative 3 are the same as for 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). 

Implementation of Alternative 3 would produce approximately the same effects to soil and watershed 

condition and productivity as Alternative 2, but to a slightly lesser degree. Alternative 3 would keep 

20 more miles of Forest Service System Roads open compared to Alternative 2. See Alternative 2 for 

a discussion of the effects of road closures, limits on cross country vehicle use, designation of 

dispersed camping corridors and routes, and the allowance of cross country vehicle use for elk 

carcass retrieval. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The effects of Alternative 3 are almost the same as Alternative 2. The main difference is that the 

public will not be able to travel on 20 more miles of closed roads. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 will reduce the damage to soil and watershed condition and 

productivity from motorized vehicle travel compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). It also has the 

potential to reduce fugitive dust on the District. Alternative 3 protects soils, watersheds, and air 

slightly less than Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area consists of the Tusayan Ranger District surrounded by a one 

mile buffer. The cumulative effects analysis time period is 1998 to 2018. 

Past, ongoing, planned, and foreseeable projects and activities in the cumulative effects analysis area 

that will have an effect on soils and watersheds include: timber and fuel wood harvesting, forest 

thinning, grassland restoration tree removal, sagebrush restoration, prescribed burning, livestock 

grazing, fence construction, water tank construction and maintenance, vehicle driving and horseback 

riding off road to herd cattle and maintain fences, noxious and invasive exotic weed control, 

recreational activities (e.g. vehicle and ATV use off road, dispersed camping, horseback riding, 

hiking, hunting), road use and maintenance, mineral exploration and possible mining, pipeline and 

transmission line use and maintenance, and residential developments and activities. Natural 

conditions, events, and activities that have an effect on soils and watersheds include climate and 

weather, wildfires, and elk grazing. 

The net cumulative effect of all human activities and natural events will be an improvement in forest 

and rangeland health on the District and an improvement in soil/watershed condition and 
productivity. It is also expected that there will be a reduction in the amount of fugitive dust created 

on the District. 

Wildlife 

Affected Environment 

Effects of the different travel management alternatives were evaluated for a wide variety of focal 

wildlife species, including species listed under the Endangered Species Act, Species classified as 

Sensitive by the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest Management 

Indicator Species (MIS), migratory birds, and other species potentially affected by travel 

management. The Tusayan Ranger District covers an area of approximately 331,430 acres just south 

of Grand Canyon National Park. Elevation ranges from 6,000 to 7,326 feet at the top of Red Butte. 

Bedrock across the district is Kaibab Limestone. Dominant cover types are pinyon-juniper 

woodland, ponderosa pine forest, sagebrush-grass, and grassland. Geographic Areas (GAs) 8 and 9 

are dominated more by pinyon-juniper woodland, and Geographic Area 10 is dominated more by 

ponderosa pine forest. Common tree species are pinyon pine, Utah juniper, and ponderosa pine. 

Gambel oak is common in some areas. Common shrub species are big sagebrush, cliffrose, rubber 

rabbitbrush, disturbed rabbitbrush, broom snakeweed, four-wing saltbush, winterfat, and wax currant. 

Common grasses include blue grama, muttongrass, and mountain muhly. 

For species listed under the Endangered Species Act, all animal species identified for Coconino 

County, Arizona by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were evaluated 

(http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes/). This list includes species classified as Candidate or Proposed and 

species with conservation agreements. The Tusayan District is either outside of the known range or 

lacks suitable habitat for each animal species identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Coconino County list except California condor. Most of the animal species on the Coconino County 

list are dependent on aquatic habitats (Apache trout, Chiricahua leopard frog, humpback chub, Kanab 

ambersnail, little Colorado spinedace, razorback sucker, California brown pelican) or riparian habitats 

(southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo). The Tusayan District has no perennial 

streams, rivers, lakes, or springs. Natural waters consist of small ephemeral water bodies that 

develop in low-lying areas where seasonal runoff collects. A variety of water sources have been 

developed historically on the Tusayan District. Most of these water developments are earthen tank 

livestock water developments or trick tank wildlife water developments. 

The Tusayan District is located outside of the range of reintroduced black-footed ferrets, and there are 

no known colonies of Gunnison's prairie dogs large enough to support black-footed ferrets. There are 

no known Mexican spotted owl detections on the Tusayan District, and there are no spotted owl 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) or designated spotted owl Critical Habitat. 

The Tusayan District is within the experimental nonessential population area designated for the 

California condor. Condors primarily occur within and along the south rim of the Grand Canyon, the 

Kaibab Plateau on the north side of Grand Canyon, Marble Canyon, the Vermillion Cliffs, and parts 

of southern Utah (Southwest Condor Review Team 2007). Condors are opportunistic scavengers that 

feed primarily on large dead mammals such as deer, elk, bighorn sheep, and domestic livestock. 

Although condors forage frequently on the Kaibab Plateau on the north side of the Grand Canyon, 
condor foraging on the south side of the Grand Canyon on the Tusayan District has so far been 

limited and infrequent. There are no known condor nest sites or roost sites on the Tusayan District. 

Species classified as Sensitive by the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service that are known to 

occur or potentially occur on the Tusayan District are bald eagle, northern goshawk, burrowing owl, 

American peregrine falcon, Merriam's shrew, spotted bat, Allen's lappet-browed bat, Townsend's bigeared bat, and Mogollon vole. 

Management Indicator Species and the habitats they represent are listed in the most recent Kaibab 

National Forest Management Indicator Species report (Forest Service 2008). Of these, the Tusayan 

District contains suitable habitat for the following species: northern goshawk, wild turkey, hairy 

woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, juniper titmouse, Abert's squirrel, elk, mule deer, and pronghorn 

antelope. The district lacks suitable aquatic habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates; suitable wetland 

habitat for cinnamon teal; low-elevation riparian habitat for Lucy's warbler and yellow-breasted chat; 

high-elevation riparian habitat for Lincoln's sparrow; suitable canyon, riparian forest, pine-oak, or 

mixed conifer forest for Mexican spotted owl; aspen forest for red-naped sapsucker; and mixed 

conifer or spruce-fir forest for red squirrel. 

Each of the most important game species on the Tusayan District is a Kaibab National Forest 

Management Indicator Species: elk, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and wild turkey. Hunting is an 

important recreational activity on the Tusayan District, and hunting opportunities are greatly affected 

by aspects of travel management. The Tusayan District is located within Game Management Unit 

(Unit) 9. Unit 9 is famous for large bull elk. Hunters spent a total of 5,096 days hunting elk in Unit 9 

during 2006 (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2008), and an estimated 80-90% of elk hunted in 

Unit 9 are hunted on the Tusayan District. Hunters spent a total of 1,078 days hunting deer in Unit 9 

during 2006 (an estimated 65-75% of deer hunted in Unit 9 are hunted on the Tusayan District). 

Hunters spent a total of 206 days hunting turkey in Unit 9 during 2006 (nearly all of the turkey 

hunted in Unit 9 are hunted on the Tusayan District). Hunters spent a total of 53 days hunting 

pronghorn in Unit 9 during 2007 (an estimated 20-30% of pronghorn hunted in Unit 9 are hunted on 

the Tusayan District). Small game hunted on the district include mourning doves, Abert's squirrels, 

and cottontail rabbits. 

Much of the mule deer fawning, elk calving, and wild turkey nesting that occurs on the Tusayan 

District occurs in GA 10, which is where most of the ponderosa pine forest habitat on the district 

occurs. GAs 8 and 9 provide important winter and transitional range for mule deer, elk, and turkey. 

Pronghorn are common on state and private lands to the southwest and south of GA 8. Within the 

Tusayan District, pronghorn primarily utilize habitat in the Upper Basin in GA 9, the southeastern 

portion of GA 8, and small grasslands and sagebrush-grass communities in GA 10. 

Numerous migratory bird species occur on the Tusayan District. Effects of the proposed action were 

evaluated for Arizona Partners in Flight (PIF) Priority Species. PIF priority species are identified by 

habitat type. Arizona PIF habitat types that occur on the Tusayan District are pine habitat, pinyonjuniper woodland, cold desertscrub, and high elevation grassland (Latta et al. 1999:page 14). Priority 

species identified in Arizona PIF for pine habitat are northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, 

Cordilleran flycatcher, and purple martin. Priority species for pinyon-juniper habitat are gray 

flycatcher, pinyon jay, gray vireo, black-throated gray warbler, and juniper titmouse. Priority species 
for cold desert scrub habitat are sage thrasher, sage sparrow, and Brewer's sparrow. Priority species 

for high elevation grasslands are Swainson's hawk, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, and 

grasshopper sparrow. There are no designated Important Bird Areas within the district. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 

Numerous papers have been published on the effects of roads and motorized travel on wildlife. The 

scientific literature documents a variety of negative effects of roads and motorized travel on wildlife 

(e.g., see literature reviews in Boyle and Samson 1985, Forman and Alexander 1998, Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000, Wisdom et al. 2000, Brown et al. 2001). It is not the objective of this analysis to 

summarize the vast amount of literature on this subject. The objective is to use this scientific 

literature in evaluating the potential effects of the different alternatives on various wildlife species 

within the context of species present on the Tusayan District and the specific road and travel 

conditions that exist on the district. 

Potential effects of motorized travel on wildlife can be categorized in many ways, but effects relevant 

for travel management on the Tusayan District include: 

• habitat impacts caused by roads and cross-country motorized travel; 

• barrier to animal movement caused by roads; 

• animal mortality due to vehicle collisions; 

• human disturbance of animals associated with motorized travel; 

• loss of logs and snags associated with fuel wood harvesting along roads; 

• harvest or collection of wildlife facilitated by motorized travel; 

• effects on wildlife habitat related to fire and fuels management; 

• effects on wildlife habitat related to the spread of noxious weeds. 

In addition to the analyses of wildlife effects below, a separate biological evaluation of effects to 

wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act and Forest Service Sensitive species has 

been completed and can be found in the project record. Also, a separate report on the effects to 

Management Indicator Species and migratory birds has been completed and included in the project 

record. 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Habitat impacts caused by roads and cross-country motorized travel: Potential habitat impacts 

include habitat loss and fragmentation caused by roads and habitat degradation caused by crosscountry motorized travel. Habitat loss occurs as a result of loss of vegetation within the actual 

footprint of the road and shoulder. There are a total of 709 miles of open Forest Service roads on the 

Tusayan District, which is equivalent to an open road density of 1.37 miles/mile2 (area of the district 

is 331,430 acres or 518 mile2). 612 miles of the 709 total miles are Maintenance Level 2, 103 miles 

are Level 3, and 2 miles are Level 4. Average road width of Level 2 roads on the district is 12-14 

feet. Approximately half of the Level 3 roads on the district are double lane with an average width of 

22-24 feet. The other half of Level 3 roads are single lane, which are 12-16 feet wide. 
In addition to direct loss of wildlife habitat, roads create edge effects and can cause habitat 

fragmentation. Potential habitat fragmentation effects depend on the configuration of the surrounding 

habitat and the particular wildlife species. The contrast between a road corridor and an adjacent 

dense, homogeneous forest is much greater than the contrast between a road corridor and an adjacent 

habitat with an open vegetation structure such as a grassland or woodland. Contrasts between road 

corridors of Forest Service roads and adjacent habitats on the Tusayan District are not as great as 

many other areas because the district is characterized by relatively open vegetation communities 

(e.g., open ponderosa pine forest, pinyon-juniper woodland, and sagebrush-grass communities). 

Certain wildlife species or categories of species are affected more by habitat fragmentation than 

others (e.g., certain bird species associated with interior forest habitats are potentially impacted more 

by habitat fragmentation than other species such as the brown-headed cowbird, a species that benefits 

from habitat fragmentation). 

Motorized cross-country travel affects wildlife habitat as a result of impacts to vegetation, soil, and 

water resources. The degree of potential impacts depends on various factors, including 1) size of 

vehicle (OHV or full-size truck), 2) frequency of travel at a specific area, and 3) vegetation, soil, or 

water conditions at the time of travel (e.g., whether soils are wet or dry). Under current management, 

cross-country vehicle travel has the greatest impacts on soil and vegetation resources during times 

when soil conditions are wet. Cross-country OHV travel on the Tusayan District has increased 

substantially in recent years. This increase partly reflects general increases in OHV recreational use, 

but also reflects a substantial increase in the use of OHVs to collect shed elk antlers on the district in 

recent years. 

Under Alternative 1, no new roads would be constructed, so there would be no additional habitat lost 

due to road construction. Potential habitat fragmentation effects caused by existing roads would 

continue. Motorized cross-country travel would be allowed to continue and would likely increase 

during the next 10 years. The primary habitat effects of continued motorized cross-country travel 

would be decreased habitat quality for certain wildlife species as a result of continued localized 

impacts to vegetation and soil resources. 

Barrier to animal movement caused by roads: The degree to which roads inhibit animal movement 

depends on both the type of road corridor and the animal species. In general, wider road corridors, 

roads with more traffic, and roads with faster vehicle traffic are more likely to inhibit animal 

movement than narrower road corridors and roads with slower and less traffic. Roads are more likely 

to inhibit the movement of smaller animals than larger animals. 

Pronghorn antelope is a species whose movement patterns are known to be affected by certain types 

of road corridors. In addition to characteristics of the actual road, characteristics of fences that 

parallel roads affect animal movement, especially for pronghorns because pronghorns do not cross 

fences as readily as do other ungulates such as mule deer and elk. State Highway 64, which crosses 

the district in a north-south direction, likely inhibits east-west pronghorn movement and thus creates 

at least a partial movement barrier. Fence modifications can reduce the impact of both roads and 

fences on pronghorn. For example, AGFD telemetry data has shown that raising the bottom wire to a 
minimum of 18 inches above the ground and replacing the bottom strand with a smooth wire greatly 

reduces the impact of fencing on pronghorn. It is unlikely that the relatively narrow corridors and 

low traffic volumes of Forest Service Level 2 and 3 roads on the district create movement barriers for 

pronghorns (Brown and Ockenfels 2007:page 29) or other large ungulates such as elk and mule deer. 

Forest Service roads on the Tusayan District are unlikely to be a significant barrier to movement of 

most vertebrate species because most of the roads are relatively narrow dirt roads characterized by 

low traffic volumes and speeds. Of the focal species evaluated, animal species whose movements are 

most likely to be affected by Forest Service roads on the Tusayan District are small species such as 

Merriam's shrew and Mogollon vole. Forest Service roads on the district may impede movements of 

other small animals such as invertebrates, some species of lizards, and other small mammal species. 

Animal mortality due to vehicle collisions: The frequency of animal-vehicle collisions varies by 

species and by characteristics of the road corridor. Roads with more vehicle traffic generally have 

more animal-vehicle collisions than roads with less traffic, unless the traffic is so great that it inhibits 

attempted animal crossings. Roads with greater vehicle speeds also have greater frequencies of 

animal-vehicle collisions than roads with lower vehicle speeds. Physical characteristics of the road 

corridor can have substantial effects on frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions. For example, road 

corridors with fences and animal crossings such as underpasses can have greatly reduced frequencies 

of animal-vehicle collisions. Clearing trees and tall shrubs from the immediate road corridor also can 

reduce frequencies of animal-vehicle collisions. 

Frequency of animal-vehicle collisions is low on Forest Service roads on the Tusayan District as 

evidenced by how rare it is to see dead animals along the sides of these roads. Animal-vehicle 

collisions are likely rare due to the low traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds of these roads. The 

majority of Forest Service roads on the district are Level 2 (86%), and Level 2 roads are 

characterized by low traffic volume and low speed (Forest Service 2005:page 31). Maintenance 

Level 3 roads are characterized by low- to moderate-traffic volume and low speeds (Forest Service 

2005:page 19). It is unlikely that mortality due to vehicle collisions on Forest Service roads on the 

Tusayan District occurs frequently enough to be causing population-level impacts for any of the focal 

species evaluated. 

Animal injury and mortality is possible due to cross-country vehicle travel which is currently allowed 

on the Tusayan District. Animals potentially affected by collisions due to cross-country motorized 

travel are invertebrates, ground-nesting birds, lizards, snakes, and small mammals such as mice and 

voles. However, because of the low vehicle speeds typical of off-road travel, direct mortality of 

animals from cross-country motorized travel on the Tusayan District probably does not occur 

frequently enough to be causing population declines of any of the focal species evaluated. 

Human disturbance of animals associated with motorized travel: Human presence and various human 

activities can negatively affect the behavior and health of individual animals. Human activity can 

cause animals to shift movement or habitat use patterns, disrupt important breeding and parental care 

behaviors, and cause physiological stress. For the purposes of this analysis, all of these potential 

negative effects to animal behavior and health are referred to simply as human disturbance effects. 
Motorized travel provides people access to different parts of the national forest. Animal species vary 

in the degree to which they are affected by human disturbance. The degree to which animal species 

are affected by human disturbance can also vary seasonally: many animal species are potentially 

affected more by human disturbance during the breeding season than during the non-breeding season. 

Species for which an important biological activity such as mating, giving birth, feeding, or drinking is 

spatially concentrated in a single or few specific areas are typically more vulnerable to adverse 

disturbance effects than species for which these activities are widely dispersed across a landscape. 

For most of the focal species evaluated, key biological activities of mating, giving birth, and feeding 

are not concentrated in a few key areas, but are instead dispersed across the landscape in suitable 

habitats. 

California condor is the only animal species currently listed under the Endangered Species Act that 

occurs on the Tusayan District. Condors commonly occur just north of the district along the South 

Rim of the Grand Canyon, but only rarely occur on the Tusayan District. Human disturbance 

associated with motorized travel under current management potentially affects California condors 

because they occasionally occur on the district feeding on road-killed elk along State Highway 64 and 

other large mammal carrion. Vehicle traffic can disturb condors that are feeding on large mammal 

carrion and cause condors to fly away. This has been observed to occur along state Highway 64, but 

is unlikely to occur along Forest Service roads on the district because elk, deer, or pronghorn are so 

rarely hit by vehicles along Forest Service roads. Condors probably occasionally feed on largemammal carrion and gut piles from hunter-killed animals on the district, and vehicle traffic and crosscountry motorized travel could result in potential disturbance of these condors. It is possible that 

individual condors could be injured or killed as a result of collisions with vehicles, but this is unlikely 

to occur on Forest Service roads on the district because of low traffic speeds and volumes on these 

roads. 

Human disturbance associated with motorized travel under current management is unlikely to be 

causing population-level impacts for any of the Forest Service Sensitive species. There are no known 

bald eagle nest sites on the Tusayan District. Bald eagles occur in small numbers on the district 

during winter, but they don't occur at particular sites consistently. They are primarily seen roosting 

near sites where carrion is present. Thus, similar to condors, vehicle traffic and cross-country 

motorized travel probably results in occasional disturbance of individual bald eagles. Golden eagles 

nest and occur year-round on the Tusayan District. The only known golden eagle nest on the district 

is in one of the motor vehicle restricted areas where motorized travel is not allowed off existing 

roads. Although peregrine falcons nest just north of the Tusayan District on cliff ledges in Grand 

Canyon National Park, there are no known peregrine falcon nest sites on the district. Cliffs along the 

Coconino Rim may provide potential nest sites. Similar to Red Butte, the Coconino Rim is already 

designated as a motor vehicle restricted area where motorized travel is not allowed off of existing 

Forest Service roads. 

There are several known goshawk territories located across parts of GAs 8 and 10 on the district. A 

number of goshawk nest sites that have been found on the Tusayan and Williams Districts are located 

in close proximity to Forest Service roads. Grubb et al. (1998) found that logging trucks passing 

approximately 500 meters from two active goshawk nests on the Kaibab Plateau did not cause 

discernible behavioral responses from individual goshawks at the nests. 
Certain bat species such as Townsend's big-eared bat are considered to be vulnerable to human 

disturbance at their roost sites. Townsend's big-eared bats and other bat species commonly roost in 

caves, abandoned mines, and old buildings. All of the known abandoned mine shafts and natural 

caves on the Tusayan District were surveyed for bats in 2008. Townsend's big-eared bats were 

detected at several of the abandoned mines and several of the caves. In general, roads and crosscountry motorized travel provide people greater access to sensitive bat roost sites. The largest of the 

abandoned mine shafts has been fenced to keep people from entering (the fencing allows bats to still 

use the mine shaft for roosting). The Kaibab National Forest is in the process of fencing or gating the 

smaller mine shafts and adits that pose a safety risk. Bat-compatible closure methods will be used. 

Known caves on the district are small and do not appear to receive much recreational cave use. 

Of the Management Indicator Species, human disturbance associated with motorized travel is most 

likely to affect elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. Much of the mule deer fawning, elk calving, and 

turkey nesting that occurs on the Tusayan District occurs throughout GA 10, which is where most of 

the ponderosa pine forest habitat on the district occurs. GAs 8 and 9 provide important winter and 

transitional range for mule deer, elk, and turkey. Human disturbance on critical winter range can 

adversely affect wild ungulates such as mule deer, pronghorn, and elk in northern geographic regions 

where winters are severe and snow depths great. This is probably less of an issue on the Tusayan 

District where winters are less severe and snows less deep. Human disturbance associated with 

motorized travel likely causes some level of disturbance to elk calving and mule deer and pronghorn 

fawning. However, these potential disturbance effects are unlikely significant at a population level 

because 1) traffic volumes and speeds are low on Tusayan District Forest Service Level 2 and 3 

roads; 2) elk calving, mule deer fawning, and pronghorn fawning activity is dispersed across 

available suitable habitats on the district; 3) motorized big game retrieval occurs from September to 

December, outside of elk calving, mule deer fawning, and pronghorn fawning seasons; and 4) the 

majority of cross-country OHV travel for antler hunting occurs during February, March, and April, 

before elk calving, mule deer fawning, and pronghorn fawning seasons. 

Human disturbance associated with motorized travel likely also affects black bears and mountain 

lions to some degree, and movement patterns of each of these species have been shown to be 

influenced by roads or road traffic (e.g., Van Dyke et al. 1986, Brody and Pelton 1989). Both species 

occur on the Tusayan District, but at low densities. Potential disturbance effects of motorized travel 

on black bears and mountain lions are unlikely significant because Forest Service roads on the district 

are natural surface roads characterized by low traffic volumes and speeds. 

Human disturbance associated with motorized travel may affect elk, mule deer, and pronghorn and 

other wildlife species at water developments where these animals must come to drink. During dry 

periods, relatively few water developments on the district hold water, so these animals must 

concentrate their drinking activity at relatively few sites. To reduce the risk of human disturbance to 

wildlife, Arizona state law prohibits camping within 1/4 mile of a natural water hole or a man-made 

watering facility containing water in such a place that wildlife or domestic stock would be denied 

access to the only reasonably available water (Arizona Revised Statute 17-308). 
Loss of logs and snags due to fuel wood harvesting along roads: Logs and snags serve important 

habitat functions for many wildlife species (Chambers and Germaine 2003). After an extensive 

review of the literature, Wisdom et al. (2000) included reduced densities of logs and snags as one of 

the negative effects of roads on wildlife habitat. Evaluating patterns of fine-scale forest conditions 

across the Interior Columbia Basin, Hann et al. (1997) found that roaded areas had lower densities of 

large-diameter trees, snags, and logs compared to unroaded areas. They concluded that this was 

because roaded areas had higher levels of fuel wood harvesting and commercial timber harvesting. 

Although personal fuel wood harvesting is managed by permit and thus outside of the scope of the 

travel management decision being made, aspects of travel management may affect how personal fuel 

wood harvesting is managed on the district. Currently, a personal use fuel wood permit can be 

purchased that allows people to harvest dead and down wood and standing dead trees. Various 

restrictions on size and species of standing dead trees apply. Fuel wood can be harvested from Forest 

Service lands across most of the district outside of specified closure areas. Because cross-country 

motor vehicle travel is currently allowed (outside of the Coconino Rim and Red Butte motor vehicle 

restricted areas), there is no maximum distance from the road from which motor vehicles can be used 

to access fuel wood. The current open road system and cross-country motorized travel facilitate 

widespread geographic distribution of fuel wood harvest across the district, both permitted (legal) 

fuel wood harvest and unauthorized (illegal) fuel wood harvest. 

Harvest or collection of wildlife facilitated by motorized travel: Motorized travel increases hunter 

opportunities, and hunting is the key tool used by AGFD to manage populations of game species. In 

addition, hunting is one of the most common recreational activities that occurs on the Tusayan 

District. 

Population management of elk is important on the Tusayan District because elk can have substantial 

impacts on various forage and browse plant species, in addition to impacts on other resources such as 

wildlife and livestock water developments. AGFD manages elk population density through the 

harvest of cow elk, and cow elk harvest is determined through AGFD's management of antlerless elk 

hunts. Motorized travel plays an important role in AGFD's ability to manage antlerless elk hunts, as 

well as other hunts. Many antlerless elk hunters, as well as other hunters, rely on a core system of 

Forest Service roads to access different parts of the Tusayan District during their hunt. Many of these 

hunters also rely on motorized dispersed camping during their hunt. In addition, most elk hunters on 

the Tusayan District currently retrieve their harvested animal using motorized big game retrieval. 

Just as motorized travel facilitates legal harvest of wildlife, it also facilitates illegal harvest 

(poaching). However, illegal harvest of game species (elk, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and wild 

turkey) on the Tusayan District is not considered to be a significant problem by AGFD or Forest 

Service law enforcement officials. 

 

Effects on wildlife habitat related to fire and fuels management: Fire can have significant effects on 

wildlife habitat: high-severity wildfires can have substantial negative effects on wildlife habitat, and 

prescribed fire and wildland fire use can be used to improve wildlife habitat and achieve other natural 

resource management objectives. Because fire has significant effects on wildlife habitat, effects of 
roads and motorized travel on fire and fuels management is important. Effects of motorized travel on 

fire and fuels management are discussed in a separate section. 

Effects on wildlife habitat related to the spread of noxious weeds: Noxious weeds have the potential 

to negatively affect wildlife habitat. Noxious weeds can displace native plant species and alter 

ecosystem function. Noxious weed distributions are often strongly associated with travel corridors 

such as roads and trails. Effects of roads and cross-country motorized travel on noxious weeds are 

discussed in a separate section. 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 

Motorized travel has a wide variety of potential negative effects on wildlife, although it is difficult to 

quantify these effects. Effects associated with roads and cross-country motorized travel on the 

Tusayan District are likely negatively affecting to some degree various wildlife species as a result of 

habitat impacts caused by roads and cross-country motorized travel, human disturbance of wildlife 

associated with motorized travel, barriers to animal movement caused by roads, mortality of wildlife 

due to vehicle collisions, and the spread of noxious weeds. Although ongoing effects of roads and 

motorized travel would continue under Alternative 1, no new roads would be constructed and no 

additional areas would be authorized for cross-country motorized vehicle use. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 

The cumulative effects analysis area is defined as the Tusayan District and a 1-mile buffer (total area 

of 418,164 acres or 653 square miles). This area is sufficiently large to include multiple home ranges 

for each of the wildlife species evaluated in this report. 

