Socioeconomic Assessment of the Tonto National Forest

Introduction

Statement of purpose

This assessment aims to define the social and economic landscape of Tonto National Forest (TNF) by illustrating the connections between National Forest System lands and surrounding communities The insights provided will assist both the Forest Service and the public in understanding these vital relationships.

• Better understand the relationship between public lands and communities,

• Aid in identifying specific elements of the current forest plans that may need to be changed, and

• Assemble information needed to evaluate trade-offs between options for future forest management.

This assessment serves as a valuable resource for informed decision-making regarding future alternatives in the planning process It highlights the connections between the socioeconomic traits of local communities and the natural resource management practices in the Tonto National Forest.

Assessment methodology and topics

This evaluation of the social and economic landscape around the TNF relies solely on secondary research analysis, which involves utilizing pre-existing data collected and published for various purposes Secondary data, such as demographic and economic statistics from the United States Census Bureau and insights gathered from FS documents, can be instrumental for diverse inquiries and applications.

The University of Arizona and Region 3 of the USDA Forest Service in Albuquerque, New Mexico, established specific lines of inquiry in their initial Project Work Plan This document outlines the assessment methods for analyzing socioeconomic trends across Arizona's six national forests.

In addition to individual information elements for each assessment topic, this document identifies the preferred geographic and temporal scales of analysis as well as potential sources of information

This study employs counties as the primary unit of analysis for social and economic data, focusing on areas adjacent to national forests in Arizona Specifically, for the Tonto National Forest (TNF), the assessment includes Gila, Maricopa, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties in central Arizona Social and economic trends in this region are compared to those of the entire state, though it is important to note that statewide trends are heavily influenced by Maricopa County, which accounted for nearly sixty percent of Arizona's population as of 2000.

This assessment not only analyzes data at the county and regional levels but also focuses on specific communities of interest to Tonto National Forest (NF) These communities are defined as those near forest boundaries, stakeholders in forest management, and areas of access and egress To gather comprehensive demographic and economic data, the study included selected Census Designated Places (CDPs) alongside the more commonly referenced Minor Civil Divisions (MCDs) The inclusion of CDPs allows for the analysis of identifiable population concentrations that, while named, are not legally incorporated within their respective states (U.S Census Bureau 2005).

This report outlines the key socioeconomic conditions and trends relevant to natural resource policies, specifically focusing on the management of Arizona's national forests It utilizes secondary demographic, economic, and social data from reliable sources such as the U.S Census Bureau, U.S Forest Service NRIS, Arizona Department of Transportation, county comprehensive plans, and Minnesota IMPLAN Group The findings provide a comparative baseline for counties, offering descriptive data that aids the TNF and local communities in analyzing and monitoring trends that may impact forest resource management in the region.

The assessment of socioeconomic conditions and trends in the geographic area relies on specific variables that reflect both explicit and implicit assumptions about the relationships between various forest management alternatives and the affected communities These assessment topics and variables have been collaboratively identified with regional and local Forest Service administrators and align with measures used in other social assessment studies The profiles created from secondary data collection will be instrumental in estimating the potential impacts of policy changes, resource management activities, and development trends related to each assessment topic.

Report organization

This assessment is organized around the collection and analysis of data relevant to seven individual topics, with subsequent chapters providing insights into socioeconomic indicators, historical contexts, and implications for forest planning and management Chapters 2 and 3 detail demographic trends and economic characteristics of counties and cities in the assessment area, while Chapter 4 explores access and travel patterns Chapter 5 focuses on land use patterns and policies, and Chapter 6 reviews current trends among forest users Chapter 7 highlights designated areas within the Tonto National Forest (TNF) and their significance for management Chapter 8 examines the relationships between the TNF and local and regional communities, and Chapter 9 analyzes key management topics identified by forest planners The final chapter summarizes major trends across these areas and their relevance to Forest Plan revision, accompanied by a list of cited works and a separate annotated bibliography for individual forests.

Demographic Patterns and Trends

Historical context and social characteristics

Human interaction with the lands around the Mogollon Rim has persisted for over 5,000 to 6,000 years, beginning with highly mobile hunting and gathering camps that minimally impacted the landscape From C.E 100 onward, these early communities laid the foundation for a rich cultural history in the region.

By C.E 900, the shift to a sedentary lifestyle among the resident populace marked significant changes, including the increased use of ceramics, more complex architecture, and the beginnings of horticulture and domesticated livestock This transition contributed to a rise in the human population and had lasting environmental impacts by C.E 900-1200, such as the depletion of wild game, the establishment of permanent agricultural fields, and the diversion of water sources (USFS 1999a) The Tonto National Forest (TNF) is a crucial historical area, home to numerous archaeological sites from its Native American inhabitants, which offer valuable insights into prehistoric land use Over 8,000 archaeological finds have already been recorded in the Tonto basin, with many more submerged in local watersheds, particularly related to the Salado peoples who vanished from the region 1,500 years ago New discoveries often occur during drought conditions that lower the water level in Roosevelt Lake, revealing previously hidden archaeological remains (Beaver 2003).

By the 1700s, Spanish explorers and missionaries frequently traveled between Tucson and Santa Fe, establishing a vital route that later became significant for livestock, particularly sheep, driven by Mormon settlers in the 1800s The discovery of silver in what is now Gila County attracted more settlers to the region However, limited water sources led to overgrazing near aquifers, and as standing agriculture expanded, grazing pressures also increased across the landscape.

The Tonto National Forest (TNF), established in 1905 under the General Land Law Revision Act, was created to protect the valuable watersheds of the Pinal Mountains, Verde, and Crook Forest Reserves By 1930, it had become one of fourteen forests in the area Following a slowdown in land transfers during World War II, the Tonto National Monument was formed from lands previously part of the TNF, and in 1953, the Crook National Forest was dissolved, transferring some of its land to Tonto By the mid-1980s, Tonto had become one of twelve forests in the region.

The Tonto National Forest, covering 2,969,602 acres, is Arizona's largest forest and the fifth largest in the U.S., with altitudes ranging from 1,000 to 8,000 feet It features eight wilderness areas that are often inaccessible due to harsh weather and rugged terrain Bordered by the Coconino and Apache-Sitgreaves forests to the north and the Fort Apache and White Mountain Indian Reservations to the east, Tonto NF plays a crucial role in the state’s ecosystem It offers significant grazing land and is a key water source, ranking second in the region for water production, aided by the historic Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River The forest's diverse landscapes, from saguaro-studded deserts to pine-topped mountains, provide ample outdoor recreational opportunities, making it one of the most popular national forests in Arizona.

The demographic history of the area surrounding the TNF has experienced significant and sustained growth, with the Mountain West's share of the U.S population increasing from 3% in 1930 to 6.5% today This growth surged in the 1950s, followed by a slowdown in the 1960s, a pattern that continued for the next four decades Yavapai County has generally seen steady growth over the past ninety years, aside from fluctuations in the 1940s and 1950s Over the last century, the population in counties surrounding the TNF has skyrocketed from 47,000 to over 3.4 million, while Arizona's population has grown from 120,000 to more than 5 million, marking it as one of the states with remarkable demographic expansion Additionally, the average age in Arizona is rising, with only 22.4% of the population currently under 15, compared to 31% in 1950 Contributing factors to these demographic shifts include the region's favorable climate, affordable property values, the presence of military bases, and an influx of seasonal visitors seeking to relocate for enhanced outdoor opportunities.

Over the past fifty to sixty years, Arizona has experienced moderate racial diversification The Hispanic population has grown from 20.4% to 25.2% since 1940 In contrast, the African American population, despite a significant influx after WWII and a growth rate of 49% per decade, remained static at 3.1% in 2000, only slightly above their 1940 levels Meanwhile, the Native American population has seen a notable decline, dropping from 11% of the total population over the same period.

The U.S Census Bureau provides specific numerical data for historical comparisons, which can be accessed in Table 17 at their official website This data is compared with the findings from the Census 2000, offering valuable insights into demographic changes over time.

Figure 1 Map of Forest Boundaries and Counties in Area of Assessment

Figure 2 Proximity of Population – Municipalities within 100-Mile Radius

Population, age structure, net migration, and tourism

Table 1 illustrates the total land area, U.S Forest Service acreage, total population, and population density for four counties, highlighting Maricopa County as the primary population center in both the region and the state of Arizona With a population exceeding 3 million, Maricopa County accounts for nearly 60% of Arizona's total residents.

Maricopa County is the largest county in Arizona, covering 9,224 square miles, while Gila County is the smallest at 4,796 square miles and has a population of just 51,335 The population density in Maricopa County is significantly higher than in any other county in the state, with 333 people per square mile, largely due to the Phoenix metropolitan area The cities within Maricopa County boast populations far exceeding those in other counties, ranging from 1,321,045 in Phoenix to 158,625 in Tempe as of 2000 In contrast, the smallest town in the area of assessment is Hayden.

2000 population of 892 In terms of Forest Service acreage, Yavapai County holds the largest area with nearly 2 million acres while Pinal County holds the smallest with just over 220,000 acres

Between 1980 and 2000, population changes in counties and states reveal that, except for Gila County, regional growth outpaced state averages Notably, while Maricopa County remains the primary population hub, Pinal and Yavapai Counties saw remarkable growth rates of 54.43% and 55.52%, respectively, from 1990 to 2000 Cities like Chandler, Mesa, Prescott Valley, and Camp Verde experienced significant population surges between 1980 and 1990, although growth rates for most cities slowed considerably in the following decade.

Chandler has experienced significant growth over the past decade, with rates of 165.69% and 95.07% While Payson has also seen considerable growth and Gila County's population increased between 1990 and 2000, the overall growth rate in Gila County remains slower than that of the state of Arizona.

Table 1 Total Area, Total Population, Population Density, and Forest Service Acreage by County and Place

Total Area 2000 Pop Density USFS

County/Place Sq Miles population per sq mile Acres

*Cottonwood - Verde Village is an unincorporated Census Designated Place (CDP)

Source: NRIS - Human Dimensions http://www.city-data.com/city/Arizona.html

Table 2 Decennial County, Place and State Populations, 1980-2000 and % Change

County/Place/State 1980 1990 2000 % Change % Change

Source: U.S Bureau of the Census, Census of Population

Figure 3 Four-County Assessment Area Population Change, 1900-2000

Recent census data reveals a significant trend toward urbanization in Arizona, with Maricopa County leading as the most urbanized area, boasting a 97% urban population in 2000 Notable changes in population dynamics are also evident in Yavapai and Pinal Counties, which transitioned from predominantly rural in 1980 to majority urban by 1990.

Pinal County experienced significant urbanization in the 1980s, with a reported urban population increase of 593% However, this surge is largely attributed to a change in the U.S Census Bureau's reporting criteria In 1980, urban populations were defined strictly based on specific population density criteria, excluding areas like Casa Grande and suburbs such as Apache Junction and Queen Creek By 1990, the criteria expanded to include populations in suburban areas, which likely accounts for much of Pinal County's overall population growth during this period.

1980 and 1990, contributing to a somewhat skewed increase in urban versus rural populations

Nonetheless, both Pinal and Yavapai Counties became more urban beginning in the 1980s, a trend that held through 2000

Gila County's population structure has shown minimal fluctuation over the years, maintaining its status as the least urbanized county in the assessed region, with 44% of residents living in rural areas as of 2000.

Table 3 Urban and Rural County Populations 1980-2000 and % Change

Note: % Total is the percentage of total population % Change is the percentage of change from prior census year

*Does not account for farming populations

Figure 4 Four-County Assessment Area Urban/Rural Composition, 1980-2000

Table 4 illustrates the age structure of populations in four counties and selected cities, highlighting notable trends in growth rates for the under-18 and 65-and-over age groups compared to overall population growth In Gila County, the under-18 population saw a growth of over 20% from 1990 to 2000; however, this growth was slower than that of the 65-and-over population and the county's total population growth Conversely, Payson demonstrated significant increases in both age cohorts during the same decade.

In Pinal County, the growth rate of the under-18 population significantly lagged behind that of the 65-and-over demographic, despite notable increases in the under-18 population observed in Chandler.

Between 1990 and 2000, Chandler saw a remarkable 127.27% increase in its population aged 65 and over, the highest in the region During the same period, the under-18 populations in Maricopa and Yavapai Counties experienced significant growth, closely mirroring the overall population increases in these areas.

Table 4 Age Structure of County, Place, and State Populations (under 18 and 65+), 1990-2000 and

County/Place/State 1990 2000 % Change 1990 2000 % Change

Figure 5 Percent Change under-18 and 65+ Populations by County, 1990-2000

Table 5 highlights net migration data for each county in 1990 and 2000, showing individuals who lived in a different location five years prior The data indicates that Pinal and Yavapai Counties experienced notable population growth, primarily driven by in-migration from outside the counties The majority of out-of-state movers originated from the West and Midwest, with a marked increase in migrants from the Northwest between 1990 and 2000 Additionally, Maricopa, Pinal, and Yavapai Counties saw significant rises in migration from international locations during this period.

The Arizona Office of Tourism (AZOT) has identified seven unique tourism regions, as illustrated in Figure 6 Instead of focusing on counties, AZOT typically compiles and shares visitation statistics for these specific regions The assessment area of the TNF predominantly falls within one of these designated tourism regions.

In 2003, the Valley of the Sun Region attracted 13.1 million domestic overnight leisure visitors, marking a remarkable 95.8% increase from 6.69 million a decade earlier, making it the most visited region in the state In contrast, the Old West Territory followed with 4.77 million domestic overnight leisure visitors Notably, 77% of those visiting the Valley of the Sun were there for leisure purposes, while 23% traveled for business.

In 2002, the Valley of the Sun attracted a diverse range of tourists, with 31.1% coming from California and 13.6% from within Arizona Significant numbers of visitors also arrived from states like Illinois, Colorado, and Texas According to AZOT data, popular activities among tourists included dining and shopping, with 52% participating in these experiences, while 39% engaged in sightseeing In contrast, only 21% took part in nature-related activities such as camping and visiting parks The peak tourist season occurred during winter, with 51% of visits recorded between November and March.

Statistics for overseas visitors are not made available for individual tourism regions However, AZOT reports that the state of Arizona experienced a 15.3% decline in overseas visitors in 2003 (dropping to

544,000 from 636,000 in 2002) while the U.S saw a decline of 4% The primary countries of origin for overseas visitors to Arizona were the U.K.(18.4%), Germany (16.4%), Mexico (11.0%), Japan (9.1%) and

Table 5 Net Migration by County, 1990-2000 and % Change

In United States 16,651 21,670 30.14% Same County 7,652 9,089 18.78% Different County 8,999 12,581 39.80% Same State 5,058 7,875 55.69% Different State 3,941 4,706 19.41% Northwest 266 263 -1.13%

In United States 58,759 86,079 46.50% Same County 21,154 34,448 62.84% Different County 37,605 51,631 37.30% Same State 14,513 20,461 40.98% Different State 23,092 31,170 34.98% Northwest 1,522 2,997 96.91% Midwest 4,374 6,359 45.38% South 3,422 4,419 29.14% West 13,774 17,395 26.29%

The data presented excludes individuals under the age of 5, as outlined in the 1990 US Census of Population, which focuses on social and economic characteristics Additionally, the information is sourced from the 2000 US Census American Factfinder, accessible at http://factfinder.census.gov, and is further supported by the Tonto National Forest Socioeconomic Assessment.

Figure 6 Map of Arizona Tourism Regions

Racial/ethnic composition and educational attainment

Tables 6 and 7 provide an analysis of the racial and ethnic demographics in four counties and the state of Arizona Table 6 details the numerical and percentage changes in specific racial and ethnic groups from 1990 to 2000, while Table 7 illustrates their proportional representation within the overall populations of the counties and the state It is important to note that the federal government distinguishes between race and ethnicity; individuals of a particular race can belong to any ethnic background, and vice versa This section focuses on five racial groups: White, Black or African American, among others.

The U.S population includes diverse racial and ethnic groups, such as Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and individuals of multiple races For federal statistical purposes, individuals of Hispanic origin are classified as a separate group and can belong to any racial category.

Reported census data demonstrate a strong correlation between individuals who identify themselves as being of multiple racial background as well as Hispanic origin Notably, the decade between 1990 and

In 2000, three out of four counties in Arizona saw notable growth in populations identifying as multiple races, reflecting a broader state trend However, Gila County was an exception, showing only modest increases in both its multiple race and Hispanic populations from 1990 to 2000.

In 2000, Table 7 highlights a notable rise in the multiple race populations of Maricopa and Pinal Counties, leading to substantial shifts in their proportional representation within the overall county demographics In contrast, Yavapai County experienced a staggering 350% increase in its multiple race population; however, this group still constitutes a mere 5.52% of the county's total population, indicating minimal representation.

Table 8 presents the educational attainment of individuals aged 25 and older across four counties Maricopa and Yavapai Counties show educational levels at or above the state averages for high school and college graduates In contrast, Gila and Pinal Counties fall significantly below these averages, with Pinal County particularly struggling, as its percentage of college graduates is nearly ten percent lower than the state of Arizona Additionally, over 10% of Pinal County's population has not completed beyond the 9th grade.

Table 6 Racial/Ethnic Composition of County and State Populations, 1990-2000 and % Change

Gila County Maricopa County Pinal County

Table 7 Racial/Ethnic Composition of County and State Populations by Percentage, 1990-2000 and

Race/Ethnicity 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000 Change

Note: 1990 and 2000 data expressed as a % of total population Change simply illustrates the trends in proportional representation of various racial/ethnic groups in the overall population.

Figure 7 Four-County Assessment Area Racial/Ethnic Composition, 1980-2000

Table 8 Educational Attainment for County and State Populations 25-Yrs Old and Over

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 5,397 15.35% 194,549 10.05% 19,832 16.65%

Percent high school graduate or higher n/a 78.20% n/a 82.50% n/a 72.70%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher n/a 13.90% n/a 25.90% n/a 11.90%

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 12,829 10.67% 364,851 11.20%

Percent high school graduate or higher n/a 84.70% n/a 81.00%

Percent bachelor's degree or higher n/a 21.10% n/a 23.50%

Source: U.S Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/az.html

Housing characteristics and population projections

Housing characteristics in the assessment area reveal Maricopa County as Arizona's primary population center, boasting over 1 million homes and a density of 135 homes per square mile in 2000 Notably, Pinal and Yavapai Counties experienced the most significant housing unit growth between 1990 and 2000, with Prescott Valley, Cottonwood, Chandler, Apache Junction, and Queen Creek leading in total housing increases Pinal County also saw a remarkable 92.22% rise in seasonal housing units during this decade, with notable increases in Casa Grande, Coolidge, Chandler, and Scottsdale Additionally, Scottsdale, Queen Creek, Florence, and Chino Valley recorded the highest median home value increases from 1990 to 2000, while Gila County's housing characteristics remained below state averages throughout the same period.

Table 10 indicates that population growth rates at both county and state levels are projected to rise, reaching their peak between 2010 and 2020, followed by a decline by 2030 Among all counties in the region, this trend is significant.

Maricopa County is set to maintain its rapid growth, surpassing both neighboring counties and the state average In contrast, Yavapai County is anticipated to enjoy significant population growth compared to its surroundings, while Gila County is projected to experience minimal growth over the next thirty years.

Table 9 County, Place, and State Housing Characteristics, 1990-2000 and % Change

Total Housing Units Seasonal Housing Units

Housing Density per Sq Mile Median Home Value County/Place/

* Cottonwood - Verde Village is an unincorporated Census Designated Place (CDP)

Figure 8 Percent Change in Total and Seasonal Housing Units by County, 1990-2000

Table 10 County and State Population Projections, 2010-2030 and % Change

Total Pop Projected Projected Projected

Pinal County 179,727 199,715 11.12% 231,229 15.78% 255,695 10.58% Yavapai County 167,517 198,052 18.23% 240,849 21.61% 278,426 15.60% Arizona 5,130,632 6,145,108 19.77% 7,363,604 19.83% 8,621,114 17.08%

Source: Arizona Department of Commerce - Arizona County Population Projections: 1997-2050 http://www.azcommerce.com/prop/eir/population.asp

Key issues for forest planning and management

In the last twenty years, Arizona has experienced significant shifts in the interactions between rural communities and publicly managed lands due to ongoing population growth This evolution has unfolded alongside critical discussions on resource policies related to fire suppression, forest restoration, water allocation, and road construction, highlighting the urgent economic and environmental challenges faced by the region.

Population growth in the areas surrounding Tonto National Forest has outpaced that of any other region in the state This surge, along with notable shifts in the local human populations, is expected to impact both the demand for goods and services from public lands and the overall quality of those offerings.

Research indicates that regions rich in natural amenities—such as mild climates, forests, rivers, and clean air—are becoming increasingly appealing to retirees and others seeking a high quality of life in rural western communities Migrants are particularly drawn to areas with affordable housing, job opportunities, low crime rates, and the cultural heritage of small towns in the mountain west Data from Tonto National Forest reveals significant population growth and housing increases in Pinal and Yavapai Counties, highlighting a rise in both the retirement-age demographic and seasonal housing units in these small, rural towns.

Population growth can boost economic vitality by creating more job opportunities and expanding the tax base, but it also poses challenges for communities and public land managers in delivering essential services Conflicts may arise between established community interests and new immigrants, particularly regarding natural resource management For instance, increased demand for natural amenities from forest lands can clash with traditional commodity interests Additionally, the rapid growth of diverse racial and Hispanic populations may lead to new demands for public services and different interactions with natural resources, diverging from historical norms.

The changing demographics around Tonto National Forest significantly impact the relationship between management agencies and local communities Agencies face the challenge of balancing the maintenance of viable resource economies with increasing demands for recreational amenities Additionally, the expansion of the wildland-urban interface raises concerns regarding forest access, water quality, habitat fragmentation, and fire management These demographic shifts not only affect natural resource management but also the social and political acceptability of management planning processes New property owners may push for changes in the management of adjacent federally administered lands, while recent arrivals may lack an understanding of local community values, despite being well-versed in planning regulations and political influence methods.

Economic Characteristics and Vitality

Historical context and regional economic conditions

The economy of the region surrounding TNF has experienced significant transformations over the past century, evolving from an isolated territory into a more metropolitan area Initially, Arizona's economy relied heavily on mining, agriculture, and ranching However, post-World War II, the state witnessed a population surge that prompted a shift away from these traditional industries towards a more diverse economic landscape encompassing both urban and rural sectors While industrial diversity saw some growth after 1971, it peaked in the mid-1980s and has since declined, currently falling below the national average on the Industrial Diversity Index.

Arizona's per capita personal income (PPI) has generally mirrored national trends, albeit with more significant fluctuations Since the 1970s, labor force growth has been steadily declining, peaking at 2.7% annually before dropping to 1.7% in the 1980s and further to 1.2% in the 1990s Additionally, the importance of education on economic status has intensified, as evidenced by the increasing salary ratio between college-educated and high school-educated workers.

1975, up to above 1.85:1 from 1.55 to 1 Poverty rates have shifted only slightly in the past three or four decades, remaining between 14-16% in Arizona (U.S Census Bureau 2005, ADOC 2002a)

Arizona's industrial diversity remains limited compared to the broader industrial foundations of states like Texas and Illinois, which have Industrial Diversity Indices (IDIs) near 0.8 While Arizona has evolved beyond just agricultural and mining interests, it still does not match the industrial variety found in the U.S as a whole, represented by an IDI of 1.0.

