HikeArizona.COM

Feeling bored? (Or you have work to do, but prefer to procrastinate like me?)

As you may know, Arizona's National Forests are currently undergoing major changes to their Travel Management plans under direction from the federal government. They are supposed to be in place by 2009.

Each forest has a website with fairly good information, including the most comprehensive maps of forest roads that I've ever seen published anywhere. At this point, the changes are all in the proposal stage, and each forest has had previous and future plans to seek public comment on the proposals.

Basically, the Travel Management plans will attempt to limit the resource-damaging effects of the increased use of OHVs over the past 20-30 years. The primary way this will be done is to close a significant number of existing forest roads to vehicular access. Many of the roads and trails (not hiking trails ... OHV trails) were never official roads to begin with, but have been "user created".

I am most familiar with the Coconino plan, and have quickly perused the A-S plan. I have not yet looked at the other AZ forests yet.

However, on the Coconino, the proposal calls for the closure of about 70% of existing roads and trails. Maps show that this will leave almost the entire forest (non-wilderness areas) within 1/2 to 1 mile of an open road.

There will also be significant changes to dispersed camping guidelines as you will no longer be able to park a vehicle more than a single car-length off a designated open road for camping unless it is done in a designated dispersed campsite. (Coconino has "inventoried" thousands of such dispersed campsites, usually containing a fire ring, and other signs of established previous use.)

So, I ask HAZ members your opinion on all of this!

I think its good to limit the off-road travel on the forests. Far too often, I find myself hiking in peace and solitude only to be interrupted by some obnoxious squadron of quads or dirtbikes. (Who are not "treading lightly" or "leaving no trace.") But as a frequent "car-camper" I am also a bit conflicted as I enjoy finding the little-known dirt road to somewhere peaceful. It's spots like this that I usually base a Saturday or Sunday morning hike from ... typically not on an established trail, just a few miles through the woods. It's this kind of road that is going to be closed under the new plan.

I believe that all forest trailheads will maintain current vehicular access open, but I suspect that there are some unofficial trails that will now require an extra hike down an old closed road to get to. (I have no specific examples, it's just an assumption given the number of roads proposed to close).

Of course, all these closed roads may provide new "hiking trails" in the years to come as they recover and become somewhat overgrown.

And then there's the question of enforcement! New rules will be pointless if they can't be enforced. The NFS is usually understaffed and underfunded, so I wonder if the new travel rules will make any difference at all?

Here's the relevant links from all of Arizona's National Forests.

Southwest Region http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/projects/travel-mgt/index.shtml
Coconino http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/tmr.shtml
Apache-Sitgreaves http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/projects/t ... ment.shtml
Coronado http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/travel/index.shtml
Kaibab http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/travelmanag ... ndex.shtml
Prescott http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/prescott/projec ... ndex.shtml
Tonto (apparently Tonto is doing this on a district-level, and there are no specific pages on their site dedicated to travel management plans)

There's a wealth of data, lots of PDF files, maps, PowerPoint presentations, etc.

I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.

Wow, lots of good information, and lots to mull over now too. I'll have to think this over some. I'm generally in favor of less roads and more quiet space in the forest...but sometimes having roads everywhere is quite useful for my job...

My views have changed and may change again...

Currently it's fine by me if they close all non paved roads. It would seriously alter and limit places I'd be able to reach, but oh well. At the same time it would make some places even more valuable. As mentioned it's only as good as enforced. It will take twenty years for many roads to even start to fade away due to the slow evolution of the desert. If nothing is done it certainly isn't going to improve. If there's no roads to maintain (grade, etc...) there "should" be more to spend on other stuff such as enforcing or less of a need for funds period.

It's really rough to know how I feel since Kurt hasn't set me straight yet :loh:

I'd like to see most roads closed. Sure, I'm ok with a few through-roads, but look at the top of the rim, it's so littered with roads (in varying condition) that, for the most part, you can't walk more than a mile without running into a road. I like the idea of the Bulldog Canyon off-road area. The FS has it all fenced off with locks (you need a *free* permit to get in) on the gates and is specifically set aside for ORVs. Since it's an area of high use you see a lot of rangers out enforcing the designated route rules (you can't just go out and tear it up). I say set aside more areas as ORV specific (and tailor the routes to their varying desires for challenging roads). Then they could close more roads over large areas and have some kind of real (not just legal) wilderness. There are always rule breakers but if an area is officially designated as something or other the majority tends to respect that designation --- Sorry Kurt... even when it's officially designated fee (um - tax) areas ---

Matt-

I forgot about the Bulldog Canyon area. (And I've even gotten a permit and driven that canyon before). I really like the permit plan, and like you wish that it was a viable option elsewhere. But can you imagine trying to do that to FR300 or the Swift Hwy? I just don't think that would ever fly.