Many of the existing core Forest Service roads on the Tusayan District were constructed before 1950. 

The majority of the rest of the existing Forest Service road system on the district was constructed 

between the mid-1960s through mid-1980s. The only new road construction projects during the past 

10 years have been relatively short sections constructed as part of road realignments, primarily to 

move old road sections out of drainage bottoms. Several decisions to close roads on the district have 

been signed during the past 10 years. In 2003 and 2004, approximately 73 miles of Forest Service 

roads on the western part of the district in GA 8 were closed and obliterated. 

Under Alternative 1, direct and indirect effects related to cross-country motorized travel and roads 

would continue to negatively affect various wildlife species. Because no new roads would be 

constructed and no new areas would be authorized for motorized cross-country travel, it is likely that 

the effects of Alternative 1, when added to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would not result in population declines or threats to population viability for any of the 

species evaluated. However, under Alternative 1, the current trend of increasing cross-country motor 

vehicle use (e.g., trend of increased cross-country motor vehicle use for collection of shed elk antlers) 

would likely continue. Long-term effects of increasing cross-country motorized travel may result in 

population declines of certain wildlife species (e.g., certain species of lizards, snakes, ground-nesting 

birds, or small mammals). 
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 

Prohibiting cross-country motorized travel except for specified permitted uses and big game retrieval 

for harvested elk would result in a decrease in overall cross-country motor vehicle use. Crosscountry motorized travel would no longer be allowed for activities such as collection of shed elk and 

deer antlers and general recreational riding. Effects of a reduction in motorized cross-country travel 

on the district would include: 1) decreased impacts to vegetation and soil resources which would 

result in increased habitat quality for various wildlife species; 2) decreased levels of human 

disturbance to wildlife species; and 3) decreased risk of injury and mortality of individual animals 

such as small mammals, ground-nesting birds, lizards, and snakes due to vehicle collisions. 

Motorized Big Game Retrieval 

To estimate how the frequency of motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) would change under the 

Alternatives 2 and 3, the following analysis was conducted. First, data from Hunt Arizona were used 

to calculate the average number of big game animals harvested in Game Management Unit 9 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department 2008). (The Tusayan Ranger District is located entirely within 

Game Management Unit 9.) The average was determined for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. This 

average value was then multiplied by the estimated proportion of each big game species harvested in 

Unit 9 that is typically harvested on the Tusayan District, and by the estimated proportion of 

harvested animals typically retrieved using some kind of motor vehicle. These proportions were 

estimated by AGFD (Larry Phoenix, Field Supervisor for AGFD Region 2, personal communication). 

Estimates are presented in Table 10. 

Table 10. Estimated numbers of motorized big game retrievals occurring annually onTusayan Ranger 

District 2004-2006. 

Big Game Species Average 

harvest in 

Game 

Management 

Unit 9 

Estimated 

proportion of 

animals 

harvested on 

Tusayan 

District 

Estimated 

proportion of 

harvested 

animals 

retrieved by 

motor vehicle 

Estimated 

number of 

motorized big 

game 

retrievals 

Elk 541 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 390 - 438 

Mule Deer 145 0.65 - 0.75 0.9 85 - 98 

Pronghorn 16 0.2 - 0.3 0.9 3 - 4 

Total 478 - 540 

It is estimated that currently there are a total of approximately 480-540 motorized big game retrievals 

(elk, deer, and pronghorn) each year on the Tusayan District. Eliminating MBGR opportunity for 

mule deer and pronghorn thus represents a decrease of approximately 90-100 motorized big game 

retrievals each year on the district (decrease of approximately 18% in total frequency of motorized 

big game retrievals). 

Changes in MBGR policy could have indirect effects on certain voluntary lead reduction efforts. 

Lead poisoning caused by ingestion of lead bullet fragments in hunter-killed animal carcasses and gut 

piles is the leading cause of death for California condors and the main obstacle to a self-sustaining 

condor population in northern Arizona and southern Utah 
(http://www.peregrinefund.org/conserve_category.asp?category=California%20Condor%20Restorati

on). Lead poisoning caused by ingestion of lead bullet fragments has been documented to impact 

wildlife species other than California condors, including bald eagles, golden eagles, and ravens (e.g., 

Hunt et al. 2006, Craighead and Bedrosian 2008, Bedroisan and Craighead 2009). Bald eagles and 

ravens have been observed feeding on gut piles of hunter-killed animals on the Tusayan and Williams 

Ranger Districts. 

To reduce risks of lead poisoning to California condors, AGFD and The Peregrine Fund have 

encouraged hunters to use non-lead ammunition, or if they use lead ammunition, to remove the entire 

game carcass and gut pile from the field (Green et al. 2009, Sieg et al. 2009). Although AGFD 

encourages big game hunters in Game Management Unit 9 (Tusayan District) to use non-lead 

ammunition or to remove the entire game carcass and gut pile from the field if they are using 

traditional lead ammunition (Arizona Game and Fish and Department 2008:page 56), few hunters are 

currently doing so and voluntary lead reduction efforts in northern Arizona have so far focused on the 

Kaibab Plateau. 

Assuming that big game hunters are less likely to voluntarily haul out entire game carcasses and gut 

piles from the field without a motor vehicle, a potential indirect effect of reduced MBGR opportunity 

could be reduced effectiveness of ongoing and future voluntary lead reduction efforts. Because few 

hunters are currently removing gut piles from the field on the Tusayan District, however, potential 

effects of the small reduction in MBGR opportunity would be on potential future lead reduction 

efforts and difficult to estimate. 

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Designating 163 fewer miles of Forest Service roads for motorized public travel would result in an 

approximate 23% decrease in open road density, from 1.37 miles/mile2 to 1.05 miles/mile2. Potential 

effects of this level of reduction in roads open to motorized public travel would include reduced 

spatial distribution of motor vehicle-related human disturbance of wildlife, and reduced risk of injury 

and mortality for certain small animals due to vehicle collisions along roads. Designating 163 fewer 

miles of Forest Service roads for motorized public travel and eliminating cross-country motorized 

travel except for MBGR of elk would likely result in a decrease in the spatial distribution of fuel 

wood harvest, but not necessarily any change in the total volume of fuel wood harvested annually. 

Fuel wood harvesting may be concentrated more along the remaining open roads. Because personal 

fuel wood harvesting would continue to be managed by permit independently of travel management, 

it is difficult to evaluate indirect effects of the proposed action on the removal of logs and snags as a 

result of fuel wood harvesting. 

Effects of Alternative 2 on hunting include: 1) 23% decrease in miles of road access for hunters; 2) 

elimination of motorized big game retrieval opportunity for deer and pronghorn hunts; and 3) a 

decrease in motorized dispersed camping opportunity resulting from designating 163 fewer miles of 

roads open to motorized public travel (currently, dispersed camping is allowed along all open Forest 

Service roads). Although these effects would result in reduced motorized recreational opportunities 

for hunters, these same effects would result in increased hunt quality and satisfaction for a certain 

percentage of hunters as a result of decreased motor vehicle disturbance. Although 163 fewer miles 
of existing roads would be designated as open to motorized public travel under Alternative 2, the 

remaining open road system would likely still provide sufficient hunter access to different parts of the 

district for AGFD to meet its population management objectives for elk and other game species. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is defined as the Tusayan District and a 1-mile buffer (total area 

of 418,164 acres or 653 square miles). This area is sufficiently large to include multiple home ranges 

for each of the wildlife species evaluated in this report. 

Many of the existing core Forest Service roads on the Tusayan District were constructed before 1950. 

The majority of the rest of the existing Forest Service road system on the district was constructed 

between the mid-1960s through mid-1980s. The only new road construction projects during the past 

10 years have been relatively short sections constructed as part of road realignments, primarily to 

move old road sections out of drainage bottoms. Several decisions to close roads on the district have 

been signed during the past 10 years. In 2003 and 2004, approximately 73 miles of Forest Service 

roads on the western part of the district in GA 8 were closed and obliterated. 

The primary direct and indirect effects on wildlife of designating 163 fewer miles of roads open to 

motorized public travel and reducing motorized cross-country travel under Alternative 2 would be 

decreased motor vehicle-related human disturbance and increased habitat quality for a wide variety of 

wildlife species. Because the primary direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 on wildlife would be 

positive, these effects when added to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would not result in population declines or threats to population viability for any of the species 

evaluated. 

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Designating 143 fewer miles of roads open to motorized public travel would represent a 20% 

reduction in open road density, from 1.37 miles/mile2 to 1.09 miles/mile2. Potential effects of this 

level of reduction in roads open to motorized public travel would include reduced spatial distribution 

of motor vehicle-related human disturbance of wildlife, and reduced risk of injury and mortality for 

certain small animals due to vehicle collisions along roads. Designating 143 fewer miles of Forest 

Service roads for motorized public travel and eliminating cross-country motorized travel except for 

MBGR of elk would likely result in a decrease in the spatial distribution of fuel wood harvest, but not 

necessarily any change in the total volume of fuel wood harvested annually. Fuel wood harvesting 

would likely be concentrated more along the remaining open roads. Because personal fuel wood 

harvesting would continue to be managed by permit independently of travel management, it is 

difficult to evaluate indirect effects of the proposed action on the removal of logs and snags as a 

result of fuel wood harvesting. 

Effects of Alternative 3 on hunting include: 1) 20% decrease in miles of road access for hunters; 2) 

elimination of motorized big game retrieval opportunity for deer and pronghorn hunts; and 3) a 

decrease in motorized dispersed camping opportunity resulting from designating 143 fewer miles of 

roads open to motorized public travel (currently, dispersed camping is allowed along all open Forest 

Service roads). Although these effects would result in reduced motorized recreational opportunities 
for hunters, these same effects would likely result in increased hunt quality and satisfaction for a 

certain percentage of hunters as a result of decreased motor vehicle disturbance. Although 143 fewer 

miles of existing roads would be designated as open to motorized public travel under Alternative 3, 

the remaining open road system would likely still provide sufficient hunter access to different parts of 

the district for AGFD to meet its population management objectives for elk and other game species. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is defined as the Tusayan District and a 1-mile buffer (total area 

of 418,164 acres or 653 square miles). This area is sufficiently large to include multiple home ranges 

for each of the wildlife species evaluated in this report. 

Many of the existing core Forest Service roads on the Tusayan District were constructed before 1950. 

The majority of the rest of the existing Forest Service road system on the district was constructed 

between the mid-1960s and mid-1980s. The only new road construction projects during the past 10 

years have been relatively short sections constructed as part of road realignments, primarily to move 

old road sections out of drainage bottoms. Several decisions to close roads on the district have been 

signed during the past 10 years. In 2003 and 2004, approximately 73 miles of Forest Service roads 

on the western part of the district in GA 8 were closed and obliterated. 

The primary direct and indirect effects on wildlife of designating 143 fewer miles of roads open to 

motorized public travel and reducing motorized cross-country travel under Alternative 3 would be 

decreased motor vehicle-related human disturbance and increased habitat quality for a wide variety of 

wildlife species. Because the primary direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 on wildlife would be 

positive, these effects when added to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would not result in population declines or threats to population viability for any of the species 

evaluated. 

Invasive Weeds and Sensitive Plant Species 

Existing Condition 

Invasive Weeds 

Noxious and invasive weeds found on the Tusayan Ranger District include: cheatgrass, Dalmatian 

toadflax, diffuse knapweed, Scotch thistle, bull thistle, and leafy spurge. Cheatgrass occurs 

throughout the District. Dalmatian toadflax has been found in and around Tusayan, including along 

Highway 64. Diffuse knapweed has been found in Tusayan and along Highway 64 from the eastern 

boundary of Grand Canyon National Park to the Navajo Nation boundary. Scotch thistle has been 

found along Highway 64 at the eastern boundary with Grand Canyon National Park and on many 

forest roads in the Upper and Lower Basins. A few scattered bull thistle plants have been found in 

the interior of the District. Leafy spurge has been found within the Hull Cabin Historic District. 

Most of these populations have been treated using manual, chemical, or biological control methods. 

Invasive exotic weed monitoring, new treatments and re-treatments occur annually on the District. 

Most invasive exotic weed infestations have been found next to or near roads. Vehicles are the most 

common cause of weed introduction and spread. Road density, road locations, and the number of 

miles of new unauthorized routes can be used to predict the location and rate of spread of invasive 
exotic weeds. Many exotic invasive weed seeds and plant parts are spread by muddy vehicle tires. A 

dense road network increases the risk that existing weeds will be spread further and that new weeds 

will be introduced. Noxious and invasive weeds may also be spread by hikers, bicyclists, horses, 

livestock, and wildlife. Seeds and other plant parts are spread after sticking to muddy feet or tires or 

to clothing, fur, or hair. Weeds may also be spread by wind and water. 

Sensitive Plant Species 

A review was conducted to determine if any Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, Conservation 

Agreement, or Forest Service Sensitive plant species and/or habitats were known to occur in 

Coconino County and on or near the Kaibab National Forest. The following references were used: 

USFWS Internet list of Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Conservation Agreement species 

occurring in Coconino County; Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Data Management 

System; USDA Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive Species List; NatureServe Explorer Internet site; 

and Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide. 

One Management Indicator Species, Arizona bugbane (Actaea arizonica, formerly Cimicifuga 

arizonica), is found on the South Zone of the Kaibab National Forest. However, it is only found on 

the moist north slope of Bill Williams Mountain on the Williams District. There is no suitable habitat 

on the Tusayan District. Arizona bugbane is also a USFWS/FS Conservation Agreement species and 

a Forest Service Sensitive species. 

At this time, no Federally Listed, Proposed, Candidate, or Conservation Agreement plant species 

have been found and only two Forest Service Sensitive plant species are known to exist on the 

Tusayan District – Tusayan rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus molestus) and Arizona leatherflower 

(Clematis hirsutissima var. hirsutissima). 

Although plant populations have not been found on the Tusayan District, suitable habitat does exist 

for these Forest Service Sensitive plants: Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, Flagstaff pennyroyal, Flagstaff 

beardtongue, and Grand Canyon rose. 

Suitable habitat may also exist in the Lower and/or Upper Basin areas for Fickeisen pincushion 

cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae), a Forest Service Sensitive and Candidate species, 

and Kaibab pincushion cactus (Pediocactus paradinei), a Forest Service Sensitive and USFWS/FS 

Conservation Agreement species. Adequate surveys are needed in order to rule out the existence of 

suitable habitat for, and populations of, these Pediocactus species on the Tusayan District. (Phillips 

2009) 

Rare plants are not generally found right alongside forest roads due to the frequent disturbance. If the 

Forest Service wants to construct a new road, it must survey the area first for rare plants and avoid 

and/or mitigate the impacts. Unauthorized roads do not go through this planning and analysis process. 

As a result, recent unauthorized roads may destroy rare plants and introduce invasive weeds into their 

habitat. 

Desired Condition for Invasive Weeds and Sensitive Plant Species 

• Maintain a stable to upward trend in total herbaceous plant cover by prohibiting most off road 

vehicle use. 
• Protect Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plant species from adverse effects caused by 

roads and off road vehicle use. 

• Eradicate or contain as many existing populations of noxious and invasive exotic weeds as 

possible and prevent new introductions of weeds caused by vehicle use on the District. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 

Invasive Weeds 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Noxious and invasive exotic weeds can negatively affect the forest and rangeland in other ways as 

well. Weeds can aggressively out-compete most native plants for growing space, sunlight, soil 

moisture, and soil nutrients. They can displace many species of native plants, not just rare plants, 

leading to a reduction in biodiversity. Weeds may also reduce the scenic and natural beauty of the 

area. 

Alternative 1 

The current rate of spread of existing noxious and invasive exotic weeds and the current rate of 

introduction of new weeds will continue. As recreation use of the District increases in the future, the 

rate of spread of weeds will probably increase as well. 

The increased populations of weeds may increase soil erosion, reduce forage for wildlife and 

livestock, reduce wildlife habitat, displace native plants, reduce biodiversity, increase the risk of fire, 

and reduce scenic and natural beauty. 

Unmanaged cross country motorized vehicle travel is a major threat to the forest. Vehicles can crush 

and kill native vegetation, drive through existing populations of noxious and invasive exotic weeds, 

open up ruts and bare patches of soil, cause soil erosion, and spread weed seed onto the newly created 

seedbeds. The most vulnerable areas include gentle slopes, areas with an open canopy of trees and 

shrubs, areas near water developments, and scenic views. 

Global climate change may lead to higher temperatures, lower precipitation, more frequent and 

severe droughts, and more wildfires. Noxious and invasive exotic weeds have a competitive 

advantage during droughts and after fires and could expand their ranges at the expense of native 

plants. The continuation of current travel management could lead to an even greater rate of weed 

introduction and spread if global climate change predictions are correct. 

Continuation of current management (Alternative 1) could lead to a large annual increase in the 

number of weed species found on the District and in the number of acres infested. 

Alternative 2 

The Travel Management Process provides an opportunity to reduce the density of the road network 

and to remove or reduce the number of roads and unauthorized routes near vulnerable areas such as 

wilderness, parks, scenic areas, important wildlife habitat, areas with a lot of rare plants, or other 

points of interest. The Kaibab National Forest is actively managed and provides multiple uses such 

as recreation, hunting, ranching, and wood products. These activities have the potential to introduce 

exotic plants to the Forest. These exotic plants may then spread to adjoining lands, including the 
Grand Canyon National Park. The Park Service is mandated to eradicate exotic plants that occur 

within the Park. It faces many challenges in controlling exotic plants. It is important for the Kaibab 

National Forest and Grand Canyon National Park to reduce further opportunities for the spread of 

exotic plants. One way to do that is to reduce the road density along the boundary between the Park 

and the Forest. 

Reducing the number of miles of road open to public travel on the District reduces the number of 

opportunities for noxious and invasive exotic weeds to be introduced and spread. The closure of 23% 

of the Forest Service System Roads, the closure of most user-created unauthorized routes, and the ban 

on most cross country motorized vehicle travel will greatly reduce the spread of existing noxious and 

invasive exotic weeds and the introduction of new weeds. Fewer disturbances of soil and native 

vegetation will occur and fewer weed seeds will be spread by motorized vehicles. 

The reduced incidence of weeds will help conserve the soil, forage for wildlife and livestock, wildlife 

habitat, native plants, biodiversity, and scenic/natural beauty. 

Some cross country travel will still be allowed by Forest Service employees, Forest Service 

contractors, permittees, hunters, and campers. Soil and vegetation disturbance and weed seed 

dispersal away from roads is still possible. 

Best management practices and mitigation measures will be used on all Forest projects in order to 

reduce the spread of noxious and invasive exotic weeds. For example, the Forest Service attempts to 

control known populations of weeds before projects begin. Loggers, miners, and utility crews are 

required to wash their heavy equipment before entering the Forest. Vehicles are not allowed to be 

used when soils are wet enough to cause soil damage. 

Designating dispersed camping corridors and routes will provide the Forest Service with a way to 

track and control noxious and invasive exotic weeds. Designated corridors and routes will be 

periodically surveyed for weeds, so that the weeds may be controlled. Disturbed areas may be 

revegetated as needed. 

Continued implementation of the Wet Weather Travel Policy will help reduce the spread of noxious 

and invasive exotic weed seeds that cling to muddy tires and vehicles. 

Cross country motorized vehicle use by hunters to retrieve elk has the potential to introduce and 

spread invasive exotic weeds. Vehicles could travel almost anywhere on the District at random. This 

vehicle use will only occur during elk seasons, approximately August through December. During the 

other half of the year, cross country travel would be greatly reduced. Therefore, it is expected that 

there will be a reduction in the introduction and spread of weeds 

Implementation of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), with its reduction in road and cross country 

vehicle use, will improve the ability of native plants to grow and survive. The reduction in bare 

ground will improve the ability of the forest and rangeland to better resist invasion by weeds, 

especially during a period of climate change. 
Implementation of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) will reduce the introduction and spread of noxious 

and invasive exotic weeds compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). It will also improve the ability of 

the Forest to monitor and control weeds. 

Noxious and invasive exotic weeds will continue to be spread by hikers, bicyclists, horses, livestock, 

wildlife, wind, and water. But implementation of Alternative 2 will reduce the introduction and 

spread of weeds by vehicles, which are the most common vectors of weed dissemination. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 is virtually the same as Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Alternative 3 will have slightly 

less positive effects since 3% more roads would be left open to public travel. Refer to the discussion 

of effects for Alternative 2 above for more information. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 will reduce the introduction and spread of noxious and invasive 

exotic weeds. The reduction will be slightly less than for Alternative 2. It will also improve the 

ability of the Forest to monitor and control weeds. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, ongoing, and planned projects and activities in the cumulative effects analysis area that will 

have an effect on invasive weeds include: timber and fuel wood harvesting, forest thinning, grassland 

restoration tree removal, sagebrush restoration, prescribed burning, livestock grazing, fence 

construction, water tank construction and maintenance, vehicle driving and horseback riding off road 

to herd cattle and maintain fences, invasive weed control, recreational activities (e.g. dispersed 

camping, horseback riding, hiking, hunting), mineral exploration and possible mining, pipeline and 

transmission line use and maintenance, and residential developments and activities. 

The net cumulative effect of all human activities and natural events will be an improvement in forest 

and rangeland health on the District and a reduction in the introduction and spread of noxious and 

invasive exotic weeds. 

Sensitive Plant Species 

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Conservation Agreement Plants 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Suitable habitat may exist in the Lower and/or Upper Basin areas for Kaibab pincushion cactus 

(Pediocactus paradinei). At this time, it is not known whether plant populations exist in this area. 

Adequate surveys are needed in order to rule out the existence of suitable habitat for and populations 

of Kaibab pincushion cactus on the Tusayan District. (Phillips 2009) 

Suitable habitat may exist in the Lower and/or Upper Basin areas for Fickeisen pincushion cactus 

(Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae). At this time, it is not known whether plant populations 

exist in this area. Adequate surveys are needed in order to rule out the existence of suitable habitat 

for, and populations of Fickeisen pincushion cactus, on the Tusayan District. (Phillips 2009) 
Threats to Kaibab pincushion cactus and Fickeisen pincushion cactus include off road vehicle travel, 

road maintenance, dispersed camping, trampling, collecting, and the spread of invasive exotic weeds. 

Roads could exist and cross country travel could occur in suitable habitat due to the gentle slopes, if 

the ground is not too rocky and not covered by tall shrubs. Authorized off road vehicle travel could 

damage individual plants and/or habitat. 

Alternative 1 

No populations of Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed plant species have been found and no 

suitable habitat is known to exist on the Tusayan Ranger District. 

Continuation of current management (Alternative 1) will have No Effect. 

ForestService Sensitive Species 

Tusayan or disturbed rabbitbrush and Arizona leatherflower are Forest Service Sensitive species that 

occur on the Tusayan Ranger District. 

There are no known populations occurring on Tusayan Ranger District, but there is suitable habitat 

for these species: Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, Flagstaff pennyroyal, Flagstaff beardtongue, Grand 

Canyon rose. Fickeisen pincushion cactus (USFWS Candidate) and Kaibab pincushion cactus 

(USFWS/FS Conservation Agreement) are also Forest Service Sensitive species. 

Continuation of current management (Alternative 1) May Affect Individuals or Habitat, but is Not 

Likely to Contribute to a Trend toward Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to Populations or the 

Species, because no populations are known to exist on the Tusayan District. This alternative poses the 

greatest risk to the plants, if they are found to exist on the District. 

All other Forest Service Sensitive Plants: 

There are no known populations and no suitable habitat on the Tusayan District for these Forest 

Service Sensitive plant species: Arizona bugbane (Actaea arizonica), gumbo milkvetch (Astragalus 

ampullarius), Marble Canyon milkvetch (Astragalus cremnophylax var. hevronii), cliff milkvetch 

(Astragalus cremnophylax var. myriorrhaphis), Rusby milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi), Kaibab 

paintbrush (Castilleja kaibabensis), rock fleabane (Erigeron saxatilis), Morton wild buckwheat 

(Eriogonum mortonianum), Atwood wild buckwheat (Eriogonum thompsonae var. atwoodii), Kaibab 

bladderpod (Lesquerella kaibabensis), and Mt. Trumbull beardtongue (Penstemon distans). 

Continuation of current management (Alternative 1) will have No Effect on these other Forest 

Service Sensitive plant species. 

Alternative 2 

Determination of Effect on Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Plant Species: 

No populations of Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed plant species have been found and no 

suitable habitat is known to exist on the Tusayan Ranger District. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 will have No Effect. 
Implementation of Alternative 2 will reduce the potential damage to Forest Service Sensitive Plant 

Species occurring on the Tusayan Ranger District. Tusayan rabbitbrush and Arizona leatherflower 

populations and their habitat compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). Most cross country travel will 

be prohibited. Healthy plants will be more resilient and adaptable during a time of climate change. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 May Affect individuals or habitat due to the continuation of 

motorized cross country elk retrieval, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Toward Federal 

Listing or the Loss of Viability of the Species. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 will reduce the potential damage to Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, 

Flagstaff pennyroyal, Flagstaff beardtongue, Grand Canyon rose. Fickeisen pincushion cactus 

(USFWS Candidate) and Kaibab pincushion cactus (USFWS/FS Conservation Agreement) 

populations and their habitat compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). Most cross country travel will 

be prohibited. Healthy plants will be more resilient and adaptable during a time of climate change. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 May Affect individuals or habitat due to the continuation of 

motorized cross country elk retrieval, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Toward Federal 

Listing or the Loss of Viability of the Species. 

All other Forest Service Sensitive Plants: 

There are no known populations and no suitable habitat on the Tusayan District for these Forest 

Service Sensitive plant species: Arizona bugbane (Actaea arizonica), gumbo milkvetch (Astragalus 

ampullarius), Marble Canyon milkvetch (Astragalus cremnophylax var. hevronii), cliff milkvetch 

(Astragalus cremnophylax var. myriorrhaphis), Rusby milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi), Kaibab 

paintbrush (Castilleja kaibabensis), rock fleabane (Erigeron saxatilis), Morton wild buckwheat 

(Eriogonum mortonianum), Atwood wild buckwheat (Eriogonum thompsonae var. atwoodii), Kaibab 

bladderpod (Lesquerella kaibabensis), and Mt. Trumbull beardtongue (Penstemon distans). 

Implementation of Alternative 2 will have No Effect on these Forest Service Sensitive plant species. 