Over the past thirty to thirty-five years, the primary locus of economical advancement has shifted

By 2002, mining's contribution to Arizona's per capita income had plummeted from 3% in the late 1960s to a mere fraction, while agriculture remained below 1% In contrast, the service industry experienced significant growth, rising from 13% in 1969 to over 20% by 2002, reflecting Arizona's increasing urbanization, with 88.2% of the population residing in urban areas as per the 2000 census This economic shift is further illustrated by the disparity in per capita income, with metro figures at $27,285 compared to $18,992 in non-metro areas, marking a 30.4% difference, up from 23.3% in 1970.

The counties adjacent to the TNF exhibit greater economic stability than those near other state forests In 2002, the per capita income (PPI) for the four U.S counties bordering forest land was $22,739, reflecting a 13.6% increase over the state average and a 3.8% decline from previous figures.

In 1969, the counties surrounding Tonto National Forest had a Personal Income (PPI) that constituted 73.8% of the national average, reflecting a decline of nearly 7.9% over the past thirty years However, this region has experienced a thirty-year average income growth rate of 9.9%, which is slightly below Arizona's average of 10.1% (BEA 2002).

Income and employment within key industries

Table 11 presents employment by industry at both the state and county levels for the years 1990 and 2000. Economic data confirm earlier findings which suggested relatively strong growth in Maricopa and

Between 1990 and 2000, Yavapai County experienced significant employment growth, with total full- and part-time employment increasing by 53.12%, surpassing the state average of 47.62% Wage and salary employment in Yavapai County rose by 74.58%, while Maricopa County also saw strong gains in both wage and proprietor’s employment Gila County reported the highest increase in proprietor’s employment at 84%, despite its overall employment growth lagging behind the state average Gila County excelled in agricultural services, forestry, wholesale trade, finance/real estate, and government sectors Yavapai County mirrored these increases and additionally thrived in construction and services Maricopa County's job growth was strongest in construction, agricultural services, finance/real estate, and the service sector In contrast, Pinal County experienced the least total employment growth at 20.89%, largely due to job losses in agricultural services, forestry, and mining.

Table 12 illustrates employment percentages across various industries at both state and county levels, highlighting changes from 1990 to 2000 While Yavapai County experienced a decline in proprietor employment, it and Gila County consistently outperformed the state average in this area Pinal County, despite reductions in manufacturing, farming, and mining employment percentages, maintained larger workforces in farming and mining compared to the state average Between 1990 and 2000, Gila and Yavapai Counties exhibited a significant percentage of employment in retail trade, with Yavapai also boasting a construction workforce above the state average Throughout the reporting period, Gila and Pinal Counties maintained a high percentage of governmental employment Maricopa County's employment percentages were generally aligned with state averages, except for a notable increase in the finance and real estate sector, which exceeded the statewide figure.

Table 11 Employment by Industry, County, and State, 1990-2000 and % Change

% Change Employment by place of work

Total full-time and part-time employment 15,108 20,655 36.72% 1,235,513 1,891,817 53.12% 41,577 50,262 20.89%

Non-farm employment 14,907 20,413 36.94% 1,228,560 1,884,229 53.37% 39,489 48,152 21.94% Private employment 11,739 15,492 31.97% 1,070,390 1,694,490 58.31% 27,667 31,997 15.65%

Ag services, forestry, fishing and other 89 253 184.27% 13,617 24,270 78.23% 1,350 1,069 -20.81%

Finance, insurance, and real estate 739 1,620 119.22% 127,050 215,097 69.30% 1,904 2,479 30.20%

Table 11 (cont.) Employment by Industry, County, and State, 1990-2000 and % Change

Total full-time and part-time employment 42,555 70,286 65.17% 1,909,879 2,819,302 47.62%

Ag services, forestry, fishing and other 531 1,017 91.53% 27,817 46,873 68.50%

Finance, insurance, and real estate 3,431 6,216 81.17% 170,005 281,675 65.69%

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/action.cfm

Table 12 Employment by Industry Percentages, County, and State, 1990-2000 and % Change

Total full-time and part-time employment 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Farm proprietors employment 1.07% 0.96% -10.60% 0.19% 0.11% -42.20% 1.94% 1.49% -23.43% Non-farm proprietors employment 19.95% 27.34% 37.04% 14.66% 15.07% 2.80% 14.01% 15.07% 7.62%

Ag services, forestry, fishing and other 0.59% 1.22% 107.93% 1.10% 1.28% 16.40% 3.25% 2.13% -34.50%

Finance, insurance, and real estate 4.89% 7.84% 60.34% 10.28% 11.37% 10.57% 4.58% 4.93% 7.70%

Table 12 (cont.) Employment by Industry Percentages, County, and State, 1990-2000 and %

Change Employment by place of work

Total full-time and part-time employment 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Farm proprietors employment 1.20% 0.75% -37.31% 0.42% 0.27% -36.10% Non-farm proprietors employment 28.97% 25.44% -12.20% 15.41% 16.19% 5.09%

Ag services, forestry, fishing and other 1.25% 1.45% 15.96% 1.46% 1.66% 14.15%

Finance, insurance, and real estate 8.06% 8.84% 9.69% 8.90% 9.99% 12.24%

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/action.cfm

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Figure 9 Percent Change in Industry by County and State, 1990-2000

Table 13 outlines the major employers in the region, adapted from the ADOC Community Profiles, while Table 14 highlights the dominant occupations by employee numbers and percentages across each county The data indicates that Gila, Yavapai, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties exhibit occupational structures closely aligned with the overall state of Arizona The most prevalent occupational categories in both the state and these counties are management/professional and sales/office roles Additionally, as of 2004, construction, extraction, maintenance, production, transportation, and material moving were also recognized among the top five dominant occupations in Arizona and the assessed counties.

Table 15 highlights the annual unemployment rates across counties, Arizona, and selected cities, revealing a mixed landscape Maricopa and Yavapai Counties reported unemployment rates below the state average, while Gila and Pinal Counties exceeded it Gila County had the highest annual unemployment rate at 7.4%, contrasted by Maricopa County's low of 4.0% Among the cities assessed, San Carlos faced the highest unemployment at 21.3%, whereas Sedona recorded the lowest at 2.2% Additionally, Eloy, Miami, Coolidge, and Chino Valley had average unemployment rates surpassing the statewide average Notably, Yavapai County demonstrated significant employment gains, with most cities experiencing a reduction in unemployment rates during the assessment period.

Between 1990 and 2000, three of the four counties in the assessed area experienced greater increases in per capita and median family incomes than the state average, with Pinal County showing notable growth at 31.76% and 25.06%, respectively However, by 2000, per capita and median family incomes in three counties remained below the state average, with Maricopa County being the exception, as it maintained higher income levels despite slower growth Similarly, both Pinal and Yavapai Counties achieved significant reductions in individual and family poverty, outpacing state-level declines, with Pinal County experiencing the most substantial drops of -29.17% in individual poverty and -36.84% in family poverty Yet, as of 2000, Pinal and Gila Counties still had poverty rates exceeding those of Arizona Among individual cities, Cottonwood saw the most significant improvements in income and poverty reduction, while Scottsdale and Chandler had the highest per capita and median family incomes by 2000 Additionally, cities like Florence, Coolidge, Queen Creek, and Camp Verde made notable strides in reducing both individual and family poverty during the same period.

2000, San Carlos remained severely limited economically with 58.8% of individuals and 57.5% of families living in poverty

Table 17 illustrates the household income distribution across counties, revealing that Gila County faces significant economic challenges, with over 40% of households earning below $25,000 annually In contrast, Maricopa County boasts the highest median household income at $45,358, while Gila County reports the lowest at $30,917 Notably, Maricopa County stands out as the most affluent of the four counties, with 13.2% of households earning over $100,000 in 2000.

Table 13 Major Employers by County, 2004

Apache Gold, Globe American Express

APS, Globe/Payson America West Holdings

Asarco Inc., Hayden Arizona State University

Asarco Ray Complex, Hayden Bank One Corp.

Basha’s, San Carlos Banner Health System

B.J Cecil Trucking, Claypool Basha’s Inc.

Cobre Valley Community Hospital, Claypool The Kroger Company

Copper Mountain Inn, Globe Intel

Phelps Dodge Corporation, Claypool Maricopa County

Fry's, Globe/Payson Mesa Public Schools

Globe Unified School District City of Phoenix

Heritage Healthcare Center, Globe Qwest

Payson Regional Medical Center Safeway Inc.

Manzanita Manor, Payson State of Arizona

Mazatzal Casino, Tonto Apache Tribe, Payson Tosco Marketing Co.

Miami Unified School District U.S Postal Service Payson Unified School District Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Safeway, Globe/Payson Wells Fargo Bank

San Carlos Unified School DistrictTown of PaysonWal-Mart, Globe/PaysonU.S Forest Service, Globe/Payson

Table 13 (cont.) Major Employers by County, 2004

Abbott Labs/Ross Prod Div., Casa Grande Ace Hardware

Apache Junction Health Center The Arbors

Apache Junction Schools Atria and Kachina Point Assisted Living Arizona State Prison, Florence Camp Verde Public Schools

Asarco, Hayden Caradon Better Bilt, Inc.

Basha’s Chino Valley Unified School District #51 Casa Grande Regional Medical Center Cliff Castle Casino

Casa Grande Elementary School Dist City of Cottonwood

Casa Grande Union High School District and Cottonwood/Oak Creek Schools serve the educational needs of the community Local news is provided by Casa Grande Valley Newspapers, while Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corporation contributes to the region's economy Central Arizona College in Coolidge offers higher education opportunities, and the Double Tree Sedona Resort enhances tourism in the area Additionally, the City of Apache Junction is home to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, known for its aviation and aerospace programs.

City of Casa Grande Enchantment Resort

City of Eloy Humboldt Unified School District

Coolidge Unified School District Exsil, Inc.

Corrections Corp of America, Eloy/Florence Los Abrigados Resort

Eloy Schools Mingus Union High School District

Evergreen Air Center, Marana Phelps & Sons Trusses

Frito-Lay, Casa Grande Phoenix Cement Co.

Fry's Food and Drug Stores City of Prescott

Gila River Indian Community Government Farms Prescott Resort

Harrah's Ak-Chin Casino Prescott Unified School District

Hexcel Corp Price Costco Store

Hunter Douglas Wood Products Ruger Investment Castings

Pinal County Sedona/Oak Creek Unified School District

Tanger Outlet Center Sturm Ruger & Co.

Westile Roofing Products Target Store

Town of Prescott Valley U.S Forest Service Veterans Administration Medical Center

Wal-Mart West Yavapai Guidance Clinic Wulfsberg Electronics Yavapai Community College Yavapai County Yavapai Gaming Agency Yavapai Regional Medical Center

Source: Arizona Department of Commerce - Community Profiles http://www.azcommerce.com/Communities/community_profiles.asp

Table 14 Dominant Occupations of State and County Populations, 2000

Management, professional, and related occupations 4,386 24.3%

Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 2,959 16.4%

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 1,963 10.9%

Source: U.S Census Bureau, American Fact Finder http://factfinder.census.gov

Table 15 Average Annual Unemployment Rates by County, State, Place, and U.S., 1980-2004

* 1980 and 1990 unemployment data unavailable for towns with a population of less than 2,500 individuals

Source: Arizona Department of Commerce, Arizona Workforce Informer http://www.workforce.az.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/?PAGEID&SUBID2

U.S Bureau Of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

Table 16 Per Capita and Family Income by County and State, 1990-2000 and % Change

Per Capita Income Median Family Income % Individuals in Poverty % Families in Poverty

*2000 Income data adjusted to reflect 1990 constant dollars by applying deflation factor calculated by Consumer Price Index

Source: Arizona Department of Commerce, Arizona Workforce Informer

Figure 10 Unemployment Rates by County and State, 1980-2004

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

* Annual percent change in per capita personal income based on mid-year Census Bureau estimates of county population

Figure 11 Annual Percent Change in Per Capita Income by County, 1980-2000

Figure 12 Percent of Families in Poverty by County, 1990-2000

Table 17 Household Income Distribution by County, 2000

Gila County Maricopa County Pinal County Yavapai County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Source: U.S Census Bureau, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/az.html

Forest and natural-resource dependent economic activities

Data on economic activities reliant on natural resources include income generated from wood products and processing, revenue from special forest products and processing, and employment in tourism This analysis utilizes IMPLAN data sourced from the USDA Forest Service Planning.

Analysis Group (PAG) and the Inventory and Monitoring Institute (IMI) in Fort Collins, Colorado IMPLAN data are tabulated for 525 distinct industries according to the North American Industry

The Classification System (NAICS) provides a framework for identifying industries relevant to income generated from wood, special forest products, and tourism-related employment, as detailed in Appendix A It's important to highlight that the analysis of IMPLAN data in this assessment focuses exclusively on the direct economic impacts of specific industries, excluding any indirect or induced economic effects.

Between 1990 and 2000, total labor income from forest resources in Pinal and Maricopa Counties showed significant growth, particularly in wood products and processing, while Gila County experienced a notable decline Maricopa County's income rise was largely attributed to strong gains in reconstituted wood and paper products, whereas Pinal County excelled in wood household furniture and structural wood members Despite these gains, all four counties assessed reported losses in total labor income from special forest products and processing during the same period Overall, the area of assessment outperformed statewide figures, achieving substantial increases in income from wood products and processing, alongside significant losses in special forest products.

Table 18 Total Labor Income from Forest Resources by County and State, 1990-2000 and %

Income from Wood Processing and Products

Income from Special Forest Products and Processing

*2000 Income data adjusted to reflect 1990 constant dollars by applying deflation factor calculated by Consumer Price Index

Table 19 presents tourism employment data for each county in the assessment area and for the state of Arizona Accurately calculating the direct impact of tourism is challenging, as only a small percentage of business activity in any industry can be attributed to tourism For this assessment, tourism employment has been evaluated using percentages from the Travel Industry Association of America’s Tourism Economic Impact Model (TEIM), which is also utilized in the Arizona Tourism Statistical Report by the Arizona Office of Tourism (AZOT).

Between 1990 and 2000, Yavapai and Maricopa Counties experienced significant growth in tourism employment, with Yavapai County seeing an impressive 104% increase, far surpassing the state average of 32%.

Alternatively, Pinal County reported an increase in tourism employment that was well below increases in the same category for neighboring counties between 1990 and 2000

Table 19 Tourism Employment by County and State, 1990-2000 and % Change

Industry Sector 1990 2000 %Change 1990 2000 %Change 1990 2000 %Change

Government earnings from federal-lands related payments

Federal lands play a crucial role in supporting local government finances through Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and "Payments to States" or "Secure Schools and Roads" funding Established by the 1976 Public Law 94-565, PILT provides financial assistance to local governments based on the federal land within their boundaries However, these payments are subject to federal funding limitations, previous year distributions, and population-based formulas, leading to potential underfunding depending on annual congressional appropriations Additionally, counties can receive funds from a 1908 law, which allocates ten percent of gross revenues from activities such as timber harvesting, grazing, and mining on federal lands.

The Weeks Law of 1911 increased forest receipt payments from ten to twenty-five percent, designating these funds for schools and roads In response to the declining commercial use of federal lands, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act (PL 106-393) was signed into law by the President in 2000 to address the reduction in these funds This legislation allows counties to choose between continuing to receive the twenty-five percent payments or opting for a fixed amount based on the average of their highest three years of funding from 1986 to 1999 For rural counties, these funds are crucial for maintaining roads and supporting educational institutions.

2006, but a bill to reauthorize the Act and extend it through FY 2013 was, at the time of this report, being considered by Congress (S 267, H.R 517).

Yavapai County has the highest PILT entitlement acreage, exceeding 2.5 million acres, with 1.9 million acres designated as Forest Service lands In contrast, Gila County, despite having fewer entitlement acres than Yavapai and Maricopa Counties, has been the largest recipient of PILT payments, averaging $1.55 million annually from 2000 to 2004 Meanwhile, Pinal County received the lowest PILT payments during this period, averaging just $616,090.

Annual forest receipts for the years 1986-1999 are presented for each county in Table 22 Between 1986 and 1999, average annual forest receipts ranged from a high in Yavapai County of $546,200 to a low of

Table 20 Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Entitlement Acreage by County and Agency, FY 2004

County BLM FS BOR NPS COE ARMY FISH URC TOTAL

Source: U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management http://www.blm.gov/pilt/search.html

Table 22 Forest Receipts by County, 1986-1999 (Amounts in 1,000s)

Figure 13 Forest Receipts by County, 1986-1999

In the early development of Arizona, extractive industries like mining, ranching, farming, and timber harvesting were crucial to the local economy, providing essential employment for its predominantly rural population However, in recent decades, Arizona has witnessed a notable decline in these sectors, mirroring trends seen in neighboring western states, which has led to reduced employment and income traditionally associated with extractive industries.

The shift towards information- and service-based industries has resulted in a more diverse and potentially sustainable state economy, despite negative impacts on local economies Economic data from the TNF area shows significant growth in the finance, insurance, real estate (F.I.R.E.), services, and construction sectors, coinciding with a decline in extractive and productive industries This transformation reflects a growing urbanization of the local economy, consistent with statewide trends observed over the past two decades.

Recent demographic and economic changes in the Mountain West, particularly around TNF, highlight significant trends shaping the region's future development Strong economic growth has led to an expansion of the retirement-aged population and seasonal housing units, alongside growth in the service, professional, retail, and construction industries These shifts reflect a broader trend observed in rural western economies.

Recent trends indicate that the growth in many western communities is significantly influenced by individuals and households capable of supporting non-extractive economies While per capita and median household incomes have risen, three out of four counties show a notable increase in retirement-age residents and seasonal homeowners Researchers highlight that although labor income is on the rise in the rural Mountain West, it is outpaced by transfer income (such as social security, pensions, and retirement) and dividend income This suggests that the economic expansion in these western areas is partially driven by income sources not directly linked to local employment.

Advancements in transportation and information technology are driving the growth of service and professional industries, enabling urban populations to move to attractive rural communities while retaining the employment and income levels typical of urban areas.

The convergence of rural and urban economies has significant implications for natural resource management, particularly affecting communities transitioning away from extractive industries, which are often linked to federal and state agencies like the FS and BLM These agencies face challenges balancing market demands with the interests of established industries resisting change Additionally, data from the TNF area highlight the interrelated economic and demographic trends, where rural economic growth, driven by mobile income sources, can lead to increased demands for infrastructure and services, alongside potential negative impacts such as pollution, urban sprawl, and congestion.

Access and Travel Patterns

Historical context and current access issues

Arizona's transportation infrastructure was originally designed for a rural population and an extractive economy However, many regions, including those near the TNF, now face challenges in upgrading transportation networks to meet the demands of growing populations and evolving local economies The area's circulation planning is complicated by its vast geography, rapid population growth, and the expansion of commercial, industrial, and residential developments Comprehensive plans indicate that existing transportation networks have evolved reactively and are insufficient to support anticipated long-term growth.

Transportation planning agencies across the state share a common concern regarding the connections between transportation and land use planning ADOT's long-range plan highlights key transportation trends and identifies five major issues likely to impact future planning: population growth and demographic change, economic growth and change, security concerns, energy supply and efficiency, and technological advancements While security, energy, and technology are discussed hypothetically, the first two issues—population and economic growth—are directly relevant to the factors examined in this assessment.

Arizona's population is expected to double in the next forty years, significantly impacting transportation planning The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) emphasizes the need for developing diverse transportation options to ensure adequate service levels on roadways Key challenges include rising infrastructure costs in sprawling metropolitan areas, increased traffic congestion, longer commuting distances, and ensuring access to the state highway system for regions outside major urban centers.

To effectively address future transportation demands, ADOT emphasizes the need for enhanced collaboration among state, regional, and local agencies regarding transportation and land use planning Key strategies include offering education and technical support to local partners, enforcing legal land use regulations, and implementing direct land use controls via state agencies like the Arizona State Land Department Through these initiatives, ADOT aims to influence the site of future developments, ensuring the preservation of current infrastructure while accommodating the transportation requirements of millions of new residents.

Arizona is shifting from an agricultural and extraction-based economy to one driven by sales and services, prompting changes in transportation needs across the state The rise in small parcel shipments and increased commuting due to the growth of information and service industries is altering travel patterns and vehicle types on the roads To support this transition, ADOT recommends enhancing highway and freight rail capacity, developing intelligent traffic systems (ITS), expanding intermodal facilities, and making other related investments to sustain existing industries and foster new opportunities.

Predominant transportation modes and seasonal flow patterns

Figure 14 illustrates the roadway network within the assessment area, highlighting a dense network of interstates, U.S highways, state highways, and Indian Routes, as detailed in Table 23 The majority of major roads predominantly follow a north-south orientation, with Interstates 10 and 8 serving as key east-west routes through the metropolitan Phoenix area.

Figure 14 Road Network within the Area of Assessment

Table 23 U.S., State, and Indian Routes by County

Interstates / U.S Highways State Highways Indian Routes Gila County

State Highway 77 State Highway 87 State Highway 88 State Highway 170 State Highway 188 State Highway 260

Interstate 8 State Highways 51 Interstate 10 State Highways 74 Interstate 17 State Highways 85

State Highways 88 State Highways 101 State Highways 143 State Highways 153 State Highways 202 State Highways 238 State Highways 303 State Highways 347

Interstate 8 State Highways 77 Indian Route 15 Interstate 10 State Highways 78

State Highways 87 State Highways 88 State Highways 187 State Highways 237 State Highways 287 State Highways 347 State Highways 387 State Highways 177

Interstate 17 State Highways 69 Interstate 40 State Highways 71

State Highways 96 State Highways 97 State Highways 169 State Highways 260

Source: Arizona Department of Commerce: County Profiles

The majority of circulation corridors in the assessment area are designed primarily for motorized vehicle travel Due to the high costs associated with developing infrastructure for alternative transportation modes and the existing patterns of rural development, reliance on motorized vehicles is expected to persist However, regional planning agencies are actively seeking to decrease automobile dependency by promoting alternative modes of transportation such as transit, walking, and biking, which aims to alleviate the need for expanded roadways.

Arizona's highway system encompasses over 58,000 miles, with interstates making up 2%, U.S routes 3%, and state routes nearly 6% Despite only 12% of the highway network being state facilities, these roads account for over 57% of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) The Interstate System, a segment of the state highway network, carries 28% of all daily VMT A significant portion of Arizona's state highways traverses federal and tribal lands, with federal agencies and recognized tribes owning 70% of the state’s land Specifically, federal land agencies, such as the USFS and BLM, control 42% of Arizona's land, with over 2,000 miles of state highways running through these areas Additionally, Arizona's 21 federally recognized tribal nations own 28% of the land, with more than 1,200 miles of state highways crossing their territories, predominantly within the Navajo Nation.

Table 24 highlights the daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data for 1990 and 2000, revealing a significant rise in travel on non-state roads in Pinal County over the decade This surge correlates with population and housing growth in the area, leading to increased traffic across all road types Notably, the remarkable uptick in VMT on county roads and those serving residential and commercial developments underscores this trend Additionally, Maricopa County experienced a considerable rise in VMT on state roads, attributed to the heightened utilization of state routes in the Phoenix metropolitan region.

Table 24 Daily Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) by County, 1990-2000 and % Change

Total VMT Total VMT Total VMT all roads state system non state

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division

HPMS Data for the Calendar years 1990 and 2000

The Data Section of ADOT’s Transportation Planning Division has identified four distinct traffic pattern cluster areas in Arizona, categorized by their variation in Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) These clusters are organized hierarchically, with Area 1 showing the least monthly variation and Area 4 exhibiting the highest variation Figure 15 illustrates these four cluster areas along with the locations of various Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) positions across the state.

