United States 

Department of

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region

MB-R3-04-12

February 2010

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

Travel Management on

the Coconino National 

Forest 

Coconino and Yavapai 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 

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

Printed on recycled paper – February 2010
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest i 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for Travel Management on 

the Coconino National Forest

Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Deciding Official

1824 South Thompson Street 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

For Information Contact: Jim Beard

1824 South Thompson Street 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001 

(928) 527-3474 

Abstract: The Coconino National Forest proposes to designate a system of roads and motorized 

trails, in addition to prohibiting motorized cross-country travel, which includes amending the 

“Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” to comply with the Travel 

Management Rule (Executive Orders 11644 and 11989). Two action alternatives propose the 

designation of a system of National Forest System roads and National Forest System trails, and 

the designation of an area for OHV use. One alternative proposed to authorize some motorized 

big game retrieval, while the other does not. 

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the 

draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond 

to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final 

environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decisionmaking process. 

Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy 

Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the Agency to the reviewers’ position and 

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). 

Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not 

raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. 

Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 

Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be specific and should 

address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 

1503.3). 
ii Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Send Comments to: CNF Travel Comments

P.O. Box 1919 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Fax number: (916) 456-6724 

CNFtravelcomments@fscomments.org

Date Comments Must Be Received: The 60-day comment period will commence once the 

Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register. The Coconino National Forest will 

post the date comments must be received by once it is published in the Federal Register to the 

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/ 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest iii

Summary

The Coconino National Forest proposes to designate a system of roads and motorized trails, in 

addition to prohibiting motorized cross-country travel. The area affected by the proposal includes 

the entire Coconino National Forest. This action is needed because unmanaged motorized 

recreation on the forest has been causing increasing amounts of resource damage as motorized 

recreation usage increases.

On November 2, 2005, the Forest Service announced the final Travel Management Rule (TMR) 

regulations governing OHVs and other motor vehicle use on national forests and grasslands. 

Under the new regulations, forests that do not already restrict OHV travel to “designated roads 

and trails” must do so. OHVs must remain on designated roads and trails systems while on the 

national forest, as must all other motorized vehicles. 

Currently, the Coconino National Forest does not have a forestwide designated road or trail 

system; cross-country motorized travel is permitted except in areas that are signed closed or 

restricted to seasonal use. 

The Coconino National Forest (CNF) developed alternatives to the proposed action (the modified 

proposed action - alternative 3) including the no action alternative (alternative 1), and alternative 

4. Alternatives 3 and 4 would both designate over 3,000 miles of National Forest System roads 

(NFSRs) as open to the public and prohibit cross-county travel off of designated roads and 

motorized trails. Both of the action alternatives propose to add 64 miles of unauthorized road to 

the forest’s road system and propose the designation of over 600 miles of corridor for motorized 

dispersed camping alongside certain designated NFSRs. The modified proposed action does not 

designate additional National Forest System trails (NFSTs) for motorized travel, but includes the 

25 miles of existing NFSTs. Additionally, this alternative does not have a provision for motorized 

big game retrieval (MBGR). Alternative 4 has both a provision for motorized big game retrieval 

and would add 4 miles of NFSTs to the existing forest motorized trail system.

Overall, the modified proposed action would be the most beneficial for the resources, but would 

provide the least amount of access for motorized recreationists with 3,280 miles of open NFSR, 

25 miles of NFST, and 13,700 acres of designated area for OHV use, and no MBGR. Alternative

4 would provide more motorized access with the designation of 3,507 miles of NFSR, 29 miles of

NFST, 13,700 acres for OHV use, but includes MBGR within 1 mile of designated NFSR until 

October 31 for legal elk hunts that are successful. Alternative 4 does not provide as much 

resource protection as the modified proposed action, but the difference is minimal. Either action 

alternative (one of which must be implemented as per the final rule) increases the forest’s ability 

to protect resources and manage the transportation system more effectively.

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide which of the action 

alternatives will be employed to implement the TMR.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest v 

Contents

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

Document Structure ............................................................................................................................... 1

Background............................................................................................................................................ 2

Location ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................. 4

Desired Condition.................................................................................................................................. 4

Purpose and Need for Action................................................................................................................. 4

Proposed Action..................................................................................................................................... 5

Decision Framework.............................................................................................................................. 5

Public Involvement................................................................................................................................ 6

Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...................................................... 9

Development of Alternatives................................................................................................................. 9

Alternatives Considered in Detail.......................................................................................................... 9

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.............................................................12

Comparison of Alternatives..................................................................................................................14

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................... 17

Motorized Travel ..................................................................................................................................17

Recreation.............................................................................................................................................18

Recreation Activities ............................................................................................................................35

Socioeconomics....................................................................................................................................48

Heritage Resources...............................................................................................................................53

Contemporary Indian Uses ...................................................................................................................61

Soil and Water ......................................................................................................................................62

Aquatic Resources................................................................................................................................72

Wildlife.................................................................................................................................................80

Botany.................................................................................................................................................102

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.....................................................................................114

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................................................................................................114

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................................................114

Other Required Disclosures................................................................................................................114

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ......................................................................... 115

Preparers and Contributors .................................................................................................................115

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent ...................117

Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 119

A: Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan.......................................................................................119

B: Heritage Resource Density Map ....................................................................................................131

References .............................................................................................................................. 133

Index ....................................................................................................................................... 147

List of Tables

Table 1. Existing known road mileage on the CNF............................................................................. 4

Table 2. TMR Open House Locations and Dates. ............................................................................... 6

Table 3. Alternative 1 Road Mileage by NFSR Type.........................................................................10

Table 4. Alternative 3 Road Mileage by NFSR Type.........................................................................11

Table 5. Alternative 4 Road Mileage by NFSR Type.........................................................................12

Table 6. Alternative Comparison Matrix............................................................................................14

Table 7. Summary of effects for the Travel Management Rule on the CNF by resource area...........14

Table 8. Existing condition and effects of alternatives on motorized travel.......................................17

Table 9. Primary Visits vs. Participation Visits to the CNF (percent)................................................20
Contents

vi Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Table 10. Acres by ROS Class within the CNF....................................................................................21

Table 11. Change in Median Income (US Bureau of Census)..............................................................50

Table 12. Change in Population by County over Time (US Bureau of Census) ..................................50

Table 13. Site Density Classes as defined for the Coconino National Forest.......................................58

Table 14. Existing miles of road and trail by site density class and percent surveyed. ........................58

Table 15. Summary of open and closed road miles, acreage, and number of sites impacted by roads.59

Table 16. Miles, Percentage and Sediment Delivery by Road Type. ...................................................63

Table 17. Threatened, endangered, or sensitive aquatic species 

and their habitat that occur on the CNF................................................................................72

Table 18. Bioassessment ratings and trends for ten stream courses for 

MIS macroinvertebrates on the CNF....................................................................................74

Table 19. Road densities, stream crossings, miles of road in proximity to streams, 

and critical habitat designations for select watersheds on the CNF......................................75

Table 20. Comparison of road features by Alternative for select 5th code watersheds on the CNF. ...78

Table 21. Comparison of watershed health indicators by alternative. ..................................................80

Table 22. Management Indicator Species, Indicator Habitat, 

and Forestwide Population and Habitat Trends....................................................................95

Table 23. Overview of Existing Miles of Roads and Trails in Migratory Bird Indicator Habitat.* ...100

Table 24. Noxious or Invasive weeds on the CNF. ............................................................................102

Table 25. Summary of Effects of Action Alternatives on Region 3 Sensitive Species. .....................111

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Coconino National Forest. ........................................................................ 3

Figure 2. Map of Existing Camping and Motorized Restrictions...................................Map attached

Figure 3. Map of the No Action Alternative. ................................................................. Map attached

Figure 4. Map of Alternative 3.......................................................................................Map attached

Figure 5. Map of Alternative 4.......................................................................................Map attached

Figure 6. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map. ...........................................................................22

Figure 7. Distance in half-mile increments from exixting roads. .....................................................31

Figure 8. Hill climb near Cinder Hills..............................................................................................34

Figure 9. Distance in half-mile increments from Alternative 3 roads. .............................................43

Figure 10. Distance in half-mile increments from Alternative 4 roads. .............................................44

Figure 11. Impacts of OHV use in a meadow. ...................................................................................67
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 1 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Introduction

Motor vehicles are used for many activities on the Coconino National Forest (CNF) such as 

sightseeing, camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, recreational riding, collecting firewood and other 

forest products, as well as permitted and administrative uses. The CNF is currently open to 

motorized cross-country travel. The CNF has experienced an increase in off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) usage over the past 20 to 30 years, which has led to the proliferation of roads and trails 

created by forest users. Current regulations prohibit trail construction and operation of vehicles in 

a manner damaging to the land, wildlife, or vegetation. However, these regulations have not 

proven sufficient to control this proliferation of routes or environmental damage. The CNF has 

evaluated alternatives and is issuing this draft environmental impact statement to disclose the 

potential effects of changes to the system of roads, trails, and areas, prohibiting cross-country 

travel, and designating a system of roads, trails, and areas where motorized travel can occur on 

the forest in order to comply with the Travel Management Rule. 

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this draft environmental impact statement in compliance with the 

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

regulations. This draft environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. 

The document is organized into four chapters: 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter 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. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter 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 mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a 

summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each 

alternative. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and 

other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. 

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

preparers and agencies consulted during development of the environmental 

impact statement. 

Appendix: The appendix provides more detailed information to support the 

analyses presented in the environmental impact statement such as the record 

index, public comments and responses, etc. 

Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be 

found in the project record located at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 1824 

South Thompson Street, Flagstaff, Arizona. Documents are available pursuant to the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

Background

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

off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and other motor vehicles on national forests and grasslands. This is

referred to as the Travel Management Rule (TMR) or “final rule.” The TMR was developed in 

response to the substantial increase in use of OHVs on National Forest System (NFS) lands and 

related damage to forest resources caused by unmanaged OHV use over the past 20 to 30 years.

The regulations implement Executive Order (EO) 11644 and EO 11989 regarding off-road use of 

motor vehicles on Federal lands. The final rule “provides for a system of NFS roads, NFS trails, 

and areas on NFS lands that are designated for motor vehicle use. ... Motor vehicle use off 

designated roads and trails and outside of designated areas is prohibited” (36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 212.50). Per the final rule, forests that do not already restrict motorized travel 

to designated roads, trails, and areas must do so. Therefore, the CNF must identify the road 

system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of 

NFS lands. Designated roads, trails and areas shall be identified on a motor vehicle use map 

(MVUM) and made available to the public.

Once roads, trails, and areas on the CNF have been designated and identified on the MVUM, 

motor vehicle use off of the designated system is prohibited. The following vehicles and uses are

exempted from this prohibition: (1) aircraft; (2) watercraft; (3) over-snow vehicles; (4) limited 

administrative use by the Forest Service; (5) use of any fire, military, emergency, or law 

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

vehicle for national defense purposes; (7) law enforcement response to violations of law, 

including pursuit; and (8) motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written 

authorization issued under Federal law or regulations (36 CFR 251.51). 

The rule further states that “the responsible official may incorporate previous administrative 

decisions regarding travel management made under other authorities, including designations and 

prohibitions of motor vehicle use, in designating NFS roads, trails, and areas” (36 CFR 

2212.50(b)). The final rule does not require reconsideration of any previous administrative 

decisions that allow, restrict, or prohibit vehicle use on NFS roads, trails or areas and that were 

made under other authorities. However, the responsible official may choose to reconsider past 

decisions, with public involvement, as necessary to achieve the purposes of the final rule (Federal 

Register, vol. 70, no. 216, p. 68269). This NEPA analysis concerns changes to the system that are 

needed to meet the TMR, several of which would reverse recent NEPA decisions regarding roads.

Currently, cross-country motorized travel is permitted on the CNF, except in areas that are closed 

by forest order; restricted to seasonal use; or designated by Congress, such as wilderness areas. In 

order to comply with the final travel management regulations, the CNF initiated a forestwide 

travel analysis in 2006. The intent of the travel analysis process (TAP) was to identify needed 

changes to the existing road and motorized trail systems and identify the minimum transportation 

system necessary to provide safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and 

protection of NFS lands (36 CFR 212.5(b)). The resulting transportation system, as authorized 

under NEPA, is not required to be the minimum system as identified by TAP. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 3 

The forest hosted several open houses in northern and central Arizona during the fall of 2006 and 

summer of 2007, and gave TMR presentations to groups as requested, in order to collect ideas 

regarding motorized forest travel from local citizens, forest users, State, county, local, and tribal 

governments and other Federal agencies. This proposed action represents a synthesis of public 

comment and Forest Service specialist recommendations gathered during the TAP. 

The TMR employs an iterative process that begins with the TAP, which is then carried into a 

NEPA analysis for proposed changes to the system of roads, trails, and areas. This results in the 

designated transportation system, which can be adapted over time. The MVUM will show this 

system and will be valid until the forest issues a new map based on system changes found to be 

necessary. The rule states that the MVUM will be reissued every year, which would be reflective 

of any changes made to the designated system.

Following the implementation of TMR, the forest will be undertaking a forestwide motorized trail 

planning effort to evaluate additional opportunities for designation of trails for motorized travel. 

Further analysis of such trails will include public involvement under NEPA, thereby allowing 

further input and a more focused proposal for motorized trails on the CNF. 

Location

The CNF is approximately 

1.83 million acres of NFS land 

located in northern Arizona 

that encompasses the red 

rocks and high desert of 

Sedona, the Mogollon Rim, 

and the high country in and 

around Flagstaff. Just north of 

the city of Flagstaff are the 

San Francisco Peaks, 

including Humphreys Peak, 

the highest point in Arizona at 

12,633 feet. 

The CNF has four ranger 

districts: Peaks, Mormon 

Lake, Mogollon Rim, and Red 

Rock. The Supervisor’s Office 

for the CNF is located in 

Flagstaff. See figure 1 for the 

general location of the CNF 

within the State of Arizona.

Figure 1. Location of the Coconino National Forest.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Existing Condition

Currently, the CNF has a cross-country travel policy in place that allows cross-country motorized 

travel. In addition to the 5,154 miles of open National Forest System road (NFSR) on the CNF 

system, there are 962 miles of inventoried unauthorized road that have been created by repeated 

use. There are hundreds to possibly thousands of additional miles of unauthorized roads that have 

not been inventoried, but that exist. Also, there are 1,393 miles of road that have already been 

closed to the public for various reasons. It is assumed that because of the forest’s cross-country 

travel policy, all of these miles of road are being used. 

Table 1. Existing known road mileage on the CNF

Road Type Subtotal

Miles

Total

Miles

Open NFSRs - 5,154

 NFSRs for passenger car use 727

 NFSRs for high-clearance vehicle use 4,427

NFSRs closed to public use 1,393

Unauthorized roads (known) 962

Grand Total 7,509

There are 124 miles of motorized trail on the CNF, only 25 of which are part of the system. The 

remaining 99 miles are unauthorized, and there are additional unauthorized trails of unknown 

total mileage that have not been inventoried.

The Cinder Hills OHV Area is a 13,711-acre area just northeast of Flagstaff and is currently used 

as an off-road play area. 

Desired Condition

To minimize resource damage on the forest from unmanaged motorized cross-country travel, 

prohibit motorized cross-country travel and close some roads on the CNF to public motorized 

travel. This will comply with the TMR and allow for better managed motorized use of the 

Coconino National Forest. 

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this project is to provide for a system of NFS roads, trails, and areas open to 

motor vehicle use on the CNF that will meet the intent of the TMR. The proposed actions are 

necessary to address unacceptable resource damage created by increased recreational motorized 

use across the forest. The magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use has increased to the point

that the intent of E.O. 11644 and E.O. 11989, both pertaining to the use of motorized vehicles on 

public land, cannot be met while still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. Soil and water 

quality and wildlife habitat are being affected by unmanaged motorized recreation, as is the 

ability of some forest visitors to have quality nonmotorized experiences. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 5 

A need exists to reduce the number of open road miles on the forest and to address resource 

impacts associated with unmanaged motorized use. There is also a need to amend the “Coconino 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (LRMP) to prohibit motor vehicle use off 

the designated system of roads, trails and areas to comply with the TMR. Additionally, there is a 

need to provide limited motorized use off of certain designated routes for the sole purpose of 

dispersed camping. This action responds to the final travel regulations under 36 CFR 212. 

Proposed Action

The proposed action focuses on changes to the CNF’s existing transportation system. No changes 

are proposed to existing areas closed to off-highway vehicles (OHVs). This proposed action will 

not change the management of or restrict nonmotorized methods of travel on the forest (i.e., 

hiking, horseback riding, and bicycling). 

To meet the project’s purpose and need, the CNF proposes to:

• Amend the Coconino LRMP to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system of 

roads, trails, and areas, except as identified on the MVUM. This includes removing 

references to “off-road driving” currently in the plan in order to be consistent with the 

language and intent in 36 CFR 212. A table summarizing the proposed changes to the 

LRMP is in appendix A. 

• Close 1,937 miles of existing National Forest System roads to public motorized use. 

• Add 63 miles of unauthorized roads to the CNF transportation system. These roads will 

be added to the forest’s system of authorized roads and be designated as open to 

motorized travel for all vehicles. They are being added to replace duplicate routes that 

would be closed or to create loop travel opportunities where sustainable. 

• Designate corridors along 628 miles of road up to 300 feet either side of designated roads 

for the sole purpose of motorized access to dispersed camping. 

This action would result in approximately 3,217 total miles of designated NFS roads and 25 miles 

of designated trails open to motorized travel on the CNF. Additionally, the Cinder Hills OHV

Area would remain open to motor vehicles. Designated National Forest Systems roads within 

existing seasonal closure areas will continue to be seasonally closed to motor vehicles. 

Decision Framework

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the other 

alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions:

• Which changes to the system of roads, trails, and areas will be necessary to implement 

the TMR;

• Whether, or how much, motorized access for dispersed camping will be allowed off 

certain designated roads or trails; and

• Whether to and how much motorized access for big game retrieval will be allowed off 

certain designated roads or trails.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

The decision to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system of roads, trails, and areas is 

not discretionary.

Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2007. The NOI, 

which formally initiated the scoping process, requested public comment on the proposal from

July 25 through September 8, 2007. 

Scoping is an ongoing process used to identify important issues and determine the extent of 

analysis necessary for an informed decision on a proposed action. The Forest Service has 

gathered comments from individuals, organizations, and local, State and Federal agencies that are 

interested in or affected by the proposed action. Comments may pertain to the nature and scope of 

the environmental, social, and economic issues, and possible alternatives related to the 

development of the designated motorized system and EIS. The proposed action was sent to 

potentially affected persons and those that have expressed an interest in this project during the 

transportation analysis process.

A series of 14 open houses was held to further explain the proposed action and to provide 

opportunities for public input. Open houses were held at the locations and dates indicated in table 

2.

Table 2. TMR Open House Locations and Dates

City Location Date(s)

Flagstaff, AZ

Coconino High School

10/14/2006

11/04/2006

Sinagua High School

07/31/2007

08/04/2007

Happy Jack, AZ Happy Jack Lodge

10/16/2006

11/06/2006

08/01/2007

Phoenix, AZ Days Inn 10/17/2006

Camp Verde, AZ Cliff Castle Casino

10/18/2006

11/09/2006

08/02/2007

Winslow, AZ Winslow High School 10/19/2006

Navajo Nation Leupp Chapter House 02/16/2007

Cameron Chapter House 10/16/2007

Using the comments from the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary team developed a 

list of issues to address in the analysis. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 7 

Issues

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and nonsignificant issues. 

Significant issues are defined as cause-effect relationships directly or indirectly caused by 

implementing the proposed action. Nonsignificant issues were identified as those: 

1. Outside the scope of the proposed action; 

2. Already decided by law, regulation, LRMP, or other higher level decision; 

3. Irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 

4. Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. 

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

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

which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” A list of nonsignificant 

issues and reasons regarding their categorization as nonsignificant may be found in the project 

record. Following are the significant issues for this project which are used to develop alternatives 

and focus the analysis.

1. Motorized dispersed camping opportunities for some members of the 

public may be reduced if motorized access to camping off of open roads is 

limited. 

Unit of measure: Miles of designated camping corridors. 

2. Prohibiting cross-country travel and motorized travel on unauthorized 

roads and trails would limit OHV enthusiasts to approximately 25 miles of 

authorized trails, 3,280 miles of open system roads, and 13,700 acres in the 

Cinder Hills OHV Area, which could reduce motorized recreational 

opportunities. 

Unit of measure: Miles of designated roads and trails and acres of areas open to 

motorized travel. 

3. Prohibiting motorized big game retrieval off of designated routes could 

adversely affect the ability of the Arizona Game and Fish Department to 

meet herd management objectives. Prohibiting motorized big game retrieval 

may result in carcass spoiling and difficulty retrieving larger game species, 

which could result in inadequate applications for permits. 

Unit of measure: Number of permit applicants. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 9 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, 

Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the “Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for Travel Management on the Coconino National Forest” (DEIS). It includes a 

description and map of each alternative considered. This chapter 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. Some of the information used to 

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

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

These effects are discussed in detail in chapter 3. 

Development of Alternatives

The travel analysis process was used to rank roads on the CNF according to their benefits and 

risks by resource. The rankings were used to recommend if roads should remain open or be 

closed. The TMR interdisciplinary team took these recommendations and looked at them through 

a finer filter to come up with a road system that would make sense from a social and resource 

perspective and carried the refined system into the original proposed action (alternative 2). It was 

scoped in the summer of 2007, and the resulting comments were used to develop four 

alternatives. A modified proposed action, alternative 3, replaced the original proposed action. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1 – No Action

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require the no action alternative to be 

included as a baseline for comparison to all action alternatives. This alternative proposes no 

change to the existing management of motorized travel on the CNF; therefore, no amendment to 

the LRMP to prohibit cross-country travel is included even though required by TMR. Crosscountry travel off of National Forest System roads would continue to be allowed, including for 

the purposes of motorized big game retrieval and dispersed camping. Existing restrictions and 

closures to motorized travel would remain in place (figure 2).

No changes would be made to the following: 

• the existing policy of allowing motorized cross-country travel on over 1.6 million acres, 

• the existing forest road system, 

• the existing motorized trail system, and 

• management of or access to the Cinder Hills OHV Area.

The existing 5,154 miles of National Forest System road that is currently open to the public for 

motorized use on the CNF would remain open per the current cross-country travel policy, as 

would the 928 miles of known existing unauthorized road, plus many other miles of 

uninventoried unauthorized roads that exist across the forest landscape. There are also 1,393 

miles of existing National Forest System road that have been closed to public use by previous 

NEPA decisions, but that are still likely being used for motorized travel. The total mileage of 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

these known roads is 7,509 miles. Additionally, the approximately 1.6 million acres of the forest 

that are currently open to cross-country travel would also remain open to this activity. 

Since the forest currently allows cross-country motorized travel for any purpose, motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval would continue to occur along with the 

continuation of general motorized cross-country travel. See the attached figure 3 map of the no 

action alternative. 

Table 3. Alternative 1 road mileage by NFSR type

NFSR Type

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Open Closed

Passenger car use mileage 727 0 

High-clearance vehicle use mileage 4,427 0 

Total Miles 5,154 0 

Actions Common to Alternatives 3 and 4

These alternatives focus on changes to the CNF’s existing transportation system. Both action 

alternatives would prohibit motorized use off the designated system once the MVUM is 

published, except as allowed for dispersed camping and/or motorized big game retrieval. Existing 

restrictions and closures to motorized travel would remain in place. The Cinder Hills OHV Area 

contains 13,711 acres that would remain open to motorized use. Both action alternatives propose 

the following:

• Amend the Coconino LRMP to prohibit cross-country travel off the designated system of 

roads, trails, and areas as identified on the MVUM, as required by 36 CFR 261.13. This 

includes removing references to “off-road driving” currently in the plan in order to be 

consistent with the language and intent in 36 CFR 212.50 and 261.13. A table 

summarizing the proposed changes to the land and resource management plan (LRMP) is 

in appendix A. 

• Add 63 miles of unauthorized road to the forest’s transportation system that would be 

open to all vehicles. 

• Designate corridors along 628 miles of road up to 300 feet either side of designated roads 

for the sole purpose of motorized access to dispersed camping as allowed by 36 CFR 

212.51(b). This is about 20 percent of the NFSRs that would be designated with the 

action alternatives.

While alternatives 3 and 4 differ with respect to motorized big game retrieval (MGBR), the CNF 

will defer to the neighboring Kaibab National Forest’s policy for MGBR in units shared with the 

Williams Ranger District, regardless of how the Coconino proposes to apply the Travel 

Management Rule for MGBR. Additionally, the rule exempts permitted activities; therefore, the 

selection of either action alternative will not prohibit cross-country travel for the purposes of 

collecting firewood or other activities allowed by permit with terms that include cross-country 

travel.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 11

Alternative 3 – Modified Proposed Action

The modified proposed action would close 1,937 miles of existing NFSRs to motorized use. This 

alternative would result in a total of 3,281 miles of NFSRs open to motorized use. It would not 

make any changes to the amount of designated motorized trail already on the system (25 miles). 

Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed under this alternative. See the attached figure 

4, map of alternative 3.

Table 4. Alternative 3 road mileage by NFSR type

NFSR Type

Modified Proposed 

Action (Alt. 3)

Open Closed

Passenger car use mileage 450 12

High-clearance vehicle use mileage 2,768 1,925

Unauthorized road mileage added for highclearance vehicle use to the system 63 N/A

Total Miles 3,281 1,937

Alternative 3 would provide 13,700 acres open to cross-country travel and almost 2,800 miles of 

high-clearance roads, and 25 miles of motorized trail. This alternative replaces alternative 2 (the 

original proposed action) as the proposed action for this analysis.

Alternative 4 

In addition to the above actions common to alternatives 3 and 4, the following actions are 

proposed in alternative 4:

• Close 1,709 miles of NFSRs to public motorized use; 

• Add 3 miles of unauthorized trail as motorized trail; 

• Construct 1 mile of motorized trail; and 

• Designate corridors up to 1 mile off either side of NFSRs within game management units

(GMUs) solely for the purpose of retrieving legally harvested cow and bull elk for all 

hunts that end prior to November 1. 

This alternative would result in a total of 3,507 miles of NFSRs open to motorized use. It would 

also result in 29 miles of motorized trail, which would be an addition of 4 miles to the current 

motorized trail system and would include Smasher Canyon Trail and Long Route (see the 

“Recreation” section in chapter 3). See the attached figure 5, map of alternative 4. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Table 5. Alternative 4 road mileage by NFSR type

NFSR Status

Alternative 4

Open Closed

Passenger car road mileage 450 12

High-clearance vehicle road mileage 2,994 1,697

Unauthorized road mileage added for highclearance vehicles 63 N/A

Total Miles 3,507 1,709

This alternative would continue to allow motor vehicle use within the Cinder Hills Area (13,700 

acres) and almost 3,000 miles of high-clearance roads, and 29 miles of motorized trail. Four miles 

of trail are proposed to be added to the national forest trail system. Smasher Canyon Trail would 

be the addition of about 3 miles of motorized trail for a rock-crawling trail on the Red Rock 

Ranger District near Sedona. The Long Route would be mostly roads with short motorized trail 

sections, is about 187 miles in total length, consists of about 144 miles of existing high-clearance 

road and 43 miles of passenger car road, and would add just under a mile of new motorized trail 

to the trail system. The Long Route proposal was developed in response to demand expressed in 

scoping for a long-distance, high-clearance motorized experience.

Motor vehicle use for big game retrieval would be allowed for elk hunts only. The limited amount 

of motorized use associated with this activity would have minimal impacts to natural resources.

This is based on the assumption that only a small amount of cross-country travel would be 

associated with this activity. The percentage of successful hunts, as compared to the number of 

permits issued for elk hunts from the beginning of September through October 31, would mean 

that only a limited number of hunters would be traveling up to 1 mile from any designated NFSR 

for the purpose of motorized big game retrieval. 

Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study

The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies to rigorously explore and 

objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating 

any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in 

response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the 

purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the designation 

of roads, trails, and areas for motorized travel and the prohibition of cross-country travel on the 

CNF, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that 

would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were 

considered but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. 

Alternative 2 – Original Proposed Action

The original proposed action would have decreased the National Forest System road mileage by 

1,916 miles, resulting in a total of 3,238 miles of National Forest System road designated for 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 13

public use. It would have also retained the existing 25 miles of motorized trails on the current 

system; therefore, there would be no change in miles of motorized trail. Motorized big game 

retrieval off of designated routes would have been prohibited with this alternative, and motorized 

dispersed camping would have been proposed in corridors along 628 miles of designated forest 

roads, as in the action alternatives above. 

This alternative was eliminated after considering comments received during scoping, and the PA 

was revised in response to these comments. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 built on this alternative by 

taking comments into consideration, as described in the other alternatives. The modified proposed 

action (alternative 3) replaces this original proposal for detailed consideration.

Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 was considered to address all specific roads and trails on the CNF transportation 

system desired by the public in their scoping comments. Open National Forest System roads 

would have been reduced by 1,341 miles, resulting in a total of 3,813 miles of designated 

National Forest System roads, or 532 more miles than the modified PA. Ninety-nine miles of 

motorized trail would have been added to the current system. These were proposed to include 

Upper and Lower Smasher Canyon, Long Route, Challenger, and Wing Mountain OHV Area

trails. Motorized big game retrieval would have been allowed off of designated routes. Motorized 

dispersed camping would have been designated along the same 628 miles of corridor, as these 

corridors were to be the same across all action alternatives. 

Alternative 5 was eliminated because it does not meet the TMR for resource protection. 

Alternative 4 was created from this alternative, incorporating roads that the resource specialists 

considered to be sustainable.

Alternative 6 

This alternative was developed to represent the extent of route designations that the CNF could 

reasonably afford to maintain with existing and reasonably foreseeable funding for route 

maintenance, or the minimal system from an economic standpoint. Priorities for route designation 

would have been based on the seasonal road system developed with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department for hunting access during wet weather, additional routes for vital administrative 

access, and additional routes to key recreation sites. 

Designated National Forest System roads would have been reduced by 4,552 miles, resulting in a 

road system totaling 602 miles. The existing 25 miles of motorized trail would have been closed 

and no new miles proposed. Motorized big game retrieval off of designated routes for legally 

harvested cow and bull elk would have been permitted for all hunts that ended by October 31st. 

Dispersed motorized camping would have been proposed in the same locations as the designated 

corridors in all the other action alternatives where roads were designated.

This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it would not be sufficient for 

safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization and protection of NFS lands as 

required per 36 CFR 212.5 (2) (b) of the TMR.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the alternatives and their effects of implementing each 

alternative considered in detail. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where 

different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among 

alternatives. 

Table 6 compares miles of open and closed roads and trails, acres of areas designated for motor 

vehicle use, and corridors for motorized big game retrieval and dispersed camping by alternative.

Table 6. Alternative comparison matrix

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 3 

Modified Proposed Action Alternative 4 

Open miles of NFSR = 5,154 

miles. 

Open miles of NFSR = 3,280 miles. Open miles of NFSR = 3,507 miles. 

No LRMP amendment needed 

(continued cross-country 

motorized travel). 

LRMP amendment needed to 

prohibit cross-country travel. 

LRMP amendment needed to 

prohibit cross-country travel. 

Cross-country motorized travel

allowed on over 1.6 million 

acres of the CNF. 

Cross-country travel prohibited; 

motor vehicle use allowed in the 

Cinder Hills OHV Area (13,700 

acres). 

Cross-country travel prohibited; 

motor vehicle use allowed in the 

Cinder Hills OHV Area (13,700 

acres). 

Motorized trail (NFST) = 24 

miles. 

Motorized trail (NFST) = 24 miles. Motorized trail (NFST) = 29 miles. 

Unrestricted motorized big game 

retrieval (MBGR). 

No MBGR. MBGR up to 1 mile off NFSRs for 

any legal elk harvest before Oct. 31

in all GMUs. 

No restriction for motorized 

dispersed camping. 

Allow motorized travel up to 300 

feet off about 628 miles of 

designated NFSRs for dispersed 

camping. 

Allow motorized travel up to 300 

feet off about 628 miles of 

designated NFSRs for dispersed 

camping. 

Table 7 summarizes the effects as analyzed in chapter 3.

Table 7. Summary of effects for the Travel Management Rule on the CNF by resource area

Resource 

Area Effects of Alt. 1 Effects of Alt. 3 Effects of Alt. 4 

Recreation • Continued proliferation of

roads and increased user 

encounters/conflicts. 

• Decline in quality of 

scenery. 

• Ever-increasing 

opportunities for motorized 

forest users. 

• Road proliferation would 

cease and user 

encounters/conflicts 

decrease. 

• Motorized users have 

decreased opportunities. 

• Decreased motorized use in 

areas with a semiprimitive, 

• Road proliferation would 

cease and user 

encounters/conflicts decrease. 

• Motorized users have

decreased opportunities. 

• Decreased motorized use in 

areas with a semiprimitive, 

nonmotorized setting. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 15

Resource 

Area Effects of Alt. 1 Effects of Alt. 3 Effects of Alt. 4 

nonmotorized setting. • Increased motorized trail 

mileage and opportunities for 

designated motorized travel. 

Socioeconomics

• Negligible effects • Negligible effects • Negligible effects

Heritage • Potential increase in 

vandalism and damage to 

heritage sites with current 

access and likely increase 

in miles of user-created 

roads. 

• Decrease in vandalism and 

damage to heritage sites 

due to decreased motor 

vehicle access. 

• Decrease in vandalism and 

damage to heritage sites due 

to decreased motor vehicle 

access. 

Contemporary 

Indian Uses

• Negligible effects • Negligible effects • Negligible effects

Soil and 

Water

• Continued and increased 

erosion and sedimentation, 

decreased soil productivity

(montane meadows/

wetlands/riparian areas)

and water quality. 

• Improvements in montane 

meadows/wetlands/riparian

areas and decreases in 

erosion and sedimentation

for slight increase in water 

quality and soil 

productivity. 

• Improvements in montane 

meadows/wetlands/riparian

areas and decreases in erosion

and sedimentation for slight 

increase in water quality and 

soil productivity. 

Aquatic 

Resources

• Continued and increased 

sedimentation and decline 

in aquatic habitat with 

continuance of crosscountry travel and creation 

of new roads. 

• Decreased aquatic habitat 

degradation and potential 

increase in habitat quality. 

• Decreased aquatic habitat 

degradation and potential 

increase in habitat quality. 

Wildlife • Continued and increased 

habitat disturbance. 

• Less disturbance of habitat. • Less disturbance of habitat. 

Botany • Vehicles continue to travel 

over much of the forest, 

spreading noxious/invasive 

weed seeds. 

• Decreased opportunities 

for vehicles to spread 

noxious/invasive weeds. 

• Decreased opportunities for 

vehicles to spread 

noxious/invasive weeds. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 17

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments on the CNF 

and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the 

scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in the “Alternatives” 

chapter.

Motorized Travel

The existing roads on the CNF are accounted for in several ways. National Forest System roads 

(NFSRs) are tracked by an Agency database, and unauthorized roads that have been created over 

time by forest users are sometimes inventoried (when possible) and kept track of within the 

forest’s geographic information system (GIS). It is not possible to account for all unauthorized 

roads at any given time since they change often. The numbers used in this document are a 

snapshot in time, and all mileage figures are approximate. Table 8 shows both the area in acres 

and miles of road currently open for public motorized travel (existing condition or alternative 1),

and the changes to those figures for both action alternatives.

Table 8. Existing condition and effects of alternatives on motorized travel

Existing Condition

(Alt. 1) Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Acres on CNF (total) ~1.8 million ~1.8 million ~1.8 million

Acres open to cross-country travel ~1.6 million 0 0 

Acres designated for OHV use 13,711 13,711 13,711

Miles of NFSR open to public 5,154 3,280 3,507

Miles of NFSR for passenger vehicle use 727 450 450

Miles of NFSR for high-clearance vehicle use 4,427 2,768 2,994

Miles of NFSR closed to public 0* 1,937 1,710

Miles of open motorized trails (NFST) 25 25 29

Miles of motorized camping corridors N/A 628 628

* With the current policy of allowing cross-country travel, it is assumed that all roads, including the 1,393 miles that 

are closed, are being used to some extent.

The amount of unauthorized roads that are known about and have been inventoried by CNF staff 

is 962 miles; however, there are many more miles of roads that have been created by motorists on 

the ground that were not designed and constructed by the CNF. Such roads cause resource 

damage and do not follow standards and guidelines as prescribed for the CNF in its land and 

resource management plan (LRMP), both for resource sustainability and recreation goals and 

objectives. This is described throughout this chapter in the respective resource sections.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Recreation

This section summarizes the effects of TMR implementation and the alternatives analyzed on 

recreation settings, activities, and patterns of use on the Coconino National Forest (CNF). The 

full “Recreation Specialist’s Report” (USDA 2009) is located in the project record at the 

Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Methodology for Analysis

The following were used as a basis for this analysis:

• Estimates for recreation use are derived from the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) inventories conducted on the CNF in 2000 (USDA 2001) and 2005 (USDA 

2006). These two NVUM surveys are the basis for determining present recreation use and 

demand, and for projecting the growth of recreation use on the forest. 

• A 2003 inventory of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use statewide by county, conducted by 

Arizona State University, resulted in two reports (Silberman 2003 and ASU 2003) that 

provide more focused information defining OHV trends within the State of Arizona and 

indirectly on the national forests in the state. 

• The CNF estimated the number of visits originating from local communities that were 

likely not counted in either of the NVUM surveys, based on the collective professional 

opinion of the CNF recreation staffs (USDA 2008b).

• U.S. Forest Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) field-going 

personnel were consulted to help define dispersed camping patterns and impacts across 

the forest (USDA 2008e), and distribution of existing off-road use by potential natural 

vegetation type (PNVT) ( FS 2008c) based on their collective professional opinion. 

AZGFD submitted many comments on route designation proposals that were considered 

in alternatives. 

• The travel analysis process (TAP) that included numerous public “open houses,” as well 

as meetings and discussions with various stakeholders including environmental groups, 

motorized recreation groups, and Federal, State, county and tribal governments was used 

to develop a proposed action for designation of an open road and motorized trail system 

on the forest. The TAP defined resource benefits and risks associated with all existing 

NFSRs and NFSTs and many existing unauthorized road and motorized trails on the 

forest. 

• The proposed action was then released for public review and comment via the CNF Web 

site, additional open houses, and mailings to interested parties. Issues derived from the 

comments received in response to the proposed action were analyzed in detail by the 

TMR interdisciplinary team and certain proposals for change to the proposed action were 

adopted for inclusion in one or more of the alternatives developed to address significant 

issues. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 19

Affected Environment

Recreation Use 

People come to the CNF yearround to enjoy a variety of recreation activities across a broad range 

of recreation settings. The forest provides both developed and dispersed recreation opportunities. 

Developed sites typically include constructed features such as roads, water systems, and sites 

defined with gravel or concrete, tables, steel fire rings or grills designed, constructed, and 

maintained for recreation use. The generally undeveloped areas of the forest support dispersed

recreation activities where little to no constructed facilities are provided, such as hunting, nature 

study, hiking and primitive camping. Survey results for recreation activity participation and use 

of special facilities and areas show the top five recreation activities were viewing natural features, 

hiking or walking, viewing wildlife, relaxing, and driving for pleasure (USDA 2006). 

Most recreation visits to the CNF, except for some visits originating from residences or lodging 

within or near the forest, involve travel by motorized vehicle from the visitor’s point of origin to 

or through the forest. The existing network of National Forest System roads (NFSRs) and 

National Forest System trails (NFSTs), together with unauthorized roads and trails, and the 

existing policy that allows motorized cross-country travel, gives almost unlimited motorized 

access for visitors to the CNF. Most driving on the forest is believed to occur on paved county, 

State, and Federal highways, and the 727 miles of NFSRs maintained for passenger car travel. 

Visitors seeking motorized access across the less developed areas of the forest use the about 4,427 

miles of NFSRs maintained for high-clearance vehicles and the 25 miles of motorized NFSTs or 

travel off of the forest road and motorized trail system on unauthorized or previously closed roads 

and trails. Some travel cross-country on the about 1.68 million acres open and accessible to 

motorized vehicles. Due to the generally gentle terrain and open vegetation across much of the 

CNF, along with the development of increasingly agile and powerful motorized vehicles, most of 

the 1.68 million acres of the CNF outside wilderness areas are accessible to motorized vehicles. 

The following are some facts and figures regarding recreation use on the CNF:

• Total national forest visits (NFVs) are defined as the entry of one person upon a national 

forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time and can be 

composed of multiple site visits. There were a total of about 3.25 million NFVs in 2005 

for both motorized and nonmotorized recreation (USDA 2006).

• An estimated 1.47 million NFVs were primarily to participate in nonmotorized activities 

(i.e., backpacking, hiking/walking, horseback riding, bicycling, cross-country skiing) on 

the CNF during 2005, while an estimated 300,000 NFVs were primarily for motorized 

activities such as driving for pleasure and OHV use (USDA 2006). 

• Additional motorized use from communities in or near the CNF is estimated at about 

240,000 NFVs annually (USDA 2008b). 

Table 9 (USDA 2006) shows the percent of total visits to the forest as either “primary” or 

“participation” visits. Primary visits are defined as when the activity listed was the main reason 

for visiting the forest, and participation visits are when the visitor participated in the listed 

activity that was not the primary reason for the visit. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Table 9. Primary visits vs. participation visits to the CNF (percent)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Hiking/Walking

Viewing Natural Features

Relaxing

Driving for Pleasure

Downhill Skiing

Bicycling

Visiting Historic Sites

Viewing Wildlife

Other Non-Motorized

Fishing

Primitive Camping

Hunting

Some Other Activities

Developed Camping

Picnicking

Motorized Trail Activity

OHV use 

Motorized Water Activity

No Activity Reported

Backpacking

Nature Study

Non-Motorized Water

Gathering Forest Products

Cross Country Skiing

Nature Center Activity

Resort Use

Horseback Riding

Other Motorized Activity

Snowmobiles

Primary Visits

Participation Visits

Existing Forest Setting Attributes

Recreation Setting 

People tend to choose settings for their outdoor recreation activities in order to realize a desired 

set of experiences. The Forest Service uses the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) to define 

and manage a range of recreational settings and opportunities on National Forest System lands. 

Setting attributes are managed to ensure recreation settings are within certain thresholds in 

several attributes such as opportunities for solitude, challenge and risk, tranquility, and apparent 

naturalness of the landscape. These are defined in the CNF land and resource management plan 

(LRMP) as ROS setting objectives that range along the ROS spectrum from urban to primitive 

and include (in order from most developed to least developed ): urban, rural, roaded natural, 

semiprimitive motorized, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and primitive. Setting attributes are 

affected by changes to the physical characteristics of the landscape such as changes to landforms 

and vegetation; by evidence of management “presence” on the landscape including elements such 

as signing; and by social factors such as the number of people recreating in a given area. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 21

ROS User’s Guide (USDA 1982) and a Forest Service report (USDA 1979) provide guidelines for 

defining ROS classes and managing within each ROS class. Recreation setting objectives are 

defined and mapped in the LMRP for the CNF as shown in figure 6. 