Alternative 3 

No populations of Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed plant species have been found and no 

suitable habitat is known to exist on the Tusayan Ranger District. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 will have No Effect. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 will reduce the potential damage to Forest Service Sensitive Plant 

Species, Tusayan rabbitbrush and Arizona leatherflower populations and their habitat, occurring on 

the Tusayan Ranger District compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). Most cross country travel will 

be prohibited. Healthy plants will be more resilient and adaptable during a time of climate change. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 May Affect individuals or habitat due to the continuation of 

motorized cross country elk retrieval, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Toward Federal 

Listing or the Loss of Viability of the Species. 
Implementation of Alternative 3 will reduce the potential damage potential habitat for Mt. 

Dellenbaugh sandwort, Flagstaff pennyroyal, Flagstaff beardtongue, Grand Canyon rose. Fickeisen 

pincushion cactus (USFWS Candidate) and Kaibab pincushion cactus (USFWS/FS Conservation 

Agreement) compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). Most cross country travel will be prohibited. If 

populations are found during plant surveys, plants populations will be more resilient and adaptable 

during a time of climate change. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 May Affect individuals or habitat due to the continuation of 

motorized cross country elk retrieval, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Toward Federal 

Listing or the Loss of Viability of the Species. 

All other Forest Service Sensitive Plants: 

There are no known populations and no suitable habitat on the Tusayan District for these Forest 

Service Sensitive plant species: Arizona bugbane (Actaea arizonica), gumbo milkvetch (Astragalus 

ampullarius), Marble Canyon milkvetch (Astragalus cremnophylax var. hevronii), cliff milkvetch 

(Astragalus cremnophylax var. myriorrhaphis), Rusby milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi), Kaibab 

paintbrush (Castilleja kaibabensis), rock fleabane (Erigeron saxatilis), Morton wild buckwheat 

(Eriogonum mortonianum), Atwood wild buckwheat (Eriogonum thompsonae var. atwoodii), Kaibab 

bladderpod (Lesquerella kaibabensis), and Mt. Trumbull beardtongue (Penstemon distans). 

Implementation of Alternative 3 will have No Effect on these Forest Service Sensitive plant species. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area consists of the Tusayan Ranger District surrounded by a one 

mile buffer. The cumulative effects analysis time period is 1998 to 2018. Past, ongoing, and planned 

projects and activities in the cumulative effects analysis area that will have an effect on rare plants 

include: timber harvesting, forest thinning, grassland restoration tree removal, sagebrush restoration, 

prescribed burning, livestock grazing, fence construction, water tank construction and maintenance, 

vehicle driving and horseback riding off road to herd cattle and maintain fences, invasive weed 

control, recreational activities (e.g. vehicle and ATV use off road, dispersed camping, horseback 

riding, hiking, hunting), road use and maintenance, mineral exploration and possible mining, pipeline 

and transmission line use and maintenance, travel management (i.e. road closures and elimination of 

most off-road motorized vehicle use), and residential developments and activities. 

The net cumulative effect of all human activities and natural events will be an improvement in forest 

and rangeland health and a reduction in damage to rare plant populations and habitats. 

Heritage 

Affected Environment 

Cultural Resources: During the past 30 years, Kaibab National Forest Heritage Resource specialists 

in compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, have intensively inventoried 76,354 of the District’s 331,428 acres (23%). Archaeologists 

have identified 1,770 cultural resources, listed 6 of them on the National Register of Historic Places, 
declared 300 eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, considered 1365 sites unevaluated, 

and determined that 95 are not eligible for the National Register. 60% of these sites are artifact 

scatters (n=1062) associated with the hunting and gathering camps ranging from ca. 9000 BC through 

the early Euro-American historic contact period ca. AD 1850. 

Archaeologists have recorded 379 sites with above ground masonry architecture. Most of these 

habitation sites date to ancestral Puebloan occupation of the Forest between AD 700 and AD 1200. 

After AD 1200, many of the prehistoric occupants migrated southeastward (Weintraub et al 2006). 

Between AD 1200 and the arrival of Euro-American settlers, ancestral Pais and Hopis hunted and 

gathered leaving scant evidence of their presence (Cleeland et al 1992). 

In the late 1800s, Euro-American settlers arrived in the Grand Canyon area with hopes of 

successfully mining copper. As a result, investors built the Grand Canyon Railway that helped open 

the area to the timber, ranching, mining, tourism industries and the Forest Service. Researchers have 

thoroughly documented the history of the Tusayan Ranger District and it need not be recanted here 

(Putt 1993 and Stein 2006). Archaeologists have documented 259 Historic period sites that include 

cabins, mines, mining camps, railroad grades and camps, line shacks, water storage features and even 

an historic Airport hangar. 

The Forest has also been an important area for traditional Native American uses (Cleeland et al 

1992). As a result, archaeologists have recorded historic period sweat lodges, hogans and pinyon nut 

gathering camps. 

USDA Forest Service Heritage Policies Regarding Travel Management 

In a policy statement drafted by the Forest Service in consultation with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, it was stated that any restriction of motorized travel on designated routes, and 

the prohibition of unmanaged cross-country travel will serve to protect historic properties across a 

broad landscape and that such a clearly designated system will “(p)rotect natural and cultural 

resources.” (Forest Service 2005) 

In 2006, the Advisory Council, the Forest Service Region 3 and the State Historic Preservation 

Officers of New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Arizona, in an appendix to the Programmatic 

Agreement agreed that the designation of a system of roads and trails, already open for motor vehicle 

use, will have little or no potential to affect historic properties (USDA Forest Service 2006). 

Archaeologists evaluated all of the proposed alternatives in relationship to these policies. In sum, the 

widest range of potential direct and indirect effects occurs under the no action alternative (Alternative 

1). The remaining alternatives propose different levels of reduction of these same indirect and direct 

effects, so their evaluations do not recant them. 

Tribal Consultation and Scoping of Tribal Communities 

The Kaibab National Forest recognizes that area tribes have cultural ties and knowledge about the 

lands now managed by the Forest Service. Many tribal members regularly visit the Kaibab National 

Forest to gather traditional resources and to visit traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. 

Therefore, tribes share an interest in protecting important natural and cultural resources from damage, 
including that caused by uncontrolled cross country motor vehicle traffic. Roads on the Tusayan 

Ranger District also access Indian reservation land on both the Havasupai and Navajo reservations. 

Therefore, access and maintenance of these roads is a significant concern for these tribes. 

Due to the level of use of the forest by tribal members and the unique interests of area tribes, the 

Kaibab National Forest conducted extensive tribal consultation and scoping of tribal communities for 

the Tusayan Travel Management process. This consultation process reflects a long standing 

commitment by the Kaibab National Forest to share the stewardship of public lands with area tribes. 

For the current project tribal consultation was conducted at the government to government level with 

concerned tribes according to established Memoranda of Understanding with the tribes and pertinent 

laws and regulations. Additionally, the forest scoped tribal communities and individual tribal 

members that utilize the forest. Such scoping assures that affected publics are scoped as required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws and regulations. 

The Kaibab National Forest has heard comments and concerns from area tribes about the 

management of forest roads and off road travel for many years. Specific issues with road access, 

obliteration, and maintenance have been addressed on a case by case basis. By 2005, the Kaibab 

National Forest initiated broader discussions with tribes regarding the management of the forest wide 

road system as initial analysis for the Five Forest OHV EIS and the Tusayan Roads Analysis project. 

These discussions included government to government meetings with the Hopi Tribe in Kykotsmovi, 

AZ on 1/18/2006 and 2/24/2006, and the Havasupai Tribe on 4/6/2006 and 5/12/2006 in Supai, 

Arizona. On 11/12/2006 forest representatives attended a meeting of the Cameron Chapter of the 

Western Navajo Agency to identify local concerns with Navajo tribal members. 

On 4/1/2006 the Tusayan Travel Management Project was added to the Kaibab National Forest Fiscal 

Year 2006 Third Quarter Schedule of Proposed Actions. A copy of the SOPA was sent to the 

Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, the Navajo 

Nation, and the Bodaway/Gap, Cameron, Coalmine Canyon, Leupp, and To’Nanees’Dizi Chapter 

Houses of the Western Agency of the Navajo Nation. Copies of the SOPA have been mailed to the 

parties above on a quarterly basis since that time, including updated information about the project. 

Over the last two years, forest representatives have updated the tribes on the Travel Management 

process during regularly scheduled government to government consultation meetings with the Hopi 

Tribe in Kykotsmovi, Arizona on 2/21/2007, 6/21/2007, and 2/20/2008, the Havasupai Tribe on 

2/6/2006 and 3/18/2008, the Hualapai Tribe in Peach Springs, AZ on 3/4/2008, the Navajo Nation in 

Window Rock, Arizona on 1/31/2007, 11/19/2007, 2/14/2008, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 

on 2/19/2008. Additionally, The Kaibab Navajo Liaison has updated the Western Navajo Agency 

Chapters about the project at regularly scheduled Chapter Meetings. The project was specifically 

discussed at the Cameron Chapter on 3/21/2007, the Bodaway/Gap Chapter on 7/12/2007, and the 

Coalmine Chapter on 8/12/2007. 

On February 1, 2008 Williams Travel Management project was added to the Kaibab National Forest 

Fiscal Year 2006 Second Quarter Schedule of Proposed Actions. A copy of the SOPA was sent to 

the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, the 
Navajo Nation, and the Bodaway/Gap, Cameron, Coalmine Canyon, Leupp, and To’Nanees’Dizi 

Chapter Houses of the Western Agency of the Navajo Nation. 

Tribal Concerns with the Tusayan Travel Management Project 

As stated above, the majority of tribal concerns submitted during the consultation and scoping 

process involve access to special areas on the forest or maintenance and management of the forest 

road system. The Havasupai tribe voiced concerns about leaving open several roads accessing the 

Havasupai reservation and campsites near the boundary and near Red Butte. All of the roads 

identified by the tribe will remain open under each Alternative. The Hopi tribe has also identified 

several roads on the forest that must remain open in order to access ceremonial sites or traditional 

cultural properties. All of these roads will remain open under each Alternative or a separate written 

instrument will be used to ensure Hopi access to these areas. 

A number of concerns have been voiced by both the Navajo tribal government and the local Navajo 

Chapters. Concerns include access to resources such as fuel wood and pinyon nuts, access to 

reservation lands via FS system roads, and safety of vehicles parked along major travel routes during 

gathering activities. 

It should be noted that in general the tribes have voiced concern over increased off-road travel and 

user created roads, and have stated support for restricting such travel. 

Methodology for Addressing the Effects of the Travel Management Rule on Heritage Resources 

To apply the aforementioned protocols for the Travel Management Rule, Kaibab archaeologists have 

worked closely with the ID Team to designate an open road system that will help protect and preserve 

heritage resources in their natural environment. Archaeologists used their Geographic Information 

Systems in all phases of the ID Team analysis. In this manner, they were able to identify areas of 

heritage sensitivity that require exclusion from dispersed camping corridors and unsuitable 

unauthorized routes. 

The ID Team members have identified about 6 miles of short unauthorized routes that often lead to 

dispersed campsites and may be used for recreation access. These routes will only be open for the 

first 300 ft. and most of these dead end roads do not surpass that distance. Archaeologists will be 

inventorying all of these roads to determine if they affect heritage resources and if so, then they will 

not appear on the motorized vehicle use maps (MVUM). 

Because proposed alternatives (other than Alternative 1 that has no designated camping corridors) 

include designating 300 ft. dispersed camping corridors, archaeologists expect increased impacts 

within these areas. ID Team members identified corridors that have historically been the most popular 

dispersed camping areas on the District. To minimize the potential increased effects to heritage 

resources within those corridors, archaeologists worked with the ID Team to produce maps of areas 

that minimizes the number of heritage resources within these designated corridors. In doing so, the 

team identified 17 miles where designated dispersed camping is appropriate. 

Within the camping corridors area, archaeologists have previously identified 33 heritage resources. 

Archaeologists have inventoried 1508 of the 2080 acres within these corridors, thus indicating a very 
low risk to heritage resources, or 14 sites per square mile. Since the average site on the Kaibab is 

about 0.75 acres, about (10.5 acres per square mile) have archaeological materials, or less than 2% of 

the inventoried dispersed camping areas. 

Prior to the implementation of the corridors, and the production of the MVUM, archaeologists will 

have completed additional surveys within the corridors where they expect to find additional sites and 

survey all user created roads that are proposed for the MVUM. As part of this survey, they will also 

document the condition of the 33 previously recorded sites within the corridors so that archaeologists 

can device a monitoring plan to assess the future effects of dispersed camping in these newly 

designated corridors. 

They will also devise a monitoring plan for any sites that may be adjacent to any user created roads 

on the MVUM. If effects do occur, then these designated areas and routes can be removed from the 

maps. 

As needs may arise for further dispersed camping or recreation access in future NEPA projects, a 

phased approach to inventorying non-surveyed areas will be implemented in accordance with the 

aforementioned protocols between the National Forests, Advisory Council and SHPOs. 

Desired Future Condition 

With regards to heritage resources, the desired future condition is that the travel management rule 

will protect and preserve heritage resources in their natural environment. Any of the alternatives 

provided below, other than Alternative 1 the no action alternative, greatly reduces the risk of damages 

to heritage resources from off road vehicles. Under the “no action” alternative, virtually all of the 

1770 heritage resources on the Tusayan Ranger District (except for 60 sites located in previously 

designated Red Butte and Coconino Rim roadless areas), are at risk to damages from off road 

vehicles. 

 Alternative 1. No Action Alternative 

Of the No Action Alternative’s open trails and roads, archaeologists have inventoried 57% of the 

open road system (10563 of 18439 acres). On the Kaibab, archaeologists normally survey roads100 

ft. on both sides of a road’s centerline. Many of these roads also fall within areas surveyed for large 

timber sales. Because Alternative 1 leaves all roads open for use and off road driving allowed, all 

cultural resources (both known and unknown) on the Tusayan Ranger District remain at risk to direct 

and indirect effects from off road travel. 

Table below illustrates the proximity of cultural resources to Alternative 1’s open roads system. 

Almost 74% (n=1302) of the Tusayan Ranger District’s known cultural resources are less than 1⁄4 mile 

from any open road. 

Table 11. Proximity of cultural resources to open roads.

Distance from Open Road 

Number 

of sites 

Percentage of Tusayan 

Ranger District Sites 

(n=1770) 
Sites within 10 ft 202 0.11 

Sites within 25 ft 238 0.13 

Sites within 50ft 289 0.16 

Sites within 100ft 379 0.21 

Sites within 200 ft 527 0.29 

Sites within 500ft 807 0.46 

Sites within 1/4 mile 1302 0.74 

Sites within 1/2 mile 1649 0.93 

Sites within 1 mile 1759 0.99 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Mechanized Big Game Retrieval and Off Road Travel 

With the popularity of OHV use beginning just after World War II and the availability of new, more 

versatile ATVs in the 1980s, access to even the most remote areas of public lands became possible. 

Presently, the Tusayan Ranger District is open to motorized cross-country travel. 

Under all Alternatives, hunters can drive where they need to with any type of vehicle. Arizona Game 

and Fish data collected between 2001-2005 shows that hunters harvest an average of 565 elk and deer 

per year on the Tusayan Ranger District. The same study estimates that 50% of the hunters harvest 

their game with ATVs. For our study, ID Team members estimated that hunters would travel an 

average of 1⁄4 mile to harvest game. Therefore, hunters will make an average of 282 off road trips per 

year to harvest their game. This totals 70 miles of off road driving per year. 

Direct impacts of mechanized big game retrieval and off road travel involves the physical contact of 

tires or an undercarriage traveling over or through archaeological sites or traditional use areas altering 

the ground surface and any archeological materials on the site. OHV use in areas with sensitive or 

moist soils can create tracks, ruts and new user routes that may crush, displace, and/or destroy 

cultural materials (i.e. artifacts, features, traditionally used plants), and damage significant 

information that may contribute to our understanding of history. These ruts may then lead to rill and 

gully formations, which could further damage sites. As a result, an eligible or listed property may 

become ineligible for listing on the National Register. For example, during a 2003 archaeological site 

inventory survey in the Coconino National Forest near the Timberline subdivision, archaeologists 

observed numerous OHV tracks and routes that passed through and over important features and 

artifacts on prehistoric sites, often noting irreparable damage (Lyndon 2003). In sum, the No action 

alternative, allowing for motorized big game retrieval and allowing off road travel will most likely 

increase user created roads, cause erosion, and other forms of inadvertent damages. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Dispersed Camping 

Recreational activities and resource procurement have also caused inadvertent or unintentional 

damage to sites. A pioneering study by the University of Cincinnati’s Upper Basin Archaeological 

Research Project on the Kaibab NF discovered that the increased recreational use of OHVs and ATVs 

had resulted in inadvertent vandalism to nearly 20% of more than 660 prehistoric activity areas in 

their 12.5 km sample area (Roos 2000). In using OHVs to access campsites and other Forest 

resources, the study shows that driver’s ruts and tracks have caused both direct and indirect damages 

to prehistoric sites. It also noted that campers unintentionally damaged sites by taking rocks from 

prehistoric structures or archaeological features to build campfire rings and for weights to tack down 

their tents (see Figure 1). Researchers noted numerous “collection piles” of distinctive artifacts. This 
displacement of artifacts negates the ability for archaeologists conduct contextual studies thus 

altering the eligibility of a site’s designation to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Figure 13. Kaibab Forest Archaeologist inspects cultural site heavily impacted by campers. 

Cumulative Effects 

Archaeologists consider the No Action Alternative to have the greatest potential for cumulative 

effects. Direct and indirect effects would continue and most likely increase from new user roads 

created by off road travel. Dispersed camping will continue to occur and damage additional sites. 

This alternative is the least effective action to protect and preserve heritage resources in their natural 

environment. 

Alternative 2. Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect effects: 

This alternative greatly reduces the direct and indirect effects to cultural resources. When compared 

to Alternative 1, the proposed action’s allowance for off-road travel for only seasonal big game 

retrieval will likely lessen but not eliminate the direct and indirect effects (see earlier discussion) to 

cultural resources. There is the possibility that more hunters will purchase ATVs to retrieve their 

game. Limiting off road travel will greatly reduce the chances for direct and indirect effects to 

cultural resources from dispersed camping and off road travel. However, this reduction in dispersed 
camping District wide may increase the direct and indirect effects in the corridors that the Forest 

Service designates as open for camping. 

Cumulative Effects 

The proposed action greatly reduces the cumulative effects that are likely to occur with the 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule. Because this alternative will greatly reduce off-road 

travel (other than seasonal big game retrieval), the negative effects of off-road travel will be reduced. 

Archaeologists do expect to see an increase in cumulative effects in the corridors that the Forest 

Service designates as open for camping.

Mitigation Measures 

Under this alternative, roads designated for mechanized rehabilitation and established dispersed 

camping zones are undertakings subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966. By reducing the opportunities for dispersed camping across the District, 

archaeologists expect increased impacts within designated 300 ft. corridors; however, archaeologists 

have worked with the ID Team to produce maps of areas that have a limited number of heritage 

resources within these corridors. Prior to the implementation of the corridors, and the production of 

the MVUM, archaeologists will have completed additional surveys within the corridors where they 

expect to find additional sites and all survey all user created roads that are proposed for the MVUM. 

As part of this survey, they will also document the condition of the 33 previously recorded sites 

within the corridors so that archaeologists can device a monitoring plan to assess the effects of 

dispersed camping in these newly designated corridors. They will also devise a monitoring plan for 

any sites that may be adjacent to any user created roads on the MVUM. If effects do occur, then these 

designated areas and routes can be re-evaluated. As needs may arise for further dispersed camping, a 

phased approach to inventorying non-surveyed areas will be implemented in accordance with the 

aforementioned agreements between the National Forests, Advisory Council and SHPOs. 

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The only difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is that the latter leaves an additional 20 

miles of roads open to public motorized travel. Since these are existing roads, there will be no 

significant increase in direct or indirect effects. 

This alternative greatly reduces the direct and indirect effects to cultural resources. When compared 

to Alternative 1, Alternative 3’s allowance for mechanized big game retrieval will likely lessen but 

not eliminate the direct and indirect effects to cultural resources, and just as in Alternative 2, there 

may be more hunters using ATVs to retrieve their game. Limiting off road travel will greatly reduce 

the chances for direct and indirect effects to cultural resources from dispersed camping and off road 

travel. However, this reduction in dispersed camping District wide may increase the direct and 

indirect effects in the aforementioned designated corridors. 

Cumulative Effects 

Like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 greatly reduces the cumulative effects that are likely to occur with 

the implementation of the Travel Management Rule. Because this alternative will greatly reduce off-
road travel (other than seasonal big game retrieval), the negative effects of off-road travel will be 

reduced. Archaeologists do expect to see an increase in cumulative effects in the corridors that the 

Forest Service designates as open for camping. The obliteration of closed roads may also cause direct 

effects to cultural resources. 

Mitigation Measures 

Similar to Alternative 2, under this alternative, roads designated for mechanized rehabilitation and 

established dispersed camping zones are undertakings subject to compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. By reducing the opportunities for dispersed camping 

across the District, archaeologists expect increased impacts within designated 300 ft. corridors; 

however, archaeologists have worked with the ID Team to produce maps of areas that have a limited 

number of heritage resources within these corridors. Prior to the implementation of the corridors, and 

the production of the MVUM, archaeologists will have completed additional surveys within the 

corridors where they expect to find additional sites and all survey all user created roads that are 

proposed for the MVUM. As part of this survey, they will also document the condition of the 33 

previously recorded sites within the corridors so that archaeologists can device a monitoring plan to 

assess the effects of dispersed camping in these newly designated corridors. They will also devise a 

monitoring plan for any sites that may be adjacent to any user created roads on the MVUM. If effects 

do occur, then these designated areas and routes can be re-evaluated. As needs may arise for further 

dispersed camping, a phased approach to inventorying non-surveyed areas will be implemented in 

accordance with the aforementioned agreements between the National Forests, Advisory Council and 

SHPOs. 

Vegetation Management 

Affected Environment 

Vegetation management occurs on many parts of the District. This work is not expected to be effected 

by TMR. The primary concern for vegetation management is provision of an adequate transportation 

system in order to provide access for vegetation management projects. Roads are needed in order for 

contractors to access work areas in order to load and haul timber as well as small diameter wood. 

Roads are also needed for fuel wood, Christmas tree cutting, and forest product collecting. These are 

expected to continue as permitted activities. 

Desired Condition 

An adequate number of open roads is provided in order to carry out vegetation management 

activities. Closed roads are reopened and temporary roads augment the open road system to facilitate 

this work.These roads are reclosed or decommissioned after work is completed. Fuel wood, 

Christmas tree and forest product gathering are conducted as permitted. Motorized cross-country use 

will be used sparingly, and will be permitted if it is necessary to meet vegetation management 

objectives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Vegetation 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Vegetation management will continue with any temporary road construction, obliteration or use of 

closed roads covered under the environmental planning and contract preparation the sale. Fuel wood, 
Christmas tree cutting and forest product collection will continue as designated for each permitted 

activity. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

There are no direct effects on vegetation management with the existing condition. There may be 

indirect effects related to unmanaged cross-country use, if soil erosion and soil productivity are 

decreased. These are expected to be slightly negative over time. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

This alternative will not have direct effects on the Vegetation Management program. Closed roads 

and temporary roads would still be used. Fuel wood, Christmas tree cutting and forest product 

collecting might be negatively affected since the open road system would be reduced by about 24 

percent. 

There is no effect from dispersed camping or motorized big game retrieval for elk seasons. 

Alternative 3 

The effects of these alternatives are the same as Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no direct and minimal indirect effects on the Vegetation Management program; therefore 

there are no cumulative effects. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

Existing Condition 

Currently there is roughly a minimum of one Maintenance Level (ML) 3 road traversing every 

township (36 square miles) of the District. In addition, ML 2 roads provide further access to areas 

between the Level 3 roads. The present density of roads is such that few areas of the District are more 

than one mile from a road. At this density, there is wide-spread dispersal of Forest visitors; this may 

also contribute to a higher number of human-caused wildfires. Roads at this density have the 

undesirable effect of limiting wildland fire use (low to moderate intensity) projects, since they are 

often stopped prematurely due to a break in fuels at the road edge. 

Desired Condition 

There is an average of one ML 3 road per township for the purposes of fire management. The 

combined numbers of ML 2 and 3 roads provide easy access across the District and aid in movement 

of suppression resources. Patrolling, responding to a fire starts, and movement of resources for a 

large incident is done safely and effectively with little risk of damage to vehicles due to collisions or 

poorly maintained roads. Few areas of the District are more than two miles from a road. This density 

provides adequate access and opportunities for suppression actions such as burning from roads while 

still providing for the movement of desirable wildland fire use. 
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives on Fire and Fuels Management 

Alternative 1- No Action 

The current density of roads adequately facilitates patrolling, initial attack response and movement of 

suppression resources. The spread of desirable wildland fire is often hampered by the break in fuel 

continuity at the edge of roads. All Level 2 and 3 roads are used extensively by the visiting public and 

OHV use is expected to increase. Human-caused fires in dispersed areas will likely increase, 

especially given the expected increase in off-road driving. As dispersed visitation increases, the 

ability to make adequate fire prevention contacts will diminish without additional personnel, vehicles 

and related funding. Damage to patrol vehicles will likely increase as well, from driving rough roads 

in the effort to make adequate contacts over a wider area. 

It can be reasonably expected that the effects of Alternative 1 - No Action will result in a negative 

trend for fire management. The road system provides dispersed access to most areas of the Ranger 

District for Forest Service employees, permittees and contractors, as well as the visiting public. In 

terms of patrolling, initial attack response and movement of suppression resources, this is desirable. 

However, downward funding trends and a growing road maintenance back-log equate to continued 

degradation of road conditions and the resulting increase in maintenance and repair costs for patrol 

and fire response vehicles. An increase in dispersed camping and associated human caused fires in 

remote areas can also be expected. As visitation and OHV use increases, the current level of 

prevention patrolling will likely be inadequate to meet the needs for forest protection. Increased 

staffing will require increased funding for personnel and equipment. This may be difficult to secure 

given past and current budget trends. 

Human caused fires in remote areas require longer response times and are more likely to result in 

larger, more costly, dangerous and difficult to manage wildfires. An increase in user-developed roads 

can be expected as OHV use proliferates. These roads invariably cause ecological damage and tend to 

accelerate erosion and soil degradation. This often results in plant mortality, gullies and removal of 

natural fuels. An increase in roads of any type will further limit the opportunities for desirable (low 

to moderate intensity) wildland fire to move across the landscape unimpeded by human caused 

breaks in surface fuels. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Closing approximately 170 will have very little impact on the ability to move suppression resources, 

adequately patrol and provide initial attack response, particularly since they are Level 2 roads often in need of 

maintenance and located within a few miles of roads that are not being considered for closure. While it may be 

several years before sufficient vegetation covers the closed road to provide a continuous fuel bed for the spread 

of desirable wildland fire, the reduction will be a favorable step in that direction. Visitor use, especially camps, 

will be less dispersed making it easier to patrol and facilitate prevention contacts. Limited road maintenance 

funds will not be spread as thin as they are currently. This should result in better road conditions overall and 

less damage to patrol vehicles. 