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, Data Section

Figure 15 Traffic Pattern Cluster Areas

In 2003, Table 25 presents daily and monthly traffic factors for four cluster areas, calculated as the inverse ratio of AADT to collected traffic counts A factor exceeding one indicates traffic levels were below average for that time period, while a factor below one signifies traffic was above the AADT during the same period.

Access points to TNF are located in Areas 1 and 2, as designated by ADOT's Transportation Planning Department According to Table 25, Area 1 experiences peak traffic flow from February to April, while the lowest traffic flow occurs from July to September In contrast, peak traffic flow for Area 2 shows different seasonal patterns.

Traffic in the region experiences significant fluctuations, peaking between June and August and reaching its lowest levels from December to February This seasonal variation aligns with the understanding that visitor patterns are largely influenced by weather conditions and external tourist activity.

Table 25 Daily and Monthly Traffic Variation by Cluster Area, 2003

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

N.B.: Factors listed represent a ratio of recorded traffic counts to the AADT

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, Data Section

Regional transportation plans and roadway improvements

The counties in the assessment area face similar challenges related to transportation infrastructure However, distinct constraints and opportunities for each region are highlighted in ADOT documents and local comprehensive and transportation plans This section explores the barriers to access and outlines the planned improvements for state and county transportation systems.

Proposed enhancements to the state highway system near TNF are detailed in Table 26 While the data may not encompass all ADOT initiatives within the assessed area, it serves as a valuable reference for understanding the timing, type, and scope of highway projects that could impact travel to and from the forest.

Table 26 ADOT Current 5-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program, Tonto National

Length (miles) Type Of Work

Pinto Valley Bridge - Mine Turnoff

Surface Transportation Program Oak Flat - Devil's Canyon

Surface Transportation Program County Line - Pinto Valley 3.3 Resurface & passing lane $4,033

2005 87 263 Gila STATE Tonto Natural Bridge 0.1

2006 87 263 Gila STATE Tonto Natural Bridge 0.1

2005 88 213.3 Maricopa STATE Apache Trail 29.4 District Force

Surface Transportation Program Fish Creek Hill Construct retaining walls $1,500

2005 88 223 Maricopa STATE Fish Creek Hill

Surface Transportation Program Wheatfields - US 60 4.1 Construct Roadway $10,000

National Highway System Little Green Valley 6.9

National Highway System Doubtful Canyon Section 3.5

2009 260 269 Gila STATE Doubtful Canyon Section 0.2 Utility Relocation $30

2005 260 269 Gila STATE Doubtful Canyon Section 0 Design (Roadway) $1,500

SR 260, Gordon Canyon Bridge & Mogollon Rim

Construction of erosion control and stream stability facilities $337

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation http://tpd.azdot.gov/pps/searchprogram.asp

To enhance coordination among state planning authorities, ADOT has tasked regional planning bodies with the distribution of federal transportation planning and construction funds to local agencies The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG), and Central Yavapai Municipal Planning Organization (CYMPO) are responsible for transportation planning in their areas Policy decisions regarding the development and improvement of circulation infrastructure are influenced by local city and county regulations A summary of access issues and planned improvements from regional, county, and city comprehensive plans is provided, but it is important to note that the timing and implementation of these projects face significant funding constraints and an unpredictable development pace.

The primary routes within Gila County consist of State Routes, including US 60, US 70, SR 87, SR 188,

SR 288 and SR 260 are key routes, while most secondary roads are FS roads granting access to private lands within the TNF boundaries Gila County oversees primarily rural two-lane collector and local roadways, with urban roadways located in communities such as Claypool and Central Heights.

Among the primary transportation-related issues identified in the Gila County Comprehensive Master

Gila County is addressing critical issues related to emergency access, all-weather property accessibility, and inadequate transportation facilities, alongside funding deficiencies for roadway construction and maintenance To tackle these challenges, the county has developed a comprehensive Roadway Design plan.

The Standards Manual aims to standardize the construction of new roadways and improve existing ones under Gila County's jurisdiction, addressing key roadway issues such as all-weather and emergency access standards (Gila County 2003) As of 2003, the county was developing a Capital Improvement Plan to prioritize transportation projects for county roads, though a copy of this plan was unavailable during the assessment.

As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Maricopa region, MAG plans and finances the regional transportation system These responsibilities include the development of a Regional

Transportation Plan (RTP), management of the regional Transportation Improvement Program, collection of traffic data, and monitoring of transportation safety programs

The RTP planning area covers the entirety of Maricopa County, which includes major cities such as Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Glendale, and Scottsdale, as well as other communities like Apache Junction, Avondale, and Goodyear This diverse region features a variety of urban and suburban environments, contributing to its dynamic growth and development.

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) addresses the impacts of ongoing and projected growth in areas such as Guadalupe, Paradise Valley, Queen Creek, Wickenburg, Youngtown, and the Gila River and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Communities Recent decades have seen significant residential expansion on the outskirts of urban areas, alongside infill development in city centers, leading to increased urban density To accommodate these changes, the RTP proposes a comprehensive improvement plan that focuses on enhancing highway capacity, expanding mass transit services, and offering alternative transportation options.

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) highlights the benefits of the current transportation infrastructure, noting that the regional freeway system, built in the last two decades, remains relatively new and requires minimal rehabilitation Additionally, the extensive grid of regional arterial roads enhances system flexibility The RTP also emphasizes that advancing the region's traffic management system could boost capacity without necessitating significant lane expansions (MAG 2003).

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) outlines significant freeway and highway enhancements across specific transportation corridors, with a total funding allocation of $3.7 billion for new corridors under the jurisdiction of the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) These developments are projected to add approximately 490 new lane miles to the network Additionally, the plan allocates $4.4 billion for widening and improving the existing freeway and highway system, resulting in 530 new lane miles of general-purpose lanes and 300 lane miles of High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes This comprehensive upgrade will encompass nearly the entire current system, including ongoing loop construction projects For detailed maps of the existing and planned improvements in the MAG area, visit http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/RTP-Final-11-25-03.pdf.

The I-10 freeway is a crucial transportation link in the southwestern U.S., facilitating both passenger and freight mobility across the region It connects densely populated urban areas within the MAG Region and supports planned commercial, industrial, and residential developments As the only major east-west freeway in this central urban area, I-10 experiences significant congestion and serves as a vital truck route Planned enhancements to increase its capacity include adding general purpose lanes between I-17 and State Route 85 and extending HOV lanes to Loop 303 Additionally, new general purpose lanes will be introduced between Baseline Road and Riggs Road, with HOV lanes extending south to Riggs Road.

The RTP is funding the development of a new six-lane freeway corridor south of the existing I-10 to alleviate congestion The construction will occur in phases, starting with a full freeway between Loop 202 and Loop 303, while an interim two-lane roadway will be built between Loop 303 and SR 85 Additionally, the necessary right-of-way for a future full freeway will be secured between these points, with plans for its ultimate construction as part of the overall project concept.

The freeway route linking the Phoenix metropolitan area to I-40 serves as a vital north-south corridor within the MAG region, terminating at I-10 in the urban center This route experiences heavy traffic and significant congestion, exacerbated by ongoing residential and commercial developments near Loop 101 and to the north To address these traffic demands, planned improvements for I-17 include adding general purpose lanes from Peoria Avenue to New River Road and extending HOV lanes north to Anthem Way.

The circumferential freeway route encircles the northern section of the MAG Region, comprising three key segments: the Agua Fria Freeway, which connects I-10 to I-17, and the Pima Freeway, linking I-17 to Loop 202/Red.

The Loop 101 corridor, connecting the Red Mountain and Santan segments of the Price Freeway, is facing significant congestion during peak periods To meet current and future traffic demands, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) proposes the addition of general purpose and HOV lanes along the entire route Upon completion, Loop 101 will feature at least four general-purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction, totaling ten lanes.

Internal modes, barriers and access issues

Currently, Tonto National Forest has minimal access barriers, especially compared to other Arizona forests, due to limited private land adjacent to its boundaries This situation reduces the access challenges for private property owners wanting to enter the forest Additionally, the TNF generally does not face obstacles from inclement weather, except for some seasonal road closures in the northern areas of the forest.

Access to the forest is primarily hindered by challenging terrain, and it encompasses four distinct wilderness areas To protect these sensitive regions, access is regulated.

Currently, the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) provides equal access to all user groups, with no significant disparities Forest planners have observed a notable shift in the percentages of different travel modes rather than an overall increase in forest visitors While the total number of individuals accessing the forest has remained stable, there has been a marked rise in off-highway vehicle (OHV) use Recent public feedback has primarily focused on proposed restrictions regarding OHV access within the TNF.

There are currently no road projects scheduled for the TNF.

The FS has long been aware of the considerable impact of internal roads on forest management

The debate surrounding the effects of road networks on wilderness areas has intensified, highlighting public concerns about the preservation of roadless regions While the positive impacts of forest roads include enhanced access for timber harvesting, livestock grazing, mining, fire control, and cultural significance, the negative consequences are significant These adverse effects encompass habitat fragmentation, predation, roadkill, and the introduction of invasive species, alongside issues like degraded water quality, aquatic habitats, and biodiversity loss Additionally, road networks can lead to increased human activities that disrupt natural environments, such as illegal hunting and trash dumping, ultimately compromising the ecological integrity of these areas.

Research on forest roads not only examines their physical and ecological impacts but also highlights significant socioeconomic consequences within national forests The quality and extent of these roads significantly influence the economic costs and benefits for various user groups, including timber harvesters, energy and mining sectors, fuels managers, and recreational users Additionally, land managers in Arizona are becoming more cognizant of the economic and environmental implications of the rising use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs).

This assessment focuses on the socioeconomic trends in communities surrounding the forest, which are likely to impact future forest management strategies A report to the United States Congress highlighted that, despite improvements in the national interstate highway system over the past fifty years, traffic congestion has risen significantly From 1990 to 2000, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased by 31% nationally, with Arizona experiencing a 38% rise In the assessed area, VMT surged even more dramatically, particularly in Pinal and Yavapai Counties, which saw increases of 100% and 97%, respectively Maricopa County, although with a smaller percentage increase, recorded the highest traffic volume with 67 million miles traveled in 2000 Notably, while urban interstate highways have higher traffic density, rural interstate highways are witnessing faster growth rates The Federal Highway Administration anticipates substantial increases in both passenger and freight traffic on the interstate highway system in the coming years.

Between 2001 and 2010, traffic flow and congestion in the TNF area increased significantly, with rates rising from 17% to 28% (Siggerud 2002) As population projections for surrounding counties indicate continued growth, the Phoenix Metropolitan Area is expected to experience even longer commute times and heightened traffic challenges.

Current and projected vehicular traffic trends play a crucial role in shaping local and regional land use patterns, as highlighted in various county comprehensive plans These plans emphasize the connection between transportation networks and land use, suggesting that regional strategies for transportation development and financing are essential for accommodating growth while maintaining residents' quality of life Research indicates that well-developed highway systems and access to urban centers significantly influence population density, underscoring transportation's impact on residents' location choices Additionally, studies demonstrate a direct correlation between transportation infrastructure and economic stability, with efficient highway systems being vital for fostering economic diversity and stability in local and regional economies.

Land Use

Historical context and land use patterns

Since the late nineteenth century, the amount of national forest land in Arizona has remained stable, reflecting a long history of shared land concepts among Native American and Mexican-American communities In 1891, 75% of Arizona was designated as public domain, and by 1977, this figure was still over 70% Currently, the National Forest System comprises about 15% of Arizona's land, which includes significant natural resources, such as 40% of the state's watersheds and nearly 60% of its timber Consequently, the U.S Forest Service has prioritized maintaining forest boundaries through land acquisitions Recently, there has been a growing recognition of national forests as vital recreational resources, although the primary aim of these lands is "multiple use," which can be constrained by the need to preserve wilderness and wildlife habitats.

The majority of forest land is primarily grassland, with only about 20% classified as forested (Alig et al 2003) Logging remains a contentious aspect of national forest land use, even though private owners account for 90% of the timber harvest and control 60-70% of timberland in the U.S (Haynes 2003a, Alig and Butler 2004) In Arizona, national forests produced 13 million cubic feet of saw-timber five years ago, but the area dedicated to timber uses has declined over the past two decades, and these reduced levels are projected to remain stable for the next fifty years (Mills and Zhou 2003, Alig and Butler 2004, Johnson 2000).

The total area of land within National Forests has remained stable, yet the specific parcels of land have been periodically adjusted This ongoing management involves adding or releasing land to better consolidate areas within the established boundaries of the national forests.

1988) Several House and Senate initiatives have involved land transfers around the TNF, specifically HR

622 which earmarked the exchange of 108 acres of FS land for nearly 500 acres of non-federal land near

Airport be exchanged for roughly 150 acres of private land near the Montezuma Castle National

In December 2003, a law was enacted to transfer over 100 acres of land within the Coconino National Forest to private ownership, following Senate initiative S 1752, which proposed a larger transfer of approximately 550 acres This initiative aimed to replace facilities that had become less accessible due to urban expansion, as they were once located on the outskirts of local communities but now found themselves in the midst of commercial districts However, it's important to note that much of the land in the Tonto National Forest, particularly in Maricopa County, remains protected from development.

Private citizens living on the outskirts of national forests significantly influence these ecosystems Historically, grazers and lumbermen encroached on public lands for their own benefit, although this practice was eventually curtailed Today, surrounding communities often seek land trades with the US Forest Service to facilitate local growth, with the acceptance of these applications contingent upon their potential impact on the forests.

Land ownership and land use

The four-county area of assessment for the TNF encompasses over 17 million acres, featuring distinct land ownership and use patterns that significantly impact forest management strategies Figures 16 and 17 illustrate the land ownership landscape, with Figure 16 highlighting substantial State Trust land adjacent to private holdings and notable Native American land ownership Comparatively, the TNF area exhibits a higher percentage of private land (23%) and State Trust land (18%) than the overall state averages (18% and 13%, respectively), indicating unique regional development influences that will be explored further in this section (AZSLD 2004).

Table 27 reveals significant differences in land ownership across six counties in the assessment area Yavapai and Pinal Counties are characterized by substantial private and State Trust land, while Maricopa County also has a high percentage of private land Gila County stands out with the highest proportion of land owned by Native American entities at 37.89% and the largest share managed by the Forest Service (FS) at 55.44% Additionally, the FS oversees a significant portion of land in Yavapai County, accounting for 38.17% In contrast, Gila County has the lowest levels of private land at 3.43% and State Trust land at 1.02% among the assessed counties.

Figure 16 Land Ownership within Area of Assessment

Source: Arizona State Land Department

Figure 17 Percent Ownership by Major Land Owners in Four-County Area of Assessment

Table 27 Land Ownership by County, 2005

Land Ownership Acres Percent Land Ownership Acres Percent

Bureau of Reclamation 13,811.93 0.23% Game and Fish 105.56 0.00%

Fort McDowell Indian Res 24,868.97 0.42% San Carlos Indian Res 633,998.74 20.67%

Game and Fish 5,337.47 0.09% State Trust Land 31,220.90 1.02%

Gila Bend Indian Res 452.6 0.01% Tonto NF 1,700,171.68 55.44%

Gila River Indian Res 96,024.92 1.63% Tonto NM 1,107.14 0.04%

Luke A.F.B 2,822.61 0.05% White Mountain Apache Res 528,141.70 17.22%

Military Res 2,447.58 0.04% Yavapai Tonto Apache 81.74 0.00%

Painted Rock Wildlife Ref 5,056.07 0.09% TOTAL 3,066,636.65 100.00%

Parks and Recreation 100,939.82 1.71% Yavapai County

Salt River Indian Res 53,710.98 0.91% Bureau of Reclamation 8,682.85 0.17%

State Trust Land 649,563.37 11.01% Coconino NF 425,932.99 8.19%

Tohono Indian Res 95,002.2 1.61% County Land 5,784.83 0.11%

Tonto NF 655,026.41 11.10% Game and Fish 1,033.74 0.02%

Ak-Chin Indian Res 21,449.98 0.62% Military Res 257.75 0.00%

Bureau of Reclamation 40,204.42 1.17% Montezuma Well 270.16 0.01%

Coronado NF 23,281.87 0.68% Parks and Recreation 403.81 0.01%

Game and Fish 52.93 0.00% Private Land 1,324,643.23 25.47%

Gila River Indian Res 276,028.20 8.03% State Trust Land 1,265,474.56 24.34%

Military Res 7,300.52 0.21% Yavapai Apache Ind Res 617.61 0.01%

Parks and Recreation 10,527.79 0.31% Yavapai Prescott Ind Res 1,378.16 0.03%

Source: Arizona Land Resource Information Service

The observed G.I.S data discrepancies in Maricopa, Gila, and Pinal Counties regarding Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) 11, Residential, are probably due to the sampling and digitizing processes that aggregate past land use information from secondary sources for those regions For more details, visit the USGS site at http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/ftp/n_dakota/NDGS/1_250_LULC.htm.

Figure 18 Land Cover within the Area of Assessment

The assessment area, as illustrated in Figure 18 and detailed in Table 28, reveals significant variations in land cover across four counties Notably, Maricopa County leads with a residential land cover of 15.80%, surpassing the overall assessment area's 7.13% It also holds the highest percentages of commercial, services, industrial, and urban land cover In contrast, shrub, brush, and mixed range dominate three counties, while Gila County uniquely features evergreen forest as its primary land cover Yavapai County also boasts substantial evergreen forest land cover at 39.11%, and Pinal County is noted for its significant land cover types.

Table 28 Land Cover by County and Assessment Area, 1990

Code Coverage Type Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Acres Percentage

16 Mixed urban or built-up land 139 0.00% 2,741 0.05% 138 0.00%

17 Other urban or built-up land 516 0.02% 11,515 0.20% 2,399 0.07%

Orchards, groves, vineyards, nurseries, and ornamental horticultural areas 0 0.00% 26,474 0.45% 4,837 0.14%

75 Strip mines, quarries, gravel pits 5,145 0.17% 5,988 0.10% 5,577 0.16%

Table 28 (cont.) Land Cover by County and Assessment Area, 1990

Yavapai County Assessment Area Land

Code Coverage Type Acres Percentage Acres Percentage

16 Mixed urban or built-up land 1,610 0.03% 4,628 0.03%

17 Other urban or built-up land 851 0.02% 15,281 0.09%

Orchards, groves, vineyards, nurseries and ornamental horticultural areas 86 0.00% 31,398 0.18%

75 Strip mines, quarries, gravel pits 13,387 0.26% 30,097 0.17%

County land use plans and local policy environment

County comprehensive plans serve as a key resource for understanding the region's land use history, development patterns, desired conditions, and current land use policies However, it is important to recognize that county governments lack legal authority over independent jurisdictions, including federal and state lands, incorporated cities, and Native American tribal reservations The comprehensive plans examined differ significantly in their adoption dates, the types of land use data they provide, and their overall formats While some plans offer a broad analysis of land use patterns and aspirations, others include detailed policies and guidelines for county land use Consequently, the information derived from these comprehensive plans is evaluated for its potential impact on future land use decisions.

Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan

Gila County's land use patterns are deeply influenced by its historical settlement by miners, ranchers, and loggers, evident in towns like Hayden, Winkelman, Miami, and Globe, which feature compact grid street layouts and historic downtowns In contrast, the northern communities of Young, Pine, and Strawberry showcase rural development shaped by logging and ranching traditions While mining and ranching remain vital to the county's economy, the growing significance of recreation and tourism industries is expected to increasingly impact future development patterns.

Gila County spans approximately 3,052,096 acres, with only 4% (124,000 acres) designated as private property Of this, 18,500 acres are located within incorporated municipalities like Payson, Globe, and Miami, while the remaining 105,000 acres are distributed across unincorporated communities such as Pine, Strawberry, Star Valley, Gisela, and Young, as well as larger areas managed by the USFS and BLM In the southern region, significant private land parcels are owned by ranching and mining interests, particularly north and west of Miami Over 95% of Gila County's land is managed by various entities, including the Fort Apache and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations (38%), Tonto National Forest (55%), and other local and state agencies.

Gila County's limited private land and moderate population growth have perpetuated historical development patterns in its unincorporated areas Recent growth has primarily occurred in the northern towns of Payson and Globe, along with surrounding unincorporated regions like Pine, Strawberry, Tonto Basin, and Star Valley This trend is largely driven by the development of residential pockets on vacant parcels and the subdivision of scattered private properties.

The Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 4,

The 2003 Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan outlines existing conditions and land use preferences for the county's remote areas, featuring five distinct Area Land Use Plans for the northwest, northeast, west central, east central, and southern regions Additionally, it includes Community Land Use Plans for unincorporated communities such as Pine, Strawberry, Star Valley, Tonto Basin, Young, Gisela, and Claypool This assessment focuses on the broader policies and land use designations rather than the detailed plans, which can be accessed at http://co.gila.az.us/default.aspx.

The Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan outlines eight residential designations based on dwelling unit density, ranging from very low-density rural development (one unit per ten acres or more) to high-density suburban development (over ten units per acre) Much of the residential growth outside unincorporated communities has stemmed from lot splitting on large parcels and historical land grants Many of these areas, often located within the Tonto National Forest, are accessed via unimproved forest roads and lack developed infrastructure Potable water is typically sourced from hauled supplies or private wells, while wastewater is managed through individual septic systems.

Residential development in northern and eastern Gila County features a blend of seasonal, secondary, and full-time site-built and manufactured homes In contrast, the southern regions, particularly the Tonto Basin, Lake Roosevelt, and Dripping Springs areas, exhibit a concentration of residential growth with notably fewer seasonal and part-time residences.

• Commercial and industrial land use

The plan outlines two categories of commercial land use: neighborhood commercial and community commercial Neighborhood commercial areas, capped at five acres, are strategically positioned at local road intersections to cater specifically to the needs of nearby residents In contrast, community commercial areas, which include grocery stores and additional services, are designed to meet the commercial demands of both the local community and the broader region.

Industrial land uses are categorized into light and heavy industrial types Light industrial activities involve low-intensity employment and manufacturing that are distanced from residential areas and typically do not generate heavy truck traffic In contrast, heavy industrial uses encompass activities like heavy manufacturing, smelting, and mining, which produce considerable noise, dust, and emissions Southern Gila County has historically been designated as heavy industrial due to the significant influence of the mining industry in the area.

The Gila County Land Use and Resource Policy Plan for Public Lands, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in February 1997, serves as a crucial tool for decision-makers at various government levels It aims to protect and enhance the customs, culture, social sustainability, economy, tax base, and overall ecosystem health of Gila County However, copies of this plan were unavailable during the assessment.

Land use in Maricopa County has significantly transformed in recent decades due to a sharp population increase While agriculture once dominated land use, much of this land is now being converted for urban development The growing reliance on automobiles has prompted extensive expansion of the county's roadway network, resulting in dispersed development patterns This lack of coordination between housing and employment centers has led to increased congestion, longer commutes, and concerns about the future quality of life for residents.

Maricopa County oversees planning and zoning for over 3,000 square miles, aiming to enhance land use efficiency through its Comprehensive Plan's Land Use element This initiative is designed to attract high-quality development, accommodate projected growth, optimize infrastructure investments, and uphold the county's quality of life The plan features nine distinct land use designations that guide future development, reflecting the area's vast jurisdiction and rapid population growth These designations focus on generalized land use concepts rather than specifying exact uses or densities.

Maricopa County lacks the authority to regulate land use in incorporated areas, yet its comprehensive plan promotes the development of new projects within or near these established areas.