All five ROS setting classes are found on the CNF. Urban settings occur on the forest within 

developed urban areas such as the isolated parcels of forest lands within the city limits of Sedona 

and Flagstaff. Rural settings occur on CNF lands that have been visibly and extensively modified 

usually for commodity production or residential development. Examples of rural landscapes on 

the CNF include historic homesteads with orchards and historic ranch headquarters. Urban and 

rural settings will not be changed or affected by any alternative action and so are not part of this 

analysis. Primitive settings on the CNF occur only within congressionally designated wilderness 

areas where motorized travel is prohibited by law. Primitive settings will not be changed or 

affected by any alternative action and are not part of this analysis. 

The ROS classes relevant to this analysis are roaded natural (RN), semiprimitive motorized 

(SPM), and semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM). Table 10 displays the acres of the ROS 

classifications within the forest.

Table 10. Acres by ROS class within the CNF

ROS Classification CNF Acres

(approximate) 

Roaded Natural (RN) 820,500

Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM) 715,500

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (SPNM) 118,000

ROS classes are linked to visual quality objectives so that RN settings have a minimum VQO of 

modification (M), SPM settings have a minimum VQO of partial retention (PR), and SPNM 

settings have a minimum VQO of retention (R). VQOs for a given area are often higher than the 

ROS class would dictate due to factors such as the level of concern for scenic quality and the 

position of the viewer in the landscape, or the inherent attractiveness of the landscape. ROS 

objectives are sometimes compromised by the presence of unauthorized roads and trails that tend

to contrast with the natural appearing landscape desired by most visitors and prescribed in the 

CNF LRMP. All roads tend to contrast with the natural appearing landscape to some extent; but 

unauthorized roads, since they lack design consideration to avoid resource damage and excessive 

visibility, are much more likely to result in increasingly visible impacts to the landscape. This 

occurs as roads become more incised and as people create multiple routes to avoid obstacles such 

as fallen trees, rocks, and muddy or snowpacked road surfaces. 

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Figure 6. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum map
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 23

The forest’s recreation settings are becoming generally less primitive for the social aspects of 

ROS as more people visit the forest and encounters between people on the forest increases. A 

comparison of recent surveys of recreation use on the CNF shows a 72 percent increase in 

recreation visits from 2000 to 2005 (USDA 2001 and 2006). More people visiting the forest has 

resulted in more contact between people and somewhat less opportunity to experience recreation 

setting attributes like solitude, tranquility, and “wildness” inherent to a natural setting.

About 820,500 acres on the CNF have roaded natural (RN) setting objectives, characterized by a 

predominantly natural appearing environment with moderate evidence of human activity. Roads 

maintained for passenger cars, high-clearance roads, and motorized trails are all consistent with 

an RN setting. The present level of recreation activity, evidence of resource management, and 

managerial presence in areas with RN setting objectives is generally consistent with ROS 

objectives defined in the CNF land and resource management plan. About 277 miles out of 727 

miles of existing NFSRs within RN areas previously maintained for passenger cars have become 

more suited for high-clearance vehicles due to changing priorities for road maintenance 

resources. 

About 715,500 acres have a semiprimitive motorized (SPM) setting objective consistent with

back-country experience in a predominately natural appearing environment with little evidence of 

human activity where occasional trails and primitive roads are designed for high-clearance, fourwheel-drive vehicles. Roads maintained for passenger cars are not consistent with SPM 

objectives. Opportunities for challenge and risk, recreating in an area with few developed 

amenities or regulatory signs, and driving motorized vehicles in a natural appearing setting away 

from the sights and sounds of others are setting objectives that are usually available in SPM areas 

of the CNF. 

Attribute objectives for SPM areas such as opportunities for solitude and tranquility, are 

sometimes compromised in some SPM areas due to the increasing numbers of people visiting the 

forest and the evidence of their activities on the CNF landscape. In SPM areas that are most 

popular for motorized recreation (such as the Cinder Hills OHV Area east of Flagstaff and the 

area between Mormon Lake and Munds Park), the appearance of the landscape is sometimes 

inconsistent with visual management standards for a natural appearing landscape due to a high

density of motorized vehicle tracks. While increased recreation use in general tends to 

compromise some SPM setting attributes, motorized recreation activities have a more pronounced 

effect and tend to leave more persistent and extensive evidence of the activity such as 

unauthorized roads and motorized trails on the forest landscape. 

NFSRs across the forest are tending to become more primitive in character as resources for road 

maintenance diminish. Opportunities for challenge and risk related to driving on roads suited only 

for high-clearance vehicles are increasing on the forest even as opportunities for solitude, 

tranquility, and relative “wildness” are decreasing in areas popular to motorized forest visitors. 

The physical attributes of recreation settings on the CNF are becoming less primitive in some 

areas accessible to motorized vehicles as unauthorized roads and motorized trails, and dispersed 

campsites proliferate in the more popular areas for motorized recreation on the forest. Dispersed 

campsites used frequently over time create visible evidence of use such as bare ground, fire rings, 

damaged vegetation and other visible elements that contrast with the natural appearing landscape 

desired by most visitors and prescribed in the LRMP. Unauthorized roads and trails, often 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

accessible only for high-clearance vehicles, are proliferating in many areas due to increased (and 

currently legal) cross-country motorized activity. 

About 118,000 acres of the CNF have a semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM) setting objective.

Management objectives in SPNM areas are to emphasize setting attributes more compatible with 

nonmotorized recreation use such as a predominately natural appearing environment without 

evidence of resource modification and utilization practices and with very little managerial 

presence. Evidence of motorized activities such as roads and motorized trails and the sights and 

sounds of motorized vehicles is not consistent with management objectives for SPNM areas on 

the CNF. 

Motorized vehicle access is not prohibited in SPNM areas of the CNF, except for certain areas 

closed for short term or seasonal resource protection reasons through special orders (refer to 

figure 2). There is some evidence of ongoing motorized activity such as unauthorized roads and 

trails made by motorized vehicles in all SPNM areas of the CNF except for those in the far south 

end of the forest, comprising roughly one third of all SPNM acres on the forest. Areas such as the 

SPNM areas in the vicinity of Ike’s Backbone/Fossil Creek, Hackberry Mountain and Deer Basin 

where the terrain is too rugged for most vehicles to travel rarely or never receive motorized traffic 

and so have little evidence of motorized use. Visitors to those areas can expect to not see or hear 

motorized vehicles. 

The SPNM areas nearest communities typically receive more motorized use than those remote to 

communities and so tend to have more lasting evidence of motorized activities such as 

unauthorized motorized roads and trails. Visitors to these areas are more likely to see or hear 

motorized vehicles than in other SPNM areas, though less so than in most SPM and RN areas of 

the forest. Examples of SPNM areas that more commonly experience motorized use include those 

near A-1 Mountain, O’Neil Crater, the Cinder Hills area near Doney Park and the Jack Smith 

Spring area east of Kachina Peaks Wilderness. Retention visual quality objectives linked to 

SPNM ROS objectives are sometimes not met in the more active SPNM areas due to the presence 

of unauthorized roads and motorized trails within the SPNM boundary.

Scenic Quality

The visual management system is used by the CNF to manage scenic quality on the forest. 

Thresholds are identified to meet visual quality objectives (VQOs) as defined in the LRMP.

VQOs are defined and mapped for the CNF in the LMRP. VQOs are derived from a combination 

of factors including the inherent attractiveness of the subject landscape, the level of concern 

visitors might have for scenic quality while viewing from certain areas or routes, and the distance 

the viewer is from the subject landscape or from the subject feature on the landscape. The 

measure of inherent attractiveness ranges from A to C with A being the most attractive and 

“photogenic” landscapes and C being of minimal scenic interest to most people. “Concern levels” 

for viewing scenery range from 1 to 3 with 1 being a viewpoint or corridor where most people, or 

in the case of very high volume highways (interstates and major state routes), a substantial 

percentage of people have a high concern for scenic quality and 3 being areas generally unseen by 

all but a very few forest visitors. Distance zones range from foreground out to 1⁄2 mile from the 

viewer, middle ground out to 5 miles from the viewer, and background out beyond 5 miles from 

the viewer position. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 25

LRMP standards for scenic quality typically require that the result of activities managed by the 

Forest Service within the foreground of roads and trails where a high percentage of travelers on 

those routes have a concern for scenic quality not be evident to the average observer. Such areas 

would typically have a retention visual quality objective. Evidence of activities on the forest seen 

from other routes that have a low volume of traffic or where travelers would typically have less 

concern for scenic quality should at least be subordinate to the natural characteristics of the 

surrounding landscape (USDA 1977). Such areas would typically have a partial retention (PR) 

visual quality objective. 

The VMS and ROS systems are linked with complementary objectives so that ROS settings 

should meet certain VQO thresholds. Therefore, areas with SPNM ROS objectives should also 

meet the retention (R) VQO. Likewise, areas with SPM ROS objectives should meet partial 

retention (PR) VQO standards, at a minimum.

Cross-country motorized use off of forest system roads and trails sometimes leaves tracks and 

ruts that can remain visible for years. Some areas of concentrated motorized use have areas of 

bare ground and user-constructed features such as jumps and turns constructed of mounded dirt 

that are quite evident on the landscape. In some areas with fragile soils, the repetitive passage of 

vehicles has created bare areas, which lack ground cover and forest litter and are quite visible to 

the casual observer. The existence of such tracks and bare areas visible to people traveling 

through the forest tends to diminish the natural appearance of forest lands and, therefore, reduces 

the scenic quality inherent to a natural appearing forest landscape. While an occasional track or 

rut does not detract from forest scenic quality for most people, concentrations of ruts, tracks, trails 

or roads on the landscape tend to detract from what most people expect and desire to see in the 

forest. The foreground of such areas of more concentrated motorized use would typically not 

meet visual quality objectives defined in the CNF LMRP. 

The existing motorized cross-country travel policy along with the increase in recreation use on 

the forest makes management of recreation settings to meet LRMP objectives difficult for some 

areas. The existing policy allowing motorized cross-country travel sometimes results in setting 

characteristics that are inconsistent with some SPM and SPNM social and physical setting 

objectives. Motorized activity and the evidence of it can be consistent with SPM settings (USDA 

1982) and with the PR visual quality objectives consistent with SPM objectives. SPM areas of the 

CNF are generally consistent with LRMP scenic quality standards. However, in some of the more 

popular SPM areas of the CNF, such as along some of the high-clearance NFSRs in the ponderosa 

pine forest north of the Mogollon Rim, unauthorized motorized trails and roads, along with 

dispersed camp sites, have proliferated to densities that are sometimes inconsistent with the PR 

and scenic quality standards associated with SPM setting objectives. 

Recreational Activities 

Driving for Pleasure 

Driving for pleasure has been one of the most popular activities on national forests since cars first 

became the common mode of travel for the American public. Surveys consistently list driving for 

pleasure as one of the top five activities on the forest (USDA 2001, 2006). Before SUVs and 

other high-clearance vehicles became popular, most driving for pleasure was done on roads built 

and maintained for passenger cars. Now this activity extends into more remote parts of the forest 

on less developed roads and motorized trails and cross-country off of established roads and trails. 

Most driving for pleasure on the forest still occurs on roads maintained for passenger cars. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

About 55 percent of visitors surveyed listed driving for pleasure as an activity they take part in 

when visiting the forest (USDA 2006). Most forest visitors participate in this activity to some 

extent either as a primary activity or incidental to other activities. Other popular activities such as 

viewing wildlife and natural features usually involve driving across the forest landscape on roads, 

trails, or cross-country. The entire area of the forest outside of wilderness areas and most roads 

and motorized trails on the forest are presently available for driving for pleasure, except for roads, 

trails, and areas specifically closed to motorized travel for resource protection and other reasons 

(figure 2) and areas too steep or with too much vegetation for motorized vehicles to traverse. 

Driving Cross-country and on High-clearance Roads and Trails

This activity includes both OHV use and motorized trail riding activities (USDA 2006 and table 

10), along with driving on roads and trails suitable for high-clearance vehicles and driving 

vehicles cross-country off of roads or trails. This type of driving often accommodates those 

hunting, gathering forest products, camping in undeveloped areas, viewing scenery and wildlife, 

and engaged in other activities away from roads and trails accessible to passenger vehicles. The 

entire forest outside of wilderness areas and areas closed to public travel for resource protection 

reasons is available and open for driving cross-country except for where or when doing so would 

cause resource damage. While most of the CNF area open to cross-country travel is accessible to 

wheeled motorized vehicles, some of the area is too steep or the vegetation is too thick for most 

vehicles to traverse. Refer to table 9 for details of the extent of roads, trails and areas available for 

travel with high-clearance vehicles.

Many forest visitors bring trailers and trucks loaded with ATVs and dirt bikes for the sole purpose 

of driving cross-country and on high-clearance roads and trails. They enjoy the challenge of this 

type of driving and the adventure of exploring new areas of the forest. Many people value the 

sense of freedom that comes with the ability to drive across the forest landscape on increasingly 

powerful and agile machines. The relatively flat and open terrain that characterizes much of the 

CNF, coupled with existing motorized travel policy, encourages many people to drive motorized 

vehicles across the landscape off of existing roads and trails.

Public scoping revealed a desire by some to designate some existing unauthorized roads, trails, 

and areas for motor vehicle use. There were about 92 miles of unauthorized roads and motorized 

trails submitted during scoping for this analysis by organized motorized groups for consideration 

for designation as NFSRs and NFSTs. In addition, there were hundreds of miles of existing 

unauthorized roads suggested for designation as NFSRs by individuals wanting motorized access 

to some area or site on the forest. The unauthorized roads and trails submitted by the organized 

motorized groups are all routes that are presently used by these groups and others seeking specific 

setting and route characteristics that these routes now provide. For example, the unauthorized 

Challenger Trail circles the Kachina Peaks Wilderness area just below the wilderness boundary 

and provides a long distance route for single track (i.e., dirt bike) riders. The Challenger Trail 

offers a rare opportunity in Arizona for single track riders to ride dirt bikes on established single 

track trails in a high altitude, subalpine setting. Another example is the unauthorized Smasher 

Canyon motorized trail that provides an opportunity for specialized four-wheel-drive vehicles to 

traverse a boulder-strewn canyon. The Smasher Canyon route offers a rare opportunity for those 

who enjoy the sport of rock crawling to engage in that activity in a remote canyon setting. Other 

popular unauthorized trails include those often used by both dirt bikers and ATV riders near the 

Pulliam Airport near Flagstaff, at Wing Mountain, and near Camp Verde, Cottonwood, and Blue 

Ridge. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 27

The CNF has no data to determine the number of people who engage in motorized cross-country 

travel, though survey data suggests the percentage of people who participate in this activity or for 

whom it is the primary reason for their visit is small compared with other activities such as 

driving for pleasure and hiking (table 10). People driving off of roads on dirt bikes, all-terrain 

vehicles (ATVs) of various types and sizes, and four-wheel-drive trucks and SUVs have resulted 

in the existence of multiple unauthorized roads and trails in many areas of the forest.

Motorized Dispersed Camping 

The extensive network of both NFSRs and unauthorized roads and the present policy that allows 

cross-country motorized travel on most of about 1.68 million acres of CNF offers a wide array of 

options for those seeking places to camp accessible to motorized vehicles. Almost all dispersed 

camping access on the CNF is by motorized vehicle. Dispersed camping is more popular at higher 

elevations of the forest (generally above 6,000 feet in elevation) from May through September. 

The lower elevations of the forest, generally south of and below the Mogollon Rim, are more 

popular during the colder seasons. 

Hunting season occurs primarily in the fall from late August into January, with a spring season for 

turkey in some areas, and is another popular time for dispersed camping, since many hunters will 

set up dispersed campsites in their favorite hunting areas. During 2005, about 160,000 visits to 

the forest involved camping in an undeveloped campsite on the forest (USDA 2006). Summer 

weekends, and especially Memorial Day, July 4th, and Labor Day, are by far the most popular 

times for camping for all areas of the forest (USDA 2008c). An estimated 70 percent of motorized 

dispersed camping on the forest occurs in the high elevation zones, which are comprised of 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and aspen, and montane grassland potential natural vegetation 

types (USDA 2008c). About 160,000 recreation visits during 2005 involved camping outside of 

developed campsites (USDA 2006). 

Dispersed campsites that show evidence of repeated use have proliferated across some areas of 

the forest as recreation use has increased. The most popular areas for dispersed camping are along 

NFSRs that provide access into the forest from primary access roads such as state and interstate 

highways and some NFSRs maintained for passenger cars. Primary access roads include paved 

highways such as Interstates 17 and 40, State Highways 87, 89, 180, and 260, and Forest 

Highway 3 and some unpaved NFSRs maintained for passenger cars such as NFSR 300 along the 

Mogollon Rim, NFSR 794 and NFSR 151 west of the San Francisco Peaks, and several other 

roads providing initial motorized access to the CNF from areas outside the boundary of the forest. 

Camping equipment used on the CNF typically includes tents, trucks with campers in the truck 

beds, camp trailers towed behind vehicles, and motor homes, which have become more prevalent

and larger in recent years. Most people who tow camping trailers or drive motor homes or trucks 

with campers (a high percentage of those camping on the CNF) camp along NFSRs within 2 

miles or so of the intersection with the primary access road. Campers will typically travel along 

an NFSR up to a mile or two at most from the primary access road to find a campsite. Campers 

with large motor homes or camp trailers are especially reluctant to travel very far on a rough road 

to find a campsite and tend to camp along NFSRs close to paved access roads. 

Repeated use of the more desirable sites has resulted in dispersed campsites with unauthorized 

roads and fire ring usually constructed with local rock. Most motorized dispersed campsites occur 

within about 300 feet of NFRSs and are usually accessed by driving cross-country from the edge 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

28 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

of the road to the campsite. People seeking nonmotorized camping experiences will often drive 

on an NFSR or an unauthorized road to their chosen forest area before walking to find a campsite. 

Hunters tend to use the same areas as summer campers, but will often travel further on an NFSR

or unauthorized road from the primary access roads to camp in their favorite hunting areas. 

Hunters often use high-clearance roads for motorized access to hunting areas and to campsites 

and sometimes drive off of roads to find a campsite away from motorized traffic. Hunting camps 

often occur along high-clearance roads (USDA 2008c). 

Some dispersed campsites become annual destinations for small or extended family gatherings, 

large group events, or hunting parties. These sites sometimes become an integral part of the 

family or group tradition and an important aspect of the family or group identity. People tend to 

prefer campsite attributes such as ease of access from the road, little to no ground vegetation, or 

sites under trees along the edge of meadows or openings in the forest canopy. Preferred sites tend 

to be used repeatedly and become easy to identify as campsites due to bare ground and the 

presence of fire rings made by previous campers. Such established sites are often preferred 

campsites even for first-time visitors to an area of the forest. 

Many unauthorized roads proposed for NFSR designation during scoping for this analysis were 

roads that presently provide motorized access to favored dispersed campsites. Most of the favored 

campsites are scattered through the higher elevations above the Mogollon Rim in the ponderosa 

pine or mixed conifer forested areas such as a popular dispersed campsite at Kinder Springs and 

sites identified overlooking both East and West Clear Creek canyons. Other favored campsites 

occur throughout the Colorado Plateau from the Mogollon Rim to the northern boundary of the 

forest. 

Many people stated during scoping that they prefer dispersed campsites away from other 

campsites, and far enough from access roads to avoid dust from traffic and to keep children safe 

from traffic. Some stated an aversion to camping in any site previously occupied by other 

campers due to concerns about sanitation and the presence of garbage and human waste at those 

sites.

Collection of Forest Products 

There are about 1,686,000 acres of CNF lands and thousands of miles of both NFSRs and 

unauthorized roads and trails presently available for motorized access to forest products. 

Collection of forest products includes a wide range of products such as firewood and fence posts, 

pinyon nuts, rock, traditional herbal or sacred plant material, edible plants (such as bracken ferns 

and mushrooms), and “wildling” plants for landscaping. Collection of firewood, fence posts, 

rock, and wildlings is typically managed under the terms of a personal use or commercial permit. 

Firewood is one of the most popular forest products, with over 3,000 personal use firewood 

permits sold during 2008.

The dispersion of forest products across the CNF landscape tends to disperse the effects of forest 

product collection activities. The collection of most forest products such as firewood and pinyon 

nuts is usually done with just one passage of a vehicle to the collection site and back to the access 

road. Collection of forest products such as firewood usually does not result in the complete 

removal of vegetative material from the ground surface, or in rutting that would leave a more 

persistent track. However, forest product collection in the more popular collection areas or in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 29

areas that are wet or have fragile soils sometimes results in more persistent evidence of the 

activity such as vehicle tracks that are incised into the ground and that are visible years after the 

collection activity ends. Such tracks and other evidence are more likely to occur when product 

collection occurs outside of the terms of a permit that specifies suitable areas and conditions for 

product collection. Permits presently do not need to specify that motorized cross-country travel is 

allowed for the permitted activity, but TMR implementation would necessitate this, if in fact 

cross-country travel were to be allowed in the permit. 

The gentle terrain across much of the CNF often allows relatively easy motorized access crosscountry from the road network to the forest product. This has resulted in a tradition of driving to 

the product collection site. Collection of products such as firewood and pinyon nuts is often a 

family or group recreational activity involving motorized travel to traditional favorite collection 

areas. Some people park on the side of the road and walk in to gather forest products, a collection 

method that will not be affected or changed except possibly by the reduction of roads open for 

motorized use. 

Antler or shed horn gathering is a popular activity on the forest that is not managed by the CNF 

since it is not officially a forest product. Antlers are used for crafts and as a purported aphrodisiac 

in some foreign markets and are often worth several dollars a pound. Antlers are sought by many 

collectors as soon as they are shed in the early spring, when the ground is more likely to be wet. 

This occasionally results in visible tracks across large areas of the more popular antler collection 

areas. Many collectors routinely drive a grid pattern over the landscape, usually on ATVs (USDA 

2008c). 

Hunting and Game Retrieval 

Hunting is a popular activity on the CNF that brings lots of high-clearance and four-wheel-drive

vehicles to the forest for both the official hunting seasons and to scout for game before the 

seasons begin. Hunters make up less than 3 percent of total forest visits (table 9), though more 

people have an interest in hunting than the number suggests since big game hunts are regulated 

through a lottery that selects only a fraction of hunt tag applications. Motorized activities 

associated with hunting such as scouting for game, dispersed camping, hunting from a vehicle 

(legal only for participants in the state’s CHAMP program for disabled hunters), and motorized 

retrieval of big game is accommodated by motorized cross-country access and the existing system 

of roads and trails accessible to motorized vehicles. 

Hunters, like other visitors, currently have motorized access on about 1,686,000 acres of CNF. 

Motorized access within the areas open to cross-country travel is facilitated by the thousands of 

miles of existing roads and hundreds of miles of existing trail on the CNF. Most hunting occurs in 

the fall, when the ground is usually dry enough to minimize ruts from the occasional passage of a 

motorized vehicle. When hunting season occurs during wet weather, ruts from motorized hunting 

activities are more evident. Dispersed camping during the hunting seasons is less concentrated 

than the typical summer camp pattern, with more use occurring closer to favorite hunt areas and 

further from the primary access roads and away from other hunting camps (USDA 2008a).

Public scoping for this project revealed that even though most hunters use motorized vehicles to 

gain access to hunting areas for scouting and game retrieval, many hunters prefer nonmotorized

methods of hunting and see the proliferation and use of specialized vehicles, such as ATVs, as 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

30 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

detracting from their hunting experience. Some hunters complained about having their hunting 

experience compromised by people driving cross-country and scaring game animals.

Motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) of large game species, such as elk, deer and antelope, 

following a successful hunt is common on the CNF. Present policy allowing motorized crosscountry travel as well as the extensive existing road system facilitates big game retrieval on the 

forest. About 4,300 big game animals were legally killed on the CNF during the 2008 hunting 

season with an estimate of about 3,300 to 3,500 big game animals retrieved cross-country with 

motorized vehicles (AZGFD 2009a). About 88 percent of big game animals taken on the CNF 

during 2008 were elk. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has expressed a need for allowing 

MBGR to continue in order to reduce meat spoilage during warm season hunts and to help ensure 

that an adequate pool of hunters continue to hunt to aid in meeting herd management objectives 

(AZGFD 2009b). Some hunters have expressed a desire for MBGR to continue in order to 

facilitate retrieval of big game, especially for elk, which are larger and more difficult to carry 

cross-country than other big game species hunted on the CNF. 

The existing system of roads along with the ability to travel cross-country with motorized 

vehicles usually allows hunters to get within a half-mile or less of a big game carcass on an 

existing road or trail, so most game retrieval distances, whether motorized or not, are relatively 

short, usually less than a half-mile (figure 7). The generally open vegetation and gentle 

topography on the forest, along with the present policy allowing cross-country motorized travel, 

encourages hunters to retrieve animals with their vehicles. Game retrieval usually involves one 

trip into and out of the retrieval area. Most game retrieval results in little or no lasting evidence of 

the activity (AZGFD 2009a). The adoption of the wet weather road policy that closes all but a 

skeleton road system for hunter access and prohibits cross-country travel was designed to reduce 

damage to forest roads and resources during wet periods. 

Nonmotorized Activities 

Nonmotorized activities include walking, hiking, picnicking, nature viewing, photography, 

backpacking, relaxing, biking, swimming, fishing, etc.—everything except driving, even though 

most people drive to forest areas to take part in these nonmotorized activities. Combined rates of 

participation as defined in a survey of forest recreation use suggest that primary participation in 

nonmotorized activities is about five times that for motorized activities (table 9). Nonmotorized 

access is allowed across all 1,842,809 acres of the CNF, except for about 1,000 acres of the 

highest elevations of Kachina Peaks Wilderness, where a closure prohibiting all access off of 

hiking trails exists for rare plant protection. People seeking nonmotorized forest settings away 

from the sights and sounds of motorized activity can visit about 156,000 acres of designated CNF 

wilderness and about 118,000 acres of SPNM areas on the forest where they can usually expect 

few or no encounters with motorized vehicles. Visitors can expect to see evidence of motorized 

activity in those SPNM areas closest to communities that have terrain accessible to motorized 

vehicles. 

Motorized access across the remaining about 1.68 million acres of CNF lands open for crosscountry travel and the thousands of miles of existing forest system roads and motorized trails

(table 8), along with the extensive system of unauthorized roads and trails on the CNF provides 

motorized access to many sites and areas used for nonmotorized activities. Most visitors seeking 

access to areas for nonmotorized recreation activities such as to trailheads, wilderness and 

primitive areas, climbing, hunting, fishing and swimming areas travel by passenger car on paved 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 33

roads or on NFSRs maintained to accommodate passenger cars. The total number of 

nonmotorized forest visits from residents of communities adjacent to the forest is unknown 

(USDA 2008c) but the proportion of local residents who use the forest accounts for about 20 

percent of all NFVs (USDA 2006). 

Public scoping resulted in several reports of conflicts between visitors participating in motorized 

activities and other visitors. CNF has received numerous reports over the past few years of 

motorized intrusions into areas or on roads officially closed to motorized vehicles. People living 

near or next to the CNF commonly complain about noise, dust, and trespass across private lands 

from people driving motorized vehicles on the forest. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreation Setting 

The location and extent of CNF lands consistent with setting characteristics for the three ROS

classes analyzed (RN, SPM, and SPNM) would likely remain unchanged for the foreseeable 

future, and the CNF would continue to manage for desired opportunities identified in the LRMP 

for each ROS class. Trends would continue toward less primitive social and physical setting 

characteristics across most areas of the forest accessible to motorized vehicles. Miles of highclearance roads and trails would continue to increase as NFSRs once maintained for passenger 

cars deteriorate due to lack of road maintenance resources and as unauthorized roads continue to 

proliferate across the CNF landscape. Managing for SPNM objectives without motorized 

restrictions and the elimination of motorized roads and trails in SPNM areas would continue to be 

difficult. 

Semiprimitive setting characteristics prescribed for SPNM areas such as a natural appearing 

forest landscape with little evidence of others and opportunities for solitude and tranquility would 

become less consistent in about 118,000 acres of land with SPNM objectives. The SPNM areas

with more gentle terrain and less dense vegetation and those near communities especially would 

continue to receive motorized incursions that would result in less natural appearing landscape, 

more encounters with others, and more evidence of motorized activity, inconsistent with the 

setting objectives defined in the LMRP. 

The areas with SPM and RN objectives would continue to meet those objectives for the 

foreseeable future but would continue a trend toward less primitive attributes such as higher rates 

of contact with others and more evidence of motorized recreation activities. The abundance of 

high-clearance roads and trails and the ability to drive cross-country would continue to meet 

demands for high-clearance vehicle access. Increases in the amount of unauthorized roads and 

trails would continue a trend toward less natural appearing landscapes with fewer opportunities 

for solitude, tranquility and self-reliance important for meeting SPM setting objectives. People 

who favor motorized activities would continue to have expanding opportunities to experience 

such attributes as challenge and risk while riding motorized vehicles and freedom of movement 

across much of the forest landscape with wheeled motorized vehicles. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

34 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Scenic Quality

Scenic quality would continue to decline in some of the more popular areas for motorized crosscountry travel. New unauthorized trails and areas of concentrated use such as dispersed campsite 

clusters would continue to appear on the landscape, and scenic quality would continue to 

diminish as motorized cross-country travel continues under this alternative. Some areas on the 

forest within the foreground (up to 1/2 mile) from viewing areas such as communities and 

primary access roads (paved roads and arterial forest access roads maintained for passenger 

vehicles) would continue to accumulate the evidence of motorized activity such as user-created 

roads and trails and so not attain prescribed retention VQOs. Areas seen as middle ground (1/2 

mile to 5 miles distance from the viewer) from sensitive viewing areas would continue to 

accumulate evidence of motorized activity and some of those would eventually not meet R and 

PR VQOs prescribed in the LRMP. 

Some hillsides facing sensitive viewing routes or areas that are also popular for hill climbing with 

motorized vehicles are especially at risk for not attaining prescribed VQOs. Popular hill climbing 

sites such as the cinder hills seen from communities east of Flagstaff and other such steep hills 

near communities are sometimes not consistent with prescribed R and PR VQOs prescribed in the 

LRMP for the forest. 

Figure 8. Hill climb near Cinder Hills
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 35

SPNM settings, whether seen from sensitive viewing areas or not, are prescribed to meet a 

retention VQO, which may not be met under this alternative. Those SPNM areas, mostly in the 

northern two-thirds of the forest, that commonly receive motorized traffic would continue to 

accumulate evidence of motorized activity that is inconsistent with a retention visual quality 

objective. 

Recreation Activities

Common Effects from All Activities

New unauthorized routes would continue to develop through the repeated passage of vehicles 

over the same cross-country routes. The rising demand for motorized access for popular forest 

activities such as dispersed camping, hunting, gathering forest products, antler gathering, rock 

climbing, and special events would continue to extend unauthorized routes into additional areas 

of the forest. Continued cross-country travel with motorized vehicles would add to the existing 

network of unauthorized roads and trails across the CNF.

Driving for Pleasure

Forest activities dependent wholly or partially on motorized access would remain unchanged. All 

5,154 miles of National Forest System roads and 25 miles of National Forest System trails and all 

unauthorized routes would remain open to public travel. The 1,393 miles of roads currently 

closed to public motorized travel would continue to be used by those unaware of, or unwilling to 

comply with, the road closures. Pleasure driving for the majority of forest visitors who drive 

standard passenger vehicles would continue to be limited mostly to the 450 miles of NFSRs 

maintained for passenger vehicle driving. Visitors would continue to drive cross-country on the 

forest, sometimes creating new roads or trails by repeatedly driving the same route. 

Most of the about 1.68 million acres of forest outside of wilderness areas, except for temporary or 

seasonal closure areas, would remain open to driving on roads, trails, or cross-country with this 

alternative. 

Driving Cross-country and on High-clearance Roads and Trails 

People would continue to have about 1,686,00 acres of CNF land outside designated wilderness 

and about 4,400 miles of high-clearance NFSRs and 25 miles of NFSTs, except for temporary or 

seasonal closure areas, available for this type of motorized use in addition to the unauthorized 

roads and trails on the forest. People would continue to enjoy the challenge of driving crosscountry and on high-clearance roads and motorized trails while exploring the forest. 

Motorized Dispersed Camping

Motorized access for dispersed camping would continue to occur where people choose to camp 

subject to existing restrictions and closure orders. Demand for motorized access to new campsites 

would likely increase slowly since older established sites are usually numerous enough to meet 

present demand.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

36 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Collection of Forest Products 

People would continue to use the about 5,154 miles of NFSRs and 25 miles of NFSTs as well as 

hundreds of miles of unauthorized roads and trails to drive cross-country to collect forest 

products. 

Hunting and Game Retrieval 

People would continue to use the about 5,154 miles of NFSRs and 25 miles of NFSTs as well as 

hundreds of miles of unauthorized roads and trails to drive cross-country to scout for and hunt 

game and to retrieve big game. Hunting activities would continue to result in some new 

unauthorized roads and trails every hunting season. Motorized retrieval of big game by hunters 

would continue to be used in the many hunting areas on the CNF that are accessible to highclearance motorized vehicles. 

Hunters who prefer to use nonmotorized hunting methods or who prefer nonmotorized hunting 

settings or experiences would be less likely to hunt successfully or to find the nonmotorized 

hunting settings or experiences they seek. They would continue to encounter people driving 

motorized vehicles that could compromise their nonmotorized hunting experience. 

Nonnmotorized Activities 

Motorized access to nonmotorized activity sites would remain at least as extensive as it is 

currently and would increase as new system and unauthorized routes would continue to be 

created. People who prefer nonmotorized recreation settings or who prefer recreating away from 

the sight, sound, and evidence of motorized activity would be less likely to find those setting 

characteristics outside of CNF wilderness areas and the areas of the CNF where topography and 

vegetation hinder motorized vehicle access. Visitors to SPNM areas, especially to SPNM areas 

that are near communities or in areas with gentle terrain and less dense vegetation that are more 

accessible for motorized vehicles, such as those areas in the northern two-thirds of the CNF, 

would be less likely to experience recreation settings consistent with CNF plan objectives for 

nonmotorized recreation settings.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreation Setting

The Coconino National Forest would meet setting objectives for desired opportunities identified 

in the LRMP for each ROS class. Closing almost 2,000 miles of existing NFSRs to public 

motorized access while adding about 64 miles of unauthorized road to the designated forest road 

system with this alternative would help meet semiprimitive setting objectives in both SPM and 

SPNM areas by increasing opportunities to experience self-reliance, solitude, tranquility, and a 

natural appearing landscape. People seeking a nonmotorized recreation experience in SPNM 

areas would be more likely than in alternative 1 to find recreation settings away from the sights 

and sounds of motorized activity. 

Implementation of this alternative would:

• Continue to provide 13,711 acres open to cross-country motorized travel at the Cinder 

Hills OHV Area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 37

• Slow the trend toward less primitive setting characteristics by limiting the proliferation of 

unauthorized roads and trails across the about 1.68 million additional acres of forest that 

would be closed to motorized traffic. 

• Increase the distance from many areas of the forest to the nearest road available for 

public use and, therefore, increase opportunities for such attributes as solitude, 

tranquility, and recreation activities away from the sights and sounds of others. Areas of 

the forest more than 1/2 mile from a road open to motorized travel would decrease from 

about 93.3 percent of CNF lands outside of wilderness areas (see figure 7) to about 79.5 

percent of those lands under this alternative (see figure 9). 

• Eliminate motorized incursions into SPNM areas and, therefore, maintain semiprimitive 

nonmotorized setting objectives prescribed for all of the about 117,000 SPNM acres on 

the forest. 

The SPNM areas on the CNF near communities that presently receive the most motorized traffic 

would attain more of the semiprimitive setting attributes prescribed for SPNM areas such as a 

more natural looking landscape, fewer encounters with others and less evidence of motorized 

activity within the area. The areas away from the sight and sound of the designated roads would 

have more semiprimitive characteristics such as lower encounter rates with others and more 

opportunities for solitude than at present.

The about 3,200 miles of NFSRs remaining open with this alternative is about 63 percent of 

existing NFSRs. The 25 miles of existing NFSTs that would continue to be accessible to the 

public with this alternative is a small portion of the hundreds of miles of unauthorized motorized 

trails presently used mostly by single track and ATV riders. Therefore, encounter rates between 

people driving on the NFSRs and NFSTs remaining open to motorized public travel are likely to 

increase compared with the existing condition, assuming total demand for motorized activities 

remains the same or increases. Opportunities such as the challenge and risk associated with 

operating a high-clearance motorized vehicle in semiprimitive motorized settings would decrease 

with the elimination of cross-country driving and with fewer high-clearance roads and trails 

remaining open in SPM areas.

Motorized users who presently enjoy almost unlimited freedom of movement across most of the 

forest would be limited to the designated road and trail systems open to motorized use and the 

Cinder Hills OHV Area under this alternative. Opportunities for such attributes as solitude and

challenge and risk while operating a motorized vehicle would be diminished as access to some 

favored areas and routes is reduced or eliminated in order to protect forest resources. Those 

seeking unfettered motorized access across the forest landscape would continue to have such 

access at the Cinder Hills OHV Area, but the remainder of the forest would be closed to 

motorized cross-country travel off of designated roads and trails. 

Encounter rates between motorized and nonmotorized users would decrease off of designated 

roads, trails, and outside of the Cinder Hills OHV Area since motorized use would be confined to 

designated routes and areas while nonmotorized access would not be changed and would continue 

to be allowed for most areas of the CNF. People driving on the designated road system would be 

more likely to encounter other drivers than at present.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

38 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Scenic Quality 

Evidence of motorized activity across the forest off of designated roads and trails would fade 

away as tracks from motorized use were eventually covered with forest litter and ground cover 

plants and began to blend with the natural features characteristic of the CNF landscape. LRMP 

visual quality objectives and public expectations for scenic quality across the CNF would more 

likely be met than at present. 

Recreation Activities 

Driving for Pleasure

Those who now drive on the Coconino’s road and motorized trail system would still have access 

to most of the general forest area they have at present on the about 3,280 miles of roads and 25 

miles of trails proposed to remain open for public motorized travel under this alternative. The 

resulting designated road system under this alternative provides motorized access to all existing 

developed recreation sites and to most of the more popular areas and sites on the forest; therefore, 

most forest visitors’ activities associated with driving for pleasure would not change as a result of

TMR implementation under this alternative.

Some people who drive for pleasure may not like being restricted to the system of 3,280 miles of 

roads, 25 miles of motorized trail, and the Cinder Hills OHV Area.

Driving Cross-Country and on Primitive Roads and Trails 

Many people who drive cross-country may not like that this activity would be allowed only in the 

Cinder Hills OHV Area. People who drive and ride on roads and trails maintained for highclearance vehicles may not like being restricted to about 2,768 miles of high-clearance roads and 

25 miles of motorized trails. The unfettered motorized access enjoyed and sought out by many 

visitors to the forest on the about 1.68 million acres of forest lands open to motorized crosscountry travel would disappear with implementation of this alternative. 

Collection of Forest Products

The collection of forest products such as firewood, rock, and wildling plants would continue to be 

managed under the terms of a permit. Permitted activities, including where motorized vehicles 

would be allowed, would be defined in the terms of the permit and are not considered in this 

analysis. Driving cross-country off of the designated road system to collect forest products would 

be allowed only with a valid permit issued for the specific forest product collection activity. 

Collection of forest products without a valid permit would be prohibited on the about 1.68 million 

acres of CNF land outside of wilderness areas. 

Hunting and Game Retrieval

There is no provision for motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) in this alternative except for in 

game management units where the majority of the unit area occurs on an adjacent national forest 

that allows MBGR. Game Management Units 7 West and 8 occur mostly on the Williams Ranger 

District of the Kaibab NF; therefore, the Kaibab NF policy regarding MBGR would apply to 

those portions of the CNF within those game management units and might include allowances for 

MBGR not included for the rest of the CNF. Motorized use off of the designated system on the 

CNF would be prohibited without a permit or other authorization. Hunting licenses and tags are 

not legal permits for motorized hunting access off of designated roads and motorized trails on the 

CNF, nor would they be with this alternative. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 39

Motorized activities associated with hunting such as scouting for game, driving to a dispersed 

campsite, hunting from a vehicle (legal only for participants of the state’s CHAMP program for 

disabled hunters), and motorized retrieval of big game (elk, deer, antelope, bear, and bison) would 

be limited to along the about 3,280 miles of NFSRs, 25 miles of motorized NFSTs and the 

13,711-acre Cinder Hills OHV Area open for public motorized travel with this alternative. Crosscountry motorized travel for any reason, including for big game retrieval, would be allowed in the 

13,711-acre Cinder Hill OHV Area subject to the area’s management plan. Hunters using the 

designated road system with this alternative would have motorized access to within 1⁄2 mile of 

about 79.5 percent of the total forest area outside of wilderness areas. There would be more 

opportunity to utilize nonmotorized hunting techniques favored by some hunters. 

Hunting campsites can be reached in the same manner other campers would use to camp in a 

dispersed site. Parking is allowed up to one vehicle length from the edge of the road (FSM 

7716.1). Where camping corridors are proposed, parking would also be allowed within 300 feet 

from the edge of the road. The distribution of camping corridors to correspond with popular 

dispersed camping areas would allow most hunters to continue camping near favored hunting 

areas. Some popular hunting campsites likely are not within a corridor location and so would not 

have motorized access to them, but could still be used as hunting campsites by those hunters 

willing to park within a vehicle length of the road for access to a campsite.

Hunters who rely on motorized vehicles for access to hunting campsites, scouting, hunting and 

game retrieval may view the restriction to motorized travel on 3,217 miles of designated road and 

25 miles of motorized trail as a loss of access for hunting activities. Other hunters who do not rely 

on motorized vehicles for all aspects of hunting might view restrictions on motorized activity as 

an improvement for the hunting experience. Some hunters could be discouraged from hunting 

without provisions for motorized big game retrieval; others who favor nonmotorized hunting 

experiences could be encouraged to apply for hunting tags in areas where motorized vehicles are 

limited to the designated road system. 

Motorized Dispersed Camping

Driving a motorized vehicle off of designated roads for dispersed camping would be allowed up 

to 300 feet from either edge of the road along the about 628 miles of road proposed for designated 

camping corridors. Parking along designated roads outside of designated camping corridors 

would be allowed within one vehicle length, or up to 30 feet, from the edge of the road. The 628 

miles of proposed camping corridor is about 20 percent of the total road miles proposed for 

designation as NFSRs (figure 3). About 500 miles of the proposed camping corridors are in the 

higher elevations in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest, generally the most popular camping 

zone on the CNF. The remaining 128 miles of corridor are in lower elevations of the forest in 

order to accommodate demand for cool season camping and hunting camps. Corridors were 

selected to include about 117 miles of the most popular camping areas along proposed NFSRs. 