Alternative 3 

From the perspective of fire management, the effects of Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2. 
Cumulative Effects 

The geographical extent of this cumulative effects analysis is confined to the Ranger District. A 20-

year timeframe was selected for this cumulative effects analysis, 2000 - 2020 (8 years past + 12 years 

post). This timeframe was selected because the effect of not reducing the motorized transportation 

system and no prohibition of cross-country travel has occurred for the past 8 years, and the effects of 

the proposed action would stabilize in about 12 years. 

Past, ongoing, and planned projects and activities in the cumulative effects analysis area that will 

have an effect on fire and fuels management include: timber and fuel wood harvesting, forest 

thinning, grassland restoration tree removal, sagebrush restoration, prescribed burning and wildland 

fire use, livestock grazing, fence construction and removal, water tank construction and maintenance, 

vehicle driving and horseback riding off road to herd cattle and maintain fences, invasive weed 

control, recreational activities (e.g. dispersed camping, horseback riding, hiking, hunting), 

recreational trail construction and maintenance, mineral exploration and mining, pipeline and 

transmission line use and maintenance, and residential developments and activities. 

The cumulative effect for Alternative 1 is generally positive for fire suppression and prevention. 

Roads provide opportunities to stop an undesirable wildfire, provide access for suppression resources 

and prevention patrols. The cumulative effect for wildland fire use with Alternative 1 is negative due 

to the abundance of roads that will cause a desirable fire to stop prematurely. Alternatives 2 and 3 are 

expected to result in a neutral to positive cumulative effect for fire and fuels management. 

Range 

Existing Condition 

Livestock grazing has occurred on the Tusayan District since late-1800. At times the area was grazed 

by both sheep and cattle; actual numbers were not recorded. Once allotments were formally 

established and grazing permits were issued, livestock numbers began to be reduced. 

There are four grazing allotments in the project area: Rain Tank, Anita, Cameron, and Moqui. The 

Rain Tank Allotment is approximately 64,700 acres in size. There are approximately 50 miles of 

fence, 25 water sources, 8 waterlots, and 9 Parker 3-Step range clusters within the Rain Tank 

Allotment. The 1996 Rain Tank Environmental Analysis reported an increase in range resource 

values and trend compared to the 1978 inventory. Soil condition scores increased from 1978 to 1996 

indicating an increase in soil cover and a reduction in erosion potential. 

The Anita and Cameron Allotments are 101,910 acres and 103,412 acres respectively. On Anita 

Allotment there are at least 22 different segments of fence and the permittee has maintenance 

responsibilities for approximately 80 miles. There are 45 water sources, 19 waterlots, 2 corrals, and 

16 Parker 3-Step range clusters. Cameron Allotment has at least 25 different segments of fence, 

totaling approximately 107 miles, 43 water sources, 3 corrals, 25 waterlots, and 14 Parker 3-Step 

range clusters. The Moqui Allotment is approximately 55,094 acres in size. There are at least 10 

different segments of fence, totaling approximately 42 miles of permittee responsibility, 18 water 

sources, 6 waterlots, and 17 Parker 3-Step range clusters. 
The 2004 Environmental Assessment for Anita, Cameron, and Moqui Allotment Management Plan 

Revisions reported an increase in acres of improved range condition (from 22,607 acres in 1966 to 

31,257 acres in 2004) on the Anita Allotment; and an increase on the Cameron Allotment (from 472 

acres in 1983 to 64,018 acres in 2004). There has been an increase in acres of improved range 

condition on the Moqui Allotment from 6,311 acres in 1968 to 11,917 acres in 2004. 

Most of the water sources on the allotments are earthen tanks. They were built in the early 1900’s in 

basins or drainages to catch snow melt or run-off. In recent years many tanks were built adjacent to 

roads, in order to catch road run-off. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives on Range Values 

The Kaibab National Forest has a long history of permitted domestic grazing use.Domestic livestock 

grazing is an important and valued use on National Forests in the Southwest and those activities are 

an integral part of the tradition, culture, and social fabric of communities throughout the Southwest. 

Beneficial consequences of a forest road system for grazing permittees include easy access to their 

livestock and to range improvements such as fences and waters. Roads have replaced stock driveways 

for transporting sheep and cattle to and from allotments. Undesirable consequences for a permittee 

may include disturbance to the herd and vandalism of range improvements by members of the public 

who have the same easy access to these sites. 

Forest roads can affect site productivity by removing and displacing topsoil, altering soil properties, 

changing microclimate, and accelerating erosion. The direct effect of roads on soil productivity is 

estimated to range from 1 to 30 percent of the landscape area in managed forest lands. Losses of 

productivity associated with road-caused accelerated erosion are site specific and highly variable in 

extent (USDA Forest Service 2001). Essentially no scientific information exists that analyzes the 

ecological, administrative, or economic effects of roads on administering the Forest Service range 

management program. The high degree of variability in the road-related erosion effects, for example 

3,314 to 99,428 acres, makes these data difficult to apply in a meaningful manner. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Action Alternatives 

If the miles of forest roads on the District are converted into acres, 1,791 acres (0.5% of the District) 

are removed from forage production (740 miles of roads that are 20 feet wide). This has no effect for 

all alternatives. 

There may be slight positive effects by limiting motorized travel to a designated road system; there 

may be less harassment of animals, especially during calving and fewer gates left open and/or fences 

being vandalized. 

Since range permittees will continue to be able to operate as needed to fulfill their obligations under 

their grazing permits and operating plans, the effects of the action alternatives will be neutral. 
Alternative 1- No Action 

Alternative 1, the no action alternative, would leave all roads open; no roads will be closed or 

decommissioned; motorized cross-country travel would continue, as would motorized use for game 

retrieval for any species; dispersed camping would not be restricted in any way. 

Approximately 2,202 acres are removed from forage production forever (740 miles of Forest road 

and 170 miles of user created roads). An additional 3,314 to 99,428 acres may be affected in a 

negative way by accelerated erosion coming off all roads. This would result in a cumulative effect on 

approximately 5,516 to 101,630 acres (see Table 1). The creation and use of new user-created routes 

would continue to negatively affect soil productivity and possibly interfere with a grazing permittee’s 

operation. 

There would be no need to address motorized use by grazing permittee’s in their AMP’s or AOI’s. 

Permittees would be free to access their livestock and improvements by any route (cross-country, 

Forest roads or user-created roads). Forest Service range personnel could do the same in order to 

administer the permit. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are very similar and their effects are virtually inseparable. In Alternative 2 approximately 

1,355 acres are removed from forage production (560 miles of road 20 feet wide). An additional 3,314 to 

99,428 acres may be affected in a negative way by accelerated erosion coming off all roads, open and closed. 

This would result in a cumulative effect on approximately 4,669 to 100,783 acres. Approximately 170 miles 

of user created roads would be decommissioned which would have a positive cumulative effect on 411 acres. 

Motorized retrieval for elk would be allowed in all seasons for up to one mile cross-country. It is unknown 

how many successful hunters actually travel cross-country to retrieve their elk and virtually impossible to 

predict how many will in the future. However, we know there is an average hunter success rate of 50% (from 

2003 thru 2007), and we will assume that 90% of those successful hunters will travel cross-country to get their 

elk; this will provide our baseline. For the year 2007, those figures would convert to 506 hunters traveling 

1,012 miles (assuming they would go out the same way they went in). If the average increase of elk tags of 

10% per year continues, by the year 2018 a total of 3,237 elk tags would be issued; 1,618 hunters would be 

successful; and 1,456 of them would be traveling 2,912 miles cross-country to get their animal. This may 

never happen as described but this exercise is intended to describe a potential effect to 2.13% of the District. It 

is considered to be “no effect” for all action alternatives assuming that cross-country travel for elk retrieval 

occurs only on dry or frozen ground. Travel on wet ground that causes ruts, however minimal, would be 

considered an additional negative effect. 

Dispersed camping is restricted to designated corridors or on designated routes to those campsites for a total of 

approximately 60 acres. Keeping this use confined to these areas will have a positive effect on the range 

resource as new “impacted zones” won’t be created which replace grasses with bare, compacted soil. 

Grazing permittees would be authorized to use closed roads as long as it is specified in their Annual Operating 

Instructions (AOI) and follows the guidance from the TMR Implementation Guidelines. Range personnel 

could also use those roads if needed to efficiently administer the grazing permits. Regular use on any closed 

road by either permittee or Range personnel will be discouraged in favor of utilizing the open road system. 

However, there will be times when use of a closed road may be needed without prior approval or clearance 

(ex: a sick cow needs to be retrieved, or a road is found to be closed that accesses an historic range study site). 

Legitimate motorized use may continue in these situations unless there are compelling natural and/or heritage 

resource issues require postponement or modification of the activity. 
Alternative 3 

The effects of Alternatives 3 and 4 are similar to those for Alternative 2. It is anticipated that more 

use of closed roads and cross-country motorized travel would be necessary with Alternative 4. 

Cumulative Effects 

The geographical extent of this analysis is confined to the Tusayan Ranger District. Past and ongoing 

uses and actions within the analysis area that could affect range condition include tree thinning, 

prescribed burning, wildlife habitat management, and developed and dispersed recreation. All of 

these uses are expected to continue indefinitely into the future. 

The level of motorized cross-county use by permittees is not expected to be high under any 

alternative. Most of the range improvements are accessible by roads and even if closed, the 

permittees will be granted access. Each permittee’s Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) will include 

a brief discussion of the use of vehicles and a description of annually anticipated level of crosscountry use if an action alternative is selected. 

Given the increase in range condition on all four allotments (mainly due to decreased livestock 

numbers in past decades), the cumulative effect to range conditions under the action alternatives is 

neutral to slightly positive. Even though entire road segments will not be decommissioned (perhaps 

just a few hundred feet on either end) under this analysis, fewer roads being left open to public use 

should result in less soil displacement coming off roads. There should be a beneficial impact to range 

resources mainly from the protection of the soil and watershed resource. Any benefits may not be 

seen in the cumulative effects time period of 20 years. 

Economics/Social 

Economic/Social Effects 

Social Information 

In the 2003 study of Forest Users by Northern Arizona University (Boussard, et al 2002) information 

was gathered on the Tusayan and Williams Ranger Districts about visitor demographics, preferences 

for types and amounts of development, desired recreation opportunities, attitudes and preferences for 

managing the forest, and desires for ways to provide forest information. Forest visitors, hunters and 

local residents were surveyed. In a separate study, the National Visitor Use Monitoring project 

collected demographic information as well; it is collected at the forest-level and applies to all Ranger 

Districts. 

Forest Visitors – NAU Study 

The NAU study showed that approximately 92% of forest visitors who recreated in undeveloped 

settings (versus developed campgrounds or other recreation sites) have been to the Williams and 

Tusayan Ranger Districts of the Kaibab NF before. About 69% of visitors come with their families, 

and the average size of the group is 7 people. Most visitors came from urban areas within the State. 

The top three activities participated in were dispersed camping, watching birds and wildlife and 

sightseeing. Hunters surveyed in the NAU study were also repeat visitors (89% have been to the KNF 

before). Most hunters came with family or friends, and the average group size was 4 people. 78% 

were from urban areas, particularly from the Phoenix area. The top three activities they engaged in 
were hunting, dispersed camping, and OHV use. Local residents are frequent forest users, visiting the 

forest at least once per month. Most came with family or friends. Watching birds and wildlife, 

sightseeing, and short hikes were the activities local residents participated in. 

Forest Visitors – National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Of the forest visitors surveyed, the majority were international visitors, next were local, Phoenix area, 

and Colorado River area visitors. The most popular activities participated in were viewing natural 

features, hiking/walking, viewing wildlife, driving for pleasure, and relaxing. 

Other Activities 

As noted earlier, hunting, OHV use, antler collection, and dispersed camping are all popular 

activities. In addition, many forest visitors engage in sightseeing, both for scenery and wildlife and 

birds. Some visitors participate in OHV or jeep tours of the area. There are special use operators who 

offer these services in the town of Tusayan. Other users participate in similar activities exploring the 

District with family or friends. 

Forest product collection is an important use. Many local Tribes gather forest products including 

pinyon nuts, herbs and other plants as well as other culturally significant materials on the District. 

Christmas trees are harvested each year as well. Some of these activities involve cross country travel, 

but almost all involve roads and motorized vehicles. 

Economics 

The South Rim Visitor Transportation Plan (USDI Park Service, 2008) compiled economic 

information for Coconino County and the town of Tusayan (an unincorporated town). The economic 

output of Coconino County was approximately $6.3 billion in 2004 (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 

2006). Tusayan is estimated to contribute about 0.6 percent of the total Coconino County output, or 

about $38.6 million. Economic output is typically divided into categories or “sectors” that contribute 

to the total. Table 12 displays the sectors contributing to the economic output for Tusayan. 
Table 12. Estimated annual economic output by sector in Tusayan.

Economic Sector Dollars Contributed (in 2007 dollars) 

Art, entertainment, recreation accommodation 

and food services 

$26,644,700 

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities $3,943,400 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and 

mining 

$1,593,700 

Educational, health and social services $1,593,700 

Public administration $1,593,700 

Retail trade $1,365,500 

Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and 

leasing 

$852,600 

Professional, scientific, management, 

administrative, and waste management 

services 

$532,900 

Information $426,300 

Total $38,581,500 

The largest economic sector in Tusayan is the hospitality industry. It produces almost 70 percent of 

the economic output. It is not possible to determine what amount tourism to Tusayan Ranger District 

contributes to the overall economic output of the area, but hunters, campers, and other recreationists 

and forest users do make contributions to it. 

Travel and tourism is the third largest retail sales industry in the country, and tourism is one of the 

largest employers. On National Forest lands, recreation is the second largest producer of direct 

revenue to the economy. Whereas communities near National Forests used to be dependent upon 

extractive industries, their economies are shifting to attracting tourists. For the state of Arizona, 

tourism is an important contributor to the state economy. Table 13 shows contributions of domestic 

and international visitors to the economy, as well as jobs generated supporting tourism. 

Table 13. Tourism contribution to Arizona economy.

Measure Quantity 

Number of Domestic/International 

Overnight Visitors 

31 million (2005) 

Visitor Expenditures $17.5 billion/year 

Local Tax contribution $456 million/year 

State Tax contribution $583 million/year 

Jobs generated 313,000 jobs; $9.3 billion in earnings 

Source: 2005 Arizona Office of Tourism Study. 
The Arizona Office of Tourism (2007) has developed more detailed information about tourism 

spending by county. General categories of spending are used, but this helps to illustrate the categories 

of spending that visitors and forest users may participate in, see Table 14. Tourism is an important 

economic contributor to the area. 

Table 14. Selected categories of spending for Coconino County by year.

Category Dollars in 

2000 

($Million) 

2002 2003 2004 2005 

Total Direct 

Spending 

733.9 684.3 734.1 780.5 835.7 

Hotel/Motel 515.1 477.8 505.8 537.9 580.3 

Campground 45.0 45.9 48.0 50.4 52.2 

Day Travel 89.2 82.8 90.7 96.4 103.5 

Restaurant 186.8 179.4 194.2 205.7 220.1 

Food Store 39.9 39.7 41.2 42.3 43.2 

Arts, 

entertainment, 

recreation 

111.4 108.1 117.3 124.8 128.7 

Limited data has been assembled for forest-related recreation activities. Three areas have been 

quantified including hunting (Arizona State University, 2001), OHV recreation (Arizona State 

University, 2001), and non-consumptive wildlife related activities (Southwick 2003). The economic 

contributions of each of these are noted in Table 15. It is important to note that some of the same 

expenses may be counted in all three studies; duplicates have not been removed from these figures. 

Table 15. Recreation related economic contributions.

Category Trip ($Million) Equipment 

($Million) 

Vehicle 

($Million) 

Total ($Million) 

Hunting (2001) 

Arizona 74.3 52.3 126.6 

Coconino County 8.8 51.1 57.8 215.2 

Non-consumptive 

Wildlife Related 

Recreation (2003) 

Arizona 304.5 515.3 819.8 

Coconino County No data No data No data No data 

OHV Recreation 

Arizona 842.3 1,178.0 1,035.0 3,056.0 

Coconino County 106.3 51.1 57.8 215.2 
In the last 10 years, OHV sales tripled from 1993 to 2003. OHV recreation is important to the State 

economy contributing about $4 billion each year (Arizona State Parks 2003). It is anticipated that the 

demand for OHV recreation opportunities will continue to increase incrementally with increases in 

the population of Arizona. The price and availability of gasoline may have some impact on motorized 

recreation activities. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

With the exception of cross-country travel using OHV for the purpose of antler gathering, all of the 

above mentioned activities will continue to occur on the Tusayan Ranger District in all alternatives. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

There will be little or no impact on social or economic resources under this alternative. Forest product 

gathering, hunting and other recreation activities will continue as they currently do. There may be 

some decrease in the quality of the recreation opportunities as effects of motorized cross-country 

travel become more apparent and cause increasing resource damage. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

There may be minor social and economic impacts under this alternative primarily to antler collectors 

who will need to find non-motorized means to gather antlers. In addition, there may be slight 

negative impacts to local Tribal members who collect personal use forest products such as pinyon 

nuts. Many times these are gathered in conjunction with a motorized vehicle. Other means are 

available and would need to be employed for these activities, and parking along the roadside will be 

possible in most areas. The economic effects of alternative 2 are expected to be neutral. Factors other 

than TMR, such as high gas prices, economic slow downs and other issues are more likely to effect 

the economy of the area. 

Alternative 3 

The direct and indirect effects of this alternative are similar to the proposed action. 

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis area for cumulative effects is larger than for most management activities. For this 

project, the area including Grand Canyon National Park (south rim) south to Valle will be used. Past, 

ongoing, planned and foreseeable projects and activities in that will have an effect on social and 

economic conditions include potential incorporation of Tusayan, implementation of the Grand 

Canyon Transportation Plan, expansion of railroad access to Grand Canyon, mineral exploration and 

smaller more local projects such as prescribed burning, recreation activities. 

The cumulative effects anticipated from these activities would have considerably more impact on the analysis 

area than TMR will. Incorporation of Tusayan and implementation of the Grand Canyon Transportation plan 

would probably have a positive impact on the local social and economic conditions. There would be some 

positive effects such as employment opportunities and more retail sales since more people would be 

concentrated in the Tusayan town area. Negative effects could include increased traffic, noise, wildlife 

disturbance, and recreation-related resource damage especially close to Tusayan. Mineral exploration could 

have negative effects on the aesthetics and visitor experience arriving at entrance to Grand Canyon National 
Park. Increased truck traffic and hazardous material transportation would be negative impacts. Local projects 

such as burning and vegetation management are short term. 

A Civil Rights Impact Analysis and a statement of findings is not needed for this analysis. Both the NEPA 

process scoping and public meetings related to the notice and comment period have been well publicized and 

held in locations that are easily accessible to community members. A wide spectrum of people attended the 

meetings and sent comments to the forest regarding both processes. See Chapter 2 and Appendicies 2 and 3 for 

details of public input. 

 In addition, local Tribal governments have been consulted regularly about this project from 2006 through the 

present. Meetings were also held with the Cameron Chapter of the Navajo Nation on several occasions in order 

to identify roads of particular concern to the community, and to provide information about the proposed project 

and alternatives. Details about tribal consultation can be found in the Heritage section of Chapter 3.

Environmental Justice 

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." This Executive Order was 

designed to focus the attention of federal agencies on the human health and environmental conditions in 

minority and low-income communities. It requires federal agencies to adopt strategies to address 

environmental justice concerns within the context of existing laws, including NEPA. 

The goal of Environmental Justice Analysis is not to shift risks among populations, but to identify potential 

disproportionately high and adverse effects, and to identify alternatives that may mitigate these impacts. One 

way that this is achieved is by providing an opportunity for minority and low-income populations to participate 

in planning, analysis, and decision making. Individual tribal members may use the project area for the 

personal collection of traditional or medicinal plants. Low-income groups may use the area for the collection 

of fuel wood. Neither alternative would have adverse effects on these uses or to low income and minority 

populations in the area. No concerns or issues related to Environmental Justice were raised during project 

scoping or the Notice and Comment period. Additionally, the American Indian Tribes listed in Chapter 4 were 

consulted regarding this proposal and potential effects were analyzed. 
Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest 

Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: 

ID Team: 

Charlotte Minor , Team Leader Landscape Architect 

Clare Hydock. Range Management Specialist 

Karlynn Huling Soils and Watershed Specialist/Plant Ecologist 

Jeff Waters Wildlife Biologist 

Neil Weintraub Archeologist 

Dave Mills Assistant Fire Management Officer 

Heather McRae Forester 

Brian Poturalski Recreation Specialist (no longer at KNF) 

Joel McCurry Forestry Technician 

John O’Brien Assistant Forest Engineer 

Jackie Banks Public Affairs Officer 

Rick Stahn District Ranger (retired) 

Linda Wadleigh Acting District Ranger (2008) 

Tom Mutz Acting District Ranger (2009) 

Support: 

Robert Richardson GIS/Database Administrator 

Tim McGann GIS Specialist (retired) 

Tom Mutz Lands/Minerals Specialist 

Mike Lyndon Tribal Liaison 

Mae Franklin Navajo Tribal Liaison 

Ariel Leonard Assistant Forest Planner 

Bob Blasi Forestry Technician 

Gretchen Lampi Law Enforcement Officer (no longer on KNF) 
Federal, State, and Local Agencies: 

US Fish & Wildlife Service 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Grand Canyon National Park 

American Indian Tribes:

Hopi Tribe 

Navajo Nation 

Hualapai Tribe 

Havasupai Tribe 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 
 Appendix 1 Proposed Forest Plan Amendment 

Kaibab Forest Plan Amendment 

Since the 1984 plan permits cross-country travel in most areas of the Tusayan RD, and does not incorporate 

the MVUM as the enforcement tool for motorized travel designation, the plan would be amended to implement 

the MVUM provisions of the Travel Management Rule for the Tusayan Ranger District. 

Specific uses are allowed on national forests except when identified as not suitable, because of law, national or 

regional policy, or the revised forest plan. Several activities are described in the proposed suitability use table 

as being permitted in designated areas only. What this means, for example, is that motorized uses are restricted 

to designated roads, trails and limited open areas and may be restricted or expanded further in order to achieve 

the desired condition for the land use zones. Vehicular traffic traveling cross-country or on non-designated 

routes is not allowed in any zone. 

To provide for consistency between the plan and the Travel Management Rule, the following amendment is 

made: 

Add the following (page 34-1)

Off-Highway Vehicle Suitability: 

Tusayan Ranger District: 

“The Tusayan Ranger District is not suitable for motorized cross-country travel. Exceptions to this will be 

determined in project specific planning, refer to the Tusayan Travel Management Environmental Assessment, 

December 2008”. 

Activity or Use General forest areas, developed 

areas, and wildland urban 

interface 

Other Forest Areas including Special 

Areas, Wilderness, Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (Coconino Rim), and 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas 

(Red Butte) 

Off-highway Use on 

Forest Roads and 

Trails* 

Designated Roads and Trails Not Suitable 

Public Motorized Use 

off Forest System 

Roads and Trails* 

Designated Roads and Trails Not Suitable 

*Exceptions determined in project specific planning documents. 

The following direction regarding off-highway vehicle use in the forest plan would be 

corrected in the Forest Plan (including changing terminology from ORV to OHV throughout). This 

does not constitute an amendment because the intent of the forest plan direction is not being 

changed. 

Change the following: 

Public Issues and Management Concerns (page 11) 

Goals-Outdoor Recreation 
Establish off-road highway vehicle (ORVOHV) closures as needed to maintain other resource objectives. 

Managed ORVOHV use to provide ORVOHV opportunities while protecting resources and minimizing 

conflicts with others. 

Public Issues and Management Concerns – Dispersed Recreation (page 11) 

“Additional areas, including all of Tusayan Ranger District (use “Tusayan Travel Management Environmental 

Assessment” (2008) for specific exceptions), are closed to off-roadhighway vehicle use to protect sensitive 

soils, vegetation and important aquatic habitats. 

Table 7. Acres Closed to Off-RoadHighway vehicle Use. (Page 18) 

This Plan (as amended 12/2008 Previous Plan 

Acres Closed 350,351 32,683 

These figures do not include acres of designated wilderness also closed to ORVOHV use. This 

does include the entire Tusayan Ranger District acres plus other forest areas closed in the 

previous plan. Project specific planning defines any exceptions to the closures. 

Other Forest-wide Standards (SZ page 34-2) 

Prohibit competitive off-highway vehicle events in all ROS classes. 

Guidelines for Recreation Resource Operations and Improvements (page 41) 

3.Monitor off-road highway vehicle (ORVOHV) use; prevent resource damage and user conflicts. 

8. Prohibit competitive ORVOHV events. 

Chapter 4 - Management Direction 

These additional guidelines apply only to resource operations and improvements in GAs 2, 10, and13: 

Guidelines for Timber Resource Operations and Improvements: (page 43) 

12. Salvage stands, or parts thereof, that are moderately or severely damaged by dwarf mistletoe, insects, fire, 

or windthrow using the uniform shelterwood or clearcutting with planting methods; restrict ORV OHV use 

during stand re-establishment. 

Guidelines for Facility Operations and Improvements: (page 47) 

1. Transportation Facilities includes roads, motorized trails, and user created wheeltracks. Guidance for other 

trails is in the Recreation Resource Operations. 

3. Obliterate all temporary roads and skid trails; restrict ORV OHV use until revegetated.

Guidelines for GA 2, 10, 13 (page 39) 

1. Identify, describe, and geographically locate existing conditions in the implementation land area, regarding: 

z. Off-road highway vehiculare closure areas. 

Guidelines for Recreation Resource Operations and Improvements: (page 41) 

3. Monitor off-roadhighway vehicle (ORVOHV) use; prevent resource damage and user conflicts. 

8. Prohibit competitive ORVOHV events. 

Geographic Area 8 – Southern Tusayan Woodland: (page 56) 

Management Direction for Recreation Resources:

Provide off-roadhighway vehicle area closures and manage ORVOHV use that occurs on other areas to 

maintain recreation, visual, heritage, soil, water, wildlife, and other resource values. 
GA 9 - Management Direction for Recreation Resources: (page 59) 

The Coconino Rim escarpment is closed to motorized vehicles. Provide other off-roadhighway vehicle area 

closures and manage ORVOHV use that occurs on other areas to maintain recreation, visual, heritage, soil, 

water, wildlife, and other resource values. 