Many established communities exist within unincorporated areas of Maricopa County These communities typically have an established character and pattern of development The intent of the

The Established Communities designation aims to preserve the unique character and lifestyle of specific areas in Maricopa County Notable established communities include New River, Desert Hills, Morristown, Tonopah, Laveen, Palo Verde, Wittman, Arlington, Little Rainbow Valley, Chandler Heights, Mobile, Circle City, Wintersburg, Agua Caliente, Cotton Center, Hopeville, Santa Maria, Norton’s Corner, Gladden, Perryville, Liberty, Sunflower, Harquahala Valley, Hassayampa, Paloma, Aguila, and Sentinel.

General Plan Development Areas are regions anticipated for annexation by cities or towns in accordance with their municipal general plans According to A.R.S §11-831, any rezoning or subdivision plat for unincorporated areas must adhere to the adopted general plan and zoning regulations of the relevant city or town.

Changes in land ownership affecting the Tonto National Forest

In recent years, several proposed land acquisitions and exchanges have involved lands managed by the TNF, either directly or indirectly This article provides a brief overview of the information related to these land transactions.

This proposal involves the exchange of a 278-acre parcel of land adjacent to the Tonto Apache

Reservation for four privately held parcels within the Lakeside, Verde, Payson, Tonto Basin, and Red Rock Ranger Districts Implementation of the land exchange was expected in May 2005 (TNF 2005).

• Cave Creek Administrative Site Land Conveyance (2005)

In March 2005, portions of the Cave Creek Administrative Site were slated for sale to address boundary irregularities caused by county road easements isolating parts of the property.

The proposal aimed to exchange a 142-acre federal recreation residence parcel in the Payson Ranger District for 521 non-federal acres across various locations, including Alpine, Verde, Williams, Payson, Red Rock, and Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts The implementation of this land exchange was anticipated to take place in September 2004.

In July 2003, a Senate report from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources directed the Secretary of Agriculture to implement House Bill H.R 622, which approves the Montezuma Land Exchange This legislation facilitates two land exchanges, including the Montezuma Castle Land Exchange, which involves transferring 222 acres of National Forest System land in the Tonto National Forest near Payson and its municipal airport for approximately 157 acres of private land adjacent to Montezuma Castle National Monument and nearly 108 acres known as the Double Cabin Park Lands, both located within the Coconino National Forest.

• Diamond Point/Q Ranch Land Exchange (2003)

The same bill, H.R 622, called for the transfer of 108 acres of National Forest System land to the

The Diamond Point Summer Home Association has completed an exchange involving 495 acres of private land, situated about eight miles northeast of Payson This federal land was earmarked for exchange in the Tonto National Forest (TNF) Management Plan The private land, previously known as the Q Ranch, represents the third and final parcel of a significant private inholding transferred to the TNF.

Conservation Fund and optioned to the association for use in the land exchange There was reportedly broad public support and no opposition throughout the exchange process (Domenici 2003, WLG 2005)

In February 2003, the Director of Lands and Minerals for the Southwest Region of the Forest Service approved a land exchange involving approximately 754 acres of federal land in the Coconino National Forest for around 1,160 acres of state land This exchange, facilitated by the Arizona Game and Fish Department, aimed to enable the development of a permanent shooting facility in a safe manner Among the ten state parcels exchanged, two were situated in the Pleasant Valley Ranger District of the Tonto National Forest, with the acquisition intended to minimize boundary irregularities and enhance visual protection and critical wildlife habitat.

In May 2005, Representative Rich Renzi introduced House Bill H.R 2618 and Senator Jon Kyl introduced its Senate counterpart S 1122, both aimed at facilitating a land exchange involving Resolution Copper Mining, LLC The proposed exchange involves transferring approximately 4,800 acres of private land across five counties to the federal government in return for about 460 acres of federal land near Superior, Arizona The private lands, which include environmentally valuable areas like the San Pedro River and southern Arizona grasslands, would be traded for federal lands known for their copper deposits, including the Oak Flat area, a popular destination for rock climbing and camping Proponents, such as Audubon Arizona and the Sonoran Institute, argue that the exchange will protect sensitive environments, while opponents, including the Sierra Club, warn of potential subsidence from mining and inadequate environmental reviews The legislative nature of the exchange would bypass standard environmental scrutiny, raising concerns among outdoor enthusiasts who have frequented Oak Flat since its withdrawal from mining in 1955 Despite the opposition, the exchange has garnered support from nine of Arizona's ten congressional delegates, Governor Janet Napolitano, and the Superior Town Council, primarily due to anticipated economic benefits from increased mining activities.

Understanding the regional importance of national forest lands and resources in the Southwest hinges on the dynamics of public and private land ownership and control.

- Timeless Heritage: A History of the Forest Service in the Southwest

Land use planning significantly influences forest management, especially in Arizona, where land ownership and use were stable for over a century after the territory's founding in 1863 However, recent population growth and economic changes in the state have led to dramatic shifts in land use that are expected to affect forest management practices for many years to come.

Arizona has long maintained a relatively large percentage of lands under federal jurisdiction In 1891, land held under the public domain accounted for approximately 75% of Arizona’s total land base By

In 1977, federally controlled land comprised a significant 71% of the total land, while in New Mexico, it accounted for 34% of the land base In contrast, only 16% of Arizona's land was privately owned, compared to 45% in New Mexico These ownership dynamics, alongside demographic and economic trends, have intensified the pressure on Arizona’s valuable natural resource: land.

The ongoing policy debate over the transition of public and private lands in Arizona is deeply rooted in the state's historical economic landscape, which has traditionally relied on sectors like mining, ranching, and logging These industries not only dominate Arizona's rural economy but also significantly influence the management of adjacent public lands, particularly through private ownership of vital resources such as springs and wells Large private entities, including railroads and mining companies, have sought to control access to extensive public lands Despite a decline in these historical industries, tensions between public and private land interests have intensified amid pressures for urban development As noted in the Land and Water Law Review, the allocation of rights between private landowners and federal land conservation efforts has emerged as a highly contentious issue in public land law.

The region around the TNF highlights significant trends and contentious issues related to economic stability and the management of public lands A major concern is the ongoing urban expansion of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, which poses challenges for land use and resource management.

Maricopa County's land, water, and infrastructure are crucial for managing the Tonto National Forest (TNF), impacting the entire state of Arizona Yavapai County exemplifies the ongoing debate over land management practices, with over 87% of its land controlled by the Forest Service, Arizona State Land Department, and private owners This county has experienced significant population and housing growth in recent decades, largely due to its abundant natural resource amenities.

The challenge lies in finding a balance between resource conservation and economic development, as private owners and public land managers seek to reach a consensus County comprehensive plans indicate that planners are grappling with increasing demands for housing and recreational spaces while striving to preserve Arizona's diminishing natural resources, which are vital to maintaining the state's cherished rural character.

The ongoing debate surrounding land management is largely centered on open space, with research indicating that the conversion of private agricultural and forestry lands to urban developments has surpassed population growth in recent decades This shift has intensified discussions among ranchers, farmers, seasonal residents, conservationists, and home builders regarding the short-term and long-term significance of maintaining open space.

The ongoing debate about public land management highlights the critical role of Arizona's State Trust lands in conserving natural resources and supporting urban development Proposed reforms to the State Trust land system are expected to significantly influence future management strategies for the Tonto National Forest, given the substantial presence of State Trust lands in the assessed area.

The national forests in Arizona are becoming a focal point in the debate over the state's water resource management, as they play a crucial role in overseeing watersheds essential for environmental sustainability and supporting residential and industrial growth Research indicates that around 40% of Arizona's surface and subsurface water comes from lands managed by the Forest Service As projected growth rates in the region continue to rise, the role of the Tonto National Forest in safeguarding watershed integrity will become increasingly vital.

To effectively address current and future land use challenges, the TNF should collaborate with local communities and landowners near forest boundaries, while supporting county and city planners in implementing sustainable urban development and resource conservation strategies The Forest Service can leverage its technical and organizational expertise to assist stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding land ownership and usage, ultimately impacting their environmental and economic futures positively.

Forest Users and Uses

Historical context and user groups

Federal agencies face challenges in addressing the diverse needs of users on public lands Following the establishment of national forest reserves in 1891, the Organic Act was enacted to guide forest management, emphasizing the protection and improvement of forests, safeguarding waterflows, and ensuring a sustainable timber supply Lands with higher value for mineral extraction or agriculture were excluded from national forests, while certain extractive uses were permitted The policy aimed to allow various non-destructive activities, such as grazing, recreation, and residential development, to promote wise use of forests for local, regional, and national growth.

The concept of managing national forest lands for multiple uses emerged from the interplay of various user groups, culminating in the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, which mandates equal consideration for all resource users This legislation emphasizes that forest management should prioritize the diverse needs of the American public rather than solely focusing on maximizing economic output The National Forest Management Act of 1976 further reinforces this mission by ensuring the provision of goods and services, such as timber and recreation, while also safeguarding vital forest resources like clean air, water, and wildlife habitats However, these multiple-use laws often lack specific guidance on how to effectively balance conflicting interests among users.

Managing for multiple uses involves integrating various activities into ecosystems based on their capacity to support these uses while ensuring sustainability for future generations (Fedkiw, 1998) This approach positions forest users and their activities as key factors in management decisions This section will explore the utilization of the TNF, identify its users, and analyze how current trends in forest usage align with historical and national patterns.

National forests serve a variety of uses and users, which can be categorized into extractive and non-extractive activities Extractive uses encompass livestock ranching, timber harvesting, and mining, along with infrastructure development like power lines and communication sites In contrast, non-extractive uses primarily focus on recreation, but also include research and tribal activities While hunting, fishing, and gathering may be viewed as extractive, they are often classified under recreational activities in data reports It's important to note that forest usage can occur both legally and illegally.

Extractive users and uses

Livestock grazing, timber cutting, and mining are the primary extractive activities on national forest land While these uses have historically dominated public-lands management, recent trends indicate a shift towards non-extractive uses in policy and management (Davis 2001) Additionally, environmental advocacy groups and recreational users are increasingly opposing extractive practices.

In fiscal year 2002, approximately 7,750 operators were authorized to graze livestock across around 95 million acres of FS-administered land However, as noted by Davis (2001), the issuance of permits for livestock grazing on public lands has seen a slight decline in recent years For instance, the TNF issued eighty-seven grazing permits in 2000, a figure that remained consistent since 1990.

The Forest Service sells timber primarily to support local mills and communities dependent on forest resources, as well as to manage forest structure and composition for various goals (Gorte 2004) However, timber sales on national forest land have declined significantly since the late 1980s, when production peaked at 11 billion board feet annually (GAO 1999b) By fiscal year 2004, only just over 2 billion board feet were harvested, valued at approximately $218 million, alongside an additional $3.17 million from special forest products like Christmas trees and mushrooms (USFS 2005g) Notably, the timber sales program reported a substantial loss of $88.6 million in 1997 (GAO 2001a).

Timber cutting in the TNF encompasses sawtimber, pulpwood, and fuelwood In 2000, the forest issued permits for 539 cords of commercial fuelwood, reflecting a significant increase of over 100% since 1990 However, permits for sawtimber and pulpwood saw a notable decline, with 2,421 mbf and 709 mbf issued in 2000, respectively Additionally, the TNF data reveals that 3,489 cords of fuelwood were gathered for non-commercial use in 2000, down from over 10,000 cords in 1990.

Mining in national forests is governed by the General Mining Law of 1872, which grants individuals and corporations the right to prospect on Forest Service lands Upon discovering a mineral resource, they can patent it to claim full ownership, typically requiring small fees for staking, maintaining, and patenting claims In fiscal year 2003, mineral and energy production across the nation generated approximately $2 billion, with Region 3 issuing over $2 million in sale and free use permits for mineral extraction in 2002 The Tahoe National Forest also contributed significantly, issuing ninety-one sale and ten free use permits valued at more than $1.5 million, primarily for sand, gravel, fill, and landscape rock However, the number of mining permits issued declined from 1990 to 2002.

Forests also commonly allow communities and other entities to use public lands for infrastructure, including power lines, rights of way, telecommunications, and the like

6.3 Non-extractive users and uses

Non-extractive users, especially recreational users, significantly influence forest management and planning, as national forests are required to offer outdoor recreation opportunities while preserving cultural, wilderness, visual, and natural resource values However, unmanaged recreation poses a critical threat to these forests, with the Forest Service anticipating increased pressure on undeveloped areas in the Southwest and Rockies due to rising outdoor participation This surge in recreation is closely linked to population growth in the West, with the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) identified as a key factor in unmanaged usage.

Recreation use in national forests has steadily increased over the years, with camping participation rising from 13 million in 1960 to nearly 58 million by 1994-95 (Cordell et al 2004) The 2004 Roper Report revealed that 90% of Americans engaged in outdoor recreation within the past year, yet noted a decline in participation starting in 2001, attributed to post-9/11 travel concerns and the rise of indoor recreational activities via the Internet and television (RoperASW 2004) Additionally, Cordell et al (2004) observed slight decreases in various outdoor recreation categories after September 11 In 2001, national forests recorded 209 million visits, with the Southwest region alone attracting 19.5 million visitors (USFS 2001e).

Arizona has undergone significant demographic shifts in recent years, particularly marked by a tenfold population increase since 1940, reaching over 5 million by 2000 This growth trend, which saw Arizona achieve the second-largest growth rate in the nation during the 1990s, has influenced recreational patterns in the state Additionally, more than 88% of Arizonans resided in urban areas by 2000, highlighting a dramatic shift towards urban living that further impacts how residents engage with outdoor activities.

In phone surveys conducted by Arizona State Parks in 1994 and 1998, almost half of the respondents reported visiting an Arizona national forest within the past year.

Access to public lands significantly enhances the quality of life for many residents in Arizona However, with urban expansion reducing available open space, parks and forests are facing unprecedented recreational pressure This trend of increased demand on recreational resources is likely to persist in the foreseeable future.

In fiscal year 2002, the Tonto National Forest, spanning nearly 3 million acres, attracted around 5.7 million visitors, with a significant majority being male (74.7%) and predominantly white (92.5%) Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino visitors constituted approximately 6.1% of total visits, while the age group of 31 to 60 years made up about 63.8% of the visitors Notably, only 1% of those surveyed were from foreign countries, with the most frequently reported zip codes originating from the Flagstaff area.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system, established by the US Forest Service in 1982, offers a comprehensive framework for analyzing recreation users, their needs, and the capabilities of forests to meet these demands Through the ROS perspective, a recreation opportunity encompasses three key elements: activities, settings, and experiences Furthermore, all land and water resources are categorized into one of six classifications based on physical, social, and managerial criteria.

6 However, for the latter figure there is a 41.2% margin of error at the 80% confidence level.

Table 29 Description of ROS Classifications

Primitive Setting is unmodified and remote and of a fairly large size

Users are generally isolated from one another, and typical activities include hiking and walking, viewing scenery, horseback riding, tent camping, and hunting.

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas feature a predominantly natural environment that is moderate to large in size While opportunities for solitude are less than in primitive areas, user density remains low, ensuring a tranquil experience Importantly, motorized activities are prohibited, preserving the area's natural integrity.

Semi-Primitive Motorized Setting is similar to semi-primitive non-motorized, but offroad motor vehicles are permitted

A Roaded Natural Setting features a primarily natural environment that experiences a moderate degree of human influence Visitors may encounter other users, as roads are integrated into the landscape, leading to significant motorized activity from vehicles such as cars, buses, trams, and boats.

The rural setting has been significantly transformed to accommodate various uses and a larger number of users, with facilities and management practices tailored for specific activities This area offers convenient access and maintains a moderate to high user density.

Urban Levels of modification and user convenience are high and characteristic of urbanized areas Opportunities to interact with other individuals and groups are emphasized

Special users and uses

In Arizona's national forests, several distinct user groups require special consideration, as they differ from the typical user demographic These groups often need specific accommodations, which can sometimes lead to politically sensitive discussions.

Federally recognized American Indian tribes occupy approximately 53.5 million acres, or 7%, of land in the western states, and are regarded as sovereign nations, establishing a government-to-government relationship with the Forest Service (FS) When these tribes enter contracts with the federal government, they do so similarly to state governments or other sovereign entities The federal government bears a unique responsibility to consult with tribes regarding management issues that may impact them, a process regulated by various federal policies and regulations, including the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1509.13), the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, and the Tribal Forest Protection Act.

Archeological Resources Protection Act, and several presidential executive orders.

Tribes utilize Forest Service (FS) land for various activities, including gathering materials like boughs and basket supplies without needing permits, while certain products like sawtimber incur fees (Jevons, pers comm.) In 2003, the National Tribal Relations Task Force proposed legislation to enable federally recognized tribes to access forest products for traditional cultural purposes at no cost Additionally, many national forests house culturally significant sites known only to the tribes, preventing them from applying for necessary permits due to confidentiality concerns (Jevons, pers comm.).

The increasing popularity of Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs) on public lands has raised significant concerns among forest managers, with a national rise of over 109% in users from 1982 to 2000 (Cordell et al 2004) A 1995 GAO study highlighted that OHV use on federal lands was largely undermanaged, with limited funding and staffing from the Forest Service, which often depended on state funding (GAO 1995) While surveys by Arizona State Parks indicate that most residents prioritize cultural resource and natural area preservation over OHV recreation, a 1998 survey showed a growing recognition of the importance of managing OHV use among Arizonans compared to earlier assessments.

In 2004, the Forest Service proposed a new rule to regulate off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation in national forests by establishing designated roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, thereby prohibiting off-designation use This marked a shift from the previous policy, which assumed all areas were open to OHV use unless stated otherwise The Tonto National Forest's 1985 plan acknowledged the increasing OHV use as a threat to resources and a potential cause of user conflict, with approximately 900,000 acres open to OHV use and nearly 2,000,000 acres closed.

The National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reveals that in 2001, 82 million U.S residents aged 16 and older engaged in wildlife-related activities, including 34.1 million who fished, 13 million who hunted, and 66.1 million who participated in wildlife watching These activities generated an estimated $108 billion in spending, representing 1.1% of the U.S GDP, with hunters and anglers contributing approximately $70 billion Notably, fishing participation has experienced a growth rate surpassing that of the U.S population since the survey's inception.

Since 1955, hunting participation has not kept pace with population growth, and wildlife-watching activities have declined overall since 1980 In contrast, birding has emerged as the fastest-growing recreational activity, with over 50 million new participants and a remarkable 231% increase in participation in less than twenty years.

Wildlife viewing is the most popular activity among visitors to the TNF, with 53.7% participating in it, according to NVUM data from fiscal year 2002 However, only 4.8% identified wildlife viewing as their primary activity In contrast, approximately 11.2% of visitors engaged in fishing, and about 11.4% participated in hunting, with the majority considering hunting their main focus Additionally, 3.8% utilized developed fishing sites or docks during their visits (Kocis et al 2003b).

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System, defining areas where nature remains untouched by human influence, allowing only for temporary visitation These designated wilderness areas, protected by Congress, prohibit commercial activities, road construction, mechanical vehicles, and structural development According to the Forest Service Handbook, managers are tasked with minimizing human impact while preserving the wilderness character and public values of these lands.

Wilderness areas offer a unique balance of permitted activities, such as primitive camping, backpacking, horseback riding, hunting, and fishing, while restricting others like extractive uses, bicycling, and off-highway vehicles (OHVs) This duality makes the designation of roadless areas as wilderness potentially controversial Nevertheless, many forest users cherish the solitude, connection to nature, and self-reliance that wilderness areas provide In fact, these primitive areas draw millions of visitors each year, with approximately 34.1 million Americans engaging in wilderness activities.

8 Notably, however, an estimated 17% of Coconino visitors are under the age of 16

The NVUM defines wildlife viewing more broadly than the national survey previously mentioned In 2000-2001, camping attracted significant participation, while backpacking and mountain climbing drew approximately 22.8 million and 12.9 million visitors, respectively (Cordell et al 2004).

The TNF encompasses eight designated wilderness areas and 170,000 acres of inventoried roadless regions, catering primarily to a user demographic that is predominantly male (72.1%) and white (97.0%), with most visitors traveling from the Flagstaff area According to NVUM data, approximately 110,000 visits to these wilderness areas occurred during the fiscal year 2002.

While research is rarely considered by the public to be a major use of federal lands, the Tonto forest, like most forests, issues special use permits for research purposes.

Balancing extractive and non-extractive uses of national forests is challenging, particularly concerning livestock grazing Overgrazing, especially in arid regions, can lead to severe ecological damage, including soil erosion, watershed destruction, and loss of native plants Reports from the late 1980s indicated that over half of public rangelands were in poor or fair condition, with a GAO survey revealing that grazing levels authorized by the BLM and USFS exceeded sustainable limits on 19% of allotments Key issues affecting ranchers and other user groups include disputes over public-lands grazing fees, some operators' refusal to pay these fees, the retirement of grazing allotments, and calls for government buy-outs of permits.

Timber harvesting in national forests has significantly decreased since the late 1980s, raising concerns about below-cost timber sales and the sustainability of this practice A 1987 GAO report indicated that many timber sales were offered below their tract value, prompting a call for the Forest Service to reevaluate its timber policy Despite this, a 2004 Congressional Research Service report revealed that below-cost timber sales persist without any legislative or administrative solutions In response to rising public concern over wildland fires, there is now a focus on utilizing small-diameter fuels from western forests to manage fire risks The 2004 Healthy Forests Restoration Act supports this initiative by providing subsidies for industries that utilize previously unmarketable biomass from mechanical thinning projects.

Over the past two decades, the policies governing mineral extraction in national forests have faced increasing scrutiny Public concern about the Mining Law of 1872 intensified after the federal government sold 17,000 acres of public land for only $42,500, which were quickly resold to oil companies for $37 million A GAO report highlighted the need for significant changes to this law, yet many of its controversial aspects remain unaltered today, fueling ongoing calls for reform.

As urbanization intensifies in the western United States, national forests are witnessing a growing demand for recreational activities, alongside a decline in support for extractive uses Despite these shifts, there has not been a significant increase in environmental or pro-conservation political movements.

The following figure, provided by the USDA Forest Service to the General Accounting Office, clearly illustrates these changes (GAO 1999a)

Source: General Accounting Office (GAO) 1999a

Figure 19 Visitor Recreation Days as Compared to Timber Extraction, 1950-1997

As the West becomes increasingly urbanized, managing recreation and its conflicts with other uses will doubtless be a priority for forest managers and planners

Demographic shifts and changing usage patterns have led to significant management challenges in outdoor recreation Users engage in a variety of activities, each with unique management priorities that often conflict NRSE surveys reveal trends regarding outdoor recreation trips, the role of wildlife, accessibility issues for individuals with disabilities, and user perceptions of site features, funding, and management policies Notably, many recreationists frequent both developed areas like campgrounds and restaurants, as well as less developed spaces such as primitive camping sites and wilderness trails Furthermore, users often prioritize conflicting values, such as the need for accessibility alongside wilderness preservation or affordable service provision Balancing these diverse interests remains a critical challenge for forest managers.

As recreational demand rises, many forests struggle to maintain services and facilities, with reports from the GAO between 1989 and 1991 highlighting a funding shortfall of hundreds of millions for essential maintenance of trails and recreation sites The primary obstacles to effective recreation management include funding shortages and inconsistent monitoring data While the introduction of a recreation fee demonstration program in 1996 aimed to address these funding gaps by allowing land management agencies to implement new or increased fees, concerns about equity, administration, and interagency coordination have been raised Despite these issues, evaluations indicate that fee increases have not adversely affected overall visitor numbers However, fees for recreational special use permits, particularly for large commercial operations, have been criticized for being significantly below fair market value.