These are areas that typically have a dozen or more camping parties—most often recreational 

vehicles (RVs) or camping trailers but including many tent campers as well—clustered along 

NFSRs, usually within 2 miles of a paved highway during many summer weekends. 

Other corridors were selected to accommodate known demand for dispersed camping along 

proposed NFSRs further from the most popular areas. These areas typically have small camping 

parties consisting of 10 of a family or a small group of friends camping together and are often 

occupied on summer weekends. Some of these areas are popular in the fall as campsites for 

hunters. The remaining corridors were selected in areas that have good camping conditions such 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

40 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

as level ground and trees but might not receive much use at present. These were selected to 

accommodate those who might want motorized access to a relatively remote and isolated site on 

the road system and as potential expansion areas should demand exceed the supply of established 

dispersed sites. Demand for motorized access to new campsites would likely increase slowly 

since older established sites are usually numerous enough to meet present demand. 

Total existing demand for dispersed campsites is not clear; however, based on observations of 

camping use by Agency staff, existing dispersed use and demand for dispersed camping for the 

foreseeable future would likely be accommodated within the proposed corridors without undue 

crowding of campsites except for perhaps during the typical highest use weekends such as 

Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day (USDA 2007). Demand for the more popular 

dispersed camp areas along NFSRs closest to primary access roads (generally paved highways 

people use for driving to the CNF) could initially exceed the comfortable “noncrowded” camping 

space available within the corridors during the highest use weekends. During high use weekends, 

people seeking campsites would likely travel further down the NFSRs to use more of the camping 

corridors further from where they turned off of the primary access road. The camping corridors 

further down the NFSRs than the typical distance of less than 2 miles that most campers would 

typically drive for a campsite would likely get most use during high use weekends and when sites 

closer to the primary access roads are more crowded, and would receive much less dispersed 

camping activity during the rest of the year. Some of the proposed camping corridor areas far 

from the primary access roads would receive most use during the fall hunting season.

Implementation of this alternative would require more active management of dispersed camping 

on the CNF. In some respects, dispersed camping management would be simplified since most 

dispersed camping would likely occur along the 628 miles of camping corridors provided for 

dispersed camping instead of along the entire forest road system. Fewer miles of roads used for 

dispersed camping would allow more focused management of the designated camping corridors 

since it is likely that most motorized dispersed camping would occur in the camping corridors 

rather than along the 80 percent of the designated road system that are not within camping 

corridors. 

Limiting camping to the proposed camping corridors is likely to concentrate use in some of the 

more popular and accessible areas during high use periods. People who rely on motorized access 

to specific dispersed campsites not on or near a designated dispersed camping corridor may not 

like loss of motorized access to those favored sites. People seeking motorized access to isolated 

campsites away from the more popular camping areas in order to find solitude would have fewer 

opportunities for motorized access to such sites. People seeking more primitive nonmotorized 

campsites and settings near access roads may have more opportunities to find them. 

Nonnmotorized Activities

Roads to all existing developed forest access sites, such as forest system trailheads and developed 

swimming and fishing sites, would remain open with this alternative. Roads that presently 

provide motorized access to undeveloped sites and areas identified by some people in response to 

the original proposed action as favored recreation destinations for activities such as camping, 

viewing scenery, hunting, and rock climbing were considered for selection as proposed 

designated routes for this alternative. However, some roads and trails identified as important for 

motorized access to nonmotorized activity areas may not have been designated under this 

alternative due to resource concerns such as proximity to important wildlife areas, unstable or 

erosive soils, or archeologically sensitive areas. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 41

People who primarily engage in nonmotorized activities may view restrictions on motorized use 

and access with this alternative as improving the quality of recreation settings and increasing the 

opportunities for nonmotorized recreation activities. The reduced extent of roads and motorized 

trails available for public motorized travel would reduce encounters between people engaged in 

motorized recreation and those seeking nonmotorized forest settings. The potential for conflicts 

between motorized and nonmotorized visitors would be reduced with this alternative. 

Nonmotorized activities would continue to occur across most of the 1,842,809 acres of the CNF, 

except for a portion of the highest elevations of Kachina Peaks Wilderness, where there is an area 

off limits for all visitors to protect a rare plant. A total of 3,280 miles of designated road and 25 

miles of existing motorized trails would continue to be used for motorized access to 

nonmotorized recreation sites and areas. About 1,937 miles of existing NFSRs presently available 

for motorized access to sites and areas popular for nonmotorized recreation activities would be 

closed to public wheeled motorized travel with this alternative. Motorized access to the most 

popular nonmotorized recreation areas such as to wilderness areas would remain with this 

alternative. However, a few desirable sites for nonmotorized recreation expressed by people 

during scoping for this project—such as Kinder Spring near the Mogollon Rim, some scenic vista 

sites overlooking canyons, some archeological ruin sites, and some campsites—would not have 

public motorized access with this alternative. 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative is similar to alternative 3 in its effect on the recreational environment of the CNF. 

Differences in the alternatives relevant to this analysis include: 

• The addition of about 4 miles of unauthorized motorized trail. 

• An additional 227 miles of NFSRs designated from both existing NFSRs and from about 

64 miles of existing but unauthorized roads. 

• A route consisting of 143 miles of roads maintained for high-clearance vehicles, 43 miles 

of roads maintained for passenger cars, and three segments of new motorized trail 

totaling about 1 mile is proposed for a continuous route spanning the CNF that 

emphasizes travel by high-clearance vehicles. The road miles proposed for this “Long 

Route” are also proposed in alternative 3. The 1 mile of new trail is unique to this 

alternative.

• Allowing motorized big game retrieval of legally downed elk for any hunt on the forest 

through October of any year up to a mile off designated roads. 

Recreation Setting

Effects to recreation settings would be similar to alternative 3. This alternative would result in 

slightly more motorized access to the CNF with 227 miles more NFSRs and 4 miles more 

motorized trail than alternative 3. All road miles in addition to those proposed in alternative 3 are 

for high-clearance motorized roads and trails within existing RN and SPM areas of the forest and 

are compatible with ROS setting objectives for those areas. There would be about 1.9 percent

more CNF land (roughly 32,000 acres) within 1⁄2 mile of a designated road or motorized trail in 

alternative 4 (see figure 10) than with alternative 3. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

The Coconino National Forest would meet setting objectives for desired opportunities identified 

in the LRMP for each ROS class under this alternative. Closing about 1,700 miles of existing 

NFSRs would help meet semiprimitive setting objectives in both SPM and SPNM areas by 

increasing opportunities to experience self-reliance, solitude, tranquility, and a natural appearing 

landscape. People seeking a nonmotorized recreation experience in SPNM areas would be about 

as likely as in alternative 3 to find recreation settings away from the sights and sounds of 

motorized activity. 

Additional routes proposed for designation in this alternative were gleaned from public comments 

and include a high proportion of specific routes to places with desirable recreation setting 

characteristics such as vista points, desirable dispersed campsites, productive hunting areas, etc. 

Characteristics of a place that would compel someone to request motorized access to it are likely 

to appeal to others who would eventually drive to that place. Others who prefer nonmotorized 

setting characteristics might view such additional motorized access as detracting from the natural 

characteristics of the destination. 

Scenic Quality 

This alternative would be similar to alternative 3 in its effect on scenic quality but would likely 

retain some existing impacts to scenic quality for a longer period than would alternative 3. The 

additional 227 miles of NFSRs and about 4 miles of NFSTs added to those proposed for 

alternative 3 would have no short- or mid-term effect on scenic quality since no road, designated 

or not, would be removed from the landscape as a direct result of implementing the TMR. Over 

the long term, it is possible that some roads that are closed to public travel and that get little or no 

administrative, permitted, or emergency use would eventually blend with the landscape to such an 

extent that it would become subordinate to the characteristic landscape or disappear. The 227 

additional miles of NFSRs and 4 miles of NFSTs proposed in this alternative in addition to those 

proposed in common with alternative 3 would remain on the landscape and represents an 

additional long-term impact to the natural appearing landscape that would be less likely in 

alternative 3. 

Early season game retrieval allowed with this alternative could result in visible effects to forest 

landscapes within view of routes where people expect to see an undisturbed natural appearing

landscape and that have R or PR VQOs. It is likely that over time some MBGR efforts would 

result in ruts or damage to vegetation that would detract from the scenic quality in some 

instances. Historically, visible damage from MBGR activities was confined mainly to times when 

the roads were wet. Recent implementation of the wet weather road policy during the hunting 

season has helped minimize rutting and other resource damage created by motor vehicles on 

poorly drained NFSRs. 

Recreation Activities

Effects of this alternative on recreation activities are also similar to those of alternative 3. Effects 

on OHV use, collection of forest products, dispersed camping and nonmotorized use are 

essentially the same. Effects on driving for pleasure, motorized trail riding, and game retrieval 

have some differences between the alternatives, as discussed below.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 
44

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Dra
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 45

Driving for Pleasure

All 227 miles of additional road miles in alternative 4 are roads presently maintained for highclearance vehicles. People driving for pleasure on high-clearance roads would have 7 percent 

more roads for this activity. Most people engaged in pleasure driving use roads maintained for 

passenger cars, and since passenger car roads proposed for alternatives 3 and 4 are the same, there 

would be little difference between these alternatives for pleasure driving opportunities. 

Driving Cross-country and on High-clearance Roads and Trails

The addition of Smasher Canyon Trail would add about 3 miles of unauthorized motorized trail to 

the CNF motorized trail system. Long Route consists of 187 miles of existing, mostly highclearance NFSRs that would remain open to all motorized vehicle types (full-size motorized 

vehicles as well as ATVs, dirt bikes, etc.) and about 1 mile total (made up of three short sections 

linking road sections) of new motorized trail open to vehicles less than 50 inches wide. 

Smasher Canyon 

About 3 miles of motorized trail for the specialized activity of “rock crawling” (travel usually by 

specialized high-clearance, four-wheel-drive vehicles driving slowly over a boulder strewn route 

that is typically too rough for standard high-clearance, four-wheel-drive vehicles) is proposed to 

be designated in Smasher Canyon from several miles of existing unauthorized motorized trail 

presently used for rock crawling in both Smasher and Horseshoe Canyons. The proposed trail 

section in Horseshoe Canyon and part of the Smasher Trail section were determined to have 

resource or safety issues that compelled CNF to not carry those portions forward for this 

proposed alternative at this time. Adoption of the about 3 miles of unauthorized motorized trail in 

Smasher Canyon proposed by a four-wheel-drive club in the Verde Valley for addition to the 

existing 25 miles of NFSTs would provide a unique motorized opportunity on the CNF that 

would be within the semiprimitive motorized setting standard objectives of the area. Given the 

ephemeral nature of rock crawling activity (traffic is occasional with long periods of no activity) 

and the likelihood of most tracks produced being obliterated by periodic flooding of the canyon 

floor, the evidence of the activity is likely to be within partial retention visual quality standards 

prescribed for the area. The area does not appear to get regular pedestrian or equestrian traffic and 

so would not create much, if any, conflict with nonmotorized or other motorized users of the area. 

The entire extent of existing unauthorized motorized trails in Smasher and Horseshoe Canyons 

has served as a destination for rock crawler activity over the past several years and has become a 

favored destination for rock crawlers in Arizona. Motorized rock crawling requires specialized 

equipment that tends to limit the numbers of people participating in this activity; therefore, the 

volume of traffic using the proposed trail is likely to be light most of the time with short periods 

(day or weekend) of high use if the site becomes a rock crawler activity destination. It is likely 

Smasher Canyon would receive more motorized traffic since it would be one of the few sites on 

public lands in the area for this activity. Management of the site could become more complex and 

expensive if it does become popular. The OHV club that has proposed Smasher Canyon Trail 

(Verde Valley Four Wheelers) has worked with the CNF through the years to promote responsible 

use of the forest through activities such as forest cleanup efforts to remove abandoned vehicles 

and other evidence of unmanaged recreation. The club has expressed interest in helping the CNF 

manage the proposed Smasher Canyon rock crawler trail through both site management and 

fundraising efforts. Designation of Smasher Canyon Trail would create a unique motorized 

opportunity on the CNF in an area with little potential conflict with other types of recreation use.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Long Route

This route (refer to figure 5, attached), which would be mostly on existing NFSRs with three 

short motorized trail sections, is about 187 miles total length consisting of about 144 miles of 

existing high-clearance road, about 43 miles of passenger car road, and less than a mile total of 

new motorized trail sections that would allow motorized vehicles up to 50 inches wide, all linking 

locations that have supplies available (such as businesses at Clint’s Well, Mormon Lake, 

Mountainaire, Munds Park, Winona, and Bellemont). Long Route was developed in response to 

demand expressed in scoping for long-distance, high-clearance roads and motorized trails. The 

road sections of Long Route are also proposed for designation in alternative 3 but are not linked 

into a continuous connected route. The proposed motorized trail sections consisting of three trail 

sections totaling about a mile would provide shortcuts to connect road sections of the proposed 

route. Long Route would be signed and emphasized on maps as a motorized route for driving 

long distances on designated routes that span the CNF, mostly on high-clearance roads and trails.

The proposed route would span most landform and vegetation types on the forest and would be 

open for all motorized vehicle types, except for the trail sections. Long Route would link to roads 

on the Kaibab NF that link to the Great Western motorized trail. 

This is likely to attract more traffic than the individual sections receive at present or than they 

would collectively receive if Long Route were not emphasized as a viable option for some 

existing motorized activities. The promotion of a specific motorized route such as Long Route 

would simplify management and maintenance of the route while providing a common destination 

for long-distance, high-clearance vehicle travel. It could reduce traffic on other designated 

motorized roads and trails, thereby reducing maintenance needs for those routes while providing 

less crowded setting opportunities for those more inclined to less contact with other motorized 

vehicles. It could provide future opportunities for connecting new road or trail loops (motorized 

and nonmotorized) to Long Route. While the volume of existing or future traffic on the proposed 

route can’t be determined from existing data, it can be assumed that total visits by people on 

motorized vehicles on Long Route would increase while the pattern of use would be similar to the 

existing pattern with summer weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day receiving the 

bulk of the traffic with the three summer holiday weekends receiving substantially more use than 

the other summer weekends. 

Collection of Forest Products 

This alternative would have about 227 more miles of road available for motorized access to forest 

products than alternative 3; otherwise, the effects of this alternative on motorized access to forest 

products would be similar to alternative 3.

Hunting and Game Retrieval

This alternative would allow motorized retrieval of legally downed elk up to a mile from

designated roads up until the end of October or sooner depending on AZGFD scheduling of big 

game hunts. MBGR for early season big game hunts would partially respond to AZGFD’s request 

for big game retrieval in order to meet herd management objectives and to help prevent meat 

spoilage during the warmer part of the hunting season. This alternative would allow motorized 

access through October for big game retrieval to about 80 percent of the CNF outside of 

wilderness areas from the proposed road and motorized trail system while allowing about 20 

percent of the areas outside wilderness to remain available for nonmotorized hunting activities.

This alternative would reduce the risk of meat spoilage compared with alternative 3, since hunters 

could get meat to cooler locations more quickly during warm weather using motorized vehicles.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 47

Allowing MBGR could encourage more hunters to apply for big game permits, thereby helping 

AZGFD meet big game herd objectives. 

In game management units where the majority of the unit occurs on an adjacent national forest, 

the CNF would adopt the policy of that forest regarding motorized big game retrieval. Game 

Management Units 7 West and 8 occur mostly on the Kaibab NF, therefore, the Kaibab NF policy 

regarding MBGR would apply to those portions of the CNF within those game management 

units. 

Hunters who rely on motorized vehicle access for hunting related activities, such as preseason 

scouting for game, hunting for game, and retrieval of legally taken game animals (except for 

retrieval of elk through the end of October), may view the proposed restrictions on motorized 

access as too restrictive. Other hunters who do not rely on motorized vehicle access for hunting 

activities or who prefer to hunt away from the sights and sounds of other people and motorized 

vehicles might view this alternative as an improvement for their hunting experience. 

Motorized Dispersed Camping and Nonmotorized Activities

Both motorized dispersed camping and nonmotorized activities are affected similar to alternative 

3 but with an additional about 227 miles of NFSRs (about 7.5 percent more miles) open for public 

motorized access and roadside parking. The additional road mileage that would allow more 

roadside parking allows somewhat more opportunity for motorized access to dispersed campsites 

outside of the about 628 miles of camping corridor proposed for both alternatives as well as more 

motorized access to areas and sites used for nonmotorized activities.

Cumulative Effects

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. In order to understand the contribution of 

past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies 

on current recreation setting and scenic resource conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past 

actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions 

and natural events that are difficult to quantify that have affected the recreation environment and 

might contribute to cumulative effects. Existing conditions are a result of past and present 

impacts to recreation settings and scenic resources. These effects are described under alternative

1, the no action alternative.

Reasonably foreseeable actions that could affect recreation settings and scenic resources are 

planning and construction of trails (motorized and nonmotorized), reauthorizations of livestock 

grazing allotments, forest thinning and fuels reduction projects, and utility construction projects. 

Permitted activities such as recreation events and group gatherings could result in unauthorized 

roads and motorized trails on the forest landscape. The resulting evidence of motorized activity 

could be inconsistent with primitive or nonmotorized recreation setting objectives for some areas 

when added to the effect of existing roads and motorized trails. However, these activities would 

be planned to be consistent with existing CNF recreation setting and scenic integrity objectives 

and would have mitigation measures for short-term impacts that may occur from project 

implementation. 

New motorized trails may contribute to impacts to recreation settings or scenery. A continuation 

of the present policies and management direction would result in a continued accumulation of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

unauthorized motorized trails and roads on the landscape. Livestock grazing permits and 

associated motorized activity would continue to be managed under the terms of those permits and 

are not expected to contribute additional changes to recreation settings or to scenic quality when 

added to other ongoing trends to those resources. Forest thinning and fuels reduction projects 

would continue as planned and would incorporate design measures and, if needed, mitigation 

measures to comply with CNF plan objectives for the recreation environment. There are presently 

utility construction projects such as the Grapevine transmission line project, the water tank and 

pipeline proposed for NFS land near Sedona, and the proposed road to a private in-holding on the 

forest within the Sedona city limits undergoing analysis or design that would potentially 

contribute visible elements to the landscape that would add additional impacts to scenic and 

recreation resources on the CNF. Utility projects such as those outlined above would likely 

continue to be proposed and implemented, and would continue to be executed to minimize those 

impacts to meet existing resource objectives. 

Comparison of Alternatives

Overall, implementation of alternative 1 would eventually result in reduced scenic quality in areas 

more popular for motorized recreation activities and would reduce the diversity and distribution

of recreation settings appropriate to a forest landscape. Implementation of alternative 3 or 4 

would eventually result in improved scenic conditions when compared to the existing condition 

(alternative 1 – no action) and would help retain a diversity of recreation settings appropriate to a 

forest landscape. Alternative 3 has about 7.5 percent fewer miles of NFSRs and about 14 percent 

fewer miles of NFSTs than alternative 4 and so results in somewhat less contrast with the natural 

appearing landscape and some more opportunities for nonmotorized recreation setting attributes 

than alternative 4. Conversely, alternative 4 offers more opportunities for motorized recreation 

activity than alternative 3 but far less than alternative 1.

Therefore, alternative 1 would have additional adverse impacts that would cumulatively affect 

recreation and scenic resources. The total sum of cumulative adverse impacts (past, present and 

reasonable foreseeable actions) under the existing condition and, therefore, under alternative 1 

would be more than for either of the action alternatives (alternatives 3 and 4). 

There are no present or reasonably foreseeable activities planned for the CNF that would 

cumulatively add effects to those resulting from implementation of alternatives 3 and 4. 

Therefore, implementation of alternatives 3 and 4 would have no additional adverse impacts that 

would cumulatively affect recreation resources. 

Resource Monitoring

In order to ensure that excessive resource damage is not being caused by motorized recreation 

activities, it will be necessary to monitor the effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads and 

trails and in the Cinder Hills OHV Area. This can be conducted by forest personnel during their 

day-to-day travels on the CNF.

Socioeconomics

This a summary of the analysis on the economic effects of implementing the Travel Management 

Rule to the counties encompassing the CNF by designating a system of roads, trails, and areas 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 49

and amending the LRMP to prohibit cross-country motorized travel to comply with the final rule.

See “Kim 2009” in the project record for the detailed economic analysis.

Motorized travel is the focus of this analysis, with some references to nonmotorized uses for 

context within the full range of recreation activities on the forest. In response to public comment, 

the forest has approached the economic analysis by using two different methods; one forestspecific (NVUM data) and the other county-wide (Silberman 2002). In comparing the two 

methods of determining economic impact, it is important to recognize that they are not easily 

compared side by side. The two methods use different baseline data, the one area where 

comparison was attempted is labor income. Labor income is used in the following summary. 

Affected Environment

The Coconino National Forest comprises approximately 1.83 million acres in north-central 

Arizona that includes parts of Coconino and Yavapai Counties. The majority of the forest lies 

within Coconino County with a substantial area within Yavapai County. The CNF area adjacent to 

Gila County is small by comparison. Flagstaff and Sedona are the major cities located within the 

boundaries of the forest. The Phoenix metropolitan area (estimated population of about 4.2 

million) is about a 2-hour drive from the forest. Many forest users come from this area.

The analysis area includes Coconino, Gila, and Yavapai Counties. Recreation visits to the CNF 

from these counties totaled about 20 percent of total recreation use with about 15 percent from 

Coconino County, about 5 percent from Yavapai County, and less than 1 percent from Gila 

County. Approximately 30 percent of total recreation visits to the CNF including both motorized 

and non-motorized recreation use are from Maricopa County, which includes the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. About half of all visits to the forest originate from out of state or from other 

countries (USDA 2006). 

Data available to the CNF does not define what percent of total motorized recreation use on the 

forest originates from a specific county or city. The combined OHV motorized use originating in 

Maricopa County and traveling to Coconino and Yavapai Counties is, however, approximately 70

percent of the total OHV activity reported for those counties and presumably for the CNF

(Silberman 2003). Most of the remaining OHV use is most likely from communities such as 

Flagstaff, Sedona, and Camp Verde. 

Currently, the forest allows cross-country travel on about 83 percent of its 1.83 million acres. The 

other 13 percent that is not open to cross-country travel is either designated as wilderness, closed 

by forest order, or restricted to seasonal use and, therefore, closed all or part of the year (figure 2).

Motorized users currently have access to approximately 5,154 miles of NFSRs consisting of 727 

miles of road prescribed for passenger car travel and 4,427 miles of road maintained for highclearance vehicles. There are currently 25 miles of NFSTs on the forest. In addition to the forest 

system roads and motorized trails, there are hundreds of miles of unauthorized roads and trails 

throughout the CNF. The changes that are proposed would reduce the total NFSR miles to 

between 3,280 and 3,507 miles. NFSTs would total between 25 and 29 miles depending on the 

alternative.

For the general social and economic conditions and trend analysis of the surrounding areas, see 

the “Coconino National Forest Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment” (USDA 2008) 

for its LRMP revision efforts. Table 12 shows the overall economic conditions of the three 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

adjacent counties. According to the latest county business pattern report from the Bureau of 

Census (Bureau of Census 2006), there were a total of 121,931 jobs in these three counties 

(Coconino, Gila and Yavapai) in 11,392 business establishments. These businesses paid a total of 

about 3.4 billion dollars in their payroll. 

Table 11. Change in median income (U.S. Bureau of Census)

County 1999 2007 Percent Change

Coconino $38,256 $48,549 27% 

Gila $30,917 $34,761 12% 

Yavapai $34,901 $44,268 27% 

Table 12. Change in population by county over time (U.S. Bureau of Census)

County

Historical Projected

1980 1990 2000 2008

Percent 

Change

2010 2020 2030

Percent 

Change

Coconino 75,008 96,591 116,320 128,558 71% 141,457 159,345 173,829 23% 

Gila -------- 40,216 51,335 52,166 30% 57,766 64,396 69,879 21% 

Yavapai 68,145 107,714 167,517 215,503 216% 241,667 305,343 355,462 47% 

Coconino, Gila and Yavapai Counties have experienced steady growth in population and median 

income since the 1980s with each of the counties expected to see continual growth throughout the 

next 30 years (table 12). Yavapai County experienced explosive growth over the past 20 years of 

about 215 percent, over twice the population increase of Arizona as a whole. Population growth 

in Yavapai County is expected to slow to a rate (47 percent) that is expected to be twice that of 

Coconino County. Gila County has experienced growth that is slower than the other two counties 

and this trend is expected to continue.

Public Forest Uses

Use on the forest for the purposes of this analysis can be simplified into two basic categories: 

motorized activities and nonmotorized activities. 

In 2005, the forest conducted a national visitor use monitoring (NVUM) survey. The results 

indicate that the forest had an estimated total of 3.25 million national forest visits (NFVs). It is 

difficult to characterize total motorized versus nonmotorized use on the CNF from the available 

data since specific activities such as hunting (about 2.3 percent of responses listed for primary 

reason for visit) could include both modes of access. The most recent and most specific survey 

data for the CNF shows that when visitors were asked to define the primary activity they came to 

the forest to pursue, about 56 percent of responses were for inherently nonmotorized activities 

such as hiking, skiing or biking, while about 9 percent was for inherently motorized activities 

such as driving for pleasure, motorized trail use, or driving OHVs on the forest (USDA 2006) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 51

(table 9). The remaining about 35 percent of activities such as viewing natural features (about 21 

percent) and relaxing (about 8 percent) were considered as neutral in terms of identifying the 

mode of transportation for the activity. Comparisons between the 2 years surveyed on the CNF 

(USDA 2001 and USDA 2006) shows both motorized and nonmotorized activities increased at 

about the same rate in the 5 years between surveys.

Comparison of the two economic contribution scenarios in relation to the total payroll of the three 

encompassing counties reveals that the total contribution of all recreation on the CNF is very 

small in comparison to the total county economies whatever scenario is considered. Motorized 

use is estimated to have labor income of a little over 3 million dollars which, as a function of the 

three county estimated labor income, is less than one-tenth of one percent. Nonmotorized labor 

income, while many times larger, represents approximately one quarter of 1 percent of the total 

three county labor income (Kim 2009). 

Environmental Consequences 

The economic effects would be mostly short term. The effects to jobs and income in the impact 

area studied from any of the alternatives considered are a very small portion of the overall jobs 

and income, less than 1 percent. In the long term, most economic effects would be absorbed by 

the whole economy. For example, after experiencing increases or decreases in sales, most 

businesses would adjust their business structure to accommodate the changes (Kim 2009). The 

following analysis focuses on effects to motorized recreation on the CNF and the resultant effect 

on the social and economic environment of the counties encompassing the forest. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Approximately 93 percent of the forest, totaling about 1.68 million acres, would remain open to 

public motorized cross-country travel along with about 5,154 miles of NFSTs and 25 miles of 

NFSTs. In addition, public access to hundreds of miles of unauthorized roads and motorized trails 

would remain. 

Under this alternative, the economic contributions of motorized recreation are expected to grow. 

Total activity participation in inherently motorized activities on the CNF grew about 27 percent

from 2001 to 2005, and the number of visits attributed to motorized activity as the primary reason 

for the visit to the forest grew 6 percent. If this trend continues, the economic contributions of 

motorized recreation are expected to be larger than now as expenditures for trips and for 

purchasing and maintaining vehicles and equipment would increase. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would limit access to the forest to the designated system and some designated 

routes may experience more traffic as options for travel routes decrease. Reducing the miles of 

road open for public driving and eliminating cross-country driving without a permit could be seen 

as too restrictive by some people who might then not visit the forest. Motorized recreation 

activities identified as the primary reason for visiting the CNF totaled about 9.2 percent of 

recreation visits during 2005 (USDA 2006). It is likely that a large percentage of present forest 

visitors would continue to come from the Phoenix metropolitan area, including for motorized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

recreation on the CNF to enjoy the cool climate and forest scenery. The general demographic 

distribution of visitors (age, gender, ethnicity, income) would likely not change as a result of this 

alternative.

The inability to retrieve big game by motorized means might discourage some hunters who 

otherwise would engage in hunting. Other hunters who would rather use nonmotorized methods 

for hunting could view no MBGR as adding to their hunting experience, which could encourage 

their participation in hunting activity. 

The change in motorized access is likely to enhance opportunities to experience solitude, 

tranquility, and relative wildness, and to recreate away from the sights and sounds of others. 

Dispersed recreation patterns for people visiting to engage primarily in motorized activities on the 

CNF would be affected by this alternative as described in the “Recreation” section of this draft 

environmental impact statement. It is likely that the effect of this alternative on nonmotorized 

activities would be minimal. The current dispersed camping use can likely be accommodated 

within the about 628 miles of dispersed camping corridors proposed in this alternative. Motorized 

access to places important to some people or groups of people would be restricted with 

implementation of this alternative, and the total number of people that would be affected is not 

known. 

The net effect of this alternative would likely not result in measurable change, using the methods 

and models available to and used by the forest for this analysis, to either the social or economic 

environment of the three counties encompassing the CNF (Kim 2009). 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The economic effects of this alternative would be similar to those of alternative 3; however, this 

alternative adds about 4 miles of motorized trail (about 16 percent more trail than alternative 3) 

and 227 miles of designated road (about 8 percent more road than alternative 3). In addition, it 

would emphasize long-distance motorized trail activity by people riding dirt bikes, ATVs, OHVs 

and other high-clearance vehicles on 187 miles of NFSRs that would make up Long Route. While 

alternative 4 would add some opportunities for motorized use compared with alternative 3, the 

overall difference between the effects of the two alternatives on the economic and social 

environment of the affected area is too small to calculate in this analysis.

The ability to retrieve elk through the end of October for the elk hunting season might encourage 

some hunters who otherwise would not engage in hunting to do so. Other hunters who would 

rather use nonmotorized methods for hunting could view this exemption as detrimental to their 

hunting experience and so might not hunt during the early part of the elk season. The net effect on 

hunting activity and, therefore, on the economic impacts of hunting on local economies is 

expected to stay the same as now for the foreseeable future; that is the total number of hunters 

would continue to be determined by the number of big game tags issued by the AZGFD. 

The net effect of this alternative would likely not result in measurable change, using the methods 

and models available to and used by the CNF for this analysis, to either the social or economic 

environment of the three counties encompassing the forest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 53

Cumulative Effects

There are no known activities that would add cumulatively to the effects to the social or economic 

environment of the three counties encompassing the CNF resulting from implementation of the 

alternatives. 

Environmental Justice Assessment Summary

Environmental justice is an executive order (EO 12898) which requires that each Federal agency

make achieving the environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations. 

None of the alternatives would have a disproportionate effect on any minority or low income 

communities as the travel management decisions are spread throughout the forest and the region

and do not cause any adverse environmental effect to any particular community. The effects to 

jobs and income in the impact area studied are a very small portion of the overall jobs and 

income, less than 1 percent (Kim 2009). Any losses in motorized use are likely to be made up for 

in continued increases expected for total recreation use on the CNF. 

Potentially affected tribes have been consulted and effects on their rights and concerns have been 

considered within the analysis of alternatives (refer to the “Contemporary Indian Uses” section of 

this document for an analysis of effects on tribal entities). American Indian populations will not 

be disproportionately impacted under any alternative with avoidance of heritage resources, 

consideration of traditional values, and reasonable access allowed through agreements, permits, 

and recognition of their sovereignty and legal rights. 

Heritage Resources

This is a summary of the effects to heritage resources for the TMR. For the full specialist report, 

please refer to the project record at the CNF Supervisor’s Office.

Affected Environment

For the past 34 years, the CNF has conducted an active program of cultural resources 

management. During this time, archaeologists have sampled approximately 40 percent of the 

forest with intensive archaeological surveys, resulting in documentation in both paper and 

electronic formats for about 10,000 archaeological sites. These sites cover the complete range of 

human activity known in the Southwest, ranging from isolated Clovis points, the earliest evidence 

for humans in the New World and dating to approximately 11,500 years ago, to an area used from 

1968-1972 to train Apollo astronauts for their landing on the moon. Collectively, these heritage 

resources, or cultural resources, are managed under three broad classifications: isolated 

occurrences, such as an arrowhead or an abandoned Model-T Ford; archaeological sites, such as a 

prehistoric pueblo or a pioneer’s cabin; and traditional cultural properties, places of historical and 

cultural significance, such as the San Francisco Peaks or the Red Rock country near Sedona. 

In addition to the rare Clovis points, hunter-gatherer sites from the Archaic period, dating to about 

9,000 B.C. to A.D. 600, are also found, particularly in the Sedona area. But the majority of sites 

on the forest date from A.D. 600 to 1400 and represent various agricultural groups, including 

Northern and Southern Sinagua, Cohonina, Kayenta Anasazi, Winslow Anasazi, Hohokam, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Mogollon. The Sinagua culture was centered in the Flagstaff and Verde Valley areas and most of 

the sites representing the Northern and Southern Sinagua traditions are located on the Coconino 

National Forest. Sites of the Apache, Hopi, Navajo, Havasupai, Hualapai, Yavapai, and Zuni are 

fewer in number, in part because they are more difficult to recognize. The earliest Europeans were 

Spanish explorers who entered the Verde Valley in 1521. But it was not until the 1850s that 

ranchers, farmers, and loggers, representing many ethnicities and cultures, began to settle the land 

that today is the Coconino National Forest. 

Of the approximately 7,509 miles of road on the forest, roughly 3,373 miles (45 percent) have

been inventoried by archaeologists. This number includes 73 miles (4,270 acres) of new survey 

along roads in high site density areas, locating an additional 55 sites. As of the end of the 2009 

field season, only 28 more miles of roads remain to be surveyed in order to provide complete 

archaeological survey coverage for all roads in high site density zones that are proposed to remain 

open under both alternatives 3 and 4. Collectively, this dataset has been used to evaluate the 

potential effects on cultural resources that would result from the various alternatives that have 

been proposed for the Travel Management Rule (TMR). 

As part of the documentation for archaeological sites, an estimate of the condition of a site is 

made and, if damage is present, the cause of that damage is identified. Based on the current 

information available in the electronic data files, about half (48 to 51 percent) of sites on the 

forest are undisturbed except for normal erosion that has occurred over time. For sites that have 

been impacted by other sources, road use and related activities are the most significant source of 

site damage, affecting 9 to 16 percent of sites. (The 9 percent figure reflects results of updated 

Nov. 29 analysis.) Data specific to damage related to off-highway vehicle and motorized camping 

use, however, is not readily available. Information on road related site damage is only 

summarized in forest data files to the extent that it is road related, and does not indicate if it is due 

to OHV or other vehicular related causes. Activities related to recreational use are responsible for 

damaging an additional 4 percent of sites. Vandalism and illegal digging have disturbed 7 percent

of forest sites and are activities sometimes related to OHV use, which provides access to sites, 

often in remote parts of the forest. OHV use is also partly responsible for additional site damage 

associated with other illegal activities, such as dumping trash, creation of unauthorized roads, and 

illegal firewood cutting. Some of the most significant sites on the forest, such as Winona Village, 

a National Historic Landmark, and the Ridge Ruin, Clear Creek, and Chavez Pass National 

Register Districts, have been seriously impacted by these activities. Remaining sources of damage 

are related to various past activities such as forest fire suppression, logging activities, 

construction, juniper control, grazing, and minerals use (mostly borrow pits). Within the roads 

and recreation categories, data specific to off-highway vehicle and motorized camping related 

damage is not readily available. 

Currently about 1,686,438 acres are open to cross-country travel. A portion of this area is limited 

to off-road vehicle use due to topography and vegetation, and some more easily accessible areas 

have higher concentrations of use than other areas. Based on CNF recreation use data, the trend 

over the past years has indicated there is increasing recreation use of the forest, including crosscountry travel use.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 55

Environmental Consequences 

There is a strong correlation between OHV impacted soils and impacted heritage sites. OHV and 

camping impacts contribute to the unsatisfactory soil conditions found on 38 percent of the forest 

and to many archaeological sites. 

• Continued motorized use of the forest can directly and indirectly affect archaeological 

sites, particularly when roads are muddy. Besides creating ruts, duplicate routes are 

created that result in additional rutting and damage. 

• Vehicles driving through sites can expose and destroy archaeological deposits and 

features as well as artifacts. 

• Motorized vehicle use compacts and mixes soil stratigraphy, causes soil loss, and disturbs 

vegetation, actions which can also increase erosion. 

• Tire treads pick up and displace several centimeters of soil. Compaction of soil reduces 

water infiltration, making plant regeneration difficult, especially in semiarid areas which 

are typical over much of the highest site density areas of the forest. Loss of vegetation 

can result in increased erosion and gully formation from wind and sheet wash. 

• Indirect impacts of mechanized vehicular access can result in increased vandalism to 

petroglyph and pictograph sites as well as an increase in looting and illegal digging in 

sites. 

Damage by existing roads has already taken place due to years of previous use and additional 

disturbance will likely continue to occur. Therefore, any reduction in the miles of existing roads 

where sites have been impacted will result in a positive improvement in site conditions. Because 

of this, the travel management protocol (see below) agreed to by the State Historic Preservation 

Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, has determined existing roads are 

exempt from further Section 106 consultation. Nonetheless, the trend of increased use of the 

miles of road and acres of CNF will continue, increasing the potential to affect archaeological 

resources to various degrees. 

The 13,711 acres within the Cinder Hills OHV Area would remain open in all alternatives. All 

trails and roads within this area have been surveyed in the past, finding 26 sites. Roads impacting 

sites were relocated at that time to avoid any further damage to sites (DeYoung et al. 2002, 

Harper 1995, Logan 1995, Maloney 2001). 

Each alternative under consideration would continue to provide motorized access to areas that are 

presently available, although the amount of roads that would remain open is different, as outlined 

below. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would continue to provide access to the 1,686,438 acres currently open to crosscountry travel. It would also continue to affect an estimated 1,962 to 3,274 (an average of 2,618) 

sites that are currently being impacted in part or entirely by road use on the existing road system. 

Continued road use allowed by this alternative would continue to degrade some archaeological 

sites; impacts may have already occurred on other sites that would not be further degraded 

beyond the extent that has already taken place. Some improvement in the condition of sites 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

56 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

presently cut by roads, or sites that have roads leading to them, can be expected should those 

roads be closed. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 could continue to affect a predicted 831 and up to 1,398 (an average of 1,122) sites 

that have already been affected by road use. These sites are currently being impacted in part or 

entirely by the road use and related activities on the existing road system. Ongoing use will 

continue to affect sites associated with the road system. The reduction in sites impacted is a result 

of the reduction in overall road miles that would be open to public use. Access to the 1,686,438 

acres currently open to cross-country travel would be eliminated. This would reduce the potential 

for impacts to heritage sites on these acres from motorized use and access. The 13,711 acres 

within the Cinder Hills OHV Area is an area with low heritage site density, which would remain 

open under this alternative. 

Corridors in high site density areas designated for motorized dispersed camping would be 

surveyed to identify and evaluate sites to determine if potential conflicts exist between 

archaeological sites, traditional uses, and dispersed camping. Dispersed camping on the forest has 

been available for many years, and efforts have been made to keep popular camping areas 

available in designated corridors. However, if such conflicts are found to exist, or are determined 

likely, that corridor segment would be excluded from corridor designation. Such surveys were 

initiated in 2009 in high site density corridors that had not previously been surveyed, following 

the standards established in the TMR protocol (see below). About 73 miles of road were surveyed 

for a width of 300 feet on either side of the roads and 55 previously unknown sites were recorded. 

These numbers are not included in this analysis. These recently surveyed 73 miles of roads are 

currently being analyzed to determine their suitability for camping corridors. Only 28 more miles 

remain to be surveyed in high site density areas. These surveys will be completed and analyzed as 

potential camping corridors before they are shown on the motor vehicle use map as being 

available for public use.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 could affect a predicted 864 to 1,474 sites (an average of 1,169) that have already 

been affected by road use. Access to the 1,686,438 acres currently open to cross-country travel 

would be eliminated. This would reduce the potential for impacts to heritage sites on these acres 

from motorized use and access. The 13,711 acres within the Cinder Hills OHV Area is an area

with low heritage site density which would remain open alternative 4. 

About 40 to 43 percent of roads and trails proposed to be left open have received some level of 

archaeological survey (see tables 2 and 12 in the full specialist report (this does not include miles 

surveyed via contract in Oct. 2009, which brings the percentage surveyed up to 45 percent)).

Corridors designated for motorized dispersed camping would be evaluated to determine the 

location and extent of archaeological survey needed to decide which areas should be open or 

closed to motorized camping. Sites susceptible to damage by camping would be excluded from 

corridor designation prior to corridor establishment. In 2009, surveys were initiated along 

proposed corridors in areas of high site density that had not been previously surveyed. 

Approximately 73 miles were covered for a distance of 300 feet on either side of the roads, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 57

locating 55 previously unknown sites. These recently surveyed 73 miles of roads are currently 

being analyzed to determine their suitability for camping corridors. Only 28 more miles remain to 

be surveyed in high site density areas. These surveys will be completed and analyzed as potential 

camping corridors before they are shown on the motor vehicle use map as being available for 

public use. 

Motor vehicle use for big game retrieval would be allowed for elk hunts only. The limited amount 

of motorized use associated with this activity would have minimal impacts to heritage resources.

This is based on the determination that only a small amount of cross-country travel would be 

associated with this activity. The percentage of successful hunts, as compared to the number of 

permits issued for elk hunts from the beginning of September through October 31, would mean 

that only a limited number of hunters would be traveling up to 1 mile from any designated NFSR 

for the purpose of motorized big game retrieval. Because of the dispersed nature and limited 

impacts of this activity, no additional cultural resource surveys will be conducted. 

Cumulative Effects

All alternatives would have cumulative effects associated with activities that typically occur on a 

national forest. Land management activities that characterize normal operations throughout the 

forest include vegetation management (timber sales, prescribed burns, thinning, and weed 

eradication), grazing, construction of permitted roads and facilities, ongoing maintenance and 

management of facilities, trail construction and repair, and fire suppression activities. With the 

exception of emergencies such as fire suppression, all projects have cultural resources review, as 

per 3 CFR 800 and the region’s programmatic memorandum of agreement to avoid or minimize 

effects to sites. However, with the reduction of roads available for project and public use, and 

projections of increased use of the forest in the future, unanticipated impacts are likely to occur 

simply through using roads during project activities, as well as general use by the public. On the 

other hand, alternatives 3 and 4 will reduce overall cumulative effects by eliminating crosscountry travel and, by reducing the number of roads available, reducing the amount of land 

subject to ground disturbance by vehicle use. 