Unfortunately, the Forest Service was created as the "land of many uses" ... which has nothing to do with peace and solitude. That's why Wilderness Areas have been increasingly designated.

National Forests are actually intended to be used for logging/timber operations, farming/grazing, etc. in addition to recreational uses. Even recreational uses can include ridiculous (IMO) development. Look no further than Colorado ski resorts and their base areas.

Ultimately, forest use may have to be limited much like hunting is now. There's only so many permits issued each year to take certain game. Thats because there's only so many out there, and over-hunting them will ruin hunting in future years. (I'm not a hunter, but that's my understanding of how it works).

The same is true of our forests. In some cases, there are too many people accessing them and destroying the beauty and resources. While I'm sure it will NEVER be implemented, I think it would make sense to issue a limited number of recreational permits annually (via lottery) in different classes: hiking, biking, equestrian, OHV, Lake/River use, Camping, etc. More permits should be available for the lower-impact uses such as hiking, with fewer permits for motor use.

But alas ... it will always come down to enforcement.

The Arizona Daily Sun had an update today on the Coconino National Forest Road Closure program

Forest roads face closure
CYNDY COLE Sun Staff Reporter | Posted: Sunday, November 6, 2011 9:00 am

Rules banning cross-country driving and closing more than half of rural forest roads are coming for the Coconino National Forest, and they will likely affect hunters, motorcycle riders and...
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/govt-a ... 3777a.html

The Official CNF information is here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/tmr.shtml

Appropriate files and maps are attached.

Al_HikesAZ wrote:Groups on either side of the issue are unhappy with some of the plans, set to be enacted in February, and at least one organization proposes an appeal that could delay implementation.

Al_HikesAZ wrote:The proposal for the Coconino National Forest eliminates 66 percent of areas where car campers and travel trailers could spend the night, reducing it from a majority of the forest to an area a little more than double the size of the Kachina Peaks Wilderness area. Instead, car campers could camp within 300-foot limits of some forest roads.

Al_HikesAZ wrote:The roads that are "closed" won't actually be blocked, obliterated or otherwise marked, partly because the Forest Service expects people wishing to use closed roads could simply pull up and throw aside "road closed" signs. It will be up to the public in the coming year to pick up free maps outlining which roads officially exist and are open, and which are not. These rough black-and-white maps will likely need to be paired with other maps to sort out fine details.

I argue that the amount of roads in the forest are excessive. It seems to me that part of the forest restoration should include thinning, reseeding with native grasses like gramma, bluestems, and fescue, no grazing for 5 to 10 years or an acceptable level of range reestablishment, and road obliteration. Then, we should host more use fires like the forest had this summer, and in the fall or spring, they would do well to have large prescribed burns like some of the NFs and Military bases have back east, 50,000 acre burn blocks in a day or week. Aerial ignition, big blocks with big perimeters, huge smoke plumes that rise up, dissipate and move on with winds. It might be ugly for a short while, but if done right, that is how you move back to a managed natural appearing ecosystem. Removal of graded and maintained single and double digit numbered forest roads is a big part of this strategy.

Interesting, I think this reads as a major FS initiative to restrict ATV usage and allow them to prosecute ATV riders even if they find you on a road and not tearing it up off-road at the time they see you. Essentially they appear to be banning ATV use at all on forest roads commonly travelled by cars/trucks for car campers.

Unfortunately, lack of detail in the new language and map writing may have negative impacts on the car-campers out there until the actual message sorted out from the paperwork snafus.

Less support on recreation but more support for the cattle and timber folks.

I had a brief conversation with a gentleman while hiking up Humphrey's on Saturday who said that Arizona courts had just declared this past week that the Travel Management Plan is unlawful. I can't find anything online about it. Anyone have any info?

Tough_Boots wrote:..who said that Arizona courts had just declared this past week that the Travel Management Plan is unlawful.

For which National Forest was he referring- Coconino? (each NF has/is implementing their own version). If for the Coconino NF, I personally find his declaration kind-of hard to believe since this TMP has been years in the making, communication, with official implementation in year 2012.

my assumption was that it was statewide

Is this what is being referred to?

http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2013/ ... ral-rules/

seems like that must be it... sounds like he didn't have the best grasp on the issue