Over time, shifts in forest usage and the diversity of user groups should inform forest managers in land use planning Balancing the priorities and values of various extractive and non-extractive users highlights the challenges and advantages of a multiple-use approach in forest management.

Designated Areas and Special Places

Historical context and methods of designation

The integration of special places into forest management plans is a recent development in social science, contrasting with the traditional focus of forest professionals on science-based management policies Historically, these professionals prioritized measurable scientific approaches over the subjective and challenging-to-quantify public values associated with forest use (McCool 2001, Mitchell et al 1993).

Special places are defined as locations imbued with meaning by individuals who have experienced them, evoking emotional responses (Cheng, Kruger, and Daniels 2003) While often overlooked officially, these places hold great significance for visitors to national forests The Forest Service (FS) also identifies special areas for their unique characteristics (USFS 2005c) and their contributions to public lands These areas are recognized for their commonly agreed-upon attributes, including scenic qualities and habitat significance, and are marked on FS maps However, the distinction between designated areas and special places extends beyond mere semantics, making it a topic worthy of further exploration.

The primary distinction between "areas" and "places" lies in the attributes that define them; areas are recognized for their inherent qualities, while places derive their significance from the emotional connections formed by individuals or communities For instance, a pristine riparian area becomes a special place only when someone develops an attachment to it Definitions highlight that places represent the convergence of ecological, economic, and spiritual values, as well as the interplay of biophysical characteristics, social behaviors, and cultural meanings Consequently, special places are intricate, subjective, and challenging to define succinctly.

Forest archeologists, landscape architects, and recreation officers were tasked with identifying and describing key special places within the forest They also pinpointed the primary user groups and outlined significant management issues related to these areas Notably, Native American tribes play a crucial role in the designation and protection of these special places, with their involvement in the TNF discussed further in the upcoming Community section.

Designated areas

Table 32 provides information on the designated areas within the Coconino National Forest.

Table 32 Designated Areas on the Tonto National Forest

Designated Area Type Name District

Boating Bartlett Lake Marina Cave Creek

Boating Yellow Cliffs Cave Creek

Boating Canyon Lake Marina Mesa

Boating Phon D Sutton RAP Mesa

Boating Water Users RAP Mesa

Boating Saguaro del Norte Mesa

Boating Saguaro Lake Marina Mesa

Boating Apache Lake Marina Tonto Basin

Boating Burnt Corral Tonto Basin

Boating Indian Point Tonto Basin

Boating Roosevelt Lake Marina Tonto Basin

Boating Windy Hill Tonto Basin

Boating SR 288 Bridge RAP Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site Rio Verde Airstrip Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Devil’s Hole Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Shooting pit off FDR 24 Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Dispersed sites near Seven Springs off FDR 24 Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Tangle Creek FDR 269 Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Houston Creek FDR 16 Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Red Creek FDR 18 Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Bloody Basin Road (FDR 269) Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Table Mesa Road at the cabin Cave Creek

Table 32 (cont.) Designated Areas on the Tonto National Forest

Dispersed Site Shooting pit off Bartlett Lake Road Cave Creek

Dispersed Site East side of Bartlett Lake Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Riverside River Rock Area Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Verde River Access FDR 3257 Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Verde River Access FDR 161 Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Willow Springs Wash Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Hidden Cove Cave Creek

Dispersed Site East of Horseshoe Dam Vista Cave Creek

Dispersed Site FR 479 corridor Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Riverside (south of campground) Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Childs river access Cave Creek

Dispersed Site Gleason Flats Globe

Dispersed Site Romo Ranch/Lower Sycamore Creek Mesa

Dispersed Site Sugarloaf Mountain/Lower Sycamore Creek Mesa

Dispersed Site Mesquite Wash Mesa

Dispersed Site Brushy Basin Mesa

Dispersed Site Busnell Tanks Mesa

Dispersed Site Mt Ord Mesa

Dispersed Site Alder Creek Mesa

Dispersed Site East Sycamore Creek Mesa

Dispersed Site West Sycamore Creek Mesa

Dispersed Site National Mine Mesa

Dispersed Site Whitlow Dam/Millsite Canyon Mesa

Dispersed Site Hewitt Canyon Mesa

Dispersed Site Queen Valley Mesa

Dispersed Site The Rolls Mesa

Dispersed Site Saguaro Lake shoreline coves Mesa

Dispersed Site Canyon Lake shoreline coves Mesa

Dispersed Site Mesquite Flats Mesa

Dispersed Site Coronado Mesa Mesa

Dispersed Site Usery Mountain west Mesa

Dispersed Site Bulldog Canyon Mesa

Dispersed Site Stewart Mountain Mesa

Dispersed Site Lower Salt River/Stewart Mountain Dam to Water Users Mesa

Dispersed Site Lower Salt River/Water Users to Phon D Sutton Mesa

Dispersed Site Lower Salt River/Phon D Sutton to Granite Reef Mesa

Dispersed Site A&A Pit/Cottonwood Spring Mesa

Dispersed Site Government Well/Sycamore Spring Mesa

Dispersed Site Cottonwood Camp Mesa

Dispersed Site Cane Spring Mesa

Dispersed Site Mine Mountain Road Mesa

Dispersed Site Mud Spring Mesa

Dispersed Site Amethyst Mine Mesa

Dispersed Site Alder Creek Mesa

Dispersed Site Brown's Cave Mesa

Dispersed Site Adams Camp Mesa

Dispersed Site First Water North Mesa

Dispersed Site Superstition Mountain Face Mesa

Dispersed Site Hieroglyphic Canyon Mesa

Dispersed Site Fremount Saddle Mesa

Dispersed Site Zonderland/Land of Nod Mesa

Dispersed Site Weaver's Needle Mesa

Dispersed Site Boulder Basin Mesa

Dispersed Site Bluff Springs Mesa

Dispersed Site Charlebois Springs Mesa

Dispersed Site Boulder/Second Water Junction Mesa

Dispersed Site Hackberry Springs Mesa

Dispersed Site Reed's Water Mesa

Dispersed Site Fish Creek Canyon Mesa

Dispersed Site IV Ranch Mesa

Dispersed Site Reavis Canyon Mesa

Dispersed Site Reavis Ranch Mesa

Dispersed Site Mound Mountain/Circle Stone Mesa

Dispersed Site Angle Basin Mesa

Dispersed Site Rogers Spring Mesa

Dispersed Site Mt Peeley Mesa

Dispersed Site Potato Patch Mesa

Dispersed Site Sharp Creek Payson

Dispersed Site Tonto Creek Payson

Dispersed Site Zane Grey Payson

Dispersed Site Preached Canyon Payson

Dispersed Site Control Road Payson

Dispersed Site Verde Glen Payson

Dispersed Site Cracker jack Payson

Dispersed Site Sawmill Flat Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Rose Creek Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Workman Creek Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Honey Creek Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Parker Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site FDR 203 Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Bearhead Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Squaw Mesa Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Walnut Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Haigler Creek Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Bottle Springs Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Red Lake Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Naegelin Canyon Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Colcord Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Valentine Canyon Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site Lower Canyon Creek Pleasant Valley

Dispersed Site TR 119 at FR 83 Junction Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site Coon Creek Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site Cherry Creek Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site Mt Ord Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site Upper Deer Creek (top of FR 201) Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site Bumblebee Wash Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site 2 Mile site (at the cattle guard) Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site School House Wash Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site Cottonwoods on Salt River off FDR 333/333A Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site Brown's Saddle Tonto Basin

Dispersed Site Lone Pine Saddle Tonto Basin

Family Campground Box Bar Cave Creek

Family Campground Needle Rock Cave Creek

Family Campground Riverside Cave Creek

Family Campground Horseshoe Cave Creek

Family Campground Mesquite Cave Creek

Family Campground SB Cove Cave Creek

Family Campground Bartlett Flat Cave Creek

Family Campground CCC Cave Creek

Family Campground Seven Springs Cave Creek

Family Campground Oak Flat Globe

Family Campground Jones Water Globe

Family Campground Pioneer Pass Globe

Family Campground Upper/Lower Pinal Globe

Family Campground Sulfide del Rey Globe

Family Campground Bagley Flat Mesa

Family Campground The Point Mesa

Family Campground Laguna Beach-Canyon Lake Marina Mesa

Family Campground Christopher Creek Payson

Family Campground Houston Mesa Payson

Family Campground Upper Tonto Creek Payson

Family Campground Sharp Creek Payson

Family Campground Airplane Flat Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Alderwood Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Upper Canyon Creek Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Colcord Ridge Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Haigler Canyon Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Rose Creek Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Valentine Ridge Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Falls Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Cascade Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Creekside Pleasant Valley

Family Campground Bachelor Cove Tonto Basin

Family Campground Bermuda Flat Campground Tonto Basin

Family Campground Burnt Corral Tonto Basin

Family Campground Cholla Tonto Basin

Family Campground Cholla Bay Tonto Basin

Family Campground Indian Point Tonto Basin

Family Campground Orange Peel Tonto Basin

Family Campground Schoolhouse Tonto Basin

Family Campground Windy Hill Tonto Basin

Family Campground Lakeview Trailer Park Tonto Basin

Family Campground Mills Cove Tonto Basin

Family Campground Windy Flat Tonto Basin

Family Campground Grapevine Bay Tonto Basin

Family Campground Schoolhouse Point Tonto Basin

Family Campground Three-Mile Tonto Basin

Family Campground Upper Burnt Corral Tonto Basin

Family Campground Lower Burnt Corral Tonto Basin

Family Campground Davis Wash Tonto Basin

Family Campground Crabtree Wash Tonto Basin

Family Campground Apache Lake Boat Access Tonto Basin

Family Picnic South Cove Cave Creek

Family Picnic Rattlesnake Cave Creek

Family Picnic Capitan Pass Globe

Family Picnic Grantie Reef Mesa

Family Picnic Coon Bluff Mesa

Family Picnic Blue Point Mesa

Family Picnic Peeble Beach Mesa

Family Picnic Sheep Crossing Mesa

Family Picnic Saguaro del Norte Mesa

Family Picnic Butcher Jones Mesa

Family Picnic Phon D Sutton Mesa

Family Picnic Christopher Creek Payson

Family Picnic East Verde Crossing Payson

Family Picnic Flowing Springs Payson

Family Picnic Horton Creek Payson

Family Picnic Burnt Corral Tonto Basin

Family Picnic Vineyard Canyon Tonto Basin

Family Picnic Cottonwood Cove Tonto Basin

Fishing Site Fisherman Point Cave Creek

Fishing Site Rattlesnake Cave Creek

Fishing Site Peregrine Point Mesa

Fishing Site Diversion Dam North Tonto Basin

Fishing Site Diversion Dam South Tonto Basin

Group Campground Ashdale Cave Creek

Group Campground Cave Creek Cave Creek

Group Campground Horseshoe Dam Cave Creek

Group Campground Rattlesnake Cave Creek

Group Campground Timber Camp Globe

Group Campground Warnica Springs Globe

Group Campground Christopher Creek Payson

Group Campground Houston Mesa Payson

Group Campground Sharp Creek Payson

Group Campground Reynolds Creek Pleasant Valley

Group Campground Grapevine Tonto Basin

Group Campground Frazier Tonto Basin

Horse Camp Houston Mesa Payson

Horse Camp Frazier Tonto Basin

Hotel/Lodge/Resort Private Saguaro Lake Guest Ranch Mesa

Hotel/Lodge/Resort Private Tortilla Flat Mesa

Hotel/Lodge/Resort Private Apache Lake Resort Tonto Basin

Information Site Cave Creek Ranger District Office Cave Creek

Information Site Bartlett Lake Aid Station Cave Creek

Information Site Globe Ranger District Office Globe

Information Site Mesa Ranger District Office Mesa

Information Site Saguaro Lake Aid Station Mesa

Information Site Canyon Lake Aid Station Mesa

Information Site Payson Ranger District Office Payson

Information Site Pleasant Valley Ranger District Office Pleasant Valley

Information Site Canyon Creek Fish Hatchery Pleasant Valley

Information Site Apache Lake Aid Station Tonto Basin

Information Site Roosevelt Lake Aid Station Tonto Basin

Information Site Tonto Basin Ranger District Office Tonto Basin

Information Site Mazatzal Rest Area (State Routes 87 and 188) Tonto Basin

Information Site Tonto National Forest Supervisors Office Supervisors Office

Interpretive Site Sears-Kay Cave Creek

Interpretive Site Sycamore Creek Outdoor Education Center Mesa

Interpretive Site Sierra Anch Experimental Station Pleasant Valley

Interpretive Site Blevins Cemetery Tonto Basin

Interpretive Site Roosevelt Lake Visitors Center Tonto Basin

Interpretive Site Roosevelt Dam Cemetery Tonto Basin

Interpretive Site Theodore Roosevelt Dam Overlook Tonto Basin

Municipal Tonto Basin Tonto Basin

National Monument Tonto National Monument Tonto Basin

National Recreation Trail Highline Trail Payson

Observation Site Bartlett Lake Vista Cave Creek

Observation Site Needle Vista Mesa

Observation Site Canyon Lake Vista Mesa

Observation Site Fish Creek Vista Mesa

Observation Site Pleasant Valley Vista Pleasant Valley

Observation Site Apache Lake Vista Tonto Basin

Observation Site Inspiration Point Tonto Basin

Observation Site Roosevelt Dam Overlook Tonto Basin

Organization Site Dons Camp Mesa

Organization Site Arizona Cactus-Pine Girl Scout Camp Payson

Organization Site Grand Canyon Council Boy Scout Camp Payson

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Upper Verde Cave Creek

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Arnett/Telegraph Globe

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Pinto Creek Globe/Tonto Basin

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Upper Salt River Globe/Tonto Basin

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Lower Salt River Mesa

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Fossil Creek Payson

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers East Verde River Payson

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Tonto Creek (upper segment) Payson

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Canyon Creek Pleasant Valley

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Cherry Creek Pleasant Valley

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Spring Creek Pleasant Valley

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Workman Creek Pleasant Valley

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Parker Creek Pleasant Valley/Tonto Basin

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Salome Creek Pleasant Valley/Tonto Basin

Potential Wild/Scenic Rivers Tonto Creek (lower segment) Tonto Basin

Recreation Concession Site Laguna Beach-Canyon Lake Marina Mesa

Recreation Concession Site Salt River Recreation Tube Rental and Shuttle Bus Service Mesa

Recreation Concession Site Christopher Creek Payson

Recreation Concession Site Houston Mesa Payson

Recreation Concession Site Ponderosa Payson

Recreation Concession Site Upper Tonto Creek Payson

Recreation Concession Site Sharp Creek Payson

Recreation Residence Lower Camp Creek Cave Creek

Recreation Residence Upper Camp Creek Cave Creek

Recreation Residence Crabtree Wash Tonto Basin

Research Natural Area Bush Highway Research Natural Area Mesa

Research Natural Area Haufer Research Natural Area Tonto Basin

Research Natural Area Buckhorn Mountain Research Natural Area Tonto Basin

Scenic/Sightseeing Route Apache Trail National Scenic Byway Mesa/Tonto Basin

Scenic/Sightseeing Route From the Desert to the Tall Pines National Scenic Byway Tonto Basin/Pleasant Valley

State Park Tonto Natural Bridge State Park Payson

Swimming (Lake) Rattlesnake Cave Creek

Swimming (Lake) Butcher Jones Mesa

Trailhead Cave Creek Cave Creek

Trailhead Cottonwood (Spur Cross) Cave Creek

Trailhead Parker Creek Pleasant Valley

Trailhead McFadden Peak Pleasant Valley

Trailhead Circle Ranch Pleasant Valley

Trailhead Bull Canyon Tonto Basin

Trailhead Deer Creek Tonto Basin

Trailhead Lone Pine Tonto Basin

Trailhead Roosevelt Cemetery Tonto Basin

Trailhead Upper Horrell Tonto Basin

Wild Burro Territory Saguaro Lake Wild Burro Territory Mesa

Wild and Scenic River Verde River Cave Creek

Wilderness Pine Mountain (portion shared with Prescott NF) Cave Creek

Wilderness Cedar Bench (portion shared with Prescott NF) Cave Creek

Wilderness Mazatzal Cave Creek/Mesa/Payson

Wilderness Superstition Mesa/Globe/Tonto Basin

Wilderness Four Peaks Mesa/Tonto Basin

Wilderness Hellsgate Payson/Pleasant Valley

Wilderness Sierra Ancha Pleasant Valley

Wildlife Management Area Roosevelt Lake Wildlife Area Tonto Basin

Wildlife Management Area Three Bar Wildlife Area Tonto Basin

Wilderness Study Area Lime Creek (03020) Cave Creek

Wilderness Study Area Mazatzal Wilderness Contiguous (03016) Cave Creek/Payson

Wilderness Study Area Arnold Mesa (03092) Cave Creek

Wilderness Study Area Pine Mountain Wilderness Contiguous (03017) Cave Creek

Wilderness Study Area Picacho (03030) Globe

Wilderness Study Area Boulder (03024) Mesa

Wilderness Study Area Goldfield (03026) Mesa

Wilderness Study Area Black Cross (03027) Mesa

Wilderness Study Area Horse Mesa (03028) Mesa

Wilderness Study Area Hellsgate Contiguous (03021) Payson

Wilderness Study Area Salome Contiguous (03022) Pleasant Valley

Wilderness Study Area Cherry Creek (03023) Pleasant Valley

Wilderness Study Area Sierra Ancha Wilderness Contiguous (03019) Pleasant Valley/Tonto Basin

Wildlife Viewing Site Goose Point Tonto Basin

Source: Tonto National Forest GIS Coordinator

Special places

The Tonto National Forest, as detailed by archeologist J Scott Wood, has a rich history of Indigenous habitation, originally serving as home to ancestors of the O'odham (Pima) Tribes, including the Salt River Pima-Maricopa and Gila River Indian Communities, as well as ancestors of today's Hopi and Zuni Tribes More recently, it has been inhabited by the Tonto, Cibecue, and San Carlos Apache, along with the Southeastern Yavapai, which encompasses the Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, and Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation.

The Hopi, Zuni, and O'odham tribes regard all archaeological sites on the TNF as “special places,” particularly those that house the remains of their ancestors Their primary concern is to keep these sites undisturbed, and when disturbance is unavoidable, they emphasize the importance of properly handling human remains in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).

A comprehensive study of cultural affiliations in the Tonto National Forest has led to the repatriation and reburial of all prehistoric human remains on their respective reservations The Apache Tribes direct the reburial of Apache remains at their discretion Although the relationship between modern tribes and the prehistoric inhabitants of the forest has not been formally addressed, the Hopi continue to maintain an active shrine in the forest, established in the 1990s.

The relationship between tribes and TNF is particularly strong with the Apache and Yavapai, especially the Apache The eastern boundary of the Forest is bordered by the White Mountain and San Carlos.

The Tonto Apache Reservation is entirely surrounded by forest, which also borders the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) The Apache people have a deep understanding of the Tonto landscape, having lived there for generations, and this knowledge is still preserved among many elders today The forest is collaborating with these tribes to identify significant "special places," many of which have been recognized through extensive research and consultations These areas are traditionally known for gathering vital resources such as acorns, agave, beargrass, and medicinal plants While these locations are not easily defined by distinct boundaries on maps, efforts are underway to work with tribal representatives to clarify their geographic extent for better management planning.

The Apache culture is rich with "special places" that hold historical, cultural, and spiritual significance, including clan origin areas, dance grounds, and ceremonial sites linked to the ga’an spiritual figures While some former residential sites are recognized, only a few camps tied to key events in Apache history, such as battles with the U.S Army, are deemed significant The tribes are committed to preserving these important locations for future generations, alongside the numerous Apache and Yavapai place names throughout the forest, although there is currently no initiative to officially adopt these names.

Tribes emphasize the need for strict confidentiality regarding the nature and location of their sacred sites, limiting access to this information to the Forest Heritage Staff Consequently, specific location details are not disclosed The primary management concerns surrounding these "special places" focus on vegetation management, as tribes worry that prescribed fires and fuels reduction efforts may alter the area's species composition, potentially harming favored species Additionally, access and resource use by tribal members remain pressing issues To address these challenges, the Tonto National Forest is working to identify these significant sites and formalize tribal relationships and access protocols through Memoranda of Understanding.

Agreement, and refining the planning process for large-scale vegetation treatment projects to accommodate tribal concerns wherever feasible.

The US Forest Service (USFS) has extensively studied scenery management in national forests, producing several key publications that serve as guides for forest managers Notable resources include "Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of Visual Resources" (1979) and "Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management" (1995) The latter focuses on landscape character, natural scene integrity, public scenic preferences, landscape visibility, and the Scenery Management System This handbook also outlines the history of scenery management issues that emerged in the 1960s due to public concerns about the visibility of forest management practices, especially timber cutting It offers practical methods to reduce the impact of these activities on recreationists Additionally, the Forest Service provides further guidance on landscape management in Chapter 2380 of the Forest Service Manual.

Humans develop emotional attachments to special places through sensory connections, often unconsciously This process allows individuals to fulfill their innate need to feel connected to something greater than themselves, highlighting its significance in human existence.

The recognition of unique and special places has become increasingly important as individuals seek distinct qualities in public lands amidst cultural homogenization This trend, highlighted by Brandenburg and Carroll (1995) and Williams and Stewart (1998), places greater demands on public lands, especially in fast-growing regions like Arizona.

Researchers like Williams and Stewart (1998) emphasize that special places should not be simplified to single attributes, as they encompass a range of values, contexts, and experiences Mapping these areas effectively requires collaboration with those who cherish them, focusing on general boundaries rather than specific points (Richard and Burns 1998) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can aid forest planners by integrating various groups' maps to identify overlapping areas that may lead to conflicts (Brandenburg, Carroll, and Blatner 1995) Disputes often arise from differing definitions of the same physical space, and the subjective nature of special places can intensify these disagreements Forest professionals should recognize that all sentiments—whether local or non-local, new or long-standing—are valid and deeply felt (Williams and Stewart 1998).

Sensory experiences in special places are influenced by distant landmarks and conditions, making them integral to individual perceptions The management of forests for traditional resource extraction and motorized vehicle use can negatively impact these cherished locations, leading to potential conflicts Increasing awareness of the importance of these special places can improve forest planning and management strategies.

Researchers have recognized that the relationships people form with special places often cut across traditional categories of liberal/conservative, extractive/environmentalist, urban/rural, and so on

According to Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000), places can serve as significant symbols that foster interactions among individuals who may otherwise feel disconnected due to geographic or perceptual boundaries This dynamic complicates discussions about special places in public town-hall meetings, as individuals aligned with specific lifestyle groups may hesitate to express personal connections that diverge from group norms To effectively capture diverse perspectives, it is essential to employ a variety of data collection methods Research indicates that traditional public meetings may inadvertently exclude certain groups or individuals, highlighting the need for more inclusive approaches.

‘majority (or loudest) rules’ mentality (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995; Brandenburg, Carroll, and Blatner

In 1995, Brandenburg and Carroll highlighted the risk of losing social capital within a community when individuals express dissenting opinions due to the influence of prevailing social values To gain a more comprehensive understanding of significant locations in the forest, a combination of town-hall meetings, surveys, and open-ended interviews is recommended This approach can foster a more balanced perspective on the emotional connections people have with these places.