Comparison of Alternatives

From the perspective of heritage concerns, comparison of the alternatives is based upon the 

potential number of sites that might be affected by each alternative. Identification of roads left 

open and determining the locations of corridors available for motorized camping is based upon 

their potential archaeological site densities as indicated by a predictive model based on the 

forest’s terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES). The TES is a system for classifying the natural 

environment of the forest using a combination of soil type, underlying geology, vegetation, 

aspect, precipitation, and other environmental variables. The potential site density of each TES 

unit was determined by dividing the total number of sites recorded within each TES unit by the 

number of acres surveyed within that unit to determine a figure for sites per acre. This was then 

multiplied by 640 (the number of acres in a square mile) to obtain an estimate of sites per square 

mile. The numbers of TES units having the same site density were plotted as a histogram and by 

observing breaks and spikes within the histogram, five site density classes were identified, as 

shown in table 13. 

When plotted on a map of the forest, it can be seen that the density classes generally correspond 

with vegetation zones (see appendix B). The lowest site densities are in the ponderosa pine zone 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

58 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

above 7,500 feet elevation and the ponderosa pine/mixed conifer zone, while the highest site 

densities occur in the pinyon/juniper vegetation zone. 

Table 13. Site density classes as defined for the Coconino 

National Forest 

Site Density Class Estimated Sites per Square Mile

Very Low 0 

Low 1-10

Medium 11-20

High 21-30

Very High 30+

Table 14. Existing miles of road and trail by site density class and percent surveyed

Site Density Class

Miles 

of 

Road

Road 

Miles 

Surveyed

Percent

of Roads 

Surveyed

Miles 

of Trail

Trail 

Miles 

Surveyed

Percent 

of Trails 

Surveyed

Low 4,431 1,976 26% 34 19 16% 

Medium 923 372 5% 7 3 3% 

High 2170 902 12% 77 45 38% 

Total Surveyed N/A 3,250 43% N/A 67 57 % 

No Survey N/A 4,274 57% N/A 51 43% 

Grand Total* 7,524 7,524 100% 118 118 100%

*These mileage totals do not match the other mileage figures used throughout this document exactly since a different 

dataset is used. The differences are so minor that they are considered to be negligible and imply that the surveys are

comprehensive.

For ease of analysis in comparing the alternatives for open roads, motorized trails, and dispersed 

camping corridors, the five density classes were reduced to three by combining the very low and 

low classes, and the very high and high classes. Table 14 summarizes the miles of roads and trails 

on the forest by site density class and how much of each has been surveyed for archaeological 

sites. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 have few differences from the perspective of managing and improving the 

condition of archaeological sites on the CNF. Table 16 indicates the difference in miles of road 

and acreage closed, and the heritage sites associated with road miles. Both alternatives 3 and 4 

would prohibit cross-country driving, and both would allow camping within 300 feet on either 

side of approximately 20 percent of designated roads. Of the 628 miles of corridors identified 

under alternatives 3 and 4, approximately 500 miles are located in the low site density zone. Due 

to the low site density of the high ponderosa and ponderosa/mixed conifers zones, and the fact 

that 46 percent of these roads have already received some degree of archaeological survey, it will 

be determined with SHPO concurrence that roads, motorized trails, and camping corridors in 

these vegetation zones can be approved with no further surveys. Selected sites within those zones 

may result in some areas being excluded from listing, however. The remaining 128 corridor 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 59

miles, in medium to high site density pinyon/juniper zones, will be surveyed and sensitive sites 

excluded before those corridors are authorized. These surveys have already been initiated and are 

currently under analysis. In designating corridors for dispersed mechanized camping, an effort 

has been made to include areas that have historically been popular camping locations unless they 

contain archaeological sites that are being adversely affected by camping related activities.

Corridors identified by new surveys where conflicts are likely between cultural values and 

recreational values will not be identified on the MVUM as being available for motorized 

camping. 

Under alternative 4, motorized trail segments that have not previously been impacted by road 

development would receive archaeological surveys and any sites found would be avoided by 

rerouting the motorized trail. The two motorized routes under consideration in Alternative 4—

Lower Smasher Canyon and Long Route—largely consist of existing roads, where site impacts 

have already taken place. Preliminary survey suggests a low site density for Smasher Canyon.

Long Route is about 187 miles long and is primarily in low site density areas. However, about 38 

miles of the proposed route go through areas of high archaeological density, including the Winona 

Village National Historic Landmark. In general, additional human and vehicular traffic through 

high site density areas is generally not desirable from a cultural resources perspective and makes 

alternative 4 less desirable than the other two alternatives. Routing Long Route through the 

Winona Village National Historic Landmark would be considered an adverse effect requiring full 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and Hopi Tribe. Consultation would result in a memorandum of agreement and a 

mitigation plan to minimize adverse impacts that may occur with increased use and traffic in the 

landmark area.

Although specific documentation of impacts to sites due to motorized game retrieval is not 

readily available, it is the professional opinion of archaeologists that this activity has little, if any, 

effect on archaeological sites. This is based on the small amount of cross-country travel that 

would legally occur for this activity, according to data showing the amount of permitted elk 

hunters and the average success ratio of these hunters to arrive at the number of hunters who 

would be eligible to legally retrieve game, and not all of these people would use motorized 

vehicles.

Table 15. Summary of open and closed road miles, acreage, and number of sites 

impacted by roads

Alternative 1 – No 

Action

Alternative 3 – Modified 

Proposed Action Alternative 4

Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed

Miles 7,509 0 3,231 4,292 3,458 4,065 

Acres 1,686,438 156,371 13,711 1,829,098 13,711 1,829,098

Sites* 1,962- 3,274 0 831 -1,398 1,131 - 1,877 864 –1,474 1,099- 1,800

*Sites that occur within road corridors

The Southwestern Region of the Forest Service has previously developed protocols to ensure 

compliance with various laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and policies related to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

identification and protection of heritage resources that minimize any additional differences 

between alternatives 3 and 4. 

Travel Management Consultation Protocol

The Southwestern Region has a programmatic agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation and State Historic Preservation Officers within the region that details Forest Service 

responsibilities for complying with legal responsibilities related to heritage resources. As a result,

the forest will comply with the protocol in lieu of the 36 CRF 800 regulations. This agreement 

provides for the development of standard consultation protocols for common or special 

undertakings, such as the Travel Management Rule. By following the procedures of the 

programmatic agreement and the protocol that has been developed to deal specifically with the 

Travel Management Rule, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer have agreed that the Forest Service will satisfy legal requirements for the 

identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties. These protocols will be used to 

identify sites and assess the impacts to those sites associated with the designation of roads, trails 

and areas (including motorized camping corridors). 

The “Standard Consultation Protocol for Travel Management Route Designation” identifies 

scenarios that would and would not need consultation, as well as standards for dealing with 

cultural resources. It authorizes the forest archaeologist to determine the level of inventory 

needed for a TMR activity based on past and future use levels, types of motorized use, 

topography, soils, vegetation, previous archaeological surveys, site types, site densities, predictive 

models and overviews, historic information, and tribal consultations. However, 100 percent

surveys are required where site density is expected to be high, where site densities are unknown 

but visitor use or impacts will be high, where significant historic roads, trails, and related features 

occur, and when new road and motorized trail construction is proposed. Surveys at less than 100

percent are acceptable where site density is low and where prior use has already disturbed the 

road, trail, or area and continued use is not expected to cause additional significant damage to 

heritage resources. Survey widths are recommended to be 197 feet (60 meters) on either side of a 

road, and limited subsurface testing within a roadbed to determine the presence or absence of 

cultural deposits is allowed. 

The guidelines of the protocol will be followed for all travel management route designations. 

Resource Monitoring

Known sites would be monitored periodically during the day-to-day activities of forest personnel 

in the field, to keep track of their condition if they are along open roads, or to determine the rate 

and extent to which they are becoming revegetated and naturalized, if they are along roads that 

are closed. The “Heritage” section also has several active volunteer programs, such as the Arizona 

Site Stewards, Arizona Archaeological Society, and Friends of the Forest, that routinely monitor 

sites. They will continue to monitor sites throughout the forest, with priority being given to sites 

listed on the National Register, back-country sites subject to high visitation, sites with erosion

problems, and sites near areas of intensive public use. Sites in or near camping corridors would be 

added to monitoring priorities to determine if they are being impacted and if changes to corridor 

designations need to be made.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 61

Contemporary Indian Uses

Affected Environment

The American Indian people of the Southwest have a relationship and respect for the land that 

extends back into antiquity. To many, their people have been here for centuries, with roots in the 

various prehistoric traditions that once lived on the land now delineated as the Coconino National 

Forest. One of the most important places to virtually all tribes in the Southwest is the San 

Francisco Peaks, but they are particularly important to the Hopi and Navajo. Other examples of 

this for the Yavapai people include the Red Rock country around Sedona and Montezuma Well, a 

national monument within the Coconino National Forest. The Dil zhé’ é (Tonto Apache) also hold 

Montezuma Well as a significant place in addition to Fossil Creek, an important area for their 

culture and history. 

The forest routinely consults 13 tribes about proposed projects and management policies. These 

are the: Pueblo of Acoma, Apache (San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, and Yavapai-Apache Nation), Havasupai Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Hopi 

Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, and Yavapai (YavapaiPrescott Tribe, Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation, and Yavapai-Apache Nation). Specific 

consultations are also conducted with various Navajo Chapters that border the forest—Cameron, 

Coalmine, Dilcon, Gap-Bodaway, Leupp, Tolani Lake, and Tuba City. Besides public scoping 

activities—such as open houses, meetings, presentations, newspaper articles, information on the 

forest Web page, etc.—special efforts were made to consult with tribal groups living in proximity 

to the forest and known to use the forest and collect forest products for religious and ceremonial 

purposes (see chapter 4, “Tribal Consultations”). Among the concerns expressed was the potential 

for damage and desecration to traditional cultural properties and sacred places as the number of 

people using motor vehicles for recreation purposes on the forest increases. Similarly, increased 

off-road use may threaten or destroy seasonal or scarce plant populations. Overcollection of 

plants used for ceremonial and traditional purposes by non-tribal people is another concern 

resulting from increased visitation, access to plant collecting areas, and off-road vehicular use. 

The Coconino National Forest is important to the tribes for many reasons, but the most common 

uses can be roughly summarized by six general categories:

1. Traditional cultural properties, including natural features such as mountains, springs, 

shrines, and other places where people go to give prayers and offerings. 

2. Collecting forest products such as plants, soil, pigments, and water for ceremonial, 

medicinal, and other traditional uses.

3. Collecting firewood for ceremonial fires and home heating purposes 

4. Collecting pinyon nuts for food and commercial sale. 

5. As a source of logs and poles for ceremonial brush structures, kiva beams, and pueblo 

restorations. 

6. Hunting big game and collecting certain small mammals and birds for ceremonial 

purposes. (Note: the Arizona Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service regulate these activities.)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the use of motorized vehicles or access to places and forest 

resources under alternative 1. No places or sites of cultural and religious significance or 

traditional uses would be affected with the continued status quo provided by alternative 1. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Restricting public motorized use to designated routes and reducing the miles of roads would 

change the areas that people have historically accessed without restraint. This should allay some 

concerns regarding the proliferation of motorized activity and its effects on places and plants of 

religious and cultural significance, particularly the potential for increased access and potential 

desecration. People needing access to collection sites necessary for ceremonial activities and 

other traditional uses would have less opportunity to drive to collection sites with this alternative.

However, access to forest products would only be partially affected, since many of them (such as 

plants, poles, and logs) are generally available across much of the forest and would remain 

accessible from the road system proposed under alternative 3. Under this alternative, American 

Indians would continue to have access to forest products and places of religious and traditional 

use under the authority of the memoranda of understanding and free use permits issued for this 

purpose. Activities authorized by a permit are exempt from the restrictions of the Travel 

Management Rule and an authorized forest officer can allow cross-country motorized access or 

via a road closed to the public under the terms of a permit for the collection of such products. 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects that would result from implementation of alternative 4 are similar to those of alternative 3, 

but with a small increase in open road mileage. The increased road and trail miles would allow 

more motorized access to areas across the forest, and so would provide a slight increase in access 

from alternative 3 for people to gather and impact forest products. It is likely that alternative 4 

would provide more access to special places than alternative 3, since many of the additional 227 

miles of road were proposed specifically for such access (USDA 2007). The collection of forest 

products for traditional or ceremonial purposes would continue under the authority of the free use 

permits issued to American Indian people for such purposes. 

Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects to contemporary Indian uses on the CNF. 

Soil and Water

The full “Soil and Water Specialist’s Report” (USDA 2009) is located in the project record at the 

Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 63

Affected Environment

Road and Trail Interactions with Streams: Sediment Delivery and Water Quality

In this section, the term “high-clearance road” refers to a road with a native surface, meaning its 

unimproved and has no surface rock aggregates (gravel) to retard erosion and sedimentation. This 

type of road is generally not suitable for passenger vehicles but is suitable for high-clearance 

vehicles. “Passenger car roads” refer to roads that have drainage features and generally have 

gravel added to the surface to retard soil erosion, runoff and add road stability. Improved roads 

are suitable for both passenger and high-clearance vehicles.

Table 16 displays miles and relative age by road type. The majority of NFSRs are high-clearance, 

native-surfaced roads followed by closed roads and passenger car roads. Known unauthorized 

routes are also native, unimproved high-clearance roads. 

Table 16. Miles, percentage and sediment delivery by road type

Road Type Miles Percentage Sediment Delivery

Forestwide (tons/yr.)

High-clearance NSFRs (includes 

1,393 miles of closed roads)

5,820 77% 2,900-18,100

Unauthorized roads 962 13% 500-3,000

Passenger car NFSRs 727 10% 900-3,000

Total 7,509 100% 4,300-24,100

The FSWEPP soil erosion model for roads (Elliot, Hall, Scheele, December 1999) was used to 

analyze and estimate current erosion and sedimentation occurring on high-clearance and 

passenger car roads under high, low and no traffic conditions. The FS WEPP model user guide 

(“WEPP: Road Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery,” 

Elliot et al. Draft 12/1999) states that the model has limitations of plus or minus 50 percent, but 

that FSWEPP interfaces provide predicted erosion rates within an acceptable margin of error. It is 

important to realize that although the numbers may not be highly accurate, the model outputs can 

be used to compare magnitude of erosion and sedimentation by road type and traffic, and offers 

the best available science. Subsequent effects analysis will model differences in erosion between 

the no action alternative, modified proposed action (alternative 3) and alternative 4.

High-clearance roads currently deliver the highest amount of sediment across buffer zones and 

into stream courses compared to passenger roads. It is probable that sediment delivery from highclearance unauthorized routes is much higher than figures indicate because only a portion of 

unauthorized routes are mapped and accounted for. In general, high traffic use occurs on 

passenger car roads and low traffic use occurs on high-clearance roads. High use delivers more 

sediment than low use, and low use delivers more sediment than no use. 

Estimated forestwide annual road sediment delivery across vegetated buffers that is available to 

deliver into connected stream courses on all roads ranges from 4,300 to 24,100 tons per year. 

On NFS land, there are 27 perennial stream crossings and 4,039 nonperennial stream crossings 

(intermittent and ephemeral streams). Most perennial stream crossings occur on Beaver Creek 

watershed followed by Upper Clear Creek and Oak Creek watersheds. On non-NFS lands, there 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

are 16 perennial stream crossings and 668 nonperennial (intermittent and ephemeral) stream 

crossings.

Intermittent or ephemeral stream crossings have the potential to deliver sediment downstream 

into connected perennial water. On NFS land and in watersheds with perennial streams, the vast 

majority of stream crossing sediment delivery occurs on improved roads due to the large numbers 

of stream crossings, but native roads contribute up to about 10 percent of total sediment delivery. 

Estimated annual sediment delivery in the seven watersheds with perennial streams at roadstream crossings is 46 to 254 tons. More is delivered in the other 15 forest watersheds but is not 

directly delivered into perennial waters or would have to travel many miles before entering 

perennial waters. This sediment becomes trapped en route and may become vegetated or in areas 

where transport is unlikely and, therefore, does not directly affect water quality.

Watersheds with the largest amount of perennial streams deliver the greatest amount of sediment. 

This occurs on the CNF (in descending order) in the Oak Creek, Beaver Creek and West Clear 

Creek watersheds, followed by Upper Clear Creek and Fossil Creek watersheds. High-clearance

roads and unauthorized routes deliver higher amounts of sediment directly into stream crossings 

than improved, graveled roads. Actual road perennial stream crossing are very limited in extent. 

The Upper Clear Creek and Rio de Flag watersheds have the highest NFSR density and deliver 

correspondingly high amounts of hillslope erosion and sedimentation. The higher the road 

density, the greater the hillslope sedimentation. 

Unauthorized motorized trails account for 99 of 124 miles on the forest and although not 

calculated, contribute more soil disturbance and sediment delivery into connected stream courses 

than authorized trails but overall are limited in extent.

Riparian Areas and Water Quality 

OHV travel in ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams and riparian areas has been observed 

to remove protective vegetative cover, cause accelerated erosion, and accelerate sediment 

transport into perennial waters, thereby causing degradation of water quality. Roads with 

inadequate filter strip buffering within and adjacent to streams and riparian areas may transport 

sediment across the land and into the water, and motorized travel on these roads may accelerate 

sediment detachment and transport. Roads connected to streams and stream crossings deposit 

varying amounts of sediment into watercourses posing a risk to water quality and those species 

that rely on it for their survival.

On CNF lands, there are about 45 miles of road that are within 132 feet (2 chains) of a riparian

stream course. Watersheds with the greatest amount of roads within 2 chains of the riparian area 

are as follows:

• Upper Clear Creek (18 miles)

• Oak Creek (9 miles)

• Walnut Creek (7 miles) 

• Beaver Creek (5 miles)

Roads located within about 2 chains of riparian areas likely do not allow for adequate filtering of 

sediment through the riparian area vegetation and may negatively affect water quality in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 65

connected streams. Repeated cross-country OHV travel has contributed to riparian area 

degradation by displacing soils and removing riparian vegetation that contributes to streambank 

erosion and instability, sediment transport and deposition into connected waters, thereby reducing 

water quality. Impacts occur where there is frequent dispersed camping but have also been 

observed where roads connect to riparian areas.

An unknown portion of these 45 miles of roads are located within flood plains. Roads located 

within flood plains risk degrading riparian functional condition (vegetation and riparian habitat), 

stream hydrology, and water quality. 

Additional effects that contribute impacts to soil and water resources are caused from motorized 

travel on non-NFS lands. These roads would remain open and be traveled under all alternatives 

and contribute the same amount of sediment in all alternatives. These roads are pre-existing and 

described under “Direct and Indirect Effects” under each alternative.

On non-NFS land, there are about 8 miles of roads that are within 2 chains of a riparian stream

course on private lands located within the forest boundary. The Oak Creek watershed has about 6 

miles, and Beaver Creek and Walnut Creek have about 1 mile each. These 8 miles of road would 

remain open under all alternatives. These roads would contribute the same amount of riparian 

degradation and reduce water quality the same under all alternatives. These roads are pre-existing 

and are part of baseline conditions and are also described under “Direct and Indirect Effects” 

under each alternative.

There are currently five Category 5 and impaired (as per the EPA 303d list) lakes and one 

Category 5 and impaired stream on the CNF, and 24 miles of streams that are not attaining water 

quality standards within the CNF.

Cross-Country Travel 

About 38 percent of the forest (700,225 acres) has soils that are impaired, unsatisfactory or 

inherently unstable and about 62 percent (1,142,473) are satisfactory (see table 1). Satisfactory 

soils have soil functions that maintain soil productivity under current use, therefore, are not at 

high risk of loss of soil productivity from OHV use, unless repeated travel caused loss of 

vegetative ground cover. Unsatisfactory and impaired soil conditions have soil functions that are 

at risk of sustaining soil productivity and are the result of past or current management practices. 

Cross-country motorized travel on soils that are impaired, unsatisfactory or inherently unstable 

degrade the soil and site productivity but is limited to those areas that are repeatedly traveled. 

Soils with severe erosion hazards intersect about 672 miles of NFSRs. Disturbance that removes 

the vegetative ground cover (such as observed OHV travel and wildfire) has created bare soil 

susceptible to accelerated erosion, loss of productivity, and sediment delivery into connected 

stream courses. When OHVs travel on steep slopes, they often do so by traveling straight up or 

down a slope or nearly so to optimize the stability of the vehicle and reduce its chances for 

rollover. When tires spin and displace soil, tracks are created and may rapidly expand due to the 

mechanical loosening of the soil and its displacement. Such tracks are becoming commonly 

observed. Unimproved, native and unauthorized roads located on these soils are also primary 

sediment sources because they generally do not have protective rock or vegetative cover.

Repeated cross-country travel on soils with high to severe erosion hazard directly connected to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

roads and watercourses has the potential to deliver large amounts of sediment and degrade water 

quality following removal of vegetated ground cover from disturbances such as wildfire. 

Motorized cross-country travel is widespread and does occur on sensitive soils. These include 

wetlands, riparian areas, and most extensively, montane meadows in addition to soils with 

moderate or high erosion hazard. Sensitive soils amount to about 1,043,475 acres or about 57 

percent of the forest. Therefore, about 57 percent of the forest is not suitable for cross-country 

OHV travel. The exact acreage impacted is unknown, but is widespread. Cross-country travel on 

unsatisfactory, impaired or inherently unstable soils has contributed to further degrade the soil 

condition and further risks soil productivity. 

Motorized cross-country travel on soils with moderate and severe erosion hazard may take up to 

several passes to remove protective vegetative cover and results in susceptibility of accelerated 

erosion and loss of soil productivity. In addition, repeated OHV travel occurs on soils with 

impaired and unsatisfactory soil conditions and further degrades the protective vegetative ground 

cover. Motorized cross-country travel on these sensitive soils (about 57 percent of forest) is not a 

suitable activity and risks permanently impairing soil productivity. 

Cross-Country Travel in Montane Meadows, Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Montane meadows, wetland soils and riparian areas are among the most productive soils on the 

forest. These soils and riparian areas have some of the highest levels of impacts associated with 

OHV travel. Where it occurs, repeated cross-country travel has removed the protective vegetative 

ground cover and compacts soils, especially during periods when soils are wet, in montane 

meadows resulting in rutting, accelerated runoff and erosion, sediment transport to connected 

drainages, and loss of soil and vegetative productivity onsite. 

Repeated cross-country OHV travel has contributed to riparian area degradation by churning up 

and removing riparian vegetation and has contributed to streambank erosion and instability, 

sediment transport and deposition into connected waters, and reduction of water quality. Many 

impacts occur where there is frequent dispersed camping but have also been observed where 

NFSRs or unauthorized roads connect to riparian areas.

Most wetlands have NFSR access and provide easy opportunity for off-road dispersed camping 

and travel. There are about 5.6 NFSR miles and an unknown number of unauthorized roads that 

are adjacent to or that intersect portions of wetlands that alter surface hydrology and waterflow 

causing loss of water storage, vegetative productivity, and wetland function. 

Travel on wetland and riparian areas and wet montane meadows is widespread and has been 

observed to destroy vegetation, riparian habitat, rut the soil and cause accelerated soil erosion in 

as little as one pass. Motorized cross-country travel on these sensitive soils risks permanently

impairing soil productivity. Figure 11 illustrates OHV disturbance in montane meadows near the 

Flagstaff Arboretum. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 67

Figure 11. Impacts of OHV use in a meadow. 

Camping and Cross-Country Travel 

Overall it does not appear that camping itself causes appreciable damage to soil and vegetation 

except adjacent to wetlands and riparian areas with motorized access. The greatest amount of 

watershed damage appears to occur from motorized activities commonly associated with 

dispersed camping including repeated cross-country travel. Where repeated cross-country travel 

occurs or even single passes on wet soils, soil damage has been observed including rutting and 

accelerated erosion on steeper slopes and loss of soil productivity. 

Fugitive Dust

Motorized travel cross-country and on roads and trails contributes to air pollution via particulate 

matter (PM), also known as fugitive dust. While Coconino County does not monitor air quality 

for dust, the EPA does monitor dust every 6 days. The cities of Flagstaff, Camp Verde, Sedona 

and Cottonwood, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, and other areas surrounding the forest are in 

full compliance, or attainment status and, therefore, do not have regulations concerning fugitive 

dust. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, there would be about 7,500 total miles of open roads of all types that could 

produce about 4,300 to 24,100 tons of sediment per year. This sediment could be delivered across 

buffers and potentially be transported into connected streams posing risks to water quality. 

Designated and unauthorized motorized trails would continue to be used but negatively impact 

soil on very few acres and would contribute very minor additions of sediment into connected 

stream courses with overall effects similar to alternatives 3 and 4. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Based on soil erosion hazard, soil condition, and sensitive soils (riparian areas, wetlands and 

montane meadows), a large portion of soils (about 1,043,475 acres or 57 percent) on the forest are 

not suitable for cross-country OHV use. Motorized cross-country use is widespread on these 

sensitive soils and would continue to cause degradation of soil and water resources. It is unlikely 

that OHV users would be able to determine which soils are suitable for OHV cross-country use 

without permanently damaging the soil resource and unreasonable to assume they would only 

drive during periods when the soils are dry. The overall impact of motorized cross-country travel 

to soil and water resources would be up to about 57 percent of the forest, or all of the nonsuitable 

area for cross-country travel. 

Overall, it does not appear that motorized camping itself causes appreciable damage to soil and 

vegetation productivity or water quality except in localized areas and montane meadows, 

wetlands and riparian areas with motorized access. Implementation of this alternative would pose 

the greatest risk to soil and water resources in riparian areas, wetlands and montane meadows but 

does not pose appreciable risk to other vegetation types. Therefore, implementation of alternative 

1 would be the most detrimental to riparian areas, wetlands and montane meadows. The

forestwide impact from motorized, dispersed camping to soil and water resources would 

generally be moderate in riparian areas, wetlands and montane meadows, and low in all other 

vegetation types. 

Forestwide, overall adverse impacts to soil and water resources from motorized big game 

retrieval would be low because most retrieval occurs infrequently and within the ponderosa pine 

vegetation type. There would be isolated moderate impact to riparian areas, wetlands and 

montane meadows when wet.

Effects Common to Alternatives 3 and 4 

This section summarizes predicted effects on soil condition and productivity, riparian function 

and sediment delivery, and water quality common to the action alternatives.

Designating 64 miles of unauthorized routes would increase the amount of sediment delivered 

from forest buffers by about 0.5 to 3 tons forestwide, and would not increase risk to downstream 

water quality. Further analysis shows that these 64 miles only cross six streams (four ephemeral 

and two riparian). These additional six stream crossings would not pose additional risk to water 

quality downstream. These roads already are present and do not currently impair water quality in 

the nearest perennial water downstream. From a water quality and riparian function standpoint, 

expected use of these roads does not appear to pose any additional risk to water quality 

downstream or adjacent riparian function. 

Camping access and most camping would still occur along meadow edges where disturbance 

from parking and camping is minor in extent. As mentioned earlier, most disturbances likely 

come from associated motorized access and not from camping itself. The proposed action to 

prohibit motorized cross-country travel should eliminate travel across meadows to reach the 

opposite side for preferred camping locations and associated OHV disturbance. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 69

Motorized camping in wetlands and riparian areas would only occur at about 12 riparian corridor 

stream crossings and no wetlands. Riparian areas and wetland function in all other campsites 

would improve rapidly in the short term. Campsites previously located in riparian areas would 

rapidly recover and eventually cease to contribute excessive sediment downstream into perennial 

waters. Therefore, localized improvement of water quality could be expected. 

Motorized camping in montane meadows would be reduced overall from high concentration to 

lower concentration resulting in improved soil conditions and productivity over the long term, 

similar to the soil improvements described above under prohibited cross-country travel for 

alternatives 3 and 4. Overall, forestwide impact from motorized dispersed camping to soil and 

water resources would be very low outside of montane meadows. 

Other than in the Cinder Hills OHV Area, vegetation and soil conditions in areas currently 

detrimentally impacted by cross-country travel would begin to improve and maintain soil 

productivity in the long term.

Fugitive dust would be lower than current levels, which are in attainment. The percent of acreage 

open to cross-country travel would decrease about 90 percent, and road mileage by about 35 

percent, similarly decreasing the amount of dust that becomes airborne from current levels of

travel over them. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, designated roads could produce about 3,300 to18,800 tons of sediment per 

year across forest buffers that could potentially be transported into connected streams, thereby 

posing risk to water quality. Designated motorized trails would be minor in extent (25 miles) and 

soil disturbance and would continue with use of these trails, resulting in negligible effects to soil 

and water resources. Unauthorized trail use would be prohibited and recovery of vegetation and 

soil here is expected. 

There would be no change in the motorized trail system. However, the use of unauthorized trails

would be prohibited, resulting in slightly less erosion offsite and sediment delivery into connected 

stream courses compared to alternative 1. This would result in recovery of vegetation and soil 

depending on trail location. Overall, this activity would affect soil erosion and sedimentation to a 

minor but positive extent.

Since motorized big game retrieval is not proposed in this alternative, there would be no impacts 

to soil and water resources from motorized big game retrieval except on the shared game unit 

with the Kaibab National Forest. Wetlands, riparian areas and wet soils are the most susceptible to 

detrimental effects to motorized cross-country travel but are very limited in extent in the unit. 

Impacts in the game unit would be limited (very low) in extent and magnitude because there are 

very few riparian areas and wetlands.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, designated roads could produce about 3,400 to 19,900 tons of sediment per 

year across buffers that could potentially be transported into connected streams, posing risk to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

water quality. Unauthorized trails (95 miles) would no longer be used and recovery of vegetation 

and soil is expected. Under alternative 4, sediment delivery at stream crossings would be 20 to 30 

percent less than alternative 1 and up to about 4 percent more than alternative 3. 

There would be a minor change in the motorized trail system. Four miles of motorized trail would 

be added to the 25 existing miles of system trail (NFST). About 95 miles of unauthorized trails 

would no longer be utilized, resulting in slightly less erosion offsite and sediment delivery into 

connected stream courses compared to alternative 1. Travel on nondesignated motorized trails 

would discontinue and would result in recovery of vegetation and soil depending on trail location 

but overall, minor in extent and producing a negligible amount of soil disturbance. 

Forestwide, overall adverse impacts to soil and water resources from motorized big game 

retrieval would be low because most retrieval occurs infrequently and within the ponderosa pine 

vegetation type. There would be isolated moderate impact to riparian areas, wetlands and 

montane meadows when wet. However, no retrieval past October 31 and no allowance of travel 

more than 1 mile off of open road should reduce the adverse extent and magnitude of impacts to 

soils, riparian areas and wetlands more than alternative 1. This is because soils are usually drier 

before October 31 and, therefore, less soil disturbance and compaction would occur. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that are relevant to soil and water resources are 

described below for all alternatives. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. In order to understand the contribution of 

past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies 

on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because 

existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that 

are difficult to quantify that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative 

effects. Furthermore, existing conditions are a result of past and present impacts to soil and water 

resources. These effects are already described under alternative 1 (no action). 

Reasonably foreseeable actions that can affect soil and water resources are reauthorizations of 

livestock grazing allotments, forest thinning, watershed improvement projects, and fuels 

treatments implemented in the “Four Forest Restoration Initiative.” However, these actions would 

be planned to improve soil and water conditions above current conditions and have mitigation 

measures and best management practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate any short-term impacts 

that may occur from project implementation. 

No new roads are currently being planned on the CNF and no new and extensive roads on private 

lands are known to be planned at this time and, therefore, would not contribute to impacts to soil 

and water resources. 

Overall, implementation of alternatives 3 and 4 would result in improved soil condition and 

productivity, riparian and wetland conditions forestwide, less sediment delivery into connected 

waters, and improved water quality. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 71

Therefore, implementation of alternatives 3 and 4 would have no additional adverse impacts that 

would cumulatively affect soil and water resources. The total sum of cumulative impacts under 

alternatives 3 and 4 would be much less than current condition (no action, alternative 1).

Implementation of alternative 1 (continuation of current management) in combination with past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions would pose additional but unquantified risk to soil 

productivity, riparian function and water quality especially in riparian areas and montane 

meadows as described under the “Direct and Indirect Effects” section in alternative 1. Allowing 

the continued and anticipated increased future use by motorized cross-country travel outside of 

camping corridors and total use of the 7,509 miles of road network compared to the 3,281 to 

3,515 open miles in alteratives 3 and 4, respectively, could cumulatively impact water quality in 

both the short term and long term and could further contribute to water quality turbidity 

impairment in perennial streams. 

Comparison of Alternatives

Implementation of alternative 1 could produce about 21 to 23 percent more sediment from roads 

than alternatives 3 and 4. Also under alternative 1, sediment delivery at stream crossings would 

be 20 to 30 percent more than alternatives 3 and 4 because there are many more stream crossings 

with motorized travel associated disturbances, which would likely reduce water quality 

accordingly. Implementation of alternative 1 has the greatest probability of direct and indirect 

impacts to riparian area function. This makes the miles of open road and the allowance of crosscountry travel in riparian areas in alternative 1 more detrimental to riparian function and water 

quality compared to other alternatives. 

Under alternative 3, sediment delivery at stream crossings would be 20 to 26 percent less than 

alternative 1 and up to about 6 percent less than alternative 4. This makes alternative 3 less 

detrimental than alternative 1 for protecting water quality with respect to designating roads with 

stream crossings, and about equal to or slightly less detrimental than alternative 4. 

Implementation of alternative 3 would produce about 23 percent less sediment off roads 

compared to alternative 1 and a little less than alternative 4. This makes the amount of open roads 

in alternative 3 less detrimental to water quality than alternative 1 and about equal to or slightly 

less detrimental than alternative 4. Also, implementation of alternative 3 protects montane 

meadow soil condition and productivity, riparian area and wetland function, and water quality 

more than alternatives 1 and 4. Effects to areas with other vegetation types from implementation 

of alternative 3 would be about the same as alternatives 1 and 4. 

Implementation of the modified proposed action (alternative 3) or alternative 4 would 

considerably reduce adverse impacts to soil and water resources forestwide by eliminating 

motorized cross-country travel outside of camping corridors and reducing miles of open roads 

and use. Implementation of alternative 3 or 4 would reduce motorized cross-country travel on 

unsuitable soils and riparian areas from the current level of about 57 percent of the forest to 

nearly 0 percent of the forest. Closing roads in sensitive resource areas would reduce 

sedimentation by about 21 to 23 percent over current levels. Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce 

overall camping area disturbance very slightly. Alternatives 3 or 4 have the least probability of 

direct and indirect negative impacts to soil productivity, riparian area function, and water quality 

because it restricts OHV travel on more than 99 percent of the forest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Aquatic Resources

Affected Environment

The following analysis focuses on the effects of roads on watersheds with threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive (TES) fish species, as well as macroinvertebrates which are 

management indicator species (MIS). Extent and density of roads by type is derived from the 

CNF GIS database and reflects on the ground road length and design. It is unknown how many 

more miles of unauthorized roads exist above the 962 miles currently identified, but is estimated 

to be very high and expanding every year due to increased motorized vehicular use. For the 

purposes of this report, extent and density of cross-country routes are assumed to be directly 

correlated with extent and density of established roads within each watershed.

For species specific literature regarding TES fish species that occur or have habitat on the CNF 

(table 17), please see the “Aquatic Resources Specialist Report” in the project record (USDA 

2009). 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Eighteen of the 31 species of native fishes in Arizona are threatened or endangered according to 

the Federal Endangered Species list (also referred to as “federally listed” or simply “listed”). On 

the CNF, there are populations or historic habitat for nine listed and seven Region 3 Sensitive 

Species of native fish (two of which are also Federal candidate species; table 17). Native fishes of 

the Southwestern United States have declined considerably in extent and abundance in the last 

century. Primary reasons for declines in native fish include roads and other intensive land uses 

(Rinne and Neary 2000). Table 1 also shows four macroinvertebrate species that are Region 3 

Sensitive Species for the CNF. 

Table 17. Threatened, endangered, or sensitive aquatic species and their habitat that occur 

on the CNF

Species Aquatic 

Species Type

Status1 Watershed/Occurrence2

Colorado pikeminnow native fish Experimental Non-Essential Verde River

Razorback sucker native fish Endangered Verde River, Fossil Creek

Gila topminnow native fish Endangered Fossil Creek

Gila Chub native fish Endangered Beaver Creek, Oak Creek

Loach minnow native fish Threatened Fossil Creek, Verde River (H)

Little Colorado 

spinedace

native fish Threatened Upper Clear Creek

Gila Trout native fish Threatened Upper Verde River (H)

Desert pupfish native fish Endangered Fossil Creek (#) 

Spikedace native fish Threatened Fossil Creek, Verde River (H)

Headwater chub native fish Candidate, FS-S Fossil Creek, West Clear Creek

Roundtail chub native fish Candidate, FS-S Multiple

Sonora sucker native fish FS-S Multiple

Little Colorado sucker native fish FS-S Upper Clear Creek
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 73

Species Aquatic 

Species Type

Status1 Watershed/Occurrence2

Bluehead sucker native fish FS-S Upper Clear Creek

Desert sucker native fish FS-S Multiple

Longfin dace native fish FS-S Multiple

A. Mayfly macroinvertebrate FS-S Oak Creek

Page Springsnail macroinvertebrate Candidate, FS-S Oak Creek

Fossil Springsnail macroinvertebrate FS-S Fossil Creek

California Floater macroinvertebrate FS-S Upper Clear Creek

1

Status: FS-S=Forest Service Sensitive Species (USFS, Southwestern Region, Regional Forester’s List - September 

2007)

2

Occurrence: H=Species known to occur historically; # = Species is proposed for introduction into Fossil Creek

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Aquatic macroinvertebrates are identified collectively in the “Coconno National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan” (1987, as amended) as a management indicator for both high and 

low elevation riparian areas. The presence of specific macroinvertebrate species in a watershed 

indicates that the riparian areas are functioning; conversely their absence is indicative of nonfunctioning riparian areas in a watershed (details available in the “Aquatic Resources Specialist 

Report” in the project record; USDA 2009). 

The CNF has collected macroinvertebrate data from several sources in the past, including USFS 

collections. Northern Arizona University has conducted extensive macroinvertebrate surveys in 

Fossil and Beaver Creeks, but this data is not presently available. The only entity that has 

consistently collected macroinvertebrate data at the same locations over a time scale that allows 

for trend analysis on the CNF is the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

ADEQ prepares a biennial Arizona Water Quality Assessment (ADEQ 2000), which is a

macroinvertebrate-based bioassessment index developed for the macroinvertebrate communities 

in Arizona. The CNF uses the ADEQ’s Arizona Water Quality Assessment index to evaluate the 

health of aquatic communities and to determine their trend forestwide. These bioassessments are 

generally used as supporting evidence of impairment or good water quality in a given stream 

course. The most recent analysis examined 10 streams and rated 4 as attaining their designated 

use and 4 as impaired, meaning poor water quality is preventing the designated use to occur (see 

table 18). Though these surveys are a snapshot in time of the condition in these stream reaches, 

the ratings roughly correlate to forest trend.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Table 18. Bioassessment ratings and trends for 10 stream courses for MIS

macroinvertebrates on the CNF

Stream Course Bioassessment Rating Trend

Sycamore Creek Attaining Upward

Oak Creek at Red Rock State Park Inconclusive Upward

Verde River above confluence with West Clear Creek Attaining Upward

Verde River at Perkinsville Attaining Upward

Wet Beaver above USGS gage Attaining Upward

Barbershop Creek above confluence with East Clear Creek Impaired Downward

Barbershop Creek below Merritt Draw Impaired Downward

East Clear Creek above confluence with Yeager Canyon Inconclusive Upward

Oak Creek below Pine Flat Impaired Downward

West Clear Creek at Maxwell Trail Impaired Upward

Watersheds

The following watersheds are important to aquatic resources on the CNF because they all contain 

stream habitat for federally listed and candidate fish species, Region 3 Sensitive Species and 

forest MIS: 

1. Oak Creek

2. Beaver Creek

3. West Clear Creek

4. Fossil Creek – Lower Verde River 

5. Cherry Creek – Upper Verde River

6. Grindstone Wash – Upper Verde River

7. Upper Clear Creek (East Clear Creek)

These watersheds have been assessed for road densities, number of road-stream crossings, and for 

miles of road within a quarter-mile of drainage (table 19). The Forest Service has correlated road 

density to properly functioning condition. If a given watershed has more than 2.5 mi/mi2

 (1.55 

km/km2

) of road, the watershed may be considered to be impaired and not properly functioning 

(Programmatic LRMP 2005). 

Many forest management activities contribute to total sedimentation. Roads are only one 

contributor of sediment to stream courses; however, it is known that roads are the greatest 

contributors of sediment of all land management activities (Gibbons and Salo 1973, Meehan 

1991). No data specific to roads’ sediment contribution exists on the CNF, but a road erosion 

model is used to estimate how much is contributed by roads (see “Soil and Water Specialist 

Report,” USDA 2008). Sediment impacts on TES fish species on the CNF include filling of 

backwaters that provide larval and juvenile fish rearing habitat, smothering of invertebrates

(including MIS) which provide the food base for many TES fish species, interference with fish 

reproduction by smothering and suffocation of eggs, and direct mortality. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 75

Table 19. Road densities, stream crossings, miles of road in proximity to streams, and 

critical habitat designations for select watersheds on the CNF

Watershed Road 

Density

Stream 

Crossings

Miles in 

Proximity1 Designated Critical Habitat

Oak Creek 2.4 825 56.0 Gila chub, Spring Creek

Beaver Creek 2.3 636 8.4 Gila chub, Red Tank Draw and 

Walker Creeks

West Clear Creek 2.7 489 13.6 None

Fossil Creek – Lower 

Verde River

1.8 186 22.0 Razorback sucker

Cherry Creek – Upper 

Verde River

2.1 63 7.0 Razorback sucker, spikedace

Grindstone Wash – 

Upper Verde River

2.3 29 35.0 Razorback sucker, spikedace

Upper Clear Creek 4.1 223 8.3 Little Colorado spinedace

1 Miles of road within 0.25 mile of a drainage

Environmental Consequences 

Effects of Roads on Aquatic Species 

and their Habitats (Common to All Action Alternatives)

The effects of roads on aquatic habitat are believed to be widespread at the landscape scale; 

evidence suggests that roads are likely to influence the frequency, timing, and magnitude of 

disturbance to aquatic habitat. Roads can act as barriers to migration (deMaynadier 2000), lead 

to water temperature changes, and alter streamflow regimes (see the “Aquatic Specialist Report” 

in the project record; USDA 2009). Improper culvert placement where roads cross streams can 

limit or eliminate fish passage. Roads greatly increase the frequency of landslides, debris flow, 

and other mass movement. At the landscape scale, increasing road densities and their effects are 

correlated with declines in the status of some fish species (Gucinski, Furniss et al. 2001). 