Glossary: Off-roadhighway Vehicle - 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.
Appendix 2 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

Responder or PR # Comment How Comment was 

Addressed 

Backcountry Horsemen of NM Parking adjacent to roads with 

trailers and trucks 

Parking will be permitted 

immediately adjacent to roads 

and within “designated routes” 

located around the forest 

Who is responsible official The District Ranger will be the 

responsible official for the Travel 

Management decisions on the 

Kaibab. Note: due to the forest 

plan amendment, the Forest 

Supervisor is the responsible 

official.

Public Involvement Scoping, public open houses, web 

page information dispersal, and 

mailings will provide the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

process. 

Center for Biological Diversity Need to focus on system routes, 

not user created routes 

While we are focusing on the FS 

System roads, we have 

considered the user created 

roads. These routes have to be 

considered to determine what 

should be done with them. While 

most unauthorized routes will be 

decommissioned, some will be 

added to the system and these 

will be included in the analysis. 

Consultation with Law 

Enforcement Entities 

Discussions are on-going with 

various law enforcement 

representatives. 

Consistency of the Rule’s 

application 

While every effort to be consistent 

is being made, it is recognized 

that there will be some variations 

across forests and agencies to 

coordinate local conditions and 

needs. 

Designation of routes/minimize 

the designation of areas 

Thank you for your suggestions 

Suggestions for dispersed 

camping 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Suggestions for Big Game 

Retrieval 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Suggestion for gathering forest 

products 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Rudi Lambrechtse Supports wet weather system 

designation 

The action alternatives were 

developed to be responsive to 

this. 

Jerry Harlacher Conflict between hunters and 

OHV users 

Lack of law enforcement 

Debra LaFrance Noise of forest users including 

OHVs and motorcycles 

Tom Geiger Supports licensed use of dual 

purpose motorcycles on the 

Thank you for your suggestion 
Forest Service road system 

John Tatham – Grand Canyon 

Jeep Tours and Safaris 

Coordination of Travel 

Management system with his 

Special Use Permit 

John Neff – Coconino Trail 

Riders 

Interested in motorized single 

track on Kaibab 

Jeff Ingram Interested in North Kaibab Travel 

Management planning 

Jeff’s name has been added to 

the Kaibab mailing list, and will be 

kept informed about planning on 

the North Kaibab. 

Anthony Quintile Interested in travel management 

planning 

Anthony’s name has been added 

to the mailing list. 

Scott Helfinstine Supports additional designated 

OHV routes – POTA 

recommendation 

Sanford Cohen – Prescott Open 

Trails Association 

Supports additional designated 

OHV routes – POTA 

recommendation 

Mike, Nancy and Veronica 

Flynn 

Supports additional designated 

OHV routes – POTA 

recommendation 

Dmitra Smith Interested in travel management 

planning 

Dmitra’s name has been added to 

the mailing list. 

Doug and Jean Focke Supports additional designated 

OHV routes – POTA 

recommendation 

Tom Britt Supports a modified Alternative 3 

to allow for fuel wood collection 

Permitted fuel wood and other 

forest products can allow for off 

road travel 

Supports use of full sized vehicles 

for motorized big game retrieval 

Supports an additional travelway 

in the south eastern portion of the 

district for wet weather access 

This was considered as the 

alternatives were developed. 

Roads in the southeastern portion 

of the district will not currently 

support wet weather access. The 

wet weather system was 

developed cooperatively with the 

AZ Game and Fish Department. 

Dispersed camping should be 

allowed within 150 feet of open 

roadways 

The establishment of camping 

corridors has been included in the 

action alternatives. 

Diana Hawks – Arizona Strip of 

the BLM 

Interested in coordination of the 

NKRD project with the BLM 

Diana’s name and address has 

been included on the mailing list. 

Don Hood – Arizona Off 

Highway Vehicle Coalition 

Supports additional designated 

OHV routes – POTA 

recommendation 

Bullhead 4 Wheelers, Walapai 4 

Wheelers 

Supports additional designated 

OHV routes – POTA 

recommendation 

Jim Bricker Supports additional designated 

OHV routes – POTA 

recommendation 

State of New Mexico (note that 

this letter to the District Ranger 

on the Jicarilla Ranger District 

of the Carson National Forest 

was submitted to the Kaibab 

National Forest as additional 

information. Details and 

Authorizing the inclusion of many 

user created and traditional roads, 

trails and areas into each Forest 

Motor Vehicle Use Map will not 

adequately protect the resources 

of USFS lands. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 
information specific to the 

Jicarilla District has not been 

included). 

Concerned that the Rule can be 

enforced with limited on the 

ground signage. 

While the Motor Vehicle Use Map 

is the legal document to 

implement the Rule, we recognize 

that there will be needed signage 

on the ground to assist the public 

to understand where they are. 

The Wet Weather System will 

have additional “Green dots” 

posted, and Road numbers will be 

posted 

Desire to work cooperatively to 

continue department operations 

on USFS lands 

We agree with this suggestion 

and are working with the AZ 

Game and Fish to assure that this 

happens. 

OHV use off designated roads 

and trails establishes tracks that 

stimulate additional unintended 

use and subsequent habitat 

degradation, thereby 

compromising effective control. 

There have not been regulations 

prohibiting off road travel 

previously. 

The Department encourages 

USFS to consider hunting related 

OHV activities similar to any other 

recreational OHV activity that 

occurs on USFS lands and apply 

appropriate restrictions equally. 

We agree with this suggestion. 

The Department suggests that 

USFS consider making any 

limited allowance available o 

mobility impaired hunters similar 

and equitable with allowances 

that might be provided to any 

mobility impaired recreationist. 

Such activity might consider that 

mobility impaired hunters must be 

certified by this department, 

posses a valid hunting license, 

have proper OHV registration and 

be engaged in the removal of 

downed game. 

We agree with this suggestion 

although National policy for the 

Forest Service is that the mobility 

impaired should be provided an 

equal opportunity and access to 

the National Forest, but additional 

motorized access beyond that 

provided to all forest users is 

discriminatory to other 

recreationists. 

The Department especially 

encourages the travel 

management effort of the USFS 

to acknowledge that current road 

closures under the State Habitat 

Protection Act have resulted in 

the provision of reasonable and 

accepted access while at the 

same time increasing quality 

hunting areas, enhancing 

sportsmen experiences and 

promoting wildlife interest. 

We agree with this suggestion. 

The Department supports 

exclusion of Wilderness Study 

Areas and Inventoried Roadless 

Areas from motorized use. 

We agree with this suggestion. 

Coordination with the Habitat The Motor Vehicle Use Map is the 
Protection Act requires that off 

road vehicle travel and roads not 

signed as open are closed to 

vehicle use in the Habitat 

Protection Act area 

legal tool to implement the Travel 

management Rule. See previous 

comment for this respondent for 

more information. 

Jason Kiely - Natural Trails and 

Waters Coalition 

Interested in the Kaibab process Jason’s name has been added to 

the mailing list. 

Presenting existing closed roads 

as part of the starting condition. 

Maintenance level 1 roads are still 

part of Forest Service system and 

are being considered in the 

analysis. 

Outreach efforts to user groups. The Kaibab process has been 

actively outreaching to anybody 

and everybody who is interested 

in this process, including Mr. 

Kiely. 

Fred Pierce Map and info request Fred’s name was added to the 

mailing list. 

Judy Whelan Concerned about road closures 

on the Kaibab and Coconino 

Forests. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Upon completion of the process, 

there will still be public access to 

both forests. 

Gene Kaiser Supports additional designated 

OHV routes – POTA 

recommendation 

Bryan Wyberg Approves of reducing the miles of 

roads open to motorized use. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Suggests that the travel plan 

make strong statements regarding 

the direction for how to 

temporarily close the routes thus 

determined 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Supports the 130 miles of wet 

weather system 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Supports closure of all roads in 

the Coconino Rim Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Mike Milewsky Supports Alternative 3 as it 

provides the most access to view 

nature and trees while riding a 

motorcycle. 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Kali Kaliche Supports alternative 3 but the 

addition of narrow trails for OHVs 

allows for increased off road 

abuse. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Need for increased law 

enforcement and increased trail 

maintenance 

Thank you for your suggestion, 

we agree with your suggestion. 

Noise abatement issues to 

separate motorized camps from 

more rustic camping areas. 

I fear that the policy of downsizing 

and out-sourcing in the Forest 

Service dooms good planning. 

This travel management plan 

needs people out in the field. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Bruce Johnson Interested in being involved with 

the Kaibab travel management 

project. 

Bruce’s name has been added to 

the mailing list. 

Rudi Lambrechtse Supports alternative 4 in the Thank you for your suggestion. 
interest of wildlife 

A greater reduction in secondary 

roads would lead to larger habitat 

units. 

We agree and are reducing 

secondary roads in all alternatives 

except Alternative 1 

Eliminating user created routes All action alternatives eliminate 

both user created routes and 

redundant roads. 

Larry and Sandy Anderson While Alternative 1 leaves too 

many roads open, they support 

this alternative with its motorized 

big game retrieval and dispersed 

camping proposals 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Hunters should be able to retrieve 

big game animals with any type of 

vehicle without additional permits, 

some hunters don’t have ATVs, 

Some ATVs are wider than 50 

inches, 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Allow camping adjacent to 

existing roads and routes is as it 

should be 

We agree with your suggestion 

and camping corridors as well as 

designating 6 miles of 

unauthorized routes (mostly to 

dispersed campsites) will provide 

many camping opportunities. It is 

also possible to pull off of a 

designated road within a safe 

distance to camp. 

Supports off road travel to gather 

fuel wood 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

While fuel wood collection will be 

permitted, it will not be district 

wide as it currently is, that would 

undermine the intent of the Rule. 

Az Game and Fish Department Supports motorized big game 

retrieval exemption 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Recommends the addition of 

roads 2733, 305D, and 2730. 

These roads will be considered 

for addition to the FS system. 

Recommends a complete and 

contiguous OHV trail system 

throughout the district. 

Supports additional designated 

dispersed camps or designation 

of 100 feet dispersed camping 

zone open roads. 

Approximately 17 miles of 

camping corridors are proposed in 

the action alternatives. 

James Hiller The alternatives provide 

inadequate access for an older 

hunter. Supports Alternative 1. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

No roads should be designated 

“Administrative use only”. 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Bruce Johnson Would like to see a “true” 

collaborative process with the 

plan. 

The level of public involvement 

will be dependant upon the 

public’s interest in the project. 

Prefers the “no Action alternative 

as alternatives 2 and 3 are too 

restrictive. 

Thank you for your suggestion 

The rationale for extensive 

closures is limited road 

maintenance funding. 

Respondent prefers roads that 

are not maintained. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Lack of maintenance of some 

roads causes resource damage. 

Respondent is 60 years of age 
and can’t walk long distances to 

enjoy to forest. 

Supports off-road travel for big 

game retrieval and fuel wood 

cutting. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Does not have an ATV (uses 

Scout/Jeep), also concerned that 

the <than 50” restriction on ATVs 

would not accommodate the 

newer ATVs. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Believes that it is the amount of 

traffic, not the number of roads 

that is bad for wildlife. The same 

amount of traffic on more roads 

spreads the use out. 

Recommends establishing an 

adequate road system for 

management activities, Don’t 

designate a shadow system of 

roads for administrative use. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

An overly restrictive outcome will 

not serve the Forest Service or 

the public well. It will likely lead to 

increased violations and the level 

of enforcement will likely not be 

there to address such violations. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Spencer Lyman Has bad back and can not walk 

long distances or afford to hire an 

outfitter. 

Recommends allowing hunters to 

retrieve big game with motorized 

vehicles 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Poorly or non-maintained roads 

allow physically challenged 

individuals to access the back 

country. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Barry Krayer Prefers alternative 3, it provides 

resource protection and leaves 

open enough trails and roads for 

the public to access this area and 

enjoy OHV fun. 

Thank you for your suggestion 

The best way to manage OHV 

travel is to have a well markedmapped and signed OHV system 

that is challenging and also goes 

to scenic and interesting places. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Prefers different trails for OHV, 

motorcycles, some of these could 

be used by mountain bikes and 

horses. 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Charles Bassett Alternatives 2 and 3 place an 

additional burden and fee on 

hunters 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Concerned that not all hunters 

have ATVs <50 inches in width. 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Maintenance Level 3 roads 

should receive all the road 

maintenance funding. 

The respondent has been driving 

the roads since the 1960s and 

Thank you for your suggestion. 
they do not look any different than 

they did 40+ years ago. The 

roads get rutted in a wet fall get 

wiped out by summer use. 

Fred Pierce Prefers alternative 1 and 

management by education, road 

signage, literature, kiosks, and the 

like. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Randy Schaal Prefers alternative 3 Thank you for your suggestion. 

Road damage is from hard rains, 

not vehicle use of those roads 

Thank you for your suggestion 

Concerned about dispersed 

camping 

Additional info alleviated his 

concerns about dispersed 

camping 

Wet weather should not close the 

roads once they have been 

opened in the spring 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Kim Crumbo – Grand Canyon 

Wildlands Council 

Prefers alternative 4 as it would 

contribute to an upward trend in 

vegetation, improve soil 

conditions, and help restore the 

health of riparian areas and that 

would benefit wildlife. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Alternative 4 was ultimately 

dropped from further 

consideration because it did not 

meet the intent of the TMR and 

specialist concerns. 

Alternative 4 would largely limit 

the opportunity for off-road vehicle 

abuse. 

We do not agree with this 

statement, if the open system 

provides for the needs of the 

public, then abuse of the rules will 

be minimized. In the event that 

the open system does not meet 

the needs of the public, then 

abuse of the rules will occur. 

Alternative 4 fulfills the purpose of 

the new Travel Management Rule 

in terms of minimizing and 

mitigating continued 

environmental degradation due to 

cross-country travel 

Upon publishing of the motor 

vehicle use map, cross country 

travel will be eliminated. It does 

not matter whether alternative 1, 

2, 3, or 4 is selected. There is 

some difference between the 

alternatives but they address 

motorized big game retrieval. 

Alternative 4 was ultimately 

dropped from further 

consideration because it did not 

meet the intent of the TMR and 

specialist concerns. 

This alternative would also ensure 

complete compliance with existing 

laws and management standards 

of the Kaibab National Forest. 

All of the alternatives are 

incompliance with existing laws 

and management standards of 

the Kaibab National Forest. 

The GCWC supports Alternative 2 

with the following modifications: 

Close 16 additional routes (roads 

303DA, 304,305A, 305AB, 317, 

339, 343, 902, 2615, 2719, 2722, 

2732, 2736, 9121 (814), 9121E 

(814)), no motorized big game 

retrieval, an option for dispersed 

camping the will meet the rule 

requirements to minimize cross 

country travel. 

These roads will be considered 

for closure or decommission from 

the FS system. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

There is no need for motorized To allow disabled users to use 
big game retrieval, except in the 

case of disabled users 

motorized big game retrieval and 

no other group is discriminatory. 

As is evident from the number of 

illegal, user created routes 

currently found on forests, getting 

compliance from users will not be 

easy or even possible. Enforcing 

the requirements for permits of 

any kind will be an enormous, 

expensive challenge that will 

consume enormous time and 

resources. 

We disagree with parts of this 

statement; the current direction 

for motorized use of the Tusayan 

is that the public could drive 

anywhere that they wanted. 

There are only a few places on 

the Tusayan where motorized 

travel has been restricted; the 

regulations covering these areas 

have generally been followed by 

the public. 

We do not support the practice of 

allowing excessive cross-country 

travel to maintain dispersed 

camping, we support designating 

existing terminal routes or spurs 

that provide access to dispersed 

camping opportunities and/or 

allowing camping adjacent to 

designated routes. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Dispersed camping will continue 

to be allowed on the Tusayan 

Ranger District. Motorized 

dispersed camping will be 

permitted adjacent to open roads, 

in designated camping corridors 

and along designated routes for 

the purpose of getting larger 

recreational vehicles off the road. 

Consideration of “designating 

fixed distances from open routes 

for dispersed camping 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Consideration of “designating an 

area for cross-country use”. 

Thank you for your suggestion. At 

this time there are no alternatives 

that designate areas for crosscountry motorized use. 

Creating open areas or issuing 

permits for cross-country travel for 

dispersed camping is not 

consistent with the primary 

purposes and intent of the Travel 

Management Rule 

Thanks you for your suggestion, 

we disagree with your 

assessment. The creation of 

“areas” is consistent with the 

Travel Management Rule. 

Using permits or creating open 

areas would not protect natural 

and cultural resources 

 We disagree with your 

assessment, permitted areas 

would still have to protect natural 

and cultural resources. 

Using permits or creating open 

areas would not promote the 

safety of all users 

 It is virtually impossible to 

guarantee the public’s safety from 

themselves. 

Using permits or creating open 

areas would not minimize conflicts 

among the various users of 

National Forest system lands. 

There will always be conflicts 

between users on the forests. 

The development of a motorized 

system and its designation on a 

motor vehicle use map can 

reduce the conflicts between 

motorized and non-motorized 

users. 

Using permits or creating open 

areas would not minimize damage 

to soil, watershed, vegetation, and 

other forest resources. 

If open areas are designated, 

their location will minimize 

impacts to these resources. 

Permits would direct forest visitors 

towards areas that would 

minimize resource damage too. 

Using permits or creating open 

areas would not minimize 

harassment to wildlife and 

If open areas are designated, 

their locations will not be in areas 

where there are wildlife concerns. 
significant disruption of wildlife 

habitats. 

There will be less harassment and 

disruption of wildlife and their 

habitat by having these 

established areas for dispersed 

camping and directing forest 

users to these thereby reducing 

camping in every available 

opening where wildlife habitat 

could more easily be 

compromised. 

The practices of designating open 

areas and issuing permits will 

create trails that are routinely and 

repeatedly used by motorized 

users, leading to the creation of 

more routes and trails. 

We disagree with this statement, 

if open areas are designated, they 

will generally be small and 

adequate for dispersed camping 

There is a glaring difficulty of 

enforcement associated with a 

permit system or an open area 

designated for dispersed 

camping. 

Enforcement of the new Travel 

Management Rule will depend on 

forest visitors to comply with the 

new rules and regulations. Since 

the rules are “new” and “different”, 

it is logical to assume that there 

will be honest mistakes made and 

some flagrant violations of those 

rules. Over time, it is hoped that 

most of the forest visitors will 

comply with them. The fact that 

enforcement will be difficult does 

not reduce the need to implement 

the new rule. If we compare the 

rule to speed limits on the nation’s 

highways, we can see that there 

are limited law enforcement 

officers, and that some drivers still 

choose to exceed the speed limit. 

Fortunately, most drivers comply 

with the regulation. 

We ask you to designate specific 

routes that provide access to 

dispersed camping opportunities 

and/or allowing camping adjacent 

to designated routes. 

The areas that are being 

considered in the alternatives for 

dispersed camping are along the 

routes that are being considered 

as the open system. Nonmotorized dispersed camping will 

still be available across the 

district. There are 6 miles of 

specific routes that provide 

access to isolated dispersed 

camp sites on the Tusayan 

Ranger District, some of these 

may be ruled out due to resource 

concerns with either the access 

routes or the camp sites. 

We ask you to adopt a “no 

motorized cross-country access 

for retrieval of big game (except 

for disabled individuals). 

Thank you for your suggestion. If 

motorized big game retrieval is 

authorized, it will be authorized for 

all individuals, not one group or 

another. To authorize motorized 

big game retrieval for just persons 

with disabilities is discriminatory 

towards other forest users. 
Rick Foster BRC/Shared Trails Provided interested persons and 

their addresses. 

The names and addresses were 

added to the mailing list. 

John Tatham Additional comments about his 

Special Use permit 

Connie Nicholson Interested in the process Connie’s name has been added 

to the mailing list. 

John W. Smith Against closing most of the roads 

in the forest 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Would not object to the closure of 

short spur roads. 

Thank you for your suggestion. 

Quads have little impact on the 

environment, 4 X 4 trucks rut and 

damage roads and the forest 

Thank you for your observation. 
Appendix 3 Notice and Comment Responses 

Topic Name Date Comment Response 

Support Game 

Retrieval 

Perry K. Schaal 1/15/2009 Hunters should 

always be able to 

retrieve their big 

game. All types of 

game. Elderly will 

have trouble 

retrieving their game 

if they can’t drive to it. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 T.Warren Peterson 1/16/2009 Use of motorized 

vehicles to retrieve 

game during all 

hunting seasons. 

“ 

 Paul Rehman Jr 1/17/2009 Use of motorized 

vehicles to retrieve 

game during all 

hunting seasons. I 

oppose unregulated 

vehicle traffic. 

“ 

 Ronald P Cate 1/11/2009 Support PA, except 

game retrieval for all 

downed “big game”. 

“ 

 Linda Shine 1/14/2009 It is important for 

hunters to have 

motorized access to 

public lands. 

“ 
Support Game 

Retrieval 

Gregg Spieler 1/8/2009 I support game 

retrieval for all big 

game and for vehicles 

to be restricted to 

roads at other times. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 BobWright 1/8/2009 I would like to see 

continuation of big 

game retrieval with 

motorized access. 

“ 

Howard Utter 1/7/2009 Continue motorized 

big game retrieval. 

“ 

Bill & Anita Willis 1/7/2009 Senior citizen would 

like to be able to use 

my OHV to retrieve all 

game animals. 

“ 

Steve Harris 1/10/2009 There are already 

penalties for 

individuals who drive 

cross-country. Let us 

continue legitimate 

collection of game 

with a motorized 

vehicle. 

Rex Brown 1/10/2009 Continue motorized 

big game retrieval. 

“ 

T D Varnado 1/10/2009 I am disabled and 

hunt from my Rhino 

which means I have 

to go off roads. Is 

there any provision 

for me? What about 

ADA? 

“ 
Support Game 

Retrieval 

Michael H. Payne 1/10/2009 I am 64 and cannot 

pack or drag a deer 

any distance, I 

shouldn't have to give 

up hunting. Allow 

ATV with only 3 psi 

ground pressure. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Mike Flood 1/10/2009 Use of motorized 

vehicles to hunt, 

travel and retrieve 

game is a must. 

" 

Ron Barber 1/11/2009 The current laws are 

adequate and use of 

vehicles to retrieve 

game should stand. 

" 

Eric Bushey 1/11/2009 Please allow hunters 

access and do not 

restrict access to 

public lands for 

motorized game 

retrieval. 

" 

Ron Clark 1/12/2009 Some deer, elk and 

bears can be large I 

think prohibiting use 

of motorized vehicles 

will hamper the 

quality of the hunts. I 

am also concerned 

that elderly people 

could not pack out 

their animals. Let 

people have the right 

to retrieve their 

animals with the help 

of their vehicles. I am 

infavor of helmets for 

the young, speed 

limits, and limiting 

cross country travel 

for no reason, 

harassment of people 

and animals by ATV. 
Support Game 

Retrieval 

Perry T Hopkins 1/9/2009 Please do not make 

rules that prevent use 

of a vehicle for 

recovering game. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Dennis J. Neese 1/12/2009 I would like to see 

hunters be allowed to 

retrieve their game 

with motorized 

vehicles. 

“ 

 Art Dixon 1/12/2009 Motorized access 

when hunting – I am 

a below the knee 

amputee and need 

help getting around 

on uneven ground. 

“ 

 1/12/2009 Hunters need to use 

motorized vehicles to 

retrieve game, 

especially old hunters 

like me. 

“ 

 Russell Kimbrough 1/12/2009 Please continue use 

of motorized vehicles 

to retrieve game. It 

provides a significant 

convenience to pick 

up big game that is 

too heavy to pack out. 

" 

 National Rifle 

Association 

1/7/2009 FS has released a 

TMP that includes 

use of motorized 

vehicles to retrieve 

game. NRA is 

involved in ensuring 

that motorized use 

restrictions do not 

restrict hunters' 

access to federal 

" 
public lands. 

Support Game 

Retrieval 

J C Dillard 1/6/2009 I think legal use of 

motorized vehicles of 

any type to retrieve 

game in the Kaibab 

Forest is long over 

due. One mile limit is 

idiculous, 

unenforceable and 

lacks common sense. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

Peter Meis 1/5/2009 Please allow hunters 

to retrieve their game 

at any distance from 

wherever they are 

parked. It would be 

impossible to carry 

out large game over a 

long distance. 

“ 

Bill Drake 1/6/2009 I have been using 

vehicles to retrieve 

game for over 50 

years and am not 

about to change now 

or in the future. 

" 

Kriss Bombardieri 1/7/2009 Due to the extreme 

distances a hunter 

has to go on the KNF 

to hunt big game and 

weight of the game, 

retrieving them with a 

vehicle is within 

reason. I know how 

hard it is to get an 

animal out of the 

forest without a 

vehicle (and a few 

good men). 

" 
Support Game 

Retrieval 

S R Sinosky 1/6/2009 I would like to see 

hunters have the 

ability to use 

motorized vehicles to 

retrieve big game 

from the forests. 

Many of us are not as 

young as we used to 

be and still enjoy 

hunting. My buddy is 

a vet and two of us 

had difficulty dragging 

a decent sized buck 

very far at all. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Steve Ruff 1/6/2009 Please take into 

consideration that 

many hunters are 

getting on in years. 

Backpacking a 

quartered elk is a 

hardship to many of 

us. Will you be able to 

enforce a change in 

the law? 

“ 

 Kerry & Linda Kreutz 1/5/2009 Just keep access 

available so we can 

retrieve downed 

game please. 

" 

 Dave Kendall 1/5/2009 I support the 

continuation of the 

current no action 

alternative rule to 

retrieve legally 

harvested big game. 

" 

William Griffin 1/5/2009 As a hunter, voter, 

disabled person and 

taxpayer, I fully 

support use of any 

type of vehicle to 

retrieve game. 

Dan Horton 1/5/2009 I have used an ATV 

to hunt and retrieve 

game for years. The 

ATV has enabled me 

to continue to be in 

" 
the outdoors. 

Support Game 

Retrieval 

Brendan Berthold 1/5/2009 I support use of 

motorized vehicles to 

retrieve game in the 

KNF. People value 

resources more if 

they are able to use 

and see them. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management." 

 Gerald McNutt 1/5/2009 Hunters need a way 

to retrieve big game 

when hunting that is 

not a physical 

difficulty. Motorized 

vehicles is now the 

only way to do this 

unless the FS wants 

to perform this 

service for hunters. 

" 

 Randy Hansen 1/5/2009 I have been hunting 

for over 25 years and 

have never observed 

any poor behavior of 

hunters when 

retrieving game. I 

request we keep the 

current regulation in 

place and allow 

people to make thei 

best decision on a 

case by case basis. I 

don't go off of roads 

to retrieve game, but 

am aware that 

situations may make 

it necessary. 