Cheng, Kruger, and Daniels (2003) highlight the significance of understanding human-place relationships in effectively managing conflicts in multiple-use public lands, such as forests They assert that a primary objective of place-based inquiry is to enhance equitable and democratic participation in natural resource politics by incorporating diverse voices and values that focus on specific places rather than just policy positions Additionally, Brandenburg, Carroll, and Blatner (1995) indicate that addressing stakeholders' place-value concerns can help planners prevent ongoing contentious debates.

Decision makers often lack the necessary tools and training to fully understand social issues (McCool 2003) However, research indicates that increased awareness of community values enhances the Forest Service's goodwill towards the public and improves its ability to make inclusive management decisions (Mitchell et al 1993, Richard and Burns 1998) A recent social assessment of two Idaho forests highlighted that emotional connections to place shape social dynamics and geographic contexts, significantly influencing public evaluations of forest management issues (Adams-Russell).

Understanding the interests of local communities is essential for forest managers during the planning process By fostering ongoing interactions with the public, forest managers demonstrate respect for local knowledge and culture, which can enhance management strategies and community relations.

Visitors to public lands may not inherently appreciate the values essential for the landscape's well-being (McCool 2003) The Forest Service can foster meaningful connections to these special places, cultivating dedicated partners in forest resource stewardship When individuals form a bond with a location, they become emotionally invested in maintaining the ecosystem's health and balance (Mitchell et al 1993, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

Arizona is experiencing rapid population growth, primarily concentrated in urban areas, which poses significant challenges for public lands nearby The Forest Service should anticipate increased day use, conflicts between traditional and new recreational activities, and pressure from developers seeking to build near forest boundaries.

Community Relationships

Historical context and methods of designation

Community relations in a culturally diverse society focus on unity while respecting and valuing individual differences, fostering acceptance and communication among various ethnic, national, religious, cultural, and linguistic groups This approach emphasizes inclusiveness, cohesion, and a shared commitment to shaping a positive future A robust community relations framework ensures equitable access to government programs and services for all backgrounds, actively addressing barriers that hinder full participation in the social, cultural, and economic aspects of community life.

Understanding and maintaining strong community relationships is a fundamental responsibility of the National Forest System However, emphasizing the documentation and enhancement of these relationships in forest planning is a relatively recent development Initially, when the national forest system was established through the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 and the Transfer Act of 1905, the agency primarily engaged with a limited community, mainly comprising forestry professionals, scientific societies, special interest groups, and politicians Consequently, the forest "community" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was significantly less complex than the diverse array of stakeholders involved today.

Following World War II, public interest in national forests surged, particularly by the late 1960s as modern environmental concerns emerged Key legislation, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976, recognized the diverse public involved in forest management, mandating the U.S Forest Service (USFS) to engage these stakeholders in decision-making Additional regulations, such as 36 CFR 219.9 and relevant chapters in the Forest Service Manual and Handbook, further emphasize the necessity of public participation and collaboration in forest management Effective public involvement hinges on informed engagement.

This report broadly interprets the term "communities," encompassing not only the towns and cities in the counties surrounding the TNF but also tribes, governments, media, educational institutions, partners, and advocacy groups Both interpretations of "communities" are analyzed in this section.

Community profiles and involvement with natural resources

This section offers links to community profiles for towns and cities surrounding the TNF, along with information on local news sources that reflect community engagement with natural resources, including Arizona's national forests Below in the table, you'll find web links to community profiles for each county and selected municipalities within the assessment area.

33 These profiles generally contain the following information for each community: historical information, geographic/location information, population data, labor force data, weather data, community facilities (e.g., schools, airports), industrial properties, utilities, tax rates, and tourism information They were developed by the Arizona Department of Commerce which also provides data for many other communities than those listed in Table 33 Table 34 categorizes national forest acreage in Arizona according to current congressional districts

Table 33 Weblinks to Community Profiles for Counties and Municipalities in the Area of

Gila County http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/Gila%20County.pdf

Payson http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/payson.pdf

Globe http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/globe-miami.pdf

San Carlos http://www.commerce.state.az.us/pdf/commasst/comm/sncarlos.pdf

Miami http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/globe-miami.pdf

Maricopa County http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/Maricopa%20County.pdf

Phoenix http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/phoenix.pdf

Mesa http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/mesa.pdf

Glendale http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/glendale.pdf

Scottsdale http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/scottsdale.pdf

Chandler http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/chandler.pdf

Tempe http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/tempe.pdf

Pinal County http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/Pinal%20County.pdf

Apache Junction http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/apache%20junction.pdf

Casa Grande http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/casa%20grande.pdf

Florence http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/florence.pdf

Eloy http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/eloy.pdf

Coolidge http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/coolidge.pdf

Queen Creek http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/queen%20creek.pdf

Yavapai County http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/Yavapai%20County.pdf

Prescott http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/commune/prescott.pdf

Prescott Valley http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/prescott%20valley.pdf

Cottonwood - Verde Village http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/verde%20village.pdf

Sedona http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/sedona-oak%20creek%20canyon.pdf Camp Verde http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/camp%20verde.pdf

Cottonwood http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/cottonwood.pdf

Chino Valley http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/chino%20valley.pdf

Source: Arizona Department of Commerce

Table 34 Acreage of Arizona National Forests in Federal Congressional Districts

Total Forest Congressional District County National Forest Service Acres

Source: USFS Lands and Realty Management http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR04/table6.htm

The communities near the TNF have a longstanding relationship with national forests and natural resource management Southern Arizona relies heavily on its natural resources for commodity production, tourism, and recreational enjoyment Consequently, there is a strong public interest in how these resources are utilized and managed.

Arizona's newspapers serve as the most comprehensive source of information on community engagement and interest in the TNF and natural resources, with journalists producing hundreds of articles annually covering various facets of local involvement in these areas For access to major newspapers in Arizona, visit http://www.50states.com/news/arizona.htm.

A keyword search focused on natural resources was performed across six major Arizona newspapers: The Arizona Daily Star, The Arizona Daily Sun, The Arizona Republic, The High Country Sentinel, The Prescott Valley Tribune, and The Grand Canyon News These publications were selected for their relevance to cities adjacent to the six national forests in Arizona The search included terms like "forest," "conservation," "wildlife," and "endangered species." Results are summarized in Table 35, highlighting that The Arizona Republic, located closest to the Tonto National Forest, is particularly significant for this analysis However, the findings from the other five newspapers are also included, as modern journalism often covers topics with statewide and national implications, potentially uncovering stories related to the Tonto National Forest across Arizona's media landscape.

Since 1999, six newspapers have published over 100,000 articles on natural resources, highlighting significant public interest and engagement opportunities Among these, The Arizona Republic stands out as a key source for natural resource news in Arizona Additionally, the TNF was featured in 372 news articles during the examined period of approximately 1999 to 2005, underscoring its relevance in the discourse surrounding natural resources.

Table 35 Natural Resources-related Keyword Search of Six Arizona Newspapers

City: Flagstaff Phoenix Williams Heber-Overgaard Prescott Tucson

Newspaper: Arizona Daily Sun Arizona

Republic Grand Canyon News High Country Sentinel Prescott Valley Tribune Arizona Daily Star Total Percent of

Nearest National Forest: Coconino Tonto Kaibab Apache-Sitgreaves Prescott Coronado Articles Total

Issues Searched: 1999-April 2005 1999-April 2005 2000-April 2005 2000-April 2005 2003-April 2005 1999-April 2005 Found

An analysis of past issues of The Arizona Republic was conducted to identify the natural resource topics that captured public interest in the area surrounding the Tonto National Forest (TNF) The selected topics and their corresponding publication dates are detailed in Table 36 below.

Table 36 Selected Key Public Issues for the Coconino National Forest

1 Fire north of Cave Creek is 80% contained July 2005

2 A large wild cat has forced temporary closure on TNF February 2005

3 Officials stop campfires on TNF June 2005

4 Law-enforcement officials douse annual Christmas tree disposal fires January 2004

5 Fees on Tonto makes for unhappy campers February 2004

6 Gila County investigators discover marijuana plantation in the Tonto NF October 2003

Source: The Arizona Republic newspaper

Communities of interest and forest partnerships

The TNF encompasses various communities of interest that collaborate with the Forest Service in forest management These communities include local residents, interest groups, agencies, and private organizations that influence and are influenced by forest planning Unlike formal partnerships, these communities have a stake in management decisions A comprehensive list of these communities, categorized by government agencies, advocacy groups, educational institutions, businesses, and media organizations, is provided in Table 37 Notably, the Native American tribes hold significant importance for the TNF, with consultation responsibilities outlined in Table 38, which includes a contact list for thirteen tribes.

Table 37 Communities of Interest for the Tonto National Forest

ADOT Natural Resources American Motorcyclist Assoc Roadrunner 4-Wheel Drive Club Apache County Dev.& Comm Svs American Rivers Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

AZ Assoc of Counties Arizona Great Outdoors Rod and Gun Club

AZ Dept of Agriculture Arizona OHV Association Scottsdale Sea & Ski Club

AZ Dept of Commerce Arizona Rivers Coalition Sierra Club SW Office

AZ Dept of Environ Quality Arizona Sprint Car Association Sonoran Bioregional Diversity Project

AZ Dept of Mines & Mineral Res Arizona Wilderness Coalition Southwest Forest Alliance

AZ Game & Fish Dept Arizonans for Wildlife Conservation The Nature Conservancy

AZ State Land Dept ASA4WDC Conservation The Wildlife Soc., AZ Chapter

AZ State Parks Audubon Society-Tucson Tonto Hills Community Assoc.

Bureau of Indian Affairs AZ Archaeology Society Tonto NRCD

Bureau of Land Management AZ Cattle Grower's Association Tonto Weed Management Board Bureau of Reclamation AZ Desert Bighorn Sheep Society Trout Unlimited

City of Globe AZ Wildlife Federation United Four Wheel Drive Association

City of Mesa Bat Conservation Western States Public Lands Coalition

City of Payson Camp Creek Association Western Utilities Group

City of Scottsdale Cave Creek Saddle Club

Fort Apache Indian Agency Center for Biological Diversity

Gila Co Board of Supervisors Central Arizona Paddlers Club

Gila Co Dev Office Desert Awareness Committee

Gila County Cooperative Extension Desert Botanical Garden

Glendale Chamber of Commerce Desert Tortoise Council

Maricopa Co Bd of Supervisor Foothills Community Foundation

National Park Service Forest Conservation Council

Pinal Co Bd of Supervisors Forest Guardians

Salt River Project Friends of Arizona Rivers

San Carlos Apache Tribe Friends of Pinto Creek

Scottsdale Dept of Planning & Econ Dev Grand Canyon Wildland Council

Tonto Apache Tribe Greater AZ Bicycle Assoc.

Town of Carefree Intl Assoc F&W Agencies

Town of Cave Creek Maricopa Audubon Society

Town of Fountain Hills Old Pueblo Bass Anglers, Inc.

U.S Fish & Wildlife Service P.V Trail Riders

USDA NRCS Phoenix Earth First

White Mountain Apache Tribe Pleasant Valley Comm Council

Yavapai County Board of Supervisors Prescott NF Friends

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe Rio Verde Foothills Alliance

Table 37 (cont.) Communities of Interest for the Tonto National Forest

Arizona Bound Jeep Tours ASU Center for Environmental Studies

ASARCO, Inc ASU Dept of Zoology

Bar Eleven Land & Cattle Co ASU Plant Biology

Bar X Ranch Conservatory, Inc Isabelle Hunter Memorial Library

Black Brush Ltd Partnership Reevis Mt School

Cave Creek/Carefree Chamber of Commerce U of A Cooperative Extension

Cline Equity Trust University of Arizona

Cooper's Hay Hook Ranch Media

Diamond A Ranch Corporation Arizona Hunter and Angler

Dorothy Cline Wells Trust Scottsdale Progress

Earnhardt Ranches, LLC Tribune Newspapers

Fenn Land & Cattle Co., LLC

Mad as Hell Ranch, Inc.

Source: E Alford, Group Leader for Biological Resources and Planning, Tonto National Forest

Table 38 Tribal Consultation Responsibilities for the Tonto National Forest

Ft McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian Comm.

Gila River Indian Community Hopi Tribe

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community San Carlos Apache Tribe

Tohono o'Odham Nation Tonto Apache Tribe White Mountain Apache Tribe Yavapai-Apache Nation Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Pueblo of Zuni

Source: D Firecloud, Regional Tribal Program Manager, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service

The US Forest Service (USFS) manages approximately 193 million acres of forests and grasslands across the United States, recognizing that effective management and protection of these resources rely heavily on the active involvement of local communities Due to limitations in personnel, funding, and resources, the USFS prioritizes developing partnerships that not only provide financial benefits but also reflect a cultural shift from individualistic approaches to collaborative facilitation These partnerships are essential for enhancing relationships between the Forest Service and surrounding communities, ultimately contributing to better forest management and community well-being.

The US Forest Service (USFS) has updated its Partnership Guide to assist individual forest managers in fostering and maintaining collaborative relationships with local communities This comprehensive reference tool is designed for both FS employees and partners, providing valuable insights into non-profit organization management, volunteer cooperation in forest initiatives, and the utilization of grants and agreements Additionally, the guide addresses common challenges and ethical considerations in sustaining effective partnerships, while offering a variety of resources and tools derived from past Forest Service partnership efforts.

The TNF collaborates with various partners to promote forest health, manage fires, and develop community infrastructure while addressing economic aspects of natural resources and U.S.-Mexico border issues Past initiatives, including the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), have sought to improve stakeholder involvement in forest planning and management.

The Southwest Region (Region 3) of the Forest Service has identified key priorities that influence partnership development, focusing on restoring ecological functionality in forests and rangelands, protecting nearby communities, and enhancing local economic vitality Additionally, the region has set five objectives for fostering and sustaining partnerships: increasing awareness of successful collaborations, promoting a cultural shift that supports partnership growth, creating an accessible partnership process, identifying coordination needs, and providing education and training for a unified understanding of partnerships.

The term "partnership" can vary in definition among stakeholders with different agendas; however, the FS has categorized forest partnerships into nine key types These categories include volunteers, cost-share contributions, donations and gifts, memoranda of understanding, cooperating associations, and grants.

“payments to states,” stewardship contracting, and interagency collaboration

The number and quality of forest partnerships fluctuate over time, influenced by the interaction between forests and their communities In the Southwest Region, a list of partner organizations has been established based on their involvement, which can be found on the regional partnership website However, Tonto National Forest officials noted that the absence of a partnership coordinator and grants specialist in recent years has resulted in an outdated partnership list For more information on partnerships in the Southwest Region, visit http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/partnerships/.

Table 39 United States Forest Service, Southwest Region Partners

Ducks Unlimited http://www.ducks.org/

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) http://www.conservationgis.org/

Federation of Flyfishers http://www.fedflyfishers.org/

Mule Deer Foundation http://www.muledeer.org/

National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) http://www.nwtf.org/

Quail Unlimited http://www.qu.org/

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation http://www.rmef.org/

Trout Unlimited http://www.tu.org

Wildlife Management Institute http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/

Arizona Department of Game and Fish http://www.gf.state.az.us/

Arizona Wildlife Foundation http://www.azwildlife.org/

Sonoran Institute http://www.sonoran.org/

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/

New Mexico Wildlife Federation Http://leopold.nmsu.edu/nmwf/

New Mexico Museum of Natural History Http://museums.state.nm.us/nmmnh/nmmnh.html

Table 39 (cont) United States Forest Service, Southwest Region Partners

AmeriCorps – New Mexico http://www.nationalservice.gov/state_profiles/overview.asp?ID8 National Association of Conservation and Service Corps http://www.nascc.org/

Student Conservation Association http://www.thesca.org/

Rocky Mountain Youth Corps http://youthcorps.org/

National Arbor Day Foundation http://www.arborday.org/

The Nature Conservancy – Arizona http://www.nature.org/wherework/northamerica/states/arizona/

Sky Island Alliance http://www.skyislandalliance.org/

Grand Canyon Trust http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/

Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership http://www.gffp.org/

Northern Arizona University http://www.for.nau.edu/cms/

New Mexico Ecosystem Health Organizations

New Mexico Forestry Division http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/forestry/index.cfm

New Mexico Highlands University http://www.nmhu.edu/forestry/

The Nature Conservancy – New Mexico http://www.nature.org/wherework/northamerica/states/newmexico/

Public Lands Information Center http://www.publiclands.org/home.php?SID=

Association of Partners for Public Lands http://www.appl.org/

Tread Lightly http://www.treadlightly.org/

National Outdoor Leadership School http://www.nols.edu/

Leave No Trace http://www.lnt.org/

Arizona Trail Association http://www.aztrail.org/

Arizona State Association of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs http://asa4wdc.org/

New Mexico Environmental Education Association http://www.eeanm.org/

Back Country Horsemen – New Mexico http://www.bchnm.org/

New Mexico Council of Guides and Outfitters http://nmoutfitters.org/

New Mexico Volunteers for the Outdoors http://www.nmvfo.org/

Sierra Club – Arizona Chapter http://www.sierraclub.org/az/

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance http://www.nmwild.org/

Sierra Club – New Mexico Chapter http://www.sierraclub.org/nm/

Historically underserved communities and environmental justice

This section focuses on historically underserved communities near the TNF, highlighting their limited access to public services and business participation TNF managers will find this information valuable as they explore strategies to enhance service delivery to these minority groups that have faced past inequities.

Arizona's swift population increase has led to a shortage of affordable housing and essential social services, contributing to the segregation of social groups, urban sprawl, and heightened stress on the state's infrastructure This situation has imposed financial challenges and conflicts for both local and state governments, disproportionately impacting ethnic and racial minorities and their employment prospects.

Chapter 2 of this report provides data on the percentage of individual racial and ethnic groups within the total county population, highlighting that individuals of Hispanic origin constitute the largest minority group.

Hispanic heritage encompasses identification with various ethnic and racial groups, allowing individuals to be categorized accordingly In Gila and Pinal Counties, Native American residents make up significant portions of the population, at 12% and 7% respectively Additionally, Maricopa County recorded the highest percentage of African American residents, accounting for 3.7% of its total population in 2000.

By 2025, the Census Bureau estimates that Whites will make up 57.5% of Arizona's population, while the Hispanic origin population is projected to rise from 20.6% in 1995 to 32.2% Additionally, the African American population is expected to grow by 65.7%, and the Native American population by 34.9%.

Development 2000) Thus, in the future, the national forests must prepare to serve even larger minority populations than at present.

The TNF should explore potential support for the establishment of minority- and woman-owned businesses Data from Table 40 reveals that in surrounding Arizona counties, the number of businesses owned by minorities is disproportionately lower than their population size would imply.

Table 40 Minority- and Women-owned Businesses by County, 2002

Hispanic or Latino Origin Women

* 2002 Survey of Business Owners (including minority- and women-owned business) U.S., states, counties, places and metro areas projected early 2006

Sources: Arizona Dept of Commerce, 2002 http://www.azcommerce.com/pdf/smallbus/Number%20of%20Businesses%20in%20Arizona%20050602%20FINAL.pdf

The US Forest Service (USFS) has established long-term goals aimed at increasing the involvement of underserved populations in forest planning and management through targeted outreach activities Each Forest Service unit is required to implement specific tasks to achieve this objective.

- plan for underserved communities and develop an outreach analysis

- ensure the representation of underserved communities in team membership, participation, and implementation of decisions

- develop a nationally coordinated effort to establish dialogue with underserved communities about FS programs and land management

- expand financial and technical support for underserved communities’ participation in land management activities

To foster meaningful relationships, it is essential to create a strong presence within both urban and rural community-based organizations that serve underserved populations This involves conducting thorough community assessments in collaboration with existing leadership and resources to better understand the needs of these communities.

We collaborate with various non-governmental organizations to enhance resources and benefits for underserved communities Our goal is to assist these communities in organizing and developing both national and localized programs that align with their specific priorities.

- collaborate with underserved populations to create customized delivery systems

- conduct a research and development review with the direct involvement of underserved people to identify their concerns

The Federal Center of Excellence aims to enhance collaborative social science research by facilitating information sharing among organizations, optimizing the use of federal research resources, and prioritizing the needs of underserved communities in the development of research agendas.

Enhancing the accessibility and dissemination of information, including research findings and technical support, can be achieved through strategic collaborations with established public and private networks like the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities and the Sustainable Development Network Engaging culturally aware employees, such as those in employee resource groups, alongside professional marketing specialists, will ensure that the benefits reach underserved communities effectively.

- develop training programs that strengthen the capabilities of employees and partners to engage underserved communities

- increase scholarship, education, and work experience opportunities to train employees and partners in how to engage underserved groups

- implement grants and training agreements for employees along with representatives of underserved communities

In addition to these general guidelines, the FS currently interacts with its neighboring communities in the following ways:

The FS collaborates with the USDA Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service and State rural development councils to support the national initiative on rural development Its primary objective is to enhance rural communities by promoting economic diversification and sustainable use of natural resources Through various economic action programs, the FS offers both technical and financial assistance to over 850 rural communities facing challenges due to shifts in natural resource availability or policy changes.

The FS offers both technical and financial support to over 7,740 cities and communities across all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, aiming to enhance local capacity for effective natural resource management.

Human Resource Programs create job opportunities and offer training and education for various groups, including the unemployed, underemployed, elderly, youth, and individuals with special needs These initiatives not only support these individuals but also contribute significantly to essential conservation efforts, making them a vital component of the Forest Service workforce.

In November 1997, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior directed agency leaders to collaboratively address quality of life, natural resource, and cultural resource issues in Arizona and New Mexico This initiative led to the creation of the Southwest Strategy, focusing on community development and the conservation and management of natural resources within the jurisdictions of the participating federal agencies.

Community-forest interaction

As federal agencies and national forests emphasize stakeholder and community-based management, the importance of social networks among various groups and individuals grows These social linkages create a framework for balancing diverse needs and priorities in forest management, often engaging enthusiastic participants in the planning process However, they also pose significant challenges for managers striving to address conflicting multiple uses of forest resources.

The Forest Service has recognized three key processes driven by increased agency focus on the social value of forests, the necessity for enhanced public engagement, and the adoption of an ecosystem management approach, as outlined by Frentz et al (1999).

• An increasing demand by the general public, interest groups, and local communities to become more involved in resource management planning and decision-making;

• An awareness that stewardship of natural resource systems by knowledgeable and committed community members is more effective than top down governmental mandates and regulatory procedures; and

• Growing support for an ecosystem management approach that is community based and incorporates both ecosystem and community sustainability into an overarching theory of holistic ecosystem health

As the importance of social connections within and around national forests becomes increasingly recognized, forest managers and planners must enhance their understanding of these relationships The Forest Service underscores this need in various policies and publications, highlighting it as a fundamental guiding principle.

• Striving to meet the needs of our customers in fair, friendly, and open ways;

• Forming partnerships to achieve shared goals; and

• Promoting grassroots participation in our decisions and activities (USFS 2005n)

Recent updates to the NFMA planning process highlight the importance of social linkages in forest management, emphasizing that public participation and collaboration should be actively encouraged Responsible Officials are urged to work closely with the public to balance conflicting needs, assess management plans, and make necessary adjustments Analyzing current and potential social networks can provide valuable insights to enhance these planning efforts.

Social network analysis represents social relationships through “nodes” (individual actors) and “ties” (the connections between them) (Hanneman 1999) This method typically involves diagramming the networks of interest while quantifying the personal relationships present Various computer software tools facilitate formal network analyses by calculating aggregate measures such as centrality, density, and inclusiveness, while also enhancing the visualization of social networks (Garson).