This analysis focuses on the effects of changes by alternative in each watershed to the following 

factors: road density, road proximity to streams, the number of road-stream crossings, and 

estimated sediment produced at these crossings. For the purposes of this report, extent and density 

of cross-country routes are assumed to be correlated with extent and density of established roads 

within each watershed. The analysis uses this information to determine the combined effects to 

aquatic organisms on the CNF. 

Road Density

The number of miles of road per square mile of land area is indicative of watershed health. 

Research has shown that road densities above certain levels in a watershed can be one indicator of 

an improperly functioning watershed. Other factors such as watershed gradient, vegetation cover 

and type, road gradient, road surface type, and spacing of drainage relief may also affect

watershed condition. The Forest Service has correlated road density to properly functioning 

condition. If a given watershed has more than 2.5 mi/mi2 (1.55 km/km2

) of road, the watershed

may be considered to be impaired and not properly functioning (Programmatic LRMP 2005). 

Macroinvertebrate diversity has been shown to decrease with increased road density (McGurk 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

and Fong 1995). Roads also affect hydrologic processes by concentrating and diverting water, 

thereby influencing peak streamflows (Wemple, Jones et al. 1996; Spellerberg 1998; Jones 2000; 

Gucinski, Furniss et al. 2001; Edwards and Evans 2004). 

Buffers

Buffer strips between roads and streams tend to reduce the amount of sediment reaching aquatic 

ecosystems. When roads have buffers from streams, water and sediment often do not directly 

enter streams. Roads placed immediately adjacent to streams result in increased amounts of 

sediment entering stream channels. The absence of buffers contributes to sedimentation. 

Road-Stream Crossings

Roads can act as barriers to migration (deMaynadier 2000), lead to water temperature changes, 

and alter streamflow regimes. Improper culvert placement where roads cross streams can limit or 

eliminate fish passage (Gucinsky et al. 2001; Warren and Pardew 1998). Poorly designed channel 

crossings of roads and culverts designed to pass flow also may affect the morphology of small 

tributary streams, as well as limit or eliminate fish passage. Road-stream crossings also have 

effects on stream invertebrates. Hawkins and others (in press) found that the aquatic invertebrate 

species assemblages (observed versus expected, based on reference sites) were related to the 

number of stream crossings above a site. Total taxa richness of aquatic insect larvae was 

negatively related to the number of stream crossings. Other studies have found significant 

differences between macroinvertebrate assemblages above and below road-stream crossings 

(Gucinski, Furniss et al. 2001; Vaughan 2002). A study on the Medicine Bow National Forest in 

southern Wyoming demonstrated a positive correlation with numbers of culverts and stream 

crossings and amount of fine sediment in stream channels, and a negative correlation with fish 

density and numbers of culverts (Eaglin and Hubert 1993). 

Sediment

Roads contribute more sediment to streams than does any other land management activity 

(Gibbons and Salo 1973, Meehan 1991). Sediment is measured as a rate in tons per acre per year.

Roads directly affect sediment transport and deposition, channel stability, stream temperatures, 

water quality, and riparian conditions in a watershed. Watersheds with higher densities of roads 

have been shown to have increased peak flood flows; road networks act as extensions of the 

stream network and during storm events more water is carried along roadways to streams 

resulting in increased peak flows (Jones, Swanson et al. 2000). This can result in mass soil 

movements, which can continue for decades and result in difficulty in remedying. Such habitat 

alterations can adversely affect all life stages of fish (Forman and Alexander 1998; Gucinski et al. 

2001; Edwards and Evans 2004). 

Sediment adversely impacts stream fishes directly through: changing fish behavior, altering fish 

physiology, impairing growth, shifting blood chemistry, inducing gill trauma, reducing disease 

resistance, increasing egg mortality, and direct mortality of juveniles and adults if strong enough 

(Bisson and Bilby 1982; Anderson 1996; Argent and Flebbe 1999). Sediment indirectly affects 

fish through behavior modifications including increased frequency of the cough reflex, avoidance 

of suspended sediment, reduction in feeding, and temporary disruption of territoriality. The 

severity of changes in fish behavior is associated with the timing of disturbance, the level of 

stress, and the importance of the habitat that the fish may be excluded from (Bisson and Bilby 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 77

1982; Anderson 1996; Rice, Greenwood et al. 2001). Indirect effects on stream fishes from 

sediment can occur by modifications to stream habitat. These changes include: altered channel 

morphology, loss of spawning habitat, loss of rearing habitat, changes in the food supply, and 

decreased overwintering habitat (Lisle 1989; Wood and Armitage 1997; Miller and Benda 2000). 

Sediment exceeding natural background loads can fill pools, silt spawning gravels, decrease 

channel stability, modify channel morphology, and reduce survival of fry (Lisle 1989; Anderson 

1996; Argent and Flebbe 1999; Kolka and Smidt 2004). Increased fine sediment composition in 

stream gravel has been linked to decreased fry emergence, decreased juvenile densities, loss of 

winter carrying capacity, and increased predation of fishes. Increased fine sediment can reduce 

benthic organism populations and algal production. Survival of incubating fish embryos to 

emergent fry has been negatively related to the proportion of fine sediment in spawning gravels 

(Anderson 1996; Wood and Armitage 1997; Rowe and Dean 1998; Shaw and Richardson 2001). 

Increased fine sediment in stream gravel can reduce intragravel water exchange, thereby reducing 

oxygen concentrations, increasing metabolic waste concentrations, and restricting movements of 

fry (Lisle 1989; Platts, Torquemada et al. 1989; Anderson 1996). Survival of embryos relates 

positively to dissolved oxygen and apparent velocity of intragravel water, and positively to gravel 

permeability and gravel size. Increases in fine sediment also can reduce winter carrying capacity 

of streams by loss of concealment cover and by increasing the likelihood of predation (Thurow, 

Lee et al. 1997). 

Pools that lose volume from sediment (Jackson and Beschta 1984, Lisle 1982) support fewer fish, 

and fish that reside in them may suffer higher mortality (Wood and Armitage 1997; Shaw and 

Richardson 2001; Kolka and Smidt 2004). Pools and other slow water areas are bioenergetically 

beneficial because fish can forage in such areas with minimal effort (Rosenfeld and Boss 2001). 

Pools function as resting habitats for adults, rearing habitats for juveniles, and refugia from 

natural disturbances (Stoneman and Jones 2000; Keim, Skaugest et al. 2002). Increases in fine 

sediment also can reduce winter carrying capacity of streams by loss of concealment cover and by 

increasing the likelihood of predation. Pools that lose volume from sediment support fewer fish, 

and fish that reside in them may suffer higher mortality (Gucinski, Furniss et al. 2001). On the 

CNF, where many species are dependent on intermittent/residual pool systems (e.g. Little 

Colorado spinedace), the loss of pool habitat from sedimentation has amplified adverse affects on 

the species dependent on those pools for survival during drier periods. 

Road Features by Alternative and Watershed 

Changes by alternative and watershed for key road features that impact aquatic species (road 

density, buffers, road-stream crossings, and sediment; see discussion above) are shown in table 

20. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Table 20. Comparison of road features by alternative for select 5th code watersheds on the 

CNF

Watershed Road Feature Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Oak Creek

Road density (mi/mi2

) 2.4 1.2 1.3

Miles of road within 1⁄4 mile 56 40 40

No. of road-stream crossings 825 481 498

Sediment delivery from stream crossing (T/ac/yr) 12-78 12-64 12-65

Beaver Creek

Road density (mi/mi2

) 2.3 1.1 1.2

Miles of road within 1⁄4 mile 8.4 7.7 7.7

No. of road-stream crossings 636 318 344

Sediment delivery from stream crossing (T/ac/yr) 11-65 9-51 8-52

West Clear Creek

Road density (mi/mi2) 2.7 1.4 1.5

Miles of road within 1⁄4 mile 13.6 6 7.1

No. of road-stream crossings 489 244 255

Sediment delivery from stream crossing (T/ac/yr) 9-55 7-44 7-44

Fossil CreekLower Verde 

River

Road density (mi/mi2) 1.8 0.8 0.8

Miles of road within 1⁄4 mile 22 7.7 7.7

No. of road-stream crossings 186 80 81

Sediment delivery from stream crossing (T/ac/yr) 5-21 2-16 2-16

Cherry CreekUpper Verde 

River

Road density (mi/mi2) 2.1 1.1 1.2 

Miles of road within 1⁄4 mile 7 2 2 

No. of road-stream crossings 63 31 34

Sediment delivery from stream crossing (T/ac/yr) 1-5 0-4 0-4 

Grindstone 

Wash-Upper 

Verde River

Road density (mi/mi2

) 2.3 1.0 1.0

Miles of road within 1⁄4 mile 35 30 30

No. of road-stream crossings 29 16 17

Sediment delivery from stream crossing (T/ac/yr) 0-3 0-2 0-2 

Upper Clear 

Creek

Road density (mi/mi2

) 4.1 1.7 1.9

Miles of road w/ithin 1⁄4 mile 8.3 7.7 7.7

No. of road-stream crossings 223 92 97

Sediment delivery from stream crossing (T/ac/yr) 5-27 4-21 3-21

Cumulative Effects

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that are relevant to fisheries and aquatic biota are 

described below for all alternatives. The cumulative effects analysis area for aquatics resources 

are the seven 5th code watersheds described above (table 3). 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. In order to understand the contribution of 

past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies 

on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because 

existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 79

are difficult to quantify that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative 

effects.

Projects on the “Coconino National Forest Schedule of Proposed Action” (SOPA) for the period 

from October 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, were considered for the cumulative effects analysis 

as reasonably foreseeable actions (see project record). Additionally, although the “Four Forests’ 

Restoration Initiative” (4FRI) is not on the SOPA, it is a large-scale forest restoration project that 

is actively being planned. Although there may be temporary roads built associated with forest 

health treatments, the overall goal is likely to reduce miles of road in project areas. 

Reasonable foreseeable actions that can affect fisheries and aquatic biota include both actions that 

occur on lands managed by the Forest Service and other Federal agencies and those that occur in 

the watersheds on private lands. Foreseeable actions that occur on Forest Service lands include 

reauthorization of livestock grazing allotments, fuels reduction projects, forest thinning, 

watershed improvement projects, and new road construction. However, these actions (not 

including new road construction) are planned to improve soil and water conditions above current 

conditions and have mitigation measures and best management practices designed to mitigate any 

short-term impacts that may occur from project implementation. Actions that take place on 

private lands are difficult to quantify but include water withdrawals, urbanization, agricultural 

practices, and introduction and spread of nonnative species. 

Livestock grazing can contribute to increased sedimentation into aquatic systems and thus affect 

TES aquatic species and macroinvertebrates (MIS). Range analyses for permit reauthorization 

strive to minimize these effects. Range projects on the SOPA that may impact aquatic resources 

on the CNF include reauthorization of the Buckhorn, Walker Basin, and Pivot-Rock Hackberry 

allotments. 

Fuels reduction and forest thinning projects can contribute to effects on aquatic species and their 

habitat. Although the effects of fuels reduction and thinning projects are mitigated to reduce the 

effects on species and their habitat, they still result in modification of vegetation which can affect 

soil exposure and result in increased erosion and sedimentation to aquatic systems. Fuels 

reduction projects on the SOPA include the: Upper Beaver Creek Watershed Fuels Reduction 

Project, Clint’s Forest Restoration Project, Munds Park Fuels Reduction, and Hart Prairie Fuels 

Reduction and Forest Health Project. 

Construction projects that occur within stream flood plains can result in direct trampling of 

aquatic organisms, and erosion and increased sedimentation into aquatic systems. Although the 

effects of these projects are mitigated to reduce effects on aquatic species and their habitat, some 

direct trampling, erosion and sedimentation to aquatic systems may occur and impact aquatic TES

species and macroinvertebrates. Construction projects on the SOPA that will likely contribute 

some sediment to aquatic systems include the Houston Draw Aquatic Organism Passage and 

Tobias/Flynn Road Access projects. The impacts of both projects are expected to be short term, if 

any.

Recreation management can also have impacts on aquatic resources. The Fossil Creek Recreation 

Area Management Project described in the SOPA will designate dispersed camping sites and 

associated access routes and parking areas. This project will close some roads causing resource 

damage and develop and designate trails. These activities can impact sedimentation into Fossil 

Creek and impact its aquatic TES species and macroinvertebrates (MIS).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Unauthorized and unmanaged dispersed recreation, while not continuous across the forest like 

grazing or across large areas like fuels reduction and thinning projects, can result in adverse 

impacts to aquatic species and their habitat. Social trails, social roads, dispersed camping areas, 

and the use of these by the public can increase sedimentation into aquatic systems. As a result, 

these activities can impact aquatic TES species and macroinvertebrates. 

Implementation of the modified proposed action (alternative 3) or alternative 4 would reduce 

adverse impacts to fisheries and aquatic biota forestwide by eliminating motorized cross-country 

travel outside of camping corridors and reducing miles of open roads and use. Implementation of 

alternatives 3 or 4 would reduce motorized cross-country travel on unsuitable soils and riparian 

areas from the current level of about 57 percent of the forest to nearly 0 percent of the forest.

Closing roads in sensitive resource areas would reduce sedimentation by about 21 to 23 percent

over current levels. Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce overall camping area disturbance very 

slightly. Proposed motorized big game retrieval would reduce overall impacts to soil and riparian 

areas slightly (alternatives 3 and 4) or continue (in some wet years) the low to moderate amount 

of impacts to riparian areas and meadows as current (alternative 4).

Overall, implementation of alternatives 3 and 4 would result in improved soil condition and 

productivity, improved riparian and wetland conditions forestwide, less sediment delivery into 

connected waters and improved water quality. This, in turn, would reduce the amount of sediment 

produced from the Coconino National Forest and the effect it has on fisheries and aquatic biota 

downstream. Since the overall effect of these proposed actions would be a beneficial effect to 

fisheries and aquatic biota, the cumulative effects of these actions decrease impacts on the 

watersheds within the analysis area. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 21. Comparison of watershed health indicators by alternative

 Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Watershed road density No change Average reduction 

close to 50 percent

Average reduction 

just under 50 percent

Road-stream crossings No change Total reduction

close to 40 percent

Total reduction close 

to 35 percent

Sediment delivery to streams No change Average reduction 

close to 25 percent

Average reduction 

close to 25 percent

Wildlife

This section of the DEIS is summarized from the specialist’s report titled “Travel Management 

Rule Wildlife Report” (USDA 2009 ). There are 76 special status animal species on the Coconino 

National Forest addressed by this analysis. Six species are federally listed as threatened or 

endangered, 2 are Federal candidates, 28 are sensitive, and 16 are management indicator species 

(MIS). In addition, 26 neotropical migratory bird species are addressed. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 81

For all species, direct and indirect effects resulting from the following were considered as 

appropriate for each alternative:

• cross-country travel, 

• roads closed to public use, 

• new roads (unauthorized roads being added to the system),

• motorized trail closures,

• motorized trail additions,

• designation of camping corridors, and

• motorized big game retrieval (MBGR).

For cumulative effects, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the 

impacts of past and present actions. This is because existing conditions for wildlife resources 

reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events. The analysis of 

reasonably foreseeable actions was based on the forest’s schedule of proposed action (SOPA) for 

the period from October 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, plus the “Four Forest Restoration 

Initiative” (see the project record for the SOPA).

Federally Listed and Candidate Species

Summary

For all species, both action alternatives improve conditions compared to no action. Alternative 3 

would have greater positive effects, and fewer negative effects than alternative 4 for all species.

The most pronounced difference between the action alternatives is for Mexican spotted owl, 

where alternative 3 eliminates roads completely in 30 more protected activity centers (PACs) and 

closes 141 more miles within critical habitat than alternative 4. For the black-footed ferret, 

Chiricahua leopard frog, bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl and Mexican spotted owl critical 

habitat, alternative 3 has greater positive effects and fewer negative effects than alternative 4 due 

to more miles of roads and motorized trails being closed, and no MBGR. For the southwestern 

willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, yellow-billed cuckoo, and northern Mexican garter snake, 

the effects of the two action alternatives are similar, except for the effects of MBGR in alternative 

4. The finding for all species is may affect, with more positive than negative effects to species and 

habitat. 

Black-footed Ferret (Endangered)

Existing Condition

There is one historic location of black-footed ferrets that was reported to come from 12 miles 

west of Winona, which would make it very close to Flagstaff, and potentially on the Coconino 

National Forest. There are also historic records from 7 miles northeast of Williams and in 

Government Prairie near Parks, Arizona. Both locations are fairly close to the boundary of the 

forest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documentation indicates that undiscovered wild 

populations of black-footed ferrets may still exist where prairie dogs persist. 

Black-footed ferrets require prairie dogs to survive. Therefore, the current status and potential 

impacts to prairie dog towns is the most important factor in determining where ferrets could be 

re-introduced. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Alternative 1 – No Action 

There are 1,105 miles of roads and 9.2 miles of motorized trails within PNVTs that contain 

habitat. There are 36.8 miles of road and 0.6 mile of motorized trail that pass through prairie dog 

towns on the forest. 

Camping occurs in all of the grassland vegetation types with low to moderate use. Of the three 

vegetation types used by prairie dogs, the highest use is in the montane subalpine grassland 

followed by Great Basin/Colorado Plateau grassland and steppe with the lowest use in the 

semidesert grassland (see “Recreation” section). 

Dispersed camping will continue to occur along open roads. Cross-country travel and motorized 

big game retrieval would continue forestwide, except in areas of existing motorized closures. Use 

of existing roads and cross-country travel within these prairie dog towns and habitat may displace 

prairie dogs, collapse burrows, fragment habitat and provide access to small mammal hunters and 

recreationists. A growing statewide population will result in increasing motorized recreation 

within grassland habitats. The no action alternative will continue to have negative effects on the 

black-footed ferret. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

effects to black-footed ferrets. Both action alternatives would benefit black-footed ferrets 

compared to the no action by eliminating cross-country travel, and reducing the number of miles 

of open road and motorized trails within prairie dog towns and/or their habitat. This would 

positively affect ferrets by reducing access and disturbance to prey and their habitat. However, 

both alternatives designate 1.5 miles of camping corridors in prairie dog towns and designate 10.4 

miles of roads in potential habitat for prairie dogs, potentially displacing prairie dogs and 

collapsing burrows. Both action alternatives will have greater beneficial impacts to black-footed 

ferrets and their habitat compared to the no action. Alternative 3 will reduce a greater number of 

miles of roads and motorized trail than alternative 4. Alternative 4 allows motorized big game 

retrieval for elk harvested prior to November 1. Alternative 3 will have the greatest beneficial 

impacts to prairie dogs and their habitat and, therefore, to black-footed ferrets by reducing the 

greatest amount of motorized travel, while having similar effects from camping corridors and 

designation of user-created roads as alternative 4. Considering direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects, both alternatives 3 and 4 may affect black-footed ferrets although there are far greater 

positive effects than negative effects. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Endangered) and Critical Habitat

Affected Environment

The southwestern willow flycatcher is only known to occur below the Mogollon Rim, although 

some suitable/potential habitat occurs above the rim. There are no known nesting willow 

flycatchers on the CNF; however, there are five known populations of nesting willow flycatchers 

on private land along the Verde River. Although no nesting willow flycatchers are known to occur 

on National Forest System (NFS) lands, potential and suitable habitat exists along various 

perennial streams in the Verde Valley. On the forest, migrating individuals and floater males 

(single singing males during the breeding season) have been detected in Sheepshead Canyon, Wet 

Beaver Creek, and Dry Beaver Creek.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 83

Very little critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher is designated on the CNF and 

only within Upper Verde segments 1 and 2 which are predominately comprised of private lands. 

Critical habitat on the Coconino is not contiguous but rather occurs in nine separate areas; section 

7 between Bridgeport and Skidmore lane, three areas near Bignotti, one area in Middle Verde, one 

area just downstream of Black Bridge, one area at White Bridge, one area near West Clear Creek 

confluence, and one area by Beasley Flats. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the no action alternative, there are about 45 miles of roads within 328 feet (100 meters) 

and 253 miles of road within a quarter mile of perennial streams on the forest, however, not all of 

these streams provide potential or suitable habitat. There are about 18 miles of road within a 

quarter mile of known flycatcher breeding areas and critical habitat. There are no motorized trails 

within a quarter mile of willow flycatcher breeding areas and critical habitat. Existing roads 

within potential, suitable, and occupied flycatcher habitat may affect southwestern willow 

flycatchers and their critical habitat by increasing access near riparian zones, increasing 

sedimentation into streams, increasing damage to riparian vegetation by vehicles, and increasing 

spread of invasive plants. The no action alternative will continue to have negative effects to 

southwestern willow flycatchers and critical habitat. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

effects to southwestern willow flycatcher. The action alternatives will close 12.3 miles of road 

within a quarter mile of willow flycatcher nest sites and designated critical habitat, and motorized 

cross-country travel will no longer be allowed. In addition, no unauthorized trails would be 

adopted that will affect willow flycatcher habitat. All this will benefit flycatchers by reducing 

access near riparian zones, reducing sedimentation into streams, reducing damage to riparian

vegetation by vehicles, and reducing spread of invasive plants. While most of the effects to 

southwestern willow flycatcher are beneficial, both alternatives may still affect the flycatcher due 

to the one-half mile of camping corridors within one quarter mile of nests and critical habitat.

Effects from both action alternatives are similar but alternative 4 will have slightly more negative 

effects due to motorized big game retrieval which could result in aural and visual disturbance to 

flycatchers and direct and indirect effects to flycatcher habitat. Considering direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects, both action alternatives may affect southwestern willow flycatchers although 

there are far greater positive effects than negative effects and alternative 3 is slightly more 

beneficial than alternative 4. Considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, both action 

alternatives may affect southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat although there are far 

greater positive effects than negative effects and alternative 3 is slightly more beneficial than 

alternative 4.

Yuma Clapper Rail (Endangered)

Affected Environment

There are no known Yuma clapper rails nesting on NFS lands. Rails were detected at Peck’s 

Lake/Tavasci Marsh (private land) both during the winter and late summer. Rails require large 

patches (at least 1 acre) of cattails. There is no known suitable habitat on the forest, but potential 

habitat could occur along the Verde River, especially within proximity of the area of confluence 

of Verde tributaries, and along Fossil Creek. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Alternative 1 – No Action

Using PNVT for low elevation riparian to reflect miles of road within potential rail habitat, there 

are 5 miles of roads in cottonwood/willow riparian; this does not account for a buffer around 

riparian vegetation. There are no motorized trails within one quarter mile of perennial streams.

Existing roads within potential rail habitat may affect the Yuma clapper rail by increasing access 

near riparian zones, increasing sedimentation into streams, increasing damage to riparian

vegetation by vehicles, and increasing spread of invasive plants. Due to these existing roads, the 

no action alternative will continue to have negative effects to Yuma clapper rails.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

affects to Yuma clapper rails. The action alternatives will largely benefit rails and their habitat by

closing nearly 4 miles of road within potential rail habitat, prohibiting cross-country travel 

(including big game retrieval), and reducing motorized camping along almost 4 miles of road. In 

addition, no unauthorized trails would be adopted that would affect rail habitat. All this will 

reduce potential for visual/aural disturbance and reduce direct and indirect effects to habitat.

However, both alternatives 3 and 4 would designate 0.1 mile of camping corridor adjacent to rail 

habitat; the anticipated increase in camping could result in aural and visual disturbance to rails 

and direct and indirect effects to rail habitat. Alternative 4 will have slightly more negative effects 

to the rail since it allows for motorized retrieval of big game. While the majority of the action 

alternatives’ effects to rails are beneficial, both action alternatives may still affect rails due to the 

0.1 mile of designated camping corridors within potential rail habitat and in the case of alternative 

4, allowance for motorized big game retrieval. Considering direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects, alternatives 3 and 4 may affect the Yuma clapper rail although there are far greater 

positive effects than negative effects.

Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Threatened)

Affected Environment

Chiricahua leopard frogs are known to have occurred at 22 locations on the CNF. After the 

drought of 2002, frogs were only documented to occur at two sites, both of which are on the Red 

Rock Ranger District. Chiricahua leopard frogs have been reintroduced into two additional sites, 

with plans for more reintroductions in the near future. Because of the potential for dispersal into 

unoccupied sites, and that all potential habitat is not surveyed every year, all sites within the 

Buckskin Hills area are considered to be potentially occupied. Chiricahua leopard frogs are one of 

the most endangered species in the Southwestern Region. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the no action alternative, there are 122 miles of roads that occur within 1 mile of the 

current and historic Chiricahua leopard frog locations. Over 100 of those miles of existing roads 

are accessible by high-clearance vehicles only. These roads result in delivery of sediment to frog 

sites and may directly disturb dispersing individuals. In addition, these roads result in delivery of 

sediment to frog sites, and access by vehicles increases the risk of both introduction of nonnative 

aquatic organisms and spread of disease such as the Chytrid fungus. The no action alternative will 

continue to have negative effects to Chiricahua leopard frogs. There are no motorized trails within 

1 mile of known Chiricahua leopard frog sites. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 85

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

affects to Chiricahua leopard frogs. Both action alternatives will largely benefit Chiricahua 

leopard frogs compared to the no action by eliminating cross-country travel, not designating any 

camping corridors within 1 mile of currently occupied sites, and closing over 50 percent of roads 

within 1 mile of historic, recently occupied, and currently occupied sites. This will positively 

affect frogs by reducing access to and activity near occupied sites, reducing disturbance to 

individuals and their habitat including dispersal corridors, reducing the potential for spreading 

nonnative aquatic organisms and diseases, and decreasing the potential for forest users to 

handle/collect frogs. However, both action alternatives will designate 8.2 miles of camping 

corridors and designate 0.3 mile of user-created roads as forest system roads within 1 mile of 

current and historic sites. This would affect frog habitat by increasing access and disturbance to 

historical habitat, increasing disturbance to dispersal habitat, and increasing the potential spread 

of nonnative aquatic organisms and diseases. Both action alternatives will have greater beneficial 

impacts to Chiricahua leopard frogs and their habitat compared to no action. Effects from both 

action alternatives are similar, with the closure of 1 more mile of road in alternative 3 having a 

very slight greater beneficial impact than alternative 4, and alternative 4 allowing for motorized 

retrieval of big game. Considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, both alternatives 3 and 

4 may affect Chiricahua leopard frogs although there are far greater positive effects than negative 

effects.

Bald Eagle (Sonoran Desert Population) — Threatened

Affected Environment

Bald eagles found within the forest’s boundaries in Yavapai or Gila Counties are federally listed 

as threatened, and Endangered Species Act provisions apply. This applies to any and all bald 

eagles (nesting, wintering, and migratory) in the area. Bald eagles outside of this area on the 

forest are designated as a Forest Service Sensitive Species. 

Bald Eagle (Sonoran Desert Population) — Nesting

There are six nesting pairs of bald eagles on the Coconino National Forest. Five breeding areas 

(Tower’s, Beaver, Oak, Ladder’s, Coldwater) occur below the Mogollon Rim within the area 

where bald eagles are federally threatened. One breeding area (Lake Mary) occurs above the rim 

and is addressed as sensitive. The breeding areas below the rim are located along the Verde River 

or within 1 mile of the confluence of major tributaries to the Verde River. Breeding bald eagles at 

Tower’s and Ladder’s are protected by a seasonal closure that restricts all entry during the 

breeding season (December 1 through June 30). In addition, these two breeding areas and the Oak 

Creek breeding area are monitored by nest watchers from February through fledging which 

occurs sometime in June. 

Bald Eagle (Sonoran Desert Population) — Wintering

Migratory and/or wintering bald eagles are found within the designated Sonoran Desert area 

(listed area) on the forest. On the forest, most bald eagles are winter visitors, occupying most 

habitat types and elevations, but are most frequently seen within ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, 

and grassland habitats, often near water. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Alternative 1 – No Action

Bald Eagle (Sonoran Desert Population) — Nesting

There are approximately 45 miles of roads within 328 feet (100 meters) and 253 miles of road 

within a quarter mile of perennial streams, however, not all of these streams provide potential or 

suitable nesting habitat but can be used by foraging bald eagles. In a more specific query, 0.2 mile 

of road occur within 500 feet of known bald eagle nests, 2.5 miles of road occur within 500 and 

1,000 feet of known nests, and 12 miles of road occur within 1,000 and 2,500 feet of nests. There 

are no motorized trails within 2,500 feet of known bald eagle nests. 

Bald Eagle (Sonoran Desert Population) — Wintering

None of the known 38 winter roosts have been delineated within the bald eagle listed area, but 

hard copy maps of telemetry locations identify four general potential roosting. Quantitative road, 

trail, and camping corridor information for these general roosting areas is not available.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

effects to bald eagles. Alternatives 3 and 4 will reduce cross-country travel and significantly 

reduce the proportion of roads within the vicinity of nest sites compared to the no action 

alternative. In addition, there will be no designation of any user-created roads within 2,500 feet of 

nest sites. This will benefit eagles by reducing access near riparian zones, reducing sedimentation 

into streams, reducing damage to riparian vegetation by vehicles, and reducing activities within 

line-of-sight of bald eagles, which will reduce disturbance. Within the ponderosa pine PNVT, a 

portion of which provides suitable roosting habitat, 2,463 miles of road will be closed under 

alternative 3, and 2,305 miles under alternative 4. Both alternatives will close 49 miles of 

motorized trail. Cross-country travel will be eliminated in both alternatives, but MBGR would be 

allowed in alternative 4. 

In both action alternatives, there will be 0.4 mile of designated camping corridors within the 

vicinity of nest sites, which will result in some increased impacts along that stretch of road; 

however, road closures will result in the reduction of motorized camping along 8 miles of roads. 

For potential roosting habitat, camping corridors would be designated along 429 miles of road in 

the ponderosa pine PNVT (only a portion of which occurs in Yavapai County). Most camping 

occurs outside of the season when wintering bald eagles are present, but fall and early winter 

hunting camps could have impacts to night roosting eagles. 

In addition, alternatives 3 and 4 would designate 16.7 and 17.3 miles, respectively, of 

unauthorized roads. However, snow and wet conditions make much of the forest difficult to 

access during the months when wintering eagles are on the CNF, so designation of these usercreated roads would have limited affects to wintering bald eagles. Because alternative 4 allows 

for motorized retrieval of big game, closes 158 miles fewer of roads, and designates 0.6 more 

miles of user-created roads, alternative 4 would result in slightly more negative effect to bald 

eagles that alternative 3. Considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, both alternatives 3 

and 4 may affect the bald eagle although there are far greater positive effects than negative 

effects.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 87

Mexican Spotted Owl — Threatened

Affected Environment

As of September 2008, there are 181 MSO protected activity centers (PACs) on the Coconino 

National Forest, with an additional 4 PACs that straddle other forests.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the no action alternative, there are 417 miles of roads and 11.3 miles of motorized trails 

within PAC boundaries. These roads provide access to and/or within all but 23 PACs with many 

roads within a quarter mile of known nests. Dispersed camping will continue to occur along open 

roads. Cross-country travel and motorized big game retrieval would continue forestwide, except 

in areas of existing motorized closures. Use of existing roads and cross-country travel within 

these PACs may disrupt nesting, roosting and foraging. A growing statewide population will 

result in increasing motorized recreation within owl habitats. The no action alternative will 

continue to have negative effects to Mexican spotted owls. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

effects to Mexican spotted owls. Both action alternatives will largely benefit Mexican spotted 

owls compared to the no action by eliminating cross-country travel, greatly reducing the number 

of miles of open roads and motorized trails within Mexican spotted owl PACs, reducing the 

number of miles of motorized trails within PACs, and the number of PACs with motorized trail 

and eliminating motorized trails within close proximity to known nest sites. Alternative 4 will 

eliminate roads in twice as many PACs as the no action alternative (64 percent reduction) while 

alternative 3 will eliminate roads in more than three times as many PACs as the no action 

alternative (76 percent reduction). This will positively affect owls by reducing access to and 

activity near occupied sites, reducing disturbance to individuals and limiting disruption of 

nesting, roosting and foraging. However, both action alternatives would designate 16 miles of 

camping corridors within PACs, 0.6 mile of corridor within a quarter mile of known nests, and a 

half mile of unauthorized road as NFSR within three PACs. Concentrating camping along 16 

miles and designating a half mile of roads within PACs can negatively affect MSO by increasing 

access and disturbance potentially disrupting nesting, roosting and foraging. Both action 

alternatives will have greater beneficial impacts to MSO and their habitat compared to the no 

action. Alternative 4 allows motorized big game retrieval for elk harvested before November 1, 

but most elk hunts occur outside of the MSO breeding season. Activities such as motorized travel

outside of the breeding season normally do not result in negative effects to MSO. Alternative 4 

will leave more roads open within PACs and more PACs with roads; therefore, alternative 3 will 

have greater beneficial effects and fewer negative effects to MSO than alternative 4. Considering 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects, both action alternatives may affect Mexican spotted owls 

although there are far greater positive effects than negative effects.

Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Affected Environment

Critical habitat is designated by the USFWS to provide for the survival and recovery of listed 

species. All or a portion of six critical habitat units occur within the Coconino National Forest, 

totaling 575,100 acres. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Alternative 1 - No Action 

There are 2,678 miles of road that are under Forest Service jurisdiction, and 55 miles of 

authorized and unauthorized motorized trail within Mexican spotted owl critical habitat 

boundaries on the forest. Of the primary vegetation types used by owls, camping use is highest in 

ponderosa pine followed by mixed conifer and lowest in riparian vegetation types (see 

“Recreation” section). Existing road, cross-country travel, and dispersed camping lower the 

amount of residual plant cover and reduce MSO prey habitat.

Alternatives 3 and 4 

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

effects to Mexican spotted owl critical habitat. Both action alternatives will largely benefit MSO

critical habitat compared to the no action by eliminating cross-country travel, greatly reducing the 

number of miles of open roads and motorized trails within Mexican spotted owl critical habitat,

and reducing the number of miles of motorized trails within critical habitat. This will positively 

affect critical habitat by reducing access to and activity near occupied sites and reducing impacts 

to residual plant cover related to the maintenance of adequate prey. However, both action 

alternatives will designate 265 miles of camping corridors and 12.6 miles of user-created road as 

forest system road and within critical habitat. Camping along these 265 miles and designating 

12.6 miles of road in critical habitat can negatively impact MSO by concentrating use within 

areas that owls use, reducing prey habitat and availability within those areas. Alternative 4 will 

leave more roads open within critical habitat and will allow motorized big game retrieval for elk 

harvested prior to November 1. As a result, alternative 3 will have greater beneficial effects and 

fewer negative effects to MSO critical habitat than alternative 4. Considering direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects, both alternatives 3 and 4 may affect Mexican spotted owl critical habitat 

although there are far greater positive effects than negative effects.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Candidate)

Affected Environment

Since 1999, 36 sites in the Verde Valley have been surveyed and 16 were found to be occupied by 

yellow-billed cuckoos. In suitable habitat—low elevation riparian where mesquites occur in the 

uplands—there are 64 miles of roads that occur within 328 feet (100 meters) of cuckoo habitat 

and 145 miles of road within a quarter mile of cuckoo habitat. There are 0.1 mile of motorized 

trails within a quarter mile of cuckoo habitat. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

The 64 and 145 miles of existing roads within 328 feet and a quarter mile of cuckoo habitat, 

respectively, negatively affect cuckoos by increasing access near riparian zones, increasing 

sedimentation into streams, increasing damage to riparian vegetation by vehicles, and increasing 

activities within line of site of cuckoos; all of which may cause flushing, premature fledging, or 

site abandonment. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

affects to yellow-billed cuckoos. Alternatives 3 and 4 will close almost 40 miles of road (61

percent of existing roads) in cuckoo habitat which will benefit cuckoos by reducing access near 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 89

riparian zones, reducing sedimentation into streams, reducing damage to riparian vegetation by 

vehicles, and reducing activities within line of site of cuckoos which may cause flushing, 

premature fledging, or site abandonment. However alternatives 3 and 4 will designate 10 miles of 

camping corridors within a quarter mile of habitat and designate 1.5 miles of unauthorized roads 

which could result in aural and visual disturbance to cuckoos and direct and indirect effects to 

their habitat. In addition, alternative 4 would have slightly more negative effects to cuckoos than 

alternative 3 due to the allowance for motorized retrieval of big game. Considering direct, indirect 

and cumulative effects, both alternatives 3 and 4 may impact the yellow-billed cuckoo but is not 

likely to result in a loss of viability or trend toward Federal listing, even though the positive 

effects far outweigh the negative effects.

Narrow-headed Garter Snake (Candidate)

Affected Environment

On the Coconino National Forest, narrow-headed garter snakes are currently known from Oak 

Creek Canyon and a few sightings from the Verde River. Population numbers in Oak Creek 

Canyon have decreased significantly, particularly in the lower third of the canyon and absent 

entirely downstream of the canyon, since the late 1980s. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Using PNVT for middle and low elevation riparian to more accurately reflect miles of road within 

Mexican garter snake habitat, there are 9.8 miles of roads in cottonwood/willow and mixed 

broadleaf riparian. Because this is a measure of miles of roads within this PNVT, it does not 

account for a buffer around riparian vegetation. There are no motorized trails within a quarter

mile of perennial streams. Existing roads within potential snake habitat may affect the narrowheaded garter snake by increasing access near riparian zones, increasing sedimentation into 

streams, increasing damage to riparian vegetation by vehicles, and increasing the potential for 

forest users to directly harm individuals. Due to these existing roads, the no action alternative will 

continue to have negative effects to narrow-headed garter snake.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

effects to narrow-headed garter snakes. Alternatives 3 and 4 close 7 miles of road in potential 

habitat which will benefit garter snakes by reducing access near riparian zones, reducing 

sedimentation into streams, reducing damage to riparian vegetation by vehicles, reducing the 

spread of nonnative aquatic organisms and diseases, and reducing the potential for collection of 

garter snakes. However, both action alternatives will designate 0.6 mile of camping corridors and 

0.7 mile of user-created roads within potential habitat, which may affect garter snakes and their 

habitat by increasing access and direct disturbance to individuals and their habitat, increasing 

disturbance to dispersal and wintering habitat, increasing the potential spread of nonnative 

aquatic organisms and diseases, and increasing the potential for forest users to handle/collect 

snakes. In addition, alternative 4 would have slightly more negative effect to garter snakes by 

allowing for motorized big game retrieval. Considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, 

both alternatives may impact the narrow-headed garter snake but are not likely to result in a loss 

of viability or trend toward Federal listing, and the positive effects far outweigh the negative 

effects.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Amphibians and Reptiles – Southwestern (Arizona) Toad, 

Northern Leopard Frog, Lowland Leopard Frog, Mexican 

Garter Snake, Reticulate Gila Monster

Affected Environment

All of these species, except for the Gila monster, require wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitats.

The Arizona toad occurs in rocky streams, canyons, and flood plains with dense riparian

vegetation in elevations between 2,000 and 6,000 feet. The northern leopard frog is found in 

permanent waters near Stoneman Lake and Apache Maid Mountain. While there are several 

lowland leopard frog sites on State and private lands, the only known population remaining on the 

forest is in Fossil Creek. Mexican garter snakes are known from the Verde River and its 

tributaries. The Gila Monster occurs in the Verde Valley in desert, woodland, and arroyo habitat. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

There are 9.8 miles of roads in southwestern toad habitat. There are 732 miles of roads within 1 

mile of 151 known northern leopard frog locations. There are about 26 miles of roads within 1 

mile of current and historic lowland leopard frog locations. There are 9.8 miles of roads in 

Mexican garter snake habitat. There are 575 miles of road in Gila monster habitat. There are no 

motorized trails within southwestern toad, lowland leopard frog, and Mexican garter snake 

habitat. There are 5.9 miles (includes 0.7 mile of the Long Trail near which frogs were found this 

year but were not captured in GIS query) of motorized trail within 1 mile of northern leopard frog 

sites. There are 9.7 miles of motorized trails in Gila monster habitat. 

The no action alternative will continue to have negative effects to sensitive aquatic reptiles and 

amphibians by resulting in delivery of sediment to habitat. Increased access by vehicles increases 

the risk of both introduction of nonnative aquatic organisms and spread of disease such as the 

Chytrid fungus. Unrestricted cross-country travel, use of roads and motorized trails, and camping 

can affect Gila monsters by increasing road densities through habitat, creating barriers to 

movement thereby restricting movement, and increasing the potential for motorized vehicles to 

collapse burrows used by Gila monsters. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Southwestern Toad, Northern Leopard Frog, 

Lowland Leopard Frog, Northern Mexican Garter Snake

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

affects to sensitive aquatic reptile and amphibian species. Both action alternatives eliminate 

general cross-country travel, close 29 to 71 percent of roads in and near sensitive aquatic reptile 

and amphibian habitat, and reduce motorized trails. This will reduce disturbance, impacts to 

riparian habitat, and reduce the potential for spread of nonnative organisms. Both action 

alternatives designate the same miles of camping corridors. Alternative 3 closes more miles of 

roads than alternative 4. There is no difference in the miles of designated user-created roads 

between the two action alternatives for all but the northern leopard frog (where 1.1 and 0.1 miles 

designated for alternative 3 and 4 respectively). Alternative 4 allows for motorized big game 

retrieval for elk harvested prior to November 1. Alternative 4 will close fewer miles of motorized 

trails in northern leopard frog habitat. These actions may affect garter snakes and their habitat by 

increasing access and direct disturbance to individuals and their habitat, increasing disturbance to 

dispersal and wintering habitat, increasing the potential spread of nonnative aquatic organisms 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 91

and diseases, and increasing the potential for forest users to handle/collect snakes. Both action 

alternatives will have greater beneficial impacts to sensitive amphibians compared to the no 

action. Alternative 3 will have greater beneficial effects, and fewer negative effects than 

alternative 4. Considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, both action alternatives may 

impact sensitive aquatic reptile and amphibian species but is not likely to result in a loss of 

viability or trend toward Federal listing, even though the positive effects far outweigh the 

negative effects. 

Gila Monster

Alternatives 3 and 4 eliminate general cross-country travel, close 29 and 71 percent of roads, 

respectively, in and near Gila monster habitat, and reduce motorized trails. This will benefit Gila 

monsters by reducing road densities through habitat, reducing barriers to movement, allowing for 

increased movement, and reducing the potential for motorized vehicles to collapse burrows used 

by Gila monsters. Both action alternatives designate the same miles of camping corridors and 

designate the same miles of user-created roads. Alternative 3 closes more miles of roads than 

alternative 4. Alternative 4 allows for motorized big game retrieval for elk harvested prior to 

November 1. These actions could increase the potential for directly disturbing individuals 

(through harassment or crushing) and affect habitat of their prey species. Both action alternatives 

will have greater beneficial impacts to Gila monsters compared to the no action. Alternative 3 will 

have greater beneficial effects and fewer negative effects than alternative 4. Considering direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects, both action alternatives may impact the Gila monster but is not 

likely to result in a loss of viability or trend toward Federal listing, even though the positive 

effects far outweigh the negative effects.