 Robert Bright 1/5/2009 There should be no 

restrictions except fire 

safety in using 

vehicles to retrieve 

game. 

" 
Support Game 

Retrieval 

Henry Whitt 1/5/2009 Please allow hunters 

to use motorized 

vehicles to retrieve 

their game. Other 

motor vehicle 

restrictions should be 

in place. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

Tony Ballatore 1/5/2009 Things are restricted 

too much now. 

" 

Dorothy Vincent 1/5/2009 I think it would be 

great to be able to 

use a motorized 

vehicle for retrieving 

game. 

" 

Randy Gray 1/5/2009 Please allow a hunter 

to retrieve downed 

game in any practical 

way. 

Gerald Backhaus 1/5/2009 I do not want you to 

limit in any way the 

retrieval of any 

wildlife via any 

motorized vehicle in 

the TRD. 

" 

Cara Bliss-Shover 1/5/2009 Have you ever tried to 

get a 300-500# elk 

down a mountain by 

pulling it. Please don't 

ban use of motorized 

vehicles for retrieving 

game. 

" 

Gary Sheldon 1/5/2009 Vehicles ought to be 

permitted everywhere 

to retrieve game. 
Support Game 

Retrieval 

Bart Kemp 1/5/2009 I have lived and 

hunted in this area for 

most of my life, I have 

seen people 

disrespect the forest--

fine them. Don't take 

our privilege for game 

retrieval. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Jonathan Roundy 1/5/2009 I believe it is 

important to allow the 

average person who 

does not have access 

to horses or mules, to 

retrieve legally 

harvested game with 

a vehicle. 

 Max Delgado 1/5/2009 Use of motors to 

retrieve big game -- 

good idea, we need 

help. 

" 

 Thomas Symonds 1/5/2009 I oppose any 

restrictions to 

common sense off 

road use that restricts 

a senior citizen ability 

to retrieve big game 

with an off road 

vehicle. That does not 

mean seniors should 

joy ride off road, but 

seniors don't typically 

joy ride. 

“ 

 Kent Carpenter 1/5/2009 The proposed use of 

motorized vehicles to 

retrieve game on the 

Kaibab Plateau is a 

necessity. Elk and 

deer. The Kaibab is 

not a heavily traveled 

area. 

" 
Support Game 

Retrieval 

Randall Welker 1/6/2009 Thank you for the 

potential of using 

motorized vehicles to 

harvest big game 

from the KNF. I feel 

this should be 

strongly considered 

and put into place. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Dan LaFon 1/6/2009 I am a hunter in AZ 

and believe it should 

be ok for hunterst to 

travel off roads to 

retrieve big game 

taken. 

“ 

 Kyle Huebsch 1/6/2009 I have hunted the 

KNF and dragged a 

deer over 2 miles. I 

am in favor of 

allowing motorized 

cross country travel to 

retrieve any form of 

big game. 

“ 

 Guy Thomas 1/17/2009 I am a severely 

disabled vet and it is 

increasingly difficult 

for me to get out of 

doors. An outright 

ban on ATV travel 

restricts my access to 

a resource that 

should be available to 

me. Pleas make 

some provision for us 

to get into the more 

remote regions to 

hunt, fish, and enjoy 

nature like we used 

to. 

" 

 Randy Schaal 1/13/2009 Game retrieval needs 

to be allowed for 

deer, elk, buffalo and 

antelope. Older 

hunters need to 

retrieve the game 

safely, avoid meat 
spoilage. 

Support Game 

Retrieval 

Ronald Rider 1/26/2009 Many of us are over 

50, and the retrieval 

of game should be 

allowed. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and management 

 Perry Hopkins 1/9/2009 Please do not make 

rules that prevent a 

vehicle from being 

used to recover 

game. 

" 

 Alison Don 1/26/2009 We request that you 

allow motorized travel 

to retrieve elk and 

other big game. We 

wait for our turn for a 

permit and as we get 

older we are less able 

to pack animals out 

ourselves. Being able 

to take our vehicle to 

the game is 

something we count 

on. We do not drive 

off road at other 

times, as we respect 

the need to preserve 

the terrain. 

“ 

 Mark Kleppin 1/26/2009 Please leave the rule 

as it exists. This 

would help those of 

use with back related 

injuries. I do harvest 

during hunting 

season fairly close to 

the road, but if the 

animal runs off, I 

would have to go find 

assistance to retrieve 

the animal and hope 

that the meat would 
not turn. 

Support Game 

Retrieval 

Richard Anthony 1/27/2009 I am in favor of 

opening KNF to 

hunters as a herd mgt 

tool. It puts the 

harvested animals to 

good use feeding 

families, is 

economically 

responsible, and 

works for the animals. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and management 

 Walt Blackburn 1/26/2009 I support cross 

country big game 

retrieval with ATV. I 

do not support full 

size vehicles due to 

resource damage. 

“ 

 Eric Scionti 1/25/2009 I fully support 

authorizing motorized 

big game retrieval. 

" 

 Blaine Abbott 1/25/2009 I am an avid hunter 

and feel it is important 

to be able to retrieve 

big game with a 

motorized vehicle--all 

game. We can't all 

affort horses. 

 Dan Moyes 1/25/2009 I am in favor of 

allowing motorized 

vehicles to pick up 

game in the NF. We 

all hunt and it should 

be legal ot pick up 

their game. Keep the 

Gov nose out of 

publically dedicated 

lands. 

" 

 Merlene Hudson 1/25/2009 Do not limit the use of 

vehicles to retrieve 

legally harvested big 

game animals--all big 

" 
game. 

Support Game 

Retrieval 

Mareen Waterman 1/25/2009 The ability to retrieve 

legally harvested 

game is important to 

senior hunters. I'm 75 

and still can get 

around, but can't 

pack out an animal. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and management 

 Jeffrey Owens 1/24/2009 If it ain't broke, don't 

fix it. Going off road to 

retrieve meat makes 

the most sense. 

There would not be 

that many animals 

killed and recovered if 

you restrict motorized 

big game retrieval. 

“ 

 

Oppose Game 

Retrieval 

Opaswoodshed.wmc

onnect.com 

1/17/2009 No motorized game 

retrieval for any 

species; it causes too 

much damage and 

scares away animals. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and management 

 Andrew Guilford 1/13/2009 No motorized game 

retrieval, allow 

retireval by foot or 

horseback only. 

" 

 John Mumma 1/13/2009 Disabled hunter - 

request retrieval by 

foot or horseback 

only. 

" 
Topic Name Date Comment Response 

Oppose Game 

Retrieval 

Randy Marlatt 1/12/2009 Do not support any 

motorized game 

retrieval, AZ is only 

state considering. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and management 

 John Bentley 1/11/2009 No motorized game 

retrieval it disrupts 

hunting. 

 Jacque Blalock 1/18/2009 Motorized vehicles 

should stay on roads 

and preserve what 

little wilderness we 

still own. 

" 

 Bret Wingert 1/19/2009 No more motorized 

vehicles. Limit their 

use to the maximum 

extent possible. I am 

a hunter, but enjoy 

the quiet of the 

outdoors that is being 

spoiled. 

" 

 David Spies 1/21/2009 I am against allowing 

hunters to collect 

game and for any 

unofficial use. I am 

also concerned that 

commercial entities 

should be paying fees 

to both NPS and 

USFS for commercial 

permitting using the 

road systems. 

" 

 
Topic Name Date Comment Response 

Oppose Game 

Retrieval 

Hunter Bachrach 1/6/2009 I oppose any 

proposal to allow 

motorized vehicles for 

any purpose in areas 

of the KNF not 

currently allowed. 

Hunting game is a 

huge responsibility 

and privildge. If a 

hunter can't pack it 

out, they sure better 

not kill it. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and management 

 Vince 1/5/2009 We should be allowed 

to use motorized 

vehicles to recover 

downed game as long 

as the land isn't torn 

up by these 

machines. Safe 

useage is a must 

here. 

" 

Ole Hunter 1/5/2009 No vehicles off road 

to recover game, 

none, no, never. Most 

hunters never get 

more than 1/4 mi from 

their vehicle, if they 

cannot clean, skin 

and quarter their kill 

to pack out by foot or 

horse or mule, they 

don't need to be 

hunting to start with. 

" 

Rob Scheer 1/28/2009 Please do not allow 

motorized game 

retrieval. The effort of 

the hunt should 

dictate the retrieval. 

May places you can 

shoot within 50 feet of 

the road. 

“ 

Dan Greenley 1/6/2009 I am infavor of use of 

motorized retrieval 

but only limited to 

natural or man-made 

“ 
trails, not crosscountry on virgin soil 

causing erosion. 

Oppose Game 

Retrieval 

Layne Batty 1/27/2009 The Uinta NF allowed 

big game retrieval at 

first, then found that it 

was abused. They no 

longer do. Gives 

examples of 

violations. Do not 

make the mistake of 

allowing ATV to 

retrieve game when it 

has been proven not 

to work. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and views game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and management 

 Bethi Carver 1/20/2009 Wildlife management 

(game retrieval) can 

be done with mules 

and good horses. 

" 

Game Retrieval 

– Support 

Proposed Action 

Jeff Kulovitz 1/17/2009 Support PA, 

motorized game 

retrieval for elk only. 

Thank you for your comment. 

Ken Meadors 1/9/2009 Support motorized 

retrieval for elk , it 

would also be 

acceptable to include 

deer. 

" 

Robert Sauter 1/6/2009 Finally some common 

sense game retrieval. 

" 

Rich Doyle 1/6/2009 I support the plan to 

allow motorized game 

retrieval in the KNF. 

This will prevent 

game spoilage and 

loss of game to 

predators. 

“ 
Game Retrieval 

– Support 

Proposed Action 

Gary Tuerschmann 1/5/2009 I think that allowing 1 

vehicle is sufficient to 

retrieve game, 

however it could be 

determined more by 

weight. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Sharrell Burcham 1/5/2009 Hunters should be 

allowed to use 

vehicles to retrieve 

elk. I used to pack 

them out, but that 

was when I was 

younger. 

“ 

Oppose 

Camping 

Corridors 

Randy Marlatt 1/12/2009 No to camping 

corridors. 

Parking along roadsides can be 

used for dispersed camping. The 

District is also considering use of 

both camping corridors and 

designation of short road 

segments for recreation access 

(including dispersed camping). 

Camping patterns on the District 

are driving use of both of these 

techniques. Grand Canyon 

visitors are currently using the 

camping corridor locations. 

Designation of short road 

segments would accommodate 

hunting use and recreation users 

who have traditionally used the 

District for recreation activities. 

Need Camping 

Corridors 

Randy Schaal 1/13/2009 FR 301 needs to be a 

camping corridor due 

to all the fishing use 

at Russell Tank and 

for hunter use. Also 

FR 307 from Hull 

Tank down to 

Wagoner Rank needs 

to be a camping 

corridor for hunting 

season. 

Parking along roadsides can be 

used for dispersed camping. The 

District is also considering use of 

both camping corridors and 

designation of short road 

segments for recreation access 

(including dispersed camping). 

Camping patterns on the District 

are driving use of both of these 

techniques. Grand Canyon 

visitors are currently using the 

camping corridor locations. 

Designation of short road 

segments would accommodate 

hunting use and recreation users 

who have traditionally used the 
District for recreation activities. 

Need Camping 

Corridors 

 1/29/2009 Add camping 

corridors to the Upper 

Basin, one at mile 

post 270 and FR 682. 

There are existing 

campsites there. 

" 

 1/24/2009 What about permits 

for camping available 

at the Tusayan 

office? Also you could 

set up a minimal fee 

per pass to apply to 

maintenance. 

" 

 

Additional Route 

Designation 

Randy Schaal 1/13/2009 There are 3-4 

dispersed camping 

sites along FR 307 

between Trash Dam 

and Wagoner Tank. 

The District is proposing 

designation of short road 

segments for recreation access, 

these are subject to resource 

surveys. 

 Jean & Doug Focke 1/6/2009 We like to camp on 

FR 688 it is about 1 

mile in where there is 

a gravel storage yard. 

Please keep this 

open for camping. 

" 

Oppose Route 

Designation 

Havasupai Tribe 1/15/2009 Opposed to camps 

around Red Butte or 

camps near boundary 

with the reservation. 

The District is proposing 

designation of short road 

segments for recreation access, 

these are subject to resource 

surveys. 

 

Inadequate 

Analysis 

Randy Marlatt 1/12/2009 Affect of roads on 

wildlife and habitat. 

The wildlife section of the EA 

details affects of the alternatives 

on wildlife and habitat. 
Inadequate 

Analysis 

Tom Britt 1/20/2009 Provide AZ GF 

vehicle access to 

water developments 

for maintenance and 

replenishment. Allow 

for new construction 

of water 

developments and 

roads to access 

these. Lower the 

amount of roads 

retained for 

administrative use 

only (14% is 

adequate). 

The District and AZ Game and 

Fish will work out an agreement 

for limited vehicle use to water 

developments. 

New construction of water 

developments and access would 

involve separate project level 

analysis and is beyond the scope 

of this project. 

It is anticipated additional analysis 

will be conducted to evaluate 

retention of each road designated 

for administrative use. 

 Tom Britt 1/14/2009 Select Alt 1 with 

prohibition of 

motorized crosscountry travel except 

for retrieving deer or 

elk. If not this then 

select Alt 3. I support 

elimination of off road 

traffic. Remove the 

time constraint from 

big game retrieval. 

Increase the number 

of miles in the 

camping corridors 

from 17 to 22 miles, 

more are needed in 

the SE and S central 

portions and in the 

Upper Basin. Limit 

off-road travel for 

camping and parking 

to 150 feet it is 

adequate and would 

reduce the impacted 

area by 50%. Include 

the group campsite 

on FR 313 east of 

Harbison in either 

section 21 or 22 on 

the north side of the 

road under the 

powerline. 

The FS decision maker can 

include parts or all of a particular 

alternative in the decision notice. 

This includes the exceptions for 

dispersed camping, designation 

of short routes and motorized 

game retrieval. 

The time constraint and distance 

have both been eliminated from 

the motorized big game retrieval 

exception after further 

consultation with AZ Game and 

Fish Dept. 

The camping corridors were 

identified by the IDT with 

consideration for resource 

protection. Following resource 

survey some adjustments may be 

required in both camping 

corridors and designation of short 

routes for recreation access. 

 Barb Shields Jan-09 I would like to see all 

existing roads remain 

open. Close all usermade roads. 

Thank you for your comment. 
Inadequate 

Analysis 

Randy Schaal Jan-09 The road from 

Michigan Tank north 

to Old Hibben Tank 

needs to be open for 

hunting access. 

Road redundancy and density 

has been reduced based on 

resource analysis in this area. 

Support 

Proposed Action 

Rudi Lambrechtse 1/12/2009 Hikers find it difficult 

to recreate without 

interference of man 

and his machines. 

The TMR addresses unmanaged 

recreation, particularly off-road 

travel by creating a designated 

system of roads for motorized 

use. 

 Jerry Self 1/11/2009 Makes sense and 

should be approved. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Gerald L Perry 1/10/2009 Select option 2. I like 

keeping quads to 

existing roads. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Center for Biological 

Diversity - form letter 

from 337 people 

1/21/2009 Support PA, but with 

these changes: no 

game retrieval, no 

camping corridors, no 

user created routes 

added for rec access. 

The info used to show 

economic impacts of 

hunting and OHV use 

are incorrect. 

There is inadequate 

analysis of OHV 

impacts on wildlife 

and their habitat. 

Camping and hunting are 

important uses of the District. 

TMR may include designation of 

limited use of motorized vehicles 

solely for dispersed camping and 

big game retrieval (36 CFR 

212.51 b). 

 Robert M Lauzon 1/16/2009 Like alt 2 but consider 

the following: FR 

2511 from Seven Mile 

to Lauzon homestead 

should be closed with 

barriers. FR 2510 

from Bass tank needs 

to remain open. Two 

tricktanks are not 

shown on the map & 

need to be open to 

hunters, AZGF and 

Rocky Mtn Elk since 

 It is anticipated additional 

analysis will be conducted to 

evaluate the need to retention of 

each road designated for 

administrative use. The FS will 

work with private land owners 

regarding administrative use 

roads adjacent to their parcels. 

The district expects to work on an 

agreement with the AZGF Dept 
they haul water. The 

road next to the 

Havasupai boundary 

needs to be closed. 

for water hauling. 

Support 

Proposed Action 

 1/10/2009 Alt 2 but allow for all 

game retrieval. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 James B. Pickens 1/13/2009 Adopt Alt 2 and allow 

hunters to retrieve all 

big game with 

motorized vehicles. 

" 

 Carl Taylor 12/30/2008 Sounds like a good 

plan. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Paul Raczkowski 1/5/2009 I support alt 2. Thank you for your comment. 

 1/5/2009 Alt 2 would be fair. Thank you for your comment. 

 Kim Kokesh 1/26/2009 I support alt 2 on the 

Tusayan Travel Mgt 

Project. 

Thank you for your comment. 

George Lea 1/30/2009 Public Lands 

Foundation supports 

alt 2 and 3 that 

provides for 

motorized crosscountry retrieval of 

elk. It is consistent 

with EO 13443: 

Facilitation of Hunting 

Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation. 

Thank you for your comment. 
 

Support No 

Action 

Bill Gildersleeve 1/10/2009 Disabled, only way I 

can get around is by 

motorized vehicles. 

Leave 160 miles of 

unauthorized roads 

open. Leave things as 

they are. 

The No-Action alternative would 

not implement the Travel 

Management Rule. 

 Ed O'Sullivan 1/17/2009 Support alt 1 allowing 

motorized big game 

retrieval. 

“ 

 1/18/2009 Use of motor vehicles 

should be permitted 

for game retrieval and 

recreation. People 

have a right to use 

vehicles in a 

respectful manner. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Duane Westbery 1/18/2009 I am in favor of alt 1. 

The percent of 

hunters that leave 

roads to retrieve 

game is so small that 

no ill effects happen. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 I.A. MyersStevenson 1/19/2009 Adopt alt 1. I favor 

use of any type of 

motorized vehicle to 

retrieve big game. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. There 

is no stipulation about type of 

vehicle used for game retrieval. 

The FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 
Support No 

Action 

Marc Cooley 1/9/2009 I support alt 1 and 

motorized big game 

retrieval. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. 

 George Osler 1/8/2009 I support alt 1 and 

use of any type of 

motorized vehicle to 

retrieve big game. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. There 

is no stipulation about type of 

vehicle used for game retrieval. 

 Merl Nielsen 1/8/2009 I urge you to use alt 

1. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Kevin Walters 1/7/2009 I would like to see alt 

1 remain in place. 

Game retrieval is a 

viable alternative 

without causing 

permanent damage to 

the forest. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS has concerns about impacts to 

habitat from elk and view game 

retrieval as a tool to assist Game 

and Fish with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Rick Wilkinson 1/7/2009 Alt 1 is correct 

decision. I want to 

continue to retrievel 

game with 

mechanized access. 

" 

 Mike Hogan 1/10/2009 My preference is for 

alt 1. Unless you 

allow people a way to 

pick up their game 

you will insure that 

most hunting is from 

or near the 

established roads. 

" 

 W. S. Childers 1/11/2009 Punish the bad 

person, but leave the 

good alone, I vote for 

#1. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 John Adams 1/12/2009 I feel strongly that you 

must not restrict 

motorized vehiclular 

acess in retrieving 

legally harvested 

“ 
game on federal 

lands. I urge a noaction decision on 

this issue. 

Support No 

Action 

Andrew Ramirez Jr 1/13/2009 I am a hunter and by 

choosing alt 2 or 3 

you will be restricting 

my ability and making 

it harder to hunt. 

Keep alt 1 in place. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Michael Buttram 1/20/2009 I support the efforts to 

restrict motor vehicles 

in the forests esp. off 

roads. I wish that the 

restriction for game 

retrieval could be 1/2 

mi instead of 1 mi. 

" 

 Nancy Carter 1/6/2009 I am in favor of the 

noaction decision as 

it would discriminate 

against me to have to 

drag an elk out. Not 

often the animal will 

be within a mile of a 

main road. 

" 

 William Kaul 1/6/2009 I am for alt 1, I am a 

responsible citizen 

who does not abuse 

the land on which I 

hunt. I have hunted 

the KNF and 

successfully retrieved 

my game using an 

OHV. Restricting use 

of OHV would 

increase the amt of 

time and work to get 

such a large animal 

back to camp. It 

increases the 

possibility of the 

animal spoiling. More 

restrictions are not 

going to help, they'll 

“ 
just make it worse. 

Support No 

Action 

George Daniels 1/7/2009 I prefer alt 1 remain in 

effect. Elk, mule deer 

and antelope are 

difficult to handle and 

properly care for. The 

ability to use a 

motorized vehicle to 

retrieve such game is 

of great benefit to the 

hunter. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Timothy Pender 1/6/2009 Retired AZ G&F 

wildlife mgr. I 

recommend alt 1 the 

current policy that has 

worked for years with 

few if any problems. I 

don't think use of 

motor vehicles to 

retrieve big game has 

been a significant 

issue relating to 

resource damage. I 

think enforcement 

would be difficult and 

that more game meat 

will be lost due to 

spoilage. 

" 

 Bill 1/5/2009 I support the 

proposed rules to 

allow for OHV to 

retrieve big game in 

Tusayan. I'm all for 

relaxing archaic rules 

than ban OHV from 

public lands. 

Robert Rooke 1/5/2009 I would like to see #1. Thank you for your comment. 

Frank Tucker 1/5/2009 Please keep the 

current travel mgt 

plan alt 1. To impose 

further restrictions 

may place undue 

hardships on the 

current and future 

Thank you for your comment. 
hunters. 

Support No 

Action 

John Mattei 1/5/2009 I would like to see alt 

1 allowing the same 

process for us as is 

currently allowed. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 James Hays 1/5/2009 I support alt 1. Thank you for your comment. 

 Charles Albrecht 1/5/2009 I am in favor of alt 1. 

It would allow ahy 

type of vehicle to 

retrieve legally 

harvested big game. I 

hunt the KNF and it is 

very helpful to have 

the option to retrieve 

game with a vehicle 

since I generally hunt 

alone. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Leonard Shanks 1/5/2009 I encourage you to 

consider alt 1 to allow 

motorized vehicles for 

game retrieval. I don't 

believe there is a lot 

of damage from 

hunters retrieving 

game they have 

killed. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. 

 Roger Conroy 1/5/2009 It is important for 

hunters to be allowed 

to use motorized 

vehicles to retrieve 

game, I urge you to 

implement alt 1 no 

change in the current 

plan. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 James Briscoe 1/5/2009 Please pass alt 1; use 

of any motorized 

vehicles to retrieve 

" 
game. 

Support No 

Action 

Gary Liscombe 1/5/2009 I believe alt 1 should 

be adopted. As a 

disabled hunter I 

believe that use of 

motor vehicles used 

in a reasonable 

manner is 

appropriate. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

 Bill Mason 1/5/2009 I would like to see alt 

a stay in place. I think 

stronger enforcement 

is needed for those 

who abuse the rules. 

Game retrieval is 

okay, but no other 

cross country uses. 

" 

Ron Hanse 1/5/2009 The current alt 1 is 

what I feel should 

remain in place. I feel 

the rangers assigned 

to the area did a good 

job of monitoring the 

situation while I 

hunted there in the 

past. 

Thank you for your comment. 

Pat Maneely 1/5/2009 Please continue to 

allow any kind of 

vehicle to retrieve 

game from the KNF. 

Alt 1. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

Glenn Plain 1/5/2009 I would like you to 

stay with alt 1. I have 

hunted in Az all my 

life--57 years. I used 

to be able to pack out 

an animal, but as I 

" 
have aged it is harder 

and I would like the 

ability to drive to my 

game if possible. 

Support No 

Action 

Everett & Karen 

Carpenter 

1/5/2009 We support alt 1. Thank you for your comment. 

 Tom Voltz 1/6/2009 Alt 1 is the way to go 

on this. Why make it 

harder for hunters to 

retrieve game. If a 

hunter is willing to 

hike in and hunt a 

remote area, at least 

give them a little help 

to get the animal 

back. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and mgt. 

Gene Harris 1/6/2009 Keep alt 1 in effect. I 

have bilateral knee 

replacements and 

have an imposed 

weight limit of 50#. I 

cannot carry out an 

animal. To change 

the plan would 

effectively put many 

areas out of reach to 

many hunters who 

have disabilities. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. 

Lloyd Liebetrau 1/27/2009 Consider alt 1. 

Hunters are growing 

older, restricting 

motor vehicles to 

retrieve game will 

restrict the area a 

hunter can hunt. 

" 

Gary Metivier 1/25/2009 I request that alt 1 be 

adopted. Many 

hunters are senior 

citizens and have 

physical limitations. 

We should be able to 

retrieve game 

animals which we 

" 
legally harvested. 

Support No 

Action 

Martin Glassbury 1/30/2009 I support alt 1 and 

enjoy the freedom to 

travel in the forest as 

is currently allowed. 

My family always try 

to "tread lightly". I 

don't think restricting 

travel will solve the 

problems, instead 

concentrate on those 

causing the problems. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Frank Caylor 1/25/2009 I strongly recommend 

alt 1. Game retrieval 

does not create a 

problem or cause 

long term damage to 

the forest. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

Support 

Alternative 3 

Larry & Sandy 

Anderson 

1/18/2009 Recommend alt 3 but 

add motorized game 

retrieval for deer. 

Game and Fish Dept 

is recommending this 

as well. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. 

 Steven Matson 1/5/2009 Alt 3 is workable, but 

don't restrict the 

distance a vehicle 

can be driven to 

retrieve game. 

Sometimes the 

environment is tore 

up more when you 

limit the distance. 

" 

 Derek Glenn 1/24/2009 Alt 3 appears to be an 

appropriate plan. 

Allow visitors to get 

Thank you for your comment. 
out and see the KNF. 

General 

Comments 

Guy M Thomas 1/17/2009 Severely disabled vet 

- please make 

provision for us to get 

to more remote 

regions to hunt, fish 

and enjoy nature like 

we used to. An 

outright ban on ATV 

travel restruicts 

access to a resource 

that should be 

available to me. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS manages the habitat for 

wildlife, AZ Game and Fish 

manages the wildlife. The FS has 

concerns about impacts to habitat 

from elk and view game retrieval 

as a tool to assist Game and Fish 

with elk harvest and 

management. 

OHV can continue to be operated 

on roads designated in the 

system of open roads. 

 Mike Miller 1/13/2009 All roads except 

those needed for fire 

management and 

access to regulated 

recreation should be 

permanently closed. 