2005) A variety of methods exist for graphically displaying these networks (Brandes et al 1999)

Social network theory is utilized by sociologists and social scientists to examine the relationships between organizations, as well as individuals Unlike traditional analyses that focus on individual behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs, social network analysis emphasizes the connections among entities This approach views social interactions as a structured system, aiming to describe social networks in a concise and systematic manner.

Social network analysis provides a valuable alternative to traditional methods by recognizing the interconnectedness of individuals and organizations However, it oversimplifies these relationships by treating networks as static structures, ignoring their dynamic nature This perspective assumes that an actor's position within the network remains unchanged, despite evidence from managerial experiences that relationships among network members are often fluid and subject to constant change.

Focusing solely on the quantitative aspects of social linkages neglects significant qualitative factors, such as the nature of the ties and the power dynamics among individuals (Bodemann 1988) Social network ties can signify various relationships, including kinship, patronage, reciprocity, avoidance, and assistance (Breiger 1988) Managers utilizing social network analysis to interpret community relationships would recognize that ties among cooperative management members differ greatly from those between adversaries in legal disputes; however, these distinctions are challenging to depict in a simple visual representation of a network.

Network analysis frequently views social networks as limiting factors on individuals' actions, particularly for those on the periphery, while overlooking the agency of individuals within the network (Stevenson and Greenberg 2000) Although this perspective is not inherent to network analysis, it can significantly hinder efforts toward effective cooperative management.

Relying solely on formal network analysis to understand stakeholder connections can be misleading, as the graphical representations and statistical conclusions may create a false sense of objectivity and inclusiveness Research indicates that formal network analyses have not reliably linked individual actions to the characteristics of their networks (Stevenson and Greenberg 2000).

This assessment emphasizes that the qualities of relationships and the strategies employed by individuals are more significant than merely focusing on visual or mathematical representations of networks, as supported by numerous social researchers.

Instead of conducting a formal network analysis, which can be time-consuming and often reflects an incomplete understanding of social interactions, we present an alternative perspective on the TNF's social connections This approach emphasizes the significance of relationships while highlighting the uncertain, active, and dynamic characteristics of the involved actors.

Provan and Milward (2001) categorize stakeholders into three main groups: principals, agents, and clients Principals are responsible for monitoring and funding the network's activities, while agents serve as both administrators and service-level professionals within the network Clients are the recipients of the services provided Notably, individuals can occupy multiple roles, functioning as a client at one level and as an administrator at another The interactions among these groups are crucial in the context of natural resource management, highlighting the dynamic relationships between stakeholders and the resources being managed.

A national forest is managed through a collaborative network that includes diverse stakeholders beyond the USDA, with the resource at the center of this network Various non-USDA entities, such as county officials, the U.S Border Patrol, media, and citizen groups, play significant roles in influencing and being influenced by forest management decisions Figure 21 illustrates the key principals, agents, and clients involved in managing the TNF, with a more detailed list provided in Table 37.

The social network involved in managing the Tonto illustrates the dynamic interactions among various stakeholders, as depicted in Figure 21 This framework highlights that roles such as principals, agents, and clients are fluid and can change based on context and scale Forest-level administrators oversee the network while also benefiting from services offered by recreation users and permit holders Although local residents are typically viewed as clients, many engage in monitoring efforts to ensure they receive expected services Environmental groups, often seen as clients, also contribute significantly to management and oversight of the forests Overall, this typology emphasizes the interconnected roles of stakeholders in forest management.

Arizona communities are undergoing significant economic and demographic shifts, leading to increased racial and economic diversity, multiculturalism, and evolving social values This transformation has been thoroughly analyzed in this assessment, highlighting the challenges national forests encounter in meeting diverse needs while providing forest-based goods and services to the public.

Identifying and analyzing social and economic trends alone is insufficient for understanding community stability and satisfaction in relation to national forests Consequently, there is a growing focus on evaluating community interactions with natural resource managers Methods like social impact assessments and community surveys have become increasingly important as communities transition from rural to urban settings and seek to incorporate diverse interests in decision-making These community-based approaches not only allow members to verify and comment on economic and social data but also enhance their ability to recognize shared concerns and structural links, ultimately contributing to effective resource and community development planning.

The size and organization of communities significantly influence natural resource and forest management; however, there is often a lack of understanding regarding the diverse roles and interactions between communities and resource managers This oversight fuels polarized debates about forest management practices, exemplified by conflicts between communities reliant on traditional commodity use and those seeking to leverage natural amenities for retirement and recreation Such disputes hinder the achievement of stewardship and sustainability objectives Conversely, a deeper understanding of the relationships between forests and neighboring communities can shed light on differing interests and concerns, ultimately leading to a more comprehensive analysis of forest management alternatives and their potential impacts on local communities.

Planning for multiple resource use in forest management is complicated by the diverse interest groups and stakeholders involved in a community According to a Forest Service Technical Report, the variety of organizational and interaction measures in social communities is as extensive as the ecological interactions in biophysical systems Ongoing debates regarding open space preservation, recreation and grazing fee administration, and the protection of water resources and wildlife highlight the dynamic relationships between the TNF and various groups, individuals, and organizations.

Analyzing community relationships is crucial for effective forest planning and management, yet there is a lack of comprehensive guidelines for establishing a successful community-forest relations strategy While the Forest Service Manual and Handbook offer some direction for external relations, there is a need for a more detailed plan to enhance local community engagement Research by the Queensland Government in Australia provides valuable insights for developing such a strategy, focusing on strengthening ties between communities and government agencies.

This study presents five key recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness and sustainability of community relations, particularly applicable to Arizona’s national forests First, it suggests creating a clear concept and definition of community relations tailored to the national forest context Second, it emphasizes the importance of establishing a unified agency image that reflects a positive community relations program Lastly, it advocates for the development of fundamental principles that underpin an effective community relations strategy.

5) development of a list of potential community relations questions and issues to be dealt with by the community relations plan (McMillan 1999)

Although identification of the essential principles in an effective community relations program will require community input and therefore vary in individual cases, the Queensland study offers the following examples:

• Leadership—improvements in community relations require leadership at the forest level.

• Local Ownership—community relations strategies work best when they are owned and designed by the local community, the groups in that community, and the institutions that serve that community.

• Administrative Support—community relationships need to be supported by appropriate forest administrators.

• Planning —in seeking to ensure positive conditions for community relations, planning is the key.

• Positive Framework—community relationships seek to provide a positive framework and infrastructure for dealing with community-related problems.

Integrating community relationships into existing forest processes and procedures enhances their effectiveness, as they should not be treated as separate add-ons By embedding these relationships within the established frameworks, organizations can foster stronger connections and improve overall outcomes.

A holistic approach to community relations involves implementing multi-faceted strategies that often necessitate collaboration among various organizations, groups, and agencies to achieve effectiveness.

Informed decision-making is crucial for effective community relations, as it relies on valuable insights from the community itself, as well as data from research literature and experiences shared by other organizations involved in similar projects Additionally, input from knowledgeable experts in the field enhances the understanding and implementation of successful community relations strategies.

Community relations prioritize and celebrate diversity by actively integrating individuals from all cultural and linguistic backgrounds into the social, cultural, and economic fabric of the community This commitment extends to ensuring that these diverse voices are included in the community's decision-making processes, fostering an inclusive environment for all.

• Ongoing Effort—recognize that improved community relations is an on-going effort and requires a long-term commitment by the agency (McMillan 1999)

Finally, a list of issues and potential questions for inclusion in a comprehensive community-forest relationships plan should address the following:

• Access to services—how will the forest improve its delivery of goods and services and what will those goods and services be?

• Employment opportunities—does the forest have a role in providing improved employment opportunities for the community?

• Information—how might the forest improve its flow of information to the community?

• Racial sensitivity—how might the forest be more sensitive in accommodating the needs of different racial and ethic groups who use the forest?

• Youth—is there a special role for the forest in helping the community’s youth?

• Media—how might the forest develop a positive working relationship with the community’s media services?

As communities evolve, it is crucial to understand how forests will adapt to these changes and continue to provide essential goods and services The future of forest management hinges on addressing the dynamic relationship between forests and the communities that rely on them Effective strategies must be developed to ensure sustainable delivery of forest-based resources, balancing ecological health with community needs.

The Tonto National Forest is actively addressing a range of critical issues related to community-forest relations, reflecting the diverse and urgent challenges posed by rapidly changing demographics, political landscapes, and environmental conditions.

Key Resource Management Topics

Forest health

The USDA Forest Service (USFS) aims to maintain and enhance the health of forests and ecosystems, a goal that involves navigating the complexities of forest health At the national level, the FS has pinpointed four primary threats to the vitality of the nation’s forests and grasslands.

• Loss of open space; and

• Unmanaged recreation (USDA Forest Service 2005j)

We will consider each of these threats, the trends associated with them, and the implications for managing forest and grassland health

Wildland fire management in Arizona's national forests is crucial for current forest planning, with federal and state agencies reporting fires on over 5 million acres in five of the last ten seasons The 2000 fire season set a record with 8,422,237 acres burned, highlighting the increasing prevalence of wildfires compared to historical data In contrast to the pre-industrial period, which saw an average of 145 million acres burned annually, modern averages are around 14 million acres, encompassing both federal and non-federal lands Despite this reduction, fire regimes and management practices remain a significant concern for various stakeholders, including Forest Service personnel, recreational users, tribes, and local communities.

The Tonto National Forest (TNF), like other dryland forests, is susceptible to wildfires, exemplified by the devastating Rodeo-Chediski fire in 2002, which scorched 450,000 acres, including over 170,000 acres of the Tonto and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Specifically, around 10,711 acres in the Pleasant Valley Ranger District experienced high-severity burns affecting ponderosa pine stands, leading to costs exceeding $40 million The fire not only harmed fish and tree populations but also inflicted long-term damage on the Saguaro cacti, with nearly 30% of the TNF's cacti lost to large fires in the past two decades Research indicates that fire-exposed Saguaro cacti face a mortality rate 400% higher than unaffected populations, with heightened mortality persisting for a decade or more.

Wildland fire serves as an effective management tool in various regions, notably in the Gila National Forest of New Mexico Here, fire is strategically employed through prescribed burns and naturally ignited "wildland fire use" projects to achieve management goals across over 175,000 acres of wilderness.

Wildland fire behavior is influenced by various factors, including climate, weather, and the type and abundance of fuels Management efforts typically focus on reducing ignition likelihood and altering fire behavior through fuel modification For fires to ignite, an abundance of fine fuels and low moisture levels are essential The chemical and structural properties of fuels also significantly affect fire behavior, with highly combustible fuels leading to more intense fires and extreme behaviors like spotting and crowning Intense fires pose threats to ecosystems adapted to low-intensity fires, making it challenging to protect cultural resources and developed areas Heavy surface fuels can create long-burning, low-intensity fires, while dry grasses burn rapidly Understory shrubs and small trees can facilitate the spread of fires into tree canopies Common wildland fire management strategies include mechanical treatments, controlled burns, and direct fire suppression.

The White House initiative highlights that 190 million acres of national forest land are at high risk for wildfires, with ponderosa pine density increasing significantly over the past century It advocates for aggressive thinning projects, attributing the severity of recent fires, such as the Rodeo-Chediski fire, to dense forests and “nuisance” litigation While some researchers blame environmentalists for fostering conditions conducive to severe wildfires, others argue that thinning larger trees could exacerbate fire risks Additionally, citizen groups criticize the focus on fuel-reduction efforts, arguing it detracts from other vital protection measures Although litigation has impacted fuel-reduction projects, studies suggest that its influence on national forest logging plans may be overstated.

Managers strive to control human-caused wildfires, which have significantly impacted Arizona and New Mexico As of September 2004, over 3,260 large, non-prescribed fires were reported, with humans responsible for 1,308 of these incidents, affecting more than 62,000 acres The rise in human-ignited fires correlates with the growing population in counties adjacent to national forests, leading to increased visitors and potential ignition sources such as campfires, debris burning, and faulty vehicle exhaust.

Rising population density intensifies the challenges faced by forest staff in managing and controlling wildland fires In Arizona, nearly 130,000 homes, housing over 300,000 residents, are vulnerable to fire hazards The wildland-urban interface, where human developments intersect with highly flammable wildlands, poses significant fire risks, raising concerns for residents on private lands adjacent to public lands.

10 Although mechanical treatments and fire use projects generally have the common goal of altering fuels to reduce fire intensity, they are

Fire policy is increasingly shifting from suppression to management, prioritizing the protection of life and property while also enhancing ecosystem health through effective fire-management practices The 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy highlights the importance of recognizing wildland fire as a vital ecological process in planning efforts Additionally, the Healthy Forests Initiative stresses that addressing the root causes of catastrophic wildfires, such as reducing fuel hazards and restoring forest and rangeland health, is essential for long-term solutions.

One of the more controversial topics to come out of fire management in recent years is the use of post-fire

Salvage logging, often viewed as a means to recover economic value from burnt forest areas, has come under scrutiny regarding its actual benefits to national forests Recent Forest Service reports indicate that this practice may exacerbate landscape disruption, lead to soil erosion, disturb wildlife habitats, and potentially heighten the risk of future fires.

The health of North American ecosystems has significantly declined since European arrival, primarily due to a decrease in native species populations and a surge in invasive species This decline is attributed to changing land uses and habitat fragmentation, with non-native species being the second leading cause of species extinction.

(2005) estimate that approximately 50,000 alien-invasive species have been introduced into the United States, costing an estimated $120 billion per year (including both damages and control efforts)

Furthermore, nearly half of the species federally listed as threatened or endangered are in jeopardy primarily because of competition with or predation by non-native species

Invasive species significantly impact forest ecosystems, leading to declines in biodiversity, forest health, productivity, soil and water quality, and socioeconomic values, costing the U.S approximately $2.1 billion annually in lost forest products due to around 360 non-native insect species Non-native plant pathogens contribute similarly to these losses Currently, bark beetle invasions pose a severe threat to Arizona's forests, with a notable infestation in 2002 linked to drought and high tree density, resulting in the death of millions of ponderosa pine and piñon trees, with mortality rates reaching up to 90% in some areas In 2003, the mortality of juniper and Arizona cypress increased, also attributed to bark beetle infestations.

The 2002 bark beetle infestation had a significant impact on the Tonto National Forest, affecting over 161,180 acres of pine forest and causing piñon mortality across 23,895 acres (USFS 2004d) Additionally, the presence of invasive weeds has emerged as a growing concern in the Prescott, Tonto, and Coconino National Forests, with 187,500 acres affected by species like dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia), threatening native ecosystems (USFS 2005d) In response, recent initiatives aim to combat these invasive species through various methods, including 14,000 acres of manual removal, 18,000 acres of mechanical removal, 14,000 acres of cultural removal and revegetation, 16,000 acres of biological removal, and 57,000 acres of herbicidal treatments, all with limited spray zones near communities and recreational areas.

Invasive grass species have significantly affected Arizona's desert and grassland ecosystems, primarily through the introduction of European annual grasses that altered fire regimes, leading to increased fire frequency, intensity, and extent Notably, cheatgrass and Lehman lovegrass invasions exacerbate these fire risks, particularly near dense forests vulnerable to wildfires The spring and early summer of 2005 saw above-average winter rains result in substantial grass and weed growth, which contributed to several large human-ignited fires in desert areas These ecosystems, typically rich in succulents that evolved with minimal fire exposure, struggle to cope with such disturbances Furthermore, non-native plant species diminish forage quality, with estimated losses due to invasive weeds reaching nearly $1 billion annually.

Invasive species pose significant threats to diverse forest resources and their recreational and extractive uses To effectively manage non-native species invasions on forested lands, Chornesky et al (2005) recommend three complementary strategies for control.

• Prevention of harmful new introductions by identifying and impeding pathways for invasive species introduction and spread,

• Detection and eradication of invaders that elude prevention, and

• Long-term management of well-established invasive species.

The U.S Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Forest Health Protection, part of the U.S

Land and water resources

Arizona is one of the fastest growing states in the U.S., driven by an aging population seeking warmer climates; currently, one in eight Americans is over 65, compared to one in twenty-five a century ago Between 1950 and 1995, Arizona's population increased more than fourfold, with predictions of further doubling by 2040 The state is experiencing significant exurban growth, with residences spreading away from metropolitan areas, leading to a rise in outdoor recreational activities This shift is prompting a growing trend toward recreational use of forests and the management of public lands for ecosystem services, such as improved water quality and wildlife habitat, rather than traditional extractive uses like mining and logging However, the rapid urban expansion raises concerns about land and water availability, necessitating national forests to adapt as providers of open space and healthy watersheds while addressing issues like livestock grazing and roadless area regulations.

Livestock grazing has deep roots in Arizona, originating in the mid-18th century when Spanish explorers introduced livestock from Mexico Formal ranching emerged in the late 1800s, following the Civil War and the suppression of local indigenous populations The U.S government's focus on land acquisition intensified with the Homestead Act of 1862, leading to a significant increase in cattle numbers—600% in the western states from 1865 to 1965 The 1880s marked a peak in Arizona's livestock population, with nearly a million cattle reported by the decade's end, a dramatic rise from 38,000 in 1870 However, environmental and economic challenges led to severe overgrazing and a drastic decline in herds, with estimates indicating that 50-75% of southern Arizona’s cattle perished by the century's close.

In 1906, the Forest Service began charging fees for grazing private livestock on public lands, a practice that has continued for decades Recent studies indicate that changes in land use may lead to a reduction in grazing land available in the Pacific and Rocky Mountain regions.

Nearly 167 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and 95 million acres of Forest Service land are designated for fee-based grazing rights, with the latter representing 65% of the National Forest System In the eleven western states, livestock graze on over 90% of federal lands, contributing approximately 2% of the beef-cattle feed in the continental U.S This grazing system financially supports one-tenth of western livestock producers, with fees based on the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 In Arizona, grazing leases from the Forest Service account for nearly 25% of the grazing land used by ranchers, many of whom depend on federal or state grazing permits for their operations.

The PRIA introduced a grazing fee formula for the FS and BLM on an experimental basis, which has since become standard due to ongoing support from the president and Congress Grazing fees have sparked controversy as they have only seen marginal increases since their inception, failing to align with market rates For instance, in 2002, the grazing fee was $1.35 per AUM on federal land, while the USDA reported an average of $13.50 per AUM for non-irrigated private land in sixteen western states This discrepancy has led some citizen groups to argue that the Forest Service disproportionately allocates financial resources towards grazing In Arizona, conservation groups highlighted that the Forest Service spent nearly $250,000 on cattle fencing for land that yields only $7,000 annually in grazing revenue, aiming to protect threatened species like the Apache Trout Additionally, many organizations contend that livestock ranching disrupts other uses of national forests.

Evidence suggests that Tonto National Forest has experienced considerable environmental alteration from historical grazing habits In 1926, Fred Croxen, then a senior forest manager, related the story of

Reverend Fuller, who came to the Tonto Basin in the late 1870s The reverend described a land filled with

Coxen noted in 1926 that "Red Topped grass" once grew to about sixteen inches but is now absent Researchers investigating historical grassland ecosystems around Dutchwoman Butte found that its relatively inaccessible terrain has preserved its natural state, resembling pre-European conditions Studies revealed that the fauna and grasses in this area are significantly different from those in nearby grazed regions, which have only a 16% canopy of curly mesquite and primarily sideoats grama In contrast, Dutchwoman Butte boasts twelve grass species and a 40% canopy, highlighting its ecological uniqueness (Ambos, Robertson, and Douglas 2000).

The National Forest System plays a crucial role in supporting southwestern livestock industries by providing summer and year-round grazing areas However, ranching activities can lead to significant ecological impacts, such as the persecution of wildlife, altered fire regimes, and the degradation of water supplies and riparian zones Soil compaction from grazing can disrupt water tables and increase erosion, making overgrazed watersheds more prone to flooding and channel degradation In the Tonto region, excessive grazing has notably contributed to higher fire frequencies Therefore, establishing a balanced relationship among livestock grazers, environmentalists, and the Forest Service is essential for the preservation of grassland ecosystems.

11 An AUM, or Animal Unit Month, is equal to one cow with calf or five sheep feeding for one month.

The allocation of public lands in Arizona began in 1863 with the territory's founding and has evolved into the current management system known as State Trust lands, established by the Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD) in 1915 This department actively manages these lands to generate funding for schools and public institutions Initially granted by the federal government through Territorial and State Enabling Acts, the State Selection Board was empowered to choose additional lands across Arizona to secure ongoing financial support for designated beneficiaries.

Between 1915 and 1960, most land selections occurred, influenced by federal laws that restricted the acquisition of mineral and agricultural lands claimed by homesteaders Consequently, the Selection Board focused on lands with high grazing potential, primarily selecting areas in central and southeastern Arizona, along with some "checkerboard" parcels near railroads in the north-central region Since then, land exchanges have shifted limited trust lands from western desert areas to regions around Phoenix, Tucson, and western Yavapai County.

Since its establishment, the State Land Department (AZSLD) has held authority over all trust lands and their natural resources This responsibility is vital to AZSLD's mission of maximizing revenue for its beneficiaries, setting it apart from other agencies that manage public lands such as national parks and state forests.

In 2005, the Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD) managed land holdings for fourteen beneficiaries, with the K-12 public school system being the most significant, holding 87.4% of State Trust lands While the majority of these lands are designated for livestock grazing, the Urban Lands Act of 1981 enabled the State Land Department to leverage the rising value of trust lands near expanding municipalities Consequently, the urban lands lease and sale program has emerged as the largest revenue generator for the trust.

The push for reforming the State Trust land system has intensified due to a shortage of private developable land amid ongoing population growth Various stakeholders, including city governments, educators, environmentalists, grazing interests, and homebuilders, complicate the resolution process Cities are collaborating with builders to secure land for future housing, while educators aim to maximize funds from trust land sales to offset limited state financial support Meanwhile, environmentalists and ranchers advocate for the preservation of land for conservation and grazing rights Despite ongoing negotiations, multiple reform proposals have yet to advance in the Arizona State Legislature.

The State Land Department is navigating the challenge of leveraging rising land values for educational funding while safeguarding sensitive conservation areas amid urbanization Policymakers identify critical issues hindering reforms to the State Trust Land System, including the extent of land designated for conservation, the implementation of open and competitive auctions for grazing leases, and the dynamics of federal and state land exchanges.

4) the composition of the State Trust Land Board (Sherwood and McKinnon 2005, Nintzel 2005, Riske

Legislators have balked at proposals favored by organizations such as the Sonoran Institute and Grand

The Arizona Preserve Initiative, aimed at enabling the state to match local payments for open-space preservation land purchases, faces delays due to legal challenges regarding its constitutionality Additionally, efforts to reform State Trust Land are hindered by groups contesting the Arizona Supreme Court's 2001 ruling that permits non-ranchers to bid on state grazing leases, as well as a 1990 ruling that restricts land swaps with federal and private entities Furthermore, comprehensive reforms to Arizona's State Trust Land system are stalled by the education lobby's demand for approval from a newly established Board of Trustees responsible for overseeing trust land management and disposal.

These and other challenges have been addressed by various proposals for reform submitted by state lawmakers As recently as October 2004, a coalition seeking the overhaul of state land management was

Despite the resignation of the facilitator and unsuccessful legislative efforts, Governor Napolitano and several state lawmakers remain dedicated to reforming Trust land, with plans to present a reform package to voters by the 2006 general election The resolution of these issues is expected to significantly affect Arizona's national forests due to the proximity and value of State Trust lands For further details on the management of State Trust Lands, visit the Arizona State Land Department's website at http://www.land.state.az.us/.