Birds – Bald Eagle (Non-federally listed population), Northern 

Goshawk, Common Blackhawk, American Peregrine Falcon, 

Clark’s Grebe, Western Burrowing Owl, Ferruginous Hawk, Abert’s Towhee

Affected Environment 

Sensitive bird species occupy a diversity of habitats on the forest. Bald eagles, common blackhawks, Clark’s grebes, and Abert’s towhees nest near water. Wintering bald eagles and northern 

goshawks use forested habitats for nesting and roosting. Peregrine falcons nest on cliffs and 

forage in open habitats. Ferruginous hawks and western burrowing owls use grassland and 

shrubland habitats. The black-hawk nests along most perennial streams below the Mogollon Rim. 

Clark’s grebes have been confirmed nesting at Mormon Lake. Burrowing owls have been 

confirmed nesting near Flagstaff. Ferruginous hawks are not breeders on the forest, but are found 

foraging in the Flagstaff vicinity, especially in the fall and winter. Abert’s towhees nest below the 

Mogollon Rim. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

There is one bald eagle breeding area (BA), Lower Lake Mary, outside of the listed area; 

therefore, these eagles are addressed as a sensitive species. There are 14.3 miles of authorized and 

user-created roads, 1.8 miles of designated camping corridors, and no motorized trails within 500 

feet of 38 known bald eagle winter roosts. There are 226 miles of roads within 63 of the 67 

goshawk post fledgling family areas (PFAs) on the Coconino National Forest. That averages to 

3.6 miles of roads per PFA (of the PFAs with roads) with a range of 0.8 to 10.9 miles. Of the 41 

PFAs with known nest sites, 52.9 miles of road and 6.1 miles of motorized trail are within 0.3 

mile (500 meters) of a goshawk nest. There are 4,632 miles of road and 100 miles of motorized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

trail within mixed conifer, ponderosa pine and spruce-fir habitats. Even though most peregrine 

falcon nests occur on cliff ledges in rugged canyons, 2.1 miles of road exist within a quarter mile 

proximity of 28 known nest sites. There are no motorized trails within a quarter mile of known 

peregrine falcon nest sites. Clark’s grebes are confirmed to nest at Mormon Lake. Using water 

and wetland cienega PNVTs as a indicator of potential habitat, there are 14.5 miles of road and no 

motorized trail within or adjacent to Clark’s grebe habitat. Similar to prairie dogs, burrowing owls 

and ferruginous hawks are associated with the Great Basin/Colorado Plateau grassland and 

steppe, montane subalpine and semidesert grasslands and there are 1,105 miles of roads and 9.2 

miles of motorized trails within these habitats. There are 36.8 miles of road and 0.6 mile of 

motorized trail that pass through prairie dog towns on the forest. Using PNVT for middle and low 

elevation riparian to reflect miles of road within towhee habitat, there are 9.8 miles of roads in 

cottonwood/willow and mixed broadleaf riparian. There are no motorized trails within middle and 

low elevation riparian. The no action alternative negatively affects sensitive bird species by 

increasing access in habitat, damaging nesting and prey habitat, increasing activities within line 

of site of nesting birds; all of which may cause flushing, premature fledging, or site abandonment. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both alternatives 3 and 4 would also have some 

negative affects to sensitive bird species. Both action alternatives eliminate general cross-country 

travel, close 49 to 88 percent of roads in and near sensitive bird habitat, and reduce motorized 

trails. This will reduce disturbance to individuals and impacts to habitat. Both action alternatives 

designate the same miles of camping corridors. There will be no unauthorized roads designated as 

NFSRs in nesting habitat for bald eagles, in PFAs for northern goshawks, and in peregrine falcon 

and Clark’s grebe habitat. Both action alternatives designate the same miles of unauthorized roads

in peregrine nest sites, common black hawk habitat, and Abert’s towhee habitat. Alternative 3 

designates fewer miles of unauthorized roads than alternative 4 in wintering eagle habitat, 

northern goshawk habitat outside of PFAs, burrowing owl habitat, and ferruginous hawk habitat.

Alternative 3 closes 2 to 25 percent more miles of roads than alternative 4. Alternative 4 allows 

for motorized big game retrieval for elk harvested prior to November 1. Both action alternatives 

will have greater beneficial impacts to sensitive birds compared to the no action. Alternative 3 

will have greater beneficial effects, and fewer negative effects than alternative 4. Considering 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects, alternatives 3 and 4 may impact sensitive bird species but 

are not likely to result in a loss of viability or trend toward Federal listing, although there are far 

greater positive effects than negative effects.

Invertebrates – Four Spotted Skipperling, Nitocris Fritillary, Nokomis Fritillary

Affected Environment

The four-spotted skipperling occurs in moist meadows and streamsides in high elevation 

mountains, associated with mixed broadleaf deciduous and montane riparian forest, wetland 

cienega and montane grassland PNVTs. 

Habitat for the nitocris and nokomis fritillary butterflies includes mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, 

spruce-fir, montane willow riparian and wetland cienegas. They are known from Kehls and 

Clover Springs on the forest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 93

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the no action alternative, there are 11.2 miles of road and no motorized trails within 

wetland cienegas and riparian forest and 228 miles of road and 1.6 miles of motorized trail within 

subalpine grasslands. There are 4,638 miles of road and 100 miles of motorized trail in the mixed 

conifer, ponderosa pine and spruce-fir. 

These roads provide access to and/or within butterfly habitat. Dispersed camping will continue to 

occur along open roads. Cross-country travel and motorized big game retrieval would continue 

forestwide, except in areas of existing motorized closures. Use of existing roads and crosscountry travel within these habitats has increased access for invertebrate collecting, reduced 

vegetation and increased potential for noxious weeds to establish and spread reducing plant 

diversity within these habitats. A growing statewide population will result in increasing motorized 

recreation within butterfly habitats. The no action alternative will continue to have negative 

effects to sensitive invertebrates. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

effects to invertebrates. Both action alternatives will largely benefit all three sensitive 

invertebrates compared to the no action by eliminating cross-country travel, closing 49 to 60 

percent of roads in and near sensitive butterfly habitat, and reducing motorized trails. This will 

positively affect invertebrates by reducing access to and collecting at occupied sites, maintaining 

plant diversity by reducing potential for noxious weeds to establish and spread within habitats and 

increasing vegetation. However, both action alternatives will designate the same miles of 

camping corridors. Alternative 4 will designate slightly more user-created road as forest system 

road within habitat and will allow big game retrieval of elk prior to November 1. Concentrating 

camping and designating roads and motorized big game retrieval within habitat can negatively 

affect invertebrates by increasing access for collectors, reducing vegetation, and increasing 

potential for noxious weeds to establish and spread reducing plant diversity within these habitats. 

Both action alternatives will have greater beneficial impacts to invertebrates and their habitat 

compared to the no action. Alternative 4 will leave more roads open within habitat, allow some 

cross-country travel, and designate more user-created roads as forest system road; therefore, 

alternative 3 will have greater beneficial effects and less negative effects to invertebrates than 

alternative 4. Considering direct, indirect and cumulative effects, both alternatives 3 and 4, “may 

impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability” 

although there are far greater positive effects than negative effects.

Mammals – Southwestern River Otter, Navajo Mogollon Vole, Long-tailed Vole, 

Wupatki Arizona Pocket Mouse, Dwarf Shrew, Western Red Bat, 

Allen’s Lappet-browed Bat, Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Greater 

Western Mastiff Bat, Spotted Bat, Merriam’s Shrew, Plains Harvest Mouse

Affected Environment

Sensitive mammal species occupy a diversity of habitats on the forest. The southwestern river 

otter is historic to the Verde River and its tributaries. It is uncertain if this subspecies still exists in 

the wild. The Navajo Mogollon vole is known from the western Mogollon Rim and the San 

Francisco Peaks areas. Habitat is meadows, riparian areas, and forested areas with low tree 

density. The long-tailed vole occurs on the forest in areas with good cover, including forest edges, 

streamsides, and thickets. The Wupatki Arizona Pocket Mouse occurs in grassland and steppe 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

habitat on the Peaks Ranger District. Dwarf shrew habitat includes rocky areas, tundra and a 

variety of forested habitats. Allen’s lappet-browed bats are found in a variety of habitats, often 

associated with water. Habitat for greater western mastiff and spotted bats includes cliffs, 

canyons, and crevices in a variety of forested habitats. Merriam’s shrew occurs along the 

Mogollon Rim in grasslands and wetland habitats. The plains harvest mouse may be found in the 

Verde Valley in desert scrub, chaparral, and semidesert grasslands.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the no action alternative, there are roads within all small mammal habitats and motorized 

trails within all except for the southwestern river otter and Wupatki Arizona pocket mouse. 

These roads provide access to and/or within small mammal habitat. Dispersed camping will 

continue to occur along open roads. Cross-country travel and motorized big game retrieval would 

continue forestwide, except in areas of existing motorized closures. Use of existing roads and 

cross-country travel within these habitats has reduced vegetation and prey habitat and increased 

potential for noxious weeds to establish and spread, reducing plant diversity. A growing statewide 

population will result in increasing motorized recreation within small mammal habitats. The no 

action alternative will continue to have negative effects to small mammals due to a reduction of 

vegetation which provides food and cover for small mammals and their prey (i.e. insects). Use of 

existing roads and motorized cross-country travel may also directly impact ground dwelling 

animals by crushing and killing individuals or collapsing burrows where they live. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Although there are many positive effects, both action alternatives would also have some negative 

effects to invertebrates. Both action alternatives will have greater beneficial impacts to sensitive 

mammals compared to the no action by eliminating general cross-country travel, closing 21 to 71 

percent of roads in and near sensitive mammal habitat, and reducing motorized trails. This will 

positively affect small mammals by increasing vegetation that provides food and cover for small 

mammals and their prey (i.e. insects), reducing the need to remove hazard trees which may 

provide roosting habitat for bat and reducing impacts to ground dwelling animals by limiting 

potential to crush and kill individuals or collapsing burrows where they live. This will positively 

affect the southwestern river otter by reducing access near riparian areas, reducing sedimentation

into streams and reducing damage to riparian vegetation by vehicles. Both action alternatives 

close almost exactly the same miles of motorized trails and designate almost exactly the same 

number of miles of camping corridors. Alternative 3 designates slightly fewer user-created roads 

as forest system roads and closes 3 to 6 percent more miles of roads than alternative 4. Alternative 

4 allows for motorized big game retrieval for elk harvested prior to November 1. Alternative 3 

will have greater beneficial effects and fewer negative effects than alternative 4. Considering 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the southwestern river otter, Navajo mogollon vole, 

long-tailed vole, Wupatki Arizona pocket mouse, dwarf shrew, western red bat, Allen’s lappetbrowed bat, Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, Merriam’s shrew and plains harvest mouse, 

alternatives 3 and 4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing 

or loss of viability,” although there are far greater positive effects than negative effects. For the 

spotted bat and greater western mastiff bat, both alternatives 3 and 4 will have “no impact.” 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 95

Management Indicator Species

Summary

Neither action alternative results in changes to forestwide population or habitat trends for any 

species. Alternative 3 has fewer disturbances to MIS due to greater miles of road closed to public 

use, greater miles of closed motorized trail, and no MBGR provision, resulting in greater 

improvement in habitat quality than alternative 4. Given the miles of roads closed in the two 

alternatives, alternative 3 results in a smaller percentage of the forest outside of designated 

wilderness being within a half mile of a system road (80 percent versus 82 percent).

Affected Environment

Sixteen wildlife MIS have been identified as indicators for habitats on the Coconino National 

Forest (table 22). This report tiers to and summarizes forestwide habitat and population trends 

from the forest’s MIS status report (Coconino National Forest 2002). More recent data were 

included in trend findings as appropriate. Analysis of project effects for MIS focused on habitat 

changes within PNVTs that species were associated with.

Table 22. Management indicator species, indicator habitat, and forestwide population and 

habitat trends

Species Indicator Habitat Population Trend Habitat Trend

Abert’s Squirrel Early seral ponderosa pine Inconclusive Stable

Goshawk Late seral ponderosa pine Inconclusive Declining

Pygmy Nuthatch Late seral ponderosa pine Stable Declining

Turkey Late seral ponderosa pine Increasing Declining

Elk Early seral pinyon-juniper, 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, 

and spruce-fir

Stable P-J – Stable

PIPO – Stable

MC and spruce-fir – Increasing

Hairy Woodpecker Snag component of ponderosa 

pine, mixed conifer, and 

spruce-fir

Stable-to-increasing PIPO snags declining

MC and spruce-fir snags 

increasing

Mexican Spotted Owl Late seral mixed conifer and 

spruce-fir

Inconclusive Declining

Red Squirrel Late seral mixed conifer and 

spruce-fir

Inconclusive Declining

Red-naped Sapsucker Late seral and snag component 

of aspen

Stable Declining

Mule Deer Early seral aspen and pinyonjuniperDeclining Aspen – Declining

P-J – Stable

Juniper Titmouse Late seral and snag component 

of pinyon-juniper

Stable-to-declining Stable

Antelope Early and late seral grasslands Declining Stable to declining
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Species Indicator Habitat Population Trend Habitat Trend

Lincoln’s Sparrow Late seral, high elevation 

riparian (>7000′) 

Inconclusive Stable, but well below potential

Lucy’s Warbler Late seral, low elevation 

riparian (<7000′) 

Stable-to-declining Increasing

Yellow-breasted Chat Late seral, low elevation 

riparian (<7000′) 

Stable-to-declining Increasing

Cinnamon Teal Wetlands/aquatic Inconclusive; possibly 

declining

Semi-permanent – increasing

Seasonal – stable but below 

potential

Open water – stable

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Ponderosa Pine Indicator Habitat and Species

There would be no direct effects to early, middle or late seral structural stage quantity in 

ponderosa pine. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to quantity of indicator 

habitat. Under the no action alternative, continued unrestricted cross-country OHV travel and use 

of roads and motorized trails and camping would continue in ponderosa pine. There are 4,158 

miles of road and 65.4 miles of motorized trail within the ponderosa pine PNVT. Use of roads 

and motorized trails, cross-country travel, and dispersed camping could cause noise disturbance 

within all structural stages of ponderosa pine, causing displacement and avoidance of areas within 

these indicator habitats. 

Mixed Conifer Indicator Habitat and Species

There would be no direct effects to early, middle or late seral structural stage quantity in the 

mixed-conifer or spruce fir PNVTs. Therefore, there would be no effects to indicator habitat 

quantity for the Mexican spotted owl or red squirrel. There are 474 miles of road and 34.4 miles 

of motorized trail within the mixed-conifer and spruce-fir PNVTs. Use of roads and motorized 

trails, cross-country travel, and dispersed camping could cause noise disturbance within all 

structural stages of mixed conifer and spruce-fir. 

Wetland Indicator Habitat and Species

There are about 14.5 miles of forest roads and an unknown number of user-created roads that are 

adjacent to or that intersect portions of water or wetlands. Roads alter surface hydrology and 

waterflow causing loss of water storage, vegetative productivity and wetland function (soil and 

water report). Under this alternative, OHV travel is expected to continue in these water and 

wetland areas and pose risk to wetland function (soil and water report). The no action alternative 

has the highest potential for habitat degradation to cinnamon teal indicator habitat. 

Low Elevation and High Elevation Riparian Indicator Habitat and Species

Under this alternative, OHV travel and travel on roads is expected to continue in both low and 

high elevation riparian areas and pose risk to riparian function (soil and water report). This 

alternative has the highest potential for habitat degradation to indicator habitat for Lucy’s warbler, 

Lincoln’s sparrow and yellow-breasted chat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 97

Grassland Indicator Habitat and Species

Continued cross-country use in montane grasslands, Great Basin/Colorado Plateau grassland and 

steppe and semidesert grasslands and on unsatisfactory, impaired or inherently unstable soils or 

soils with moderate and severe erosion hazard poses substantial risk to long-term soil productivity

and water quality. There are 1,105 miles of roads and 9.2 miles of motorized trails within these 

grassland habitats. This alternative would allow for the most impact to indicator habitat for 

pronghorn antelope. 

Snag Indicator Habitat and Species

Under the no action alternative, wood and forest product harvesting would continue. Snags along 

roads and near campsites that pose a hazard will continue to be removed reducing this indicator 

habitat for the hairy woodpecker, juniper titmouse, and red-naped sapsucker. Species dependent 

on large snags, particularly cavity nesting birds, are vulnerable to increased harvest of these 

structures along roads. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 

Ponderosa Pine Indicator Habitat and Species 

(Abert’s squirrel, Northern Goshawk, Pygmy Nuthatch, Turkey, Elk) 

Alternative 3 would close 59 percent of existing roads, which is 158 more miles of road than 

alternative 4. Both alternatives restrict cross-country travel and close 49 miles of motorized trail 

within the ponderosa pine PNVT. Closure of roads, motorized trails and off-road travel in this 

indicator habitat could reduce noise and disturbance and improve habitat quality. The benefits of 

restricting cross-country travel and closing roads and motorized trails will be moderated since 

much of the forest will remain within a half mile of a system road for both alternatives, and 

MBGR will be allowed under alternative 4. 

Both alternatives add 17 miles of unauthorized roads to the road system that would be open for 

public travel. This equates to a permanent loss of approximately 33 acres of ponderosa pine 

habitat. Use is expected to increase on these roads, since there will be fewer roads available to 

drive on, increasing disturbance to wildlife species in those areas.

For both action alternatives, designating camping corridors would increase intensity of use within 

a small percentage of the PNVT, but would reduce dispersed camping activity along roads that 

would be closed to public use. 

Both action alternatives reduce the amount of ponderosa pine habitat by 33 acres which is a 

negligible amount compared to the over 800,000 acres of ponderosa pine habitat on the forest.

Habitat quality may improve, lessening disturbance to MIS, given the elimination of crosscountry travel and reductions in the amount of open roads and motorized trails; however, 80 

percent or more of the forest outside of wilderness areas would be within a half mile of an open 

road. Overall, neither alternative is expected to change forestwide habitat or population trends for 

ponderosa pine MIS. 

Mixed Conifer and Spruce-fir Indicator Habitat and Species 

(Mexican spotted owl, Red squirrel)

Alternative 3 closes 64 percent of existing roads in these PNVTs, which is 23 more miles (5 

percent) than alternative 4. Both alternatives restrict cross-country travel and close 33.4 miles of 

motorized trail within mixed conifer and spruce-fir. Closure of roads, motorized trails, and off-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

road travel in this indicator habitat could reduce noise and disturbance and improve habitat 

quality for Mexican spotted owls and red squirrels. 

In mixed conifer and spruce-fir types, 1.2 miles of user-created roads will be added to the road 

system and be open for public travel. This equates to a permanent loss of approximately 2.3 acres 

of habitat. Use is expected to increase on these roads, since there will be fewer roads available to 

drive on, increasing disturbance to wildlife species in those areas.

Both action alternatives designate 47 miles of camping corridors in mixed conifer, which would 

increase the intensity of use in those areas. No camping corridors would be designated in sprucefir. Dispersed camping will be reduced on 302 miles (alternative 3) or 279 miles (alternative 4) of 

road that will be closed to public use. 

Both action alternatives reduce the amount of habitat by 2.3 miles, which is a negligible amount 

compared to approximately 93,000 acres of mixed conifer and spruce-fir on the forest. Habitat 

quality may improve, lessening disturbance to MIS, given the elimination of cross-country travel 

and reductions in the amount of open roads and motorized trails. However, 80 percent or more of 

the forest outside of wilderness areas would be within a half mile of an open road, and alternative 

4 will allow MBGR for elk legally harvested prior to November 1. Overall, neither action 

alternative is expected to change forestwide habitat or population trends for mixed conifer and 

spruce-fir MIS. 

Wetland Indicator Habitat and Species 

(Cinnamon teal)

Alternative 3 closes 2.6 miles and alternative 4 closes 2.1 miles of forest roads to public use that 

are adjacent to or that intersect portions of wetlands. Roads alter surface hydrology and waterflow 

causing loss of water storage, vegetative productivity and wetland function (see “Soil and Water” 

section). OHV travel is not expected to continue in these wetland areas and will reduce risk to 

wetland function (see “Soil and Water” section). No unauthorized roads are being added to the 

system within wetland habitat. 

Although there would be a reduction in dispersed camping along roads that would be closed, 

there would be 0.2 mile (0.2 percent) of road with designated camping corridors in the wetland 

cienega PNVT under both alternatives. More intense recreation use in camping corridors would 

increase disturbance to MIS in that localized area.

Neither action alternative would change the amount of indicator habitat, but habitat quality could 

improve, given the elimination of cross-country travel and reductions in the amount of open roads 

and motorized trails, lessening disturbance to MIS. Alternative 4 allows for MBGR, but is 

unlikely to occur in wetland habitats. Overall, neither action alternative is expected to change 

forestwide habitat or population trends for wetland MIS. 

Low Elevation and High Elevation Riparian Indicator Habitat and Species 

(Lucy’s warbler and Yellow-breasted chat)

Under this alternative, there will be no change to the amount of riparian indicator habitat. Crosscountry OHV travel would be restricted in low and high elevation riparian areas and reduce risk 

to riparian function (see “Soil and Water” section). Both alternatives would close 7.5 miles (64

percent) of road and designate 1.1 miles (0.09 percent) of camping corridors within these riparian 

habitats. There are no motorized trails within these PNVTs. Both alternatives add 0.7 mile of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 99

unauthorized roads to the system, resulting in a permanent loss of approximately 1.4 acres of the 

existing 1,140 acres of wetland habitat. 

There will be the loss of 0.1 percent of existing wetland habitat, but both action alternatives 

would improve indicator habitat quality for Lucy’s warbler, Lincoln’s sparrow, yellow-breasted 

chat, by reducing disturbance. Neither alternative is expected to change forestwide habitat or 

population trends. 

Grassland Indicator Habitat and Species 

(Pronghorn)

Cross-country OHV travel would be restricted in montane grasslands, Great Basin/Colorado 

Plateau grassland and steppe and semidesert grasslands and on unsatisfactory, impaired or 

inherently unstable soils or soils with moderate and severe erosion hazard that poses substantial 

risk to long-term soil productivity and water quality. Alternative 3 closes 568 miles and 

alternative 4 closes 545 miles of road to public use. Although roads closed to public use will 

remain open for administrative use, there will be much less motorized traffic on these roads. Both 

action alternatives add 12 miles of new roads, which equates to 23 acres of habitat, or 2 percent of 

existing grassland habitat acres. Alternative 3 closes 7.1 miles and alternative 4 closes 3.6 miles 

of motorized trail in these indicator habitats. Therefore, the amount of indicator habitat will 

decrease slightly due to the new designation of 12 miles of road; however, pronghorn’s ability to 

use habitats may increase with the restriction on cross-country travel and less motorized use on 

roads closed to the public. 

Both action alternatives designate 72 miles of camping corridors within grassland habitats that 

provide potential habitat to antelope. The intensity of use within these corridors is expected to 

increase, increasing habitat impacts and disturbance; however, dispersed camping would be 

reduced along the miles of roads closed to public travel in each alternative.

Both action alternatives reduce the amount of grassland habitat by 23 acres, which is a negligible 

amount compared to the over 262,000 acres of grassland habitat forestwide. Habitat quality may 

improve, given the elimination of cross-country travel and reductions in the amount of open roads 

and motorized trails. Overall, neither alternative is expected to change forestwide habitat or 

population trends. 

Snag Indicator Habitat and Species

Alternative 3 would close 3,330 miles and alternative 4 closes 3,103 miles of road on the forest.

This will reduce the need to remove snags that may have posed a hazard to motorist using these 

roads. The restriction of cross-country travel and reduction in miles of roads open to public travel 

could reduce the amount of snags cut for firewood. However, approximately 80 percent of the 

forest outside of wilderness areas will be within a half mile of an open road.

Camping corridors will be designated along 630 miles under both alternatives. Firewood 

gathering is expected to impact snags within these corridors. 

Overall there will be greater densities of snags across the landscape for the hairy woodpecker, 

juniper titmouse, and the red-naped sapsucker. The current forestwide trend is declining for 

ponderosa pine snags, increasing for mixed conifer and stable for pinyon juniper. This alternative 

would contribute positively to habitat trend due to fewer hazard trees being removed, but greater 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

impacts within camping corridors moderates this effect somewhat. Forestwide habitat and 

population trends are not expected to change under either alternative.

Migratory Birds

Affected Environment

Per Executive Order 13186, Federal agencies need to identify whether unintentional take of 

migratory birds will occur, and if so, whether such take would have a measurable negative effect 

on migratory bird populations. Take is defined to mean “... to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” 

(50 CFR 10.12). Removal or destruction of vegetation is not considered a taking. 

Two designated important bird areas (IBA) on the CNF were addressed. Anderson Mesa and 

Lower Oak Creek IBAs have 639 miles of road and no motorized trail within their boundaries. 

Twenty-six priority species have been identified as species of concern in Coconino National 

Forest habitats (table 23). These are species identified in the “Arizona Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan” (APIF Plan) and birds in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Birds of 

Conservation Concern” (BCC). Project effects to Western yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern 

willow flycatcher, common black hawk, Yuma clapper rail, Mexican spotted owl, northern 

goshawk, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, red-naped sapsucker and juniper titmouse are 

discussed in detail under the “Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species” and “MIS” sections of 

this report and will not be discussed here.

Table 23. Overview of existing miles of roads and trails in migratory bird indicator habitat.*

Species Habitat Open Roads Motorized Trails

Swainson’s Thrush

Pine Grosbeak

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Spruce-fir 12 0 

Olive-sided flycatcher Mixed Conifer 462 34.4

Cordilleran Flycatcher

Ponderosa Pine 4,158 65.4

Olive Warbler

Greater Pewee

Grace’s Warbler

Lewis’ Woodpecker

Flammulated Owl

Purple Martin 

Swainson’s Hawk

High Elevation Grassland 228 1.6

Grasshopper Sparrow

Gray Flycatcher

Pinyon-juniper 1,504 0 Gray Vireo

Black-throated Gray Warbler

Band-tailed Pigeon

Black-chinned Sparrow Chaparral 9.3 2.1

Virginia’s Warbler
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 101

Species Habitat Open Roads Motorized Trails

McGillvray’s Warbler High Elevation Riparian 1.9 0 

Red-faced Warbler 

Bell’s Vireo Low Elevation Riparian 5 0 

Bendire Thrasher

Desert 48 0 

Crissal Thrasher

Elf Owl

Sage Sparrow

*APIF Plan priority species are in bold text and species that from the BCC report are in italics. Species with both 

formats are from both documents. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the no action alternative, the same miles of system roads and designated motorized trails 

will remain open (table 3). Cross-country travel will continue to be allowed and user-created 

roads will likely increase as population growth will result in increasing demands for forest 

recreation. 

Under the no action alternative road densities in important bird areas (IBAs) will continue to 

provide motorized access within these areas. There are 639 miles of road and no motorized trail 

within these IBAs. 

Effects of the no action alternative on migratory birds would occur from direct harm or mortality 

from vehicle strikes. Since roads are present in all vegetation types that support priority migratory 

bird species and within IBAs, some unintentional take is ongoing and would continue under the 

no action, but is not likely to be occurring to such an extent to have a measurable negative effect 

on migratory bird populations. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

In all PNVTs that support priority migratory bird species, from 26 to 78 percent of existing roads 

would be closed to public use in both action alternatives. Alternative 3 closes more roads in 

mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, high elevation grassland, and pinyon-juniper habitats than 

alternative 4; in other habitats, the miles closed are the same. This would reduce the potential for 

vehicles to strike birds along closed roads. Vehicle use will be more concentrated on remaining 

open roads, so more strikes could occur on those, but would be outweighed by the great reduction 

in motorized use. 

Under both alternatives, there would be a reduction of 335 miles (53 percent) of high-clearance 

vehicle roads within designated IBAs. Passenger car roads will continue to provide motorized 

access to these IBAs but the reduction of roads and cross-country travel will reduce disturbance 

to birds and reduce the potential for vehicle strikes.

Under both alternatives, there will be 59 miles of camping corridors designated in IBAs. Camping 

would be reduced in 335 miles (53 percent) but increased on 59 miles (0.09 percent) of roads 

within IBAs. There could be some take of migratory birds in designated corridors from 

recreationists knocking nests out of trees, and picking up eggs or nestlings.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Alternative 4 allows for MBGR for elk legally harvested prior to November 1. This could have a 

slightly greater effect than alternative 3 due to vehicle strikes or crushing of ground nests. 

Both action alternatives could result in some unintentional take of migratory birds although 

alternative 3 will have less impact. The amount of vehicle strikes and recreation impacts is not 

likely to occur to an extent that there would be a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations. 

Botany

Methodology for Analysis

Sources for this analysis include various survey records and data on file at the Coconino National 

Forest Supervisor’s Office. These include:

• Noxious or invasive weed data housed in the GIS coverage Southwest Exotics Plant 

Mapping Program 2003 filed (this coverage includes surveys conducted by various 

surveyors between 1997 and 2003) 

• Various TES plant surveys 

• Sensitive plant data, 2006 

• Noxious or invasive weed data, 2004-2006 

• Survey data, 2006 

• Biological control agent releases for 2005-2007 

Noxious or Invasive Weeds

Affected Environment

This discussion applies to the species below and includes the noxious or invasive weeds that are 

known to occur on the CNF as well as to potential introductions of additional species. The species 

included in table 24 were analyzed in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated 

Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds” (USDA 2005). 

Table 24. Noxious or Invasive weeds on the CNF

Leafy spurge Himalayan blackberry Spotted knapweed

Yellow starthistle Houndstongue Scotch thistle

Malta starthistle Giant reed Russian olive

Camelthorn Sulfur cinquefoil Tamarisk

Russian knapweed Dalmatian toadflax Wild oats

Whitetop Tree of Heaven Common teasel

Mediterranean sage Bull thistle Oxeye daisy

Musk thistle Siberian elm

Diffuse knapweed Cheatgrass
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 103

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

The risk of noxious or invasive weed dispersal would remain the same or increase as open road 

densities continue to increase. The risk of dispersing noxious or invasive weeds into uninfested 

areas by motor vehicles will not be reduced. 

Vehicles traveling cross-country would continue to contribute to the spread of noxious or invasive 

weeds. The risk of dispersing noxious or invasive weeds into uninfested areas by motor vehicles 

will not be reduced. With no restriction on cross-country travel or reduction in the number of 

roadways, the risk of introducing noxious or invasive weed species not currently known to exist 

within the forest will not be reduced. 

If the no action alternative is selected, there would be no restriction on motorized dispersed 

camping throughout the forest except in those areas already restricted through the LRMP, official 

closures, or existing NEPA decisions. Motorized dispersed camping may still occur in some areas 

where there are resource conflicts such as infestations of certain noxious or invasive weeds or in 

potential habitat or existing populations of TES plants.

Alternatives 3 and 4

The effects to noxious or invasive weeds (from table 24) are similar for both alternatives. The 

specific management actions that differ between the alternatives include motorized big game 

retrieval and the addition of about 200 miles of road and 4 miles of motorized trail in alternative 

4. Overall, these differences are not substantial enough to require separate analyses for each 

alternative. Therefore, this effects analysis applies to both alternatives. The effects discussion 

below applies to all noxious or invasive weed species mentioned above.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternatives 3 and 4, open road densities would be reduced. This reduction would help to 

decrease the risk of present and future dispersal of noxious or invasive weeds along roadways, 

which would move toward the desired condition of reducing noxious or invasive weed dispersal 

along roadways and would be complimentary to the management goals identified in the “Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for Noxious or Invasive Weeds Coconino, Kaibab and Prescott 

National Forests” (2005) and amendment 20 of the CNF plan (2005). The density of noxious or 

invasive weeds tends to be greater along roadways than in interior areas with fewer disturbances 

(Fowler et al., 2008). Roads aid in dispersing noxious or invasive weeds in several ways such as 

altering habitat, stressing or reducing native vegetation, by providing avenues for conduction of 

weed infestations (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000), by compaction of native vegetation (Gelbard 

and Belnap, 2003), by dispersing seed carried in the mud on vehicles (Schmidt, 1989), and by 

channeling or creating disturbance (Parendes and Jones, 2000). Roads can be the entry points for 

many human influences that can affect the invasion process (Gelbard and Harrison, 2003) and can 

provide avenues for long distance dispersal of seeds contributing to disjunct “founder 

populations” of noxious or invasive weeds along roadways (Von der Lippe and Kowarik, 2007). 

Roads can contribute to forest fragmentation increasing the ratio of non-forested areas to forest 

and increasing the ratio of forest edge to interior habitats. These changes provide entry points for 

noxious or invasive weeds which are generally adapted to open, disturbed environments (Brothers 

and Spingarn, 1992). Disturbances from such activities as road maintenance, construction and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

traffic may help overcome the biological barriers to invasion in healthy native plant communities 

(Parendes and Jones, 2000; Gelbard and Belnap, 2003). Disturbance along roadways is severe and 

episodic and can provide habitat for noxious or invasive weeds (Larson, 2003). Reducing the 

density of roads in the CNF would help reduce these risk factors and, therefore, reduce the risk of 

spreading noxious or invasive weed invasions on forest lands. Reduction of mileage and/or 

density of roads on the CNF would be a beneficial effect to noxious or invasive weed 

management and control on the forest. 

An indirect effect of alternative 3 or 4 would be increased disturbance from use and road 

maintenance on the remaining roads. By reducing the numbers of roads within the forest, use 

would be more concentrated on remaining roads and possibly more maintenance of existing 

roads. Gelbard and Belnap (2003) noted that increased levels of construction and maintenance 

increased the numbers of noxious or invasive weed species present along roadways as well as the 

density of weeds. These increases were attributed to increased disturbance from road maintenance 

and construction and tendency to introduce deeper layers of soil along roadways as road fill.

Additionally, the levels of disturbance increased due to higher levels of use. Therefore, a potential 

negative effect of reducing the density of roads is concentrated use and maintenance along 

remaining roads. This would lead to higher levels of disturbance and more opportunities for 

dispersal of noxious or invasive weed propagules along remaining roads. Noxious weed 

treatments would be focused along roadways to control existing and introduced infestations along 

the remaining open road system. 

By eliminating most cross-country travel, the risk of spreading noxious or invasive weeds from 

existing infestations will be reduced. Motorized vehicles can disperse noxious or invasive weeds 

into new areas by transporting propagules on various parts of the vehicle (Schmidt, 1989; Von der 

Lippe and Kowarik, 2007). Additionally, reducing or eliminating cross-country travel would 

decrease the current levels of soil disturbance currently caused by vehicle travel. Disturbed areas 

tend to be more at risk for invasion by noxious or invasive weeds (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000; 

Parendes and Jones, 2000; Gelbard and Belnap, 2003). Elimination of cross-country travel would 

reduce this risk in most parts of the forest. Exceptions include the Cinder Hills OHV Area 

(Management Area 13). Cross-country travel would still occur in this area. This area contains 

infestations of noxious or invasive weeds including diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa). Under 

alternative 3 or 4, there would be no change in current management in this area which focuses on 

off-highway vehicle recreation opportunities. Therefore, the risk of noxious or invasive weed 

dispersal by motorized vehicles in this area will remain the same or increase over time as use in 

the area increases.

As part of alternatives 3 and 4, motorized dispersed camping sites will be restricted to designated 

corridors. This measure will help control negative effects to several resources including noxious 

or invasive weed infestations by allowing Forest Service personnel to eliminate motorized 

dispersed camping sites from areas where infestations or noxious or invasive weeds are 

problematic. An example of this is leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). A closure order for certain 

areas known to contain this species already exists (CNF, Order 04-00-146). However, additional 

populations have been detected in areas outside of the closure where cross-country travel and 

motorized dispersed camping are currently still allowed. Risks of dispersal of this species by 

motorized vehicles would be reduced by eliminating cross-country travel and motorized dispersed 

camping in these areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 105

Cumulative Effects

The boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the CNF. This discussion includes 

management actions related to noxious or invasive weeds since 1995. Prior to 1995, occurrences 

and distribution of noxious or invasive weeds on the forest were largely unknown. Beginning in 

1995, the CNF began surveying and documenting noxious or invasive weed occurrences on the 

CNF. These actions were largely due to an increasing awareness of noxious or invasive weeds and 

their potential effects on native ecosystems. Location data were submitted to the Southwestern 

Exotic Plant Mapping Program (SWEMP), a cooperative effort hosted by the USGS Colorado 

Field Station. SWEMP compiled data from numerous cooperating agencies including the U.S. 

Forest Service and Arizona Department of Transportation. The surveys by these agencies as well 

as other cooperators helped document the occurrences and areal extent of noxious or invasive 

weeds on the CNF. Noxious or invasive weed data from the forest were submitted to SWEMP 

from 1995 through 2003 when the forest replaced the SWEMP system with its own Natural 

Resource Information System (NRIS) TESP/Invasive species database.

The forest developed the “Noxious Weeds Strategic Plan Working Guidelines Coconino, Kaibab 

and Prescott National Forests” in 1998 to help address and mitigate effects to noxious or invasive 

weeds by management actions on the forests. Forest supervisors for the three forests accepted and 

signed the guidelines which designated a series of best management practices to be incorporated 

into project planning and implementation on the forests. In 2002, the Peaks and Mormon Lake 

Ranger Districts completed the Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA), a major 

landscape analysis. Among other issues, it addressed noxious or invasive weeds in certain 

management areas with the FLEA analysis area, incorporating the guidance provided by the 

strategic plan. In 2004, Region 3 of the U.S. Forest Service completed the “Environmental 

Assessment for Management of Noxious Weeds and Hazardous Vegetation on Public Roads on 

National Forest System Lands in Arizona” which allows treatment of noxious or invasive weeds 

along highway rights-of-way in Region 3, including the CNF. In 2005, the forest completed the 

“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” (hearafter referred to as the FEIS). This document represented a major change 

in management of noxious or invasive weed control on the forests by allowing the use of 

herbicides on forest lands, therefore, providing a management tool not previously available to 

forest managers. The document and its provisions were incorporated into the CNF plan by 

amendment 20 of the plan. 

All of the above actions were valuable management actions that supported management control 

objectives for noxious or invasive weeds on the forest. These management decisions are past 

cumulative actions complementary to travel management and the direct and indirect effects 

discussed above, all of which will reinforce the management goals for controlling noxious or 

invasive weeds on the CNF. 

Management activities and disturbances prior to 1998 have contributed to the establishment and 

distribution of noxious or invasive weeds on the forest. Past forest activities such as grazing, 

vegetation treatments, recreation uses, road maintenance and travel along roadways, including 

paved roads and highways, probably affected the abundance and distribution of noxious or 

invasive weeds. However, without information on known distribution of noxious or invasive 

weed species, the past effects of management actions are unclear. Sources of introduction for 

noxious or invasive weeds are often unknown or difficult to verify. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Numerous management actions that could have affected the occurrence, distribution and extent of 

noxious or invasive weeds have occurred in the past. Since 1997 noxious or invasive weed 

surveys were generally conducted on forest projects that would have management actions 

associated soil disturbance. However, until the adoption of the FEIS management actions for 

noxious or invasive weeds were generally limited to incorporation of best management practices 

or to manual control of certain weed populations. 

Recently, the forest has released numerous biological control insects on Dalmatian toadflax, 

diffuse knapweed and leafy spurge in certain areas of the forest. The success of these treatments 

is not fully known at this time. However, the objective is to decrease the density, areal extent and 

reproductive capacity of the targeted weeds within the forest. These biological control agents will 

not completely eliminate the targeted noxious or invasive weed species from the forest but will 

contribute to the management objectives established in the FEIS. Additional past biological 

control actions include sheep grazing on leafy spurge at Brolliar Park, a practice that has since 

been discontinued. 

Since finalization of the FEIS, the CNF has treated certain infestations with herbicide, including 

some noxious or invasive weed infestations in wilderness areas, recent wildfires and leafy spurge 

infestations on the forest. Additionally, the Arizona Department of Transportation and Coconino 

County have used herbicide to treat noxious or invasive weeds along roadways under their 

jurisdiction. Other entities have treated some infestations within the city of Flagstaff. Collectively, 

these treatments have reduced infestations in some areas and reduced the risk of noxious weeds 

spreading into new areas. 

Certain areas of the CNF are closed to vehicle travel, including wilderness areas and a series of 

closure areas for various purposes. Many of these closures legally restrict motorized vehicle 

travel in specific areas. Although these closures were put in place for various reasons, some are 

complementary to noxious or invasive weed control. The closures for motorized vehicle travel in 

certain areas reduce the risk of noxious or invasive weed dispersal. One specific closure, CNF 

order 04-00-146, exhibit K, is specifically related to noxious or invasive weed control, restricting 

vehicle travel in an area containing leafy spurge.

Projects analyzed since 2005 require consideration of the provisions of the FEIS, specifically 

project survey and incorporation of best management practices. Collectively, the incorporation of 

these provisions and planned noxious or invasive weed treatments associated will provide 

noxious or invasive weed management and control within these project areas. 

Threatened or Endangered Plants

Affected Environment

The CNF contains suitable habitat and/or populations for the following threatened or endangered 

plants. The Endangered Species Act (1973) provides guidance for management and conservation 

of threatened or endangered species. Management actions adversely affecting these species 

require consultation and coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The forest provides 

habitat for two of these species, Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra), an endangered species 

and San Francisco Peaks groundsel (Senecio franciscanus), a threatened species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 107

Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra)

Arizona cliffrose occurs on the CNF in Management Areas (MAs) 11 and 17. Management Area 

11 includes the Verde Valley and covers 169,529 acres. Arizona cliffrose occupies only a small 

portion of Management Area 11. Management Area 17 comprises areas of special emphasis 

including geological areas, botanical areas, and research natural areas. The Verde Valley 

Botanical Area, which was created to manage Arizona cliffrose and several sensitive and rare 

plants, is included in this designation. Emphasis for Management Area 17 is to maintain as nearly 

as possible existing conditions and natural processes for public enjoyment, demonstration, and 

study. LRMP guidance for Management Area 17 applicable to Arizona cliffrose for travel 

management includes prohibition of off-road travel. Research natural areas and botanical areas 

are managed to protect and maintain their uniqueness and ecological condition. The plan also 

states, “Do not allow special use authorizations that would or could adversely affect or change the 

character of the areas. Manage roads adjacent to botanical areas to prevent vehicular intrusion.

Block and obliterate existing roads entering the areas in the first decade.” 

The management emphasis for Management Area 11 is watershed condition, rangeland 

management, wildlife habitat for upland game birds, and dispersed recreation (CNF Plan, 1987). 