No motorized game 

retrieval. No camping 

corridors. It is 

possible to pull of the 

road 30 feet to camp 

and shoot, no more. 

The FS is proposing to close 

roads at this time. Future projects 

may consider decommissioning. 

The District is currently proposing 

game retrieval for elk only during 

all elk seasons. The FS manages 

the habitat for wildlife, AZ Game 

and Fish manages the wildlife. 

The FS has concerns about 

impacts to habitat from elk and 

view game retrieval as a tool to 

assist Game and Fish with elk 

population management. 

Dispersed camping corridors 

must be surveyed for resource 

concerns. 

 Nick Hudson 1/10/2009 Forest roads and 

trails should remain 

open to public use for 

motorized vehicles,off 

road vehicles and 

mountain bikes 

except in wilderness 

study areas, wildlife 

protection areas and 

during extreme fire 

danger. 

The FS is required to designate 

the system of roads, trails and 

areas open to motor vehicle use 

(36 CFR 212.51). The alternatives 

evaluate designation of 

approximately 550 to 700 miles of 

forest roads that are open to 

motorized use. There are 

currently no trails open for 

motorized use. 

Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless 

Areas and other existing area 

closures that prohibit motorized 

travel will be retained as currently 
managed. 

General 

Comments 

Bob Eck 1/10/2009 Please limit off-road 

vehicles as much as 

possible. 

The TMR prohibits motorized 

cross-country use. The FS is 

required to designate the system 

of roads, trails and areas open to 

motor vehicle use (36 CFR 

212.51). The alternatives evaluate 

designation of 550 to 700 miles of 

forest roads that are open to 

motorized use. 

Matthew Dellaro 1/5/2009 See that one of the 

three alternatives is 

selected that allows 

motor vehicle use in 

the KNF. Any 

alternative is better 

than a ban. 

While alternative 1 would retain 

the existing condition, it would not 

comply with the intent of the 

Travel Management Rule that 

prohibits motorized cross-country 

use. 

Don Scheer 1/5/2009 I am not in favor of 

allowing any crosscountry motorized 

vehicle travel. 

Motorized traffic 

should be restricted 

to existing roads. 

The TMR prohibits motorized 

cross-country use. The FS is 

required to designate the system 

of roads, trails and areas open to 

motor vehicle use (36 CFR 

212.51). TMR may include 

designation of limited use of 

motorized vehicles solely for 

dispersed camping and big game 

retrieval (36 CFR 212.5 b) 

Dwayne Colletti 1/5/2009 As a hunter for over 

30 years I feel the 

laws are fine as they 

are. This sounds to 

me like another gun 

ban. 

Thank you for your comment. 

Steve Spear 1/6/2009 I see these policies 

as not being in the 

public interest, I want 

to keep our forests 

open for public use. 

Thank you for your comment. 

Kurt Donohoe 1/6/2009 I think restrictions to 

the current laws will 

have a serious impact 

on enjoyment of the 

forest for everyone 

Thank you for your comment. 
that uses. Don't 

change the laws. 

General 

Comments 

Randy Schaal 1/13/2009 I prefer alt 3; it allows 

a little better in this 

unit for hunting. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Jean & Doug Focke 1/6/2009 Concerned about 

ATV riders damaging 

cultural sites near 

Michigan Tank, 

Peterson Tank and 

on FR 334. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Monty Parsons 1/29/2009 Install a swing gate to 

close off the forest 

from Hwy 64 at FR 

682. 

FR 682 has been evaluated and 

is proposed to be included in the 

designated system of roads open 

to motorized travel. 

 Earl Frey 1/27/2009 OHV riders who 

deface the land 

should be jailed and 

required to do labor 

on public lands, fined 

and forfeit their 

vehicle. I lug my 

stand a mile into the 

woods and I'll drag 

my deer out. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Sidney Caylor 1/28/2009 FS has changed the 

policy of service to 

the citizens to keep 

all people out of the 

public lands. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Roger Kissam 1/26/2009 I believe motorized 

vehicles in any area 

like this should not be 

allowed. They destroy 

the plants, do not stay 

on trails, noise 

pollution, ugly rutting 

in wet weather to 

name a few. I am 

totally against it. 

The TMR prohibits motorized 

cross-country use. The FS is 

required to designate the system 

of roads, trails and areas open to 

motor vehicle use (36 CFR 

212.51). TMR may include 

designation of limited use of 

motorized vehicles solely for 

dispersed camping and big game 

retrieval (36 CFR 212.5 b) 
General 

Comments 

A J Masalic 1/25/2009 Definitely open up 

access. Great idea. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Machelle Pickens 1/30/2009 Use common sense 

when adopting a plan. 

Allow for use and 

enjoyment of the 

forest without 

destruction. Don’t' 

lock us out of our own 

backyard, make the 

forest accessible so 

people don't feel they 

have to make their 

own roads. 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Michael Willand 1/30/2009 I am an avid hunter 

and have hunted in 

this area. I feel there 

are too many roads 

for the necessary 

access to the forest. 

Less disturbance of 

motor vehicle travel to 

wildlife is a benefit, 

not to mention the 

damage is causes to 

the landscape. 

The FS evaluated the existing 

road system in an interdisciplinary team environment 

looking at each resource area. 

This was followed with public 

input. The proposed action is the 

result of that analysis. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce 

the designated road system by 

about 25%. 

Agency 

Comments 

US Fish & Wildlife 

Service 

1/28/2009 Recreation access 

points are not clearly 

defined. 

TMR may include designation of 

limited use of motorized vehicles 

solely for dispersed camping and 

big game retrieval (36 CFR 212.5 

b). The recreation access points 

are proposed locations where a 

short segment of an unauthorized 

route would be added to the 

designated road system in order 

to engage in recreation activities. 

Tusayan District proposes the 

segment be up to 300 feet long, 

and at the terminus a recreation 

user could park their vehicle and 

recreate. Existing use at the 

locations is primarily for dispersed 

camping. Each recreation access 

point must still undergo resource 

survey to determine if it will be 

added to the designated road 
system. 

 Concerns about 

whether Pediocactus 

are present and need 

to avoid camping or 

other use near 

populations of 

Gunnison's prairie 

dogs 

The proposed dispersed camping 

corridors and access routes must 

all have resource surveys 

completed before they would be 

placed on the Motor Use Vehicle 

Map. If either the pediocactus or 

prairie dogs were found in these 

areas, the area would fall out of 

consideration. In addition floristic 

surveys are proposed for the 

likely locations of the pediocactus. 

 Will the proposal 

affect California 

condors 

The wildlife biologist is adding a 

section to the wildlife portion of 

Chapter 3 that discusses condors. 

In addition, we propose to add 

information to the Motor Use 

Vehicle Map that would discuss 

human-condor interactions, as 

well as providing this information 

on portal signs and brochures that 

include travel management 

information. 

 Invasive weed 

introduction in 

dispersed camping 

areas and on access 

routes 

The district botanist has added to 

mitigation measures to directly 

address invasive weed tratment in 

dispersed camping areas. 

 Permitted activities - 

what is the extent of 

activities that may 

occur 

Motorized activities authorized 

under a written authorization 

(permit) may continue motorized 

use where appropriate (CFR 

212.51 a 8, CFR 261.11 h, CFR 

212.81 b 5, CFR 261.14 e). 

Operating plans will restrict 

motorized cross-country use 

unless it is critical to resource 

management. It is beyond the 

scope of this analysis to detail 

every instance where motorized 

use is appropriate for 

administrative use or permits. 

 Are there sensitive 

species that will be 

affected by Travel 

The Tusayan District has worked 

with AZ Game and Fish 

extensively, and has documented 

consultation about travel 
Management management with local Tribes, 

and continues to work with Tribes 

to accommodate traditional 

activities. 

Agency 

Comments 

Grand Canyon 

National Park 

 Institute a one-mile 

boundary from the 

Park for motorized 

uses and game 

retrieval. 

Instituting a 1-mile buffer for any 

purpose is not reasonable as 

many management activities 

would necessarily include these 

areas. 

 Do not designate 

dispersed camping or 

recreation access 

routes near the 

boundary of the forest 

and Park. 

No camping corridors are located 

near the National Park boundary. 

There are a few isolated access 

routes that may be designated 

near the boundary (primarily on 

the west side of Highway 64). In 

all locations these access points 

will extend a maximum of 300 feet 

from the designated motorized 

routes. The access routes would 

be designated only after resource 

surveys are concluded. The FS 

will avoid locating these right on 

the forest-park boundary line. Site 

monitoring is included in the 

analysis. 

 Include a special 

section in the EA 

about adjacent lands. 

Coordination with Federal, State, 

county, local and tribal 

governments is required when 

designating national forest system 

roads, trails and areas (CFR 

212.54). A specific section for 

adjacent lands is not required. 

 Offer of partnerships 

for rehabilitation of 

closed roads. 

This is beyond the scope of this 

analysis. We welcome 

partnership opportunities and will 

work closely with private land 

owners and other agencies as 

future projects are evaluated for 

retention or decommissioning of 

the administrative use roads. 
 There is a floating 

road segment near 

the Park boundary. 

This has been identified and 

appears to be an error in the 

proposed action road system that 

will be removed. 

 Will the visitor use 

map remove all roads 

except those in the 

designated road 

system? 

The Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM) is the legal instrument 

showing the designated road 

system, locations of camping 

corridors, and providing visitor 

information. It will include only the 

system of roads designated for 

motorized use. The forest visitor 

map will continue to show all 

roads on the District. It is 

recommended the forest visitor 

map be used in conjunction with 

the MVUM since it has much 

more detailed information to help 

visitors orient themselves. 

 References are made 

to both Ecosystem 

Management Areas 

and Georgraphic 

Areas 

These have been corrected in the 

environmental assessment. 

Agency 

Comments 

AZ Game & Fish 

Dept. 

 Support for 

prohibition against 

cross-country travel 

Thank you for your comment. 

 Propose motorized 

game retrieval for 

deer and elk during 

open seaons for 

these animals, and 

for 24 hours following 

each season. 

CHAMP hunters have 

permission to recover 

all legally taken big 

game during their 

permitted seasons 

provided it doesn't 

cause resource 

damage. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. We 

have amended the wording to 

include 24 hours following the end 

of each season providing it can 

be accomplished without causing 

resource damage. 
 In order to meet big 

game harvest and 

mgt objectives 

recommend the 1-

mile vehicle access 

limit be removed. 

TMR requires that an exception 

for big game retrieval include a 

restriction on the distance. The 

majority of the district can be 

accessed within one-mile of the 

proposed road system. 

 Emphasize no big 

game retrieval if 

resource damage is 

caused. 

The Wet Weather Roads policy 

may be implemented as needed 

to help prevent resource damage. 

Emphasis has been placed on 

prevention of resource damage 

and use of the minimum number 

of trips for game retrieval. 

 Provision of State 

programs related to 

disabled hunters. 

Federal law requires that 

opportunities for hunting be 

provided for all people who desire 

to participate in the sport. 

 Enforcement of lawful 

big game retrieval 

AZ Game and Fish will continue 

aerial hunt patrols looking for 

violations. The FS expects to 

partner with AZ Game and Fish 

and other agencies to enforce the 

Travel Management Rule. 

 AZ Game and Fish 

recommends open 

roads be signed and 

roads for 

administrative use not 

be signed. Reclassify 

administrative use 

roads. 

The Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM) is the legal instrument 

showing the designated road 

system, locations of camping 

corridors, and providing visitor 

information. It will include only the 

system of roads designated for 

motorized use. The forest visitor 

map will continue to show all 

roads on the District. It is 

recommended the forest visitor 

map be used in conjunction with 

the MVUM since it has much 

more detailed information to help 

visitors orient themselves. Roads 

for administrative use will 

continue to need to be signed just 

as the designated road system is 

signed. The district expects to 

make travel management 

information available to forest 

users, and to provide field 

contacts to help forest users 

comply with the rule. Forests are 

required to review the MVUM 

annually, and make corrections 
and adjustments as needed. 

 Prefer Alternative 3 

since it allows 

additional vehicular 

access to the forest. 

The deciding official will use the 

analysis, public comments, and 

biological evaluations provided to 

determine what the designated 

road system will be. 

 Support for control of 

dispersed camping, 

but make sure there 

are enough 

opportunities for 

dispersed camping 

especially during 

hunting season. 

Some additional language has 

been added to the roadside 

parking description. The 

district proposes to designate 

many of the existing recreation 

access routes as well as a limited 

number of dispersed camping 

corridors to accommodate the 

demand for dispersed camp sites. 

Since the district will review the 

MVUM annually, there will be 

opportunities to monitor use, and 

analyze the need for additional 

camping along open roads. 

 Need for AZ Game & 

Fish Dept access to 

wildlife waters 

The district will pursue an 

agreement with the State 

regarding access to wildlife water 

developments. 

 Request that Forest 

and AZ Game and 

Fish work together to 

develop OHV and 

motorcycle trails. 

The district will monitor OHV use, 

and may consider analysis of 

OHV trails in the future. 

 Roads indicated open 

that are 

decommissioned (FR 

2722, 64A) 

Thank you, adjustments have 

been made to the open road 

system database to reflect these 

changes. 

Combined 

Environmental 

Group Letter 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, et.al. 

1/30/2009 Tusayan RD should 

prepare and 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 

The Tusayan RD Travel 

Management project does not 

include any of the classes 

normally requiring the preparation 

of an environmental impact 

statement. Based on the 
environmental assessment the 

agency makes a determination of 

whether to prepare an EIS, or not 

and to make a finding of no 

significant impact. 

Combined 

Environmental 

Groups Letter 

 Cumulative Impacts 

should include all AZ 

forests 

The agency assesses the 

cumulative effects of the actions 

(including past, present and 

reasonable foreseeable future 

actions) on the affected 

environment. The agency must 

determine what information is 

useful and relevant because they 

have a significant cause-andeffect relationship with the direct 

and indirect effect of the proposal 

and its alternatives. 

 Air, Soils, Watershed 

analyses are not 

adequate and did not 

consider fugitive dust 

or climate change. 

Since there are no live streams in 

the analysis area, the primary 

concern is one of soil erosion. 

The soils and watershed analysis 

identifies ephemeral streams as 

being the main points of concern 

for soil erosion. Mitigation 

measures have been developed 

to target these places and 

prioritize road work where roads 

cross or follow drainages. In 

addition, dispersed camping 

corridors and access routes will 

be eliminated where there are 

specific erosion hazard concerns. 

 Fugutive Dust needs 

to be addressed. 

Fugitive dust is particulate matter 

that in introduced into the air from 

human and/or natural activies, 

such as movement of soil, 

vehicles, equipment, blasting and 

wind. The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality regulates 

emissions of fugitive dust in air 

quality attainment areas in the 

state. Tusayan RD is not located 

in an air quality attainment area. 

 Climate change 

needs to be 

addressed. 

Large scale climate models 

predict continuation of the drought 

that the area is experiences as 

well as increases in temperatures. 

Resources will be affected by the 

predicted changes and the EA 
has evaluated these effects to the 

extent that it is possible at this 

time. 

Combined 

Environmental 

Groups Letter 

 The Wildlife analysis 

is inadequate and 

does not consider a 

baseline unroaded 

condition for 

comparison of 

alternatives. 

The wildlife report analyzes direct 

and indirect impacts of each 

alternative, and the exceptions 

relating to motorized crosscountry travel that are proposed. 

NEPA requires that the proposed 

changes be compared to the 

existing condition. There is no 

requirement to attempt to 

compare to the turn of the century 

"un-roaded" landscape prior to 

vehicular travel for wildlife. The 

existing condition is the current 

roaded landscape. The agency 

assesses the cumulative effects 

of the actions proposed (including 

past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions on the 

affected environment. The agency 

must determine what information 

is useful and relevant because 

they have a significant causeand-effect relationship with the 

direct and indirect effect of the 

proposal and its alternatives. 

 Invasive Weeds will 

be increased as a 

result of Travel 

Management. 

The invasive weed report 

indicates that the action 

alternatives would reduce the 

road density and in turn reduce 

the spread of invasive weeds. 

The FS annually monitors and 

treats invasive weeds. Prohibition 

of motorized cross-country travel 

as compared to unregulated 

travel is an improvement. The 

direct and indirect of the proposed 

exceptions to motorized crosscountry travel are included in the 

analysis in Chapter 3. 

 All Heritage sites 

would be threatened 

as a result of the 

alternatives analyzed. 

The Heritage analysis compares 

the existing condition impacts to 

cultural resources to the poposed 

action and alternatives. The 

primary objective of TMR, the 

prohibition of motorized crosscountry travel reduces the 

potential impacts to cultural sites 

throughout the district. The 

Heritage section analyzes the 
direct and indirect effects of the 

proposed exceptions. 

Combined 

Environmental 

Groups Letter 

 Impacts of motorized 

big game retrieval 

have not been 

adequately analyzed. 

At this time it is difficult to 

distinguish the effects of 

motorized big game retrieval from 

those of general motorized crosscountry use. The implementation 

of TMR would prohibit the general 

motorized cross-country use, thus 

enabling the District to better 

determine the effects of big -

game retrieval. Monitoring is 

proposed to evaluate the effects 

of motorized big game retrieval. 

Additional measures include use 

of Wet Weather Travel policy that 

prohibits any travel off the wet 

weather road system and AZGFD 

as the FS enforce State hunting 

regulations regarding natural 

resource damage. 

The District is currently 

considering game retrieval for elk 

only during all elk seasons. The 

FS and AZ Game and Fish Dept 

(AZGFD) maintain a cooperator 

relationship in order to carry out 

each agency's mandates. The FS 

manages the habitat for wildlife, 

AZ Game and Fish manages the 

wildlife. The FS has concerns 

about impacts to habitat from elk 

and view game retrieval as a tool 

to assist Game and Fish with elk 

population management. 

 The Williams TMR 

planning effort 

galvanized members 

of the community and 

caused additional 

controversy. 

This is outside the scope of the 

Tusayan RD Travel Management 

project. Tusayan TMR public 

meetings have provided 

opportunities for concerns to be 

voiced, and have provided 

information about various aspects 

of travel management. 

 Motorized recreation 

use has been favored 

over non-motorized 

use in the analysis. 

This is a travel management 

project and necessarily analyzes 

the effects of motorized use. Nonmotorized uses have been 

considered in the recreation and 

social/economic sections of 

Chapter 3. Several sources have 

been used to characterize 

recreation use at the District. The 
most recent study completed is 

the Arizona State-wide 

Comprehensive Recreation Plan 

which looked in detail at OHV use 

and users. Unfortunately 

perivious studies such as the 

National Visitor Use Monitoring 

report and the Northern Arizona 

Univeristy Recreation Use Study 

do not reflect the growth of OHV 

use in Arizona in the past 5 years. 

Combined 

Environmental 

Groups Letter 

 Purpose and Need Thank you for your comment. It is 

critical that the purpose and need 

address the requirements of the 

TMR. 

 No Action/Baseline The no action alternative must 

identify the existing conditions 

and management, and this is 

used for comparison for the 

proposed action and alternatives. 

Failure to set 

sideboards and 

identify 

methodologies 

Each resource specialist analyzes 

the direct and indirect effects of 

the proposed action and 

alternatives. 

TAP not available in a 

timely manner 

There are no timelines specified 

in the TMR or Roads Anaysis 

process. The District prepared a 

revised TAP in 2008 and released 

this in conjunction with the 

Environmental Assessment. The 

2006 TAP was released for public 

input. Additional guidance was 

provided to national forests and 

the 2006 TAP was revised when 

first developed so that public input 

could be collected and 

incorporated. The 2008 TAP 

provided additional details and 

information that was not originally 

included in the 2006 TAP. The 

Roads Analysis Process specifies 

analysis of the existing forest road 

system. The inclusion of short 

segments of unauthorized routes 

is included in the environmental 

analysis because these would be 

included as exceptions to the 

TMR, otherwise unauthorized 

routes are not managed a part of 
the designated forest road 

system. 

Combined 

Environmental 

Groups Letter 

 Range of alternatives The FS identified a range of 

alternatives to analyze based on 

issues identified during the 

scoping period. Four alternatives 

were originally identified. During 

preliminary effects analysis it was 

found that the fourth alternative, 

provided by conservation 

organizations, failed to meet the 

intent of the TMR and there were 

several specialist concerns with 

the proposal. It was subsequently 

dropped from detailed analysis for 

this reason. 

 Proposed Action does 

not reflect the 

minimum road system 

The minimum road system is 

defined as: the road system 

needed for safe and efficient 

travel and for administration, 

utilization and protection of 

National Forest system lands (36 

CFR 212.5b). This system was 

identifed during the TAP with 

interdisciplinary analysis and 

public input. 

 The Proposed Action 

fails to close 

unnecessary routes 

and doesn't follow the 

TAP matrix. 

The TAP matrix is one step of the 

Roads Analysis process. It places 

roads into 4 categories: high 

value-high risk, high value-low 

risk, low value-high risk, low 

value-low risk. Subsequent steps 

of interdisciplinary analysis and 

public input are used to further 

define the minimum road system. 

The TAP matrix does help to 

identify priorities for road 

maintenance and provides a for 

subsequent environmental 

analysis for road 

decommissioning. 

 The Proposed Action 

does not reflect FS 

budget capabilities 

The alternatives propose reducing 

the total miles of forest roads by 

22-25%. This will make progress 

toward better and more cost 

effective maintenance of the road 

system. Not all designated roads 

are maintained each year; the 

District prioritizes maintenance 
needs based on the road 

maintenance level, distribution of 

use, and need. The FS budget 

will never provide adequate 

funding for all management 

activities, this is why the District 

prioritizes its work. 

Combined 

Environmental 

Groups Letter 

 Dispersed camping 

corridors will cause 

resource affects and 

spread noxious 

weeds. 

The District identified areas where 

dispersed camping is occurring, 

and determined that camping is a 

continuing and desirable use. 

District recreation managers have 

distinguished two patterns of 

camping: the Grand Canyon 

National Park visitor, and the 

District recreation user. Camping 

corridors in response to the 

GCNP visitor use pattern of short 

term, roadside use. Of the 17 

miles proposed, resource surveys 

completed during the spring and 

summer of 2009 would determine 

where corridors would be located. 

The corridors will be monitored for 

over-use and spread of noxious 

weeds. Weeds will be treated 

when found in these areas. 

 Develop a Travel 

Management Plan 

The Tusayan Travel Management 

EA proposes to implement the 

Travel Management Rule. A 

comprehensive travel 

management plan is beyond the 

scope of this project. 

 Interface with Forest 

Planning 

The Tusayan Travel Management 

EA must follow the current 

guidance in the Forest 

Management Plan, or amend it, 

as this project would, to prohibit 

motorized cross-country travel on 

Tusayan RD. Delaying this project 

or speculative proposals 

anticipating what the results of the 

forest plan revision effort will be 

are beyond the scope of this 

project. 
Glossary 

• Abbreviations: 

o AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

o CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. 

o EM. Forest Service Engineering Manual. 

o EO. Executive Order. 

o FSH. Forest Service Handbook. 

o FSM. Forest Service Manual. 

o USC. United States Code 

• Access Right (1). The right of ingress to and egress from a property that abuts a street or highway. (23 

CFR 710.105) 

• Access Right (2). The authority to pass over a property for purposes of ingress to or egress from a piece 

of property. (FSM 5460.5) 

• Administrative unit. A National Forest, a National Grassland, a purchase unit, a land utilization project, 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Land between the Lakes, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, or other comparable unit of the National Forest System. (36 

CFR 212.1, 36 CFR 261.2) 

• All-Terrain Vehicle. A type of off-highway vehicle that travels on three or more low-pressure tires; has 

handle-bar steering; is less than or equal to 50 inches in width; and has a seat designed to be straddled by 

the operator. (FSH 2309.18.05) 

• Annual Maintenance. Work performed to maintain serviceability, or repair failures during the year in 

which they occur. Includes preventive and/or cyclic maintenance performed in the year in which it is 

scheduled to occur. Unscheduled or catastrophic failures of components or assets may need to be repaired 

as a part of annual maintenance. (Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and 

Construction Terms, July 22, 1998) 

• Construction (1). The supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of all costs incidental to 

the construction or reconstruction of a highway, including bond costs and other costs relating to the 

issuance in accordance with section 122 of bonds or other debt financing instruments and costs incurred by 

the State in performing Federal-aid project related audits that directly benefit the Federal-aid highway 

program. Such term includes-- 

 (A) locating, surveying, and mapping (including the establishment of temporary and 

permanent geodetic markers in accordance with specifications of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce); 

 (B) resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation; 

 (C) acquisition of rights-of-way; 

 (D) relocation assistance, acquisition of replacement housing sites, and acquisition and 

rehabilitation, relocation, and construction of replacement housing; 

 (E) elimination of hazards of railway grade crossings; 

 (F) elimination of roadside obstacles; 

 (G) improvements that directly facilitate and control traffic flow, such as grade separation of 

intersections, widening of lanes, channelization of traffic, traffic control systems, and passenger 

loading and unloading areas; and 

 (H) capital improvements that directly facilitate an effective vehicle weight enforcement 

program, such as scales (fixed and portable), scale pits, scale installation, and scale houses. (23 

USC 101)
• Construction (2). The erection, construction, installation, or assembly of a new fixed asset. (Financial 

Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and Construction Terms, July 22, 1998) 

• Culvert. A conduit or passageway under a road, trail, or other obstruction. A culvert differs from a 

bridge in that the top of a culvert does not serve as the road surface and is constructed entirely below the 

elevation of the traveled way. (Handbook of Steel Drainage & Highway Construction Products). 

• Cyclic Maintenance. Preventive maintenance activities that recur on a periodic and scheduled cycle. 

(Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and Construction Terms, July 22, 1998) 

• Decommission. Demolition, dismantling, removal, obliteration and/or disposal of a deteriorated or 

otherwise unneeded asset or component, including necessary cleanup work. This action eliminates the 

deferred maintenance needs for the fixed asset. Portions of an asset or component may remain if they do 

not cause problems nor require maintenance. (Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance 

and Construction Terms, July 22, 1998) 

• Deferred Maintenance. Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when it was 

scheduled and which, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period. When allowed to accumulate 

without limits or consideration of useful life, deferred maintenance leads to deterioration of performance, 

increased costs to repair, and decrease in asset value. Deferred maintenance needs may be categorized as 

critical or non-critical at any point in time. Continued deferral of non-critical maintenance will normally 

result in an increase in critical deferred maintenance. Code compliance (e.g. life safety, ADA, OSHA, 

environmental, etc.), Forest Plan Direction, Best Management Practices, Biological Evaluations other 

regulatory or Executive Order compliance requirements, or applicable standards not met on schedule are 

considered deferred maintenance. (Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and 

Construction Terms, July 22, 1998) 

• Design Speed. A selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of the roadway 

with respect to topography, anticipated operating speed, the adjacent land use, and the functional 

classification of the road. The selected design speed should be consistent with the speeds that drivers are 

likely to expect on a given highway facility. (AASHTO, 2001, A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets) 

• Design Vehicle. A selected vehicle, with representative weight, dimensions, and operating characteristics, 

used to establish the design controls for the road. There are four general classes of design vehicles: (1) 

passenger cars, (2) buses, (3) trucks, and (4) recreational vehicles. (AASHTO, 2001, A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) 

• Designated road, trail, or area. A National Forest System road, a National Forest System trail, or an area 

on National Forest System lands that is designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 on a 

motor vehicle use map. (36 CFR 212.1)

• Easement (1). A type of special use authorization (usually granted for linear rights-of-way) that is 

utilized in those situations where a conveyance of a limited and transferable interest in National Forest 

System land is necessary or desirable to serve or facilitate authorized long-term uses, and that may be 

compensable according to its terms. (36 CFR 251.51) 

• Easement (2). An interest in real property that conveys a right to use a portion of an owner's property or a 

portion of an owner's rights in the property. (23 CFR 710.105) 

• Easement (3). An interest in land owned by another party that entitles the holder to a specific limited use 

or enjoyment. (FSM 5460.5) 

• Forest Road. A road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System that 

is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use 

and development of its resources. (23 USC 101)

• Forest Road and Trail Act Easement. An easement issued by the Forest Service to a Public Road 

Authority for a non-Federal-Aid road or non-Forest Highway crossing National Forest System lands. (FSH 

2709.12, 30) 
• Forest Road or Trail. A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National 

Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration and 

utilization or the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources. (36CFR 212.1, 36 

CFR 251.5, 36 CFR 261.2) 

• Forest Trail. A trail wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System and 

which is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the 

use and development of its resources. (23 USC 101) 

• Forest Transportation Atlas. A display of the system of roads, trails and airfields of an administrative 

unit. (36 CFR 212.1) 

• Forest Transportation Facility. A forest road or trail or an airfield that is displayed in a forest 

transportation atlas, including bridges, culverts, parking lots, marine access facilities, safety devices, and 

other improvements appurtenant to the forest transportation system. (36 CFR 212.1) 

• Forest Transportation System. The system of National Forest System roads, National Forest System 

Trails, and airfields on National Forest System lands. (36 CFR 212.1) 

• Forest Transportation System Management. The planning, inventory, analysis, classification, record 

keeping, scheduling, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, decommissioning, and other operations 

undertaken to achieve environmentally sound, safe, cost-effective, access for use, protection, 

administration, and management of National Forest System lands. (FSM 7705) 

• Heavy maintenance. Work usually done by highway agencies in repairing damage normally expected 

from seasonal and occasionally unusual natural conditions or occurrences. It includes work at a site 

required as a direct result of a disaster which can reasonably be accommodated by a State or local road 

authority's maintenance, emergency or contingency program. (23 CFR 668) 

• Highway. The term ``highway'' includes-- (A) a road, street, and parkway, (B) a right-of-way, bridge, 

railroad-highway crossing, tunnel, drainage structure, sign, guardrail, and protective structure, in 

connection with a highway; and (C) a portion of any interstate or international bridge or tunnel and the 

approaches thereto, the cost of which is assumed by a State transportation department, including such 

facilities as may be required by the United States Customs and Immigration Services in connection with 

the operation of an international bridge or tunnel. (23 USC 101) 

• Jurisdiction (1). The legal right or power to interpret and apply the law. Authority or control. (Webster)

• Jurisdiction (2). The legal right to control and regulate the use of a transportation facility. Roads on 

National Forest lands are under the control of the Forest Service, except for public roads established under 

the Act of July 26, 1866, private roads, roads for which the Forest Service has granted rights-of-way to 

private landowners or public road agencies, and roads whose use and rights pre-date the National Forest. 

Other factors may affect jurisdiction on acquired lands or easements. Review the granting document and 

obtain appropriate legal opinion for these cases, when necessary. There are roads on the transportation 

system where the Forest Service has limited rights of use and no jurisdiction over the traffic, such as 

private road systems and State, county, or township roads. (FSH 7709.59.21) 

• Jurisdiction (3). The legal right or authority to control, operate, regulate use of, maintain, or cause to be 

maintained, a transportation facility, through ownership or delegated authority. The authority to 

construction or maintain such a facility may be derived from fee title, easement, written authorization, or 

permit from a Federal agency, or some similar method. (23 CFR 660.103)

• Local Road (1). A road that primarily provides access to land adjacent to collector roads over relatively 

short distances at low speeds. (AASHTO, 2001, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) 

• Local Road (2). A forest road that connects terminal facilities with forest collector, forest arterial or 

public highways. Usually forest local roads are single purpose transportation facilities. (FSH 7709.54, no 

longer in print) 

• Low-Volume Road. A road that has an average daily traffic of 400 or less. (AASHTO, 2001, Guidelines 

for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads) 
• Maintenance (1). The preservation of the entire highway, including surface, shoulders, roadsides, 

structures and such traffic-control devices as are necessary for its safe and efficient utilization. (23 USC 

101) 

• Maintenance (2). 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 212.1) 

• Maintenance (3). The act of keeping fixed assets in acceptable condition. It includes preventive 

maintenance normal repairs; replacement of parts and structural components, and other activities needed to 

preserve a fixed asset so that it continues to provide acceptable service and achieves its expected life. 

Maintenance excludes activities aimed at expanding the capacity of an asset or otherwise upgrading it to 

serve needs different from, or significantly greater than those originally intended. Maintenance includes 

work needed to meet laws, regulations, codes, and other legal direction as long as the original intent or 

purpose of the fixed asset is not changed. (Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and 

Construction Terms, July 22, 1998) 

• Maintenance Levels. Defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific 

road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. (FSH 7709.58, 12.3) 

o Maintenance Level 1. Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to 

vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to 

keep damage to adjacent resource 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 level. Appropriate traffic management strategies 

are "prohibit" and "eliminate". Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class or 

construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are 

open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but 

may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses. (FSH 7709.58, 12.3) 

o Maintenance Level 2. Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car 

traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of 

administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this 

level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars 

or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles. (FSH 7709.58, 12.3) 

o Maintenance Level 3. Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a 

standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in this 

maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. Some roads 

may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate traffic management 

strategies are either "encourage" or "accept." "Discourage" or "prohibit" strategies may be employed 

for certain classes of vehicles or users. (FSH 7709.58, 12.3) 

o Maintenance Level 4. Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, 

some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate 

traffic management strategy is "encourage." However, the "prohibit" strategy may apply to specific 

classes of vehicles or users at certain times. (FSH 7709.58, 12.3) 

o Maintenance Level 5. Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. 

These roads are normally double-lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust 

abated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage." (FSH 7709.58, 12.3) 

• Motor Vehicle. Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than:

 A vehicle operated on rails; and 

 Any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed solely 

for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor 

pedestrian area. (36 CFR 212.1, 36 CFR 261.2) 
• Motor Vehicle Use Map. A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an administrative unit or 

a Ranger District of the National Forest System. (36 CFR 212.1) 

• Motorized Equipment (1). Any machine activated by a nonliving power source except small batterypowered hand-carried devices such as flashlights, shavers, Geiger counters, and cameras. (36 CFR 261.2) 

• Motorized Equipment (2). Machines that use a motor, engine, or other nonliving power sources. This 

includes, but is not limited to, such machines as chain saws, aircraft, snowmobiles, generators, motorboats, 

and motor vehicles. It does not include small battery or gas powered hand-carried devices such as shavers, 

wristwatches, flashlights, cameras, stoves, or other similar small equipment. (FSM 2320.5) 

• National Forest System. As defined in the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, the 

``National Forest System'' includes all National Forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public 

domain of the United States, all National Forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or 

other means, the National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered under title III of the 

Bankhead-JonesFarm 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 212.1) 

• National Forest System Land. All lands, waters, or interests therein administered by the Forest Service. 

(36 CFR 251.51) 

• National Forest System 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 212.1, 36 

CFR 251.51, 36 CFR 261.2) 

• National Forest System 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 212.1) 

• Obliteration (1). To eliminate completely so as to leave no trace. (Webster) 

• Obliteration (2). The reclamation and or restoration of land to resource production from that of a 

transportation facility. (FSH 7709.54, no longer in print) 

• Off-Highway Vehicle (1). Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross county travel on or 

immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. (36 CFR 

212.1)

• Off-Highway Vehicle (2). Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross county travel on or 

immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain; except that term 

excludes (A) any registered motorboat, (B) any fire, military, emergency or law enforcement vehicle when 

used for emergency purposes, and any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense 

purposes, and (C) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the respective agency head under a 

permit, lease, license, or contract. (EO 116-44 as amended by EO 11989). See also FSM 2355. 01 - 

Exhibit 01. 

• Off-Road Vehicle. Synonymous with off-highway vehicle. (FSM 7709.55 34) 

• Open to Public Travel (1). The road section is available, except during scheduled periods, extreme 

weather or emergency conditions, passable by four-wheel standard passenger cars, and open to the general 

public for use without restrictive gates, prohibitive signs, or regulation other than restrictions based on 

size, weight, or class of registration. Toll plazas of public toll roads are not considered restrictive gates. 

(23 CFR 460.2)

• Open to Public Travel (2). Except during scheduled periods, extreme weather conditions, or 

emergencies, open to the general public for use with a standard passenger auto, without restrictive gates or 

prohibitive signs or regulations, other than for general traffic control or restrictions based on size, weight, 

or class of registration. (23 CFR 660.103) 

• Operating Costs for Traffic Monitoring, Management, and Control. Includes labor costs, 

administrative costs, costs of utilities and rent, and others costs associated with the continuous operation of 

traffic control, such as integrated traffic control systems, incident management programs, and traffic 

control centers. (23 USC 101) 
• Operating Speed. The speed at which drivers are observed operating their vehicles during free-flow 

conditions. (AASHTO, 2001, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) 

• Passenger Cars. These include passenger cars of all sizes, sport/utility vehicles, minivans, vans and 

pickup trucks. (AASHTO, 2001, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) 

• Permit. A special use authorization which provides permission, without conveying an interest in land, to 

occupy and use National Forest System land or facilities for specified purposes, and which is both 

revocable and terminable. (36 CFR 251.51) 

• Private Road. A road under private ownership authorized by easement to a private party, or a road which 

provides access pursuant to a reserved or private right. (FS-643, Roads Analysis; Informing Decisions 

About Managing the National Forest Transportation System, August 1999.) 

• Public Agency. Any organization with administrative or functional responsibilities which are directly or 

indirectly affiliated with a governmental body of any nation, State, or local jurisdiction. (23 CFR 635.102) 

• Public Authority. A Federal, State, county, town or township, Indian tribe, municipal or other local 

government or instrumentality thereof, with authority to finance, build, operate or maintain toll or toll-free 

highway facilities. (23 CFR 460.2) 

• Public Lands Highway. A forest road under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and 

open to public travel or any highway through unappropriated or unreserved public lands, nontaxable 

Indian lands, or other Federal reservations under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority 

and open to public travel. (23 USC 101) 

• Public Road. Any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open 

to public travel. (23 USC 101)

• Reconstruction. To construct again. (Webster)

• Recreational Vehicle. These include motor homes, cars with camper trailers, cars with boat trailers, 

motor homes with boat trailers and motor homes pulling cars. (AASHTO, 2001, A Policy on Geometric 

Design of Highways and Streets) 

• Rehabilitation (1). Minor reconstruction. Non-standard highway-related operation and maintenance 

activities to provide minor upgrades to a highway. (23 CFR 625)

• Rehabilitation (2). Renovation or restoration of an existing fixed asset or any of its components in order 

to restore the functionality or life of the asset. Because there is no significant expansion or change of 

purpose for the fixed asset, the work primarily addresses deferred maintenance. (Financial Health - 

Common Definitions for Maintenance and Construction Terms, July 22, 1998) 

• Repair. Work to restore a damaged, broken, or worn-out fixed asset, component, or item of equipment to 

normal operating condition. Repairs may be done as annual maintenance or deferred maintenance 

activities. (Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and Construction Terms, July 22, 

1998) 

• Replacement. Substitution or exchange of an existing fixed asset or component with one having 

essentially the same capacity and purpose. (Financial Health - Common Definitions for Maintenance and 

Construction Terms, July 22, 1998) 

• Restoration. To bring back to an original state. (Webster) 

• Right-of-Way (1). Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, operation, maintenance 

and termination of a project or facility passing over, upon, under or through such land. (36 CFR 251.51) 

• Right-of-Way (2). A privilege or right to cross over or use the land of another party for egress and ingress 

such as roads, pipelines, irrigation canals, or ditches. The right-of-way may be conveyed by an easement, 

permit, license, or other instrument. (FSM 5460.5) 

• Road (1). A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail. (36 CFR 

212.1)

• Road (2). A general term denoting a facility for purposes of travel by vehicles greater than 50 inches 

width. Includes only the area occupied by the road surface and cut and fill slopes. (FSM 2355.05) 
• Road Construction or Reconstruction. Supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of all 

costs incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a road. (36 CFR 212.1) 

• Road Decommissioning. Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a 

more natural state. (36 CFR 212.1) 

• Road Maintenance. The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the approved 

road management objective. (FSM 7705) 

• Road Management Objectives. Defines the intended purpose of an individual road based on 

management area direction and access management objectives. Road management objectives contain 

design criteria, operation criteria, and maintenance criteria. (FSH 7709.55, 33) 

• Roadway. The portion of a highway, including shoulders and auxiliary lanes, for vehicular use. 

(AASHTO, 2001, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) 

• Routine Maintenance. Work that is planned to be accomplished on a continuing basis, generally 

annually or more frequently. (FSH 7709.58, 13.41) 

• Other than Routine Maintenance. Work that can be deferred without loss of road serviceability, until 

such time that the work can be economically or efficiently performed. The frequency of such work is 

generally longer than a year. (FSH 7709.58, 13.41) 

• Service Life. The length of time that a facility is expected to provide a specified service. (FSH 7709.56b, 

05) 

• Special Use Authorization. A permit, term permit, lease, or easement which allows occupancy, use, 

rights, or privileges of National Forest System land. (36 CFR 251.51) 

• Subject to the Highway Safety Act (HSA). National Forest System roads that are open to use by the 

public for standard passenger cars. 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) 

• Trail. A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a 

trail. (36 CFR 212.1) 

• Trailhead. The transfer point between a trail and a road, lake, or airfield. The area may have 

developments that facilitate the transfer from one transportation mode to another. (FSM 2353.05) 

• Trail Vehicle. Vehicle designed for trail use, such as bicycles, snowmobiles, trail bikes, trail scooters, 

and all terrain vehicles. (FSM 2353.05) 

• Travel Management atlas. An atlas that consists of a forest transportation atlas and a motor vehicle use 

map or maps. (36 CFR 212.1)

• Travel Route. A road, river or trail, that is open for use by members of the general public. (36 CFR 

292.21) 

• 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 212.1) 

Unauthorized roads are categorized into two types and recorded in the SYSTEM linear event in the Infra 

Travel Routes database. The two types are: 

o Undetermined. Roads where long term purpose and need has yet to be determined, and 

o Not Needed. Roads not needed for long-term management of national forest resources as 

determined through an appropriate planning document. (Travel Routes National Data 

Dictionary for Roads)

• 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 261.2) 

• Wheelchair. A device designated solely for use by a mobility impaired person for locomotion, that is 

suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 2352.05) 
References 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2003. Economic Impact Analysis of Nonconsumptive Wildlife 

Related Recreation in Arizona. Southwick Associates for Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2003. The Economic Importance of Fishing and Hunting. 

Jonathoan Silberman, ASU School of Management for Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2008. A Guide to Off-Highway Vehicle Laws, Rules, and 

Regulations. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2005. Hunter and Shooting Sports Recruitment and Retention 

Team Final Report. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2008. Threatened, Endangered, Conservation Agreement, and 

Sensitive plant species; Unpublished abstracts compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System; Phoenix, Arizona; 1999-2005; 

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2008. 2008-09 Arizona Hunting and Trapping Regulations. 

http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/h_f/regulations/08-09/08-09.pdf. 

Arizona Office of Tourism. 2007. Arizona Travel Impacts 1998-2006p. Dean Runyan Associates for 

Arizona Office of Tourism. 

Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide; Arizona Rare Plant Committee. 

Arizona State Parks. 2003. Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation to Arizona. 

Arizona State University, School of Management for Arizona State Parks. 

http://www.pr.state.az.us/partnerships/ohv/OHVEcon/az_ohv_econ.pdf

Arizona State Parks. 2007. Off Highway Vehicle Program. 

www.azparks.gov/partnerships/ohv/mission

Arizona State Parks. 2008. Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

http://www.azparks.gov/partnerships/planning/planning.html

Bedrosian, B. and D. Craighead. 2009. Blood lead levels of Bald and Golden Eagles sampled during 

and after hunting seasons in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Extended abstract in R. T. 

Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.) Ingestion of Lead from Spent 

Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. 

http://www.peregrinefund.org/lead_conference/. 

Boussard, Liz, Martha E. Lee, Andrew L Stevens. 2002. Kaibab National Forest User Study. Northern 

Arizona University School of Forestry. 
Boyle, S. A., and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116. 

Brody, A. J., and M. R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North 

Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:5-10. 

Brown, D. E., and R. A. Ockenfels. 2007. Arizona's Pronghorn Antelope: A Conservation Legacy. 

Arizona Antelope Foundation. 

Brown, M., E. Aumack, and B. Perla. 2001. Ecological Impacts of Roads in the Greater Grand 

Canyon: An Annotated Bibliography. Grand Canyon Trust. Available at 

http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/lib/reports_studies.php. 

Chambers, C. L., and S. S. Germaine. 2003. Vertebrates. Pages 268-285 in P. Friederici, editor, 

Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Society for Ecological 

Restoration International. Island Press, Washington. 

Cleeland, Teri A., John A. Hanson, Lawrence M. Lesko, Neil S. Weintraub. 1992. Native American Use of the South 

Kaibab National Forest, An Ethnohistoric Overview. Ms on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office, Williams Arizona. 

Craighead, D., and B. Bedrosian. 2008. Blood lead levels of common ravens with access to biggame offal. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:240-245. 

Department of Federal Affairs. 2008. “Testimony of Mary Densie Dowd, MD, MPH, FAAP, on Behalf of the 

American Academy of Pediatrics. Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and 

Public Lands Hearing on Off-Road Vehicles. Washington, D.C.

Forest Service. 1991. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest: Coconino County 

and Part of Yavapai County, Arizona. 

Forest Service. 1997. Rain Tank Environmental Analysis. Kaibab National Forest. 

Forest Service. 2001. Forest roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. General Technical Report 

PNW-509. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p. 

Forest Service. 2004. Environmental Impact Statement for Cross Country Travel by Off Highway 

Vehicles (Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests, 

Arizona. 

Forest Service. 2004. Environmental Assessment Anita, Cameron, and Moqui Allotment Management 

Plan Revisions. Tusayan Ranger District. Kaibab National Forest. 

Forest Service. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds, Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, 

Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, MBR3-16-1. http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/projects/nox_weeds/index.html. 
Forest Service. 2005. Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Technology & Development Program. 7700-Transporttion Management 0577 

1205-SDTDC. 

Forest Service. 2005. National Visitor Use Monitoring. Kaibab National Forest Report. Southern 

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

Forest Service. 2005. USDA Forest Service Policy for Section 106 of the NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: 

Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use. Ms. on file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 

Williams, Arizona. 

Forest Service 2006. Appendix I: Standard Consultation Protocol for Travel Management. In, the First 

Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities 

among New Mexico Historic Preservation Officer and Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer and 

Texas State Historic Preservation Officer, and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer and The 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and United States Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service Region 3. On file at the Kaibab National Forest. 

Forest Service. 2007. Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest: Population 

Status and Trends. Version 2.0. Kaibab National Forest, Williams, Arizona. 

Forest Service. 2007. Travel Management Rule Implementation Guidelines – Revision 3. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 13-16. 

Forest Service. 2008. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended. 

USDA Forest Service. Kaibab National Forest, Williams, Arizona. 

Forest Service. 2008. Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest: Population 

Status and Trends. Version 2.0. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/management/efoia/wildlife_mgmt/index.shtml

Forman, R. T. T., and L. E. Alexander. Roads and their major ecological effects. 1998. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:208-231. 

Green, R. E., W. G. Hunt, C. N. Parish, and I. Newton. 2009. Effectiveness of action to reduce 

exposure of free-ranging California Condors in Arizona and Utah to lead from spent 

ammunition. Reproduced in R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.) 

Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The 

Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. http://www.peregrinefund.org/lead_conference/

Grubb, T. G., L. L. Pater, and D. K. Delaney. 1998. Logging truck noise near nesting northern 

goshawks. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station Research Note RMRS-RN-3. 

Hann, W. J., J. L. Jones, M. G. Karl, P. F. Hessburg, R. E. Keane, D. G. Long, J. P. Menakis, S. G. 

Leonard, R. A. Gravenmier, and B. G. Smith. 1997. Landscape dynamics of the Basin. In An 

Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basins: Volume II, edited by T. M. Quiqley and S. J. Arbelbide. U.S. 
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-405. 

Hanson, J. A. 1999. A Cultural Affiliation Statement for the Cohonina. Ms. on file at the Kaibab 

 National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Williams, Arizona.

Huling, Karlynn. 2007. Tusayan Wildlife Waters Project: Climate, Soils and Watershed Specialist 

Report. Kaibab National Forest. 

Hunt, W. G., W. Burnham, C. N. Parish, K. K. Burnham, B. Muthch, J. Lindsay Oaks. 2006. Bullet 

fragments in deer remains: implications for lead exposure in avian scavengers. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 34(1):167-170. 

Hydock, Clare. 2007. Tusayan Wildlife Waters Project: Specialist Report for Range Resources. 

Kaibab National Forest. 

Kearney, Thomas H. and Robert H. Peebles. 1969. Arizona Flora. Second Edition with Supplement. 

University of California Press. 

Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation 

Plan.Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 

Leonard, Ariel. 2008. Travel Analysis Report for Williams Ranger District. Kaibab National Forest. 

Luce, CH. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of Forest roads. 

Restoration Ecology. 5: 265-270. 

Luce, CH. 2002. Hydrological processes and pathways affected by Forest roads: what do we still 

need to learn? Hydrological Process. 16: 2901-2904. 

Lyndon, M.2003. Timberline, A Heritage Resources Survey. Ms. on file at the Coconino National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Lyndon, M. 2005. Projectile Points as indicators of Pre-Ceramic Distributions on the Coconino Plateau. MA 

Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern ArizonaUniversity 

McCurry, Joel. 2007. Personal communication. Forestry Technician, Tusayan Ranger District. 

Minor, Charlotte and Chip Ernst. 2008. Travel Analysis Report for Tusayan Ranger District. Kaibab 

National Forest. 

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 

7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

(Accessed: March 19, 2008). 

NOAA 2008. Western Regional Climate Stations. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.html
NOAA. 2008. U.S. Drought Monitor. http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

Periman, Richard. 2008. The Southwest Region and Climate Change. A Summary of Overall 

Ecological and Socioeconomic Conditions Based on Large-scale Syntheses and Regional 

Studies. Southwestern Regional Office. Forest Service. Albuquerque, NM. 

Phoenix, Larry. Personal communication. Phone conversation between Larry Phoenix, Field 

Supervisor for Region II of Arizona Game and Fish Depart, and Jeff Waters, Wildlife 

Biologist for South Zone of Kaibab National Forest. September 30, 2008. 

Putt, Patrick. 2003. South Kaibab National Forest: A Historic Overview.Ms. on file at the Kaibab 

 National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, Arizona.

Reynolds, R. T., S. M. Joy, and D. G. Leslie. 1994. Nest productivity, fidelity, and spacing of 

northern goshawks in Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology 16:106-113. 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 2006. http://www.rmef.org/

Roos, Christopher. 2000. The Impact of Inadvertent Vandalism to the Cultural Resources of the Upper Basin, 

Kaibab National Forest, Arizona. An undergraduate thesis submitted to the Department of 

Anthropology, University of Cincinnati. 

Russell, John C. and Peggy A. Adams Russell. 2006. Values Attitudes and Beliefs about National 

Forest System Lands: The Kaibab National Forest. 

Sieg, R., K. A. Sullivan, and C. N. Parish. 2009. Voluntary lead reduction efforts within the northern 

Arizona range of the California Condor. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. 

Hunt (Eds.) Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and 

Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. 

http://www.peregrinefund.org/lead_conference/ 

Sorrell, D.Temporal Significance of Attribute Variation within San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware. MA 

Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Southwest Condor Review Team. 2007. A Review of the Second Five Years of the California 

Condor Reintroduction Program in the Southwest. 

Stahn, Richard. 2007. Personal communication. District Ranger, Tusayan Ranger District. 

Stein, Pat. 2005. Logging Railroads of the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. Cultural Resources 

Management Report #19, Southwestern Region, United States Department of Agriculture. Ms. on file 

at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, Arizona. 

Sullivan, A., P.Uphus, J.A. Hanson, D. Sorrell and N. Weintraub. 2006. Home Alone – The Unexpected 

Archeology of the Southwest’s Western Hinterlands. Paper presented in the Symposium Hinterland 

and Heartland in Southwest Prehistory at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Society for American 

Archaeology, Milwaukee, WI. 
Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell. 2000. The ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic 

communities: a review. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30. 

USDI National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park. 2004. Visitation Counts by Gate and 

Mode of Travel 1973-2003. 

USDI National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park. 2008. South Rim Visitor Transportation 

Plan Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect. 

Van Dyke, F. G., R. H. Brocke, and H. G. Shaw. 1986. Use of road track counts as indices of 

mountain lion presence. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:102-109. 

Weintraub, Neil S., Daniel Sorrell, John Hanson, and Don Christensen. 2006. A GIS Model for Late Pueblo 

II/Cohonina Multi-Directional Migration from the Coconino Plateau. Paper presented at the Petrified Forest 

Science Symposium, Petrified Forest National Monument, Arizona, May 18, 2006. Ms., on file, Museum of 

Northern Arizona Library, Flagstaff. 

Wilmers, C. C., D. R. Stahler, R. L. Crabtree, D. W. Smith, and W. M. Getz. 2003. Resource 

dispersion and consumer dominance: scavenging at wolf- and hunter-killed carcasses in 

Greater Yellowstone, USA. Ecology Letters 6:996-1003. 

Wisdom, M. J., R. S Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. Rich, M. 

M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of 

focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Volume I - 

Overview. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland Oregon. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-485.