Forest access and travel

This section evaluates recent interpretations of the Roadless Rule and the increasing trends in Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use, highlighting two critical internal access issues that are significant to forest planners These factors are expected to greatly influence future forest planning and management strategies in the communities surrounding the TNF.

Roadless areas in the national forests

Larger roadless areas within national forests have historically been managed differently from more developed regions The Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) studies have systematically inventoried these areas, assessing their wilderness characteristics for potential designation as protected wilderness.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System, which includes federal lands that remain untouched by human activity, allowing nature to thrive (Baldwin 2004) Designated solely by Congress, these wilderness areas are safeguarded against commercial exploitation, road construction, mechanical vehicles, and structural development, ensuring that humans are merely visitors in these pristine environments.

Roadless areas offer essential social and ecological benefits, especially as unprotected lands face urban development and flooding These unfragmented regions play a crucial role in safeguarding threatened and endangered species, providing diverse recreational opportunities, and acting as barriers against invasive non-native species The TNF encompasses around 170,000 acres of designated roadless areas, highlighting their significance in conservation efforts.

In 2001, the Forest Service established a final rule that prohibited various activities in inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) to protect their wilderness suitability This rule banned road construction, reconstruction, and timber cutting in IRAs, but its implementation faced delays and legal challenges, remaining enjoined during appeals On May 5, 2005, the USDA introduced a new rule granting states the flexibility to manage IRAs, allowing governors to petition for special state-specific regulations.

Congressional Research Service, the new rule suggests that IRAs “would be presumed available for a variety of uses, including timber harvests, subject to unit-by-unit planning processes” (Baldwin 2004).

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) access

Historically, recreational activities in forests were primarily non-motorized, limited to major forest roads However, since the 1980s, there has been a significant rise in the use of motorized recreational vehicles, with 1.1 million Arizonans—over 20% of the state's population—identifying as motorized trail users This surge in Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) popularity presents challenges for the Forest Service as it strives to balance recreational use with forest health Nevertheless, OHV use can also offer considerable economic benefits to nearby communities.

(2003), OHV users spent a combined $1.8 billion 12 in 2002 in Maricopa, Pinal, Yavapai, and Gila

Counties generate $97.8 million in state tax revenue from Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use; however, studies indicate that this activity can negatively impact resources by causing trail deterioration, damaging vegetation, and degrading air and water quality Additionally, OHV use contributes to noise pollution, disrupts wildlife, and leads to social conflicts among various recreational users, including hikers and bikers.

The management of Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs) has become increasingly important for forest conservation due to the challenges posed by illegal usage (Stokowski and LaPointe 2000, Bluewater Network 1999) In response, the Tonto National Forest (TNF) and four other national forests in Arizona have initiated a five-forest Amendment aimed at regulating OHV travel Currently in its early stages, the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests have proposed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to impose limitations on cross-country travel by OHV users Key issues to be addressed before finalizing these amendments include the feasibility of enforcing OHV restrictions and ensuring access for cultural practices and resource gathering (USFS 2003a, USFS 2003c, Arizona State Parks 2004) Notably, the Coronado National Forest has opted out of this amendment, having previously established its own regulations that effectively prohibit cross-country OHV travel unless otherwise posted.

A national review of the Forest Service's policy on Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) travel is currently underway The draft national OHV policy, released in July 2004, permits OHV travel on existing roads, contingent upon forests conducting a thorough Roads Analysis Process (RAP) This process aims to document the needs, environmental impacts, and maintenance requirements of all current roads, and is expected to demand significant time, personnel, and financial resources to implement.

12 75% of this amount comes as a result of Maricopa County

Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations

Over the past two decades, the communities adjacent to Tonto National Forest have experienced significant social and economic transformations This assessment aims to highlight notable trends in key indicators and explore their potential impacts on future forest planning and management strategies.

The Phoenix Metropolitan Area has experienced remarkable population growth over the past two decades, significantly affecting both the local forest and the broader state of Arizona According to the 2000 Census, it ranked as the fourteenth largest and the eighth fastest-growing metro area in the United States This substantial increase in population has necessitated extensive land, water, and infrastructure development, profoundly influencing the region's economic growth.

As Arizona's previously rural areas transition to urban environments over the next fifty years, the demand for natural and physical resources will significantly impact the future management strategies of the Tonto National Forest (TNF) in Maricopa County and statewide.

Between 1980 and 2000, the population in the four counties surrounding the TNF surged by over 100%, with notable growth in the retirement-age demographic and individuals identifying as multi-racial or Hispanic This population increase was accompanied by significant growth in total housing, housing density, and seasonal homes, indicating a need for forest planners to consider these trends The expanding and diversifying population not only suggests a rise in potential forest users but also signifies a shift in the interactions between the TNF and its neighboring communities.

The economy of central Arizona is experiencing strong growth, outpacing state averages, which significantly influences future planning and management of the Tonto National Forest (TNF) Employment rates and household incomes have seen notable increases, although dependence on natural resources has yielded mixed results While tourism and wood product income rose between 1990 and 2000, losses in special forest products were evident Although mining and ranching remain vital in rural areas, there is a noticeable shift toward a construction, real estate, and service-based economy that caters to expanding urban populations These ongoing demographic changes are expected to directly affect the TNF’s role in the local and state economy.

A review of county comprehensive plans highlights the critical relationship between travel patterns and land use around the TNF Despite improvements in road conditions over the years, regional road network expansion has not kept up with the travel demands driven by population and industrial growth Additionally, past transportation planning has often failed to align with long-range land use objectives These plans emphasize the increasing significance of open space preservation, sustainable natural resource use, and public land management to regional authorities, government agencies, environmental advocates, and local residents Rising land values, infrastructure development costs, and limited water supplies have complicated policy formation in recent decades The TNF is positioned to address ongoing transportation and land use challenges by advocating for sustainable regional planning policies, educating local stakeholders on the environmental and economic effects of various alternatives, and actively engaging surrounding communities.

Recent trends indicate a notable shift from extractive uses of national forests, supported by national surveys showing declines in timber harvesting and data from the Tonto National Forest (TNF) reflecting similar patterns Concurrently, there has been a significant increase in recreational activities, particularly the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs), raising concerns about unmanaged recreation This shift aligns with the growth of communities rich in natural resources and suggests a changing perception of forest lands' roles The TNF has the opportunity to integrate these insights into future forest management plans and priorities.

The incorporation of "special places" into forest management is a recent development, yet the Tonto National Forest (TNF) has already designated numerous wilderness areas, trailheads, and recreational sites Significant strides have been made by forest archeologists and recreation staff in identifying areas deemed special by Native American tribes, descendants of early settlers, and wilderness enthusiasts in central Arizona Moving forward, it is essential for the TNF to engage with these groups and others to identify and protect these special places effectively.

Regional trends and Forest Service planning regulations have shaped the connections between the TNF and its neighboring communities, particularly in areas like wildlife protection, forest fire prevention, and sustainable watershed management The involvement of various stakeholders has become increasingly important as public expectations for participation in public land management decisions rise While these relationships are unique and dynamic, implementing specific frameworks for monitoring and enhancing community-forest interactions could support the TNF's future management goals.

Data indicates that various natural resource challenges will shape future management strategies for the Tonto National Forest Key concerns include controlling invasive species, managing fire and fuels, preserving open spaces, and protecting regional biodiversity, all of which are crucial for upcoming forest plans While a detailed analysis of these issues exceeds the limits of this assessment, research highlights that ongoing socioeconomic trends will significantly affect each of these factors.

Works Cited

Adams-Russell Consulting 2004 Social assessment: Clearwater National Forest and Nez Perce National

Alford, E 2005 Personal Communication Forest Planner Tonto National Forest

Alig, R.J., and B.J Butler 2004 Area changes for forest cover types in the United States, 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050 Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-613 Portland, OR: U.S Dept of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 106p http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/viewpub.jsp?indexs03

Alig, R.J., A.J Plantinga, S Ahn, and J.D Kline 2003 Land use changes involving forestry in the United

States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050 Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-587 Portland, OR: U.S Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 92p http://216.48.37.142/pubs/viewpub.jsp?indexU96

Allen, L.S 1989 Roots of the Arizona livestock industry Rangelands 11:9-13.

Ambos, N., G Robertson, and J Douglas 2000 Dutchwoman Butte: A relict grassland in central Arizona.

Rangelands 22:3-8 http://uvalde.tamu.edu/rangel/apr00/ambos.pdf

Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC) 2002a Arizona’s economic future Prepared by Economy.com.

92p http://www.maricopa.edu/workforce/pdfs/AZEconFuture.pdf

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 2004a MoveAZ long range transportation plan Appendix B:

Issues Papers Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. http://www.moveaz.org/Documents/MoveAZ_AppB.pdf

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 2004b MoveAZ long range transportation plan Synthesis of

Issues Papers http://www.moveaz.org/Documents/issuepapersynth.pdf

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 2004c MoveAZ long range transportation plan http://www.moveaz.org/Documents/MoveAZ_Chap1-9.pdf

Arizona Office of Tourism (AZOT) 2004a Arizona Tourism Statistical Report, 2003 47p. http://www.azot.com/research/data/2003%20Statistical%20Report.pdf

Arizona Office of Tourism (AZOT) 2004b AZ Regional Profiles. http://www.azot.gov/research/researchdocs.asp?catidH

Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD) 2004 Arizona State Land Department annual report: 2003-

2004 http://www.land.state.az.us/report/report_full.pdf

Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD) 2005 http://www.land.state.az.us/index.html

Arizona State Parks 2003 Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Partnerships

Division, Arizona State Parks and Land and Water Conservation Fund 114p

Arizona State Parks 2004 Arizona trails 2005: State motorized and non-motorized trail plan 110p. http://www.pr.state.az.us/partnerships/trails/statetrails.html

Arizona Town Hall 1999 Uniting a diverse Arizona Report on the Seventy-Fifth Arizona Town Hall www.aztownhall.org/75report.doc

Baden, J.A and D Snow (eds.) 1997 The Next West: Public Lands, Community and Economy in the

American West Gallatin Institute Island Press, Washington DC 272p.

Baldwin, P 2004 The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative Rep RL30647 Congressional

Research Service, Library of Congress 27p http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm? NLEid808

Baker, R.D., R.S Maxwell, V.H Treat, and H.C Dethlofff 1988 Timeless Heritage: A History of the Forest

Service in the Southwest FS-409 USDA Forest Service College Station, TX: Intaglio, Inc 208p http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/about/history/timeless/index.shtml

Beaver, M 2003 Dropping lake levels expose historic ruins Arizona Daily Star 10 Mar. http://www.ibsgwatch.imagedjinn.com/learn/2003/2003march.htm

Becerra, H., and D Pierson 2005 April showers may bring scorcher Los Angeles Times 21 May.

Belsky, Matzke, and Uselman (1999) conducted a comprehensive survey examining the impacts of livestock on stream and riparian ecosystems across the western United States Their findings, published in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, highlight significant ecological consequences resulting from livestock grazing The study emphasizes the need for sustainable grazing practices to protect vital water resources and maintain healthy ecosystems For further details, the full article can be accessed at http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf.

Bluewater Network 1999 Off-the-Track: America’s national parks under siege 41p. http://bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_pl_offroad_offtrack.pdf

Bodemann, Y.M 1988 Relations of production and class rule: The hidden basis of patron-clientage, pp 198-

220 In: B Wellman and S.D Berkowitz (eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 508p

Bodio, S 1997 Struck with consequence, pp 15-24 In: J.A Baden and D Snow (eds.), The Next West:

Public Lands, Community and Economy in the American West Gallatin Institute Island Press, Washington D.C 272p.

Booth, D.E 2002 Searching for Paradise: Economic Development and Environmental Change in the

Mountain West Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland 288p

Brandenburg, A.M., and M.S Carroll 1995 Your place or mine?: The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings Society and Natural Resources 8:381-398.

Brandenburg, A.M., M.S Carroll, and K.A Blatner 1995 Towards successful forest planning through locally based qualitative sociology Western Journal of Applied Forestry 10(3):95-100.

Brandes, U., P Kenis, J Raab, V Schneider, and D Wagner 1999 Explorations into the visualization of policy networks Journal of Theoretical Politics 11(1):75-106 http://jtp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/1/75

Breiger, R.L 1988 The duality of persons and groups, pp 83-98 In: B Wellman and S.D Berkowitz (eds.),

Social Structures: A Network Approach Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 508p.

Brown, T.C 1999 Past and future freshwater use in the United States: A technical document supporting the

The 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment, documented in General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-39, provides a comprehensive analysis of forest resources and conditions Published by the U.S Department of Agriculture's Forest Service at the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Fort Collins, Colorado, this report spans 47 pages and is accessible online at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr039.html.

Bullard, R.D 1993 Race and environmental justice in the United States Yale Journal of International Law.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 2002 Local area personal income U.S Dept of Commerce. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/

Canamex Corridor Coalition 2001 Task I: Existing infrastructure—Economic conditions and programs/ transportation infrastructure/ telecommunications infrastructure ADOT Contr No AD000088001 Prepared by Economics Research Associates 82p.

Carter, R 2003 Climate, forest management, stoke western wildfires End in sight CLIMAS 4p. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas/forecasts/articles/wildfire_April2003.pdf

Case, P., and G Alward 1997 Patterns of demographic, economic and value change in the western

The report titled "United States: Implications for Water Use and Management" presented to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission by the U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, examines critical aspects of water management in the United States It highlights the challenges and opportunities in optimizing water use, emphasizing sustainable practices to address growing demands The document serves as a comprehensive resource for policymakers, providing insights into effective strategies for water resource management For further details, access the full report at http://www.fs.fed.us/institute/news_info/wwprc_1.html.

Cheng, A.S., L.E Kruger, and S.E Daniels 2003 “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda Society and Natural Resources 16:87-104.

Chornesky, E.A., A.M Bartuska, G.H Aplet, K.O Britton, J Cummings-Carlson, F.W Davis, J Eskow,

I don't know!

Clawson, M 1985 Trends in the use of public recreation areas, pp 1-12 In: Proceedings, 1985 National

Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium II; 24-27 Feb Myrtle Beach: Clemson, SC: Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management.

Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS) 2004-2005 Monthly Southwest Climate Outlook http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas/forecasts/archive.html

Clinton, W.J 1994 Federal action to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations Executive Order 12898 White House, Washington, DC 11 Feb www.fs.fed.us/land/envjust.html

Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection 2001 Livestock grazing and the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

Cody, B.A 2001 Grazing fees: An overview CRS Congressional Report, 96-450 ENR National Council for Science and the Environment http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Agriculture/ag-5.cfm

Colorado River Water Users Association (CRWUA) Overview 2005 CRWUA Website. http://www.crwua.org/colorado_river/overview.htm

Cordell, H.K., C.J Betz, G.T Green, S Mou, V.R Leeworthy, P.C Wiley, J.J Barry, and D Hellerstein.

2004 Outdoor Recreation for 21 st Century America State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc 316p.

Cordell, H.K., B.L., McDonald, R.J Teasley, J.C Bergstrom, J Martin, J Bason, and V.R Leeworthy.

1999 Outdoor recreation participation trends, pp 219-321 In: H.K Cordell et al., Outdoor

Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL 449p http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/viewpub.jsp?indexv7

Cordell, H.K, J Teasley, and G Super 1997 Outdoor recreation in the United States: Results from the

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (All Forest Service Regions) Prepared by the Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group Dept of Agriculture and Applied

Economics, University of Georgia 209p http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/fsoutrec.html

Coronado National Forest (CNF) 2003b Coronado National Forest Fire Management Plan U.S

Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service 164p http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/forest/projects/fire_mgt/wfa/documents/fmp/fmp.pdf

Cortner, H.J., M Gretchen, R Teich, and J Vaughn 2003 Analyzing USDA Forest Service appeals:

Phase 1, the database Ecological Restoration Institute Northern Arizona University 58p. http://www.nativeforest.org/pdf/FS-appeals-database.pdf

Croxen, F.W 1926 History of Grazing on Tonto Presented at the Tonto Grazing Conference, Phoenix,

AZ, 4-5 Nov http://www.rangebiome.org/genesis/GrazingOnTonto-1926.html

D’Antonio, C.A., and P.J Vitousek 1992 Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87 arjournals.annualreviews.org/ doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.000431

Davis, C 2001 Introduction: The context of public lands policy change, pp 1-8 In: C Davis (ed.),

Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics (2 nd Ed.) Westview Press, Boulder, CO 240p. Davis, T 2004 Leader of group seeking state land changes resigns Arizona Daily Star 2 Oct.

Domenici, P 2003 Report outlining approval of H.R 622 for implementation of land exchange on the

Tonto National Forest Senate Report, 108 th Congress, Calendar No 261 29 Jul http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=sr137&dbname=cp108&

Dreesen et al (2002) provide a comprehensive guide on riparian restoration in the Southwest, focusing on key aspects such as species selection, propagation techniques, and effective planting methods The report includes valuable case studies that illustrate successful restoration practices, making it an essential resource for land managers and conservationists Published by the U.S Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, this document serves as a technical reference for enhancing riparian ecosystems in the region For further details, the full report can be accessed at http://plantmaterials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/nmpmcsy03852.pdf.

Duffus, J 1992 Federal lands – Reasons for and effects of inadequate public access Briefing Report to the

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives U.S General Accounting Office http://archive.gao.gov/d32t10/146394.pdf

Ecological Restoration Institute 2005 Strategic plan Northern Arizona University 13p. http://www.eri.nau.edu/forms/files/strategicplan2003.pdf

Eilperin, J 2004 National forests fall victim to firefighting: Plan to protect residences costs trees, money

Washington Post 29 Jun., A03 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13324-2004Jun28.html

Elsner, G., and R C Smardon (tech coords.) 1979 Our national landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource Gen Tech Rep PSW-35

Berkeley, CA: U.S Dept of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range

Esparza, A.X., and J.I Carruthers 2000 Land use planning and exurbanization in the rural Mountain West:

Evidence from Arizona Journal of Planning Education and Research 20:23-36 http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/1/23

In "Managing Multiple Uses on National Forests, 1905-1995," Fedkiw (1998) explores a 90-year journey of balancing diverse interests in national forests, highlighting ongoing challenges and lessons learned The USDA Forest Service's comprehensive study emphasizes the importance of adaptive management strategies to address evolving demands on forest resources This publication serves as a valuable resource for understanding the complexities of forest management and the need for continued innovation in policy and practice For more details, visit the USDA Forest Service website.

In their 1999 technical document, Flather, Brady, and Knowles provide a comprehensive analysis of wildlife resource trends in the United States, supporting the 2000 RPA Assessment Published by the U.S Department of Agriculture's Forest Service at the Rocky Mountain Research Station, this report spans 79 pages and offers valuable insights into the state of wildlife resources For further details, the document can be accessed online at the official USDA website.

Forstall, R.L 1995 Arizona: Population of counties by decennial census—1900 to 1990 U.S Bureau of the

Census, Population Division http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/az190090.txt

Freilich, J.E., J.M Emlen, J.J Duda, D.C Freeman, and P.J Cafaro 2003 Ecological effects of ranching: A six-point critique BioScience 53(8): 759-765 http://www.alamedacreek.org/Educational

%20Resources/Livestock%20grazing%20resources/Ecological%20Effects%20of%20Ranching%20

I don't know!

Galaskiewicz and Wasserman (1994) provide an introduction to the significant advancements in social and behavioral sciences achieved through social network analysis This foundational work, featured in "Advances in Social Network Analysis," highlights the interdisciplinary applications of network analysis and its role in enhancing our understanding of social structures Published by Sage Publications, this comprehensive volume serves as a critical resource for researchers and practitioners interested in the dynamics of social networks.

Garson, G.D 2005 Sociometry and Network Analysis, online notes In: G.D Garson, PA 765 Statnotes: An

Online Textbook North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/sociometery.

GAO/RCED 88-31 Report to the Chief, Forest Service, U.S Dept of Agriculture 10p http://archive.gao.gov/d29t5/134436.pdf

General Accounting Office (GAO) 1988 Rangeland management: More emphasis needed on declining and overstocked grazing allotments GAO/RCED 88-80 Report to Congressional Requesters 71p http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat17/136027.pdf

General Accounting Office (GAO) 1989 Federal land management: The Mining Law of 1872 needs revision.

GAO/RCED 89-72 Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives 47p http://archive.gao.gov/d15t6/138159.pdf

The General Accounting Office (GAO) published a report in 1991 titled "Forest Service: Difficult choices face the future of the recreation program" (GAO/RCED 91-115) This report, consisting of 28 pages, was addressed to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands within the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives The document discusses the challenges and decisions that the Forest Service must confront regarding the future of its recreation programs For further details, the report can be accessed at [GAO Archive](http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat8/143648.pdf).

The U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report in 1995 titled "Federal Lands: Information on the Use and Impact of Off-Highway Vehicles" (GAO/RCED 95-209) This report, which consists of 77 pages, was submitted to Bruce F Vento of the House of Representatives It provides detailed insights into the effects and utilization of off-highway vehicles on federal lands For further information, the report can be accessed online.

The U.S Forest Service has been criticized for its recreation special-use permit fees, which do not accurately reflect fair market value This concern was highlighted in a 1996 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), designated as GAO/RCED 97-16 The report, addressed to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the District of Columbia, emphasizes the need for a reevaluation of these fees to ensure they align with market standards.

General Accounting Office (GAO) 1998 Recreation fees: Demonstration fee successful in raising revenues but could be improved GAO/RCED 99-7 Report to Congressional Requesters 116p http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99007.pdf

The U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from 1999 highlights the Forest Service's shifting priorities, emphasizing a growing commitment to resource protection rather than production This evolution in mission reflects the changing landscape of environmental management and policy The report, titled "Forest Service priorities: Evolving mission favors resource protection over production," was submitted to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the U.S Senate and spans 16 pages For further details, the full report can be accessed [here](http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99166.pdf).

The General Accounting Office (GAO) report from 1999, titled "Forest Service: Amount of Timber Offered, Sold, and Harvested, and Timber Sales Outlays for Fiscal Years 1992 through 1997" (GAO/RCED 99-174), provides a comprehensive analysis of timber sales activities This report was presented to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, within the Committee on Agriculture, highlighting key data on timber transactions over a five-year period.

Agriculture, House of Representatives 78p http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99174.pdf

The General Accounting Office (GAO) report from 2001 highlights that the annual costs associated with the Forest Service's timber sales program are indeterminable This memo, addressed to House Representatives Cynthia McKinney and George Miller, emphasizes the lack of clarity in financial management regarding the program's expenses For further details, the full report can be accessed at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011101r.pdf.

General Accounting Office (GAO) 2001b Recreation fees: Management improvements can help the demonstration program enhance visitor services GAO 02-10 Report to the Ranking

Minority Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation,

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S Senate 37p http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0210.pdf

Gila County 2003 Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan LVA Urban Design Studio, L.L.C.;

Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc http://www.co.gila.az.us/default.aspx

Gorte, R.W 2004 Below-cost timber sales: An overview CRS Report RL32485 Congressional Research

Service, Library of Congress 11p http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/04Jul/RL32485.pdf

Tiêu đề	Socioeconomic Assessment of the Tonto National Forest
Tác giả	J.E. “Ed” De Steiguer, Ph.D., Tom Spangler, Sara Jensen, J.R. Owens, Ian MacDonald, Denise Fisher, Cori Carveth, Julie Michael
Người hướng dẫn	Reuben Weisz
Trường học	University of Arizona
Chuyên ngành	Natural Resources
Thể loại	draft
Năm xuất bản	2005
Thành phố	Tucson

Định dạng
Số trang	164
Dung lượng	6,43 MB