The plan states “Verde Valley is managed for dispersed recreation along the upper Verde River 

outside the wild and scenic section and along lower Oak Creek.” However, it does not 

differentiate between motorized and nonmotorized uses. The plan also calls for coordination with 

Dead Horse Ranch State Park for connecting trails and access roads adjacent to the park. There 

are approximately 7 miles of road within Arizona cliffrose habitat in this management area. These 

roads are currently shown as open which will be closed in alternatives 3 and 4. 

The Coconino LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1987) has several forestwide standards and 

guidelines for endangered species management. Habitat management for federally listed species 

takes precedence over unlisted species. The LRMP directs managers to inventory, evaluate, and 

prepare recovery schedules for threatened or endangered species, monitor implementation of 

approved schedules, reproductive success, and effects of management activities at occupied 

threatened or endangered species sites, prepare biological assessments to evaluate project impacts 

on threatened or endangered species and conduct appropriate Fish and Wildlife Service 

consultation when necessary and to provide appropriate protection or enhancement. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, options for managing the Verde Valley Botanical Area which provides 

habitat for the Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra) would remain the same and will not be 

enhanced by additional management tools provided by incorporation of Executive Orders 11644 

and 11989. 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternative 3 or 4, protective measures for such areas as the Verde Valley Botanical Area 

which provides habitat for Arizona cliffrose would be enhanced by strengthening restrictions for 

off-road travel in these areas through the incorporation of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989.

Motor vehicle travel is currently prohibited in the botanical area, but there are still occasional 

incursions in the area. Provisions that would be part of alternative 3 or 4 would strengthen 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

existing closures in this area and similar areas that are currently protected through prior 

management decisions or legislative actions. Implementation of travel management would 

provide beneficial effects to Arizona cliffrose. Similarly, closure of the approximately 7 miles of 

roads currently shown as open in Arizona cliffrose habitat and restriction of cross-country travel 

in Management Area 11 would benefit Arizona cliffrose by reducing potential impacts to existing 

Arizona cliffrose populations such as crushing of plants, soil compaction, and erosion and would 

reduce impacts to suitable habitat for Arizona cliffrose by reducing soil erosion and compaction 

in potential habitat on forest lands.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary for this discussion includes the known range of Arizona cliffrose, focusing on 

portions of the range controlled by the CNF. No timeline was set for this discussion. 

Rangewide, multiple agencies have management responsibility for Arizona cliffrose. The Burro 

Creek population is on Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Kingman 

Resource Area. The Cottonwood population is on Federal, State of Arizona, Yavapai County and 

private lands. The Federal lands are part of CNF and the State lands are managed as Dead Horse 

Ranch State Park. The Horseshoe Lake population is on Federal land with management of lake 

operations under the Bureau of Reclamation and surface management under Tonto National 

Forest. The Bylas population is on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1995).

Major impacts to Arizona cliffrose include urbanization, recreation, road and utility line 

construction, minerals exploration and mining, and livestock and wildlife browsing. The 

Cottonwood population is in a developing urban/suburban area. The most serious impacts from 

land development, road construction, and motorized and nonmotorized recreation are occurring 

there. The soils supporting Arizona cliffrose populations contain high quality bentonite, a type of 

clay with numerous commercial uses. Most mining and exploration has been in the Burro Creek 

and Horseshoe Lake populations. Livestock and/or wildlife browse all Arizona cliffrose 

populations. The greatest use occurs when both livestock and wildlife are present and when 

livestock are grazed yearlong (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995). 

The Coconino LRMP designated the Verde Valley Botanical Area (1,140 acres) for the protection 

of the unique plant community, which includes Arizona cliffrose. The Forest Service has 

considered Arizona cliffrose and its habitat, including the botanical area, in its actions since 1987 

and has implemented many favorable actions. 

In 1991, areas known to contain an important part of the Cottonwood population were withdrawn 

from the Bar-T-Bar land exchange. Surveys documented the presence of Arizona cliffrose and 

several Forest Service sensitive species in the land exchange area (Jenkins, 1991). The CNF has 

indicated that no lands containing endangered species will be exchanged out of Federal 

ownership (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995). Yavapai County obtained a square mile section 

of land from the Arizona State Lands Department. The Arizona State Land Department can offer 

land under its jurisdiction for public auction, making it available for private development. About 

350 acres of this property are suitable habitat for Arizona cliffrose. The long-term goal is to 

convey the acreage containing suitable habitat to Federal ownership. This action will eventually 

remove the potential threat of future development to an area of suitable habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 109

The CNF revised the Windmill Allotment Management Plan in 1992 to accommodate Arizona 

cliffrose recovery needs, excluding livestock from some pastures and monitoring use in others.

The current allotment management plan requires monitoring for threatened and endangered 

species within the allotment (USDA Forest Service, 2008). Managing livestock in the Windmill 

Allotment using LRMP standards and guidelines is providing increased protection for plants and 

habitat through use of fences, monitoring, and grazing regimes. 

Red Rock Ranger District initiated several actions since 1996 including trail rerouting and rock 

placement to protect Arizona cliffrose along several trails in the area of Dead Horse Ranch State 

Park, photo monitoring along trails, and maintenance of fences to exclude cattle and off-road 

vehicles from the Verde Valley Botanical Area. Other beneficial actions included maintenance and 

enhancement of vehicle closures along Rocking Chair Road. The district initiated emergency 

consultation on illegally placed signs, then coordinated placement of the signs to eliminate 

damage to Arizona cliffrose. The Forest Service closed and rehabilitated an unofficial target 

shooting range. 

Numerous meetings have been held since June 1995 regarding the impacts from existing and 

proposed trails, types of recreation uses, and proposed development near Dead Horse Ranch State 

Park. These meetings have included the participation of personnel from the Forest Service, 

Arizona State Parks, Fish and Wildlife Service, and others. Surveys have been conducted for 

Arizona cliffrose, other sensitive plant species, and archeological and historical resources. There 

has been ongoing informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on this issue. 

The Forest Service is working with State and local planners and other entities such as Dead Horse 

Ranch State Park, Arizona Department of Transportation, and private landowners to develop more 

comprehensive and ecosystem-based plans for the Verde Valley. A draft management plan for the 

Verde Valley Botanical Area has been prepared for the Forest Service (The Arboretum at 

Flagstaff, 2002), but this plan has not been finalized. Modifications to the development plans of 

Dead Horse Ranch State Park Phase 3 Roadway Improvements resulted in increased protection 

for Arizona cliffrose and its habitat, both within the botanical area and adjacent to it (Phillips, 

1993). 

In 1996, a 5-year research program on Purshia subintegra funded by the Arizona Department of 

Transportation as mitigation for the Mingus Avenue Bypass project in the Verde Valley was begun 

and the Arboretum at Flagstaff research facility conducted research on that project. As mitigation 

for these road expansions, The Arboretum at Flagstaff cultivated Arizona cliffrose plants for 

return to sites along the roadway. However, several sites were unsuitable due to steep road cuts.

The Arboretum at Flagstaff and CNF found suitable locations for some of these plants on forest 

lands adjacent to Dead Horse Ranch State Park in Cottonwood. In April 2003, personnel from the 

Arboretum, Forest Service and numerous volunteers planted Arizona cliffrose plants and some 

associated Region 3 sensitive plant species on a Forest Service parcel as well as adjacent county 

land. The Arboretum, U.S. Forest Service, Dead Horse Ranch State Park, and volunteers cared for 

and irrigated these plants. 

Other management agencies have also considered Arizona cliffrose in their projects and 

implemented positive actions as well. These included future planned projects for nonmotorized 

trails in suitable habitat of Arizona cliffrose and mitigations for utility line reconstruction and 

improvement within its habitat. The proposed trails would consolidate nonmotorized trail routes 

to a given area and reduce random “wandering” by users such as hikers and horseback riders. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Forest Service has been in consultation with Arizona Public Service to assure that maintenance 

and improvements to utility lines within Arizona cliffrose habitat are mitigated, and existing 

plants are avoided. Additionally, the Red Rock Ranger District continues to monitor and reinforce 

closures where needed. 

The positive results anticipated from implementation of alternative 3 or 4 will be additive to the 

positive actions the forest has taken to date for Arizona cliffrose. Cumulatively, when other 

reasonably foreseeable actions are considered, implementation of the Travel Management Rule on 

the CNF will benefit Arizona cliffrose.

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule may affect but is not likely to adversely affect 

Arizona cliffrose or its habitat. The effects will generally be beneficial by reducing the risks of 

negative impacts from motorized vehicles and strengthening existing closures within and near the 

Verde Valley Botanical Area and nearby habitat. 

San Francisco Peaks groundsel (Senecio franciscanus)

The San Francisco Peaks groundsel is a dwarf herbaceous perennial alpine plant. The San 

Francisco Peaks groundsel is endemic to the alpine tundra of San Francisco Peaks in Coconino 

County, Arizona, north of Flagstaff. Plants occur on Humphreys, Agassiz, Fremont, and Doyle 

Peaks and along the north rim extending northeast from Humphreys Peak. These areas are 

inaccessible to vehicles due to topographic limitations, and will not be affected by the Travel 

Management Rule. 

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule will not affect San Francisco Peaks groundsel or 

its habitat. The entire range of this species is limited to a wilderness area that is closed to vehicle 

travel. This management will not change with implementation of the Travel Management Rule. 

Southwestern Region Sensitive Plants

Sensitive species are defined as “those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester 

for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population numbers or density, or (b) significant current or predicted 

downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.” (FSM 

2670.5(19)) See table 25 for the R3 sensitive plant species.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There will be no effect to crenulate moonwort, Cochise sedge, Arizona bugbane, Mogollon 

thistle, Metcalf’s tick trefoil, cliff fleabane, Eastwood alum root, Lyngholm’s brakefern, alcove 

bog orchid and Blumer’s dock because these species occur in areas that are currently inaccessible 

to motorized travel. 

If the no action alternative is selected, negative effects to other Region 3 sensitive plants that 

would have been reduced or eliminated would remain the same or increase over time. Examples 

of these effects include crushing of plants; damage to potential habitat such as damage to soils, 

fragmentation of habitat, and introduction of noxious or invasive weeds into the habitats and/or 

populations of Region 3 sensitive plant species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 111

If the no action alternative is selected, there will be no restriction on motorized dispersed camping 

throughout the forest except in those areas already restricted through the LRMP, official closures, 

or existing NEPA decisions. Motorized dispersed camping may still occur in some areas where 

there are resource conflicts such as infestations of certain noxious or invasive weeds or in 

potential habitat or existing populations of Region 3 sensitive plants.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule on the CNF will not affect crenulate moonwort, 

Cochise sedge, Arizona bugbane, Mogollon thistle, Metcalf’s tick trefoil, cliff fleabane, Eastwood 

alumroot, Lyngholm’s brakefern or alcove bog orchid. These plants grow in areas generally 

inaccessible to motor vehicles so they will not be affected by implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule. 

The following direct and indirect effects apply to Tonto Basin agave, Phillips’ agave, Mt. 

Dellenbaugh sandwort, Rusby’s milkvetch, disturbed rabbitbrush, Arizona leather flower, 

heathleaf wild buckwheat, Ripley wild buckwheat, Flagstaff pennyroyal, Arizona sunflower, 

Arizona sneezeweed, Flagstaff beardtongue, Hualapai milkwort, Blumer’s dock, Bebb willow, 

Verde Valley sage, and Sunset Crater beardtongue, and are summarized in table 30. 

If alternative 3 or 4 is implemented, negative effects from motorized vehicles to these Region 3 

sensitive plants such as crushing of plants, damage to potential habitat such as damage to soils, 

fragmentation of habitat, and introduction of noxious or invasive weeds into the habitats and/or 

populations will be reduced. These reductions will be from the elimination of most cross-country 

travel and through reduction of road density. This would aid in reducing pressures from vehicle 

travel in sensitive areas where plants and potential habitat occur. Effects to Region 3 sensitive 

plants from fragmentation would be similar to those for noxious or invasive weeds. 

Table 25. Summary of effects of action alternatives on Region 3 sensitive species

Region 3 Sensitive Species Effects of Action Alternatives (3 and 4)

Crenulate milkwort, Cochise sedge, Arizona bugbane, 

Metcalf’s tick trefoil, Mogollon thistle, Rock 

fleabane, Eastwood alum root, Lyngholm’s brakefern, 

Alcove bog orchid

Implementation of TMR would have no direct effects 

on these species because these species occur in areas 

where motor vehicle travel is not likely to occur.

Tonto Basin agave, Phillips’ agave, Mt. Dellenbaugh 

sandwort, Rusby’s milkvetch, disturbed rabbitbrush, 

Arizona leather flower, heathleaf wild buckwheat, 

Ripley wild buckwheat, Flagstaff pennyroyal, Arizona 

sunflower, Flagstaff beardtongue, Hualapai milkwort, 

Blumer’s dock, Bebb’s willow, Verde Valley sage

Beneficial effects are anticipated for these species 

through reduction of disturbances, soil compaction, 

crushing of plants, alteration of habitats, and by 

reducing avenues for conduction of weed infestations. 

Sunset Crater beardtongue Implementation of TMR would not benefit this 

species. It occurs in the Cinder Hills OHV Area (MA 

13), which will not be affected by alternatives 3 or 4, 

because it would remain open to cross-country travel.

Impacts to this species by motorized vehicles will 

continue to occur and may increase over time. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Direct effects from motorized vehicles to plant communities in general include soil compaction, 

erosion or loss of top soil, crushing of above ground portions, crushing of roots, up-rooting of 

plants (Wilshire et al., 1978), compaction of native vegetation (Gelbard and Belnap, 2003) and 

altering habitats, stressing or reducing native vegetation, providing avenues for conduction of 

weed infestations (Trombulak and Frissell, 2000), and by channeling or creating disturbance 

(Parendes and Jones, 2000). Roads can contribute to forest fragmentation, increasing the ratio of 

nonforested areas to forest and increasing the ratio of forest edge to interior habitats (Brothers and 

Spingarn, 1992; Fowler et al., 2008). These changes create open, disturbed environments, which 

in turn can provide habitat for noxious or invasive weeds (Brothers and Spingarn, 1992). Interior 

habitats can provide important refugia with fewer human generated disturbances for native plant 

species (Gelbard and Harrison, 2003). 

If alternative 3 or 4 is chosen, the numbers of forest roads and mileage open for public travel will 

be reduced. By reducing the mileage of open roads, road crews will be better able to maintain the 

remaining roads. Impacts to Region 3 sensitive plants that would result from unmaintained or 

poorly maintained roads would potentially be reduced. Road maintenance crews would be more 

able to incorporate mitigations for sensitive plants while following Forest Service Manual 

direction and complying with Federal Highway Standards. Crane (2006) discusses a summary of 

requirements for road maintenance in locations with Region 3 sensitive plants. The publication 

contains examples of successful mitigations where roads were constructed or maintained in or 

near Region 3 sensitive plant populations without significant impacts to the plants. With the 

current road system, these mitigations are not possible because road crews are often unable to 

maintain specific sections of various roads for many years or construct structures due to limited 

financial resources and manpower. Reduction of the mileage of the roads needing maintenance 

would help mitigate maintenance issues on forest roads.

If alternative 3 or 4 is implemented, dispersed motorized camping will be designated in certain 

areas and eliminated in others. This measure will help control negative effects to several 

resources including Region 3 sensitive plants by reducing potential adverse effects such as soil 

compaction and loss of individuals or populations in certain areas. Exceptions to this would be 

certain areas where dispersed camping is already restricted or prohibited such as in the area 

regulated by amendment 12 of the CNF plan. The effects to Region 3 sensitive plants in this area 

will not change. Another exception is in the Cinder Hills OHV Area (Management Area 13) 

where dispersed motorized camping would not be restricted. 

Indirect effects common to the reduction in the density of roads and regulation of dispersed 

motorized camping is the potential reduction of the numbers of people conveyed into some 

sensitive areas. Currently people are able to drive to almost any point within the forest, where 

they can then engage in other activities such as OHV use, camping, hiking, horseback riding and 

bicycling. These activities can extend into areas containing Region 3 sensitive plants and/or 

potential habitat that would otherwise be remote locations. For example, two remote monitoring 

points for Flagstaff pennyroyal were impacted by camping when users left an established road 

and set up campsites in areas away from roads (Crisp, 2005). Campers built fires directly on top 

of the monitoring plots and plant populations. Other examples include horseback riders hauling 

livestock into remote areas where they then unload the animals and ride into sensitive areas, and 

conveyance of hikers to remote trailheads where they are able to hike into remote areas 

containing Region 3 sensitive plants. Reduction in the numbers of roads and elimination of roads 

in certain sensitive areas may reduce these effects. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 113

Exceptions to the anticipated positive effects for Region 3 sensitive plants include populations 

and potential habitat for Sunset Crater beardtongue within Management Area 13 (Cinder Hills

OHV Area), which has been designated for off-highway vehicle use and will remain open to 

cross-country motorized travel. Many of the documented populations and potential habitat for 

Sunset Crater beardtongue are within the Cinder Hills OHV Area, in which negative effects to 

Sunset Crater beardtongue from motor vehicle travel in that area will not be reduced. Negative 

effects such as crushing and destruction of individual plants and degradation of habitat will 

continue in this area. 

The populations of Sunset Crater beardtongue that occur outside the Cinder Hills OHV Area will 

benefit from the proposed management actions in alternatives 3 and 4. For these populations, the 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Tonto Basin agave, Phillips’ agave, Mt. Dellenbaugh 

sandwort, Rusby’s milkvetch, Disturbed rabbitbrush, Arizona leather flower, heathleaf wild 

buckwheat, Ripley wild buckwheat, Flagstaff pennyroyal, Arizona sunflower, Arizona 

sneezeweed, Flagstaff beardtongue, Hualapai milkwort, Bebb’s willow, Blumer’s dock and Verde 

Valley sage also apply to Sunset Crater beardtongue. 

Cumulative Effects

The boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the CNF. This discussion includes 

management actions related to the Region 3 sensitive plants mentioned above. No time limit was 

set for the discussion. 

The forest has gathered location and abundance data and considered Region 3 sensitive plants in 

project planning and implementation for numerous projects. Mitigations for these species have 

been incorporated into project design and implementation. Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 

2670.5 (19) and FSM 2670.32) guided many of these mitigations. The current CNF plan 

addresses conservation and mitigation of three Region 3 sensitive plants: Flagstaff pennyroyal, 

Arizona bugbane and Arizona leather flower. Additional past management actions that are 

beneficial for Region 3 sensitive plants include preparation of conservation plans, conservation 

agreements and management plans for various species. The CNF has a conservation agreement 

and conservation plan for Arizona bugbane. However, there are no cumulative effects from 

implementation of the Travel Management Rule to this species because there are no direct or 

indirect effects to it. The LRMP recognizes the management plan for Hedeoma diffusum (1984), a 

document that mainly addresses the effects of timber sale related activities. The plan contains 

mitigations for road construction and maintenance in the habitat of Flagstaff pennyroyal, 

including acceptable distances for roadways from established populations of the plant and the 

effects of dust. For these factors, implementation of the Travel Management Rule would be a 

complementary and cumulative action by re-enforcing the provisions of the management plan. 

Cumulative effects to Region 3 sensitive plants include past and ongoing management actions by 

the U.S. Forest Service such as grazing, timber sales, fuels reduction projects, prescribed burning, 

recreational activities (motorized and nonmotorized), construction, reconstruction and 

decommissioning of roads and trails, various land use projects including communications 

facilities, utility corridors, and special use areas. Most of these actions were or are currently 

mitigated if they were or are under Forest Service jurisdiction. Forest Service Manual direction 

and/or LRMP provide direction for mitigations. Fire suppression, large wildfires, and past 

alteration of fire regimes due to fire exclusion have also influenced plants and habitat in some 

areas. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Other cumulative effects include nonforest actions such as public travel, recreational visits by the 

public, wildfires and unmanaged grazing (wildlife and livestock). Activities on nonforest lands 

such as State and private lands have also contributed to cumulative effects on several species 

including timber harvest, fuels reduction projects, recreational uses and development. Land 

development and expanding human populations on nonforest parcels has affected the amount of 

suitable habitat available on nonforest lands, reducing the amount of suitable habitat in these 

areas. Activities on non-Forest Service lands tend to have more adverse effects on populations 

and habitat because they are not subject to mitigation as similar actions on the forest would be. 

The result is a possible reduction in the overall distribution and amount of suitable habitat for 

some species throughout their ranges. 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). The usage 

of National Forest System roads and trails does not jeopardize the long-term productivity of the 

lands and resources of the Coconino National Forest. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

There are no identified adverse effects that cannot be avoided with implementation of alternative

3 or 4. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time, such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line right-of-way or road. 

There would be no irreversible impacts with implementation of the modified proposed action 

(alternative 3) or with alternative 4. The addition of 64 miles of road to the system, although 

already in existence on the ground, would be considered an irretrievable commitment of resources 

for both action alternatives. These are negligible, as they represent a small portion of the larger 

system of National Forest System roads. 

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” 

• National Historic Preservation Act for causing ground disturbing actions in historical 

places;

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with the ESA implementing regulations for 

projects with threatened or endangered species.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 115

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during development of this draft environmental impact statement.

ID Team Members

Jim Beard, Team Leader/Forest Recreation 

I have a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree in Environmental Design from the University 

of Georgia. My professional experience includes 3 years of seasonal and intermittent work as a 

temporary landscape architect for the Apache-Sitgreaves and Kaibab National Forests. I worked 

as district landscape architect and recreation staff officer on the Tongass National Forest for 7 

years. I have worked for the Coconino National Forest as forest landscape architect and recreation 

program manager for the past 21 years. 

Jennifer Condon, NEPA Planner

I have a Bachelors of Science in Soil and Crop Science from Colorado State University. I worked 

as a soil scientist for 9 years, 7 of those with the Forest Service, and have been serving on 

interdisciplinary teams employing the NEPA process for 7 years. I have been a NEPA Planner 

since coming to the CNF in May of 2008. 

Cecelia Overby, Forest Wildlife Biologist

I have a Master of Science degree in Forestry (wildlife emphasis) from Northern Arizona 

University, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from The College of William and Mary. 

I have been a journey level biologist with the Forest Service since 1995. 

Janie Agyagos, Red Rock RD Wildlife Biologist

I am a wildlife biologist on the Red Rock Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest, where 

I have worked since 1994. I graduated in 1993 from Arizona State University with a bachelor's 

degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Management. My main duties as wildlife biologist include 

participating on interdisciplinary teams and conducting project effect analyses and consultations 

for over 50 rare species; inventorying and monitoring special status plant, fish and wildlife 

species; designing and implementing habitat improvement projects; maintaining and managing 

area closures for the protection of fish, wildlife and plant species and/or their habitat; and 

coordinating with multiple agencies in the management of plant, fish, and wildlife species and 

their habitat. 

Cary Thompson, Peaks RD Wildlife Biologist

I have a Bachelors of Science degree in Biology from Northern Arizona University. My 

professional experience includes 10 years of seasonal work and 5 years of permanent work as a 

biological technician. I have been working as a journey level biologist for the Forest Service for 7 

years. 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

116 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Travis Bone, Archaeologist

I have a Masters of Arts degree in Archaeology from Northern Arizona University, and a 

Bachelors of Science, Business Administration degree in Finance from the Northern Arizona 

University. My professional experience includes 2 years of seasonal work for the Forest Service 

and a private environmental consulting firm as an archaeological technician. I have been working 

as a professional series archaeologist for the Forest Service for 7 years.

Dirk Renner, Forest Fisheries Biologist (10/2007 – 12/2008)

I have a Masters of Science degree in Fisheries Science from Oregon State, and a Bachelors of 

Science degree in Biological Science from the University of California at Santa Barbara. My 

professional experience includes 10 years of seasonal work for the National Park Service, Forest 

Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as a biological technician. I have been 

working as a journey level fisheries biologist for the Forest Service for 6 years. 

Debra Crisp, Botanist

I have a Bachelors of Science degree in Biology from Northern Arizona University (1977) and a 

Master’s of Science in Forestry from Northern Arizona University (2004). I have approximately 

25 years of experience working for the U.S. Forest Service, including 5 years in my current 

position as a botanist on the Coconino National Forest. Prior to my current position, I worked as a 

forestry technician, biological technician and a botany trainee. I have been an author or 

contributing author on numerous Forest Service documents including numerous specialist’s 

reports for NEPA analysis including fuels reduction, range, and recreation projects. 

Rory Steinke, Forest Soil Scientist

I have a B.S. in Soil Science from the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point (1981), and am an 

ARCPAC Certified Soil Scientist. I presently serve as forest watershed program manager and soil 

scientist on the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. 

I have more than 27 years of experience in soil survey, soil conservation, water rights and 

watershed management including planning, budgeting, environmental analysis (mainly soil, 

water, and riparian resources) and writing, implementation and monitoring. 

I have worked with the Natural Resource Conservation Service, BLM, U.S. Peace Corps 

(developed about 70 conservation plans in Honduras), and the Forest Service and have 

collaborated with outside agencies, tribes and environmental groups. 

I serve as the TMR interdisciplinary team member watershed specialist and was responsible for 

soil and water resource and fugitive dust analysis in the affected environment and environmental 

consequences portion of the DEIS.

Carl Beyerhelm, GIS Specialist

I earned a B.S. degree in Wildlife Biology from Iowa State University in 1977 and a M.S. in 

Forestry from the University of Minnesota in 1979. I’ve worked in Wyoming, South Dakota, 

New Mexico, and Arizona for the Bureau of Land Management, Custer State Park, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, where I’ve worked in timber sale preparation, 

forest inventory, log scaling, contract and sale administration, silviculture, land acquisition, and 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 117

GIS. I’ve been performing GIS data development and analyses on the Coconino National Forest 

since 1998. 

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons 

to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent

This draft environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document. In addition, copies have been sent to the following Federal 

agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, and organizations representing 

a wide range of views regarding travel management.

ADOT - Hounshell, RickArizona Safari Jeep 

Tours - Swartout, Dave 

Arizona State Library Attn: Federal 

Documents - Fisher, Janet

Arizona State Parks - Baldwin, Robert 

AZ Game and Fish Dept - Rogers, Andi

AZ Game and Fish Dept - Sieg, Ron 

AZ Game and Fish Dept - Voyles, Larry

AZ Snowbowl - Murray, J R

Center For The New Age - Defuria, Susan

Cinder Hills Rough Riders - Lyman, Larry 

and Kathy

City of Cottonwood - Allen, Kyla

Coconino City Parks And Recreation - Bush, 

Jan

Coconino County Board Of Supervisors - 

Ryan, Matt

Diablo Trust - Widmark, Derrick 

Earth Wisdom Jeep Tours - Groves, Patt

EPG Inc - Favour, Nancy 

Eurogeek Motosports Llc - Smith, Curtis 

Flagstaff Public Library - Attn:Reference - 

Ordway, Sue 

Forest Service Lease Holder - Steninger, 

David

Friends of Walnut Canyon 

Friends of Walnut Canyon - McKellar, Betsy

High Country Informant - Allen, Mary L.

High Desert Outfitter - Jacobs, David

Jeep Arizona - Barlow, Nena 

Little Horse Ranch Ltd - Murphy, John A

Manterola Sheep Co. Inc - Manterola, Joe

Michelbach Livestock Inc - Coy, Marilyn

Mountain Top Honey - Arp, Dennis 

Museum of Northern Arizona - Evans, 

Edward

National Park Service - Van Belle, Bob 

NAU Cline Library - Schuck, Beth 

Northern Arizona Audubon - Holm, Celia

Puma Press - Ghiglieri, Michael And Susan 

Saddlerock Hoa - Bialkowski, Tom

Sedona Airport - Mccall, Mac

Sedona Red Rock News - Larson, Jerry

Slide Rock State Park - Lyles, Mike

The Nature Conservancy - Smith, Ed

Tolani Lake Chapter - Huskey, Velma

Tonto Apache Tribe - Davis Jr, Wally

Verde Valley 4 Wheelers - Herman, Jack

Verde Valley 4 Wheelers - Vitek, Mike

Verde Valley Horsemens Council - Everts, 

Jane

Wildearth Guardians - Bird, Bryan

Yavapai-Apache Nation - Moore, Don 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

118 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Barrett, Jerry

Beaver, Bill

Best, Robert

Campbell, Donna 

Chance, Curtis 

Cherow, Les 

Clark, Glenn O

Coates, Arthur

Coombes, George M 

Cosand, Vaughn

Daubenspeck, Arty

Dingemans, Hank 

Eberle, Walter E

Edmondson, Phil 

Ellis, Dick

Emerick, Bill

Estes, Sue Ann

Evans, Dustin 

Eyrich, Carl 

Flores, Cathy

Frey, Karl

Glaspie, Ernie

Gold, Harry 

Harris, Clair

Henson, Dayle and Cherie 

Hobby, William and Carol 

Hollamon, Ron 

Hyslip, James

Johnson, Bob 

Kearsley, Mike

Klutinis, Wayne

Larson, Doug 

Lasnier, Lucille Jacqueline

Lee, Robert M.

Massey, Hugh

Mcmorine, Tom

Metzger, Mandy

Miller, Dave

Miller, James

Multer, Walt

Palyga, Anna

Perkins, Jess

Riley, Mike

Rink, Glenn 

Schutte, David 

Sears, Larry

Smith, Curtis 

Smith, Dewayne and Jan 

Smith, Troy

Starr, Dale

Steffen, Tim

Sullivan, David 

Theodoras, Helene 

Walkington, Carol and Richard 

Walters, Shari 

Wright, Quinn 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 119

A: Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

Chapter 2 - 

Issues

9 Off-Road Driving

Off-road driving (often referred to as ORV use) is an important 

recreational experience for some publics and is increasing, 

especially two- and three-wheeled vehicles. Such use damages 

the environment in some areas or results in conflicts with other 

users. The forest is open to off-road driving except where 

designated closed. 

Off-road driving permits people access to resources like 

firewood. Some types of use have a severe impact on soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, and some other users.

Quantifiable Description – Year 2030

 Acres in Thousands 

Open Closed or seasonally restricted

1,491 331 (includes 150,000 acres of wilderness)

Nonquantifiable Description

Off-road driving is provided commensurate with resource 

management objectives and budget levels.

Motor Vehicle Use

Motor vehicle use is limited to designated roads, trails, and 

areas on the forest. Motor vehicle use off designated roads 

and trails and outside of designated areas is prohibited, 

except where exempted under 36 CFR 212.51. 

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction. 

Text deleted; superseded by new forestwide direction.

Chapter 2 - 

Issues

12 Mid-Decade Annual Road Operation and Maintenance Program

 Decade 1 Decade 2

Levels 1-2 100 miles 200 miles

Levels 3-5 1,000 miles 1,400 miles

Not requiring annual maintenance

 2,625 miles 2,375 miles

Not maintained to Standard

 2,425 miles 1,775 miles

Text deleted; superseded by new forestwide direction. 

 

1 Bold text represents reworded or new language. Italics explain deletions 

Appendix 
120 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

Road maintenance funding is slightly above current in the first 

decade, but will not be adequate to stop the disinvestment of the 

road system. Disinvestment will be reduced as road 

maintenance funding is increased over the planning period. 

Roads not needed for effective use and administration of forest 

resources are obliterated at a rate of 40 miles per year. 

Intermittent roads are closed and the public is informed. Four 

hundred and ninety-five miles of roads are reconstructed and 

maintained to the latest as-build standard that will perpetuate the 

roads without the need for capital investment funds. The 

remainder of the road system will be reconstructed on a 

rotational cycle based on a needs and benefit/cost analysis. 

Others are maintained for user safety and resource protection.

Road maintenance funding is slightly above current in the first 

decade, but will not be adequate to stop the disinvestment of the 

road system. Disinvestment will be reduced as road maintenance 

funding is increased over the planning period. Roads not needed

for effective use and administration of forest resources are 

obliterated as funding becomes available. Intermittent roads are 

closed and the public is informed. Four hundred and ninety-five 

miles of roads are reconstructed and maintained to the latest asbuild standard that will perpetuate the roads without the need for 

capital investment funds. The remainder of the road system will 

be reconstructed on a rotational cycle based on a needs and 

benefit/cost analysis. Others are maintained for user safety and 

resource protection.

Chapter 3 – 

Goals

22 Manage off-road driving to provide opportunities while 

protecting resources and minimizing conflicts with other users. 

Motor vehicle use is allowed only on designated roads, trails, 

and areas unless exempted (36 CFR 212.51).

Chapter 4 – 

Forestwide 

Standards and 

Guidelines 

58 Off-Road Driving Management

Annually review and update the Off-road Driving 

Implementation Schedule; amend the implementation schedule 

as needed to prevent resource damage and/or user conflicts.

Areas are closed to off-road driving when adverse resource 

impacts occur, when conflicts with the minimum management 

requirements occur, or if areas are too sensitive to withstand 

driving. The annual implementation schedule will provide for 

removal of forest products on administered sales.

By the second year of the decade prepare a forestwide inventory 

of off-road driving opportunities and use. Based on the 

inventory, by the fourth year of the decade update the Off-road 

Driving Implementation Schedule, and develop and sign an 

appropriate series of loop trails in various parts of the forest to 

disperse use and to provide a variety of experiences in 

coordination with the ROS management classes.

Prepare an ROG or other literature describing and explaining 

the off-road driving program. Review annually and update as 

Motor Vehicle Management

Roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use are 

identified on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). The MVUM 

is reviewed and republished annually.

Motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside 

of designated areas is prohibited, except where exempted 

under 36 CFR 212.51. 

Motor vehicles are permitted to travel up to 300 feet off 

either side of designated routes for dispersed camping. 

Rest of text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction. 
Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 121

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

needed.

Work with representatives of the spectrum of motorized users 

(including 2, 3, & 4 wheeled vehicles) in developing, 

designating, and providing information on off-road driving 

opportunities. This will have special emphasis in MA 13, the 

Cinder Hills, but will be applied over the major part of the 

forest.

Monitor motor vehicle use to determine the effectiveness of the 

Off-road Driving Implementation Schedule. Repair damage 

where cost effective and unacceptable environmental damage is 

occurring. Implement appropriate measures to prevent or 

minimize damage.

Areas closed to off-road driving at the beginning of the planning 

period are identified on the Off-road Driving Management Plan 

Map. Restrictions may be year-round or seasonal. There may be 

other restricted areas in the future that are not yet identified. 

Opportunities for recreational off-road driving will be 

considered in the road closure planning process. For example, 

existing roads which have eroded to a rock surface and are not 

likely to continue to erode may be left open and managed as 

motorized trails to provide a challenging driving experience 

when determined appropriate through an environmental 

analysis. These trails are signed for off-road vehicles and are not 

part of the regular road system. They are not included when 

calculating the average road density per mile, but should be 

considered in evaluating wildlife habitat. The following criteria 

are used to evaluate the need for future closures or restrictions:

- Soils that are receiving, or are expected to receive, damage to 

the extent that soil productivity will be significantly impaired.

Chapter 4 – 

Forestwide 

Standards and 

59 [cont. from page 85]

- Slopes exceeding 40 percent where high probability for 

damage exists.

Text deleted; superseded by new forestwide direction.
122 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction

1

Guidelines - Riparian areas being threatened or damaged.

- Meadows likely to be or being damaged.

- Areas adjacent to stream courses where potential for 

sedimentation is high.

- Areas within watercourses or wetlands (permanently or 

intermittently wet).

- Where the visual quality objectives (VQO) of preservation, 

retention, or partial retention are jeopardized.

- Areas of important cultural resource sites vulnerable to 

damage that are being threatened or damaged.

- Tree plantations less than 10 years old that are likely to be 

damaged.

- Habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species that is 

threatened.

- Key wildlife areas being threatened or damaged.

- Areas important to wildlife reproduction, such as, fawning or 

nesting areas, where disturbance is causing, or likely to cause, 

significant stress and reduction of reproductive success.

- Restrictions or closures needed to meet road management 

objectives.

- Areas within municipal watersheds.

- Areas where user conflict must be resolved to ensure public 

safety.

- Areas considered to be dangerous for winter off-road driving 

activities.

- Dispersed recreation areas where conflicts exist.

Manageability will be an important criterion in establishing 

boundaries of areas with restrictions.

Other areas may be seasonally closed to provide opportunities 

for recreation in a setting without vehicular disturbance such as 

temporarily changing the ROS class social and managerial 

settings toward the primitive end of the spectrum. Initially, the 

Pine Grove and Rattlesnake areas, of approximately 12,600 and 

11,100 acres, respectively, are closed annually from August 15 

through December 31. These areas are monitored and, based on 

evaluation of monitoring results, maintained, added to, or 
Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 123

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

cancelled.

Chapter 4 – 

Forestwide 

Standards and 

Guidelines

59 Law enforcement is planned and implemented to minimize 

resource damage and user conflicts. Signing is appropriate to 

inform the public and help minimize the need for direct law 

enforcement activities.

No change to text; move above the “Bicycle Use” heading. 

Chapter 4 – 

Forestwide 

Standards and 

Guidelines

60 Implement off-road driving restrictions in areas where roads are 

closed or obliterated and restrictions are necessary to prevent 

reopening of the roads by motor vehicle users.

Focus media attention on off-road driving management at least 

annually to enlist public cooperation. Feature volunteer 

organizations working to improve management.

Text deleted; superseded by new forestwide direction. 

Chapter 4 – 

Forestwide 

Standards and 

Guidelines

89 Manage road densities to achieve an average of 1.1 miles of 

open road per section in the woodland zone, such as pinyonjuniper, desert, and grassland vegetation types and an average of 

2 miles of open road per section in the ponderosa pine/mixed 

conifer zone. These densities reflect all system roads in 

maintenance categories 2 through 5, but do not include Federal, 

State, and county systems. Temporary roads that are only for 

short-term use and will then be fully obliterated and long-term 

closure roads are not a part of the calculated density. In 

calculating densities by vegetative type do not include areas 

having legal or administrative restrictions on roads, e.g., 

wilderness and research natural areas

Road densities are based on road density objectives, the 

resources served, user types, and topography to meet the 

objectives for management of resources served, using guidance 

from R3 publication “Skidding Distance Versus Road Cost 

Optimization for Timber Sales.” 

Text deleted; no longer implementing road density standards.
124 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

Chapter 4 – MA 

3 Standards and 

Guidelines

119 The trails are for nonmotorized traffic only, except Schultz 

Creek Trail which is open to motorized vehicles.

The trails are for nonmotorized traffic only. 

Rest of text deleted; the Schultz Creek Trail was closed to 

motorized vehicles in Amendment 17 but this page was never 

corrected.

Chapter 4 – MA 

3 Standards and 

Guidelines

120 Schultz Creek trail will remain open to all types of use. Text deleted; Schultz Creek Trail was closed to motorized 

vehicles in Amendment 17 but this page was never corrected.

Chapter 4 – MA 

3 Standards and 

Guidelines

137 Generally, local roads are closed until the next entry by signing 

and physical obstruction such as gates or barriers. Temporary 

roads are obliterated and returned to production. If necessary to 

ensure protection, off-road driving restrictions are imposed until 

roads are fully revegetated. 

Generally, local roads are closed until the next entry by signing 

and physical obstruction such as gates or barriers. Temporary 

roads are not open to public motorized travel (36 CFR 212) 

and are obliterated and returned to production [rest of text 

deleted]. 

Chapter 4 – MA 

3 Standards and 

Guidelines

140 Trails are for nonmotorized use, except in Schultz Creek 

adjacent to Forest Road 420 up to Road 789.

Trails are for nonmotorized use.

Rest of text deleted; Schultz Creek Trail was closed to 

motorized vehicles in Amendment 17 but this page was never 

corrected.

Chapter 4 – MA 

9 Standards and 

Guidelines

159 Closely monitor off-road driving. If damage is occurring or 

becomes imminent, apply and enforce appropriate restrictions 

(see forestwide standards and guidelines - recreation program 

component for criteria). 

Focus media attention on off-road driving damage in these 

sensitive areas at least annually. 

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction. 

Chapter 4 – MA 

10 Standards 

and Guidelines

163 Vehicle traffic permitted only on designated roadways, with the 

exception of access to fences (for repair), for maintenance of 

utilities, traversing the right-of-way, and for stock management 

by permittees of the national forest. 

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – MA 

13 Standards 

and Guidelines

179 This MA is designated for off-road driving and is managed for 

two and four wheeled vehicles. 

Manage off-road driving to provide recreational opportunities 

This MA is designated for OHV use and is managed for two 

and four wheeled vehicles. 

Manage OHV use to provide recreational opportunities and 
Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 125

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

and coordinate with needs of other recreation users and other 

resources. 

Make slight adjustments to the boundary of the OHV area 

where needed to ease administration of the site. These changes 

will improve enforcement of the boundaries, help users identify 

the area, and in combination with other access management 

activities will lessen encroachment into the monument.

Consider fencing or other physical barriers a means of boundary 

identification. 

The boundary has been slightly revised on the southwest corner 

of the area for administrative identification. There is no 

significant change in the size of the area, but it is adjusted to 

roads or features that are identifiable on the ground. The map in 

appendix M has been revised to reflect what is currently posted 

on the ground.

coordinate with needs of other recreation users and other 

resources. 

Make slight adjustments to the boundary of the OHV area 

where needed to ease administration of the site. These changes 

will improve enforcement of the boundaries, help users identify 

the area, and in combination with other access management 

activities will lessen encroachment into the monument.

Consider fencing or other physical barriers a means of boundary 

identification. 

The boundary has been slightly revised on the southwest corner 

of the area for administrative identification. There is no 

significant change in the size of the area, but it is adjusted to 

roads or features that are identifiable on the ground. The map in 

appendix M has been revised to reflect what is currently posted 

on the ground.

Chapter 4 – MA 

13 Standards 

and Guidelines

180 See the Objectives for Recreation Opportunity Spectrum map 

(appendix M) and manage uses to meet these objectives. On 

busy summer weekends, the number of encounters with other 

recreationists will likely be outside parameters set for 

semiprimitive settings and this is acceptable. 

Reference the Cinder Hills Off-Road Driving Area Report 

(Peaks Ranger District). This report is a detailed desired 

condition that will be validated or changed via subsequent sitespecific NEPA analysis. This report includes a map of the 

desired improved roads, camping areas, specific slope 

designations, rehabilitation needs, sanitation facilities, signing, 

boundary management, information, and interpretation actions.

The report will be updated as needed with involvement from 

off-road vehicle users, Native American tribes, and others 

concerned with Cinder Hills use. Requiring a permit and/or 

charging a fee may be considered in the future. Operation of the 

area by a concessionaire may be considered. 

See the Objectives for Recreation Opportunity Spectrum map 

(appendix M) and manage uses to meet these objectives. On 

busy summer weekends, the number of encounters with other 

recreationists will likely be outside parameters set for 

semiprimitive settings and this is acceptable. 

Reference the “Cinder Hills Off-Road Driving Area Report” 

(Peaks Ranger District). This report is a detailed desired 

condition that will be validated or changed via subsequent sitespecific NEPA analysis. This report includes a map of the 

desired improved roads, camping areas, specific slope 

designations, rehabilitation needs, sanitation facilities, signing, 

boundary management, information, and interpretation actions.

The report will be updated as needed with involvement from 

OHV users, Native American tribes, and others concerned with 

Cinder Hills use. Requiring a permit and/or charging a fee may 

be considered in the future. Operation of the area by a 

concessionaire may be considered. 
126 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

Portions of this MA will be open to unrestricted cross-country 

travel, portions will have use restricted to designated routes, and 

portions will be closed (some slopes). 

This MA is open to unrestricted cross-country travel except 

where signed closed. Other portions may be closed in the 

future based on reasons listed below. The area also contains 

some designated routes for entry and navigation through the 

area.

Chapter 4 – MA 

15 Standards 

and Guidelines

189 Maintain facilities at Condition Class Level I. Repair minor site 

damage within 1 year and major site damage within 2 years.

Sites are closed to off-road driving, unless specific management 

needs are identified for such things as administration, 

construction, or maintenance. Sites are closed to vehicles and 

operators not licensed for highway use in the State of Arizona.

Maintain facilities at Condition Class Level I. Repair minor site 

damage within 1 year and major site damage within 2 years. 

[Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.] Sites 

are closed to vehicles and operators not licensed for highway 

use in the State of Arizona. 

Chapter 4 – MA 

16 Standards 

and Guidelines

192 Limit vehicle access to city and Federal vehicles necessary to 

administer the area. The area is closed to livestock use and 

recreational livestock use such as horses, mules, or llamas. The 

area is closed to off-road driving use. 

Limit vehicle access to city and Federal vehicles necessary to 

administer the area. The area is closed to livestock use and 

recreational livestock use such as horses, mules, or llamas. [Rest 

of text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.] 

Chapter 4 – MA 

17 Standards 

and Guidelines

195 Prohibit off-road driving. Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – MA 

18 Standards 

and Guidelines

199 Enforce off-road driving closures. Make a special effort through 

the schools and the media to focus public attention on the 

importance of complying with the closure for all areas.

[Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.] Make a 

special effort through the schools and the media to focus public 

attention on the importance of complying with the motorized

closure for all areas.

Chapter 4 – MA

19 Standards 

and Guidelines

202 Close MA 19 to off-road driving, except for vehicles traveling 

over-the-snow such as snowmobiles or in the vicinity of Knoll 

Lake, please refer to Off-road Driving Map. 

MA 19 and the vicinity of Knoll Lake are open to over-snow 

vehicles such as snowmobiles.

Chapter 4 – MA 

19 Standards 

and Guidelines

202 Sites are closed to off-road driving, unless specific management 

needs are identified for such things as administration, 

construction, or maintenance. Sites are closed to vehicles and 

operators not licensed for highway use in the State of Arizona.

Sites are closed to vehicles and operators not licensed for 

highway use in the State of Arizona.
Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 127

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

Chapter 4 – 

Sedona Areawide Standards 

and Guidelines

206-12 Restrict motor vehicles to system roads and trails in the 

planning area, except as authorized by permit. 

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – 

Sedona Areawide Standards 

and Guidelines

206-24 Off-road driving is prohibited within most of the Sedona/Oak 

Creek Ecosystem, except under rare circumstances by permit.

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – 

Sedona Areawide Standards 

and Guidelines

206-27 Limit travel associated with commercial uses to system roads 

and trails, or to sites designated in an operating plan for such 

use.

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – MA 

25 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-43 limiting motor vehicle traffic between access corridors and the 

cliffs.

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – MA 

26 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-46 Close to motor vehicles and rehabilitate locations that have been 

damaged by off-road driving and camping with priority given to 

Broken Arrow, Schnebly Hill, Cathedral Rock and Carrol 

Canyon.

Rehabilitate locations that have been damaged by off-highway 

vehicle driving and camping with priority given to Broken 

Arrow, Schnebly Hill, Cathedral Rock and Carrol Canyon.

Chapter 4 – MA 

26 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-46 limiting motor vehicle traffic between access corridors and the 

cliffs. 

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – 

FLEA Areawide Standards 

and Guidelines

206-70 Consult the Roads Analysis for the FLEA Area report, for 

desired open road network. Reference this information when 

conducting project level (site-specific) NEPA analysis to close, 

obliterate, or upgrade roads.

Text deleted; superseded by new forestwide direction.
128 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction

1

Chapter 4 – 

FLEA Areawide 

Standards and 

Guidelines

206-72 Keep the Pinegrove Seasonal Closure Area closed to vehicle 

access between August 15 and December 31. 

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – 

FLEA Areawide 

Standards and 

Guidelines

206-79 Generally discourage off-road driving within 1⁄4 mile of these 

sites.

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction. 

Chapter 4 – MA 

31 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-84 Continue motorized travel restrictions similar to the current forest orders where motorized use occurs on designated open 

roads and trails only. 

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction. 

Chapter 4 – MA 

31 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-84 Generally discourage off-road driving within 1⁄4 mile of these 

sites.

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – MA 

31 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-85 Discourage off-trail use of any kind on large cinder cones. Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – MA 

32 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-88 Discourage off-trail use of any kind on large cinder cones. Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – MA 

32 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-88 Enforce the stay on designated roads policy. Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – MA 

35 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-99 Continue current seasonal motorized restrictions in the 

Pinegrove Seasonal Closure Area. 

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – MA 

36 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-105 Discourage off-trail use. Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.
Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 129

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

Chapter 4 – MA 

37 Standards 

and Guidelines

206-110 Continue the current nonmotorized status in the areas of Skunk 

and Fay Canyons, Canyon Vista, Fisher Point, and Campbell 

Mesa. 

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction.

Chapter 4 – 

Monitoring 

Schedule (Table 

14-Monitoring 

Plan)

209 Item monitored

Off-road Driving Compliance and Damage

Intent

Prevent unacceptable damage to resources and meet provision 

of forest off-road driving implementation plan.

Monitoring Method/Unit of Measure

Area and project reviews, RIM system/Area condition.

Measuring Frequency

Annually

Percent Accuracy/Precision

80/80

Variability that would initiate Re-evaluation

ORV use or damage conflicts with management goals or lowers 

visual quality level below objectives.

Item monitored

Motor vehicle use

Intent

Impacts of motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails 

and in designated areas.

Monitoring Method/Unit of Measure

Compliance; safety; resource impacts; condition surveys; 

traffic flow; new unauthorized routes/Administrative Unit

Measuring Frequency

Annually

Percent Accuracy/Precision

80/80

Variability that would initiate Re-evaluation

Motor vehicle use or damage conflicts with management goals. 

Revise designations as necessary.

Appendix H 242-12 Table 9. 10-Year Arterial and Collector Road ReconstructionCapital InvestmentTable deleted; outdated. 

Appendix H 242-13-

16

Table 10. 10-Year Arterial and Collector Road Upgrade 

Reconstruction-Purchaser Credit 

Table deleted; outdated. 

Appendix J 242-25-

28

Forest Service Road Management Objectives Table deleted; superseded by new forestwide direction. 

Appendix L Map 5 [Map Legend] Off-Road Driving Allowed Except:

Wilderness

Text deleted; redundant with new forestwide direction. 

Refer to motor vehicle use map.
130 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Appendix A. Proposed Amendment to the Forest Plan

Chapter/ 

Management 

Area

Page Current Plan Direction Proposed Plan Amendment Direction1

Closed to Motor Vehicles

Restricted

Motor vehicle use on designated routes only

Seasonally Restricted

Closed to motor vehicle during some seasons

Glossary 246 or 

247

[No definition] Designated road, trail, or area

A National Forest System road or 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.

Glossary 256 [No definition] MVUM (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.

Glossary 258 ORV

Off-road vehicles include all mechanical means of 

transportation that are capable of traveling over land where no 

road exists. Passenger cars, four-wheel drive vehicles, trail 

bikes, ATVs (all terrain vehicles), and snowmobiles are off-road 

vehicles.

OHV (off-highway 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.

Over-Snow Vehicle

A motor vehicle designed for use over snow and that runs on 

a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow.

Glossary 272 Off-highway Vehicle – Any motor vehicle when operated off of 

highways on forest lands.

Off-road Travel – Overland travel with motorized or nonmotorized vehicles off of established, cleared, and defined 

routes capable of accommodating such a vehicle.

Text deleted; redundant with definition on page 258. 

Text deleted; not used in 36 CFR 212.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 131

B: Heritage Resource Density Map

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 133

References 

Abrahams, M. and M. Kattenfeld. 1997. The role of turbidity as a constraint on predator-prey 

interactions in aquatic environments. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 40: 169-174. 

Anderson, J. L. 1986. Biogeographical analysis of Cowania subintegra Kearney (Rosaceae), an

Arizona Sonoran Desert endemic. Arizona State University M.S. Thesis. Tempe, AZ. 

Anderson, P. G. 1996. Sediment generation from forestry operations and associated effects on

aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the Forest-Fish Conference: Land Management 

Practices Affecting Aquatic Ecosystems, Calgary, Alberta. 

Arboretum at Flagstaff. 2002. Verde Valley habitat management plan. Unpublished report 

submitted to Coconino National Forest. 48 pp. 

Argent, D. G. and P. A. Flebbe 1999. Fine sediment effects on brook trout eggs in laboratory 

streams. Fisheries Research 39: 253-262. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Web site. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment 

and 303(d) Listing Report.http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/assess.html 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2006. Coconino National Forest 2006 

Assessed Water Draft Map. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling 

of Surface Waters. Phoenix, Arizona, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality: 

335. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2000. Carex ultra. Unpublished abstract compiled and 

edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 

2001. Catostomus sp3. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 

2001. Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by 

the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, 

AZ. 5 pp. 

2001. Purshia subintegra. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. 

2002. Gila intermedia. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 9 pp. 

2002. Rumex orthoneurus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage 

Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. 

2002. Salvia dorrii ssp. mearnsii. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the 

Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 

pp. 

2003. Erigeron saxatilis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 pp. 

2003. Pyrgulopsis simplex. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage 

Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp 
References

134 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

2004. Homoleptohyphes quercus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the 

Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 

pp. 

2004. Pyrgulopsis morrisoni. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage 

Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 

2005. Chrysothamnus molestus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the 

Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 

pp. 

2005. Heuchera eastwoodiae. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage 

Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 

2005. Platanthera zothecina. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage 

Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. 

Arizona Public Service (APS). 1998. Fossil Creek hydrology and travertine morphology. FERC 

Project No. 2069-003 Arizona Childs and Irving Hydropower License. Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona State Parks. 2003. Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation to Arizona. 

34 pp. 

Arizona State University, 2003. Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation to 

Arizona. 34 pp. 

Baggs, Joanne E. and Joyce Maschinski. 2000. Annual report on the long-term research on 

Purshia subintegra in the Verde Valley for 1999. Unpublished report to the Arizona 

Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. 

Baggs, Joanne E. and Joyce Maschinski. 2001. Annual report on the long-term research on 

Purshia subintegra in the Verde Valley for 2000. Unpublished report to the Arizona 

Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ 

2001b. From the Greenhouse to the Field: Cultivation Requirements of Arizona Cliffrose 

(Purshia subintegra). Pages 176-185. In Maschinski, J. and L. Holter (Eds.) Southwestern 

Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Third Conference. Flagstaff, AZ. 

Proceedings RMRS-P-23. 248 pp. 

2001c. The Threat of Increasing Hybridization of an Endangered Plant Species, Purshia 

subintegra, in the Verde Valley. Pages 213-220. In Maschinski, J. and L. Holter (Eds.) 

Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Third Conference.

Flagstaff, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-P-23. 248 pp. 

Baggs, Joanne. 1996. Report on the long-term research on Purshia subintegra in the Verde Valley.

Unpublished report to the Arizona Department of Transportation. 

1997. Report on the long-term research on Purshia subintegra in the Verde Valley.

Unpublished report to the Arizona Department of Transportation. 

1998. Report on the long-term research on Purshia subintegra in the Verde Valley.

Unpublished report to the Arizona Department of Transportation. 

2000. Unpublished Data on Research on Arizona Cliffrose in Verde Valley Botanical 

Area. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 135

Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, et al. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and 

Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 

841-B-99-002. Washington, DC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 339. 

Barrett, J. C., G. D. Grossman, et al. 1992. Turbidity-induced changes in reactive distance of 

rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 437-443. 

Barrett, P. 1992. Spatial habitat preference of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), roundtail 

chub (Gila robusta) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). University of Arizona.

Tucson, AZ. 

Bisson, P. A. and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 371-374. 

Brothers, Timothy S. and Arthur Springarn. 1992. Forest Fragmentation and Alien Plant Invasion 

of Central Indiana Old-Growth Forests. Conservation Biology. Vol. 6 (1), pp. 91-100. 

Clark, B. K., B. S. Clark, L. A. Johnson and M. T. Haynie. 2001. Influence of roads on 

movements of small mammals. The Southwestern Naturalist 46 (3): 338-344. Cockrum, 

1960. 

Corman, T., Wise-Gervais, C. 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. University of New Mexico 

Press. Albuquerque, NM. 636 pp. 

Crane, William V. 2006. Road Maintenance with Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Plants: 

Finding Solutions. U.S. Forest Service, Technology and Development Program, 

Transportation Management. 0677-1807 SDTDC. 60 pp. 

Crisp, Debra. 1996. Monitoring of Penstemon clutei A. Nels on Tornado Salvage. pp.243-246. In 

Maschinski, J. H. David Hammond and L. Holter (Eds.) Southwestern Rare and 

Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Second Conference. Flagstaff, AZ. Proceedings 

RMRS-GTR-283. 328 pp. 

Cummins, K. W. 1973. Trophic relations of aquatic insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 18:183-206. 

Dargan, C. M. 1991. Roost site characteristics of bald eagles wintering in north-central Arizona. 

Master of Science in Forestry Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Dodd, N. L., S. S. Rosenstock, C. R. Miller, and R. E. Schweinsburg. 1998. Tassel-eared squirrel 

population dynamics in Arizona: index techniques and relationships to habitat condition. 

Arizona. 

Game and Fish Department Technical Report 27, Phoenix, AZ. 49 pp. 

Driscoll, J. T., K. V. Jacobson, G. L. Beatty, J. S. Canaca, and J. G. Koloszar. 2006. Conservation 

assessment and strategy for the bald eagle in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Program Technical Report 173. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Eaglin, G. S. and W. A. Hubert. 1993. MANAGEMENT BRIEFS: Effects of logging and roads on 

substrate and trout in streams of the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 13: 844-846. 

Edwards, P. J. and G. L. Evans. 2004. Giving greater consideration to cross-drainage discharge 

from forest roads. Riparian ecosystems and buffers: Multi-scale structure, function, and 

management - AWRA Summer Specialty Conference, Olympic Valley, CA, AWRA. 
References

136 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Fausch, K. D., B. E. Rieman, et al. 2006. Strategies for Conserving Native Salmonid Populations 

at Risk from Nonnative Fish Invasions: Tradeoffs in using Barriers to Upstream 

Movement, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 140. 

Forman, R. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-231. 

Fowler, James F., Carolyn Hull Sieg, Brett G. Dickson and Victoria Saab. 2008. Exotic Plant 

Diversity: Influence of Roads and Prescribed fire in Arizona Ponderosa Pine Forests. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management. Vol. 61(3), pp. 284-293. 

Frost, M. H. (Collector). 1945. Helianthus arizonensis. Specimen on file at University of Arizona 

Herbarium. Accessed @ http://seinet.asu.edu/seinet/collections/index.jsp 

Fule, Pete Z., Judy D. Springer, David G. Huffman, and Wallace W. Covington. 2000. Response 

of a rare endemic, Penstemon clutei, to burning and reduced belowground competition. 

pp. 139-152. In Maschinski, J. and L. Holter (Eds.) Southwestern Rare and Endangered 

Plants: Proceedings of the Third Conference. Flagstaff, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-P-23. 

248 pp. 

Furniss, M. J., M. A. Love, et al. 1997. Diversion potential and road-stream crossings. San 

Dimas, CA, USDA, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center: 11. 

Furniss, M. J., S. A. Flanagan, et al. 2000. Hydrologically-Connected Roads: An indicator of the 

influence of roads on chronic sedimentation, surface water hydrology, and exposure to 

toxic chemicals. Fort Collins, CO, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 4. 

Ganey, Joseph L., Voijta, Scott C. 2007. Modeling snag dynamics in northern Arizona mixed 

conifer and ponderosa pine forests. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-66WWW. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15 

pp. 

Gelbard, Jonathan L. and Jayne Belnap. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a 

Semiarid Landscape. Conservation Biology. Vol. 17 (3), pp. 420-432. 

Gelbard, Jonathan L. and Susan Harrison. 2003. Roadless Habitats as Refuges for Native 

Grasslands; Interactions with Soil, Aspect and Grazing. Ecological Applications. Vol. 

13(2), pp. 404-415. 

Girmendonk, A. L. and K. L. Young. 1997. Status review of the roundtail chub (Gila robusta) in 

the Verde River Basin. Technical Report 114. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Program. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 95 pp. 

Gradall, K. S. and W. A. Swenson. 1982. Responses of Brook Trout and Creek Chubs to 

Turbidity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111: 392-395. 

Gregory, S. V., G. A. Lamberti, D. C. Erman, K. V. Koski, M. L. Murphy, and J. R. Sedell. 1987. 

Influence of forest practices on aquatic production. Pages 233-255 in E.O. Salo and T. W. 

Cundy (eds.), Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Contr. No. 57, 

Inst. Forest Resources, Univ. Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Grubb, T. G., L. L. Pater, and D. K. Delaney. 1998. Logging truck noise near nesting northern 

goshawks. USDA Forest Service RMRS-RN-3. 2 pp. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 137

Grubb, T. G., S. J. Nagiller, W. L. Eakle, and G. A. Goodwin. 1989. Winter roosting patterns of 

bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in north-central Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 

34(4):453-459. 

Gucinski, H., M. J. Furniss, et al., Eds. 2001. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. Portland, OR, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 

Gucinski, H.; Furniss, M.; Ziemer, R., Brookes; June, 2000. Forest Roads. A Synthesis of 

Information. USDA Forest Service. 116 pp. 

Hawkins, C. P., R. H. Norris, et al. 2000. Development and evaluation of predictive models for 

measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1456-1477. 

Heino, J., P. Louhi, et al. 2004. Identifying the scales of variability instream macroinvertebrate 

abundance, functional composition and assemblage structure. Freshwater Biology 49: 

1230-1239. 

Heller, D. 2005. Fish Passage at Road-Stream Crossings on the National Forests of Oregon and 

Washington. Corvallis, OR, USDA Forest Service: 15. 

Hendrickson, D. 1992. Arizona stockings of razorbacks and squawfish: A history and future 

research and management challenges. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council. 23:70 

1993. Evaluation of the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and Colorado squawfish 

(Ptychocheilus lucius) reintroduction programs in central Arizona based on surveys of 

fish populations in the Salt and Verde Rivers from 1986 to 1990. Nongame and 

Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Hodgson, Wendy C. Agave phillipsiana. 2001. In Flora of North America. Volume 26. Oxford 

University Press, New York, NY. page 461. 

Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, AZ. 

Jacobson, K. V., K. M. McCarty, and J. T. Driscoll. 2007. Arizona bald eagle management 

program 2007 summary report. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 250. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 69 pp. 

Jones, J. A. 2000. Hydrologic processes and peak discharge response to forest removal, regrowth, 

and roads in 10 small experimental basins, western Cascades, OR. Water Resources 

Research 36(9): 2621-2642. 

Jones, J. A., F. J. Swanson, et al. 2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and 

disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14(1): 76-85. 

Keim, R. F., A. E. Skaugest, et al. 2002. Physical Aquatic Habitat II. Pools and cover affected by 

large woody debris in three Western Oregon streams. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 22: 151-164. 

Kim, Yeon-Su. 2009. Economics Specialist Report for the Travel Management Rule Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. Coconino National Forest. 

Kolka, R. K. and M. F. Smidt. 2004. Effects of forest road amelioration techniques on soil bulk 

density, surface runoff, sediment transport, soil moisture and seedling growth Forest 

Ecology and Management 202: 313-323. 
References

138 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Larson, Diane L. 2003. Native weeds and exotic plants: Relationships to disturbance in mixedgrass prairie. Plant Ecology Vol. 169 317-333. 

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, AZ. 331 pp. 

Lawson, L. L., ed. 2005. Macroinvertebrate Sampling and Analysis Procedures, Section 3, Part A, 

in A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, TM05-01. Phoenix, AZ. 

Licher, Max (Collector). 2001. Desmodium metcalfei. Specimen on file at Northern Arizona 

University Herbarium. Accessed @ http://seinet.asu.edu/seinet/collections/index.jsp 

Lisle, T. E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north-coastal 

California. Water Resources Research 25(6): 1303-1319. 

Loomis, G. 1994. Fossil Creek flood peaks: current, natural and degraded watershed conditions. 

Technical report. USDA Forest Service, Tonto National Forest. 

Maschinski, Joyce, Joanne E. Baggs and Christopher F. Sacchi. 2004. Seedling Recruitment and 

Survival of an Endangered Limestone Endemic in its Natural Habitat and Experimental 

Reintroduction Sites. American Journal of Botany. Vol. 91(5), pp 689-698. 

Maschinski, Joyce, Joanne E. Baggs, Pedro F. Quintana-Ascencio and Eric S. Menges. 2006. 

Using Population Viability Analysis to Predict the Effects of Climate Change on the 

Extinction Risk of an Endangered Limestone Endemic Shrub, Arizona Cliffrose. 

Conservation Biology. Vol. 20 (1), pp. 218-228. 

Mathews, E. 1994. Staff Paper – Travertine and Fossil Creek. 16 pp. 

McGregor, R., Derrane, S., Bender, D. and Fahrig, L. 2004. The effect of traffic volume on 

translocated small mammal movement. IN: Proceedings of the 2003 International 

Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin, C. L., Garrett, P., McDermott, K. 

P. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, 

Raleigh, NC: pp. 394-396. 

McGurk, B. J. and D. R. Fong. 1995. Equivalent roaded area as a measure of cumulative effect of 

logging. Environmental Management 19(4): 609-621. 

Miller, D. J. and L. E. Benda. 2000. Effects of punctuated sediment supply on valley-floor 

landforms and sediment transport. GSA Bulletin 112: 1814-1824. 

Minckley, W. L. and J. N. Rinne. 1991. Native fishes of arid lands: A dwindling resource of the 

Desert Southwest. Fort Collins, CO, USDA Forest Service: 45. 

Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix 

1993. A review of fishes of the Coconino National Forest Region, Arizona. Final report 

submitted to the Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ. 43 pp. 

Minckley, W. L. and B. D. DeMarais. 2000. Taxonomy of chubs (teleostei, Cyprinidae, Genus 

Gila) in the American Southwest with comments on conservation. Copeia, 1: 252-256. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 139

Minckley, W. L. and N. T. Alger. 1968. Fish remains from an archaeological site along the Verde 

River, Yavapai County, AZ. Plateau, 40:91-97 

Minnesota Implan Group Inc. 2010. Economic Impact Modeling Solution. http://implan.com 

Note- Implan input-output model with 2006 dataset at the county level is a proprietary 

service that is available from IMPLAN to subscribers only. 27 January, 2010.

Monroe, S. 2000. Geomorphology and hydrology of Fossil Springs dam site. Unpublished report 

in support of decommissioning the Childs-Irving Hydroelectric Project. 

New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council. 1999. New Mexico Rare Plants. Albuquerque, NM: 

New Mexico Rare Plants Home Page. http://nmrareplants.unm.edu (Latest update: 6 

December 2007). Desmodium metcalfei. 

1999. New Mexico Rare Plants. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Rare Plants Home Page. 

http://nmrareplants.unm.edu (Latest update: 6 December 2007). Helianthus arizonensis. 

Paige, C. 2008. A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences. Landowner/Wildlife Resource 

Program, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 44 pp. 

Parendes, Laurie A. and Julia A. Jones. 2000. Role of Light Availability and Dispersal in Exotic 

Plant Invasion along Roads and Streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, 

Oregon. Conservation Biology. Vol. 14 (1), pp. 64-75 

Phillips, Barbara G., David Lutz, Ronald Popowski and Harley Shaw. 1996. The Verde Valley 

Sonoran Desertscrub: An Ecosystem at Risk. Pages 231-236. In Maschinski, J. H. David 

Hammond and L. Holter (Eds.) Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings 

of the Second Conference. Flagstaff, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-GTR-283. 328 pp. 

Platts, W. S., R. J. Torquemada, et al. 1989. Changes in Salmon Spawning and Rearing Habitat 

from Increased Delivery of Fine Sediment to the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118: 274-283. 

Pritchard, D., J. Anderson, et al. 1998. Riparian Area Management - A User Guide to Assessing 

Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Denver, CO, 

USDI - Bureau of Land Management: 126. 

Propst, D. L. and K. R. Bestgen. 1991. Habitat and biology of the loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis, 

in New Mexico. Copeia 1991:29-38. 

Reading, R. P., R. Hachett. 1997. Attributes of black-tailed prairie dog colonies in north-central 

Montana. Wildl. Manage. 61(3):664-673. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr. G. 

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the 

northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-217. Ft. 

Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experimental Station. 34 pp. 

Rice, S. P., M. T. Greenwood, et al. 2001. Tributaries, sediment sources, and the longitudinal 

organisation of macroinvertebrate fauna along river systems. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(4): 824-840. 
References

140 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Rink, Glen (Collector). 2005. Desmodium metcalfei. Specimen on file at Northern Arizona 

University Herbarium. Accessed @ http://seinet.asu.edu/seinet/collections/index.jsp 

Rinne, J. N. 2004. Forest and Fishes: Effects of flows and foreigners on southwestern native 

fishes. Forest Land - Fish Conference II - Ecosystem Stewardship through Collaboration., 

Edmonton, Alberta, Forest-Land-Fish Conf II. 

Rinne, J. N. and D. G. Neary. 2000. Watersheds and fisheries relationships: State of knowledge, 

southwestern United States. Land Stewardship in the 21st Century: The Contributions of 

Watershed Management, RMRS-P-13, Tucson, AZ, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Rinne, J. N. and W. L. Minckley. 1991. Native fishes of arid lands: a dwindling resource of the 

desert Southwest. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-206. Rocky Mtn. For. and Range 

Exper. Station. Fort Collins, CO. 45 pp. 

Rosenfeld, J. S. and S. Boss. 2001. Fitness consequences of habitat use for juvenile cutthroat 

trout: energetic costs and benefits in pools and riffles. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science 58: 585-593. 

Rowe, D. K. and T. L. Dean. 1998. Effects of turbidity on the feeding ability of the juvenile 

migrant stage of six New Zealand freshwater fish species. New Zealand Journal of 

Marine and Freshwater Research 32(1): 21-29. 

Schmidt, W. 1989. Plant dispersal by motor cars. Vegetation. Vol. 80, pp.147-152. 

Seamens, M. E., R. J. Gutierrez, C. A. May, and M. Z. Perry. 1999. Demography of two Mexican 

spotted owl populations. Conservation Biology. 13:744-754. 

Seamens, M. E., R. J. Gutierrez, C. A. May. 2002. Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) 

population dynamics: influence of climate variation on survival and reproduction. The 

Auk 119(2):321-334. 

Shaw, E. A. and J. S. Richardson. 2001. Direct and indirect effects of sediment pulse duration on 

stream invertebrate assemblages and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) growth and 

survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58: 2213-2221. 

Silberman, Jonathan, PhD. 2003. The Economic Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation. 

90 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2001. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for 

Coconino National Forest. 22 pp. 

Solvesky, B. and Chambers, C. 2007. Bat Roost Inventory and Monitoring Project for Arizona 

Game and Fish Department Region 2. Flagstaff, AZ. 26 pp. 

2008. Roosts of Allen’s lappet-browed bats (draft). Flagstaff, AZ. 23 pp. 

Southwestern Environmental Information Network (SEINet). 2008. Herbarium Collections for 

Desmodium metcalfei. http://seinet.asu.edu/seinet/collections/index.jsp. Accessed 

9/10/2008. 

Spellerberg, I. F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology 

and Biogeography Letters 7: 317-333. 

Stoneman, C. L. and M. L. Jones. 2000. The influence of habitat features on the biomass and 

distribution of three species of southern Ontario stream salmonids. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 129(3): 639-657. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 141

Stynes, Daniel J., Eric M. White. 2005. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, NVUM 

Four Year Report. 

Stynes, Daniel J., Eric M. White. 2006. Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors 

by Activity. 26 pp. 

Sullivan, M. E. and M. E. Richardson. 1993. Functions and values of the Verde River riparian 

ecosystem and an assessment of adverse impacts to these resources. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 364 pp. 

Sweka, J. A. and K. J. Hartman. 2001. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption and growth in 

brook trout and implications for bioenergetics modeling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 58(2): 386-393. 

Sweka, J. A. and K. J. Hartman. 2001. Influence of turbidity on brook trout reactive distance and 

foraging success. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130(1): 138-146. 

Thurow, R. F., D. C. Lee, et al. 1997. Distribution and Status of Seven Native Salmonids in the 

Interior Columbia River Basin and Portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 1094-1110. 

Trombulak, S. C., Frissell, C. A. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology. (14)1:18-30. 

Trombulak, Stephen C. and Christopher A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads 

on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology. Vol. 14 (1) pp. 18-30. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. County Business Patterns. 

http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html 27 January, 2010. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix

occidentalis ucida). Albuquerque, NM. 

USDA Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. Moscow, ID. 

Water Erosion Prediction Project Web site at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. 

Elliot et. al. 9/22/2006. 

WEPP:Road (Draft 12/1999) Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and 

Sediment Delivery, Technical Documentation Web site at 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html. Elliot, Hall, Scheele, 

December 1999. 

USDA Agricultural Research Service. Universal Soil Loss Equation database via Web site,

http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/usle/index.html, 2009. 

USDA Forest Service, Mogollon Rim, Mormon Lake, Peaks and Red Rock Ranger Districts. SE 

Forest Roads Analysis (and related GIS tables). SE Forest Roads Analysis Team, 

Undated. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 117 pp. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 1999. East Clear Creek Watershed 

Recovery Strategy for the Little Colorado River Spinedace and Other Riparian Species. 

USDA Forest Service. Coconino National Forest. 
References

142 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region. 1987. Coconino National LRMP with amendments. 

486 pp. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/projects/plan-revision2006/1987_cnf_forest_plan_as_amended.pdf. 

1989. Riparian Area Survey and Evaluation System (RASES). 

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, AZ. 613 Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/2005/feis-weeds/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 1979. Observations on Penstemon clutei on the Coconino National Forest. 

1984. Field Survey for Hedeoma diffusum Greene, Coconino National Forest.

1984. Management Plan for Hedeoma diffusum Greene, Elden, Flagstaff, Mormon Lake 

and Sedona Ranger Districts. 

1987. Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Southwestern 

Region. Albuquerque, NM. 270 pp. 

1987. Aquatic ecosystem inventory - macroinvertebrate analysis - annual progress report. 

Unpublished Report submitted to the Coconino National Forest. 31 pp. 

1991. Endangered plant survey of Coconino National Forest proposed land exchanges. 

Report by Southwestern Field Biologists, Tucson, Arizona for USDA Forest Service, 

Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, AZ. 

1992. Unpublished final report, distribution and ecology of Sunset Crater Beardtongue 

(Penstemon clutei) in the Cinder Hills Area, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona 

for Coconino National Forest. 

1993. Meeting Notes: Deadhorse Ranch State Park, 8 December 1993. Meeting between 

DHRSP, USFWS, ADOT, ENTRANCO, Ecoplan Associates, and USFS. 

1994. Survey for Purshia subintegra and four other species. Coconino National Forest. 

1996. A Botanical Survey of the Antelope Hills, Horseshoe, China Dam, and Perkinsville 

Grazing Allotments of the Chino Valley Ranger District, Prescott National Forest, AZ. 

1995. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Coconino National Forest. Southwestern 

Region. 405 pp. 

1998. Coconino, Kaibab and Prescott National Forests. Noxious Weeds Strategic Plan 

Working Guidelines, Coconino, Kaibab and Prescott National Forests. 

1999. FSH 2509.18, R3 Supplement No. 2509. 18-99-1, 1999 

2000. Closure Order 04-00-146. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/forest-orders/off-road-vehicle-forestwide.shtml 

2000. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. Gucinski, H., M. J. Furniss, R. 

R. Ziemer and M. H. Brookes. General Tehnical Report PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR.

2002. Management Indicator Status Report for the Coconino National Forest, Working 

Draft. 94 pp. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 143

2002. Management indicator species status report for the Coconino National Forest. 

Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Coconino National 

Forest. 94 pp. 

2004. Final Environmental Assessment Native Fish Restoration in Fossil Creek.

Coconino and Tonto National Forests. Arizona. 

2005. Hedeoma diffusum monitoring plots. Unpublished report on file at the Coconino 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff, AZ. 7 pp. 

2006. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for Coconino National Forest. 59 pp. 

2007. Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the Coconino National Forest: An Evaluation 

of Terrestrial Ecosystems (Ecological Units, Soil Composition, Structure and Processes) 

that Affect Ecosystem Diversity and Contribute to Ecological Sustainability, Rory 

Steinke.

2007. Draft Soil and Water Resource Existing and Desired Conditions Specialist Report 

for Travel Management Rule, Coconino National Forest. 

2008. Aquatic Resources Specialist Report for the Travel Management Rule Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. Coconino National Forest. 

2008. Botany Specialist Report for the Travel Management Rule Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Coconino National Forest. 

2008. Coconino National Forest Recreation Use Metrics for TMR. 2 pp. 

2008. Heritage Resources Specialist Report for the Travel Management Rule Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. Coconino National Forest. 

2008. Recreation Specialist Report for the Travel Management Rule Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Coconino National Forest. 

2008. Soil and Water Specialist Report for the Travel Management Rule Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. Coconino National Forest. 

2008. Patterns of Cross-Country and Unauthorized Route Disturbance by Motorized 

Vehicles by Vegetation Type. Coconino National Forest. 3 pp. 

2008. Draft Summary of Motorized Recreation Patterns of Use on the Coconino National 

Forest. 

2008. Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species, Phase II 

Maintenance in Utility Corridors on Arizona Forests. 18 pp. 

2008. Patterns of Disturbance from Dispersed Camping and Motorized Use. Coconino 

National Forest. 5 pp 

2008. Summer Annual Operating Instructions for Windmill Allotment. Available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/grazing_docs/08_windmill.pdf. 

2009. Wildlife Specialist Report for the Travel Management Rule Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Coconino National Forest. 

2007. Dispersed Camping Science Quorum. Coconino National Forest. 
References

144 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

USDA Forest Service., Coconino National Forest GIS RAP Risk Summary Analysis (from 

combined Forest RAP), March 2007. 

USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 2002. Draft environmental assessment. Native fish restoration in 

Fossil Creek. Unpublished Report. 74 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Native fish and wildlife; endangered species. Federal 

Register 32:4001. 

1983. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to determine Purshia 

(Cowania) subintegra (Arizona cliffrose) to be an endangered species. Federal Register 

49:22326-22332. 

1983. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to determine Senecio 

franciscanus (San Francisco Peaks groundsel) to be a threatened species and 

determination of its critical habitat. Federal Register 48:52743-52747. 

1986a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status 

for the spikedace. Federal Register 51(126):23769-23781. 

1987. San Francisco Peaks Groundsel (Senecio franciscanus) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services State Office, Phoenix, AZ. 

1991b. Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) recovery plan. Albuquerque, NM. 38 pp. 

1991c. Endangered and threatened wildlife; the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) 

determined to be an endangered species. Federal Register 56(205): 54957-54967. 

1991d. Colorado pikeminnow revised recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Denver, CO. 56 pp. 

1994a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: designation of critical habitat for 

the threatened loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis). Federal Register 59(45): 10898-10906. 

1994b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: designation of critical habitat for 

the threatened spikedace (Meda fulgida). Federal Register 59(45): 10906-10915. 

1994c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat 

for the Colorado River endangered fishes: razorback sucker, Colorado squawfish, 

humpback chub, and bonytail chub. Final rule. Federal Register 59(54):13374-13400. 

1995. Arizona Cliffrose (Purshia subintegra) Recovery Plan. USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Ecological Services State Office, Phoenix, AZ. 90 pp. 

2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the Spikedace (Meda fulgida) and the Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis); Final Rule. 50 

CFR Part 17. 

USDI, BLM, and National Applied Resource Sciences Center. 1998. Technical Reference 1737-

15, Riparian Area Management. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition 

and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. 126 pp. 

2003. Technical Reference 1737-16, Riparian Area Management. A User Guide to 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. 

109 pages. 
References

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 145

Vaughan, D. M. 2002. Potential Impact of Road-Stream Crossings (culverts) on the Upstream 

Passage of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates, USDA Forest Service Report: 15. 

Von der Lippe, Moritz and Ingo Kowarik. 2007. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a 

driver of plant invasions. Conservation Biology. Vol. 21, No. 4. pp. 986-996. 

Voshell, J. R. 2002. A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates of North America. Blacksburg, 

Virginia, The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company. 

Warren, M. L. and M. G. Pardew. 1998. Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish 

movement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 637-644. 

Wemple, B. C., J. A. Jones, et al. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two 

basins, Western Cascades, OR. Water Resources Bulletin 32(6): 1195-1207. 

Whitson, Tom T. D., Larry L. C. Burrill, Steven S. A. Dewey, David D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, 

Richard R. D. Lee and Robert R. Parker. 1991. Weeds of the West. University of 

Wyoming Press. 

Wilshire, H. G., Shipley, Susan, and Nakata, J. K. 1978. Impacts of off-road vehicles on 

vegetation: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference, Volume 43, pp. 131–139. 

Wood, P. J. and P. D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. 

Environmental Management 21(2): 203-217. 

Ziemer, R. R., J. Lewis, et al. 1991. Long-term sedimentation effects of different patterns of 

timber harvesting. Sediment and Stream Water Quality in a Changing Environment: 

Trends and Explanation, Vienna, Austria, IAHS. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest 147

Index 

All-terrain vehicle (ATV). See Off-highway 

vehicle

American Indian, 54, 62, 64 

Amphibians, 92, 93

Antler /shed horn collection, 29

Arizona Department of Water Quality, 75 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 8, 13, 

18, 30, 47, 54, 63 

Birds, 63, 93, 94, 99, 102, 103, 104, 109 

Camping corridors, 8, 17, 27, 29, 39, 40, 41, 

53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 73, 82, 83, 84, 85, 

86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 

100, 101, 102, 103 

Challenger Trail, 26

Cinder Hills, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 23, 24, 

34, 36, 38, 39, 49, 56, 57, 58, 71, 107, 114, 

115, 116, 121

Coconino County, 50, 51, 69, 108, 113, 121 

Cross-country travel. See Motorized crosscountry travel 

Cultural, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64 

Dirt bikes, 26, 27, 45, 53 

Dispersed camping. See Camping corridors, 

Doney Park, 24 

Erosion, 15, 55, 56, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 81, 82, 99, 101, 110, 115

Flagstaff, 2, 3, 5, 7, 21, 23, 26, 33, 50, 55, 

68, 69, 84, 93, 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 

116, 121 

Forest products, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39, 45, 

47, 63, 64 

Gila chub, 74, 77 

Gila County, 50, 51 

Hunting, 27, 28, 29, 35, 39, 47, 63 

Invertebrates, 77, 78, 94, 95, 96 

Land Management Resource Plan, 21, 23, 

24, 25, 33 

Little Colorado spinedace, 74, 77, 79 

Macroinvertebrates, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82 

Mammals, 63, 96 

Management Indicator Species, 74, 75, 76, 

77, 81, 82, 83, 97, 99, 100, 102 

Meadow, 69, 70, 73 

Mexican spotted owl, 83, 89, 90, 98, 99, 102 

Mogollon Rim, 3, 27, 28, 41, 85, 87, 93, 96 

Motorized big game retrieval, 11, 13, 14, 30, 

39, 45, 47, 53, 83, 84, 88, 97, 99, 100, 104 

Motorized cross-country travel, 5, 9, 10, 19, 

25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 52, 70, 71, 73, 82, 

85 

Motorized trail system. See Trail system, 

motorized 

Motorized travel, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 

14, 15, 17, 21, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 38, 39, 

41, 49, 66, 67, 73, 85, 89, 113, 116 

Munds Park, 23, 46, 81 

National Forest Visits, 19, 20, 32, 51 

National Visitor Use Monitoring, 18, 50, 51 

Native fish, 74, 75 

Non-motorized, 5, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 28, 30, 

32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 

49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 109, 111, 112, 116

Northern goshawk, 94, 102 
Index

148 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management, Coconino National Forest

Northern goshawks, 93, 94 

Off-highway vehicle, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 

14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 39, 

45, 46, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 66, 67, 68, 

69, 70, 71, 74, 98, 100, 101, 107, 114, 115, 

116

OHV. See Off-highway vehicle

Permit, 8, 11, 12, 28, 29, 39, 47, 48, 52, 54, 

58, 64, 81 

Permitted activity, 29

Potential Natural Vegetation Type, 18, 84, 

94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103 

Protected activity center, 83, 89 

Reptiles, 92 

Riparian, 15, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 78, 82, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 

96, 98, 100, 120 

Road system, 2, 9, 13, 30, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 

57, 64, 99, 100, 106, 115 

Rock-crawling, 12 

San Francisco Peaks, 3, 27, 55, 62, 96, 109, 

113

Sedimentation, 15, 64, 65, 66, 71, 74, 77, 

78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 96 

Sedona, 3, 12, 21, 48, 50, 55, 62, 69, 116, 

122 

Sensitive species, 74, 75, 76, 87, 92, 93, 

102, 111, 113, 114

Smasher Canyon, 12, 13, 26, 45, 46, 60 

Soil productivity, 15, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 

99, 101 

TES, 74

Threatened and endangered species, 74, 77, 

81, 82, 104, 105, 111 

Trail System, motorized, 9, 12, 18, 19, 38, 

45, 47, 71, 72 

Travel Analysis Process, 2, 3, 9, 18 

Unauthorized roads, 4, 6, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 

21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 

42, 48, 50, 52, 55, 67, 68, 74, 83, 89, 91, 94, 

99, 100 

Unauthorized trails, 5, 26, 33, 71, 72, 85, 86

Visual quality objective, 21, 24, 25, 33, 34, 

45 

Visual quality objectives, 21, 24, 25, 38 

Wet Weather road policy, 45 

Wilderness, 2, 19, 21, 24, 26, 30, 32, 35, 36, 

39, 41, 47, 50, 97, 99, 100, 101, 108, 109, 

113

Yavapai County, 50, 51, 88, 110, 111